Floor Statements

Then because of the unfairness of this and the importance of this, and because this country is at war, and because you have shut out major debate on this bill, I move the House do now adjourn.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, every day the thousands of men and women who are based in the United States and elsewhere protect our borders, defend our national security, and ensure our peace of mind. Many of them have been deployed around the world, to Iraq and elsewhere. They have performed their duties with honor and I want them to know that we have the highest regard and respect for them.

The men and women of our Armed Forces have entered into a sacred covenant with this Nation. They have pledged to place their lives on the line for us, and in return, we have promised to give them the tools they need to fulfill their promise and the respect worthy of someone willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for this country.

The underlying legislation for this rule represents the embodiment of our commitment to the troops, and while I know the overall bill enjoys bipartisan support, including mine, I must point out that this morning I believe the leadership of this body has betrayed that covenant.

It seems that just 1 week after passing a so-called reform bill with no teeth, the majority is back to their same old tricks, arrogantly preventing debate and consideration of critical measures that improve the bill and the lives of the people serving this Nation.

They even prevented the distinguished ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Skelton, from offering an amendment to his own defense bill. The Skelton amendment would have prevented the copays for medication for our military and their families from going up, which they will if this bill is passed without the Skelton amendment, but the Republican leadership refused to make it in order.

For those Americans who are not familiar with the Rules Committee, and I expect that is most of them, and how it works, what that effectively means is that a select few in the Republican leadership have decided what the entire Congress and the entire Nation and what the men and women in uniform will get. They decided that on their own, without even a vote on the House floor, without the debate and consideration of this full body.

Given the rhetoric we hear on this floor every day about the troops and how important they are, I feel compelled to ask my friends in the majority to justify how in less than 24 hours after they approved $70 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy, how they could refuse to allow us to even consider a measure to improve the health care of our troops and their families. We owe our troops more respect than this.

It is for similar reasons that many of my Democratic colleagues and I are concerned with section 590 of this bill. The section removes a long-standing requirement in our military code that requires chaplains to exhibit a level of tolerance, compassion and understanding towards the religious diversity of the soldiers to whom they administer counsel. Can you imagine that, Mr. Speaker? We are taking away the idea that they should serve with tolerance, compassion and understanding; it was too inflammatory.

I should say, Mr. Speaker, that I am confident our chaplains have both the sense and the respect for their fellow soldiers to do this and to do it willingly. But why would this majority lower that standard and expect anything less from our chaplains, as they clearly do?

We have soldiers of every faith and no faith fighting for us under the American flag. They all deserve our respect, particularly in moments of great despair or need. Is this majority so arrogant as to suggest that they should micromanage how a chaplain administers faith on a battlefield? I can think of few things more offensive or absurd.

My friend, Mr. Israel, offered an amendment to the bill that would have corrected the problem, restoring the requirement that all chaplains demonstrate sensitivity, respect and tolerance, but Mr. Israel's amendment was tossed out the window, along with common sense on this issue. It has been forbidden by the leadership from even being considered on the floor today.

As was an amendment from Representatives Tierney and Leach which

would have established a Truman-like commission, which we have been trying for 2 years to do, one designed to ferret out corruption and incompetence in our military contracting; and for some reason, the majority of this House does not want to look where all that money is missing in Iraq.

Despite the fact that the same measure has passed the House numerous times, and despite the fact that it is the clear will of this body that this commission be created and despite the fact that the word ``incompetence'' has become the most apt description of this administration, a select few in this leadership made these decisions for all of us that we would not even consider that amendment today, an amendment which, were it enacted, would allow us to go looking for the $9 billion in taxpayer money that this administration has literally lost in the war in Iraq.

There are many more amendments to this bill that the leadership refused to allow us to consider today, and because they are making decisions for all of us and for the American people without their consent, they decided we would not be allowed to consider Mr. Markey's amendment which would prevent your tax dollars from being used to torture people in the name of the United States of America. I know that makes all of us proud that we are saying that we are going to go ahead and allow torture.

I never thought I would see the day in this country when we would compromise our core values so horribly, and to do so without our consent is unconscionable.

The question my fellow Americans should be asking themselves is ``why.'' Why will the Republican leadership not allow the free flow of ideas that are supposed to be the hallmark of our government?

I think we are all beginning to see how the rigidity of their agenda, the narrow focus of their concern and their obsession with control are not only damaging their own political future, but are deeply damaging the Nation.

Even though the complicated challenges we face no longer seem to fit the Republicans' narrow set of solutions, they march onward in lockstep with their unyielding and ineffective agenda, but reality seems to be playing out much differently than their program allows for.

Tax cuts for the rich cannot save the world and it cannot save Americans. Preventing Americans from talking about an idea does not make it go away, and the ends do not always justify the means. Democrats and the rest of America have already opened their eyes to these realities. Why does the Republican leadership not open theirs?

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services and a hero of mine.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, let me take just a moment to say to my friend from Oklahoma that when the Democrats were in charge here we would take up to 2 weeks in the Rules Committee looking at the defense bill which was almost always open because we all recognized the importance and that is where we spend the money. We didn't rush bills out the door in those days, and I long for them.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), a Vietnam veteran and Purple Heart recipient.

(Mr. THOMPSON of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).

(Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time.

May I inquire if my colleague has more?

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to allow the House to consider the Skelton amendment on prescription drug copayments for members of the military and their families.

This amendment was offered in the Rules Committee last night, but was defeated on a 4-8 straight party line vote.

I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, the amendment seeks to reduce proposed increases in copayments for military families back to current cost shares.

As the war in Iraq drags on and on, we continue to ask more and more of the brave men and women who serve in our military. They are asked to sacrifice everything, from their own lives to the health and livelihoods of their families. These families are already struggling paycheck to paycheck just to make ends meet.

Maybe the increase in the copayments don't seem like much to the wealthy Americans who were rewarded by Republicans yesterday with a hefty five-figure tax break but, they sure make a significant break in the budgets of low- and moderate-income families with children.

Mr. Speaker, not only is Ranking Member Skelton one of the most distinguished and respected Members of the House, he is also an expert on military personnel. To deny him the opportunity to even offer this responsible amendment is simply outrageous. Even those who don't support his amendment ought to have the courage to vote whether or not to help our soldiers and their families pay for medicine.

I want to emphasize that a ``no'' vote will not block the defense authorization bill and will not affect any of the other amendments that are in order under this rule, but a ``no'' vote will allow us to debate and vote on the Skelton amendment.

Vote ``no'' on the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have the opportunity to offer this very important amendment requiring the Department of Defense (DoD) to provide the results of all disciplinary actions in their annual report on sexual assault.

As part of the DoD Authorization bill in FY 2004, the DoD is required to submit annual reports on sexual assaults involving members of the Armed Forces.

This past March, DoD issued its second annual report. The military criminal investigation organizations received nearly 2,400 reports of alleged cases of sexual assault involving members of the Armed Forces-- a significant increase from 1,700 cases reported in 2004.

Of the nearly 2,400 allegations, less than 1,400 cases were actually investigated--91 received non-judicial punishments, 18 were discharged in lieu of court-martial, 62 had administrative actions taken against them, and 79 offenders had been court-martialed.

However, while this annual report has been helpful in presenting the full scope of this growing problem, it fails to provide a complete understanding of how sexual assault cases are prosecuted in the military.

It does not include the results of all disciplinary actions, including Article 15s and convictions. For example, of the 79 courts- martial issued in 2006, we have no idea how many resulted in convictions.

Mr. Chairman, DoD's response to sexual assault in the military deserves more scrutiny. And as Members of Congress, it is our responsibility to provide this oversight.

In order for us to effectively address this serious problem, evaluations must be based on facts and statistics.

By including the results of all disciplinary actions in the annual report, we will have a more complete, transparent understanding of how DoD is addressing the problem of sexual assault in military.

We owe it to the men and women in uniform defending our freedom to ensure that justice is served when they find themselves victims of sexual assault.

I want to thank the Chairman for working with me on this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

Mr. Speaker, let me first say something about the rising standard of living in America. We have

lost over a million manufacturing jobs that were paying good wages with good futures, and many people employed in those jobs, lucky enough to find a second job, found on average they are making $9,000 less a year, plus little or no benefits.

There is no way in the world that can ever translate out to other than a falling of the standard of living in America. Sure, it is better for the guy who retired from Exxon with $400 million, but we are not in that class in Rochester.

Mr. Speaker, leadership is about choices. When this Republican leadership allows a bill to be debated on this House floor, they are in effect telling the American people that this is the most important challenge we face in America today. Why? Because they have chosen this over everything else.

I can tell you with certainty that if Democrats controlled the agenda in the House we would make different choices. Instead of passing yet another tax cut bill that benefits millionaires, billionaires and giant corporations, Democrats would be voting to raise the minimum wage. We would be leading the way to fix our broken health care system, or creating a comprehensive, consumer friendly energy policy.

Today, Democrats would be passing legislation that would ensure a degree of accountability, transparency, integrity and competence in this government, all of which have been missing far too long.

But today, for this leadership, none of these issues which affect the lives of hardworking Americans are as important as providing even more tax cuts for the super-rich, and indeed their record of failure on each of these items I have mentioned is a telling indicator of where their priorities really lie.

There is a widely used saying in the business world that I think is particularly salient this morning. It says the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and each time expecting a different result.

We have been down this road before and all one needs to do is look around to see exactly where it has taken us. For years this leadership has passed bills that have raised our deficits and increased our staggering debt. And while they give away big tax breaks for the wealthiest corporations in the world and provide more obscene tax relief for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, and the rest of America gets left behind holding the check, my friends on the other side will no doubt tell you that this will provide needed tax cuts for the working class and middle class, too. Isn't that what they always say?

But the facts, as usual, tell us a different story. Under this legislation the middle income households receive an average cut of $20, which is less than half a tank of gas.

According to the Brookings Institute which gives figures we use very often here, while 0.02 percent of the households, those with incomes over a million, would receive an average tax cut of $42,000, the bill represents a classic example of what economists call trickle-down economics. By cutting capital gains and dividend taxes and reducing the revenue that the Federal Government receives and redirecting it to the coffers of big business and the super-wealthy, the majority tells us they are going to spur investment and create more jobs.

They told us the same thing in the 1980s, too, and it didn't work. Instead of investing that money in our economy, corporations and the super-rich sent our tax dollars overseas, along with our jobs. We ended up with out-of-control deficits and the largest debt in American history, superseded only by the debt we have today.

Ironically, the very man who originally labeled trickle-down theory as ``voodoo economics,'' our current President's father, lost his own Presidency because of the stagnating economy and staggering debt that became the legacy of trickle-down economics in the 1980s.

So why would they be proposing that failed policy once again? Today's Washington Post may have the answer. It described what has truly befallen this majority: a ``bankruptcy of ideas.''

With Republicans, it is the same story again and again no matter the results. What they have given us, Mr. Speaker, is a commitment to a legacy of failure. The only difference is today the American people's eyes are wide open.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for rollcall votes 121, 122, 123, and 124. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 121, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 122, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 123, and ``no'' on rollcall vote 124. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my statement appear in the permanent Record immediately following these votes.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall votes 125, 126, and 127. Had I been represent, I would have voted ``aye'' for 125, 126, and 127.

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

There is certainly an ``Alice in Wonderland'' quality to this debate already this afternoon where Alice could believe 90 possible things before breakfast, and to believe that we all worked together on this bill is absolutely not true. Democrats and Republicans have worked hard, but in different alleys, going in different directions.

To that end, I would like to submit for the Record at this point from The Post this morning an editorial entitled, ``Kill this Bill,'' along with several others. Every editorial group and outside organizations have said this bill is a hollow sham.

[From washingtonpost.com, May 3, 2006]

Kill This Bill

``Bold, Responsible, common-sense reform of our current

lobbying and ethics laws is clearly needed,'' House Rules

Committee Chairman David Dreier (R-Calif.) told his

colleagues on the House floor last week. ``We owe it to our

constituents. We owe it to ourselves. We owe it to this

institution.''

Very true--which is why House members should reject the

diluted snake oil that Mr. Dreier and the GOP leadership are

peddling as bold reform. Their bill, which is expected to

come before the House for a vote today, is an insult to

voters who the GOP apparently believes are dumb enough to be

snookered by this feint. The procedures under which it is to

be debated, allowing only meaningless amendments to be

considered, are an insult also--to the democratic process.

At best the bill would marginally improve the existing

arrangement of minimal disclosure, laxly enforced. Reporting

by lobbyists would be quarterly instead of twice yearly and

slightly more detailed (with listings of lobbyists' campaign

contributions--already available elsewhere--along with gifts

to lawmakers and contributions to their charities). Nothing

would crimp lawmakers' lifestyles: Still allowed would be

meals, gifts (skybox seats at sporting events, say) and cut-

rate flights on corporate jets. Privately sponsored travel

would be suspended, but only until just after the election.

The provisions on earmarks are similarly feeble. Lawmakers

who insert pet projects in spending bills would have to

attach their names to them--but that's all. If that happens,

these provisions wouldn't be subject to challenge. Earmark

reform that wouldn't allow a vote to stop future ``Bridges to

Nowhere'' isn't real reform.

Matching the anemic measure is the undemocratic procedure

under which it will be ``debated'' on the House floor. Nine

amendments are to be considered, including such tough-love

provisions as ``voluntary ethics training'' for members and

holding lobbyists liable for knowingly offering gifts whose

value exceeds the gift limit. (Not to worry: Legislators

wouldn't be liable for accepting them.) The Rules Committee

refused to permit votes on amendments to strengthen the

measure, including proposals to establish an independent

ethics office; to require lawmakers to pay full freight for

chartered flights; or to double the waiting period for

lawmakers to lobby their former colleagues from one year to

two. Neither would the majority risk an up-or-down vote on

the much more robust Democratic alternative.

Democrats tempted to vote for this sham because they're

scared of 30-second ads that accuse them of opposing lobbying

reform ought to ask themselves whether they really think so

little of their constituents. As for Republicans willing to

settle for this legislative fig leaf, they ought to listen to

Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.). ``I happen to

believe we are losing our moral authority to lead this

place,'' Mr. Shays said on the House floor last week. He was

generous not to have put that in the past tense.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Mr. Chairman, I did have some speakers on the way, but at this moment, they are not on the floor, so I will reserve.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member on Judiciary.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, there is no good reason for anybody to vote for this bill. As we said, practically every major newspaper and every good- government group has discredited it.

And let me tell you what it does not do:

It does nothing to prevent the abuses that regularly occur with conference reports, including the addition of secret, last-minute perks and protections for big business.

It does nothing to stop the majority leadership from jamming massive conference reports through the House before the ink is dry and before Members read the bill.

It does nothing to stop the majority from locking Democrats out of conference meetings and negotiations.

It does nothing to stop the majority from repeatedly waiving the rules on every bill that comes to the House floor.

It does nothing to stop the majority from shutting out Democrat amendments on the floor.

It does nothing to curb the practice of holding votes open on the floor to change the outcome of a vote.

It does nothing to keep lobbyists from writing major legislation behind closed doors.

It does not ban gifts from lobbyists.

It does not ban corporate travel.

It does not stop or slow the revolving door.

It does not do anything the majority says it does.

Voting for this bill violates the core principles of the Democratic Party and everything we have fought for in this Congress. No Member of this House should vote for this bill. It is not just a bad bill. It is a dishonest bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I am in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, let me make it clear at the outset that if our motion to recommit passes, it will simply substitute for a sham bill a real reform bill.

Mr. Speaker, an interesting new poll conducted by The Wall Street Journal and NBC News came out last week. One of its findings is that 78 percent of Americans disapprove of the job Congress is doing. That means that four out of every five people walking the streets today in America are not happy about what goes on here in this Capitol Building.

There are a lot of reasons Americans are not happy with Congress, Mr. Speaker, and let me list a few of them.

They are not happy that this Congress allowed their energy industry buddies to write a national energy policy that is earning the oil companies record profits and costing the rest of us more than $3 a gallon at the gas station.

They are not happy that special interests have been allowed into the back rooms to write legislation that benefits them but not the American people.

They are not happy that these days Members can get away with doing almost anything unless it is so bad it gets the attention of the Justice Department.

The Republican leadership can read the polls, too. They figured out they are in trouble, so they put together this so-called reform bill to show Americans that at long last they are ready to clean up their act.

But the problem is this is not a serious bill. For the past 2 weeks, commentators and newspapers have been calling this bill for what it is, and here is what they say about it: It is a ``watered down sham,'' The Washington Post; an ``anemic excuse for reform,'' USA Today; ``an Orwellian shell of righteous platitudes'' from the New York Times.

Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit I have at the desk is a real reform proposal. It is a proposal that makes a serious effort at cleaning up this place, and there is good evidence that it is a real reform proposal, and the Republicans are afraid of it. They do not want it debated in the House. They do not want a vote on it, and that is why they blocked it from being considered on the floor.

My proposal will prohibit Members and staff in the House, Senate and executive branch from use of corporate jets. It shuts down the infamous K Street Project. It bans gifts and meals from lobbyists. It ends the practice of adding special interest provisions to conference reports in the dead of night and after the conference has finished. It takes pension benefits away from Members of Congress convicted of crimes; and it requires the public disclosure of all earmarks, not just those of the Appropriations Committee but authorizers and tax bills, and much, much more.

My colleagues are faced with a clear and a simple choice today: support the discredited Republican bill before us and prove to your constituents that you are not serious about reform but you rather prefer the status quo of corruption and cronyism and that you are satisfied with a bill that simply gets you by the election; or support a reform proposal that will really begin to clean this place up.

But I would warn my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that you cannot have it both ways. The integrity of this Congress is at stake here, and the time has come for all Members to choose their side in this debate. Either stand up and be part of the solution by supporting the proposal I have placed before the House, or remain a part of the problem and vote with the Republican leadership.

We know that the Democrat proposal is a tough one, Mr. Speaker, but that is what we have to do to drain this swamp. They want their Congress back out there in America, and so do I. They are sick and tired of a Congress that lavishes gifts on the special interests and then sends them the bill. Vote ``yes'' on the motion to recommit.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, after an interminable era of scandal, this Congress was given the greatest opportunity in a generation to change the way business is done in Washington. We were given a chance to truly make a difference and to do something lasting. We were given the chance to help the citizens of this Nation believe in their government once again.

But that chance has been squandered, because this Congress has failed. And in so doing, the hypocrisy and cynicism displayed today by the majority of the House will be neither missed nor forgotten by the American people.

We have before us the Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006. It is supposed to be a reform bill. But you can't be bold enough to reform if you don't muster the courage to address the problems.

The corruption of this Republican-led Congress is beyond debate. The American people don't trust it anymore. Fewer than 30 percent approve the job it is doing. The only remaining question was how the members of the leadership were going to respond, how committed were they going to be to reforming their bankrupt philosophy of government?

This rule and this bill give us the all-too predictable answer to this burning question: This leadership doesn't want reform, and they just aren't going to allow it.

As virtually every outside observer has noted in recent days, this legislation is a sham. It won't do anything to reduce influence peddling in Washington or to purge this body of the corruption that has infected it so deeply.

I know we are going to hear much more on this later, but what I really want my fellow Americans to focus on right now is something just as telling as the contents of this bill, and that is the process by which it was created.

As I and my Democratic colleagues have said again and again throughout the entire Congress, a corrupt legislative process produces corrupt legislation. If bills are written and changed behind closed doors, then there will be no way to know what is hidden in them. If amendments to bills are rejected, not because of their contents, but because of the party they come from, then democracy will have been denied.

If the Members of the body are committed to undermining the two- centuries-old rules of the House, they are also intent on undermining the will and the needs of the citizens of this country. And so it has been with this rule, and with this bill.

When the bill faced an original jurisdiction markup on April 5, Democrats presented numerous amendments to it in an attempt to actually give it some substance, and all of these amendments were defeated on a party-line vote.

During its markup, the Judiciary Committee was the only body that adopted any bipartisan amendments on this legislation. Democrats successfully introduced amendments in the Judiciary Committee requiring lobbyists to disclose more of their activities, such as fund-raisers for candidates and parties that they fund honoring Members of Congress.

But the bill we thought we had when we left for recess 2 weeks ago is not the one we saw when we came back. Most of the amendments accepted by the Judiciary Committee had mysteriously disappeared while we were away. The one that survived was done away with last night, a self- executing rule. The majority decided to do this on their own, without telling anyone and while nobody was looking. It was an indefensible abuse of power.

My Democrat colleagues and I also offered a substitute to this bill that addressed the many errors it is silent on. Among its many components, our legislation would establish a new Office of Public Integrity to audit and to investigate compliance with lobbying disclosure rules, because it doesn't matter if you have transparency if no one is enforcing the rules and making sure that they comply.

It would have prevented special interest provisions from being added into bills in the dead of night by requiring all legislation to be made public 24 hours before it is voted on.

Last night in the Rules Committee, my Republican friends had one last chance to open up the process and allow some real debate on the bill. But in typical fashion, they blocked a host of significant amendments, including 20 of the 21 amendments submitted by Democrats. They wouldn't allow our tougher substitute on the bill to even be considered, which means, frankly, that half of the country is disenfranchised in this debate today and we are only able to debate this hollow sham of a reform bill.

So I ask my friends in the majority, what kind of reform is that? What conclusions are you asking the American people to draw from this kind of behavior? When you don't even allow the body to consider and debate alternative approaches to reforming Congress, what are you hiding from? When you subvert our democratic process and at the same time pretend to be the party of reform, how can you possibly expect us to trust you any longer? When your leadership doesn't even have faith in the legislative process, how can the American people have faith in them?

Lobbyists are not the reason our Congress no longer works for working Americans. Congress is the problem. No lobbyist can get into the room unless a Member allows it.

We heard so much in January about reform that was coming. But here we are, 4 months later, doing exactly the same thing and producing exactly the same result: bad bills passed through a broken House; bills just like this one, that have a catchy name but don't deliver what they promise; bills that aren't written for the people of the Nation, but rather for special interests.

No wonder the American people are so angry. Their congressional leadership is so clearly out of touch. Every member of the majority should be ashamed of this bill today. At least then you will have something in common with the American people that you profess to serve.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

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

I would love to ask my good friend from California what great insight he did gain in these last 5 hours, and if it led him to want us to be able to be part of this input and that you would reconsider turning down a Democrat substitute?

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry it did not lead to input from our side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, who does have some input.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).

Mr. Speaker, if Mr. Hefley would like more time, I can yield him another minute.

Reclaiming my time, I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that it is all well and good to talk about we are going to work very hard to fix the Ethics Committee, but we are in the 16th month of this term, and I don't see much action taking place over there.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our minority leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, today, 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 2006, the Department of Defense (DoD) released their second annual sexual assault report, which stated that there were 2,374 allegations of sexual assaults reported in 2005; this is up from 1,700 the previous year. 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 all together. 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; and

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 servicemen and women, or military family members, victimized by sexual assault and domestic violence. Our Armed Forces must be able to guarantee the most basic protedtions to ensure these victims can receive necessary counseling, treatment, and justice.

If a victim cannot access essential care for fear of stigma, public embarrassment, 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 service members put themselves in harms way to protect us and our Nation from threats at home and abroad. They should not be given lesser rights and protections than the civilians whose freedoms they protect. My bill ensures they 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 82 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, whatever happened to the Republicans who were fiscally responsible? I think they must have left town after President Bush came to Washington in 2001.

In January of that year, thanks to the fiscal policies of the Clinton administration, we were expecting a $5.6 trillion budget surplus over 10 years. Instead, thanks to the fiscal policies of President Bush and the Republican ``Rubber Stamp'' Congress, that $5.6 trillion surplus has been turned into a $3.3 trillion deficit.

President Bush has yet to propose a balanced budget, and yet the Republicans do not seem to mind. They keep signing off on the budget proposals, ignoring fiscal discipline.

Because of their reckless borrow-and-spend policy, Republicans were forced to increase the debt limit earlier this year for the fourth time in 5 years, raising it to nearly $9 trillion. We are currently borrowing more than $600,000 a minute, much of it from foreign countries such as China and Saudi Arabia.

Mr. Speaker, if House Republicans are serious about fiscal discipline, they will stop rubber-stamping President Bush's failed fiscal policies.

Mr. Speaker, the President's Fiscal Year 2007 proposed budget sells women in this country short. Whether we are talking education, housing, financial security or health--this budget fails women.

The President's budget will hurt elderly women by slashing Medicare once again. Congress just passed legislation cutting Medicare payments to health care providers to the tune of $22 billion over 10 years. Now, the President's FY07 budget will slash Medicare by yet another $105 billion over 10 years. These drastic cuts will disproportionately impact women throughout this country, as women account for over 56 percent of Medicare beneficiaries.

But the President's budget doesn't stop with Medicare. It also cuts Medicaid to the bone. I'm sure it is no surprise to anyone in this body that the majority of Medicaid beneficiaries are women and girls. With over 2 million women and girls having lost health insurance coverage since 2000, many have turned to Medicaid for needed health care. The President's budget cuts Medicaid by more than $42 billion over 10 years. These cuts will shift costs to the states, who are already drastically reducing health benefits due to current budget shortfalls.

This budget leaves behind women seeking reproductive health services. Title X clinics provide high-quality, low-cost family planning services. For more than 30 years, these clinics have enabled millions, and millions of women to plan their pregnancies, prevent unintended births, and receive desperately needed reproductive health care. Yet the President has proposed cutting funding for this program by millions and millions of dollars.

Women cannot afford for this valuable program to be short changed, especially if this administration is not willing to adequately fund maternal child health programs. Which apparently, it is not. The Healthy Start infant mortality initiative and the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant--both are placed on the chopping block in the President's budget.

How can we tell women--we won't help you access contraception, and we'll do our best to see that you can't get an abortion, and then you're on your own if you have a child?

Whether a senior needing Medicare, a young woman seeking reproductive health care or a mother in need of care for their child, this budget sells all women short.

The President's budget puts special interests first--and America's women last. It turns back the clock on programs that we have fought for so many years to adequately fund, and the consequences are disproportionately placed on the backs of those who can least withstand the impact.

I urge my colleagues to stand up for women and oppose the President's budget cuts.

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

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, we are truly at a crossroads in the history of the Nation. Abroad we are engaged in a war that with each passing day becomes more dangerous, just as our path to victory becomes more obscured.

At home we are still dealing with the consequence of the colossal failure of the government to meet its most basic responsibility, to protect our citizens in a time of dire crisis.

It has been 7 months since Katrina devastated the gulf coast, and thousands upon thousands of our fellow Americans are still depending on handouts to survive. They are without their homes, without their jobs, and without a sense of security.

And here in Washington, the principles of integrity, accountability and oversight, the cornerstone values of our democratic government, have been cast aside in favor of political expediency by our elected leadership.

The American people are losing faith in this government. They believe we are headed in the wrong direction, and they want change, and it is not hard to see why. How we ultimately address the challenges before us as a government and as a people will define the future of this Nation for better or worse.

In times like these, when we are so focused on what separates us from each other, it is critical that we remember what binds us together, a commitment to the same core values and principles. I think we can all agree that supporting our young men and women in uniform is a priority for each and every Member of this House, whether we are Democrats or Republicans, and whether we agreed with the Bush administration's reason for going to war in Iraq or opposed them.

And just as we continue the age-old debate on the proper role of government in our society, we should all agree that the kind of collapse that we witnessed when the government failed to respond to Hurricane Katrina must never, ever happen again.

We must renew our commitment to take responsibility for the safety and welfare of the American people in a time of crisis. And we must agree that government has a role in protecting not only the rights, but also the dignity and the humanity of every single American.

We cannot accept, nor should we be willing to tolerate, squalor, abject poverty, and needless suffering in the heart of the United States. The defense of those who defend us abroad and the protection of the defenseless here at home, these are guiding principles that we all share.

Mr. Speaker, how should we go about turning these principles into action in the days and months ahead? We may disagree on how to overcome the challenges that lay before us, just as our Founding Fathers hoped and expected that we would. But all of us here are patriots, and all of us come to the table with our Nation's best interest in mind. And so we must remember to always welcome debate and to keep the floor open to all ideas and proposals, and to subject their merits equally to the rigors of the democratic process.

To pit the pursuits of an agenda against the perpetuation of our democratic traditions, that would be a true crime and a true shame. As we stand up for the principles of democracy here, we must also pledge to restore the second great tenet of our system of government, the integrity and accountability of our Congress. We can no longer allow our leaders to be blinded by the politics of the moment and forget their commitments to ethics and to oversight.

The short-term gains may be tempting for those who hold strings of power, but the long-term consequences are devastating to the people of the Nation as we have already seen. Ethics, integrity and accountability should not be partisan issues. They should be issues of survival because the survival of the system depends on them.

It is on this point that I would ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me today in taking a stand for our future. During the Second World War, Senator Harry Truman displayed a level of integrity and a strength of character that has been very rare in today's Washington. He dared to investigate his own party. He held his fellow Democrats in Congress accountable for excessive and wasteful war contracts. He provided a mechanism for accountability and oversight during an unprecedented war effort. It was called the Truman Commission.

The commission's purpose was to maximize every dollar we had to spend to ferret out corruption and mismanagement and to infuse a sense of accountability into the American war machine. Its success saved many American lives by ensuring that our tax dollars were spent on what was most important, that was winning the war. And yet, we in this Congress have not had the courage to insist on the same level of accountability that President Truman saw fit to employ over 60 years ago.

Despite the fact that at least $9 billion of money spent on the Iraqi reconstruction is unaccounted for, and despite the fact that we hear reports of payroll checks covering employees who do not exist and of firms being compensated for providing security for flights that never took off, and despite the fact that the Pentagon contracts for body armor have gone to companies that never produced it, all the while, 80 percent of the American Marines lost in Iraq to upper body wounds could have been saved if those soldiers had been provided with the right armor.

Nor have we demonstrated the real commitment to fully investigate the Nation's response to the second great challenge of our time, Hurricane Katrina, and done so again, despite poor planning, misused resources, and homes and relief that still have to reach those who need it.

The question I have for my colleagues today is where is our bravery? Where is our commitment to those we protect and to those who protect us? It is a question that I hope my colleagues who plan to vote for the rule answer definitively here today. When we squander precious resources, when we waste time we do not have, when we fail to hold ourselves accountable, we sacrifice American lives. And when we refuse to insist upon integrity, oversight, and accountability in our own government, we undermine our very democracy at a time when we are trying to spread it abroad. But today we have an opportunity to begin anew and follow the proud tradition of one of America's greatest leaders.

We have before us a Democratic proposal to create an oversight commission, one that will ensure that billions of dollars being spent on the war in Iraq, and today's expenditure brings that to $400 billion, and that the rebuilding of New Orleans and the gulf coast are not lost in the black hole of corruption, cronyism, and no big contracts.

We have an opportunity to restore checks and balances to the system of government and provide the accountability and oversight, which is our responsibility as Congresspersons to provide.

Just like in Harry Truman's day, that responsibility transcends the politics of both Republicans and Democrats. Rather, it speaks to our willingness to preserve the fundamental values of our democratic system and the fundamental values of our Nation.

I strongly urge my colleagues, as we prepare to spend $91.7 billion in taxpayer money, to vote against the rule and in favor of the previous question. It is a vote that will allow consideration of an amendment to create a new Truman Commission and to restore a measure of integrity, accountability, and oversight to this government, values which are so greatly missed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member on the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say that President Bush's first Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. O'Neill, wrote a book after he left and commented that the first Cabinet meeting he went to, in January, they were discussing going into Iraq, to his great surprise. So that was planned long before September 11.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).

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

I am going to be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so I can modify the rule and allow the House to consider two very critical amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, the first amendment by Mr. Sabo will create a new review and approval process to ensure that the secret, backroom deals, like the irresponsible Dubai Ports World, cannot happen again. The Sabo amendment strengthens the process by which our government reviews future foreign takeovers. It will require that all foreign transactions that could result in foreign control of any entity engaged in interstate commerce must undergo a thorough review that mandates the direct involvement of the President and the Congress.

The second amendment, by Ms. Kaptur, will create a select congressional committee based on the Truman Committee from the Second World War to investigate and study the awarding and carrying out of government contracts, to conduct military and reconstruction activities in Iraq, and for the rebuilding efforts in the gulf coast in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

There is ample evidence of the necessity of this modern-day Truman Committee. Every day, more examples of fraud emerge. Billions and billions of dollars have been misused both in this country and overseas, and ensuring vigilant oversight of taxpayer dollars should not be a partisan issue. We owe it to the American taxpayers. We owe it to our brave soldiers in harm's way, and we owe it to the citizens in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama who struggle every day to put their lives back together after the ravages of Hurricane Katrina.

I want to emphasize that 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 narrow, inflexible agenda of the majority.

A ``no'' vote will allow those of us concerned about the safety and security of America to create a more responsible process for contracting out of our interstate commerce activities to any foreign entities. It would allow us to investigate the spending irregularities that have occurred with respect to the war in Iraq and the reconstruction efforts in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. In short, it is a vote to consider the priorities of the American people, the priorities blocked by the majority.

Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not prevent the consideration of the supplemental bill. The bill will still be considered in its entirety. However, a ``yes'' vote will prevent us from voting on these two important initiatives. I urge all Members to join with me in supporting our soldiers and vote ``no'' on the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.