Floor Statements

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 can be a complicated legal issue, but at its core, this bill that Republicans have given such a misleading name, the Class Action Fairness Act, is very simple. Here is what it does. It protects big corporate wrongdoers like Enron and WorldCom against individuals that they harm. It makes it easier for fraudulent and unethical corporations and their executives to escape accountability for their actions.

That may not be what some of its supporters intend, but that is exactly what this bill would do, and it is exactly the type of thing the Republican House has been doing for the past 8\1/2\ years, turning the American people's government over to a small, elite group of the wealthiest and most powerful. We have seen it for the past week as House Republicans have tried to block tax relief for working and military families who need it the most. They gave millionaires tax breaks totaling $93,000, but they called it welfare when

Democrats tried to give $150 in tax relief to the military families who need it most to feed and clothe their children.

We are seeing it again here today on this class action bill. Believe it or not, the latest version of the Republican bill is even worse for consumers than the versions they have offered in the past two Congresses. That is because this one does not just protect future corporate wrongdoers, it acts retroactively to pull the rug out from under the victims of some of the worst corporate scandals in recent memory. If Members do not think that was intentional, just take a look at the rule the Republican leadership has written for this bill.

In the past two Congresses, the House has been allowed to vote on every amendment offered by a Member. In fact, let me read from the Congressional Record from a year ago when my friend the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) who is handling the rule today was handling the rule at that time.

``I would like to take a moment to clarify for my colleagues that while this is a structured rule, our committee, the Committee on Rules, did make in order every amendment submitted to us on this legislation. The rule simply incorporates some time confines equally applied to all of the amendments in order to provide some level of certainty and order during consideration of the legislation in the House.''

In other words, last year and, in fact, the year before, the Republican majority made in order every amendment that was submitted to the committee. Now, this year they have neglected to make in order two amendments. Which two did they not make in order? The one dealing with retroactivity; that is, one cannot sue somebody for what they did a couple of years ago and suits are already on file, those suits will suddenly go away. Who are we talking about? We are talking about wrongdoers at Enron and WorldCom and other places. But they will not make that amendment in order. That, of course, is the amendment offered by the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

What is the other amendment that they will not make in order this time? That deals with unnecessarily delaying lawsuits by interlocutory appeals and freezing everything in place. What is wrong with that? Well, because as it is written, this class action bill would give Enron the power to unilaterally freeze the case that defrauded retirees in Texas have filed against it. Many of these people have lost their life savings in a massive corporate fraud. Their case has already been delayed more than a year and a half, a delay that allowed Arthur Andersen to shred important documents; and now this bill would give Enron the power to unilaterally delay the case for many more years.

Just to be clear, last year, and 2 years ago, Republicans let all of the amendments be made in order. This year, they cannot do that; no amendment on the question of retroactivity and no amendment on the question of freezing lawsuits pending appeals.

That is not just wrong, it is indefensible, because it is simply welfare for some of the worst corporate wrongdoers, companies like WorldCom, Arthur Andersen, and Enron. But the Republican leadership has used this power to protect corporate criminals, killing the Conyers- Delahunt amendment on retroactivity last night in the Committee on Rules so they would not have to debate it in the light of day on the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, there are other major problems with the Republican bill. Its operating principle is: Justice delayed is justice denied. State and Federal judiciaries, including the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, William Rehnquist, oppose it. And because the Federal courts are already overburdened, consumers will have to wait for years for their claims to be heard. In the meantime, big corporate wrongdoers like WorldCom and Enron will have new procedural tactics to run up the bills and run out the clock on the consumers they have injured.

At the same time, the so-called consumer protection provisions of the bill are a cynical sham. They do not provide any new protections for consumers, they just codify the ones that already exist, and they do not come close to making up for the fundamental lack on consumer rights that the entire bill represents.

I am sure the Republicans will come to the floor to complain about the so-called coupon settlements which are no more common in State courts than they are in Federal courts that Republicans favor. No matter how many times Republicans talk about this problem, their bill does not do anything about it. Only the Democratic alternative increases consumer protections against coupon settlements.

The truth is the Democratic alternative offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin) is the only sensible and workable class action reform on the House floor today. It will help consumers hold corporations accountable for their actions, and it will help courts manage large class action litigation. It tightens the rules on lawyers' fees and coupon settlements. It protects consumers against unfair settlements and enacts other consumer-friendly revisions that have been recommended by the Judicial Conference of the United States. And to protect the rights of out-of- State defendants, it establishes a State level multidistrict litigation panel, like those operating on the Federal level, to manage large class action suits filed in multiple jurisdictions.

So I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic alternative. But first I urge my Republican friends to stand up to the Republican leadership and oppose the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, then the House can consider the Conyers-Delahunt amendment to strike the retroactive provisions of this bill, and it also can consider another very important amendment on the provisions that permit lawsuits to be frozen in place. This is the only way we can block welfare for corporate wrongdoers like Enron and WorldCom.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Of course, I just heard the comments by my friend, the chairman of the Committee on Rules; and my only point was in the last Congress, both times this came up, the last Congress and the Congress preceding, all amendments that were filed we permitted to be made in order. This time the majority has cherry-picked and said, well, we will have these couple of amendments made in order, but the ones that are really important, we are not going to let those be made in order.

Also, I would like to read from the hometown newspaper of my good friend, the gentlewoman from Ohio, who is managing the bill. This is an editorial that appeared in the Columbus Dispatch May 8, 2003: ``Courts have the power to police such abuses, and proponents of the bill have not shown that abuses are widespread or that the courts have failed such that the Congress needs to step in. If there are problems that require a legislative solution, the solution should be one that is carefully tailored, not the blunt instrument of this bill.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

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

Mr. Speaker, does the gentlewoman have one speaker, and then will she close after that?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the great crocodile tears shed on the other side on the issue of coupon settlement proposition. Of course, if they want to change that, they should support the Democratic substitute which is stronger on the issue of coupon settlements than their underlying bill.

Also, it is fascinating to listen to the advocates of States rights on the other side suddenly shift gears and become advocates of a very strong Federal system. I guess there is just a fundamental distrust of our State court system on the part of Republicans, and I find that very curious and very interesting. Also, particularly in light of the fact that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States is opposed to dumping these additional lawsuits into the already overburdened Federal system.

So we just have a peculiar situation in which people on the other side of the aisle are disregarding the Chief Justice of the United States, a member of their own party, and are also suddenly, in this particular instance, advocating for stronger action by the Federal system which would override the State system that they normally support.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote no on the previous question. Last night the Committee on Rules broke with its past precedents and refused to make in order two important amendments Democratic Members brought to the committee.

If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will restore fairness in the debate on class action reform that the House has adopted in the previous two Congresses. Under my proposal, the House will be allowed to debate one amendment by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) that will delete the bill's retroactive provisions; and, two, the Delahunt-Scott amendment to prevent corporations from using interlocutory appeals to run out the clock on class action lawsuits.

No matter what their position is on this bill or on these particular amendments, all Members should support bringing fairness back to the process and vote no on the previous question.

I am merely asking that all Members with serious amendments be allowed to bring them to the House floor just as they have been able to on the earlier occasions when we have debated class action reform.

Let me make it very clear. A no vote would not stop the House from taking up the Class Action Fairness Act and would not prevent any of the amendments made in order by the rule from being offered. However, a yes vote will preclude the House from considering these two very important amendments that are critical to the debate on class action lawsuits.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, vote no on the previous question.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. 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, while this bill purports to give low-income people a tax break, it also gives Members of Congress a tax break. We see that there is an additional tax break for people who earn $150,000 a year. Who earns $150,000 a year? Members of the United States Congress. It is very generous of them in the majority to do that.

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear about what is at stake on the House floor today. At the conclusion of this debate, there will be an important procedural vote known as the previous question. If we defeat it, then the child tax credit bill and the Armed Forces tax assistance bill can become law tomorrow, and military and working families will get immediate relief. Those two bills are here, at the Speaker's table, already passed by the Senate and ready to be signed by the President, but only if Republicans will stand up to their leadership. On the other hand, if Republicans vote for the previous question, then those bills will not become law anytime soon, if at all, and millions of military and working families will not receive immediate tax relief.

To quote President Kennedy: ``To govern is to choose.'' When Republicans vote on the previous question today, Americans will know whether they choose tax relief for working and military families or party loyalty to the House Republican leadership that is blocking it.

Mr. Speaker, since George W. Bush took office, Republicans have successfully enacted their economic plan. It consists of not just one, but two budget-busting tax giveaways for the richest few. I call these bills part I and part II of the Bush Pioneers Enrichment Act because they shower expensive tax breaks on the wealthiest few, people like that small, elite group of rich Bush Pioneers who funded the 2000 Bush campaign.

But where is the country after these Republican tax giveaways? Some 3 million Americans have lost their jobs. And just today the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office increased this year's deficit projection to $400 billion, the largest single-year deficit in this Nation's history. All in all, Americans are still suffering from the second Bush recession and the third Republican recession in the last 20 years. So I suspect that we will hear a lot of clever Republican rhetoric today. We will hear them swear that this latest Republican tax bill will finally boost the economy. They will claim that they are simply trying to improve on the bipartisan bill which the Senate passed overwhelmingly last week. But as John Adams once said, Mr. Speaker, facts are stubborn things. Even poll-tested Republican rhetoric cannot change those facts.

And the facts today are straightforward. House Republicans are the sole remaining obstacle to immediate tax relief for millions of working and military families who pay taxes. Unless House Republicans stand up to the Republican leadership today, then the families of 12 million children, 1 million of whom live in military families, will not get the immediate tax relief they need and they deserve.

Here is why, Mr. Speaker. When Republicans wrote part II of the Pioneers Enrichment Act last month, they denied the child tax credit to these hardworking, tax-paying families. The reason was simple: so that they could spend even more on tax breaks for the wealthiest few. As a result, millionaires got a tax break of $93,500, which

is just shy of the $100,000 in campaign contributions necessary to qualify as a Bush Pioneer, while millions of military and working families got stiffed. Republicans gave $100,000 in tax breaks to those making $1 million a year, but they call it welfare when Democrats try to give $150 in tax relief to the military families who need it most to feed and clothe their children. This is shameful, Mr. Speaker. And if Republicans are not ashamed, then I am ashamed for them.

Fortunately, the Senate has overwhelmingly passed a bipartisan, fiscally responsible bill to fix this one especially shameful feature of the Bush Pioneers Enrichment Act. And the White House says the President wants to sign it immediately. But many Republicans do not believe these working and military families deserve immediate tax relief, despite the fact that they work hard and pay taxes. So the Republican leadership is using their power to stop the full House from voting on the bipartisan Senate-passed bill which could become law tomorrow.

Specifically, they have brought up their plan as a motion to concur in the Senate amendments with a House amendment, a very boring title. In plain English, that means they are using a parliamentary maneuver to rig the rules to prevent Democrats from offering an alternative, or the motion to recommit that is guaranteed in the House rules. The Republican leadership's rule is so restrictive that it does not allow the House any general debate on the Republicans' $82 billion tax plan. But make no mistake, the Republican leadership's actions on the House floor today will have a very real consequence.

Simply put, they are holding hostage immediate tax relief for 6.5 million working families. They are using this bill to give high-income families a new tax break that is worth nearly six times as much as the tax credit for low-income families. They are taking a $3.5 billion problem that they created and they are using it to spend $82 billion of the Social Security trust fund to drive America even deeper into debt, raising the debt tax on all Americans. All of this, Mr. Speaker, means that this spendthrift House Republican plan will not pass the Senate and everybody knows it. Let me say that again. What we are voting on today will not pass the Senate and everyone knows it. So this is a meaningless gesture that will simply delay for days and weeks and maybe even months the tax relief that the Republicans claim that they want to offer to working families. If the Republican leadership wins today, then millions of working and military families will lose because they will not get the immediate tax relief that they desperately need.

As a result, there is just one question on the floor today: Do you want to give to military and working families at least a fraction of the tax cuts that Republicans have given the millionaires, the Bush Pioneers and others of the wealthy? If the answer is ``no,'' then proudly explain why these hardworking, tax-paying families do not deserve tax relief. But if the answer is ``yes,'' then there is only one way to do it. Stand up to the House Republican leadership and vote against the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, then I will offer an amendment to the rule to allow the House to pass both the bipartisan child tax credit bill and the Armed Forces tax fairness bill, both of which are here at the Speaker's table and both of which have already passed the Senate.

As I said before, Mr. Speaker, those are the facts; and that is the choice House Republicans face today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), one of the most conservative Members on the Democratic side.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, what rule are you stating?

Mr. Speaker, would the Chair be kind enough to read the provision, because I have never heard of this ruling given from the Chair before. I would be very grateful if the Chair could read it to the House.

Do we have the rules book handy?

Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to be clear. So what the gentleman is saying is the Members who are standing in the well right now----

The ones who are in the well with 914878724867, they are out of order for advising the country what the size of the debt is?

Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. I have to ask, because I am a little confused, I will not refer directly to the Members at this point, but I am confused, Mr. Speaker, because the rule, I have my rule book, it says, ``The Speaker shall preserve order and decorum, and in the case of disturbances or disorderly conduct in the galleries or in the lobby, may cause the same to be cleared.''

This seems to relate to decorum in the galleries or in the lobby. I do not read the rule to relate to matters on the floor of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott), one of our very respected new members.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not have any additional time, but I wish I had time to question the last speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the distinguished ranking member.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 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 Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

(Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I have one speaker and then I will close.

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

Mr. Speaker, just to clarify, does the gentleman----

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans face a choice. They can do the right thing by passing the Senate bill, giving 12 million children and their working families immediate tax relief, or they can do the wrong thing by continuing to explode the deficit with a bill that the other body will never accept.

I urge Members to do the right thing and vote ``no'' on the previous question. Do the right thing for working families. Do the right thing for military families. It is not hard. Just do the right thing. If the Republicans tried it, Mr. Speaker, they might find they actually liked it. Come on in, Democrats say, the water is just fine; the water is warm.

If the previous question is defeated, we will immediately take from the Speaker's table H.R. 1307 and H.R. 1308, the Senate-passed version of the Armed Forces Tax Fairness bill and the child tax credit. This House will pass them unanimously and send them to the President for his signature. This is it. No games, no delay. Just immediate tax relief for working and military families that is completely paid for.

Mr. Speaker, these bills are at the Speaker's table. What is the choice? Do Republicans want to pass the bills, or do they want to kill the bills? Will they ever choose the right thing? Democrats await their answers. Vote ``no'' 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 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, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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, H. Con. Res. 190 creates a bipartisan and bicameral committee to study what new rules, laws, regulations, or constitutional remedies might be needed to assure the continuity of the Congress in the event of a catastrophic event. This resolution moves forward the discussions that began in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on this country. On that day, what had been unthinkable happened. On that day, amidst the carnage in New York, at the Pentagon, and in a field in Pennsylvania, the whole notion that this country is immune from terrorist attacks was destroyed in a matter of minutes.

One of the potential targets of the terrorists that day was this building, the seat of our government and the greatest symbol of our democracy. Had those enemies of democracy succeeded, our representative democracy might have been thrown into chaos if a large number of Members of the House of Representatives had been killed, injured, or otherwise incapacitated. The simple fact is that the framers provided only for direct election of House Members, and there is nothing in law that would facilitate speedy replacement of Members of the House in the eventuality of a catastrophic event.

September 11 provided a rude awakening in so many ways, but it is the duty of this body to find a remedy for the aftermath of a potential attack on this institution. This is a weighty matter, one that goes to the heart of representative democracy in this country. On the one hand, we want to ensure the stability of the legislative branch in the wake of such an attack. On the other hand, we should all understand the importance of preserving the unique character of membership in the House of Representatives, foundations that have not changed since the adoption of the Constitution over 214 years ago.

In the last Congress, I cochaired, with the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), a bipartisan working group which began serious discussions on what remedies might be available to the House in the event that a large number of Members were missing, killed, injured, or incapacitated following an attack on this building or any other location where a group of Members might be gathered. We had serious and thoughtful discussions that resulted in three simple rules changes that would aid the Speaker in convening this body in the event of a catastrophic event. Those rules changes were made part of the rules of the House last January.

But it is very important that every Member understand that we cannot embark on these further discussions without an open mind on the issue of whether or not a constitutional amendment is necessary in order to allow this body to continue to function in the event that many, most, or all of us are killed or missing or incapacitated. The Continuity of Government Commission, cochaired by Lloyd Cutler and former Senator Alan Simpson, yesterday released their report and in it recommended the adoption of a constitutional amendment that would allow the Congress to provide for these

eventualities by statute or other means.

We have to understand the simple fact that the framers intended for this body to be the arm of the Federal Government closest to the people. For that reason, this body is the only body that requires direct election of all of its Members. As we all know, it takes a number of months to conduct elections; and if this body has lost large numbers of Members, I believe it is essential that the American public have confidence that every part of its government is up to the task of responding to a national emergency.

Let me state this in the strongest possible terms. It would be a colossal waste of the time of the Congress if Members of this new joint committee go into this process with a closed mind on the issue of a constitutional amendment authorizing appointment or replacement of Members in time of crisis. We must have every option on the table; and we have to be willing, both on the joint committee and in this body, to explore the issues, pose the questions, and find the answers. For the sake of the country and for the sake of the stability of the people's House, we must all be willing to undertake this task. Our work last year was a positive first step; but we have a solemn responsibility to make sure that every option is considered, and it is important that the House work with the Senate to ensure that the entire Congress have a plan to respond to a national emergency.

I want to commend Chairman Cox for his work on this issue in the 107th Congress and thank my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), for bringing the issue to the fore this year. This is a matter of such importance and such gravity that we must all devote considerable energies to it. We must be open, we must be nonpartisan, and we must always have in mind that this democracy is resilient, responsible, and ready to meet every challenge. So must we be.

I want to read from the resolution one section which underscores the bipartisan nature of this undertaking. This is section (b)(2), appearing on page 3: ``No recommendation shall be made by the joint committee except upon the majority vote of the members from each House, respectively.''

Now, Mr. Speaker, what does that mean? Well, there are five Republicans from the House and five Democrats from the House on this joint committee; five Republicans from the Senate and five Democrats from the Senate. So that the five Republicans, acting on their own, cannot make any recommendations in the House; and the five Democrats, acting on their own, cannot make any recommendations. Each party has a veto. And, quite frankly, that is exactly the way it should be, that only upon agreement of a majority of the 10 Members from the House and a majority of the 10 Members from the Senate will we be able to recommend anything back to this body.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, this is different from the way we normally operate in the House of Representatives. Normally, a simple majority, which can be constituted entirely on the majority's side, on the Republican side, could prevail on any issue. We are choosing to adopt a different set of rules for this proceeding, and that is exactly the way we should be handling this matter to guarantee that one party will not be able to dictate the outcome on matters of this magnitude.

I want to thank the majority party for agreeing to that and for moving forward with this very important resolution. This is a matter that I personally have spent a lot of my time on over the last year, but it would not be possible to move forward at this point had the majority party not been willing to do so. And I thank them on behalf of the minority, and I thank them on behalf of the country for their willingness to do this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, people viewing this may be curious as to why it is necessary that we consider this matter, other than the obvious that the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and I have stated.

Under the current precedents and under the current judicial interpretation of the precedents of the House, a quorum is a majority of those sworn and living. If we only have five Members survive, three Members would be a quorum, and business could be conducted. The difficulty of that would be whether the country would have any confidence in legislation enacted by only five Members.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear to people who may be watching or listening to this again why we are discussing this. There is a historical aberration in our Constitution that provides that senators, when they die or are killed, may be appointed, replacement Senators, but there is no comparable provision for replacement of House Members. That historical aberration arises from the fact that when our Constitution was first passed all Senators were appointed. They were appointed by their State legislatures. It was only much later in our history that we went to the direct election of Senators.

When we did that, we retained the appointment power for the governors of States to replace Senators who die or are killed while in office. No such power was ever in the Constitution originally for the House of Representatives, so we have a different situation currently as it applies to the Senate and as it applies to the House.

Those of us who advocate a change in our Constitution are taking the position that, since the Senate is already covered, since there already is a way to replace Senators in our Constitution, there should be a comparable provision for being able to replace House Members in the event of a mass tragedy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to one of the issues raised on the other side, and that is the question of the adequacy of replacing Members of the House through special elections.

Special elections, of course, are determined by State law; and the laws vary from State to State. Some State laws have special elections held rather promptly. Other States have special elections that extend over a long period of time.

For example, in my home State of Texas, our former colleague, Mr. Combest, shortly after the convening of this Congress, announced that he was resigning, was leaving, and his successor, who was chosen in a special election under Texas law which included a runoff, was sworn in today, 6 months into the Congress. So there is a difficulty in citing the remedy of special elections as a way of replacing Members in a prompt way.

I am very sympathetic to the historical precedent that Members of the House up until this point can only serve by election, but there are extraordinary circumstances. We hope the extraordinary circumstances never occur, but we do need to be ready, should anything like that ever happen.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, this resolution is a very significant development. Again, I want to thank the majority for the way this is structured, for having the sides evenly divided, for requiring a majority vote in each House of the members on this joint committee, and I would urge that the Congress, that the House, promptly pass this resolution. I would hope that the Senate, the other body, would do the same thing, so the work of this joint committee could begin as soon as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to express my support for H.R. 1954, the Armed Forces Naturalization Act of 2003.

In the war against Saddam Hussein, noncitizen 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, Corporal Jose Angel Garibay, and Lance Corporal Jesus Suarez del Solar. Others were born in Guatemala, like Lance Corporal Jose Gutierrez; but all died fighting for a country where they could not even cast a vote.

Mr. Speaker, in the last Congress, in May of 2002 to be precise, I first introduced legislation to help remedy the obstacles these brave soldiers faced on their path to citizenship, and I reintroduced my bill in this Congress before the war with Saddam Hussein began. So I am pleased that we are finally here today voting to ease the burdens placed on our legal permanent resident troops.

The men and women who serve honorably in the Armed Forces have earned the respect and gratitude of every American citizen. All of those who have chosen to make the ultimate sacrifice for the defense of our country certainly have earned the full rights and privileges of U.S. citizenship.

While it is unfortunate that it took a war to shed light on the sacrifices of our green card troops and compel the House as a body to act, I am hopeful that we will focus our attention on rewarding and enhancing our military personnel in time of peace as well as times of war.

According to the Department of Defense, the number of legal permanent residents serving on active duty has risen to 37,401, or about 3 percent of our military. Additionally, thousands of immigrants serve in the Reserves and were called up for active duty.

The ranks of noncitizens serving in the Armed Forces are growing, and today's immigrants are building upon a rich legacy of service in the U.S. military. Immigrants have fought in every American conflict from the Revolutionary War to the war with Iraq. The military service of immigrants reflects the strong strain of patriotism among generations who have chosen to come to America, and the patriotism of today's large Hispanic immigrant communities is particularly strong.

However, thousands of those troops are still not citizens today because of the significant obstacles that remain.

The sacrifices of legal permanent residents in our military are unique. They choose to defend freedom of American citizens while not sharing in the full rights and privileges of citizenship themselves. Unfortunately, the process for granting citizenship to immigrants within the U.S. still places heavy burdens upon them, especially those serving in the toughest overseas assignments.

Mr. Speaker, simply stated, the Armed Forces Naturalization Act of 2003 will help remove unfair and unnecessary obstacles facing thousands of legal permanent residents serving honorably in the U.S. military trying to obtain their citizenship. While there are some differences in the bill that I originally introduced and the bill we are debating today, I am hopeful that certain changes can be made in conference.

This is why I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation. Let us honor our truly brave soldiers who have shown the willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice for the country they dearly wish to be citizens of.

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 Congress I have worked for a strong national defense. Like so many pro-defense Democrats, I have bent over backwards to put politics aside and work together to support America's men and women in uniform. That cooperative approach is fundamental to our efforts to keep partisan politics from polluting the Armed Forces.

So, repeatedly on the House floor and in the Committee on Rules, I have urged the Republican leadership to stop their assault on the bipartisan cooperation that has defined our approach to defense policy for so long. In response, the chairman of the Committee on Rules kept holding out hope that maybe, just maybe, in this second rule for the defense authorization bill the committee would allow a full and bipartisan consideration of serious defense issues.

Last night, very late, the Committee on Rules reported out the second rule. Guess what? It does even more violence to the tradition of bipartisanship than the first rule did. For the second day in a row, the Republican leadership has prevented the House from considering serious and substantive issues in the defense authorization bill. For the second day in a row, they cast aside bipartisanship to protect the partisan and right-wing ideology that has been attached to this defense authorization bill. This is a shameful way to run this institution, an institution that is supposed to allow the voices of all Americans to be heard.

For instance, Republican leaders used this rule to again defend their assault on America's environmental protections. The ranking members of the Committee on Resources and the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), offered their reasonable substitute to Republicans on environmental language. Republican leaders refused to allow the House to vote on this substitute.

To prevent terrorists from getting nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the second ranking Democrat on the Committee on Armed Services and an acknowledged expert on defense issues, once again tried to strengthen America's cooperative threat reduction program, but the Republican leadership once again refused to allow his amendment, in spite of the fact that it simply does what President Bush has asked for.

To protect the American taxpayers, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) tried to require that contracts over $1 million be awarded only in open bidding process, but Republican leaders decided to make it easier for big companies, for example, Halliburton, Brown and Root, Bechtel, to get private deals, so they rejected the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), a staunch defense hawk from Mississippi, had a substantive amendment relating to the next round of base closures. But instead of allowing him and the House the vote they deserve, Republican leaders simply shut out his amendment.

Similarly, Committee on Rules Republicans blocked three important amendments that I offered to address defense issues that I have pursued for some time: helping immigrant soldiers earn U.S. citizenship, providing tuition refunds to Reservists called to active duty, and tax fairness for civilian defense employees serving in combat zones.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, Republican leaders are using this rule to rig the game in favor of their attack on worker rights at the Pentagon. Now, these are the same Pentagon employees who showed such bravery and sacrifice on September 11. So the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) proposed an employees' bill of rights. It is a common-sense approach to protecting those public servants who work to protect us. It has the support of America's firefighters. But Republican leaders refused to allow the House to vote to protect Pentagon employees.

All in all, Mr. Speaker, this rule makes a mockery of the bipartisan cooperation that has been the keystone to our approach to defense policy, so I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question.

If we defeat the previous question, I will amend the rule to allow the House to consider the Pentagon employee bill of rights. If the previous question passes, I urge a no vote on this rule. This is the only way to restore some semblance of bipartisanship to this process and to safeguard America's national defense policy from the partisanship and right wing ideology that are tainting this bill.

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

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

My friend from California, the chairman, I am afraid has somewhat of a selective memory. I have handled the defense authorization rules on this floor for 25 years; and when we were in the majority, we always made in order the main issues of contention under the defense bill. Sometimes they were amendments that I personally opposed and that other prodefense Members on the Democratic side opposed, but we made them in order so that the House could express its will on the main issues raised in the Defense Authorization Bill.

This happened on numerous occasions. Sometimes those amendments came from people to my left in the Democratic Party who perhaps wanted to eliminate certain weapons systems. Sometimes those amendments came from conservative Republicans who did not like things that were in the bill. The main issues, not peripheral issues, and we appreciate the fact that some issues were made in order, some amendments were made in order that individual Members felt strongly about; but when we were in the majority, when there were significant issues that had support from a large number of Members either on our side or on the Republican side, we made those amendments in order and let the House express its will.

There were numerous instances when I personally voted against amendments that were included in the rule that we made in order and that other prodefense Democrats opposed, but we thought that the House should have the opportunity to express its will.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, I would point out to the gentleman that when we were in the majority we did not try and dictate what amendments the minority will offer. We did not say, we will give you a Democratic amendment on that subject but the Republicans cannot offer the amendment they want. That is exactly what they have done in the reverse here. They said, we will give you a Republican amendment on this subject, but we will not let the Democrats offer the amendments they want. Of course, Democrats would offer a different amendment on a particular issue than Republicans would. Republicans would offer an amendment which was, of course, much more friendly to the basic provisions in the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question.

If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will make in order the Cooper/Davis/Van Hollen Civil Service Bill of Rights amendment. Last night, the Republican majority refused to allow the House to consider this amendment. The Republican leadership had decided what kind of Democratic amendment would be acceptable to be included in the rule and since no Democrat was willing to toe the Republican Party line, Democrats have been shut out once again on a straight party line vote.

The bill we are considering today makes enormous and far-reaching changes in the personnel laws affecting civilian defense employees. Furthermore, it does so with virtually no input or oversight from Congress. It leaves this massive overhaul in the hands of the Secretary of Defense.

The Cooper/Davis/Van Hollen amendment would spell out an employee bill of rights to ensure that these valuable employees do not lose their basic employee rights. Yet under this unfair rule it will not be allowed to come to the floor for a vote.

Mr. Speaker, it is hard for me to believe that just a few weeks after the war in Iraq, after all of us heaped deserving praise on all employees of the Defense Department, both military and civilian, that we would pull the rug out from underneath these patriotic, hard-working Americans.

Let me make it very clear. A ``no'' vote will not stop the House from taking up the Department of Defense authorization. However, a ``yes'' vote amounts to slamming the door in the face of the military's civilian employees.

As you cast your vote, think about these people and whether you will turn your back on them or whether you will do the right thing and vote to allow this amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, 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, it is often said if you repeat a lie often enough, people begin to believe it. Our record $350 billion deficit, the Republican Congress tells us that does not matter. The fact that this Republican administration has asked us not once, but twice, to raise the debt limit to record levels, ignore that, and maybe it will go away. The promise that all Members made to protect Social Security and Medicare funds in a lockbox, that does not seem to matter either, Mr. Speaker.

This is not government. This is a complete abdication of fiscal responsibility.

In 1995 the now majority leader, Tom DeLay, said, ``By the year 2002, we can have a Federal Government with a balanced budget or we could continue down the present path towards total fiscal catastrophe.''

It is now abundantly clear that the Republicans have lost their way and have decided that the path of fiscal catastrophe is not such a bad path after all. That begs the question, Mr. Speaker, what are the priorities of the Republican Party that makes tripping down the path to fiscal catastrophe such a great idea in 2003 when it was so bad an idea in 1995?

Well, we know the Republicans' top priority is to give millionaires a dividend tax cut. Where does that money come from? Well, the Republican budget conference report cuts veterans' Medicare and burial benefits by $6.2 billion. So if you are a millionaire and you have got a lot of dividend and capital gains income, the Republicans take care of you. If you are a veteran, this Republican Congress wants you to remember this Memorial Day as the one when your benefits were cut. And for what, Mr. Speaker? One of the most gimmick-laden tax cuts this Congress has ever considered. While the dividend and capital gains taxes last until 2008, the marriage penalty relief and child tax credits disappear at the end of 2004.

So while the millionaires enjoy their rate break for the rest of the decade, working families are left with uncertainty.

In 2001 the Republicans told us that their tax cut would create jobs. Instead, the Bush administration has presided over one of the worst job losses in American history; 2.7 million jobs have been lost. A dividend tax package is not going to help these people get jobs. It is simply welfare for millionaires.

Mr. Speaker, Warren Buffett has made a lot of money. Mr. Buffett would, in fact, be one of the greatest recipients of the Republican tax plan. He wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post this week calling the dividend tax plan ``voodoo economics.''

Alan Greenspan said, ``There is no question that as deficits go up, contrary to what some have said, it does effect long-term interest rates. It does have a negative impact on the economy.''

These are two of America's leading economic minds, Mr. Speaker. And they know that financing this tax cut which benefits only the wealthy few with borrowed money is wrong. It is wrong, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Yes, there is a difference between the two parties here. The other side would impose billions of dollars of debt on my 6-year-old granddaughter and my 3-year-old granddaughter and my 2-month-old granddaughter. I do not believe we should be doing that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford).

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

The reasoning on the other side is very curious. I do recall in 2001 when they were promoting the first tax cut, the reason they gave for the tax cut was, oh, we have a surplus. Now we have this surplus, we need a tax cut so we can give that money back. Now we are in 2003 and we have a deficit, so we have to have a tax cut. Which one was it? It cannot be both. It cannot be we had a surplus, so we should have a tax cut; we have a deficit, so we should have a tax cut.

I find their logic very curious. Everyone would like a tax cut. The American public obviously would like to pay less in taxes; and certainly we could have made the argument for a tax cut in 2001, perhaps not as large as they did, but we certainly could have made a valid argument: we are running a surplus; we do not need all of this money. Some of us felt like the tax cut was so large it was going to plunge us into a deficit, and that is what has happened.

But it is hard to make the argument that now we are in a deficit, let us drive this country deeper into a deficit.

Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule. My amendment will allow the House to consider H.R. 2046, introduced by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the Democratic Rebuilding America Through Job Creation plan.

I guess I can understand why the Republicans are rushing through what they are claiming is a conference process to come up with a so-called economic growth bill. Every hour the American people have to see what the Republicans are up to, the less they will like it. It is a proposal that hurts American families, it hurts the American economy, and just digs the deficit hole deeper.

In stark contrast to the conference agreement we will soon see here on the floor, the Democratic plan helps all Americans, not just the rich; and it helps the economy immediately. It provides middle-class tax cuts to stimulate demand; it gives tax incentives to all businesses, especially small businesses and U.S. manufacturing businesses; and unlike the Republican proposal, it is fiscally responsible.

Yes, if I were a Republican, I might not want to have to explain a vote against the Democratic Rebuilding America Through Job Creation plan. But guess what, that is not a good enough reason to deny Members a chance to debate and vote on this measure. It is a terrible disservice to the American people if we let our fear of criticism prevent a vote on this very effective and responsible plan.

Let me make it very clear that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not stop consideration of the conference agreement. A ``no'' vote will allow the House to consider the Democratic job creation plan as a separate bill. However, a ``yes'' vote on the previous question will prevent the House from taking up this responsible alternative. Make no mistake, this vote is the only opportunity the House will have to consider the Rangel plan. 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, it has been over 3 months since the FCC completed their Triennial Review and voted on new rules for the telecommunications industry, the most significant change for that industry since the adoption of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Yet, the FCC has still not issued the details.

This is a shame. So long as the FCC delays, uncertainty will reign in the telecommunications sector. For one whole quarter now, investment and growth in the sector have been stalled.

Mr. Speaker, the economy remains weak, showing no real signs of recovery, and numerous companies continue to lay off their employees. The current recession has been hard on workers. Telecommunications companies are set to invest billions of dollars in network infrastructure--investment that will help the weak economy and create and preserve jobs--but the current regulatory environment restricts growth and investment in the telecom sector.

The FCC needs to act quickly and issue a ruling to help the telecommunications industry grow their networks, and help get America back to work.

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 are again, at quarter to eleven, the shades of darkness have fallen, and we have to ask ourselves a question, at least I do: Is the other side not particularly competent? Is that why we are here this late at night, as we always are on major pieces of legislation? Or have

they intentionally put us here late at night so no one will watch this on television, so the American public will not know what is going on?

I will complete my statement, and then my friend, the chairman, will have plenty of time to respond.

I understand, but my friend will have plenty of time to speak.

Mr. Speaker, it is more than a coincidence that the major pieces of legislation that this Congress does are always done late at night when not very many people are watching. Tonight, Mr. Speaker, the House will pass and send to the Senate the ``Leave No Millionaire Behind Tax Act.'' Yet at the same time around the country millions of Americans are looking for work.

This country is still suffering from the second Bush recession in just over a decade, the third Republican recession in the past 20 years. The Federal deficit is spiraling even higher. The public debt is growing. Every penny of this tax bill have will to be borrowed. But Republicans in Washington, from the President on down, are busy patting themselves on the back for successfully pulling off another rip-off of the Federal Treasury.

Make no mistake, that is all this conference report is, a welfare package for the very wealthy and a big fat bill for future generations. When you borrow money, you generally have to pay it back. This conference report is the latest attempt to give the average American's Social Security payments and their Medicare payments to a small elite group of very wealthy individuals.

Republicans have argued among themselves about how much this bill costs, but it hardly matters because they are basically making up numbers at this point. After all, the Senate Republicans attached a number to their tax bill last week and then had to admit it was $70 billion too low. And this week House the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), was in the newspapers bragging about how easy it is to fudge the numbers to make their tax plan look less expensive than it really is.

They can fudge the numbers to pay for a tax bill, but they will not extend unemployment benefits to every American who continues to look for work with no success. They can fudge the numbers to pay for a tax cut, but they kick 1.4 million veterans to the curb and out of the VA health system. They can fudge the numbers to pay for a tax cut, but they cannot hide a record $400 billion deficit.

Mr. Speaker, since George W. Bush became President, some 2.7 million Americans have lost their jobs. Unemployment is the highest it has been since the last Bush administration, and only Herbert Hoover lost more jobs than George W. Bush has. Of course, President Bush still has a year and a half to go to top the Great Depression President in this contest.

Mr. Speaker, the stock market is down. Republicans have driven America's deficit so high that the Bush administration's own Treasury Department has twice asked to raise the debt limit so they can borrow more money. Not only does the administration need to borrow more money, they want to borrow nearly a trillion dollars, the largest increase in the history of the debt limit. This is not a record to be proud of, Mr. Speaker. This is not a record to run for reelection on, Mr. Speaker. It is a record of shame.

After all, 2 years ago, the Republican majority in the House did not sell their economic package as a budget buster. But they were wrong. And they are wrong today. The ``Leave No Millionaires Behind Act'' will not create jobs or stimulate the economy, any more than Part I did 2 years ago. But it will drive this country deeper into debt, raising the debt tax on all Americans to pay for more tax breaks for the richest few. The true cost of this particular bill is closer to a trillion dollars than to any fake numbers Republicans trot out today.

That trillion dollars is about what the administration and the Republican leadership want us to raise the public debt by so they will not have to face up to the failed economic policies before the next election. The Republican leadership wants to force that record-setting debt limit increase through the Congress, along with this tax bill, while they skip town and leave millions of Americans who cannot find work in the lurch. This is reprehensible behavior, Mr. Speaker, but certainly not behavior that surprises Democrats one little bit.

We have a responsibility to govern with the needs of the present and the future in mind. This tax bill thinks of neither the present nor the future in a responsible manner. What the President and the Republican leadership are advocating is a failed economic paradigm that will borrow against the future to pay a few millionaires today, and the Republican Party does not have a clue how they are going to pay this money back and keep this government solvent.

That is why we have to defeat this rule and this conference report. Until someone makes President Bush and the Republicans stop ruining the economy, they will keep raiding ordinary taxpayers to pay for more tax breaks for the wealthiest of the wealthy. This is just wrong, Mr. Speaker. You know it and I know it.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), who has a very interesting description of the bill.

I have a table here, table 5.1, ``Conference Agreement on Jobs and Growth

Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.'' This table has some very interesting information in it. An American who makes a million dollars or more would get $93,530 of tax cuts on the average. If you make between $20,000 and $30,000 a year, you get $15 a month. If you make between $30,000 and $40,000 a year, you get a little bit less than $30 a month. Let me just comment, the gentleman is trying to say this is a wonderful thing for people in the lower income brackets.

I suggest to Members that the great spread here of $93,530 for the millionaires and $15 a month for the fellow or woman making between $20,000 and $30,000 and less than $30 for the family of between $30,000 and $40,000, I am not sure what the gentleman is trying to say here.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, I am just proposing that we not try and tell them they are getting a really good deal here, that they are getting a really big tax cut, because the people who are getting the really big tax cut are the folks who are the millionaires, and the average folks out there are just getting a little bit.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I have been listening to the gentleman from New York and, of course, he offers a false choice. He says, do you want tax cuts or do you want bigger government? The people that I talk to do not want a government that puts them in debt. They do not want their children and grandchildren to be paying, having to bail out the country for this tax cut that is being passed this year because of the size of the debt that this is causing. No, they do not necessarily want bigger government, but they do not want that debt hanging over their children and grandchildren for several generations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

The gentleman makes a very interesting point. Of course, that is sunset almost immediately. They may get that for a year or two, and then it is sunset.

I do not have enough time, but I just observed that the gentleman says, oh, we are going to do this thousand dollars, but they take it away in the next year or two.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

(Mr. McDERMOTT 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, may I inquire about the time remaining?

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Is the gentleman talking about the multimillionaire who lives in Crawford, Texas? I think that is who he was talking about. I do recall that the net worth of the resident in Crawford, Texas, is somewhere around $15 to $20 million.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule. My amendment will allow the House to consider H.R. 2156, a bill introduced by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) that would require the administration and the Congress to do something about the budget disaster their economic policies are creating.

The Rangel bill attempts to avert the train wreck Republican economic policies are steering us towards. His bill would permit a temporary debt limit increase of $375 billion, on the condition that the administration and Congress come up with a serious plan to balance the budget by the year 2008. The Rangel bill would give the Republicans the opportunity to show some real leadership on economic issues.

Mr. Speaker, let me make it very clear that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not keep the House from considering the conference agreement. What a ``no'' vote will do is allow the House to consider the Rangel balanced budget proposal as a separate bill. However, a ``yes'' vote on the previous question will prevent the House from taking up this responsible proposal.

Mr. Speaker, the debt tax is not a tax we can repeal or sunset. This vote is the only opportunity the House will have to show some real economic leadership and consider the Rangel balanced budget plan. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of H.R. 2156 be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying at a press conference last week, not since Watergate and Richard Nixon 30 years ago have government agencies been used for domestic political purposes. And now, as in Watergate, we have the smoking gun.

Today's issue of the Fort Worth Star telegram, my hometown newspaper, reports that the Department of Public Service in Texas sent an e-mail to all its officers in the middle of last week ordering that all records of the contact with the State legislators and government agencies be destroyed.

I will read you what appeared in today's Star Telegram addressed to captains. The order said, ``Any notes, correspondence, photos that were obtained pursuant to the absconded House of Representatives members shall be destroyed immediately. No copies are to be kept.''

Now, we have asked for records on the Federal level. Since they have already been destroyed on the State level, we demand that those records on the Federal level be released now before they can be destroyed.

Remember Rosemary Woods and the 18 minute gap. Release the record today here in Washington so that we will not have what happened in Texas the last week.

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, when it comes to supporting America's troops, there is no partisan divide in this Congress. Democrats and Republicans join together in saluting the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who serve America. More importantly, we work to provide them with the resources they need to do their jobs that we have asked them to do. So every year, Democrats and Republicans work very hard to put together a defense authorization bill that is as bipartisan as it is robust.

There is much to be proud of in this bill. Its core is a bipartisan product that provides more for national defense than the President requested and more than this Republican Congress approved in its budget. As always, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, deserves a lot of credit. He remains an unwavering advocate for the men and women in uniform who put their lives on the line every day to defend the United States.

As a longstanding supporter of the U.S. military, I am especially pleased by the success of Democrats' efforts to include substantial quality-of-life improvements for America's men and women in uniform and their families.

Specifically, this bill includes a 4.1 percent increase in basic pay for all members of the Armed Forces, plus targeted increases for midgrade and senior noncommissioned officers and select warrant officers to enhance retention. It also builds on our efforts to support the National Guard and the Reserves, who bear more and more of the burden of defending America at home and abroad.

For instance, it ensures is that when they serve in areas where those on active duty get hazardous duty pay, they will also.

Mr. Speaker, I want to particularly thank the Committee on Armed Services for including in this bill my legislation to make life easier for the National 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.

Additionally, this bill continues to invest in the wide range of weapons that ensure America's military superiority throughout the world. It includes $4.4 billion for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the next generation multi-role fighter of the future for the Air Force, the Navy and Marines. It includes $4.3

billion for the F-22 Raptor aircraft, the high-technology air dominance fighter for the Air Force. It also includes over $1.6 billion for the V-22 Osprey aircraft.

Mr. Speaker, all of these important, pro-defense provisions have strong bipartisan support. They reflect the long-standing commitment of Democrats and Republicans to work together to ensure that the U.S. military has the resources it needs.

Unfortunately, several provisions of this bill are neither bipartisan nor necessary to maintain the strength of the U.S. military. Indeed, some are nothing more than extremist, right-wing ideology piggy-backed on an otherwise bipartisan bill.

For instance, does anyone really believe that national security requires that we gut environmental protections? Of course not.

But rolling back America's environmental protections is practically the Holy Grail of the Republican party. So Republicans stuck into this bill provisions that attack the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act.

Similarly, Republicans are trying to use this bill to weaken the workplace protections of the patriotic men and women employed by the Pentagon. They even defeated a Democratic attempt to preserve the current rules prohibiting patronage at the Pentagon.

Mr. Speaker, these anti-environmental riders and attacks on the men and women who work at the Pentagon are not about supporting the military. There are about supporting the Republican party idealogy, and they have no business in a bipartisan bill to provide for the men and women of the United States Armed Forces.

So Democrats have filed amendments with the Committee on Rules to free this bipartisan bill of these partisan riders. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the House Republican leadership has chosen to make ideology of such paramount importance that they have shut out two of the most important Democratic amendments.

First, the Republican ideologues have denied the House the opportunity to even consider the amendment offered by the ranking members of the Committee on Resources and the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The Rahall-Dingell amendment is a common-sense and reasonable alternative to the anti-environmental language reported by the Committee on Resources and incorporated in the Committee on Armed Services bill relating to the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. This rule instead makes in order an amendment offered by the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services. It claims to fix the most egregious provisions in the Committee on Resources bill.

The fact that the Republican leadership has chosen to shut out Democrats in this manner gives many Members on this side of the aisle more than ample reason to oppose this rule.

Now the chairman of the Committee on Rules said last night that it was still possible for additional amendments to be considered for inclusion in the second rule on this bill to be considered by the committee later today. But I doubt any Members will be holding their breath.

The fact is, the Republican leadership would have done well to give this House the opportunity to have a vote on the Rahall-Dingell substitute, rather than risking losing this rule by shutting out so many reasonable Democrats who support the bill.

Additionally, the House Republican leadership has chosen to tell the second ranking Democrat on the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), a Member who has extensive expertise in the issue of nuclear threat reduction, that his amendment is just too hot to handle. The Spratt amendment sought to restore the President's requests for Cooperative Threat Reduction programs. That is the President's request that he sought to restore. Yet the Republican leadership has refused to make this amendment in order, in spite of the fact that President Bush asked for this money.

Again, the chairman of the Committee on Rules told me last night that it might be possible to consider including the Spratt amendment in the second rule, but, again, Members will not be holding their breath.

Such arrogance practically begs pro-defense Members on this side of the aisle to oppose this rule, and it ought to give plenty of reason to oppose this rule to Republican Members who value fair play and institutional integrity or President Bush's national security priorities.

Mr. Speaker, serious Members on both sides of the aisle have filed many other substantive amendments. But after seeing so many significant amendments blocked in this first rule, what do they have to look forward to in the second rule? Will they be shut out again just as their colleagues have today?

I, for instance, have submitted three important amendments that address defense issues I have pursued for some time: helping immigrant soldiers earn U.S. citizenship, providing tuition refunds to reservists called to active duty, and tax fairness for civilian Defense Department employees serving in combat zones.

Mr. Speaker, I have repeatedly urged the Republican leadership to honor the long-standing tradition of allowing full consideration of substantive amendments like these on the defense authorization bill. That cooperative approach is fundamental to our efforts to keep partisan politics from polluting the Armed Forces bill and, in fact, has been followed in previous Congresses, both when the Democrats were in charge and even when the Republicans have been in charge. But this first rule has abandoned that cooperation.

For that reason, I urge Members to vote no on this rule so the Committee on Rules can go back upstairs and start this process over. Maybe on the second try the Republican leaders will allow us to get it right.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to honor 51 Texas patriots, members of the Texas Legislature currently in Ardmore, Oklahoma, who are standing tall to defend Texas against the thirst of additional power of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the House majority leader.

Congressional district lines are normally drawn only every 10 years, and the current 32 Texas congressional districts were put in place just 2 years ago and approved by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) was not happy with those lines. He now wants to force the Texas Legislature to draw new lines to remove Democrats from office. Until now, redistricting in the middle of a decade has not been done anywhere in the country in the last 50 years.

I want to salute the following heroes from the Dallas/Fort Worth area who are standing up to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay): Roberto Alonzo of Dallas, Yvonne Davis of Dallas, Dr. Jesse Jones of Dallas, Terri Hodge of Dallas, Steve Wolens of Dallas, and Lon Burnam of Fort Worth. I want to call on Governor Perry to stop using the Department of Public Service to harass the families of these brave legislators.

Leading Texas newspapers across the State are siding with the 51 patriot legislators, and when the annals of Texas history are recorded, these courageous legislators will be long remembered.

Mr. Speaker, there is a very important event occurring in the State of Oklahoma right now. Fifty-one very brave, patriotic Texans are in Ardmore, Oklahoma, and they are there for a reason. They are there to protest the heavy-handed actions by Washington political leaders in trying to impose a new set of congressional districts on the State of Texas.

Now, redistricting is done every 10 years. It was done 2 years ago in Texas. That is not good enough for some people here in Washington. They want to require the State of Texas to do it again, even though the plan that was implemented 2 years ago was specifically approved by the U.S. Supreme Court.

So these 51 brave Texans have traveled to Ardmore, Oklahoma, to deny a quorum to the Texas Legislature. They are prepared to return immediately if the Speaker of the State House will simply say, we are not going to do redistricting. We did that. It was done 2 years ago. We do not need to do it again. They are prepared to come back and vote on all of the important pending measures before the State House that are important for the State of Texas. They will vote to change procedural rules to permit important bills to come up; everything except redistricting.

So the business of the State of Texas can go forward if the Speaker will simply say, yes, we do not have to do redistricting again. We are not going to be forced to do redistricting by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and the people from Washington. It was done 2 years ago; it does not need to be done again right now, simply for political reasons.

I would like to read to the House, Mr. Speaker, a number of editorials around the State. Almost every leading newspaper in the State, almost every newspaper has sided with these brave, patriotic Texans and against the power grab by Washington Republicans. Let me start with the Waco Tribune: ``Speaker Craddick has no one to blame but himself. He helped write history when he was one of 30 members of the Texas House who disappeared during the 1971 legislative session. Craddick and his ``Dirty Thirty'' colleagues were protesting the heavy- handed actions of then House Speaker Gus Mutscher and his cronies who were involved in the Sharpstown bribery-conspiracy scandal. What Craddick has done is put his friendship with U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay over the lessons of history and his own promises to run a bipartisan house.''

The Dallas Morning News: ``House Speaker Tom Craddick can halt the work stoppage in Austin. Mr. Craddick should resist pressure from Congress to contaminate a generations-old, census-based exercise by converting it into an ill-considered, purely partisan power grab. He should commit to leave Texas' political boundaries alone, and protesting Democrats should promptly return to the hive.''

The Houston Chronicle: ``. . . if they believe their principles are worth fighting for, and they have only one means to fight for them, it's difficult to fault them for it. Particularly in a fight that was thrust upon them by Washington-driven partisan politics. At the very least, Republicans pushing the redistricting effort bear a large share of the responsibility for this legislative standstill. We and many others have been saying since before the session began that Texas has too many important pieces of business to conduct to get bogged down in a needlessly partisan and divisive political and legal catfight over redistricting.''

The Austin American-Statesman: ``It's sad that it came to this, but the Speaker has been tested and found wanting on a number of issues. The one that sent the quorum-busters towards the exits was the grossly partisan congressional redistricting bill and how Craddick let it advance in the hasty, backroom way that it did. . . . The villain in the Democrats' statement is not Craddick, but U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Sugar Land, an extremely partisan Republican who wants more members of his party elected to the U.S. House from Texas. . . . Refusing to show up for a legislative session is a desperate measure, and the

fact that more than 50 Democrats, one-third of the house's total membership of 150, did so is a sign of just how trampled they feel. This isn't a few disgruntled members sulking in their tents.''

The Corpus Christi Caller Times: ``Instead of seeking conciliation and appeasement of opponents, Craddick and Governor Rick Perry have chosen to run roughshod over their opposition, all but ending any semblance of bipartisanship. The other `heavy' in this drama is Tom DeLay, the U.S. House Majority Leader, whose attempt to muscle a redistricting bill through the legislature triggered the revolt. Doesn't DeLay have more pressing business in Washington?''

The San Antonio Express News: ``The Gingrichian hubris of the Republican-led House prompted Monday's revenge of the `House Flies.' ''

Now, why are all of the newspapers in the State of Texas siding with the 51 who went to Oklahoma rather than siding with the leadership down in the legislature? It is because the leadership is wrong; because they are abusing their position. They are requiring, they would require Texas to redistrict 2 years after it already drew the lines.

Now, if this were to happen, and I do not believe it will, but if it should happen, then what would prevent every State in the country from redrawing congressional lines every 2 years? That would be chaos, and that was not intended by the Framers of the Constitution nor the Members of this body who drafted legislation requiring that redistricting be done every 2 years.

Let us end this chaos. Let us restore order.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I do want to answer the question, and then I do want to talk about one other item. As far as we can determine, that is exactly what they did. They activated the AMBER Alert, posting the information on the DPS Web site, clearly an abuse of that system that we worked so hard to get in place to help missing and exploited children.

I would like to call the public's attention and the Speaker's attention to something that is far worse than what they did with AMBER Alert. Thirty years ago I was a young man. I remember following this in the news. Thirty years ago President Richard Nixon tried to use the FBI and the CIA to get involved in the Watergate issue. That was widely reported in the press of this country. It was an abuse of power by the President of the United States and is one of the things that led to President Nixon's ultimate resignation. Now we have reports in the Texas papers, in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, the Houston Chronicle, the Associated Press, that Tom DeLay attempted to use the FBI in this situation to intervene in a domestic political matter.

I remember when Nixon did this, Republicans were outraged. I remember when Barry Goldwater, a conservative Republican, went to the White House and said to Richard Nixon enough, enough, and urged him to resign.

I would urge Republicans, my Republican colleagues here in Washington and Republicans around the country, to tell Tom DeLay, as Barry Goldwater told Richard Nixon, this is not the kind of country we have. Tell Tom DeLay he cannot use the FBI to further domestic political agendas in this country.

As far as we have been able to tell and as far as the newspapers of the State have been able to tell, the FBI did the right thing and they refused, they refused to be involved in domestic politics, and I applaud that. Tell Tom DeLay, anyone who is watching this on television, whether you are a Democrat or a Republican or an independent, that the greatness of America is the freedoms that we enjoy. May we never become a police state. May we never become a society where the FBI is used against political dissenters in this country. It is time to put this to an end. And if Tom DeLay continues in this matter, continues trying to abuse our political system, then maybe there are some people in this country including Republicans who should go to him and say, Mr. DeLay, it is time to step aside as majority leader. You are no better than Richard Nixon; and I regret the fact, Tom DeLay, that you are from the State of Texas and that you are emulating Richard Nixon and what he did 30 years ago. I yield back to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize and applaud the remarkable Dallas Junior Texans Wheelchair Basketball Team of Grand Prairie. This team has shown great strength and determination throughout the past season.

Last year, the Dallas Junior Texans placed 9th overall in the Nation and finished the National Junior Wheelchair Basketball Tournament with a record of 3-1. This was truly an awesome accomplishment for the young players on the Dallas Junior Texans.

The Dallas Junior Texans owe their success to their competitive spirit and remarkable sportsmanship. I applaud their skilled teamwork and hope that next year's season will bring them another national placement in the top ten.

Mr. Speaker, the member of the Dallas Junior Texans Wheelchair Basketball Team know that playing their sport is about so much more than basketball--it's about teamwork, friendships, and determination. I know my colleagues will join me today to honor them for living up to the true spirit of sport.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the rule poses a serious threat to the American economy because it prevents the House from considering anything other than the same old failed Bush economics that have left America with the weakest economy in a generation.

Now, when I am back in my district in Texas, I am often asked a question that is highly relevant to today's debate. That question is, ``Why does the Bush administration continue to insist on more tax breaks for the wealthiest few, while the country is running record deficits?'' So I want to take a few minutes to share with the House the explanation I give to my own constituents.

It all began during the 2000 campaign for President. At the start of that campaign, the Republican candidate from my State of Texas, who now serves as President, made an almost unprecedented decision. He became one of the very few presidential candidates who have ever rejected Federal funding during the primaries. By rejecting Federal funds, of course, he freed himself from the State by State spending limits and, therefore, he was able to outspend his most serious Republican rival for the nomination at a critical point in the primary campaign.

As a part of the decision to reject Federal funds, the Bush campaign established a special group called the ``Pioneers.'' Each Member of this small

elite group agreed to raise at least $100,000 for the Bush campaign.

I submit for the Record a list of more than 5 Bush campaign ``Pioneers'' as compiled by Texans for Public Justice. I also submit for the Record an article from the May 6, 2003, edition of the Washington Post. Its headline reads, `` `Pioneers paved Bush's way with big dollars.' ''

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09MY03.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09MY03.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09MY03.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09MY03.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09MY03.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09MY03.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09MY03.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09MY03.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09MY03.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09MY03.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09MY03.011

Lawsuit Reveals 312 New Bush ``Pioneer'' Fundraisers

Austin & Boston: Newly released Bush presidential campaign

documents reveal 312 previously unknown members of Bush's

record-breaking ``Pioneer'' fundraising network. Participants

volunteered to help the campaign circumvent a $1,000 federal

campaign contribution limit by pledging to bundle checks from

family, friends and associates (most Pioneers pledged to

raise at least $100,000). Combined with previous disclosures,

the new data publicly identify 538 participants in the

Pioneer program. Yet the new documents still do not reveal

what each participant raised nor the total amount of Pioneer

money raised. Indeed, there is some evidence that the

campaign has yet to disclose everyone who answered the

``Pioneer'' call.

The new disclosures come in response to a legal challenge

to a provision of the McCain-Feingold 2002 Bipartisan

Campaign Reform Act that doubled the limit on individual

contributions to federal candidates to $2,000 and up to

$12,000 in races involving a self-funded candidate.

Represented by the National Voting Rights Institute (NVRI),

the plaintiffs, known as ``the Adams plaintiffs,'' argued

that the increased limits would open the floodgates to

donations from the wealthy and make it impossible for

candidates without large networks of maximum donors to run

for office. The Pioneer program is a leading example of the

way that wealthy interests are able to bundle together large

contributions to influence elections. A federal court panel

ruling on May 2 rejected the arguments made by the Adams

plaintiffs.

In response to a September 2002 subpoena from the

plaintiffs requesting complete contribution data and other

information on the Pioneer program, representatives of the

campaign claimed to possess only limited information. For

example, Bush attorneys claimed that they could not locate an

accounting of the total amount of money raised by each

Pioneer fundraiser. Bush lawyers provided only limited

financial data on just 212 of the 538 disclosed Pioneer

fundraisers. The total amount attributed to these 212

fundraisers through some unknown data in the campaign is

$24.9 million, far short of the $60 million to $80 million

that observers suspect that the program raised.

``It's time to end the secrecy over who bankrolled the Bush

campaign,'' said Craig McDonald, an expert witness for the

plaintiffs and director of Texans for Public Justice, a

research organization that has tracked Bush's fundraising

since his gubernatorial days. ``It just isn't believable that

the President's campaign lost most of a $60 million

fundraising list. Has anyone checked Donald Evans' laptop?''

``These documents reveal the disproportionate power gained

by those who can bundle huge sums of hard money for political

campaigns,'' said NVRI Executive Director John C. Bonifaz.

``With the hard money increases in the Bipartisan Campaign

Reform Act, elite donors such as the Bush Pioneers will

achieve a stranglehold over the electoral process and

ordinary voters will be locked out. This offends the basic

constitutional promise of political equality for all.''

The newly released information and an accompanying Texans

for Public Justice (TPJ) analysis reveals the identities of

previously unknown Pioneer fundraisers. Key facts about the

newly released Pioneer volunteers include:

The campaign credited each of 21 super Pioneers (or

partnerships in which two or three participants shared one

Pioneer tracking number) with raising more than $200,000

through some unknown data in the campaign. Topping the list

are business partners William DeWitt and Mercer Reynolds,

whom the new records reveal supported Bush to an extent

rivaled perhaps only by Enron. Sharing the same Pioneer

tracking number, these two Men--who bailed out Bush's

hemorrhaging Bush Oil Co., in 1984 and invested in the Texas

Rangers venture that made Bush a millionaire 15 times over--

delivered a minimum of $605,082.

The largest known single individual Pioneer was Michigan

real estate magnate Ronald Weiser, who was credited with

delivering at least $588,309.

At least 49 of the newly identified fundraisers are Lawyers

& Lobbyists Randy DeLay, brother of House Majority Whip Tom

DeLay.

At least 44 of the just-disclosed fundraisers come from the

Energy and Natural Resources industry, including former

Dynergy CEO Chuck Watson and former El Paso Energy CEO

William Wise, whose companies were battered by Enronesque

allegations of accounting fraud and ``round-trip trading.''

The oil company of Pioneer Ray Hunt has teamed up with

Halliburton to build a gas pipeline through a fragile

Peruvian rain forest that is home to remote indigenous

tribes.

Former Enron chief Ken Lay was credited with raising at

least $112,050.

Two-thirds of the new fundraisers (201) come from Bush's

home state of Texas, followed by 18 from California and 16

from Washington, D.C.

Critics have long contended that Bush's Pioneer disclosures

were incomplete--if not selective. Bush campaign officials

told the media that almost 400 individuals already had taken

the Pioneer pledge by July 1999. An April 2000 article

reported that the campaign had revealed just one-third of the

names that appeared on campaign Pioneer lists obtained by The

Nation. In fact, six of the eleven Pioneers that The Nation

reported by name did not appear in the newly released

documents (all of these happen to be current or former

corporate lobbyists). Prior to the latest disclosure, the

Bush campaign had revealed just 226 Pioneers whom it said had

raised at least $100,000 each.

Materials related to the new Pioneer disclosures made

available at the TPJ web site include:

1. Previously sealed depositions of Bush for President

Committee Finance Director Jack Oliver;

2. A sample of the more than 300 Pioneer tracking forms

produced by the campaign;

3. A campaign spreadsheet tracking 505 Pioneer program

participants (including limited contribution data on 212 of

them);

4. A TPJ-compiled list of all 538 known Pioneer program

participants; and

5. A preliminary TPJ analysis of the newly revealed Pioneer

participants.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member on the Committee on the Budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).

Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the other side how many speakers they have left.

Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to close, but customarily we close by preceding the last speaker on the other side.

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

Mr. Speaker, because this rule is so patently unfair, I urge every Member of this House, even those who do not care about the integrity of the institution itself, to vote against the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule. My amendment will allow the House to consider the Rangel substitute, the Rebuilding America Through Jobs Democratic substitute which was voted down in the Committee on Rules last night by a straight party- line vote.

The Democratic plan provides immediate job-boosting help to the economy. It provides fair tax relief by giving working families a break. It does not pander to the wealthiest of the wealthy. It provides a desperately needed extension of unemployment assistance to the millions of people without jobs under George W. Bush. It stimulates the economy by giving tax incentives to all businesses, especially small businesses and U.S. manufacturing.

Let me make it very clear that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not stop consideration of Republican Pioneers Tax Relief Act. A ``no'' vote will simply allow the House to consider the Democratic Jobs and Growth Plan; but a ``yes'' vote on the previous question will prevent the House from taking up this responsible alternative. Make no mistake, this vote is the only opportunity the House will have to consider the Rangel substitute. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 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.