Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my sorrow for the crew and family members of the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster.

While Sunday marked the one year anniversary of the space shuttle tragedy, the memory and dedication of the Columbia crew must never be forgotten. The seven astronauts aboard the Space Shuttle Columbia--six American and one Israeli--exemplified the courage and commitment that have been the hallmark of America's space program for decades. Their efforts to better understand the heavens and advance the cause of scientific discovery added greatly to our society and our Nation's vision for the future.

I am especially saddened by the loss of Flight Engineer and Mission Specialist Dr. Kalpana Chawla. K.C., as she was known by her friends and coworkers, received her master's of aerospace engineering degree from the University of Texas at Arlington in my Congressional District.

A native of India, K.C. was the first woman from her country to enter space. Selected amongst thousands of applicants by NASA in 1994, she never forgot her time in Arlington or her Indian roots. In fact, among some of the items that she took with her into space was a UTA T-shirt with ``UT Arlington Aerospace Engineering'' printed on one side and ``As a matter of fact, I am a rocket scientist,'' on the other.

K.C. took great pride in her Indian roots. She believed her entry into space was a great accomplishment for her country and was impressed by the level of support that her fellow Indians expressed for her. In a final e-mail that she sent to the students of her hometown school, she said: ``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.''

As we stop to remember and reflect upon the life of Dr. Kalpana Chawla and her fellow crew members of Columbia, we must assure ourselves that their lives were not lost in vain. We must continue the mission to explore space and to educate the underprivileged about the mission that K.C. and her fellow astronauts embarked upon.

Mr. Speaker, my thoughts and prayers are with the families of all the astronauts as they continue to mourn the loss of these amazing heroes.

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, for months the Republicans who control the Federal Government have held hostage some of the foremost priorities of the American people. Key national needs like education, veterans' health care, law enforcement have all been relegated to the back burner while Republican leaders fought amongst themselves over how best to privatize Medicare and reward big drug companies.

But today, my Republican friends undoubtedly will come down to the floor and proclaim that this giant $820 billion spending bill finishes their work for the year. In response, millions of Americans still struggling through the aftermath of the last Republican recession will respond ``What about us?''

It is a fair question, Mr. Speaker. What about the 2.4 million American jobs that have been lost since the Republican Party first took over the government 3 years ago? What about the 90,000 Americans who will lose their unemployment insurance eligibility just 3 days after Christmas or the 2.1 million unemployed workers who will lose access to extended insurance over the first 6 months of next year?

In my home State of Texas, over 130,000 people will lose unemployment insurance if this Republican Congress does not act to help them, according to the Joint Economic Committee's analysis of the data from the Labor Department. Republican leaders often try to spin away statistics like this, but the truth is the Bush Presidency has seen this Nation suffer through the longest job slump since the Great Depression, and the picture is still grim for millions of Americans trying to find good jobs to support their families.

While the number of jobs in America has shrunk by 2.4 million, the working-age population in America has grown by 4.5 million. As a result, America's ``jobs deficit'' has shot up to 6.9 million on the Republican watch. That has put American workers in a huge hole and left three unemployed workers for every one job that becomes available.

Despite these facts, Mr. Speaker, Republican leaders are, once again, planning to adjourn for the holidays without extending unemployment insurance, just like they did last year. Mr. Speaker, there is no reason to treat the American people with such callousness. It would be only fair to provide them with the help that they need before Congress goes home for the holidays. Even the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, supports doing it, as he said this morning in the Committee on Rules. After all, the Republican Congress has already done huge favors for their biggest supporters. Over the last 3 years, they have squandered trillions of dollars on tax breaks for the wealthiest few, driving the national deficit above $500 billion on an annual basis and raising the debt tax on all Americans. And today, President Bush will sign the Republican ``wither-on-the-vine'' Medicare bill. This monstrosity spends billions to subsidize HMOs and drug companies, but it actually reduces seniors' choices and it makes it illegal for them to reduce the huge out-of- pocket cost that the Republican bill does not cover. It will not let retirees cover these drug costs with the employer-provided drug coverage that they already have, even though the Republican bill may only cover selected medicines, regardless of what their doctor says they need. And it will not let seniors buy Medigap policies to cover their $3,600 in out-of-pocket expenses either.

Mr. Speaker, that is an outrage, and it comes on top of a $12 billion slush fund for HMOs and $139 billion in windfall profits for big drug companies. So why, Mr. Speaker, will Republicans not spend just a tiny fraction of that to help Americans still suffering from the latest Republican recession? Why will they not use their legislation on the floor today, an $820 billion collection of several different spending bills, to provide desperately-needed relief over the holidays to Americans who still cannot find a job?

After all, the omnibus spending bill provides plenty of assistance to others. For the big drug companies, Republican leaders have dropped drug reimportation language passed by the House and Senate, meaning that drug prices will still be astronomically higher for America's seniors than for people in other countries.

For some of the Bush administration's biggest corporate backers, Republicans have dropped overtime protection for workers, meaning that millions of Americans will get paid less, even as they are forced to work more. And they are spending $13 million on vouchers to subsidize private schools for a few, taking desperately needed resources from the public schools that serve all American children.

Despite all this, Mr. Speaker, there are still many worthwhile parts to this massive spending bill. For instance, Democrats and veterans groups have finally forced Republicans to increase funding for veterans medical care that would still fall short of what they need. And to help communities protect children against abduction, this bill includes $24 million for the national Amber Alert Program that I first introduced earlier this year. It also includes vital resources to address important transportation issues in north Texas.

So why can this Republican Congress not do just one more good deed before the holidays? Mr. Speaker, why not help the 1.4 million workers who cannot find work, who have already exhausted their extended benefits and have yet to find work?

Republican leaders may not care about helping them, but that does not have to stop this Congress from doing the right thing. If Republican Members will join Democrats in opposing the important parliamentary vote known as the previous question, then we can amend the rule and pass commonsense assistance for Americans still unable to find work in this jobless recovery. Otherwise, while Republicans are enjoying their vacations, hundreds of thousands of jobless Americans will spend the holidays preparing to lose the unemployment insurance they need to support their families.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this is probably the House's final work day this year, but Republican leaders are, once again, callously turning their backs on the millions of unemployed Americans whose Federal unemployment insurance will expire just days after Christmas. The Republican leadership has found billions of dollars to extend tax breaks for corporations, but they keep refusing to help the jobless Americans who are still suffering from the last Republican recession.

To give Republicans one last chance to do the right thing, I will oppose the previous question on this rule so that we can immediately take up legislation to extend the expiring Federal unemployment benefits.

This commonsense legislation would continue the extended unemployment benefits program through the first 6 months of next year. It would increase to 26 weeks the amounts of benefits provided under the program, up from 13 weeks. It would provide new help to the 1.4 million workers who have already exhausted their extended benefits and have yet to find work.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is identical to the text of H.R. 3244, the Rangel-Cardin unemployment extension, and it also contains the text of H.R. 3554 by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) which would fix a flaw in the current law that prevents those States with exceptionally high, long-term unemployment rates from continuing to receive the help their citizens need.

Mr. Speaker, Americans still face a difficult jobs market. Since President Bush took office, the economy has lost 2.4 million jobs. That is the worst jobs record for a President since Herbert Hoover and the Great Depression. The percentage of Americans exhausting their unemployment benefits without finding a job has reached its highest level on record. These Americans need relief and they need it immediately. If we do not extend unemployment benefits, then more than 2 million workers will lose benefits in the first 6 months of next year, including over 130,000 in my State of Texas alone.

I want to stress that this vote is not intended to stop the omnibus conference report from consideration in the House. Voting ``no'' on the previous question will still allow that bill to move forward today. But a ``no'' vote will allow the House to vote on legislation to help provide some much-needed relief to our Nation's unemployed workers, particularly during this holiday season. However, if Members vote ``yes'' on the previous question, they will kill any chance for extending unemployment assistance that is so desperately needed by millions of our constituents and their families.

Let us be clear. This vote will give the House the opportunity to vote today on extended Federal unemployment benefits and on giving relief to those hardest hit to the President's dismal economic record. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

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, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Daniel Miller of Arlington, Texas. Daniel is the artist who designed the Texas State quarter, which will debut in 2004 and will be the 28th in the series of state commemorative quarters from the U.S. Mint. His design was picked from over 3000 entries.

Daniel has gracefully and accurately captured the spirit of our great State. The Texas State quarter will feature a Lone Star springing from the outline of a map of Texas, with a lariat featured prominently. When asked about what inspired him with the coin's design, Daniel simply said, ``I toyed around with putting the Alamo in, but Texas is so much more than just the Alamo.''

Indeed, Texas is much more than the Alamo. Its rich history and people can hardly be summed up in a coin, but Mr. Miller has gamely risen to the task. Although a native Minnesotan, having come to Texas only 15 years ago, Daniel's design tells me that the blood of a true Texan runs through his veins.

Daniel's inspired work will soon be familiar to millions of people across this great nation. Whether they collect or spend the Texas quarter, I believe that a little bit of the Texas spirit will rub off on everyone who encounters Daniel's work of art.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of Daniel and his work to recognize Texas's great history. I know my colleagues will join me in congratulating Daniel Miller as we celebrate his design for the Texas State quarter. We salute him today.

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, marshal law rules like this one are symptomatic of the failure of this Republican government. Republicans are doing such harm to America, from Medicare and the economy to foreign policy and homeland security, that keeping the public in the dark has become their chief priority.

So today, Republican leaders are yet again waiving the rules of the House. Later today they plan to do it in order to force through their plan to end Medicare as we know it, which is how the chief author of the Republican Medicare bill describes their goal.

But first, Republican leaders want to pass this marshal law rule so that they can rush through a spending bill before Members, the press, and the public have had the chance to find out what is really in it.

Mr. Speaker, they will not even tell us which spending bill they plan to hide from us today. All we know is that it will either spend tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer money, or that it will spend hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer money. Either way, it will become law before it has even been read by anyone except for a handful of Republicans at the White House and in the Congress. But since these are the same Republicans who have exploded the budget deficit to nearly $500 billion, raising the debt tax on all Americans, no one has much faith in them anymore.

Mr. Speaker, after nearly a decade of controlling the Congress, the Republican Party's fundamental goal is simply protecting its own power by hiding from the public the damage they are doing to America. Of course, if you look at the Republican record, you can understand why they are so desperate to keep it hidden. In the nearly 3 years since George Bush became President, Republicans have created a whole host of problems for the American people.

On national security, the Bush administration has plunged this Nation into its worst foreign policy crisis since the end of the cold war because they would not trust the American people with the truth about Iraq and because they could not work with our allies around the world. And while U.S. taxpayers are spending hundreds of billions of dollars on Iraq, our homeland defense needs here in the United States remain dangerously unmet.

On domestic policy, of course, Republicans are going for the right wing gold. Later today they will try to finalize Newt Gingrich's dream of forcing Medicare to wither on the vine, shattering Medicare's nearly 40-year-old promise to American citizens. That debate, Mr. Speaker, will be a case study in the public dishonesty that is fundamental to the Republican government.

Over and over again, Republicans will repeat their poll-tested sound bytes. They will save Medicare reform and hope that millions of seniors do not notice the Republicans are forcing them out of traditional Medicare and into HMOs and insurance companies. They will talk about choice and ignore the fact that millions of seniors will lose the ability to choose their own doctors. And they will decry skyrocketing prescription prices and hope no one notices that they are actually protecting drug company profits by making it illegal for Medicare to negotiate lower prices for senior citizens.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans will wax poetic about the generosity of their drug benefit, hiding the fact that premiums and benefits will actually be set by HMOs and insurance companies; and that even under the Republicans rosiest scenario, seniors with average drug bills will still have to pay about $2,500 per year out of their own pockets. Of course, Republicans will not say a thing about the $12 billion slush funds they are setting up for HMOs or insurance companies or the $139 billion in windfall profits they are giving to the big drug companies.

Mr. Speaker, no wonder the Republican Medicare bill does not take effect until after the election. Republican political strategists are desperately hoping that seniors do not discover this truth about this assault on Medicare before they go to the polls in 2004. But

make no mistake, when seniors sit down at their kitchen tables to pay their bills, they are going to do the math, and they are going to see that Republicans have sold them a very expensive and very harmful bill of goods.

Mr. Speaker, the false promise of the Republican Medicare plan will remind a lot of Americans of the false promise of the Republican economic plan. In less than 3 years, the Republicans have taken a historic budget surplus and turned it into a monumental deficit. They have done it through reckless fiscal irresponsibility and through an obsession with spending billions of taxpayer dollars for a small elite of the wealthiest few, people like the Bush campaign fund-raising Pioneers.

As a result, instead of using the budget surplus to help address priorities like skyrocketing prescription prices and strengthening Social Security and Medicare, Republicans have created a fiscal crisis and raised the debt tax on all Americans.

Along the way, nearly 3 million jobs have been lost, giving George W. Bush the worst job performance of any President since The Great Depression. Millions of families no longer share in the prosperity of the nineties. Of course, you would never know the facts if you just listened to Republican rhetoric. But talking points cannot cancel out the truth. And the truth is, Mr. Speaker, that Americans continue to be unemployed at alarmingly high rates. More than 2 million workers have been unable to find a job in this economy for more than 6 months, and many of them will lose their unemployment insurance over the holidays if this Republican Congress does not act this year before we adjourn.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, I intend to oppose the important parliamentary vote known as the previous question. That is the only way to ensure Republicans do not leave town for their own holiday vacations without providing unemployed Americans with the help they so desperately need.

Mr. Speaker, Americans are smarter than Republican leaders give them credit for. They know the difference between rhetoric and reality. So I urge my Republican friends to look past their leader's rhetoric and join me in providing real help to Americans suffering through this economy.

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

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

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 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

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

Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule. My amendment will provide that immediately after the House passes this resolution, it will take up legislation to extend the Federal unemployment insurance that is set to expire for new enrollees just 2 days after Christmas.

This legislation would continue the extended unemployment insurance program through the first 6 months of next year. The bill would also increase to 26 weeks the amount of benefits provided under that program, up from 13 weeks. This would provide new help to the 1.4 million workers who have already exhausted their extended benefits and have yet to find work.

This measure is identical to the text of H.R. 3244, the Rangel-Cardin unemployment extension; and it also contains the text of H.R. 3554, sponsored by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), which would fix a flaw in current law that penalizes people in States with exceptionally high long-term unemployment rates by preventing them from receiving the unemployment benefits they need.

Here is why it is needed, Mr. Speaker. Americans continue to be unemployed at alarmingly high rates. The percentage of Americans exhausting their unemployment benefits without finding a job has reached its highest level on record. More than 2 million workers have been unemployed for more than 6 months. These Americans need relief, and they need it immediately. If we do not fix this today, over 400,000 jobless Americans will not be eligible for unemployment compensation after the first of the year.

Mr. Speaker, it appears likely that Congress will adjourn sine die within the next few days. This will very likely be the only opportunity we have to help unemployed Americans this year. Let us not abandon them today.

Let me make very clear that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not stop consideration of this resolution for consideration of the appropriations items, but a ``no'' vote will allow the House to vote on legislation to help provide some much-needed relief to our Nation's unemployed workers, some relief that might be nice during the upcoming holiday season.

Again, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

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, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Another month has passed and this Republican government still refuses to do its most basic job, funding the Federal Government that they control. That is why we are here, once again, to pass yet another short-term continuing resolution to keep Republican incompetence from shutting down the Federal Government.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know why Republicans refuse to do the job taxpayers pay them for, especially while millions of those same taxpayers cannot find jobs on their own. Perhaps they are so busy twisting arms to dismantle Medicare and force seniors into HMOs that they cannot be bothered with deciding how badly to shortchange education in this year's spending bills. Or maybe the White House has been consumed with spending their expensive efforts to rebuild Iraq that they do not have time to worry about America. Who knows. But it is clear that this Republican government has stopped working for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if you watched ``West Wing'' last night on television, but actually the subject of the ``West Wing'' program was this exact issue, a continuing resolution. And at that point you had a Republican Congress trying to blame a Democratic President for closing down the government. But here, of course, we have a Republican Congress and a Republican President. So what is going on here? Republican President, Republican Congress, and we still have to have a short-term continuing resolution because those folks cannot do their job.

Just take a look at the record. Today, millions of hard-working Americans no longer share in the prosperity that they enjoyed during the Democratic-led economic boon of the 1990s. In fact, since the Republican Party took over the government nearly 3 years ago, more than 3 million American jobs have been lost in the private sector. Or to put it another way, since George W. Bush got his job, millions of Americans have lost their jobs. That is the worst jobs record of any President since Herbert Hoover in the Great Depression.

Over the same period, Republican fiscal irresponsibility has turned record surpluses into astronomical and out-of-control deficits, increasing the death tax on all Americans and threatening the future of Medicare and Social Security. In the private sector, Mr. Speaker, that kind of failure would get you fired. But Republicans are counting on their special interest friends to save their political skins. And they have spared no taxpayer expense to do their work.

Take, for example, the small elite group of big contributors who fund Republican campaigns like the Bush campaign Pioneers and now the Bush campaign Rangers. They are undoubtedly happy because this Republican government has drained the U.S. Treasury by repeatedly passing expensive tax breaks for the wealthiest few. And earlier this week Republicans gave big polluters a pass to keep fouling the air of some of America's major metropolitan areas, including my home in north Texas.

Now, Mr. Speaker, Republicans are desperately trying to pull the wool over the eyes of America's seniors so that they can shower billions of dollars on HMOs, insurance companies, and the big drug companies. Under the Republican plan, millions of senior citizens would pay more and get less for Medicare. Up to one in four Medicare beneficiaries would actually pay more for prescription drugs than they do right now. Up to 7 million seniors would be forced to join an HMO and give up their choice of doctor or pay higher Medicare premiums. Between 2 and 3 million retirees would lose the drug coverage they now get from their former employers. And millions of seniors would go without drug coverage for months each year and be forced to pay premiums year round even when they are not getting any drug benefits.

While seniors lose under the Republican plan, drug companies and HMOs win big. Republicans are giving insurance companies a $12 billion slush fund. They are giving big drug companies $139 billion in windfall profits because they are actually making it illegal for Medicare to negotiate lower prescription prices for seniors. That is right, Mr. Speaker, Republicans can find billions of dollars for HMOs and drug companies, but they cannot afford year-round drug coverage for senior citizens. No wonder Republicans do not want their plan to take effect until after the 2004 elections. They are afraid that once seniors sit down and do the math they will see the Republicans have sold them a bill of goods.

This kind of outrage, Mr. Speaker, is simply business as usual under this Republican government. Nothing gets done for the American people, but Republicans and their allies do plenty of harm to the American people. It is a shameless abuse of power, Mr. Speaker; and the American public are the victims.

Meanwhile, we have before us another 2-day continuing resolution, which is the subject of this rule today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

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

Let us be very clear about what is going on here. The current continuing resolution runs out tomorrow. The Republican leadership is giving itself another 2 days. So by passing this next CR, that takes us through Sunday. They will not tell us when the next CR, how far it will go, whether we will be here Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday of next week doing the people's business. They will not tell us when the omnibus bill is going to come to the floor or whether it will come to the floor. They will not tell us how long the next CR will run, whether it will run to December 8 or whether it will run until some time in February. Either they simply do not know, or they will not tell. Either way, they make it very difficult to legislate in an orderly fashion.

We would all like to wind up the business for this year. I would hope that the Republican leadership can finally get their act together, bring the remaining appropriations bills or an omnibus bill to the floor in an orderly way, so that we can conclude the people's business this year and not continue to operate on a 2- or 3-day CR while the Republicans try and figure out what their next step is.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we live in a dangerous world, a place where America's major oil supplies can be disrupted by Middle East dictators. And here at home, we have seen the economic disruption that resulted from the distortion of the domestic delivery of electricity by those eager to game the system. We all agree that a comprehensive energy policy could help move this country toward greater energy independence and could prevent the kind of high rates that victimized millions of people throughout the West several years ago.

So, Mr. Speaker, I share the disappointment that so many Members feel about the nearly 1,000-page energy conference report that Republicans released just before 3 a.m. this morning, only a few short hours ago. Make no mistake, it contains some good provisions, like tax incentives for small, independent oil and gas producers. It also gives the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission new authority to establish mandatory reliability standards for utilities, as well as the power to sanction utilities that do not comply with them. And I am glad that Democrats have beaten back the Republican plan to spoil the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. But it represents a missed opportunity, and it demonstrates the dangerous arrogance of this all-Republican government.

Mr. Speaker, Democrats support a balanced, comprehensive energy policy. We have proposed a plan to increase America's energy independence, strengthen the economy, and protect the clean air and water that we all value. Over and over again, we have tried to work with Republicans to pass such a plan but, true to form, Republicans have repeatedly refused to work with us. For this conference, they retreated to the secrecy of the back room to hold their discussions. They hid their negotiations in little rooms not open to anyone but a very few and shut out Members who were legitimately part of the conference process.

In doing so, Republicans ignored Members who represent nearly half of America, Members with extensive expertise in energy policy. They brought in Vice President Cheney to broker deals but refused to work with the dean of the House, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), a man who has probably passed more energy legislation than anyone in American history. They even shut out those Democratic conferees who voted for the original legislation when it passed the House.

Ultimately, that is why this conference report is so disappointing in so many respects. For instance, Republicans refuse to pay for even the $23 billion that the tax provisions will cost U.S. taxpayers. Instead, they are simply increasing a Republican budget deficit that is already hovering around $500 billion, and that will raise the Republican debt tax on all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, it would be interesting to hear Republicans explain why they refuse to pay for energy tax breaks, especially since they have repeatedly blocked needed financing for veterans health care and homeland security by insisting that those priorities be paid for. But I am sure that that explanation will not be part of the Republican talking points today. Instead, we are going to see Republican Members march down here to the floor to blithely sing the praises of a nearly 1,000-page bill that almost none of them have read.

The truth is, almost no one knows what is really in this conference report. And almost no one knows which special interest got what special favor, and how much it will ultimately cost American taxpayers. That is because this bill ended as it started, in secrecy. It began in 2001 with Vice President Cheney's infamous energy task force. And since the White House still refuses to come clean with the American people about its secret dealings with Big Energy executives, it should come as no surprise that this bill was finally pasted together last week in the back room of some Capitol hideaway, far removed from the scrutiny of the public.

Neither should it surprise anyone that one of the provisions buried in this massive bill would permanently establish Mr. Cheney's energy task force in the White House, guaranteeing for it the secrecy the Bush administration so adamantly demands. Or that Republicans have violated the rules in order to sneak into the conference report numerous provisions that were not part of the original bills passed by either the House or the Senate.

Yesterday, Rules Committee Democrats wrote Chairman Dreier asking for a list of all the new provisions that violate the rules of the House, but Republicans refuse to publicize them. We do know that Republicans waived a Clean Air Act requirement aimed at cleaning up air pollution in metropolitan areas like my Dallas-Fort Worth home, despite my opposition and that of other area officials, like the gentlewoman from Dallas, Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) who led the fight against it in the House. And it will not surprise anyone when we discover, long after this bill has passed, that this conference report contains other hidden special favors for Republican special interests that had access to the final back-room negotiations that were closed to everyone else.

Mr. Speaker, that is the danger that some of my Republican colleagues on the Committee on Rules warned of a few years ago. In a 1993 report entitled, ``The Decline of Deliberative Democracy in the People's House,'' Chairman David Dreier and Representatives Porter Goss, Deborah Pryce, and Lincoln Diaz-Balart wrote, ``The House and Senate have been repeatedly embarrassed over the years by conference reports on voluminous pieces of legislation which have been voted on before even properly printed or distributed, let alone understood. Only after their enactment have some of the provisions come back to haunt the Congress.''

Mr. Speaker, that is why Democrats on the Committee on Rules yesterday, and this morning, urged Republicans to allow Members, the public and the press 3 days to examine the final conference report in detail. That is what the rules of the House require, and it is the only way to allow Members to make an informed decision about this conference report. But, apparently, Republicans do not want anyone to read this massive bill. Because instead of giving Members more time to examine it, they are waiving the House rules to rush it through the House today. It was nearly 3 a.m. today, Mr. Speaker, before House Republicans made the final conference report available, leaving Members with just a few short hours to read all 1,000 pages before voting on it. This is not just an outrageous abuse of the process; it is an insulting attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, Members have only one way to defend the public against this abuse, by voting ``no'' on the important parliamentary vote known as the previous question. If it is defeated, I will amend the rule to ensure that all Members have 3 days to examine the nearly 1,000 pages of this conference report before voting on it, as the rules of the House require.

Make no mistake, a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not defeat this conference report. It will only give Members a chance to actually read it. But a ``yes'' vote will allow Republican leaders to circumvent the rules of the House for no reason except to keep Members, the public, and the press in the dark.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member of the committee.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman have multiple speakers or only one speaker?

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

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that every Member of this House, whether or not they are supporting this bill, should be concerned that we are about to cast a vote on a major piece of legislation that only a small handful of House Members have read.

This conference report is over 1,000 pages long. I cannot understand why the Republican majority is insisting that this conference report be voted on today when its provisions could have such a direct impact on energy securities of the United States and Members have not been given an adequate opportunity to read and digest its contents.

Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House give Members 3 days to read a conference report after it is filed. Clause 8(a)(1)(a) of rule XXII states that ``it shall not be in order to consider a conference report until the third calendar day on which the conference report and the accompanying joint explanatory statement have been made available to Members in the Congressional Record.''

Those who are insisting that the House proceed with all due haste will argue that the text has been on the Web site of the Committee on Ways and Means since this weekend, late Saturday night to be exact.

Mr. Speaker, what was posted Saturday night was not the final version of the agreement and the statement of managers was not included. A fine point, perhaps, but an important one.

The wholesale denial of the rights of Members to know what they are voting on is something Republicans complained of bitterly when they were in the minority. Well, I would argue that the Republicans might have been crying wolf because now that they have controlled this Chamber for nearly 9 years, they seem to have completely forgotten what they once said.

So in an attempt to remedy the wrong they have complained of in the past and that they are now so eager to perpetrate, I am asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so this rule can be amended to give each Member the opportunity to find out what is in a bill that is written in closed meetings and secret places. That is only fair, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment at this point in the Record.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. 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, for all of my 25 years in this Congress, I have worked to strengthen America's military and to increase our national security. Like other defense proponents on both sides of the aisle, I have bent over backwards to put politics aside and work together to support America's men and women in uniform.

For instance, nearly 18 months ago, I introduced the Citizenship for America's Troops Act, a bill to help U.S. troops who are legal immigrants by easing the costly and burdensome obstacles that they face in the current citizenship process. Working with Democrats and Republicans in the House and the Senate, a good compromise was finally reached, one that is in this defense authorization conference report. It is not perfect, but it does provide much-needed relief to the more than 37,000 patriotic legal immigrants on active duty in the U.S. military, brave men and women who have been fighting and dying for a country in which they could not even vote.

This kind of cooperation and bipartisanship approach, Mr. Speaker, is fundamental to our efforts to keep America's military strong, especially at a time when so many Americans are losing faith in President Bush's ability to win the peace in Iraq.

While this conference report offers much to be proud of, Mr. Speaker, like the military pay raise and health care benefits for the National Guard and Reserves that Democrats have fought for, it also demonstrates how bipartisanship is becoming increasingly rare under this all- Republican government.

During the conference committee negotiations on this bill, Republican leaders shut out Democrats, including the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), on some key areas of the conference. And the gentleman from Missouri will speak about those in more length. This is part of a clear and dangerous pattern by Republican leaders. We have seen it on the energy bill, the

Medicare bill, and the FAA bill; but it is extraordinarily disappointing to see America's national defense policy treated in such a partisan manner.

Moreover, the conference report itself contains several provisions where Republican idealogy clearly trumped solid national defense policy. In the interest of time, I am going to just mention three examples.

First, why will President Bush and the Republicans not listen to the veterans and Democrats who are fighting to repeal the disabled veterans tax? Right now it penalizes nearly 560,000 disabled veterans, denying them $3 billion in military retirement benefits each year. As the American Legion has said, Mr. Speaker, the right thing to do is repeal the tax for all service-disabled military retirees. Democrats have proposed a plan to do that; but Republicans, led by President Bush, continue to block it. In fact, in this bill, Republicans refuse to help almost 70 percent of those disabled veterans, Mr. Speaker.

So when Republican Members are at home for Veterans' Day celebrations next week, I hope they will be honest with the people about the provisions in this bill which provide only partial relief to only a fraction of America's disabled veterans. I hope they will explain that they did not think they could afford to restore military retirement benefits to 390,000 disabled veterans because they spent so much of the U.S. Treasury on tax breaks for the wealthiest few.

Second, does anyone really believe that national security requires that we gut landmark environmental protections? Of course not. But rolling back America's environmental protections is a Republican priority. So Republicans stuck into this bill provisions that attack the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

And, third, is it really necessary to weaken the workplace protections of 746,000 patriotic Americans employed at the Pentagon, the same people who responded so courageously to the September 11 attack on that building? And is it really necessary to eliminate the rules prohibiting patronage at the Pentagon? Of course not. But gutting important worker rights is another key Republican priority, and they are shamefully using this national defense bill to do it.

Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, there are some areas of this conference report where bipartisanship and sound defense policy have prevailed. These include the substantial quality-of-life improvements that Democrats have fought for. Those include a 4.1 percent increase in basic pay for all members of the Armed Forces, plus targeted increases for mid-grade and senior noncommissioned officers and select warrant officers to enhance retention. And they also include an increase in imminent-danger pay and the family separation allowance for U.S. troops serving in harm's way.

The conference report also builds on our efforts to support the National Guard and Reserves, who bear more and more of the burden of defending America at home and abroad. For instance, it ensures that when the Ready Reserves serve in areas where those on active duty get hazardous duty pay, they will too. And if members of the Ready Reserve cannot get health insurance through their employer, it gives them access to the same TRICARE system that serves the military.

Additionally, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the conference report includes my own legislation to make life easier for the Guard and Reserves, both active duty and retirees, and their families, by allowing them unlimited access to commissaries. They and their families are making great sacrifices for this Nation and they deserve our support.

Finally, the bill continues to make important investments in the wide range of weapons that ensure America's military superiority throughout the world. It includes full funding of $4.4 billion for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the next generation multirole fighter of the future for the Air Force and the Navy and the Marines. It fully funds the F/A-22 Raptor aircraft, the high-technology air dominance fighter for the Air Force, by providing $3.5 billion for 22 planes, and it includes the full $1.2 billion needed for the V-22 Osprey aircraft.

Mr. Speaker, all these important prodefense provisions have strong bipartisan support. They reflect the long-standing commitment of Democrats and Republicans to work together to ensure the U.S. military has the resources it needs. That is the type of bipartisanship and cooperation that our national security policy requires. It builds strong public support for a U.S. foreign policy here at home and ensures our troops have the resources they need to do the dangerous job we ask of them.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, Republican leaders seem to have forgotten these lessons. And the President too often ignored them in the run-up to the war in Iraq, which is a big reason it will be so hard to restore President Bush's credibility and the public's confidence in his ability to win the peace in Iraq. The American people deserve better than that, and so do our troops in the field. I urge my Republican friends to remember that, especially as U.S. troops and U.S. taxpayers continue to shoulder almost the entire burden for rebuilding Iraq.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member on the Committee on Armed Services.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

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 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

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

I would only point out to the previous speaker and to speakers on the other side that if the Republicans in the House were willing to forego a little bit of the tax cuts for the wealthy, we could fully fund concurrent receipts, rather than just partially funding concurrent receipts.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this rule and adoption of this conference report.

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

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, I voted for the U.S. military action to remove Saddam Hussein from power. I support the American troops and civilians who are now in Iraq doing the dangerous job of rebuilding that nation. And I expect to vote for President Bush's $87 billion supplemental for the supplemental foreign aid package for Iraq even though it still does too little for the U.S. troops and asks too much of U.S. taxpayers.

But this martial law rule is the perfect example of what is wrong with the approach the Bush administration and the Republican leadership of this Congress have taken to rebuilding Iraq. Instead of being honest with the American people about the dangers and difficulties of nation- building in Iraq, they keep trying to sweep it all under the rug.

Earlier this week we had the literally unbelievable scene of President Bush trying to spin the public into believing that sophisticated and deadly terrorist attacks in Iraq actually demonstrate ``progress'' in Iraq. A similar thing is happening on the House floor today, Mr. Speaker. Instead of being open with the public, the President and the Members of this House, Republican leaders, want to waive the House rules so that no one has time to actually read the text of this $87 billion foreign aid package.

Make no mistake, this is exactly what this ``martial law'' rule does. It is simply a procedural way to get around the House rule that would otherwise guarantee everyone one legislative day to examine this massive expenditure of American taxpayers' money.

Of course, Republican leaders long ago made secrecy a key component of this strategy for running the House of Representatives. This martial law is the 8th time this year that Republicans have waived the House rules to rush legislation through the House. In the last Congress they did it 27 times. But their secretive approach to this $87 billion foreign aid package poses an even greater danger.

That is because President Bush and his administration have already developed a dangerous credibility problem on Iraq, a credibility gap that threatens to undermine our ability to win the peace.

For too long they have treated nation-building in Iraq as some sort of political campaign, relying on spin, sophistry, and stagecraft to hide from the public the true magnitude of the dangerous and difficult job before us.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are smarter than that. They cannot be spun by President Bush and they cannot be kept in the dark by this Republican Congress. They know that more than 120 Americans have died in Iraq since President Bush's carefully choreographed PR event to declare victory on an aircraft carrier. They know that they have already spent billions of dollars on Iraq, and the United States already has a massive debt of its own, one that will raise the debt tax on every American. They remember being told before the war that Iraq is an oil-rich Nation that could pay for its own reconstruction.

That is why the process surrounding this supplemental spending bill has been so controversial and why so many Members who support President Bush's nation-building project may refuse to vote for it until he finally presents to the American people a credible plan to

win the peace in Iraq. It is also a big part of the reason that we have been losing the relatively meager international assistance we have had so far, with the Red Cross and the United Nations scaling back their presence in Iraq. And it is where so many Americans have such sincere doubts about this effort with nearly a majority of Republicans wanting to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq, according to a Gallup Poll this week.

Mr. Speaker, more secrecy from the Republican Congress will only make the Bush administration's credibility gap worse. It will only make it more difficult to maintain public support for the important job of winning the peace in Iraq. Take, for example, the issue of accountability. American taxpayers have already given the Bush administration $79 billion to spend on Iraq. So when the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) came before the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) asked him whether he knew what had become of the previous $79 billion. He answered, ``I would like to tell you that I do, but if I did I would not be telling the truth.'' If the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations does not know, then presumedly no other Member of Congress has any idea where that $79 billion has gone.

So during the conference an amendment was adopted to create an office of the inspector general to find out where the money is going in Iraq. Now, however, we find out that the conference report has been changed to give President Bush the power to muzzle the inspector general whenever he might have some bad news to report, which very likely means that the public will never see a report from the new inspector general that contradicts the Bush administration's PR campaign. So this $87 billion package may disappear into the same black hole that swallowed up the first $79 billion.

Mr. Speaker, we should be giving the public more time to examine this massive $87 billion package, not rushing it through before anyone can read it. That is why I urge Members to oppose this martial law rule. That way the Congress can try to begin repairing President Bush's credibility problem on Iraq.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman if he has any additional speakers.

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

At this point I am prepared to yield back the balance of my time. Before I do so, I urge my colleagues to vote no on martial law, no matter how they may vote on the supplemental, and I personally intend to vote in favor of the supplemental, but I am objecting to this procedure under which it is brought to the floor tonight.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a supporter of our efforts to replace Saddam Hussein's dangerous dictatorship with a stable and democratic Iraq. But I am deeply concerned that the Bush administration's stubborn refusal to be honest about Iraq has made the reconstruction process more difficult, more expensive and more dangerous.

Mr. Speaker, President Bush said it best earlier this week at a press conference in the Rose Garden. In talking about the United Nations, he said, ``Credibility comes when you say something is going to happen and then it does happen. You are not credible if you issue resolutions and then nothing happens.''

Well, that is exactly the situation President Bush has created for himself, a growing credibility gap that could threaten our ability to win the peace in Iraq.

Before the war, the Bush administration refused to prepare the American people for the costly and deadly reconstruction effort they are now witnessing. And whenever people like General Eric Shinseki let slip the truth, that it would be very expensive and require lots of troops, the administration publicly rebuked them, and then relieved them of duty.

On May 1 of this year, President Bush dressed up in a flight suit and had a pilot land him on an aircraft carrier so that he could declare victory in Iraq. Since then, nearly 120 American troops have been killed in action, more than before the President's May 1 victory speech, and nearly 1,200 have been wounded.

In recent days, however, the Bush administration has reached a new low in its well-documented PR campaign to spin Americans into believing that the bad news coming out of Iraq these days is actually good news.

On Tuesday, President Bush defended his May 1 ``victory'' pep rally by blaming the whole affair on the sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, as if he had somehow been the victim of the Navy's public relations stunt. That is not only an outrageous charge, especially coming from the man who runs the slickest White house PR machine ever, it is utterly unbelievable. After all, back in

May, the Bush White House bragged to reporters that the President himself helped devise the event, and the New York Times reported that his aides ``had choreographed every aspect of the event.''

Perhaps most disturbing, however, was the President's response to the series of sophisticated and deadly attacks against U.S. soldiers and our allies earlier this week. Sitting in the White House with Ambassador Bremer on Monday, President Bush tried to convince Americans that this was actually a sign of progress, that it proved how ``desperate'' these Iraqi insurgents have become.

This is what he told reporters who asked about the bombings, ``Again, I will repeat myself, that the more progress we make on the ground, the more desperate these killers become.''

That statement, Mr. Speaker, was literally incredible. When terrorists can coordinate multiple, separate attacks to kill 35 people and wound more than 230 people in just 45 minutes, it is a horrible tragedy, one that indicates a very real security problem on the ground in Iraq. And trying to spin it as good news simply undermines the President's credibility and harms our effort to win the peace in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, President Bush's credibility problem is such a serious concern because America cannot afford to fail in Iraq. That is why so many people took notice earlier this week, when Senator John McCain, a Republican, who supports our efforts in Iraq and who knows as well as anyone the lessons of Vietnam, said, ``This is the first time that I have seen a parallel to Vietnam in terms of information that the administration is putting out versus the actual situation on the ground.'' It makes it harder to convince our allies around the world to shoulder some of the burden for rebuilding Iraq. That forces American taxpayers and American soldiers to bear the lion's share of the cost. And that makes it harder to maintain public support for this expensive and dangerous effort.

Mr. Speaker, that is why Democrats, and a few conscientious Republicans, have tried to force the Bush administration to account for the hundreds of billions of dollars it is spending in Iraq. And it is why we have tried to force the Bush administration to stop making American taxpayers pay the entire tab for this latest foreign aid package. After all, before war, the American people were told that Iraq was an oil-rich country that could fund its own reconstruction. Obviously, Iraq's proven oil reserves have not disappeared and America still has its own unmet priorities, like homeland security, education and health care. But now the Bush administration insists that Iraqi oil money can only be used to repay the debts that Saddam Hussein ran up to build his war machine and that U.S. taxpayers have to foot the bill for rebuilding Iraq. So Republican leaders have stripped out of this conference report the Senate's loan language.

Mr. Speaker, U.S. taxpayers are already struggling under the mountain of debt the Bush administration has run up. And there is no good reason to force U.S. taxpayers to pay for President Bush's failure to convince our allies to help. That is why majorities in both Houses of Congress voted in favor of turning about half of the reconstruction grants into loans. But sometimes, Mr. Speaker, it seems like President Bush does not understand how seriously his credibility on Iraq has been damaged. Unfortunately, as long as the Bush administration refuses to treat the American people with more respect, it will become increasingly difficult to achieve a goal we all share, winning the peace in Iraq.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

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

Mr. Speaker, as I have mentioned previously, I have been a supporter of our action against Iraq, I voted for the supplemental, and I will vote for this conference report. I will tell you that there are serious questions that have been raised by Members on this side of the aisle, and even some Members on the other side of the aisle, particularly on the issue of whether all of this money, all of this $20 billion, should be a grant, or whether at least a portion of it should be a loan.

These are serious questions. The House went on record and the Senate went on record in favor of some of this money being a loan, but, unfortunately, the conference committee did not see the wisdom in taking that position.

Members have indicated and have served notice, and I believe Members on the other side of the aisle should listen carefully, Members have served notice that it will be much more difficult for the administration next time they come to this body seeking more funds for reconstruction.

Members have been willing to give the administration the benefit of the doubt, even though they have very serious reservations, but I would hope that this administration and the Members on the other side of the aisle, before they return to this Congress asking for additional billions of dollars, will take a long and hard look at this issue of loans versus grants and take a long and hard look at the opinions of the American people who are very concerned about unmet needs here in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman).

Mr. Speaker, we have no additional requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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, the new deficit numbers came out yesterday, and they confirm what we already know: this Republican government has given America the biggest government deficit in our history, nearly $400 billion in fiscal year 2003, the year just concluded, plus an additional $500 billion deficit in fiscal year 2004, the year we just started, according to the Bush administration.

Mark my words, these Republican deficits will end up raising taxes, and worse, raising our children's taxes. The Republican leaders are going to do everything in their power to hide their abominable record of fiscal mismanagement.

Just listen to the Bush administration's Treasury Secretary in today's New York Times. He predicts that this jobless recovery will somehow magically add 2 million new jobs before next year's elections. He is saying this economy, which has lost nearly 3 million jobs since President Bush took office, the worse job records since Herbert Hoover and the Great Depression, is now going to create 200,000 new jobs a month. Perhaps the Bush administration still believes in Santa Claus, and perhaps they really believe that 2 million jobs will magically appear under the election Christmas tree next year; but the American people know a snow job when they see one. And make no mistake, they are seeing one today on the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, this so-called continuing resolution is a procedural shell game to hide Republican mismanagement of the government. This is not trick or treat, Mr. Speaker, just tricks. This entire process today makes clear that this is a Republican government that refuses to do its job, at the same time that too many hard-working Americans are still suffering from the Republican recession. While millions cannot find any jobs, Republicans refuse to do the job that they have and that taxpayers pay them to do.

As my Republican friend on the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), once said about another continuing resolution, ``Congress is failing to fulfill its obligations in a timely and responsible way, choosing to fall back on one CR after another instead of putting in the time to do our jobs.'' Or as he said another time, ``a continuing resolution erodes the credibility of the Congress.''

After misleading the American people for too long, neither this Republican Congress nor this Republican administration has much credibility to erode anymore. And as for ``putting in the time to do our jobs,'' this Republican Congress hardly even bothers anymore. This House has not put in a full week's worth of work in months. And this week we are not even going to be here for 24 hours. It has gotten so bad that this resolution is the only so-called substantive legislation before the House this week, and everyone knows that it will not actually do anything. It is just a procedural shell which they will use to hide from the taxpayers the massive omnibus spending bill that they are going to sneak through this House later this year. And mark my words, when this resolution comes back to the House in its massive and bloated form, you will not even recognize it.

My friends in the majority will tell you that the House did its work. They will tell you that the other body caused the problem they are addressing today with this shell game. Mr. Speaker, they want Americans to forget one simple truth. The Republican Party controls the Senate just like it controls the House, just like it controls the White House and the entire executive branch. And Republicans refuse to use that power for the people still suffering from the second Bush recession and the third Republican recession in the past 20 years. For example, some 1.4 million Americans have been unemployed so long in this economy that they have exhausted their unemployment insurance. After the end of this year, Americans who lose their jobs, people like the nearly 3 million jobs lost since President Bush took office, will not be able to enroll in unemployment insurance. But Republicans refuse to help them before this Congress closes up shop for the year. Some will say that Republicans are simply incompetent, that they cannot figure out how to run the government. That would be bad enough. But I do not think it gives the Republican Party the credit it deserves, because this Republican government can be ruthlessly effective when its priorities are involved. Unfortunately for the American people, the priorities of this Republican government are largely limited to the political priorities of the Republican Party.

Mr. Speaker, time and again Republican leaders have proven their willingness to use their power over the government to get more power for the Republican Party. As the Washington Post suggested last week, Republicans are creating an almost Soviet-style system. They treat the people's government as just another arm of the Republican Party.

Republican leaders have moved heaven and earth to protect big corporate tax dodgers, but they will not give military and working families the same tax credit that they gave to the wealthiest. Just last week, House Republican leaders twisted enough arms to block a Democratic pay raise for the military which would have given soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan a $1,500 bonus, but they cannot be bothered to do anything about high health care costs. And earlier this year Tom DeLay's office used Federal resources to track down his legislative opposition in Texas, and even urged the FBI to arrest the Democratic State legislators who dared to stand up to him. But now House Republican leaders will not use the Federal resources of the Congress to help the millions of Americans who need unemployment insurance in the midst of President Bush's jobless recovery.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a government of the people, by the people and for the people. It is a government of the Republican Party, by the Republican Party and for the Republican Party. And if the Republican Party wants this Republican government to raise the debt tax on Americans, while at the same time shortchanging education and veterans' health care, then they should at least have the courage to be honest with the public about it.

So I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule. Do not help the Republican leaders keep Americans in the dark this year.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 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 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this rule is a travesty, but certainly no surprise. In the years since the Republican Party took control of this body, their leadership has made a concerted effort to strip away the rights of Members of the House of Representatives, bit by bit by bit. This rule is just more of the same, and every Member of this House who believes in the small ``d'' democratic process should vote to defeat it.

The Republican Party's leadership has been nothing short of disingenuous about the debate on this supplemental.

Mr. Speaker, this has been anything but an open process. There have been some very important discussions on the floor, but those discussions have been truncated. Over 120 amendments were noticed to this bill, yet, despite the fact that there is obviously so much interest on the part of Members of the House in this $87 billion bill, the Republican leadership is now cutting off the last opportunity to bring over half of those amendments to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I voted in favor of the resolution authorizing the President's action in Iraq. I still believe my vote was the right vote to take. But, if I recall correctly, one of the many reasons the President and the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State gave the American people about why we should take military action against the regime of Saddam Hussein was to bring democracy to the Iraqi people.

Quite frankly, I think it is time we bring democracy back to the United States House of Representatives. The way the Republican Party runs this House makes a mockery of the President's laudable goal of bringing democracy to Iraq and its people.

Mr. Speaker, in September the President requested $87.5 billion in emergency funding for the continuing military operations in Iraq as well as to fund reconstruction projects in that country. He made the request and expected the Congress to rush it back to him ready to be signed into law.

We have no authorization for legislation for these funds. In fact, the committees with jurisdiction over the programs funded here have not even been given the chance to add their views to the bill.

On Wednesday, the Committee on Rules reported a so-called open rule, but I have to point out that the Republican Party's version of an open rule is one that does not allow Members the right to amend this bill in a way that affects the policies it moves forward. In fact, the chairman of the Committee on Rules told the committee that an open rule could and should waive all points of order against the committee bill, but not against Member amendments. And why? Why can legislative language offered by other Members be made in order? Because, Mr. Speaker, as the chairman said, ``We are considering this in the same manner which the Democrats did before 1995.''

Mr. Speaker, that is not the case. In fact, if we just take the emergency supplemental for fiscal year 1994, the Committee on Rules, controlled by the Democrats, reported a rule for that supplemental that waived all points of order against two Republican amendments. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) expressed his opposition to the rule at that time because two other Republican amendments were not allowed to be considered under the rule. We may have cut off those two amendments during the consideration of that supplemental, but we did waive points of order against other Republican amendments because, as my chairman so ably pointed out on Wednesday evening, ``We are the Committee on Rules. We do have the authority to do that.'' So I have to ask, why did the Republican Party's leadership not grant waivers to at least some of the thoughtful and constructive policy amendments brought to the Committee on Rules on Wednesday?

As reported by the Committee on Appropriations, the funds for reconstruction in Iraq are $1.4 billion more than were contained in the entire foreign operations appropriation passed by the House and $500 million more than the Senate's foreign operations bill. That represents every single foreign assistance program this country participates in for the entire fiscal year. Yet the Committee on International Relations was not given an opportunity to consider the President's request in a legislative forum and amendments that sought to impose policy in this bill were denied the opportunity to be voted on during this debate.

The Committee on Appropriations has reported funds for the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan that amount to 56 percent of the funds for all operations and maintenance in the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2004.

I strongly support this funding, but certainly the Committee on Armed Services should have been given an opportunity to fully examine the request and report legislation that would set some policy about how this money is to be spent. Perhaps amendments offered by the members of that committee who have great expertise in these matters might have added substantive policy limits to ensure that these funds are going to be used in the best interests of the men and women in uniform who are on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan right now.

Yesterday I heard far too many Members on the other side of the aisle come to the floor and impugn the motives and perhaps the patriotism of Members who sought to reprioritize the funds in this bill. Mr. Speaker, those kinds of remarks are a shameful blemish on this institution. Every Member of this body is entitled to hold his own opinions. We are not elected to march in lockstep with the dictates of the Republican Party's leadership.

No, indeed, Mr. Speaker. We are all here to do what we think is best for the United States of America and its citizens. I hold a different view on going to war in Iraq than do many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle. I cannot and I do not hold them in any less regard for holding views that differ from mine. I believe that a vibrant and vital democracy requires that all of these views be heard, not hidden or muffled to escape the withering attacks of ideologues. I also believe that these views should be brought to this floor and discussed in a civil atmosphere, not subjected to the partisan pot shots that have been lobbed by the other side of the Chamber during this debate.

This rule shuts off debate, pure and simple. This rule cuts Members out of the discussion. By denying Members waivers to bring up amendments that address policy in addition to money, Members were shut out of the process in the first rule. But at least there was a chance for Members to bring up those issues before a point of order would be lodged against them. Now, the autocratic Republican Party leadership, for whatever reason, be it to go home for the weekend or to leave on a CODEL, or perhaps even to cut off debate so that the American people could not find out what the Congress is up to, has brought to the floor a rule that says, That's all, folks. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is just wrong.

In one last attempt to try to give the House an opportunity to set policy, it is my intention to oppose the previous question in order to give the House one last chance to discuss a matter that is of grave concern to millions of Americans who are deeply alarmed about using so many American tax dollars to rebuild Iraq. If the previous question is defeated, I would amend this rule to allow the House to vote on an amendment adopted by the Senate, by the other body, yesterday. That amendment, which is similar to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) yesterday in his substitute, is identical to the amendment offered by the senior Senator from Texas, a Republican, and would require half of the reconstruction funds of this bill to be funded through the World Bank. That passed in the United States Senate yesterday on a vote of 51 to 47. Under this rule, we will not even be permitted to vote on that measure on the floor today.

The House should go on record on this language; and if the previous question is defeated, it will have the opportunity to do so. Otherwise, it is, That's all, folks. What a mockery we will make of ourselves.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

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

Mr. Speaker, I have an inquiry of the other side. Is the other side going to just play rope-a-dope here and not have any speakers? I guess the answer to that is yes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. Speaker, I gather in this time of the World Series that my friend on the other side is the designated ``sitter.''

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

Mr. Speaker I would inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I gather the other side is not intending to use any time at this point.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader.

Mr. Speaker, we have only one concluding speaker, and I would ask if the other side intends to close. If they have any other speakers, do they intend to close after our concluding speech.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I would offer an amendment to the rule. This will give Members an opportunity to vote on an amendment by the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), which is identical to the bipartisan amendment passed in the other body last night by a vote of 51 to 47. That amendment will require that a portion of the money for reconstruction efforts will be in the form of a loan.

The amendment provides $5 billion as a grant to rebuild Iraqi security services, and it provides $5.2 billion as a grant for water, power and other critical infrastructure facilities. Congressional notification would be required for any projects in excess of $250 million; $10 million would be considered as a loan but would convert to a grant upon 90 percent forgiveness of prewar debt by other countries.

I want to stress that a ``no'' vote will not prevent us from voting on this supplemental. But a ``no'' vote will allow Members to vote on the identical language that will be included in the Senate bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge a vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can have an opportunity to vote on the Senate loan amendment.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. 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, I voted to authorize the war to remove Saddam Hussein from power, and I believe we must provide the resources to finally finish this war and to ensure Iraq transitions to a stable democratic nation. So I anticipate supporting this bill, despite the fact that it still asks for too much from U.S. taxpayers while also doing too little for U.S. troops.

President Bush and his administration have created a very difficult situation for themselves, for Iraq, and for the United States. So while they will likely get the $87 billion they have requested, I personally doubt that they will get more for reconstruction in the future, even from this fiscally irresponsible Republican Congress, if they continue to force American taxpayers to shoulder this burden alone.

I hope that the Bush administration is finally able to convince our allies to share this burden by providing significant financial and military help, like the first President Bush did in the first Gulf War, and I am frankly mystified that they have failed to get it done so far. There is no good reason to force Americans to pay for this reconstruction alone or to shift the burden to our children and grandchildren by adding its cost to our already monstrous national debt.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are generous, but the United States has needs of its own. The Republican Congress refuses to fix our crumbling schools or help with sky-high prescription drug prices, and too many military families still live in sub-standard housing. If the Republicans who control this government can find money to take care of Iraq, why will they not take care of our needs here at home?

Moreover, the Bush administration did not prepare the American people for the costly and deadly reconstruction efforts they are now witnessing. Many Democrats in Congress repeatedly urged the President to be completely forthright with the public and to share his post-war plan. Needless to say, the administration did no such thing. Instead, they told us not to worry about the post-war plan. And whenever people like General Shinseki and Larry Lindsey let slip the truth, that it would be very expensive and require lots of troops, they were publicly rebuked and then relieved of duty.

Well, Mr. Speaker, ever since President Bush landed on an aircraft carrier and declared the war officially over, the American people have seen for themselves the post-war plan he told us not to worry about, and the public is worried because they have seen over 180 Americans killed in Iraq since President Bush declared victory. And they have seen reconstruction costs explode while certain big corporations are making massive profits at the expense of the public.

Mr. Speaker, before the war, the American people were told Iraq was an oil-rich country that could fund its own reconstruction. So the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, will offer an amendment to turn this reconstruction gift into a loan so that Iraqis can use their future oil wealth to help Americans pay to rebuild the Iraq that Saddam Hussein destroyed.

Now, for some reason, the Bush administration insists that American taxpayers should shoulder this burden alone, so they oppose the Lantos amendment. President Bush has even personally lobbied Republicans against such a measure.

Like the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), I cannot imagine that Iraq's proven oil reserves have disappeared since the war began, and I do not understand the administration's opposition to protecting American taxpayers. Because the Bush administration is basically saying that Iraq oil revenue cannot be used to pay for rebuilding Iraq and instead must be used to repay the debts that Saddam Hussein ran up to rebuild his war machine.

The administration is saying that paying off Iraq's debts to countries like France and Germany, which opposed our efforts against Saddam Hussein, is a better use of American taxpayers' money than paying off America's own national debt or investing in priorities like education, health care, and the economy. To my mind, Mr. Speaker, this is simply wrong.

But if the Bush administration insists on forcing American taxpayers to foot the entire bill for rebuilding Iraq, they should at least pay the tab, instead of passing the buck on to our children and grandchildren by adding it to our massive national debt.

Make no mistake, there is a simple way to pay for it. Since President Bush took office, he has given massive tax breaks to the very wealthiest in this country. If you simply ask those wealthiest few, individuals making over $350,000 a year, to take a smaller tax break, then you can pay for this entire bill and have some left over for the next bill for Iraq.

That is why the substitute legislation, written by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, is so important. The Obey amendment provides more resources for U.S. troops, $4.6 billion more for priorities like 20,000 additional U.S. Army soldiers, better health care, and increased military family support services. The Obey amendment forces the administration to share the financial burdens for rebuilding Iraq by working through the World Bank. And instead of passing on the cost to our children, the Obey amendment pays for itself by asking the wealthiest few individuals, those making over $350,000 a year, to take a smaller tax break than the one Republicans have already given them.

Mr. Speaker, for reasons I cannot explain, the Bush administration opposes this reasonable, fiscally-responsible, and pro-defense plan. They would force all Americans to sacrifice in the future because President Bush will not ask the wealthiest few to take a smaller tax break now. They would raise taxes on our children in future years because they refuse to ask people making over $350,000 to take a smaller tax break.

Last night in the Committee on Rules, Mr. Speaker, the Republicans blocked the Obey amendment, preventing it from even being considered on the House floor. As a result, Members of this House have only one way to increase help to U.S. troops and relieve the burden on U.S. taxpayers, by voting ``no'' on the important parliamentary vote known as the previous question.

If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to allow the House to consider the Obey amendment. But if Members vote ``yes'' on the previous question, they will be voting to deny the House the opportunity to vote on the Obey amendment, and they will be preventing the House from helping the taxpayers and the troops today.

That should not be a difficult decision, Mr. Speaker. So I hope my friends on the Republican side of the aisle will not allow blind party loyalty to keep them from doing what is right for the country and for the American people.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

I would like to make a clarification for the record. In the report to accompany this rule, I am recorded as having voted ``aye'' to report the resolution. However, the fact is that I was recorded as having voted ``no'' on the motion to report.

The report submitted by the majority to the Government Printing Office makes clear that I did indeed vote ``no'' on that motion. But because GPO made an error and recorded me as an ``aye'' vote, the Committee on Rules majority has asked for a star print of the committee report which will correct the record. However, since this report is now available publicly, I wanted to state for the record that I voted ``no'' on the motion to report.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule. The amendment will give Members an opportunity to vote on the Obey substitute which will help the troops, would require accountability, and will pay for that bill.

Last night, the Republican leadership instructed Republicans on the Committee on Rules to vote against allowing the House to consider this substantive alternative to the committee bill. Voting for the previous question will deny the whole House the opportunity to debate important questions that the Republican leadership in the House do not want to air.

Mr. Speaker, the Obey amendment provides desperately needed funding for the many overlooked and severely underfunded areas that threaten our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The amendment will reduce total reconstruction funds by $4.6 billion and use it instead to provide desperately needed protection for our soldiers in the field and to help ease the difficulties these brave men and women face every day.

It will provide funds to repair and replace military equipment. It will allow the Army to increase the number of active duty troops to ease the burden on those currently deployed. It will provide funds for water purification, predeployment health and dental screening, and extension of Guard and Reserve health benefits.

That is not all this amendment will do. It will also pay for this bill so our children will not be burdened with its staggering costs for years to come. We can pay off this enormous IOU simply by eliminating the Bush tax break for the wealthy 1 percent of Americans with annual incomes in excess of $350,000. Our troops make huge sacrifices every day; I think the wealthy can do their part too.

It is very disturbing that the Republican leadership of the House would deny Members an opportunity to vote on an amendment to improve the conditions faced daily by our troops.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make something very clear. A ``no'' vote will not, I repeat will not, prevent us from voting on this supplemental. But a ``no'' vote will allow Members to vote to better protect our troops who are risking their lives every day in Iraq and Afghanistan. A ``no'' vote on the previous question is a vote for our troops, and I urge each and every Member of this body to stand up and do the right thing by these men and women who are on the front lines.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and a description of the amendment immediately prior to the vote.

Vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can have an opportunity to vote on the Obey substitute.

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, while H.R. 1829 has been placed on the Union Calendar and I can no longer remove my name as a cosponsor of the legislation, I would like to indicate that I am no longer supportive of the bill.

While I do support providing small businesses greater access to government contracts, removing the Federal Prison Industries (FPI) mandatory source preference would result in countless inmate jobs being lost. Idle prisoners increase the likelihood of prison unrest and eliminating the program would remove the opportunity for inmates to learn vital job skills. These jobs teach the prisoners a trade that they can use after they reenter the workforce. The program is so popular that there currently are not enough jobs to fill all the requests for prison employment. Money earned by the prisoners is often used to make child support payments and pay restitution.

Mr. Speaker, under current law, federal agencies can purchase products from the private sector if their prices are lower than FPI. Doing away with FPI will cost local prison jobs and only present the possibility of creating additional domestic manufacturing jobs elsewhere.

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to join my colleagues in asking the House conferees of the Defense Authorization bill (H.R. 1588) to accept the Citizenship for America's troop's provision that Senator Kennedy included in the Senate's bill.

Ever since the war against Saddam Hussein began, politicians and commentators have noted that many brave soldiers were risking their lives for America despite the fact that they are not citizens. As many have pointed out, some of these non-citizen soldiers were among the first brave men and women to fall. Some were born in Mexico before joining the U.S. military--like Pfc. Francisco Martinez Flores, Cpl. Jose Angel Garibay and Lance Cpl. Jesus Suarez del Solar. Others were born in Guatemala--like Lance Cpl. Jose Gutierrez. But all died fighting for a country where they couldn't even cast a vote.

Of course, this is not a new problem. In the last Congress--in May of 2002, to be precise--I first introduced legislation to help remove the obstacles these brave soldiers face on their path to citizenship. And I re-introduced my bill in this Congress one week before our country went to war in Iraq.

But months and months have passed, and still this Congress has not acted. So while the citizenship provision in the Senate bill is not identical to my original legislation, I fully support it. It is the quickest way to honor the brave soldiers who have shown the willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice for the country they dearly wish to be citizens of. Members of the military who risk their lives to defend this Nation deserve better than the bureaucratic and financial burdens that now stand between them and citizenship. And they deserve better than the waiting game they've had to endure since I first proposed legislation like this more than a year ago.

So, Mr. Speaker, I again urge the House managers to not play politics with this issue. Accept the Kennedy language and do the right thing for our troops.

It is the only way to get this done in a timely fashion. Our legal permanent resident troops have already waited for far too long.