Floor Statements

Madam Chairman, I offer several amendments, and I ask unanimous consent they be considered en bloc.

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

Madam Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that will redress a grievous act that was perpetrated, without our knowledge, on a majority of this great body.

Last year, with a resounding vote of 241 Members, the House voted an increase for our Federal arts agency that

we knew would pay us back many times over, both in hard dollars and in ways that are simply incalculable for the people we represent.

The actual amounts were small, an increase of $10 million for the National Endowment for the Arts and $3.5 million for the National Endowment for the Humanities.

But the loss was great. After conferees met for the omnibus funding bill, NEA, incredibly, received just several hundred thousand dollars, and NEH received less than $3 million.

Not only was the will of this great body thwarted, but also the creative activities of our artistic constituents in every congressional district in this country were stifled.

Grants were not made and those grants were not matched. Works were not created. Performances did not happen. Audiences did not gather. Minds were not enlightened, souls were not fed; and the small businesses that depend on the nonprofit arts community did not profit.

Finally, the funds that should have been returned to the Federal Treasury in the form of tax receipts, many times over the original amounts, never arrived. It was a lose-lose situation for everyone involved: the artists, the audiences, our communities, and our small businesses, as well as our local, State, and Federal treasuries.

By all rights, I should be standing here asking my colleagues not just to restore the moneys that we voted for last year, but to double them. If our Federal deficit were not so huge and our budgets so tight, believe me, I would be doing just that.

Instead, I ask you simply to put these Federal art agencies back in business where we funded them last year, with an increase of $10 million for NEA and $5 million for NEH.

The President's own budget request for NEA was telling. In it, even as he suggested level funding for the agency, he asked that American Masterpieces, a majestic program that emphasizes the best of American art, should be increased by $6.5 million.

President Bush was rightfully enthusiastic about that program. It is an increase that I personally applaud. But unless we provide an overall increase for NEA, the money is slated to come from Challenge America, a highly popular program that supported artists in more than 99 percent of our congressional districts last year.

That is not a good idea. Challenge America grants go to the towns and hamlets of this sprawling country, where big touring companies will rarely go, and major actors, actresses, writers and artists may never appear in person. For example, last year Challenge American grants went to Aliceville, Alabama and to Bainbridge Island, Washington; to Red Wing, Minnesota and Lucas, Kansas. They energized audiences in Texarkana, Texas and Locust Grove, Arkansas, and spellbound art-hungry folks in Albany, Georgia and Billings, Montana.

We can and should do both: increase American Masterpieces as the President wishes, and continue to challenge the artists and their audiences in our congressional districts by funding Challenge America.

Madam Chairman, $10 million will ensure that the program will prosper and grow, with Chairman Gioia using up to 10 percent of the money to ensure effective administration of this fine program. And $5 million will enhance NEH's We the People, which promotes the teaching and understanding of American history.

But let me remind my colleagues, even with these increases, we are far from providing the agencies with the funds they received in the mid-1990s. As you see from the first chart, NEA is currently funded at $121 million, but received $176 million in 1992. And NEH is funded at $138 million, while it received $175.5 million in 1994.

Why is it so important to rebuild the funding for these agencies? Well, every year I stand here and remind you what an economic powerhouse the nonprofit arts industry has become in American. As this second chart proves, it produces over $134 billion annually. I do not know of any other investment we make that does that. Please note it returns $10.5 billion to the Federal Treasury.

In these difficult financial times for so many of our districts, as our local leaders strive to balance their budgets by cutting services, we would be irresponsible not to invest in the arts. While other industries have suffered, the nonprofit arts world continues to build in strength while it encourages the growth of innumerable small businesses on its periphery, thereby creating more jobs.

This third chart may surprise Members. It demonstrates the financial muscle of the arts industry, which has produced far more jobs than all of America's farmers, programmers, doctors, lawyers, or accountants. This is an amazing chart.

In fact, while the national economy has grown at a rate of 3.8 percent, the arts have far out-distanced that number by expanding at a rate of 5.5 percent.

And all of that said, I also stand before you at this time, every year, to remind us all of the stunning gifts American artists make to our daily lives. Their creative force not only helps our children learn but also makes them smarter. It brightens the life of each one of us, bringing us joy and comfort, enlightenment and understanding, in ways impossible to find otherwise.

The arts and artists of America are our national treasure, which this great Nation needs, deserves, and must support as other nations do.

For these reasons, I urge Members to vote for the Slaughter/Shays/ Dicks/Leach/Price amendment, and thank my colleagues who have joined me today.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

(Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Chairman, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

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

Madam Chairman, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Chairman, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).

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

Madam Chairman, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).

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

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, famed writer and political commentator George Orwell once wrote that ``people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.'' That statement should have a special resonance for Americans in today's world.

We are fighting a new kind of war every day here in America. Our struggle against terror is one that requires us to focus our resources inward like no time in our history, because today the battlefields are the streets and sidewalks of this country and not some faraway land.

We have to ensure that our government is prepared to responsibly address any threat that imperils the peace and prosperity of this Nation. Only then will the American people truly sleep peaceably through the night. That is why this Homeland Security authorization bill is critically important, because it represents the blueprint of our homeland defense and our collective peace of mind for many years to come.

With such a weighty mandate, I would like to congratulate the Committee on Homeland Security in putting together their first committee authorization. But I would have wished

today for an open rule, and we are still faced with serious issues of accountability and trust in the management of the Department of Homeland Security. This is in no small part as a result of the Bush administration's unwillingness to fill critical job vacancies at the senior levels of the agency.

In fact, the Department of Homeland Security has had two Secretaries and three Deputy Secretaries in 2 years. Today, 42 percent of the high- level political positions inside the agency are vacant or staffed by people who have already announced their departures. This lack of stability at the Department has impacted the agency's ability to meet its mandate effectively.

For example, in my district, the Peace Bridge, which connects Buffalo to Canada, continues to face obstacles in moving to alleviate traffic congestion. Last December, the United States and Canadian governments agreed to move forward with a shared border management initiative which would remedy the situation. But it has been stalled by endless bureaucracy and lack of accountability at the Department of Homeland Security.

But it is not just a lack of accountability that has plagued the agency. Our country's epic struggle against terror is also a struggle against fear. We recently discovered that the infamous homeland security terror alerts, which were raised so often in the months leading up to the Presidential election, and rarely since, if ever, were repeatedly elevated over the objections of the Homeland Security Secretary and his staff. The terror alerts were raised on what Secretary Ridge himself called ``flimsy evidence'' by individuals in the administration who were really aggressive about raising it, which shows that they were used for political purposes.

I know I am not the only one who questions why in the 5\1/2\ months since election day there has not been a single terror alert. Perhaps Mr. Ridge's comments put the answer in the proper perspective. That constitutes a violation of trust with the American people, and we cannot afford that in this war on terror. We ought not to employ the tactics of fear as a means of control in our pursuit to keep the homeland secure. Such draconian measures are not in keeping with the spirit of America.

It is beneath us as a Nation to have partisan politics injected into our national security apparatus in an ugly and manipulative way. We dare not trade in a currency of fear, but rather should strive to liberate ourselves from fear through awareness of our world and an honest understanding of the challenges which lay before us.

I know many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle agree on this principle, and I am pleased that the committee has seen fit to include more specific criteria for how the terror alert is and is not to be utilized. Likewise, the appropriation bill passed yesterday by a nearly unanimous vote also included measures that promise to provide a higher degree of accountability at the agency, accountability that I am sure we all agree is sorely needed.

Despite the serious problems at DHS, which still must be addressed, there is much in this authorization bill that I believe every Member of Congress will support. As a representative from a border State, I am pleased to see that the legislation authorizes $1.9 billion, enough money to hire 2,000 additional border agents this year, agents sorely needed. This funding would mark a welcome change in the administration's approach to handling border security issues away from an economically disastrous agenda of imposing passport requirements on our citizens who want to cross our northern border and towards a more sensible policy of effective border enforcement, one which maximizes security resources and safeguards the freedoms and options our citizens and our trading partners deserve.

But that would require that the majority had the will to actually spend the border security dollars and not just authorize them. It is, after all, easy to talk tough about securing borders, but we need action. We need a true commitment from this Congress to put more agents in the field. We seem to have an ongoing problem here with leadership when it comes to this issue where reality does not measure up to rhetoric. It is my hope that this time will be different.

The House leadership's decision to include in this rule two amendments of mine suggests there may be room for common ground on the critical border issue after all. Clearly, the most effective tool we have to protect our borders is knowledge. Those of us who represent border economies understand how important the unencumbered flow of commerce across the northern border is to continued economic growth and to prosperity. The NEXUS program, we hope, will reduce the long waits at the border and allow an unprecedented level of security. It will be smart management, and I look forward to the upcoming debate on the amendment.

But there are many others, I know, we would all like to debate here on the floor today; but of 89, only 25 were ruled in order, which is less than 30 percent. And as I have said previously, I do wish this had been an open rule because we need to spend the extra time and we need to allow our colleagues to consider more ideas on how to improve the homeland security. Is that not what democracy is about, debate and deliberation? Our framers thought so, and I think so, and I think most of my colleagues and most Americans think so.

One amendment we will not consider today, which I regret, would have established a much-needed railroad security plan for America, which we do not have. And, incredibly, an amendment which would have required all cargo transported on commercial and passenger airplanes be inspected for explosives was not allowed. How could we not allow a debate on a critical homeland security issue such as this?

My colleagues, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), offered an amendment which would have upgraded security requirements associated with transporting extremely hazardous materials. But, inexplicably, it too was blocked from consideration.

But just as we cannot afford to live in fear in this age of terrorism, we also cannot fear engaging in genuine debate in consideration of those matters which may be controversial for some, but which are clearly important for the safety of all Americans. The free flow of debate and democracy are a hallmark of our American values, which this House was designed to embody. They are the core values which separate us from those who seek to destroy us and our way of life. And here in the cradle of democracy, we diminish those most American of values at our own peril.

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 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the ranking member on the Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 15 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to oppose the previous question and, if it is defeated, I will amend the rules so that we can consider the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) rejected by the Committee on Rules last night.

Mr. Speaker, the Barrow-Markey amendment would direct the Department of Homeland Security to promulgate regulations upgrading the security associated with transporting extremely hazardous materials such as chlorine, which is toxic by inhalation, and those materials that are flammable or explosive.

Mr. Speaker, extremely hazardous materials are transported through virtually every community in the Nation. Several serious incidents have taken place that have clearly demonstrated the threat that exists whenever they are involved. I am disappointed that the Republican leadership failed to include this important amendment, an issue that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later. But, unfortunately, under the rule, unless we defeat the previous question, we will not be able to.

As always, I want to emphasize that a no vote on the previous question will not prevent us from considering the Homeland Security bill, but will allow Members to vote on the Barrow-Markey amendment. However, a yes vote will prevent us from doing so.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment immediately prior to the vote, and request a no vote 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. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Tightening security along our vast northern border is one of the most important steps we have taken to defend

our homeland since September 11. New security measures have had unintended consequences of stifling trade and tourism with our Canadian neighbors. Traffic congestion at the border continues to be a longstanding problem for local Canadian and New York residents who rely upon it for their business and personal lives. It is not uncommon for travelers at the Peace Bridge in Buffalo to experience 3- to 4-hour delays trying to cross the border.

Beyond the local impact on our constituents, border-crossing delays cost the entire Nation dearly. According to a new report by the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. economy absorbs 40 percent of the current cost of the border delays, and that means that the U.S. losses are $4.13 billion a year, or $471,000 an hour, due to the border congestion. If action is not taken, we stand to lose 17,000 jobs by 2020 and 91,000 by 2030.

And we want to alleviate that by expanding the pre-clearance programs like NEXUS, FAST, and SENTRI. These programs, which are joint ventures between the U.S., Canadian, and Mexican governments, are designed to simplify the border crossings for pre-approved, low-risk travelers and businesses.

Right now constituents along the border complain that registration is overly burdensome and complex, and it is. It is unacceptable that American citizens must travel to Canada to enroll in the NEXUS program. So to expand and make pre-clearance easier to navigate, my amendment would authorize the creation of at least four enrollment centers in the United States and would establish a customer phone service number. As it stands now, there is no phone to reach NEXUS.

Finally, the amendment would create one consistent NEXUS card for land and air travelers. NEXUS cards currently require a retinal scan, while NEXUS land cards use fingerprints; and we would merge these two and use one security feature for both air and land crossings.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment has the support of the United States Chamber of Commerce and the border mayors in western New York. Losing nearly half a million dollars an hour from border delays, the cost of pre-clearance upgrades would easily pay for themselves.

I am most grateful to the chairman of the committee and the vice chairman of the committee and urge adoption of this amendment. And I thank them for working with me on this amendment.

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

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

My amendment would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to report to Congress on the agency's efforts to reduce the replication of its badges, uniforms and other insignia. In addition, the Secretary would be directed to report on the agency's efforts to increase public awareness of counterfeit badges and uniforms, and to teach Americans to identify authentic identification of a DHS official.

Two years ago, a man wearing an FBI jacket and carrying a badge attempted to rob the Xerox employee credit union in my district. The would-be robber killed one man and shot another, and that murderer is still at large.

Last week, the Department of Homeland Security arrested a man in New York City who was in the possession of over 1,300 fake badges and IDs from over 35 law enforcement agencies, along with two NYPD police uniforms. In addition, DHS agents found a Glock 9-millimeter handgun, a Beretta semiautomatic rifle, a Winchester shotgun and used casings from a shoulder-fired missile.

I think everyone would agree that this man posed a legitimate threat to his community based on his weapons stash alone, and knowing he had a gun and an FBI badge, or a CBP badge, or a police uniform, makes me even more frightened of the trouble he might have caused. The availability of counterfeit badges is an ongoing problem in this country, and it has gone unchecked for too long.

I am disturbed that the identification and clothing of our public officials is so easily reproduced. When I think about all the different efforts we have made and the technology we have employed to ensure that someone cannot counterfeit a $20 bill, I am shocked that ensuring the integrity of the badges and identification of public officials has not been made a similar priority.

DHS badges, uniforms and IDs are indicative of authority, and the bearers are granted access to restricted areas and to sensitive information. We trust that people who have those badges and wear those uniforms of the Department of Homeland Security are, in fact, officers of that agency, and we teach our children to trust people who show official badges and wear the official uniforms. How terrifying is it to think about someone's lost child walking up to someone wearing a DHS uniform only to have that person really be a criminal.

This amendment is an important first step in improving the integrity of the DHS badges, uniforms, and IDs. Next week, I plan on taking our efforts to protect the integrity of our public IDs one step further by introducing legislation that will expand the current Federal criminal ban on fake police badges and the misuse of authentic badges to include uniforms, identification, and all other insignia of public officials, because we must be able to trust those who said that they are public officials.

I appreciate very much being able to present this amendment and ask for its adoption.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I thank very much the chairman of the committee and the ranking member of the committee, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 174, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, the congressional Republican abuses of power continue in the Senate where Senator Frist is preparing to change the Senate rules for the first time in 200 years.

Senator Frist and Senate Republicans are waging an unprecedented political power grab. They are changing the rules in the middle of the game and attacking our historic system of checks and balances so they can ram through a small number of judicial nominees who otherwise cannot achieve consensus because of their poor record of protecting individual rights.

Our House Democrats join our colleagues in the Senate committed to fight this Republican abuse of power. We will protect the role of the judiciary as the guardian of the rights of all Americans, assuring that all judges who are confirmed in the Federal courts be as intellectually honest and fair as possible, rather than ruling just on one side of one interest.

Drunk with power, rewriting the rules is what has been happening in Washington the most in recent years. The House Republican leadership tried to weaken the House ethics rules to protect one of their own, and they failed. Let us not let the Senate do the same.

Mr. Speaker, as part of National Women's Health Week, the Society for Women's Health Research is recognizing today as ``Sex Differences in Health Awareness Day.'' The intent of this day is to draw attention to the biological health differences between women and men. I am proud to reflect on this issue, and I strongly believe the importance of this day cannot be overstated.

It is true, scientists have long known about the anatomical differences between men and women. However, only within the past decade has the scientific community begun to investigate and uncover significant biological and physiological differences between men and women. From genes to behavior, women and men are now gaining greater knowledge of their unique differences. As a result, they are able to better achieve optimal healthcare.

The Society for Women's Health Research has led efforts to shed light on the distinctions in women's health. Through the Society's tireless persistence on behalf of women's health, they have engaged and supported the scientific community to investigate these dissimilarities. Over the last fifteen years, the Society has worked to ensure that women are included in clinical trials and that the analysis of research include sex differences at all levels. I commend the Society for Women's Health Research for its tireless efforts to increase understanding of sex differences and to improve the health of women.

One health issue that affects women very differently than men is cancer. In fact, every 6.4 minutes, a woman in the U.S. is diagnosed with a form of gynecologic cancer. This year, 28,000 American women are expected to die from gynecologic cancers. For example, ovarian cancer is a gynecologic cancer, and it is the fourth leading cause of cancer deaths among women in the United States. It kills more women than all other gynecologic cancers combined. The incidence of ovarian cancer has actually increased over several years. Up from 1 in 70 women in past years, ovarian cancer now occurs in 1 in 57 women. In comparison, prostate cancer mortality rates peaked in 1991 and have since decreased by about 33 percent, while deaths from ovarian cancer have risen. According to the American Cancer Society, ovarian cancer deaths rose by almost 20 percent in just one year from 2003 to 2004. While 25,500 women will be diagnosed with ovarian cancer this year, more than 16,000 women will die from the disease, including over 1,000 women in New York State.

Although there is only a 25 percent five-year survival rate when ovarian cancer is diagnosed in the later stages, if the cancer is caught before it has spread outside the ovaries, there is a greater than 90 percent survival rate of five years. However, the sad reality is that only 24 percent of ovarian cancer is caught early. Even more frustrating, early detection and treatment of ovarian cancer is oftentimes hindered due to lack of understanding by both women and their healthcare providers. Most women and healthcare professionals think ovarian cancer is asymptomatic, but new studies indicate that ovarian cancer does have symptoms, even in the early stage of the disease. Reliable screening tests do not exist for the early detection of ovarian cancer and a Pap smear only checks for cervical cancer. However, a bimanual pelvic exam, a Ca125 blood test, or a transvaginal ultrasound can help rule out ovarian cancer, but only if women and their doctors are aware of these options. With women's lives at stake, we clearly need to do a better job of educating women and, especially, their physicians, so that early detection of ovarian cancer becomes the norm.

In my district, the Buffalo-based Roswell Park Cancer Institute, RPCI, and the University of Rochester Medical Center, URMC, are supporting many research efforts on ovarian cancer. As a member of the Gynecologic Oncology Group, RPCI participates in most national trials to improve the prevention, detection and treatment of gynecologic cancers. They also collaborate in the Ovarian Cancer Early Detection Program sponsored by the National Cancer Institute. RPCI is evaluating the anti-angiogenesis factor IM862 in the treatment of recurrent ovarian carcinoma. Through the Gilda Radner Familial Ovarian Cancer Registry, RCPI collects data on familial ovarian cancer. RPCI continues to research glycoproteins and tumor markers in ovarian cancer. Researchers at the URMC are investigating tumor suppression gene identification for ovarian cancer and are conducting several phase III trials to identify treatments for women with ovarian cancer.

Despite the critical work of RPCI and URMC, ovarian cancer research and education continues to be significantly under-funded compared to other cancers. In the last 10 years, funding for prostate cancer, has increased 20 fold, while funding for ovarian cancer has only increased 2.5 percent. Not surprisingly, there has been substantial progress in prostate cancer detection and treatment, while achievements in ovarian cancer research continue to lag far behind. According to the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance, $37 million in outstanding ovarian cancer proposals will not been funded in 2005 due to limited resources.

Ovarian cancer is one example of the disparities women face in health research, prevention, and treatment. While progress has been made in some areas in recent years, there is still much more we must do to improve women's health. We need additional resources and we need Congressional action. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of H.R. 1245, also known as Johanna's Law. This legislation will authorize a federal campaign for gynecologic cancer education designed to improve early detection. It is one important step in closing the healthcare gap between men and women, and it should be enacted without delay.

As we celebrate National Women's Health Week and the achievements made to improve the health and well being of women, I urge my colleagues to take a moment to reflect on the differences in health between men and women and encourage us to make a much stronger commitment to promoting women's health in this country.

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

I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, 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, whether we have agreed with the Bush administration's reasons for going to war in Iraq or opposed them, we all want the United States to be successful in the Middle East.

We may disagree on how we overcome the challenges that lay before us, just as our Founding Fathers hoped and expected we would. But all of us here are patriots, and all of us come to the table with our best intentions in mind.

Our troops in uniform throughout Afghanistan and Iraq have consistently performed their duty with courage and great integrity. It is incumbent upon us here in the people's House to honor those sacrifices in the only real way we can, by providing leadership for this Nation that is as principled and as courageous as each of our fallen soldiers.

We have a responsibility to live up to their example and have the courage to perform our duty with integrity. We must insist on accountability and honesty in this government, and we, too, must always be accountable and honest.

But I fear that in this body, in this Congress, we have not risen to that challenge. Yesterday, while walking through the Senate halls, I saw a picture of Senator Harry Truman conducting a meeting of the Truman Commission, and under that picture there is a statement that says that the Truman Commission saved the taxpayers of the country millions of dollars during the Second World War by ferreting out waste and corruption in the American war effort. And let me remind my colleagues that Senator Truman was investigating his own administration.

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. By all accounts they were successful in their noble endeavor. Their good work saved many American lives by ensuring that our tax dollars were spent on where they needed to be spent, on winning the war. One more helmet, one more bullet, one more tank, it made the difference.

And yet we in this Congress do not have the courage to insist on the same level of accountability today that our forefathers saw fit to employ over 60 years ago.

When this same supplemental was brought before the House earlier this year, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) offered an amendment that would have established a select committee to follow up on a very disturbing report which had been released from the Inspector General's office. The report indicated that $9 billion of money spent on Iraqi reconstruction was unaccounted for. And for those who are counting out there, that is 9,000 million dollars. We heard reports of payroll checks covering employees who did not exist and firms being compensated for providing security for flights that never took off. We even heard a report that a Pentagon contract for the development of bullet-proof armor was given to a former army researcher who never delivered a single piece of armor.

These types of incidents squander precious resources, waste time we do not have, and, worse, they place our American soldiers' lives at risk. But the majority in the House defeated our attempts to bring a measure of accountability into the process. And today, 9 months later, that $9 billion is still missing and none of those incidents I have just mentioned have been investigated, none of them.

And still today we have no Truman Commission of our own to speak of and no language in this conference report that will create one. The question I have for my colleagues today is, why not? Surely the leadership of the House understands that missing $9 billion of taxpayer money could benefit our troops had we the sense to go and look for it. And without any oversight commission to investigate and prevent the issues of taxpayer dollars by the Pentagon or some unscrupulous government contractors, how can we be sure that the $82 billion check we are cutting today on behalf of the American taxpayers will actually reach its destination or be used to protect our troops in the line of fire? After all, it is our young men and women in uniform who pay the price for the inability of this body to enforce any standard of accountability.

But this is not the only failure of accountability we see here today. All one had to do was open a newspaper this morning and read that Dr. Ahmed Chalabi, who was honored by sitting there with the first lady in the State of the Union Address, has been named the deputy prime minister of the country and the acting oil minister in the provisional government in Iraq. Do I have to remind this House that just months ago Dr. Chalabi was under intense scrutiny for feeding the U.S. Government bad intelligence, which ultimately led us to invade Iraq? Do I have to remind my colleagues that just months ago Dr. Chalabi was suspected of passing U.S. intelligence to the Iranian Government? Can anyone possibly explain how this man has been allowed to accept such a high- ranking position in the Iraqi provisional government?

We know what should be in the bill: language to create a modern version of the Truman Commission so we can ensure that men like Chalabi do not undermine the war and reconstruction effort, place American soldiers at risk, and rob American taxpayers blind as we continue to pump more and more money into Iraq.

But now I want to touch on what should not be in the bill. The majority believes in instituting a national identification card program for the country, which is in the legislation. Creating a national identification card is serious business and could have profound implications for all Americans. It should be debated on the floor openly with opportunity for ample discussion and amendment. Instead, the leadership has shoved this extreme measure down our throats as part of the supplemental, knowing full well that many Members would never support the measure in its current form but will be forced to vote for it because we want to support our troops. That is not accountability; that is arrogance.

How dare they hide behind our men and women in uniform as the brave souls risk their lives every day to protect us from danger. How could the leadership of this body use them to protect themselves and their agenda from debate, from democracy, and accountability? This is just the latest example of misuse of power.

Members should be aware that the rule contains a section that authorizes the Committee on the Judiciary to file a supplemental report on H.R. 748, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. Members may recall that during the markup of H.R. 748 in Committee on the Judiciary last month, five defeated Democrat amendments were included in the committee report with descriptions that blatantly and grossly mischaracterized the amendments. While the rule will provide for a supplemental report to be filed, it does not require or direct the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary to apologize to the authors of the amendments, nor are we sure that it will never happen again.

So just as the leadership concedes the issue and recognizes action must be taken, they are still not accepting the responsibility. I am sure we are supposed to be grateful for this small token, but it would mean much more if those responsible for maligning our colleagues here in the House would accept the responsibility for their actions and fix the report.

I am going to support the conference report because I am supportive of my troops abroad, but it has to be noted that our brave men and women are being used as a tool to cover for the underhanded attempt to institute a national ID card, but also for last week's misguided use of power that maligned several of our colleagues. At the same time, they have failed to infuse the much-needed accountability into the process. This is not the principled leadership we owe the men and women the bill is supposed to protect. This is not courageous. We can do better. We owe our fighting men and women at least that much.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Speaker, I 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\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to respond to the previous speaker and to remind him that the hijackers, many of them, had driver's licenses from the State of Virginia, and others had visas and passports. So I do not think this national ID card would have stopped them.

Also, if he is referring to Members on our side saying that we are not safer than we were on 9/11, I would report that was a government report saying that TSA has made us no safer than it was before.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield ten seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) to respond.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire from my colleague if he is ready to yield back, then I will close.

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

I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule to instruct the enrolling clerk to make an important addition to the conference report.

This addition will establish a select committee to investigate the awarding and carrying out of war-related contracts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Nearly $9 billion of money spent on the Iraq reconstruction is unaccounted for because of inefficiencies and bad management, according to the Special Inspector General for the Iraqi Reconstruction. Ensuring vigilant oversight of taxpayer dollars should not be a partisan issue.

I want to stress that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not stop consideration of the emergency supplemental report. A ``no'' vote will simply allow the House to create a much-needed select committee to investigate government contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A ``yes'' vote on the previous question will prevent the House from establishing this important select committee.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, again, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Let me take the time I have remaining to just say that we are not doing what the 9/11 Commission asked. They wanted us to negotiate with our States on whether they wanted to do this or not; and what we have done is impose upon the States, without any hearings or any discussion with them, from top down, an unfunded mandate requiring them to change their driver's license at our whim. So this is not that at all. We are, in fact, undoing what the 9/11 Commission said.

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, let me begin by quoting from Section 1001, Title 18 of the United States Code that also applies to the legislative branch.

``Anyone knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme or device a material fact; 2, makes any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation; or, 3, makes or uses any false writing or document, knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years or both.''

The Committee on Rules discovered last week that the Committee on the Judiciary report on the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, authored by the majority staff, in conflict obviously to the United States Code, contained amendment summaries that had been rewritten by the staff for the sole purpose of distorting the original intent of the authors. I have to admit I was livid.

I was certain it must have been an oversight because I could not imagine that the Committee on the Judiciary, of all things, or the Committee on the Judiciary chairman, whom I have known for 18 years, would stand by a committee report that would so deeply mischaracterize and falsify the intent of several amendments offered by Democrat members of the committee.

At least five amendments to the bill, designed to protect the rights of family members and innocent bystanders from prosecution, were completely rewritten to make as though it was the original intent of the authors. This is a shocking abuse of power, and it must not stand.

The fact is that the Republican majority must do the right thing here today. They must give us a new committee report containing the proper captions so that it accurately reflects the intentions of the authors. Furthermore, I think the chairman of the committee owes those Members an apology for soiling their reputation in the names of partisan politics.

To falsely rewrite the intent of amendments submitted by another Member, to intentionally distort its description is unacceptable. No Member should go through what our colleagues have had to go through. None of us should have our reputations dragged through the mud.

It is absolutely arrogant of this majority to believe that they can tamper with official congressional documents for political purposes. It is absolutely arrogant, and the American people will not be pleased with it. It is an affront not only to those of us in the House but to the American people and to history, Mr. Speaker; and unless it is amended, I am sure that we will see these again in the form of campaign attack mail pieces, and honorable, hardworking Members of this Congress will be forever branded. No wonder we have a lack of civility in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), my good friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes; and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, well, here we are doing another martial law rule and we wait and wait for the conference committee to finish its work, the conference committee that, I might add, did not include a single Democrat, which is unusual. Let me say that again. This conference committee we are waiting for did not include a single Democrat.

Whenever we do a rule to waive two-thirds consideration, it means we will be rushing the underlying bill to the floor, giving the Members virtually no time at all to actually read the bill or determine what it is we are voting on. This time, we are waiting for the fiscal year 2006 budget conference, a bill that will spend more than 2 trillion taxpayer dollars.

Why are we rushing something that is so important and impacts virtually every American? Why do we not just follow the regular order of business set forth in the House rules and let the conference finish its work and file its report and give Members a minimum of 3 days, required by House rules, so they can read and understand the blueprint for spending the taxes? Is that too much to ask? After all, we only have a 2\1/2\-day workweek in the House, and certainly most Americans would not consider that a heavy workload, not compared to the ones they have anyway.

The situation we are faced with today is one that is all too familiar in the House. Yesterday, after 4 months of stonewalling, the majority finally acquiesced and reinstated the proper ethical standards for the House. But we did not find out about their intentions until the early afternoon. And less than 45 minutes later, we were in the Committee on Rules and asked to vote on a resolution we had never been given an opportunity to read.

When the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) made a motion for a brief adjournment from the Committee on Rules to give members and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), the ranking member, time to read the new rules they were being asked to support, we were defeated on a party-line vote.

The bottom line, the majority, after 4 months, decided the new ethics rules had to be passed on an emergency status, in one day; and as a result, no one in the House was given an opportunity to read the legislation.

Where are these emergencies coming from? It is not an emergency the first week of January or February or March, or the first three weeks in April. And, unfortunately, these tactics and the poor administration of the House are all too common. Today, we are faced with a similar situation on the budget. The situation is sadly all too familiar to the Members of the body: a great crisis has arisen.

The majority expects the House to pass a budget today that no one has seen, and I would like to give a speech right now about what is and is not in that budget, but I am not able to because I have not seen the budget, nor has anyone else, not even the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget. It is truly a remarkable phenomenon that can only be found in Washington.

I guess this majority believes we should take everything they say at face value and we should trust them. However, we have had enough experience to know all too well we cannot do that. In fact, just yesterday on this very floor we discussed how the Committee on the Judiciary's majority staff grossly mischaracterized the work of several Democratic members of that committee. It was truly one of the most offensive acts I have witnessed in my 20 years in Congress and years before that in legislative bodies. And that was just yesterday.

In fact, early in the term I released a 147-page report about the unethical administration of the Congress by its leadership, filled to the brim with tactics just like the one we witnessed this past week and the one we are suffering under today.

That is why I have said and will continue to say that the manner in which this House is administered is not in keeping with democratic values that we as Americans share. We have a shortage of deliberation, democracy, and debate in the House of Representatives, and there is no relief in sight.

In fact, the leadership is asking this body to pass the congressional budget today, a bill which is probably the most important document we will pass in the entire session of the 109th Congress without even a single sheet of paper, and without even one day to review the hundreds of pages contained in the bill. It is the height of arrogance. This is not democracy under any definition of the word, and that is why I strongly oppose this rule and urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, every Republican Congress has its winners and its losers, and no where is that more apparent than in the budget. Looking at this budget, we could clearly see that those losing far outnumber those winning. The winners are millionaires and billionaires who will benefit from repeal of the estate tax, the credit card companies who make billions off of bankruptcy legislation, and oil and gas companies given subsidies by the energy bill while oil is at $55 a barrel.

The losers in the budget are anyone who relies on Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security, and our Nation's veterans desperately needing health care funding, families with seniors who depend on Social Security, and any family that might have a child in need of a student loan.

Those are the winners and losers chosen by this budget, and each and every one of America's hardworking men and women are in one of these two categories.

I would ask my fellow Americans, which category do you fall into? If you are a millionaire, a billionaire or a senior executive at a major credit card company, insurance company or pharmaceutical company, chances are very high you are a winner. Likewise, if you are a foreign financial institution, you are likely a winner, because you will be granted even more opportunities to buy your own piece of America's skyrocketing debt.

On the other hand, if you are part of the hardworking American middle- class, you are likely one of the many who will lose out. The debt your children will have to pay likely exceeds the amount of money you have saved for their college education. Gas prices will continue to rise as your tax dollars go to fund incentives for oil companies. And the benefits and programs that your parents and relatives depend on to make ends meet, as well as the resources that your children will depend on to get funding for a college education, are being slashed in order to give more of your money to the winners, a group which should be easy to recognize at this point.

Now, if you are a member of the working class or the working poor, or if you are a single mother, there should be no doubt in your mind; of course, you are a loser in this budget. And, likewise, if you are a senior citizen, you depend on Social Security, middle aged, a young person counting on Social Security to be there when you retire, you lose out more than anyone in this budget.

In fact, just as Republicans scheme to privatize Social Security and decry that financial crisis with the right hand, they have been raiding the Social Security surplus since Bush took office with the left. I believe that as of this budget, all of the Social Security surplus will be gone.

Remember all that talk about the lockbox? Well, I guess the lock has been broken. We do not need a security camera to see who has been getting away with all the loot. On this President's watch, fiscal year 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, every penny of the Social Security trust fund has been spent to finance deficits for a 4-year total of $635 billion. That is billion with a B. That is a staggering betrayal of the trust given by the American people.

And what about the new budget resolution that we consider today? It spends 100 percent of the Social Security surplus. This budget, when projected over the next 10 years, spends a total of $2.6 trillion from the Social Security surplus. That is the retirement security of America's middle class. And they have the gall to wonder why so many fiscally responsible Democrats have objected to these irresponsible tax cuts that benefit the rich.

I think it is time that we slowed things down and explain to our friends across the aisle what fiscal responsibility is and what it is not. Fiscal responsibility does not include giving away the store, regardless of whether the consequences will be in 5 years or 10 years or 20 years. It means to look and plan for the future so there is an opportunity available for generations yet to come.

Being fiscally responsible does not mean mortgaging the future of this country on the backs of our children and grandchildren. It means providing adequate funding for schools and health care and retirement security.

It does not include asking the American people to pay for the tax cuts given to the millionaires and billionaires. It means giving a break to folks who work hard day in and day out to put food on the table for themselves and their children.

And, most of all, being fiscally responsible does not include robbing the Social Security trust fund blind.

So, as I am sure everyone can see with this budget, the people who need our help the most lose out.

It does not have to be this way. There was a choice. The Democratic alternative offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) would have made us proud and protected the core principles that we say we fight for in this institution, such as great schools, good jobs, secure retirements and quality health care.

It would have brought the budget back into balance by 2012 and reinstated the budget enforcement rules to protect Social Security and increased our commitment to education, protected our Nation's veterans and eliminated the cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. That is the kind of budget I wish we were considering. That is the kind of budget that the hardworking men and women of America want from their Congress. They want a fair approach that gets us back to fiscal sanity.

Much like the President's Social Security proposal, this budget is the wrong bill at the wrong time and will hurt a vast majority of our Americans, and I urge all my colleagues to defeat this conference report.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for a response.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

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

Mr. Speaker, let me close this debate by urging Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so I can modify the rule to allow the House to reject this flawed budget conference report and require the House Committee on the Budget to produce a new Federal budget that does not raid the Social Security trust fund.

Mr. Speaker, since President Bush took office, Republican budgets have spent every penny of Social Security trust surplus in order to finance the deficits and pay for their tax cuts.

While the President travels the country trying and failing to convince Americans that privatizing Social Security is a good idea, his tax cuts continue to pile up the IOUs in the Social Security trust fund.

We need a budget that will bring back budget enforcement, to protect the Social Security surplus and return the budget to balance by 2012.

The Spratt budget would put us back on the path to fiscal solvency and that is the kind of budget America needs and deserves, not the budget before us today.

Please vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can protect Social Security and begin restoring some fiscal sanity to the Nation.

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

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 am pleased to introduce legislation that would establish the position of Northern Border Coordinator in the Department of Homeland Security.

The northern border spans twelve states and over 3,000 miles. My congressional district, which includes Niagara Falls and Buffalo, serves as an annual gateway for 14.5 million individuals who enter the United States across the Niagara River bi-national bridges. The Peace Bridge, connecting Buffalo to Fort Erie, is the country's busiest border crossing, with over 1.3 million trucks and 20 billion dollars of commerce passing over it each year. More broadly, Canada is our nation's single largest trading partner, with total trade activity exceeding $400 billion.

Mr. Speaker, in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, there is a new awareness that the northern border can also serve as an opening for terrorists, weapons of mass destruction, and other hazardous materials. Even today, there are many areas along the northern border that lack sufficient personnel and resources to provide border security. Our nation must act to thwart terrorists who attempt to abuse the open relationship between our two countries. It is important that enhanced border security along the U.S.-Canadian border be overseen in a coordinated manner among federal, state and local law enforcement and first responders.

For this reason, I have introduced legislation that would establish the position of Northern Border Coordinator at the Department of Homeland Security. The Northern Border Coordinator would be responsible for increasing the security of the border between the U.S. and Canada; improving the coordination among the agencies responsible for homeland security; serving as the primary liaison with the state and local governments and law enforcement agencies in matters regarding border security; and serving as a liaison with the Canadian government.

It is critical that we devote the personnel and technology necessary to ensure our security while maintaining strong channels for trade. A position within the Department of Homeland Security dedicated towards these goals is a step in the right direction.

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

Mr. Speaker, after being brought to task by the American people for meddling in the personal and private life decisions of an American family during the Schiavo tragedy, you would think that the majority in this Congress would have learned. You would think that they would have learned that the people of the country do not want the government intruding into the lives of American families; but they have not learned, Mr. Speaker, because here we go again.

This bill is another invasion into the private lives of American families making the decisions for themselves, and it is an invasion into the legal rights afforded all women in this country. I am talking about the legal right for women to choose, which is protected by the Constitution of the United States.

We have a duty in this body to consider legislation which will maximize our freedom and equality, values which are the very fabric of our society. Our job here is to protect the legal rights of those we serve and not to take them away, and I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.

A report was just recently released that shows that there are more Americans incarcerated than in any other country in the United States. This bill will add Granny and Granddad and the clergy and an occasional cab driver, this is how far this bill goes; but I want to talk for a minute about another abuse which has occurred in this Chamber, a personal affront to three of our colleagues.

The Committee on Rules discovered yesterday that the Committee on the Judiciary report on this very bill, which was offered by the majority staff, contained amendment summaries which had been rewritten by the committee staff for the sole purpose of distorting the intent of the authors.

This committee report took the liberty to mischaracterize and to falsify the intent of several amendments offered in committee by Democrat Members of this body.

At least five amendments of this bill which were designed to protect the rights of family members and innocent bystanders from prosecution under the bill were rewritten as amendments designed instead to protect sexual predators from prosecution and were then included in the committee report as if that was the actual intent of the amendment.

No Member of Congress on either side of the aisle would do such a despicable thing as attempt to protect sexual predators, and these amendments were no more about sexual predators than they were about terrorists or arsonists or any other criminal class in our society. No one was attempting to protect them.

Indeed, what they were trying to do was produce amendments which apparently the fact of writing an amendment was offensive. The amendments were about the rights of the grandmothers and siblings and clergy and the cab drivers, and I asked the chairman of the committee about this deception yesterday at the Committee on Rules hearing.

Instead of decrying what I certainly expected would be revealed as a mistake by an overzealous staffer, the chairman stood by the authored amendment descriptions, to my great surprise. I have known the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) since I first arrived in Congress, and I did not believe that he would allow such a thing to happen and particularly not in the Committee on the Judiciary, but he made it very clear to us that the alterations to the Members' amendments were deliberate.

When pressed as to why his committee staff took such unprecedented action, the chairman immediately offered up his own anger over the manner in which Democrats had chosen to debate and oppose the unfortunate piece of legislation we have before us today. In fact, he said, ``You don't like what we wrote about your amendments, and we don't like what you said about our bill.''

To falsely rewrite the intent of an amendment submitted by another Member, to intentionally distort its description as being designed to protect sexual predators is no different than accusing a fellow Member of Congress of being an apologist for sexual predators themselves.

That is, in effect, what the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary has done here, and he has ensured that these amendment descriptions will be encapsulated in the Record for all time by including those unfair and incorrect amendment summaries in the committee report. He has mischaracterized these Members forever.

This is a new low for this Chamber, Mr. Speaker. This is a clearly dishonest and unethical attack on the credibility and character of other Members; and sadly, it is just the latest in a pattern of unethical and abusive tactics employed by this majority.

How incredibly arrogant it is that they believe they have the right to tamper with official congressional documents for their own political purposes. How unbelievably arrogant is the leadership of this Congress that they would force their own political interpretation of another Member's work upon this body and upon American people in perpetuity in an official committee report.

The majority's actions are not only an affront to the Members in the House but an affront to the American people.

There is no question that we can debate and disagree over the impact the bill can have. We can argue over how well it has been written or what language it should include to be more effective; but regardless of the way the debate turns out, the caption on the top of that bill or amendment serves to instruct the American people as to what the original intent of the legislation was.

It serves as an unbiased reading on what the amendment aims to accomplish. To falsify and rewrite that description as a political attack is not only unprecedented; it is fundamentally dishonest and an abuse of the power given to the majority by the American people and their votes.

I have no doubts, Mr. Speaker, no doubts that unless this Congressional Record is amended to reflect the true captions of these amendments, we will see these erroneous captions again in the form of campaign attack mail pieces. In fact, when pressed last night in the Committee on Rules to have the record amended to reflect the honest and accurate captions that belong on the amendments, we were defeated on a party-line vote.

So now, these honorable and hardworking Members of Congress will be forever branded in the official record as having offered amendments designed to protect sexual predators when nothing, nothing could be further from the truth.

Mr. Speaker, I have often heard the chairman of the Committee on Rules, as well as other Members of the leadership, talk about the loss of civility in this Chamber. How can we be civil under this attack? Is this a disguised attack to say to the Democrat Members of the House, if you have the effrontery to offer an amendment on a bill of ours, we will destroy you in the committee report? Have they reached that low?

Perhaps they have; but if we are going to regain lost civility, they do not need to look any further than the abusive, unethical, and arrogant administration of this House of Representatives and this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), one of those maligned.

Mr. Speaker, I want to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), who was also maligned in the report.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a Member maligned in the report.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record the reports.

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

First let me say that, once again, the Congress of the United States is beginning to meddle in the affairs of the American public. They tried to tell us in the Schiavo case that they did not care for it, but undeterred by that, Congress is coming back again to make decisions for the American family.

In 19 years in the House of Representatives, I have heard of no single case of any problem that this bill would attach to, and try as I might, I can find that there is no great epidemic or any outbreak of this sort of thing, of coercing young women against their will, or for any other reason; and to occupy this kind of time in Congress is appalling to me.

But I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that I can modify the rule to require that the Committee on the Judiciary file a supplemental report to clarify the descriptions of the five Democrat amendments that were so grossly mischaracterized in the original Committee on the Judiciary report on H.R. 748. I attempted to add this language in the Committee on Rules last night, but it was defeated on a party-line vote.

Mr. Speaker, when an amendment to protect grandparents and adult siblings from being called criminals simply for helping a young granddaughter's sister is twisted beyond the pale and labled pro-sexual offender, something is terribly wrong. And when it is included in an official committee report and historic document, it is even worse. We are offended by this kind of character assassination.

I cannot stress enough the importance of a ``no'' vote on the previous question to correct this injustice. A ``no'' vote will not keep us from discussing the underlying bill but will simply correct what is a gross miscarriage of justice that has never happened before.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment, along with the descriptions of the five amendments, be printed in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, again I ask a ``no'' vote on the previous question, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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, this bill represents a true victory for the American people and provides some hope for the integrity of this body, which has been so badly tarnished by the actions of this majority that can one day be restored.

As a child, my parents taught me that integrity means doing what is right when no one is looking.

Well, 4 months ago when they thought no one was looking, the Republican majority of this House passed a rules package that gutted the House ethics standards and effectively neutered the House ethics committee, a committee that genuinely worked well and that had not had a complaint for years.

The changes were made in an obvious attempt to protect one man from further prosecution or investigation by the ethics committee. Four months later, after the world has been awakened to the unethical brand of sweep-it-under-the-rug politics, the Speaker has finally relented to public pressure and agreed to reinstate the ethics rules that have governed the House for years, rules that should have been governing the House during the 109th Congress from the very start.

You know, it is easy to do the right thing when the whole world is watching, and today the whole world is watching. And it appears that the majority, with their back against the wall, may finally do the right thing. It appears as though they will heed the call of the minority and the call of America to reinstate the ethics committee.

It appears they may heed the overwhelming call to return to the rules of the 108th Congress. And not just a section from part A, or a smidgeon of part B; but all of them.

Even now, at this low point, there is concern that the rules changes the majority proposes today will not include measures to ensure that the staff of the ethics committee remain nonpartisan. That, Mr. Speaker, would be a tragedy. And it is crucial that they maintain a professional and nonpartisan staff if the ethics committee will retains any credibility moving forward.

But even in defeat, it seems the majority has no shame. I will say that whatever the outcome today, they do not deserve a pat on the back for this apparent about-face.

And as I said earlier, we should always remember, it is easier to make the right decision when the world is watching. But what defines our character is what we do when no one is watching.

We saw clearly what this majority is all about. We have been witness to it for the past 4 months, and every day we discover new abuses of the rules by the Republican leadership and new abuses of the democratic process here in the House. Example: what happened in the report from the Judiciary Committee.

All of us owe the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) a debt of gratitude for his resoluteness and steadfastness on this issue and for having the courage to fight against this clear attempt by the majority to subvert the democratic process and destroy the principles of ethics and integrity in the House.

Let us hope that America will not soon forget what the majority did and the Herculean effort it has required to convince them to reverse course.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains?

And my colleague from California?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader of the House.

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, yesterday, I was proud to introduce the Prevention First Act. While our conservative leaders continue to limit a women's right to choose, they are doing very little to ensure that millions of unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases (STD) are prevented. If they are opposed to abortion, they should be for preventing unintended pregnancies. By emphasizing prevention first, my bill will help protect women's reproductive health, reduce unintended pregnancies, decrease the spread of STDs, and give women the tools they need to make the best decisions possible for themselves.

For most women, including women who want to have children, contraception is not an option; it is a basic health care necessity. Contraceptive use saves scarce public health dollars. For every $1 spent on providing family planning services, an estimated $3 is saved in Medicare expenditures for pregnancy-related and newborn care.

Many poor and low-income women cannot afford to purchase contraceptive services and supplies on their own. About 1 in 5 women of reproductive age were uninsured in 2003, and that proportion has increased by 10 percent since 2001. Half of all women who are sexually active, but do not want to get pregnant, need publicly funded services to help them access public health programs like Medicaid and Title X, the national family planning program. These programs provide high- quality family planning services and other preventive health care to underinsured or uninsured individuals who may otherwise lack access to health care and alternative options for birth control. Each year, publicly funded family planning services help women to prevent an estimated 1.3 million unplanned pregnancies and 630,000 abortions. Yet these programs are struggling to meet the growing demand for subsidized family planning services without corresponding increases in funding. The Prevention First Act authorizes funding for Title X clinics and allows States to expand Medicaid family planning services.

Improved access to emergency contraception (EC) can further reduce the staggering rates of unintended pregnancy and abortion in this country. EC prevents pregnancy after unprotected sex or a contraceptive failure. The Alan Guttmacher Institute estimates that increased use of EC accounted for up to 43 percent of the total decline in abortion rates between 1994 and 2000. In addition, EC is often the only contraceptive option for the 300,000 women who are reported to be raped each year. Unfortunately, many women do not know about EC and many face insurmountable barriers in accessing this important product. The Prevention First Act mandates that the Secretary of Health and Human Services implement an education campaign about EC and requires that hospitals receiving Federal funds provide victims of sexual assault with information and access to EC.

Contraceptives have a proven track record of enhancing the health of women and children, preventing unintended pregnancy, and reducing the need for abortion. However far too many insurance policies exclude this vital coverage. While most employment-related insurance policies in the United States cover prescription drugs in general, the many do not include equitable coverage for prescription contraceptive drugs and devices. Although 21 States now have laws in place requiring insurers to provide contraceptive coverage if they cover other prescription drugs, 29 states still do not have any laws. Out of pocket expenses for contraception can be costly. Women of reproductive age currently spend 68 percent more in out-of-pocket health care costs than men, much of which is due to reproductive health-related supplies and services. The Prevention First Act requires that private health plans to cover FDA- approved prescription contraceptives and related medical services.

Teens face additional barriers regarding access to services and information. Sixty percent of teens have sex before graduating high school. Efforts by conservatives to restrict access to family planning services and promote abstinence-only education programs that are prohibited from discussing the benefits of contraception, actually jeopardize adolescent health and run counter to the views of many mainstream medical groups.

Nearly 50 percent of new cases of STDs occur among people ages 15 to 24, even though this age bracket makes up just a quarter of the sexually active population. Clearly, teens have the most to lose when faced with an unintended pregnancy or an STD infection.

Moreover, 1 in 3 girls becomes pregnant before the age of 20, and 80 percent of these pregnancies are unintended. Teen mothers are less likely to complete high school. Furthermore, children of teenage mothers have lower birth weights, are more likely to perform poorly in school, and are at greater risk of abuse and neglect. Improving access to contraceptive services and information does not cause non-sexually active teens to start having sex. Instead, teens need information to help them both postpone sexual activity and to protect themselves, if they become sexually active. The Prevention First Act provides funding to public and private entities to establish or expand their teenage pregnancy prevention programs, and my bill requires federally funded programs that provide information on the use of contraceptives to ensure that the information is medically accurate and includes health benefits and failure rates.

Reducing unintended pregnancy and infection with STDs are important public health goals. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention included family planning in their published list of the ``Ten Great Public Health Achievements in the 20th Century.'' My bill, the Prevention First Act, will improve access to family planning services for all women in need and will go a long way in fulfilling the promise of this important public health achievement.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to cosponsor my bill today.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that we are debating a rule, for a change, that provides Members of the House a chance to offer their ideas about how we can improve the country's energy policies. We had almost 90 amendments submitted to the Committee on Rules and we were granted 30 of them. I think we can still do better than that, but it sure is better than last week's closed rule on the bankruptcy bill. In fact, this rule even makes an amendment in order that I offered. I think it is the first one I have gotten in about 9 years, and I do want to tell my colleagues that I am happy to have it, because it will save the government a lot of money.

I urge my colleagues to closely follow the debate we are having on this bill today and tomorrow because, in its current form, I believe it has the wrong priorities. At a time when oil companies are enjoying record profits, the bill gives billions of dollars in new subsidies. It gives 94 percent of its benefits to the oil and gas industry, and only 6 percent to conservation and renewable energy efforts, which are the areas that really make the country energy independent.

This brand of taxpayer-funded corporate welfare is so off the mark that even President Bush, a former energy executive himself, recently stated that oil companies have all the incentives they need to keep on drilling in the form of $50 a barrel crude.

Americans already are shelling out their hard-earned cash for the most expensive gasoline in our history. We should not ask them to give out even more in the form of corporate giveaways for the oil companies.

One of the things we will hear today and that we have been hearing for years now is that the way to reduce our use of foreign oil is to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. We hear claims that in a few years, ANWR will be producing 10 billion barrels a day and all of our problems will be solved. Well, Mr. Speaker, the governor of Alaska says he does not know if there is any oil in there at all.

Now, I know we have debated this issue before, but take another look at it, because recent press reports expose the ANWR drilling issue for the political Trojan horse that it is. The New York Times reported in February, and I will submit this for the Record, that the oil companies do not think there is much, or any, marketable oil in the Arctic Refuge.

Back in the 1980s, they drilled a couple of test holes in ANWR, and they certainly were not very excited about what they found, because even though they have held the results close to their chests, two of the companies that drilled those holes have pulled out of going to ANWR. In fact, they are saying that that is of no use to them. Over the past several years, Chevron Texaco, British Petroleum, and ConocoPhilips have all withdrawn from the group that lobbies for drilling in ANWR.

So if the major oil companies, the people who are the experts in the field, the folks we depend on to do the drilling, if they do not think there is oil there, then why are we doing it? Because it is a Trojan horse. They claim if they do not have the right to drill in ANWR, they will not have any right to drill where the oil really is, and that is off the coast of Florida, off the coast of California, and in the Gulf of Mexico, which is where they really want to go.

So pay close attention here because if this passes, the next oil exploration may be in your backyard.

The material previously referred to follows:

[From the New York Times, Feb. 21, 2005]

Big Oil Steps Aside in Battle Over Arctic

(By Jeff Gerth)

Washington, Feb. 20--George W. Bush first proposed drilling

for oil in a small part of the Arctic National Wildlife

Refuge in Alaska in 2000, after oil industry experts helped

his presidential campaign develop an energy plan. Five years

later, he is pushing the proposal again, saying the nation

urgently needs to increase domestic production.

But if Mr. Bush's drilling plan passes in Congress after

what is expected to be a fierce fight, it may prove to be a

triumph of politics over geology.

Once allied, the administration and the oil industry are

now far apart on the issue. The major oil companies are

largely uninterested in drilling in the refuge, skeptical

about the potential there. Even the plan's most optimistic

backers agree that any oil from the refuge would meet only a

tiny fraction of America's needs.

While Democrats have repeatedly blocked the drilling plan,

many legislators believe it has its best chance of passage

this year, because of a Republican-led White House and

Congress and tighter energy supplies. Though the oil industry

is on the sidelines, the president still has plenty of

allies. The Alaska Congressional delegation is eager for the

revenue and jobs drilling could provide. Other legislators

favor exploring the refuge because more promising prospects,

like drilling off the coasts of Florida or California, are

not politically palatable. And many Republicans hope to claim

opening the refuge to exploration as a victory in the long-

running conflict between development interests and

environmentalists.

The refuge is a symbol of that larger debate, said Senator

Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican who is a major supporter

of drilling. Opponents agree. ``This is the No. 1

environmental battle of the decade,'' said Representative

Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts.

Whether that battle will be worthwhile, though, is not

clear. Neither advocates nor critics can answer a crucial

question: how much oil lies beneath the wilderness where the

administration wants to permit drilling?

Advocates cite a 1998 government study that estimated the

part of the refuge proposed for drilling might hold 10

billion barrels of oil. But only one test well has been

drilled, in the 1980's, and its results are one of the

industry's most closely guarded secrets.

A Bush adviser says the major oil companies have a dimmer

view of the refuge's prospects than the administration does.

``If the

government gave them the leases for free they wouldn't take

them,'' said the adviser, who would speak only anonymously

because of his position. ``No oil company really cares about

ANWR,'' the adviser said, using an acronym for the refuge,

pronounced ``an-war.''

Wayne Kel1ey, who worked in Alaska as a petroleum engineer

for Halliburton, the oil services corporation, and is now

managing director of RSK, an oil consulting company, said

the refuge's potential could ``only be determined by

drilling.''

``The enthusiasm of government officials about ANWR exceeds

that of industry because oil companies are driven by market

forces, investing resources in direct proportion to the

economic potential, and the evidence so far about ANWR is not

promising,'' Mr. Kelley said.

The project has long been on Mr. Bush's agenda. When he

formulated a national energy policy during the 2000 campaign

he turned to the oil industry for help. Heading the effort

was Hunter Hunt, a top executive of the Hunt Oil Company,

based in Dallas.

The Bush energy advisers endorsed opening a small part--

less than 10 percent of the 19-million-acre refuge--to oil

exploration, an idea first proposed more than two decades

ago. The refuge, their report stated, ``could eventually

produce more than the amount of oil the United States now

imports from Iraq.''

The plan criticized President Bill Clinton's energy

policies, both in the Middle East, where most of the world's

oil lies, and in the United States. In 1995 Mr. Clinton

vetoed legislation that authorized leasing in the Alaska

refuge. An earlier opportunity to open it collapsed after oil

spilled into Alaskan waters in 1989 from the Exxon Valdez.

Subsequent efforts, including one in Mr. Bush's first term,

also failed.

Mr. Hunt, through an aide, declined an interview request.

Others who advised Mr. Bush on his energy plan said including

the refuge was seen as a political maneuver to open the door

to more geologically promising prospects off the coasts of

California and Florida. Those areas, where tests have found

oil, have been blocked for years by federal moratoriums

because of political and environmental concerns.

``If you can't do ANWR,'' said Matthew R. Simmons, a

Houston investment banker for the energy industry and a Bush

adviser in 2000, ``you'll never be able to drill in the

promising areas.''

Shortly after assuming office, Mr. Bush asked Vice

President Dick Cheney to lead an examination of energy

policy. A May 2001 report by a task force Mr. Cheney

assembled echoed many of Mr. Bush's campaign promises,

including opening up part of the refuge. The report called

for further study of the Gulf of Mexico and other areas. The

next year, Mr. Bush said ``our national security makes it

urgent'' to explore the refuge.

By then, the industry was moving in the opposite direction.

In 2002 BP withdrew financial support from Arctic Power, a

lobbying group financed by the state of Alaska, after an

earlier withdrawal by Chevron Texaco. BP, long active in

Alaska, later moved its team of executives to Houston from

Alaska, a company executive said.

``We're leaving this to the American public to sort out,''

said Ronnie Chappell, a BP spokesman, of the refuge. About a

year ago, ConocoPhillips also stopped its financial support

for Arctic Power, said Kristi A. DesJarlais, a company

spokeswoman.

Ms. DesJarlais said her company had a ``conceptual

interest'' in the refuge but ``a more immediate interest in

opportunities elsewhere.''

Other companies have taken similar positions. George L.

Kirkland, an executive vice president of Chevron Texaco, said

a still-banned section in the Gulf of Mexico, where the

company has already drilled, was of more immediate interest.

ExxonMobil also has shown little public enthusiasm for the

refuge. Lee R. Raymond, the chairman and chief executive,

said in an television interview last December, ``I don't know

if there is anything in ANWR or not.''

For the Interior Department, however, the refuge is the

best land-based opportunity to find new oil. Any lease

revenues, estimated by the department to be $2.4 billion in

2007, would be split between the federal and state

governments. Advocates say oil production could reach one

million barrels per day. In a decade from now, when the site

might be fully developed, that would be about 4 percent of

American consumption, according to federal forecasts.

David L. Bernhardt, deputy chief of staff to the secretary

of the interior, cited a 1998 study by the United States

Geological Survey estimating that the refuge might hold 10.4

billion barrels of recoverable oil. (The estimate for

offshore oil is 76 billion barrels.)

But that study has significant weaknesses, which Mr.

Bernhardt acknowledged. Its estimates are of ``petroleum

resources''--potential oil deposits--instead of ``petroleum

reserves,'' which refers to oil that has been discovered.

Ken Bird, a geological survey official who worked on the

study, said the federal geologists did not have access to

test data from the only exploratory well drilled on the

refuge, by Chevron Texaco and BP in the 1980's. An official

with one of the companies, speaking anonymously because of

the confidentiality of the test, said that if the results had

been encouraging the company would be more engaged in the

political effort to open the refuge.

There has not been much discussion about the refuge between

the companies and the Bush administration, according to

industry and government officials.

``I don't think I've talked to the oil industry over the

last several years about the economic potential of ANWR,''

Mr. Bernhardt said.

The relationship between the administration and the oil

industry has been a flashpoint for critics of Mr. Bush.

Democrats, upset that Mr. Cheney refused to disclose

information about his task force meetings with industry

executives, see a cozy alliance.

Their concerns are heightened because of the former ties

between the industry and Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney and the

administration's stance on issues like climate change. The

president once headed a small exploration company, and Mr.

Cheney previously was chief executive of Halliburton.

``Big oil,'' Senator John Kerry said in last year's

presidential campaign, now calls ``the White House their

home.''

Some industry executives say their views are more aligned

with those of Republicans on a broad range of issues

including regulation, the environment and energy supply, and

they were heartened by the initial pronouncements of the Bush

administration. But some say they feel let down by Mr. Bush's

inability to lift bans on oil exploration.

``When this administration came in, the president and the

vice president recognized there was a problem of energy

supply and demand,'' said Tom Fry, the executive director of

the National Offshore Industries Association. But Mr.

Cheney's task force, Mr. Fry said, talked only about offshore

drilling as something to be studied. ``They never say they

will lift the moratoria,'' he said.