Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I am here today to express my support for House Resolution 161 honoring Peter Yarrow's Operation Respect and ``Don't Laugh at Me'' programs. These important programs are designed to promote compassion and tolerance among children in after-school programs and summer camps.

I first met Peter Yarrow some years ago and became better acquainted with him when I served as co-chair of the Bipartisan Task Force on Youth Violence. And during the last Congress, when I was Chair of the Democratic Caucus, I arranged for Peter to appear before our caucus and make a presentation about his program, and it was an extraordinary presentation.

One of the things our task force heard from youth violence experts was the extremely harmful effect of bullying and ridiculing among young people. The goals of these important programs are aimed at making sure the tragedies of Columbine never occur again. They seek to build an environment of respect so that our children will grow to be kind to others and foster positive social relationships throughout their lives.

Several years ago, I witnessed firsthand the positive impact this program can have. Peter Yarrow held a concert as a part of the ``Don't Laugh at Me'' summer program, a program that served more than 2 million campers that summer. As part of the event, children came up on the stage to call for greater compassion and respect and to declare their commitment to ending bullying and ridiculing. It was a powerful display, and I am so glad this resolution is on the floor today.

I commend the ``Don't Laugh at Me'' and Operation Respect programs. They are truly unique, and they make a difference by encouraging greater tolerance among classmates while making the classroom environment more conducive to learning and improving academic performance. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution.

Let us honor a truly great program and the men and women who work so hard to make a positive impact on our children's lives.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Teri Jackson of Grand Prairie. Teri has exemplified the finest qualities of leadership and service and today I wish to honor her for her 17 year commitment to the City Council and the citizens of Grand Prairie.

A life long resident of Grand Prairie, Teri began her service on the City Council in the

mid-1980s. She has guided the city through some very important milestones, including negotiations for a Class I horse racetrack, Lone Star Park at Grand Prairie. During these negotiations she was able to secure property for the Grand Prairie Tourism Information Center. The center was able to realize a prime location much sooner than anticipated thanks to the donated property and funds saved.

A Council Member since 1986, Teri has also served as Mayor Pro Tern from 1994-1995, Secretary on the Grand Prairie Sports Facilities Development Corporation since 1993, and as Finance and Government Committee Chairwoman since 1990. In addition she has also held advisory positions on the Regional Transportation Council, EMS task forces, and Compensation Negotiations Committee.

Mrs. Jackson is a graduate from the Prestigious Leadership Texas program for outstanding women in leadership roles. On a national level, she has served on the National League of Cities policy steering committee.

During her years of service to the city of Grand Prairie, Teri has been recognized with numerous awards. She earned the 1994 Athena Award and 1995 Chairman of the Board Award from the Grand Prairie Chamber of Commerce and the 1996 Woman of Distinction from Soroptomist International. On three different occasions she has received the MAP Award for outstanding performance from her employer.

Mr. Speaker, Teri Jackson exemplifies the qualities of dedication and service as both an employee public servant and citizen of Grand Prairie, Texas. I know my colleagues will join me today to honor her.

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, by passing this conference report today, Congress can finally end the 6 months of political maneuvering that have delayed my legislation to help set up a nationwide network of AMBER Alerts. The AMBER plan was named for a young girl, Amber Hagerman, who was kidnapped and murdered in Arlington, Texas, in my congressional district.

Make no mistake, this conference report is not perfect. It contains some needlessly controversial provisions dealing with our criminal laws. For that reason, some Members will oppose it.

The AMBER Alert Network Act, which I first introduced in the House of Representatives with the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) last year, should have been law long, long ago. It passed the Senate unanimously twice. The President made clear his support for it, and 230 Democrats and Republicans cosponsored it in the House, a clear majority. But for more than 6 months now, House Republican leaders refused to allow the House to vote on this bipartisan bill to protect America's children. And 2 weeks ago, 218 House Republicans ignored a last minute letter from the family of Elizabeth Smart and voted to support their leadership and block consideration of the stand-alone AMBER bill.

Mr. Speaker, it should not have been this hard; but we can now see an end to this matter. We now are about to finally enact this very important legislation.

We know the AMBER Alert system works. Since it was created in north Texas in 1997, it has helped recover 53 abducted children, five of them in the month of March alone. But it does not work where it does not exist. That is why the AMBER Alert Network Act, which this conference report includes, is so important because it will help set up a nationwide network of AMBER Alerts.

Mr. Speaker, this has been a long road, and a lot of dedicated Americans have worked very hard to pass this bill. In the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore), and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson), who represents the family of Elizabeth Smart, have worked very hard. I wanted to thank the Democratic members of the Committee on the Judiciary, especially the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and the Subcommittee on Crime ranking member, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), who have been extraordinarily helpful throughout this process. I also thank my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), who joined with me to introduce the AMBER bill in the House, and of course Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison, Diane Feinstein, and Hillary Rodham Clinton have done a marvelous job leading the effort in the Senate.

Outside of the Congress, much credit goes to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, to the National Association of Police Organizations, to Marc Klaas and the Polly Klaas Foundation, and to all of the organizations and individuals who worked to expand AMBER Alerts nationwide.

Finally, I want to personally thank Ed Smart, who in an extraordinary statement on the eve of the safe recovery of his daughter, Elizabeth Smart, spoke directly to the American public and this Congress and urged the prompt enactment of the AMBER Alert bill.

Mr. Speaker, this is long overdue. This will save children throughout the United States. I commend this legislation to this House and to the President.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Oak Cliff Lions Club. This organization has served the Oak Cliff Community faithfully and continually now for seven decades. It is with great pleasure that I congratulate them on their 70th Anniversary. I am proud to be a member of such an organization, one that promotes education, leadership, strong values, and togetherness.

Lions commit themselves to improving the lives of everyone. They are always determined to help the less fortunate, whether they are thousands of miles away, or just down the street. Through the Lions Club, young people can earn scholarships to participate in both international exchanges and community outreach programs.

Lions Clubs not only promote service to their communities, but to the entire world, with over 1.4 million members in 190 countries. In today's global society, Lions clubs are perhaps more important than ever before. Oak Cliff Lions are looking forward to the challenges of today and tomorrow with optimism and unwavering loyalty. Our message is simple but clear. We serve.

Since Lions clubs were established, Lions have been dedicated to giving something back, and I am certain that the Oak Cliff Lions Club will continue its tradition of selfless service and pride in our great community.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just listened to my friend, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), and she said oh, well, this is a great open rule.

Let us be very clear about what is happening here. This is not an open rule in the true sense. The Republicans waived all the Rules of the House that they could possibly waive: the Budget Act, every rule that they could waive for their own bill, for the committee bill, and then they refused to waive those same rules for the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), to bring up an amendment to the committee bill. So this is not an open process, and let us be serious about what is going on here today.

Right now, Mr. Speaker, the brave men and women of the U.S. military are, once again, proving themselves to be the finest fighting force in history. On the ground, in the seas, and in the skies over Iraq, our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are risking their lives to protect America and the world from the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's murderous regime.

Mr. Speaker, our troops have the strong bipartisan support of this Congress and of the American people. We are all deeply proud of the courage, skill, and professionalism they are displaying under very difficult conditions, and we are committed, Republicans as well as Democrats, to ensuring that our troops have all the resources they need to complete their mission as quickly and as safely as possible.

So I am pleased that this emergency spending bill is on the House floor today. The Committee on Appropriations chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) each deserve credit for a bill that is generally quite strong.

This bill supports our troops in the field, it protects the foreign policy prerogatives of the President, and it respects the Congress's constitutional duty to maintain responsibility for the tax dollars of the American people. Additionally, this emergency supplemental includes desperately needed assistance for the struggling airline industry.

Mr. Speaker, U.S. airlines are critical to the American economy, but they were hurt severely by the September 11 attacks and by subsequent security expenses. I know this firsthand because American Airlines, which employs thousands of hardworking people in my north Texas district, has been struggling mightily, and I want to congratulate the employee unions at American for voluntarily agreeing to benefit reductions to help keep the company out of bankruptcy. But they, like the rest of the airline industry, need additional relief from the government. So I am glad that this bill provides it, and I urge the President to support it.

Mr. Speaker, for all of these reasons, I expect to support this bill.

But make no mistake: This bill as it is currently written still leaves America unnecessarily vulnerable to another terrorist attack. That is because Republicans continue to block critical homeland security resources for key targets like ports and nuclear facilities. Mr. Speaker, I simply cannot understand why Republicans refuse to address so many vital homeland defense needs. After all, there is no disputing the importance of these unmet homeland security requirements.

The Coast Guard reports that it needs $1 billion this year alone to secure America's ports. The U.S. Fire Service found that between one- third and one-half of firefighters lack critical pieces of basic emergency equipment. And each of the armed services has submitted detailed lists of military construction projects required to ensure the security of American troops at bases here in the United States.

But while Republicans ignore these vital homeland security needs, they have proven time and again that they are willing to spend money on their priorities. Unfortunately, those priorities too often turn out to be tax breaks for those who need them the least.

Just last month, House Republicans voted to spend nearly $800 billion on tax breaks, but they refused to spend less than one-half of 1 percent of that amount, $250 million, for a critical program to protect our ports against terrorists.

Mr. Speaker, Democrats have repeatedly tried to force Republicans to address America's homeland defense. In the Committee on Rules last night, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) offered an amendment to provide $2.5 billion for homeland security requirements that Republicans have refused to address.

But Republicans on the Committee on Rules blocked the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

The Republican leadership is tempted, as we have already heard, to tell us that they did not block the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). They may be tempted to say again that this is an open rule, and the problem is that the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin violates the House rules.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the Republican leadership does not make that argument again, because that argument is dangerously disingenuous. After all, Republican leaders routinely waive the House rules for their priorities. Just last month, they were willing to waive the Budget Act to provide hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks to special interests. In this very rule, the same one that refuses to provide the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) with waivers, Republicans have waived the rules for the underlying bill.

All in all, Mr. Speaker, the Republican leaders have waived the House rules on 14 of 15 rules this year. In other words, Republicans are happy to waive the House rules for special interest tax breaks and other Republican priorities, but Republican priorities do not seem to include additional money for homeland defense.

Mr. Speaker, this is not just unfair and undemocratic, it is an arrogant abuse of power. Most importantly, it is an abuse of power that leaves Americans more vulnerable to terrorist attacks here at home.

For that reason, Members of the House have only one way to pass the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) today: by defeating the previous question on this rule. Let me be clear: by voting ``no'' on the previous question, Members will simply be voting to allow the House to

provide critical homeland security resources. They will not delay or defeat the underlying bill.

We will support the troops, and I am sure that this wartime spending bill will pass with an overwhelming bipartisan majority. But by voting ``yes'' on the previous question, Members will be voting to block critical homeland security resources. There is no way around that fact, so I urge Members not to do it.

Mr. Speaker, protecting America's homeland should not be a bipartisan issue. I hope my Republican friends will join Democrats in opposing the previous question so we can strengthen our defenses here at home while we provide for our troops in the field.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

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

Mr. Speaker, I would inquire about the time remaining on each side.

Mr. Speaker, does the gentlewoman have any speakers at this time?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Every once in a while you have to connect the dots around here or it gets a little confusing. Let us connect the dots right now.

The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) wants an amendment to add $2.5 billion for homeland security. The other side does not want to let the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) add $2.5 billion for homeland security.

Why is that? That is because the deficit goes up by another $2.5 billion, and it becomes harder and harder to justify their tax cut for the rich. This is not very complicated. The dots are connected.

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

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 myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members to oppose the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule. The amendment will allow Members an opportunity to vote on the Obey homeland security amendment. Yesterday, Republicans on the Committee on Rules blocked this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment provides desperately needed funding for the many overlooked and severely underfunded areas that threaten our national security. The amendment would add $2.5 billion, an increase of about 3 percent to the bill. The money would be used for port security, for Coast Guard activities, for infrastructure security, for water and chemical plant security, and for rail tunnel security. It provides funding for State and local response activities, including civil defense, first responders, firefighters and military Guard and Reserves. It also addresses one of our gravest security risks, nuclear security.

My colleagues may remember that the President not only requested no funds for nuclear security but rejected legislation in August of 2002 that would have provided $260 million for that purpose. It is very disturbing that the Republican leadership of this House would deny Members an opportunity to vote on an amendment to protect this Nation from the risk of terrorism. This should not be a partisan issue, but they have made it that way.

Vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can have an opportunity to vote on the Obey amendment. A ``no'' vote will not prevent us from voting on the wartime supplemental, but it will allow us to vote to protect our Nation and our citizens here and abroad. A ``yes'' vote on the previous question will block critical homeland security resources.

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

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, the underlying bill, the Social Security Protection Act, is largely noncontroversial. Its main provisions would deny supplemental security income, SSI, to fugitive felons, make it easier for seniors to get a lawyer for the complicated disability application process, and reform the representative payee program so that seniors are not defrauded. I support all of these reforms, Mr. Speaker.

Unfortunately, this bill also has one very harmful provision. A change in the government pension offset that would hurt teachers, firefighters, police officers and other public servants around the country including in my home State of Texas. Specifically, section 418 of this bill would prevent these hard-working public servants from protecting their retirement benefits from the harsh impact of the government pension offset.

Mr. Speaker, this issue is somewhat complicated, but it affects thousands and thousands of dedicated teachers and other public servants. So I am going to take a minute to explain how it works. Say one was a teacher and their job has a pension plan that is not covered under Social Security. If their spouse's job pays into Social Security, then they are eligible for spousal or survivor's benefit if their spouse dies. But under current law, the government pension offset reduces or eliminates the spousal or survivor's benefits they deserve.

Fortunately, there is a provision in law right now that helps some people in this situation. It allows one to protect their retirement by switching jobs at the end of their career. This ``last day exemption,'' as it is called, has helped many teachers in Texas and other States protect the Social Security benefits they deserve and that they need to retire. However, section 418 of the underlying bill would eliminate this exemption. Instead it would force teachers, police officers, firefighters, and other public servants to work 5 additional years before receiving full spousal benefits.

Mr. Speaker, that is no way to treat hard-working people who have dedicated their entire lives to serving their communities and this Nation. It hurts real people, especially women and lower-income individuals. That is why it is opposed by teachers organizations like the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers.

Mr. Speaker, helping teachers and other public servants is not difficult. In the Committee on Rules yesterday, Democrats offered several amendments to fix the GPO problem. One option was offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett). His amendment would protect teachers' retirement by reducing the government pension offset from two thirds to one third, and it would protect the Social Security trust fund. Unfortunately, Republicans on the Committee on Rules refused to allow the House to vote on the Doggett amendment. For that reason, I urge Members to join me in opposing the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the House to consider the gentleman from Texas's (Mr. Doggett) amendment.

Another option, Mr. Speaker, was offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green). His amendment, which will be considered on the floor today as a Democratic substitute, would simply eliminate section 418 so that teachers and other public servants can continue to protect their retirement benefits. The substitute does not affect the rest of the Social Security Protection Act.

So I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Green amendment. That way we can support Social Security

fairness for teachers, firefighters, and police officers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the House to consider the Doggett pension offset amendment that was voted down in the Committee on Rules yesterday. The Doggett amendment would reduce the government pension offset of Social Security spousal and survivors benefits from two-thirds to one-third of the government pension. It would hold the trust fund harmless for the cost of the benefit improvement by making annual transfers from the general funds to the Social Security Trust Fund.

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

Mr. Speaker, vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can help all those who are unfairly penalized in their pension benefits simply because one spouse is a government employee and one works for the private sector. Let us support those who go into public service, not punish them.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to make a lengthy statement in just a moment, but I think it should be made clear to people who may be watching this on television, listening to this, Members listening to this in their offices or watching it, what is really going on here today. We have a noncontroversial bill, the AMBER alert bill, that was passed unanimously by the Senate both last year and this year; and we have an omnibus bill with all kinds of provisions, the AMBER alert provision being one of those that has now been reported out of the committee.

While this omnibus bill passed the House in the last session, it did not pass the Senate because there are a number of provisions that the Senate finds objectionable. So what we are doing is we are holding hostage the AMBER bill, the stand-alone AMBER bill, because some Members in the other party want an omnibus crime bill with controversial provisions.

If the leadership on the other side would simply let us have a separate vote on the AMBER provisions that have already passed the Senate unanimously this year, those would be passed by this House immediately and then could be sent to the President for his signature, but that is not what is being done today.

What we are doing is considering an omnibus bill with AMBER as one part of it, an omnibus bill that contains some very controversial provisions that indications are the Senate will not accept.

I would paraphrase something that is often said in criminal court: Justice delayed is justice denied. That is basically what is happening here today, is that we are packaging something that we know probably will not be accepted by the Senate, and even if it is accepted, it would be after a long and lengthy discussion and perhaps a conference committee.

Mr. Speaker, I have been a Member of this House for 25 years, and over that time I have been disappointed with the majority leadership on more than one occasion, but I cannot recall anything as utterly indefensible as the fact that the House leadership, Republican leadership, continues to block a very simple, very noncontroversial legislation, to set up a nationwide network of AMBER alerts to help save abducted children. If that sort of obstructionism is not out of touch, then I do not know what is.

Mr. Speaker, the rule for the Child Abduction Prevention Act is fine enough, fine enough that is if one is okay with politics as usual, fine enough if one is okay with delaying help to abducted children. America's children desperately need a nationwide system of AMBER alerts, and passing the Child Abduction Prevention Act through the House will not provide that anytime soon, if ever, and abducted children do not have time to wait any longer for politics as usual.

Mr. Speaker, House Republican leaders have blocked the simple AMBER Alert bill for 6 long months, and I am confident they have carefully constructed talking points to confuse the issue even further today.

So I want to be very clear about what the House is doing. We will be debating in a little bit two separate bills. One is the large, complicated and somewhat controversial bill this rule makes in order, the Child Abduction Prevention Act, H.R. 1104, of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner). The other bill this bill does not make in order is the simple, noncontroversial AMBER Alert Network, S. 121, which has already passed the Senate unanimously and which could become law tomorrow if Republican leaders would only allow us to vote on it today.

I am not here to oppose the bill of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner). I am not trying to defeat it. That is why Democrats did not offer a substitute yesterday in the Committee on Rules. All I am asking, as I and others like Ed Smart and Marc Klass have asked for the past 6 months, is for a separate vote on a separate bill, the AMBER Alert Network Act. Why? Because the Senate has passed the simple AMBER bill unanimously; because it has 220 cosponsors in the House, a clear majority; because the President supports it; and because if Republican leaders allow the House to pass it, then it will become law and communities across the Nation will get desperately needed resources to set up and/or strengthen the AMBER Alert systems that save children's lives.

Mr. Speaker, there is no valid reason that the House could not easily pass both bills, the simple AMBER Alert bill and the larger bill of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) today, but the rule only allows a vote on the bill of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), and passing it through the House will not send immediate help to AMBER Alerts any more than passing bankruptcy reform last week did.

Mr. Speaker, that is because the bill of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) is a large and complicated piece of legislation. It has not even been introduced in the Senate, much less passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee or the full Senate, or reconciled with the House bill in a conference committee. No one knows whether it will ever become law. That is why I tried to bring up the simple AMBER bill by unanimous consent last week, but the Republican leadership refused to allow it, and that is why I tried to amend the rule last night in the Committee on Rules to bring up both bills today on the floor, but Republicans blocked the AMBER bill as a stand-alone bill in a party- line vote last night.

Mr. Speaker, this is about protecting our children. It is not about party politics; so I cannot understand why Republican leaders insist on blocking the simple, stand-alone AMBER bill passed by the Senate. But they have been doing it for 6 months, and they make plenty of arguments. Last night in the Committee on Rules, one Republican member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), called it a feel-good, do- nothing piece of legislation. Like me, he is from North Texas where the AMBER Alert was invented, so I was surprised to hear him say that. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) said that those of us arguing for a simple, stand-alone vote on the simple AMBER bill are misinformed about the impacts such a bill would have.

Mr. Speaker, with due respect to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the family of Elizabeth Smart is not misinformed. That is why they wrote an open letter to the House last week stating, ``As you know, I can't express enough how our children can't wait another day for the National AMBER Alert to be signed into law by President Bush. Please, please, please, pass the stand-alone AMBER Alert legislation now. You cannot comprehend the joy and adulation of having your child return. The AMBER Alert will make this a reality for countless families. Please don't underestimate the immediacy and power of this legislation.''

Similarly, Mr. Speaker, Marc Klass, the father of Polly Klass, was not misinformed when he wrote a letter expressing support for a nationwide network of AMBER Alerts.

And several Republican Members of the other body, including the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, were not misinformed when they urged the House to pass the simple stand-alone AMBER bill. Finally, the President of the United States was not misinformed when he said passing the AMBER bill is critical. All of these people are advocates for passing the simple AMBER legislation. Why? Because they understand that the AMBER Alert system works.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I did not mention them by name, but I thank the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, they understand that the AMBER system works. It has helped to recover 52 abducted children, five of them in the month of March alone; but it does not work where it does not exist, and the AMBER Alert Network Act will help set up a nationwide network of AMBER Alerts. It provides 10 times the resources to communities that the President has requested for next year.

But the AMBER Alert bill will never become law as long as House Republican leaders are holding it hostage. Over the past 6 months, they have proven their willingness to do just that. As a result, Mr. Speaker, there is only one way to pass the AMBER Alert Network Act through this House, by defeating the previous question today. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up S. 121, the Senate-passed stand-alone AMBER bill immediately after the House passes H.R. 1104, the Sensenbrenner bill. That way the AMBER bill can become law and we can immediately begin strengthening AMBER Alerts around the country to save abducted children. The larger bill by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) can continue through the legislative process, hopefully through the Senate, through a conference committee, and back to the House and Senate as a conference report, and maybe one day become law. But abducted children cannot wait that long.

I urge Members, especially the 220 who have cosponsored the AMBER Alert Network Act, to defeat the previous question so we can vote on this bill today and begin helping abducted children.

Mr. Speaker, defeating the previous question will not stop the Child Abduction Prevention Act, but it is the only way to immediately strengthen AMBER Alerts around the country.

In closing, let me quote from a letter that the family of Elizabeth Smart sent to all Members of the House this morning. They write: ``Chairman Sensenbrenner's efforts on this issue are greatly appreciated, and his bill contains several worthy measures. But there is no reason the House can't vote on this bill while also passing the AMBER Alert Network Act that has been delayed for over 6 months.

``So we urge Members of the House who want to strengthen the AMBER Alert to vote `no' on the previous question today. That is the only way for the House to pass the National AMBER Alert to help protect America's children immediately.

``Our children can't afford to wait another day for the National AMBER Alert so we urge the House not to waste this opportunity to act on the legislation that has already passed the Senate twice.''

Mr. Speaker, I believe the Smart family has stated the case very clearly, so I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, Members watching this must be scratching their heads and saying what are they talking about. The stand-alone AMBER bill has already passed the Senate 92-0. It would pass this House probably unanimously. They should just have a vote on it. Why do we just not have a vote on it; they will not let us have a vote on it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Let us be clear what is going on here. I may have misunderstood my colleague from Georgia, a member of the Committee on Rules. I think he said that I did not support the larger bill. That is not the case. I support the larger bill, the Sensenbrenner bill; and I intend to vote for it. I just want a separate vote on the stand-alone AMBER provisions so that we can do that today rather than 6 months ago, 6 months later or a year later.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for pointing out that, on an administrative basis, there is $12 million that has been set aside. Of course, this or some subsequent administration could withdraw that money, could terminate the program if it does not become permanent statutory law. We know this administration is under great budgetary pressures because of the large deficit that they have run up, and we do not want to risk someone in the administration waking up tomorrow and deciding that they cannot afford to spend this money for the AMBER Alert. So we want to put it in statutory law where they will have to spend it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

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

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

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

It was once observed many years ago in the pre-television age that there are two things that you do not want to see happen. One is the making of sausage and the other is the making of legislation. But, of course, now we see the making of legislation on television; and I would suggest that what the other side is doing today is giving sausage- making a bad name.

It is very clear that this legislation could become law in the next couple of days if they would just let it go, just let us have a separate vote on it. But they are not willing to do so.

My colleague from North Carolina cited the votes in the House for various provisions in this bill, other provisions. Of course those are all true, but the point is that they did not pass the Senate. They did not pass the other body. While they may be very popular in the House, that does not mean that the other body is going to take them all in one package with a little bow around them. They would not do it in the last Congress, and there is no real reason to believe they would do it anytime soon in this Congress. So all we are asking is a vote separate, a stand-alone vote just on the national AMBER network provisions which the other side, unfortunately, in this rule does not give us.

Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule. My amendment will provide that, immediately after the House passes the Child Abduction Prevention Act, it will take up the Senate-passed version of the AMBER Alert legislation. The Senate bill is identical to its House counterpart, H.R. 412, which has over 220 cosponsors.

The Senate passed S. 121 by a unanimous vote of 92-0 on January 21 of this

year. All that stands in the way of a presidential signature on this legislation is a clean vote by the House. That is what my amendment will allow us to do.

I am sure most of us cannot imagine the horror of having a child kidnapped. Research has shown that most kidnapped children are killed within 3 hours of their abduction. In these terrible, terrible instances, it is absolutely crucial that information be disseminated immediately so that these children can be rescued. AMBER programs in 39 States have already been credited with saving 31 lives.

It is hard to put into words the collective joy that this Nation felt 2 weeks ago when Elizabeth Smart was found alive and returned to her loving family. Let us help more families celebrate the joy of the safe return of a kidnapped child and not the sorrow of a tragic ending. Let us pass the Senate AMBER bill now and send it to the White House immediately.

Let me make very clear that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not stop consideration of the Child Abduction Prevention Act. A ``no'' vote will allow the House to vote on H.R. 1104 and on S. 121 as well. However, a ``yes'' vote on the previous question will prevent the House from passing the clean AMBER bill and getting it to the President's desk as soon as possible. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I have been in this House for 25 years, and I simply do not understand what the other side is doing today. It makes no sense. It is indefensible. Let this legislation come to a vote and let it come to a vote today and be sent to the President.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, there is something in politics called having a tin ear. That means being totally oblivious to everything around you.

Right now we have troops in the field, a war has begun, and we should be doing everything we can to speak with one voice and achieve national unity. Yet the Republican leadership insists at this moment in bringing to the floor one of the most partisan, divisive issues of the entire year. I question their judgment and their timing. I would hope that we would move fairly quickly today to a resolution supporting our troops in the field. Unfortunately, our Republican friends prefer to have on the floor a matter of high partisanship which will divide this Congress.

Like all of my colleagues, Republicans as well as Democrats, and like the American people themselves, I fully support our troops. I hope and pray that they will accomplish their mission as quickly and safely as possible.

For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I have argued that we should not be considering this bill today. Republicans have offered a budget that is as partisan as it is divisive, as dishonest as it is dangerous to the country, and, at a time like this, when the United States Congress should be demonstrating its unity to the world, I fear that bringing it to the floor guarantees a divisive debate.

But that is what Republican leaders have done today. And unfortunately, there is no minimizing the differences between the Democratic and Republican budgets. The Democratic budget alternatives offered by the Committee on the Budget ranking member, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), is a responsible plan to strengthen national security and restore economic growth and fiscal responsibility. It tightens Federal spending and balances the budget using honest accounting, but it still meets priorities like defense, education, and health care, and it does more for homeland security than the Republican budget does.

There are two other budget alternatives offered by groups of Democrats: the Blue Dogs on one hand, and the Congressional Black Caucus and Progressive Caucus on the other. They are worthwhile, and I am glad that they are in order under this rule.

The Republican budget stands in stark contrast, Mr. Speaker. The Republican budget is intellectually dishonest, morally indefensible, and just plain bad for our economy and our Nation. It explodes the deficit and raises the death tax on all Americans. It shortchanges homeland security to pay for tax breaks for millionaires, and it proves once again just how out of touch House Republicans truly are.

At a time which this Nation must come together, Republicans offer a budget that will pull us apart. Simply put, the Republican budget separates Americans into two categories: winners and losers. The winners are the wealthiest few who get hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks; the losers are everyone else, the people who have to sacrifice to pay for those tax breaks for the wealthiest few.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, never have so many been asked to sacrifice for so few.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican budget skimps on homeland security. It slashes priorities like education and health care. It shortchanges veterans and farmers, and it still explodes the deficits. That is because the Republican budget is a shameless work of fiction. It calls for draconian cuts, cuts in priorities like veterans' benefits, student loans, and law enforcement, and still gives massive tax breaks to the wealthiest. But it requires the tax breaks to be enacted by April 11 and gives Republicans until July 11 to make the spending cuts.

Mr. Speaker, when you get your dessert before you eat your spinach, you never eat your spinach. Any American parent can tell us that, and so can anyone else who has watched the Republican budget charade drive up the deficit over the past few years. As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the foremost proponent of fiscal responsibility in this House, told us yesterday in the Committee on Rules, the tax cuts will be enacted, and the spending cuts will be abandoned, and the deficit will continue to explode.

Why are Republicans foisting this dangerous budget on America and on our economy? Mr. Speaker, for one simple reason: because they stubbornly insist on giving massive tax breaks to the wealthiest few.

They say that to govern is to choose. Well, take a look at the consequences of the choices Republicans have made in this budget. American troops are at war, but Republicans chose to shortchange the veterans who defended this Nation in past years and to give tax breaks to millionaires. That is why the Veterans of Foreign Wars opposes the Republican budget. Republicans chose to slash education, and to give tax breaks to millionaires. They chose to cut health care for children and seniors on Medicaid, and to give tax breaks to millionaires.

They chose to cut assistance to farmers and to give tax breaks to millionaires. That is why the conservative Farm Bureau opposes the Republican budget. Republicans are even shortchanging homeland security; and once again, they are making sure millionaires get all the tax breaks they want.

Mr. Speaker, despite all these cruel cuts, cuts that touch almost all Americans and their families, this Republican budget still explodes the deficit. All the budget gimmicks and phony accounting in the world, what President Bush once called fuzzy math, cannot hide that truth.

All in all, the Republicans are proposing an economic horror show at a time when Americans are still suffering from the latest Republican recession. Since President Bush took office, 2.5 million Americans have lost their jobs in the private sector, the surplus has gone, and last year's deficit was $317 billion.

But Republicans refuse to face that fact, so they propose a budget that would actually harm the economy by driving the Nation deeper into debt, raising the debt tax on all Americans and their children, and increasing families' mortgage payments and credit card bills.

Moreover, this Republican budget does not account for how we are going to pay for a war with Iraq that has begun. So yesterday in the Committee on Rules the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the top Democrat on the Committee on Armed Services, offered an amendment to set aside $20 billion in a contingency fund to begin paying for the war. But Republican leaders refused to allow the House to vote on it.

Mr. Speaker, from veterans and farmers to students and seniors, this budget asks almost everyone in America to sacrifice. Everyone, that is, but the millionaires who get the big tax breaks. That is not just wrong; it is fiscally irresponsible. It is bad for the economy, and it is bad for America.

Mr. Speaker, as I said at the beginning, we are one country and we are one Congress, especially when our troops are risking their lives abroad to protect us here at home. I am very disappointed that the Republican budget fails to demonstrate that.

I urge my colleagues to reject the Republican budget and vote for the Democratic alternative offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), and join Democrats in restoring fiscal responsibility and protecting the economy against more of the same failed Republican economic policies.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, the preceding speaker asked what were the differences between the surpluses piled up during the second half of the Clinton Presidency and the deficits piled up during the first 2 years of the Bush Presidency.

True, there was a terrible attack on our country, and we have had to pay quite a bit because of the consequences of that. But I would suggest that the $1 trillion tax cut forced through by the new administration is the main reason why we face the deficits we have today. The $1 trillion, which primarily benefited the wealthy, forced through by the new administration, is the primary reason why we have the large deficits we have today, rather than the surpluses enjoyed during the Clinton Presidency.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on the Budget.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we are ready to proceed to consideration of this rule. The rule lays out three different Democratic alternatives. Unfortunately, the Committee on Rules chose not to make in order some very important amendments, specifically the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). We all support the troops. It is time for us to put our money where our mouth is. Unfortunately, this budget resolution does not provide any money for the ongoing war in Iraq. The Skelton amendment should have been made in order. It is regrettable the other side of the aisle did not give the House the opportunity to do what we all should be doing today.

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

Mr. Speaker, the war to remove the grave threat posed by Saddam Hussein and his regime's weapons of mass destruction has begun. Throughout this mission, the men and women of our Armed Forces will have the unwavering support of Congress and the American people. I thank the leadership of both parties for bringing this important resolution to the floor.

Today, this House speaks with one clear voice to America's allies and adversaries alike. We stand united in strong support of our troops.

My wife, Army Major General Kathy Frost, Commander of the Army Air Force Exchange Service, recently visited our troops in four Persian Gulf countries. She has shared with me their absolute commitment to everything asked of them by our country to complete this mission.

I also wish to recognize the thousands of American civilians, such as the AAFES employees, who are providing vital support to our troops in the Persian Gulf. The work of these civilians is essential to the success of this mission, and they, too, deserve our gratitude for taking the enormous risk to work in what is now a combat zone.

Our troops will succeed in carrying out this mission. Like all Americans, I hope and pray they do so as safely and quickly as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize and congratulate the remarkable Dunbar High School boys basketball team and their legendary coach Robert Hughes for winning the 2003 Texas Division 4-A championship.

Throughout the championship tournament, sports fans across Texas eagerly followed the Dunbar team to see if Coach Hughes would win his fifth state championship just weeks after setting the national record for the most wins by a high school basketball coach. An outstanding group of student athletes from Fort Worth made sure we weren't disappointed.

The championship game pitted Dunbar, the top seed, against No. 2 seed Oxen High School. Led by outstanding play from Jeremis Smith, Lance Jackson, Dominique Williams, Jeff Muriel and other Wildcats, Dunbar came from behind to win the second championship in Dunbar's school history.

With the excitement of the tournament behind us, talk is turning to whether Coach Hughes will return for his 46th season of coaching. The Dunbar players, many of whom are returning next season and who desperately want to play for the title again in Austin, have made it very clear that they want Coach Hughes back on the bench. And all of us who greatly admire everything Coach Hughes has accomplished on the court and to help countless young peoples' lives also hope to see him back next year.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read to the House an open letter directed to the House of Representatives signed by Elizabeth Smart, Lois Smart and Ed Smart.

Today, Elizabeth was introduced to the Amber Alert when she

asked about a videotape in my office. After watching the

coverage, Elizabeth asked why the legislation has not passed

when it saved so many children's lives. I could not give her

an answer!

After a lengthy conversation about how the Amber Alert has

been politicized, she asked me if there was anything she

could do to help pass it. We decided to draft this letter.

As you know, I can't express enough how our children can't

wait another day for the National Amber Alert to be signed

into law by President Bush. Please, please, please pass the

stand-alone Amber Alert legislation NOW. As soon as you do, I

will be there to celebrate and then go to work with you on

lobbying the Senate to pass other pending issues for our

children.

I will submit the remainder of the letter for the Record, signed by Elizabeth Smart, Ed Smart and Lois Smart.

March 18, 2003.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC 20515.

An Open Letter to the House of Representatives: Thank you

very much for your continued support and warm wishes over the

past nine months. We especially appreciate all of the

representatives who are working together so diligently to

pass the National Amber Alert Legislation.

Today, Elizabeth was introduced to the Amber Alert when she

asked about a video tape in my office. After watching the

coverage, Elizabeth asked why the legislation has not passed

when it saves so many children's lives. I could not give her

an answer!

After a lengthy conversation about how the Amber Alert has

been politicized, she asked me if there was anything she

could do to help it pass. We decided to draft this letter.

As you know, I can't express enough how our children can't

wait another day for the National Amber Alert to be signed

into law by President Bush. Please, please, please pass the

stand alone Amber Alert legislation NOW. As soon as you do, I

will be there to celebrate and then will go to work with you

on lobbying the Senate to pass other pending issues for our

children.

I wish to apologize to anyone who was offended by my

excitement last week. You cannot comprehend the joy and

adulation of having your child return. The Amber Alert will

make this a reality for countless families. Please don't

underestimate the immediacy and power of this legislation!

This is your opportunity to show your leadership for our

children. We look forward to seeing you soon.

Sincerely,

Edward Smart.

Lois Smart.

Elizabeth Smart.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to protecting our children, this House should never allow politics as usual to stand in the way of action. The House Republican leadership could allow Members to vote today to send legislation strengthening America's Amber Alert to the President. It is time to stop playing politics on this issue. So in a moment I will request unanimous consent to immediately take up the Amber bill in the House. This is the exact same legislation that passed the Senate earlier this year.

Five children have already been rescued with the aid of the Amber Alert in March alone. By passing the Amber bill, we can make this lifesaving program even more effective, but that will only happen soon if we listen to people like Ed Smart and others and stop allowing politics to hijack the Amber bill.

Request for Consideration of S. 121, The National Amber Alert Network

Act on Tuesday, March 18, 2003

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that as the first order of business on Tuesday, March 18, it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House S. 121, the National Amber Alert Network Act.

Mr. Speaker, I regret the ruling of the Chair. House Republican leaders have prevented us from voting on the Amber bill for over 6 months now and counting. This issue should not be treated like just another horse trade with the Senate. I implore the leaders of this House to let us do the right thing for our children and send the Amber bill to the President this week.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, we all agree that there is a problem in America's medical system, but Republicans are not taking a serious approach to this problem. They are just playing politics and risking the rights of patients in order to carry water for HMOs and insurance companies. We know this, Mr. Speaker, because Republican leaders have brought this bill to the floor under a closed rule.

Now, on this very important subject, let me quote from a statement made 9 years ago by the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), at a time that he was in the minority. He said, and I quote, ``I oppose closed rules, Mr. Speaker. I believe they are anathema to the concept of deliberative democracy.''

Mr. Speaker, if Republicans wanted to deal with medical malpractice in a serious and substantive way, would they be using a process that is, as the gentleman from California himself said, anathema to the concept of deliberative democracy? I do not think so. And would they be preventing the House from voting on Democrats' comprehensive medical malpractice reform plan? Certainly not. But that is exactly what Republican leaders are doing today. As a result, the only bill made in order by this rule today is the Republican one and it is a shocking attempt to protect insurance companies while attacking the rights of victims.

Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, the Republican bill will not reduce doctors' premiums, but it will protect HMOs and insurance companies, and it will punish patients who suffer from medical mistakes, patients like 17-year-old Jesica Santillan, who died because of a tragic medical mistake in North Carolina earlier this year. Or patients like the 1- year-old baby who died in Dallas last August after a surgical error.

That is right, Mr. Speaker. Instead of reducing malpractice premiums, Republicans are reducing victims' rights. Instead of protecting patients, they are protecting the profits of HMOs and insurance companies. It is absolutely

outrageous, but that is what you get with this Republican Congress.

It did not have to be that way, Mr. Speaker. Democrats, led by the two most senior Members of the House, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), offered a comprehensive plan to bring down doctors' insurance rates and protect patients. The Democratic plan combines tort reform and insurance reform. It cracks down on frivolous lawsuits. And, just as importantly, it forces insurance companies to pass on their savings to doctors. Without this rate rollback provision, Mr. Speaker, insurance companies can just pad their profit margins instead of passing the savings on. That is a lesson we learned in Texas when we passed tort reform. So the Texas legislature and then-Governor Bush agreed on a law that specifically required that insurance companies reduce doctors' premiums, and that is all we are trying to do here. But Republican leaders decided to protect insurance company profits while they were reducing patient protections. So they defeated our amendments in the Committee on Rules last night.

Mr. Speaker, doctors and patients deserve better than this. So I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question. Then we can amend the rule to bring up the only comprehensive plan to reform medical malpractice, the Democratic substitute. And if Republicans succeed in passing this rule, I urge a ``no'' vote on the underlying bill. Do not let Republicans sacrifice victims' rights in order to protect HMO profits.

I would make one other point. Last night in the Committee on Rules when challenged by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the committee, explained why the committee was not going to grant an open rule, why they were going to grant a closed rule. What he said was, ``This is payback. This is payback for what you did when you were in the majority.''

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I was sitting next to the gentleman from California, and I believe that I heard him say that this was payback.

Mr. Chairman, I was sitting right next to you.

All I can say is I was sitting next to the gentleman. I understand and I know what I heard last night.

Mr. Speaker, assuming that the Republicans are pursuing some sort of payback because they do not like what we did when we were in the majority, I would only point out that we rarely granted closed rules, and they normally were bills out of the Committee on Ways and Means. Bills of this nature, of this controversy, when we were in the majority, we permitted the minority to have a substitute on the floor, something which they have denied us today.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. As the gentleman knows, the Amber bill, the Amber Alert plan, was named after a little girl, Amber Hagerman, who was abducted and murdered in my district in Texas, in Arlington, Texas; and the Senate, as previously mentioned, has passed this as a stand-alone bill, unanimously, and has sent it to the House.

I would ask my friend, the distinguished majority leader, what is the objection to bringing the Amber bill as a stand-alone matter, that has already been passed by the Senate, to the House either under unanimous consent or under suspension of the rules?

If the gentleman from Maryland will continue to yield, my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), understands that by putting the Amber Alert legislation into a larger omnibus bill, this delays for a very substantial period of time the passage of the Amber Alert bill. There are a number of controversial provisions that have been added to it by the Committee on the Judiciary, provisions that were passed last year and were found unacceptable by the Senate.

I would repeat my question: What is the objection simply to bringing the Amber Alert bill itself as a stand-alone matter that has already been passed by the Senate? What is the objection to bringing that to the floor of the House?

Mr. Speaker, I would repeat my question, if I may.

Mr. Speaker, my question is, What is the objection on the majority side to bringing the stand- alone Amber bill to the floor which has already been passed by the Senate, to bring it to the floor as a separate item and not part of a larger bill?

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) did not see the press conference earlier today carried on CNN, I would advise the gentleman that the senior Republican Senator from Texas, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, who was a cosponsor of the Amber bill in the Senate, urged that the House take up the Senate passed Amber bill as a clean bill with a separate vote.

Mr. Speaker, I would inquire, did the gentleman see Senator Hutchison's statement?

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, she introduced the Amber Plan in this Congress and had it passed unanimously 92-0, she and Senator Dianne Feinstein. That is all we are asking, that there be a separate stand- alone vote on the Amber bill in the House, just as there was in the Senate, so it can be sent to the President and signed into law.

If the gentleman would indulge me further, I would like to very briefly read part of a letter that I received today from a city Councilman in my district, Councilman Joe Bruner from the City of Arlington, Texas.

Dear Congressman Frost: I understand you have sponsored a

bill which will take Arlington's own Amber Plan nationwide.

In this day of turmoil and terror, I cannot think of any

other means which would better cause the minds of moms and

dads to return to normalcy. Doreen and I have always had a

special place in our heart for little Amber and defy anyone

to ever hinder the implementation of the Amber Plan. As

councilman for the district here in Arlington where her body

was found, I take exception to Congressman Sensenbrenner's

refusal to let your bill go through.

Then the letter continues.

This really speaks to the fact that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) and the majority leader insists that the Amber Plan be combined with a larger piece of legislation that has had difficulty in the Senate.

I strongly urge my friend on the other side of the aisle, who has demonstrated an interest in children's issues, to persuade the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary to permit this bill to go forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in commending the service men and women of our Armed Services.

Mr. Speaker, I supported the resolution authorizing the President to use force if necessary to disarm the Iraqi regime. But regardless of Members' views on that resolution, we are united in our support of our troops. All of these brave men and women volunteered for duty and we have a responsibility to recognize the sacrifices that they have made to defend America's security.

My wife, Army Major General Cathy Frost, Commander of the Army Air Force Exchange Service recently visited our troops in Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE and Qatar. She shared with me the commitment of the brave young men and women on the fronts lines and their willingness to do whatever is required of them by our country. And I would also like to add a word of support for the more than 200 civilian employees of the Army Air Force Exchange Service who are operating PXs in that region in support of our service men and women.

We all sincerely hope that war in Iraq can still be avoided. However, this House is united today in sending a clear message to America's allies and adversaries alike: We stand united in support of our troops.