Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a local pioneer and doctor in Fort Worth, Texas. Dr. Marion Jack Brooks died on Monday, March 3, 2003, at his home in the city's Morningside community. He was 83 years old and a true local success story. He graduated from the former I.M. Terrell High School near downtown and was a founding member of Morningside United Methodist Church.

Dr. Brooks began practicing medicine in North Texas during the 1950's. He and his brother Dr. Donald Brooks opened their own clinic that is still family owned and operated, on Fort Worth's famous Evans Avenue. During those days, when segregation was an awful reality in Texas and the entire South, black families who resided in the city could always count on Dr. Brooks to provide medical care for the children and the sick in their households.

Mr. Speaker, it is also important that I note the many contributions that this great man made outside the field of medicine. Like many of our institutions that existed before the days of the Great Society, hospitals and medicine were not immune to the realities that African- Americans faced based solely on their skin color.

When his patients needed treatment, Dr. Brooks was forced to treat them out of a basement at the old St. Joseph's Hospital. He was outspoken until local hospitals decided to do the right thing and change their policies. He also led a march from Fort Worth to Austin that coincided with Dr. Martin Luther King's famous pilgrimage on our nation's capitol. He also was active in local politics and was a driving force behind the Tarrant County Precinct Council.

Dr. Brooks will be missed by his friends, family and community. He leaves behind a great legacy that will live on through his work in the sciences, the Sickle Cell Anemia Association of Texas, and an annual scholarship awards presentation for which he is the namesake.

Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize and congratulate the remarkable Duncanville Pantherettes girls basketball team for winning the 2003 Texas Division 5-A championship.

This weekend, Patherette fever was running high across North Texas as Duncanville battled Georgetown for the state title. Duncanville's defense was overwhelming as they held their opponents to a meager 27 points, a record low total for a UIL Class 5-A title game. The Pantherettes dominated their foes all season en route to a 39-1 record and talk of a repeat is already rampant.

This year's championship team builds upon a remarkable record for girls basketball at Duncanville. This is the Pantherettes' 6th basketball title and 15th appearance in the state championship.

Winning the state championship is a fitting culmination to the careers of Duncanville's seven seniors, five of whom have signed to play basketball in college and four signed with Division I teams. Those are big shoes to fill, but Duncanville's underclassmen say they are

ready to lead the Pantherettes back to Austin next year.

Congratulations to coach Cathy Self-Morgan and the other Duncanville staff who guided a super group of girls through a historic season. The 2003 Duncanville Pantherettes have earned the chance to savor this victory and reflect on all their achievements together. I look forward to following the Pantherettes as they try to return to Austin next year.

Mr Speaker, I rise today to commend the faculty and staff of Edward J. Briscoe and Van Zant-Guinn Elementary Schools. The principals of these two schools, Dr. Jennifer Brooks and Mrs. Constance Goines, respectively, are to be commended for the work they have done to improve the educational opportunities for young people in their communities. Both schools received the Title I, Part A Distinguished Performance Award. The Title I Award is given to a select number of schools around the country that exhibit outstanding performance in the areas of academic performance and achievement.

At Briscoe Elementary, Dr. Brooks has been honored on numerous occasions for the work she has done to help broaden the horizons for the children that attend her school. Her dedication to improving the basic skills of school age children helped secure a 5-Star Rating from Texas Monthly Magazine--the highest rating the statewide magazine gives to public schools. Most recently Briscoe received a TEA (Texas Education Agency) Exemplary Rating. The school also takes part in the prestigious Bass Performance Hall Program and encourages conversational Spanish with specially designed curriculum.

A few miles away to the north, children, parents, and the faculty of Van-Zant Guinn Elementary were also joyous in hearing the news that they too would be receiving a Title I Award. Their principal for the last nine years, Constance Goines, also deserves praise for the steps she has taken to make her school a success in the field of education. Van Zant-Guinn was also recognized by the TEA in 2002 as Exemplary and was given the agency's ``2002 Gold Performance Award'' for the progress that students made in Math and Reading. Mrs. Goines and her staff were also instrumental in initiating a program on campus called Homework Helper. Homework Helper provides kids who lack the ideal environment at home a more suitable place after school to do their homework.

Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that the Title I, Part A Distinguished Performance Award will continue to help improve the lives of school children, not only in Fort Worth, but throughout the country. Once again, I congratulate Dr. Jennifer Brooks and Constance Goines for all they do in regards to the schools they represent, our country and their receiving this award.

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would just like to ask the gentleman what the House is being asked to consider.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, normally, when I speak on legislation, I use a podium. This time we have a piece of legislation that is higher than my podium; so I am using the legislation. The podium is over here to the side.

Mr. Speaker, when a bill comes before the House, the normal process is for members of the committee of jurisdiction to come to the floor and explain the details of what is in their legislation. Unfortunately, that is simply not possible today.

Certainly the newspapers have reported on a few of the most egregious proposals in this conference report. For instance, Republicans inserted several sweeping anti-environmental provisions and severely shortchanged conservation resources. Democrats will try to fix these problems in the motion to recommit, which I urge Members to support. But an attack on the environment is just the tip of the iceberg with this bill, Mr. Speaker. Republican leaders did not file this conference report until six o'clock this morning, and they provided at that time only one copy for the more than 200 Democrats in the House. Even the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, who has worked very hard under the very difficult constraints imposed upon him by his own leadership, candidly and honestly admitted this morning before the Committee on Rules that he could not answer questions about all of the contents of this bill. So if the Committee on Appropriations chairman cannot tell us what is in some of this bill, it is obvious that the public and the members of the House have no way of knowing what is in this 3,000-page legislative monstrosity.

All we really know is this: while Republicans are hurting the economy by driving America deeper in debt, they still shortchanged homeland security. The Republican failure to address homeland security right now is particularly disturbing, Mr. Speaker. As we speak, the Bush administration is urging Americans to buy duct tape and stock up on bottled water to prepare for another potential terrorist attack. They are urging the public to be on alert for suspicious activity; but while the public is on alert, the Republican Congress is asleep at the wheel. Even in this bill today, they still refuse to adequately support the firefighters and police who would actually respond to a terrorist attack.

Republicans will say that they are doing all that they can afford. That is simply ridiculous, Mr. Speaker. Republicans may not be funding homeland security needs, but they are still driving America deeper and deeper into debt by their tax cuts.

Why has Republican control of the government brought America such massive and dangerous deficits? I would submit that the dots are not too hard to connect here. Less than 2 years ago, Republicans forced through the Bush tax plan, a tax plan which gutted the budget to give tax breaks to the wealthiest. At that time Democrats and many economists and nonpartisan experts asked, Now that you have given away the store to pay for tax breaks for the few, how are you going to address national priorities like national defense and education? Unfortunately, the Republicans' response was

as reckless as it was simple. They ignored the problem. The fiscal year started October 1. That was 1, 2, 3, 4, 4\1/2\ months ago. Republican leaders simply refused to bring up difficult appropriations bills last year prior to the beginning of the fiscal year.

Let us look at the record. Five of the normal 13 appropriation bills passed the House. Two actually became law. Six other appropriation bills were reported out of the House Committee on Appropriations but were never brought to the House floor because Republican leaders did not want their Members to have to cast tough votes on painful spending cuts before the election, and of course two bills were never even reported out of the committee. The Republican leaders' timidity last fall directly contributed to the $300 billion fiscal year 2003 deficit we face today. That is why we are here today, with just 60 minutes to consider this rule and just 60 minutes to debate this massive 3,000- page conference report that the vast majority of Members have never read.

Mr. Speaker, there is no way that considering 11 of the 13 appropriation bills in 1 hour, a half hour on each side, can provide the public with an honest assessment of the budget, 4\1/2\ months later of course. Normally each appropriation bill would get at least a day of discussion and Members would have the opportunity to offer amendments. But today the vast, vast majority of Members will have no opportunity to even read the budget for this year.

Mr. Speaker, that is a definition of fiscal irresponsibility, and it is how Republicans have burdened our children with the crushing deficits we face today. Even the Bush administration is projecting deficits as far as the eye can see, over $300 billion this year, over $300 billion next year, and more than $1 trillion over the next 5 years. That is why even Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, was forced to sound the deficit alarm earlier this week. He pointed out that huge long-term deficits, the type Republicans have created in just the past 2 years, will hurt Americans by driving up interest rates and increasing families' home mortgage and credit card payments. Why is the American economy facing this harmful burden especially now when families are struggling with the weakest economy in a generation? Because the Republican House leadership refused to do its job last year. The chickens are coming home to roost today, and it is not a pretty sight.

Mr. Speaker, this omnibus appropriations bill, 4\1/2\ months late, is an admission that the Republican Congress has failed in its most fundamental responsibility, addressing national priorities from homeland security and the economy to education and health care. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule. Let us take some time to find out what is really in this 3,000-page bill and then let us sit down and honestly address the economic and homeland security needs that it ignores.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), a member of the Committee on Rules.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, is an honorable man. Unfortunately, he has been strangled by his own leadership. His committee did their work and reported a number of appropriation bills out of committee prior to the beginning of the fiscal year, and his leadership prohibited him from bringing those appropriation bills to the floor where we could have an open rule and could offer amendments.

Now, if the other side had really wanted us to have an open procedure, they should have permitted their own chairman to bring the bills to the floor after they had been reported out of his committee. But they prevented him from doing that. That is why we have this particular bill today in an unamendable form.

I find it difficult to understand why it makes sense to run the House in the way that their leadership, the Republican leadership, has run it. They have always said they want open procedures, but in the most important matter facing this Congress in a way, the appropriations process, they have denied this House an open procedure, denied this House the opportunity to vote. Even though their own chairman and their own committee did their work, their leadership refused to permit their chairman and their committee to bring bills to the floor where they could be amended. And now we have this, 4\1/2\ months after the beginning of the fiscal year.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thought it might be interesting to the House and to people watching this proceeding to know what we are talking about, what bills we are mentioning. I said earlier that six appropriations bills were reported from the Committee on Appropriations but not brought to the floor, that the leadership on the other side refused to bring those to the floor. What were those six appropriations bills? Well, let us review that.

The agriculture appropriations bill, vitally important to the farmers of this Nation, reported out of the House Committee on Appropriations on July 11, 2002, never brought to the floor of the House; the District of Columbia appropriations bill, reported out of the Committee on Appropriations on September 26, 2002, never brought to the floor of the House; the energy and water appropriations bill, reported out of the House Committee on Appropriations September 5, 2002, never brought to this Chamber for a vote; the foreign operations appropriations bill, reported out of the House Committee on Appropriations September 19, 2002, never brought to this House for a vote; the transportation appropriations bill, vitally important to people all over this Nation, reported out of the House Committee on Appropriations October 7, never brought to the floor for a vote; and the VA-HUD, Veterans Department, reported out of the committee October 9, not brought to this House for a vote.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest this is a terrible way to run a railroad or to run a House of Representatives. Because those six bills were reported from the committee, but never brought to this Chamber, they now are contained in this pile before me.

Also in this pile before me are two other bills that were never even reported out of the Committee on Appropriations, and three other bills, of course, reported and passed the House but, of course, that never became law. So we are at this point today.

Now, we never did this when we were in the majority. We never brought an omnibus appropriations bill 4\1/2\ months after the beginning of the appropriations fiscal year and refused to bring individual appropriations bills to the floor for a vote. That was not something that was done by the Democrats when we were in the majority.

The other side does not care about the rights of the American people. Four hundred thirty-five of us were elected from districts. This a representative democracy. I represent 651,000 people, as does every other Member from the State of Texas, Republican or Democrat. The 651,000 people in my district and in the other, at that time, 29 districts, now 32 districts from the State of Texas, were denied the right to have their representative offer and consider amendments on the appropriation bills that fund this government.

Mr. Speaker, that is wrong. It should never have been done. It is the reason that we are here today, and it is one of the major reasons why we have the size deficit we do. If we had been able to offer those bills and vote on amendments, perhaps the House, in working its will, would have made some cuts, and perhaps the deficit would have been smaller. But the other side did not care.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Speaker, my wife often watches these proceedings; and she always tells me to make it simple, make it so that a person out there in my district can understand what is going on. I will try to do that.

What we have here is a situation where 2 years ago, the Republicans ate dessert with their tax bill, with their big tax cut; but they have refused to eat their vegetables. They would not consider the appropriation bills. They would not give the people's representatives the opportunity to vote on the appropriations process. So I am glad they enjoyed their dessert. I wish they would have given us the opportunity to take part in the rest of the meal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.

People listening to this proceeding, watching this proceeding may be kind of scratching their heads and saying, well, why are the Republicans not saying anything about this bill? Why are they just sitting over there? Could it be that they are ashamed of this process? Could it be that they have no way of defending what has happened here?

Normally, on a major piece of legislation, each side takes its 30 minutes. Apparently the Republicans simply want this to slip as quietly through as possible, knowing that this is an indefensible process and that they have done things that no one has done in the past, and I hope that even they will not do in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote against the rule. I will join Members on our side who will be voting ``yes'' on final passage, because we do need to make sure the government can operate, and there are important things in this bill. It is just regrettable that the House was denied the opportunity to work its will on so many pieces of the appropriations legislation during this fiscal year.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Coach Robert Hughes of Dunbar High School in Fort Worth, one of the greatest legends in Texas sports history.

Last night, before 7,000 fans, Coach Hughes earned his 1,275th win, surpassing legendary Coach Morgan Wooten of DeMatha High School in Maryland, to become the winningest high school boys basketball coach in U.S. history. During that time, his team has lost just 248 games.

Coach Hughes' remarkable career began almost half a century ago, in 1958, at I.M. Carroll High School in Fort Worth. Coach Hughes won his first State championship in 1963. More State titles would follow in 1965, 1967, and 1993. Coach Hughes has been coaching for Dunbar since 1973, and he continues to serve as a role model for young players and students who take pride in calling themselves Wildcats.

After more than 20 district titles, Coach Hughes clearly is not finished yet. Last night Dunbar earned its fourth consecutive Texas Division 7-4A basketball title and is off to the playoffs. His team is 39-1 this year.

It is a pleasure to honor Coach Hughes. Go Wildcats in the playoffs.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues in expressing this body's deep grief over the loss of Columbia and her brave crew. I was privileged to attend the memorial for our seven astronauts in Houston yesterday. The deeply moving words in honor of the Columbia revealed how profoundly this tragedy has affected people in Texas and across our country.

Today in my district in north Texas, one of those astronauts, Dr. Kalpana Chawla, is being remembered at her alma mater, the University of Texas at Arlington. K.C., as she was known by her friends at UTA, was a true pioneer and a role model for young people on two continents. K.C. was the first Indian American to travel into space and her achievements brought great pride to people in her home country of India and her adopted home in north Texas.

While aboard the Columbia, K.C. sent an e-mail to students in her hometown, Karnal, India. She wrote: ``The path from dreams to success does exist. May you have the vision to find it, the courage to get onto it and the perseverance to follow it. Wishing you a great journey.''

There can be no doubt that K.C. and the other astronauts aboard the Columbia had the vision and the perseverance to follow their dreams. Those dreams led them into space on a mission of discovery that made them heroes. As we reflect upon the lives of Dr. Chawla and her fellow crew members, we have a shared responsibility to forge ahead with their mission. After the House passes this worthy resolution honoring our fallen heroes, it will be our duty as Members of Congress to commit our government to a full investigation of the causes of this tragedy, and, just as importantly, to recommit America to our mission exploring the frontiers of space.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, two important things will happen today on the floor of this House. First, we will debate and pass yet another continuing resolution, the eighth temporary stopgap measure for a fiscal year that began almost 4 months ago. This continuing resolution represents an abdication of responsibility that has become almost run- of-the-mill under Republican control. Today's resolution, which extends the date of the current CR through February 7, means that Republicans will be 4 months late in addressing priorities like homeland security and the economy. America is struggling through dangerous, uncertain times; but the Republican Congress may as well still be on vacation.

Republican leaders are hoping this shameful failure will be obscured by today's second important event: the President's State of the Union address. The Republican majority is expecting to hide behind the glib rhetoric we have all come to expect from President Bush.

But political slogans only go so far, especially in the face of the wide and growing credibility gap facing a Republican Party that has spent the past 2 years saying one thing and doing another. And no matter how eloquent President Bush may be tonight, words alone cannot fix the primary problem this Republican government has created for the Nation at this difficult time.

Simply put, there are two states of the Union in America today. For the vast majority of Americans, these are difficult and anxious times; but for the Republican politicians and the privileged few they represent, like the corporate lobbyists invited to the White House today for a special sneak preview of the State of the Union, the good times just keep on coming.

It is a tragedy, Mr. Speaker; but it is the truth. Just take a look around the country. We will see hard-working

Americans struggling to make it through the weakest economy in a generation. Since President Bush took office, 2.3 million private sector jobs have been lost, the worst jobs record for any President since the end of World War II. The unemployment rate is stuck at a 6- year high. We will see millions of Americans whose retirement plans have been crushed by the fall of the stock market. The Dow dropped below 8,000 again yesterday; and overall, the market has lost trillions of dollars in value since President Bush took office. We will see firefighters and police officers who still sit exposed on the front lines of homeland defense, desperate for help from this Congress. It has been nearly a year and a half since September 11, but Republicans have done shockingly little to increase America's defenses here at home.

Mr. Speaker, Democrats have fought for these priorities. We have proposed economic stimulus plans to create at least 1 million new jobs this year, put money and purchasing power in the hands of consumers, and provide relief to struggling small businesses; and we have tried time and again to make Americans safer at home by meeting critical homeland security needs.

Unfortunately for the American people, Mr. Speaker, Republicans have the power in Washington, and just take a look at the government they control. We will see an out-of-touch Republican Congress that arrogantly refuses to do the job they have been elected to do: address critical needs like homeland security and education. Republicans will not help firefighters or increase port security, but they have relaxed their own ethics rules in the House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, we will see a Republican Party that has but one answer for every problem: budget-busting tax breaks for millionaires that will do nothing to stimulate the economy this year. Soldiers and firefighters are putting their lives on the line to keep Americans safe at home, and President Bush is pushing $90,000 tax breaks for everyone making $1 million or more a year. Middle-class Americans are struggling through the worst economy in a generation, but the Bush plan would provide half of all taxpayers with less than $100.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it appears that Republicans just do not understand the real state of the Union for the vast majority of America, because if they did, they would not insist on sacrificing the security interests of all Americans to pay for tax breaks for the most privileged few. That is just wrong. It is time that Republicans stopped stiffing homeland security to pay for tax breaks for millionaires, and it is time they stopped using their political power to divide this great Nation.

Mr. Speaker, last week I attended a mobilization ceremony for a reservist in Grand Prairie Texas who had been called to active duty. These brave men and women are making a great sacrifice for their country, leaving their families and jobs to support our troops overseas. I was struck by their courage and by their willingness to put aside their own personal concerns to serve their country. That spirit of unity and sacrifice has made America great for the past 2 centuries. I hope it is the spirit President Bush remembers tonight during his State of the Union and that the Republican Congress puts into practice so that we can finally address our economic and homeland security challenges.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we all remember how partisan, divisive and, most importantly, unproductive the last Congress was. Despite the President's campaign promise to change the tone in Washington, nothing really changed in the way Republicans ran the House of Representatives. In fact, over the past 2 years, the Republican majority had a well- established and easily documented track record of denying the minority a voice in proceedings and deliberations of the House, and that, unfortunately, played a large role in the failure of the Republican Congress to address America's critical concerns, from the economy and homeland security to health care and retirement security.

But, in the spirit of the new year, Mr. Speaker, Democrats came to the floor today hoping that Republicans might turn over a new leaf, that they might agree to a rules package to operate the House as a deliberate, democratic institution in which all points of view have a right to be heard. Unfortunately, the package before us only makes things worse, making changes that only assure that the voice of the minority will be heard less and less. For that reason, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 5. I will offer a motion to commit at the end of this debate, and I urge every Member of this body who believes that all of the American people have a right to be heard and a right to participate in a democratic, small ``d'', institution to vote for it.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the Politburo; this is the United States House of Representatives. It is high time that the majority remembered that very clear distinction. We are not here to raise our hands in unison; we are here to debate what is in the best interests of this country, and there are many differing views in this body about how to achieve that end. Those views should and must be heard.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes to explain why I and the Democratic Caucus oppose these rules changes proposed by the Republican majority. As I said, we see these changes, along with the majority's record of stifling dissent, as counterintuitive to the notion of the democratic process. We see some of these changes as fig leaves or, as my good friend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is often heard to say, giving Members a chance to pose for holy pictures. We see some of these changes as attempts to cover up what is really happening in terms of the Federal budget, both on the spending and tax sides. And finally, we see some of these changes as allowing Members to skirt the intent of the ethics rules in this body, something that only sullies the reputation of an honorable institution.

For example, the majority took great pains in 1995 to abolish the practice of proxy voting. I am not here to pass judgment on that old practice. I can only say that the Republican majority condemned Democrats when we held the majority for allowing Members to vote by proxy in committee. However, the Republican majority has encountered some of the same problems that made proxy voting a useful tool for committees to get their work done. Because the Republican majority has refused to negotiate committee ratios that accurately reflect and fairly reflect the numbers in this body, their Members have been spread too thin and oftentimes must choose between one committee's proceedings and another.

Consequently, there have been a number of markups held where Democrats have been able to pass amendments because some Republicans have voted for those amendments and because other Republican Members have been absent. The majority has decided that the best way to deal with those rare occasions in which Democrats actually win a vote is to ensure that votes cannot be taken until the Chair of the full committee or a subcommittee has all the votes in the room, somewhat akin to proxy voting.

This change proposed by the majority would allow those Chairs to postpone indefinitely votes on ordered questions. There is no definition in the rule about when votes must be called by, and there is no definition in the rule for what constitutes reasonable notice.

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, this rule is a recipe for autocracy in the committees of this body. My motion to commit will delete this provision from the package of the rules for the 108th Congress.

Secondly, the Republican majority seems intent on cooking the Federal budgetary books in so many ways that a new recipe was sure to find its way into this package, and so it has. The majority has now included a rule providing that no tax bill may be considered unless the Joint Committee on Taxation has included an analysis in the report accompanying that bill on the macroeconomic impact of such legislation. And just what is the macroeconomic impact? Why, it is nothing more than dynamic scoring, a methodology that has been discounted and outright dismissed by any economist worth his or her salt, including the chairman of the Federal Reserve.

As Chairman Greenspan has said about dynamic scoring: ``The analytical tools required to achieve it are deficient . . . no model currently in use can predict macroeconomic effects without substantial ad hoc adjustments that effectively override the internal structure of the model.'' In other words, Mr. Speaker, it does not work, an example of what President Bush had called ``fuzzy math.''

Yet, the Republican majority persists in believing that this bogus economic analysis of tax policy is real and reliable. But I would contend the only real thing that is real and reliable about dynamic scoring is that it will serve as a cover-up for the true impact of the losses of revenue to the Federal Treasury generated by tax cuts endorsed by this White House and the Republican majority. My motion to commit will delete this provision from the package of the rules of the 108th Congress.

Motions to instruct conferees have been successfully used by Democrats and, may I add, by the Republicans when they were in the minority, to fight for important issues like aviation security when otherwise denied that ability by the Republican majority. Because Democratic Members are far too often shut out of the deliberative process when a bill reaches the floor, a motion to instruct is sometimes the only way a Member might be able to bring an issue up for discussion. But the Republican majority, who did not seem particularly anxious to do much work in Washington in the past 2 years, considers these attempts to open the discussion in the House as a nuisance, rather than as a means to bring democracy back to the institution.

So Republicans have an amendment in this package that further restricts the right of any Member, Republican or Democrat, to offer a motion to instruct by requiring that in addition to the 20 calendar days from the time a conference is appointed, 10 legislative days must elapse. The new rule is so loosely drafted that it is questionable whether those 20 calendar days and 10 legislative days run concurrently or not. Either way, since this body is in session so seldom, 10 legislative days would fill up an entire month, further delaying the ability of Members to bring up legitimate issues relating to those bills submitted to conference.

Mr. Speaker, this provision is such a blatant slap in the face of the democratic process in the House of Representatives, the Republican majority should hang its collective head. For that reason, my motion to commit will strike this amendment from the rules package.

Mr. Speaker, since I have been in Congress, I have had the opportunity to serve on two special committees created for the purpose of revising and

strengthening our ethics rules and regulations. The Republican majority made much of past abuses in this body, in spite of the fact that Members on both sides of the aisle were caught in these situations. Yet, now the Republicans believe they have such a safe and secure majority for the foreseeable future, they want to undo some of the significant strides that were made by these two special committees.

The Republican majority has opened a proverbial can of worms by including several items in their package. The first might be called the ``pizza rule.'' Because some outsiders like to provide large quantities of free food and drink to Members' offices night after night, this new Republican provision would carve out an exception to the gift rule.

We also have the ``I have a second job and I want to get paid for it'' rule. Members are currently prohibited from acting in certain fiduciary capacities and thus are not allowed to receive compensation for practicing a profession that offers services involving a fiduciary relationship.

Mr. Speaker, no matter how worthy a profession might be, why should we create a special exemption in the rules for the practice of medicine? If we do it for one, why not everyone? I think this House would be far better served if we just kept the rule the way it is now.

For these reasons, my motion to commit will strike the provisions in the rules package that relate to ethics rules.

My motion to commit also strikes two separate orders contained in section 3 of the resolution. The first provision I will seek to strike establishes the budget resolution adopted by the House in the second session of the 107th Congress as in effect in this Congress until such time as a conference report establishing a budget for fiscal year 2004 is passed.

Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues will say this will merely allow the House to finish work on the appropriations bills for fiscal year 2003. Perhaps we should have done that in the 107th Congress rather than waiting to do it in the 108th Congress, with budget numbers outdated and unrealistic given the current economic circumstances.

In addition, the appropriations number in the House-passed budget resolution of the 107th Congress is $749 billion; yet, the Republican leadership has agreed with the White House on budget numbers exceeding that figure. In addition, the budget resolution of the second session of last Congress maintains highway numbers that are also outdated and which, frankly, are not good policy. For example, those numbers will not allow for increased highway construction money that might be prudently spent throughout the country to create jobs and restore crumbling infrastructure.

Secondly, in furtherance of the Republican majority's agenda to stifle debate by cutting debate, cutting off amendments, and staying out of town as much as possible, this package contains a separate order that will make Wednesday a suspension day through the second Wednesday in April. Now, this order will certainly cut down on the work of the Committee on Rules, since one of our best work products has been a rule making Wednesday a suspension day. But Democrats believe that far too many bills are considered under suspension already and that the House is thus denied the opportunity to fully debate and amend legislation.

In my motion to commit, this provision would be stricken; but we have also included language that calls on the Republican majority to bring up fewer, rather than more, bills on suspension, and that no bill should be considered on suspension if it authorizes or makes appropriations in excess of $100 million. There is ample time in our calendar to spend on the floor debating legislation. We should not be institutionalizing shortened weekdays and cutting off debate.

We have also included in the Democratic motion to commit language calling on the Republican leadership to ensure that the minority party will be able to fully participate in the legislative process. We have recommended that they strive to ensure that five ``good government'' ideas are followed in the House.

First, so that Members might know what they are voting on when they vote, we call on the Republican leadership to ensure that Members have conference reports available to them 3 calendar days before such a conference report is considered in the House; and at the very least, at a bare minimum, no conference report should come to the floor unless every Member has had 24 hours to review it; not exactly a revolutionary concept.

Second, we asked the Republican leadership to reduce the number of waivers contained in rules reported from the Committee on Rules. This is especially important in the consideration of bills that have been reported and that go straight to the floor. Many times, even members of the committee of jurisdiction are not sure if the bill that comes to the floor is the same bill that was reported, and it would only enhance the legislative process and democracy if Members had adequate time to review legislation.

Third, we call on the Republican leadership to allow the House to debate and amend legislation by reducing the number of important bills that are considered on the suspension calendar.

In that regard, we are, fourthly, asking that the majority ensure that more alternatives and substitutes be allowed in rules adopted by the Committee on Rules.

Finally, we ask the Republican leadership to allow more legislation to be considered on the floor under open rules so that more Democrats may offer amendments.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, Democrats must raise strong objections to the manner in which the Republican leadership has gone about creating a Select Committee on Homeland Security. This provision was added last night with no consultation with the minority, and we believe that is no way to begin a new Congress when the issue of homeland security is one that does not belong to either party. We are all Americans here, and we should be involved in the deliberations surrounding the provisions of the Homeland Security Act.

Mr. Speaker, I know our motion to commit will not pass today; but I do believe it is important that we talk about these issues, because in the long run it is for the good of the institution. I am proud to serve here, and I am proud to represent the people of my congressional district. I think that I, along with every other Member of this body, should be able to fully participate in the process of making laws, setting policy, and determining the course of this Nation in the years to come.

While I recognize that he with the most votes wins, I also know that if someone has the most votes, they should not fear an opposing point of view. For too long the Republican Party has seemed, through their words and actions, to fear dissent among their own ranks, as well as the opposing view that may be held by the minority. We are a democracy; and we should never forget that, for in a democracy the rights of the minority are protected while at the same time advancing the will of the majority. I hope my Republican colleagues will remember that in the 108th Congress.

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