Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today in memory of Officer Andrew Albert Esparza and in honor of his life dedicated to service and public safety.

Andrew passed away on April 13, 2007 in a fatal car accident while on his way to assist another officer. After graduating from the University of Texas in Arlington with degrees in business marketing and Spanish, Andrew followed in his brother's footsteps by joining the Irving Police Department in 2005. He was recently selected to join the SWAT team on a part-time basis and always made himself available as a Spanish translator. Though he was only with the Irving Police Department for 2 years, Andrew demonstrated great promise with expertise, maturity, and professionalism beyond his years of experience.

He is survived by his parents, Rafael and Christina of Fort Worth, TX; two brothers, Rafael Esparza, Jr. and wife, Jennifer of Irving, TX; Felix Esparza and wife, Haylee of Burleson, TX; sister, Zoe Esparza of Burleson, TX; grandparents, Lydia Garcia of Fort Worth, TX; Lazaro and Olivia Cantu of Fort Worth, TX; and nieces and nephews, Saeya, Sloan, Slade, and Rylee Esparza.

He will be remembered as a compassionate officer, a dedicated family man, and a devout Christian. May God bless all those he loved, and may I convey to them my sincerest condolences and the gratitude of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today for the second time in a month in strong opposition to this closed rule, to these two closed amendment processes, and to the blatantly unconstitutional underlying measure that the Democrat majority is bringing to the House floor today.

I would like to say that I am surprised by the lack of respect for regular order and procedural gimmickry that the Democrats have used to bring this rule to the floor today. Unfortunately, in what has become an all too familiar scenario in the Democrat Rules Committee, respect for minority party rights and regular order are, once again, being trumped by political expediency and the Democrat leadership's willingness to abuse power for their own narrow political ends.

Last month, when this unconstitutional bill was first brought to the House floor, the Democrats sunk to an unprecedented new low by pulling the legislation from the floor just before it passed the House, using a provision that was intended to give the Speaker flexibility in scheduling votes, not to give her an escape valve when things were not going her way.

Today, the Democrats seem committed to outdoing that shameful effort by waiving the ``Pay-For'' rules that they imposed on this House floor just less than 4 months ago, after committing themselves to honor their pledge to increase taxes on the American public every time they increase spending.

They have also split the bill into two pieces, one that tries to skirt the Constitution and one that skirts their own ``Pay-For'' rule, all in the name of preventing the minority from offering the popular notion that a majority of the House was on the brink of passing just weeks ago.

And as if the process that brings us here today weren't bad enough, there is little to celebrate in this deeply flawed underlying bill, the same words that the constitutional scholar and law professor Jonathan Turley has called ``the most premeditated unconstitutional act by Congress in decades'' either. Thankfully, President Bush has made it clear that this cynical political exercise is destined for his veto pen, if it even makes it that far.

My opposition to this matter stems from its incompatibility with a pretty basic foundation of American government: the Constitution. Section 2 of article I clearly states that ``The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the People of several States.'' And as any fourth grader in the country can tell you, Washington, D.C., is simply not a State. There is simply no one that has moved into or lives in Washington, D.C., that thought that they would be given this ability. Washington, D.C., is not a State.

Supporters of this legislation will claim that the ``District Clause,'' which gives Congress the power to legislate over our Nation's seat, also gives Congress the power to grant D.C. a Member of Congress. But this same clause makes it clear, by its very nature, that Washington, D.C., is not a State, which brings us back to the original problem of this bill's being completely unconstitutional.

But don't take my word for it. If the Democrat leadership won't listen to reason, one would hope that they would at least listen to one of our Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton, who offered an amendment to the Constitution that would have provided D.C. with a vote in the House. Unfortunately, I know we all don't know this, but his amendment was defeated on July 22, 1788.

But if neither my word nor the Constitution nor the actions of our Founding Fathers is good enough, I wonder if the Democrat majority would be willing to listen to an equal branch of government, as they had an opinion on this matter. In 2000, the Federal District Court in Washington, D.C., concluded that ``the Constitution does not contemplate that the District may serve as a State for the purposes of the apportionment of congressional representatives.'' It seems pretty clear to me, but I guess not to every single Member of this body.

So for a moment let us ignore my word, the Constitution, the actions of our Founding Fathers, and the decisions of the Federal judiciary. What would it mean if Congress simply gave D.C. a seat in the House, rather than going through the necessary process of passing a constitutional amendment, which was attempted in 1978 and failed? Well, it would create a precedent that Congress would give the District three votes next year or they could perhaps give them 10. The way that this legislation is currently drafted, it gives the District two votes in the Committee of the Whole, more than any other voting Member, as well as a vote in the House.

But rather than discuss the facts or the logic of this approach, I suspect that supporters of this legislation will come to the floor and talk about ``fairness.'' But I fail to see how it is fair to give Washington, D.C., super-representation, two votes for amendments, or every voter in Utah an unprecedented two votes also, one for their Congressman and one for a new at-large Member, keeping the ``one man, one vote'' principle in every other State. Perhaps a Member on the Democrat side will be kind enough to come down to the floor and explain this logic to me; but I am not going to hold my breath.

Mr. Speaker, as Members of Congress, we take an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution, not to trample on it. No matter what the supporters of this bill may claim to the contrary, the Constitution is not a cafeteria. You cannot pick and choose which parts you are going to respect and which ones you are going to ignore. That is why our Framers, in their infinite wisdom, created an orderly, lawful process for amending the Constitution. And despite the best efforts of the Democrat leadership, I am sure that the Framers' legacy to our country will prevail and will prevent this poorly drafted and ill-conceived measure from becoming law.

I urge each of my colleagues to reject this outrageous rule and the underlying assault on the Constitution.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from San Dimas, California, the ranking member of the Rules Committee (Mr. Dreier).

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

Mr. Speaker, we simply are on the floor today to say that the means do not justify the ends. It should be done properly and constitutionally; just as it was done in 1978, it should be done today. We think the way that the Democrat majority is doing this, to give super-voting powers to the District of Columbia and to the State of Utah, is unconstitutional. So I make no apologies for standing up for the way I read the Constitution and what I believe.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield, with Mr. Arcuri's concurrence, 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. Speaker, by agreement, I believe Mr. Arcuri and I are going to be the final two speakers. He has agreed that I will offer my close and then yield back my time, and the gentleman will have the remaining time.

Mr. Speaker, the minority believes that the means just don't justify the ends. We believe that there is a process for getting this done constitutionally and appropriately. We believe the way the rule is written, we believe that the supermajority that this would give to Washington, D.C. two voting Members as well as a super-Delegate Member who would be from Utah would violate the one man-one vote clause. We believe that the way that this is written is wrong and not correct, and we should not proceed under that matter.

Related to the gentlelady's comments about us delaying tactics several weeks ago, I find that curious because we were following regular order rules, rules that had been established. And I find it interesting that regular order would be called a delaying tactic.

Mr. Speaker, I am asking Members to vote against the previous question so that I might be able to offer an amendment to the rule which would strike the obvious attempt to nullify and mute the minority's ability to recommit a bill.

The provision says that if the minority has a valid motion to recommit and the majority of the House agrees to it, the bill is tabled. The majority has taken away the House's ability to send something back to the committee for further consideration.

The distinguished majority leader has spent a great deal of time telling Members in the press that the motion to recommit offered on March 22 would have killed the bill. Well, that just wasn't true. It would have sent the bill back to the committee.

The egregious provision makes the minority leader's wishes come true now. It causes any motion to recommit the bill other than a forthwith motion to effectively kill the bill. Why would the Democrat majority want to limit the minority's opinion in such a manner? Would it be so that they might be able to say with a straight face that a vote to recommit actually kills the bill?

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment and the extraneous material be printed just prior to the vote on the previous question.

Parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.

I understand that the procedure that the Chair just went through is known as Calendar Wednesday. Is it correct that any bill reported by a committee and placed on the Union or House calendar could have been called up by the chairman as the committee name was read?

Further parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.

H.R. 1429, Head Start Reauthorization, was reported out of the Ed and Labor Committee on March 23, 2007. Would it have been in order for the chairman or his designee to call up H.R. 1429 at this time?

Further parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.

Similarly, H.R. 493, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, was reported by the Ed and Labor Committee on March 5, 2007. Would it have been possible to call up H.R. 493 at this time?

Further parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker

Is it in order for Mr. McKeon, the ranking member of the Education and Labor Committee, to call up the bill under his committee's jurisdiction, Head Start?

Further parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.

Is it in order for any member of the minority to call up a bill during the call of the committees?

Further parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.

Is the chairman of the committee the only person that is in order to call up a bill during the call of the committees on Calendar Wednesday?

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule and to the underlying legislation, which I think constitutes an unnecessary and unwarranted Federal intrusion into the free enterprise system and the private sector. The legislation that the Democrat majority has brought to the House today would create a new Federal mandate on publicly held companies, but does so in a half-hearted way that would have absolutely no practical impact on its purported goal of improving disclosure and addressing ``excessive'' executive compensation.

The Democrats' Shareholder Vote on Executive Compensation Act would force every publicly held company to bear the costs of administering a toothless, nonbinding shareholder vote on pay packages of its highest compensated officials during every proxy vote. It is unclear, however, what the outcome of this vote, which under current rules could already happen today at any publicly held company, would mean for the company, the board of directors, executives or the shareholders.

Yesterday in the Rules Committee, Chairman Barney Frank testified that this vote was not intended to create a new fiduciary responsibility for board members. Even if a majority of shareholders agreed that a company's executives were being compensated too generously, there are no provisions in this legislation to obligate a board to comply with this decision.

So if a board does choose to ignore an affirmative vote, again according to Chairman Frank's testimony in the Rules Committee, since there is no fiduciary responsibility and no private right of action created by this new mandatory shareholder vote, there is no legal recourse provided in this bill for shareholders to force board compliance.

So rather than demonstrating the courage of their convictions that executive pay is wildly out of control in this country and that shareholders should be able to rein it in unilaterally through a ballot process, Democrats have chosen to bring legislation to the floor today, forcing private entities to take an action that they are already capable of taking by their very own nature. But this would make this new mandatory vote little more than a weak ``sense of the shareholder'' resolution that can be simply ignored by a board with impunity.

I am also extremely surprised, Mr. Speaker, by the Democrat leadership's recent conversion to the merits of democracy in determining an organization's actions. Less than 2 months ago, this same leadership brought to the floor legislation that strips American workers of their right to use a secret ballot to decide whether or not to unionize and provides for unprecedented intimidation of employees by union bosses under a fundamentally antidemocratic process known as ``card check.'' But I suppose the Democrats' new-found selective commitment to democratic principles is better late than never.

The reality is that shareholders already have a democratic option available to them if they think that a board is shirking its fiduciary responsibilities to investors. They can sell their shares and vote with their dollars. This is a basic principle of how markets work in a free enterprise system, and it has been the steadfast commitment to principles like these that has made the American economy the envy of the world over the last decade, even while economies across Europe have stagnated and shrunk.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Frank has represented to the House that the real aim of this legislation is not to create a new class of lawsuits for the trial bar to exploit, and I take him at his word. But that leaves only one sensible explanation for why the Democrat majority would bring such a toothless bill to the floor of the House today, and that is to provide outsiders, such as Big Labor bosses, environmentalists and so- called ``consumer activists,'' with a new avenue to criticize the management of corporations and to compel boards to do their bidding.

Information about executive compensation is already fully disclosed to investors, who have every opportunity to determine whether or not it is too generous before becoming an owner of a listed security. And under this bill, even if they decide that it is too generous, the legislation contains no enforcement mechanism. This legislation simply provides a foot in the door for outside organizations to try to bully boards of directors in hopes of weakening management and gaining concessions down the road. This bill does nothing to improve corporate governance. It does nothing to improve board decision-making or increase shareholder value. That is why I have submitted an amendment that would force any person or organization who spends a significant sum on trying to influence the outcome of this new mandatory vote to disclose who they are, how much they have spent and on what activities so that investors can have a full picture of who is trying to influence them in this decision-making process.

While I think this amendment would improve a misguided bill, I am not holding my breath at all that the majority party will join me in standing up for increased transparency. But who knows? Today we learned that they have radically changed their opinion on the merits of secret ballots, so perhaps they will stand up for transparency in proxy vote influence-peddling also.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule and the weak underlying ``sense of the shareholder'' legislation. Congress can do better than this. And rather than mimicking the interventionist economic policies of Europe, I believe we should reject this legislation and stand up for what sets our economy apart and has spurred our continued economic and job growth while others sank, which would be a commitment to free markets and an understanding that when given information, investors can make good decisions on their own.

Mr. Speaker, I stand up for the free enterprise system and the American way of doing business.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to the ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts speaking so clearly about what is happening. I would clarify my words and say to the gentleman, I do believe that it would be appropriate to have anyone who is attempting to influence an outcome of a vote, that they should have a requirement upon them to identify themselves, to state how much money they are spending and the activities that they are engaged in. And I think that that is full disclosure also about the activities that could take place under this new nonbinding resolution that we are attempting to pass.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would yield 5 minutes to the ranking member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from San Dimas, California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the inquiry. At this time, we have one additional speaker.

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

In response to the gentleman at this time, I do not have any additional speakers. I would use this time for my close. I thank the gentleman for the inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, I think the point that would be taken here would follow those words that David Dreier spoke on, and that is, we simply call things what they are honestly. We don't try to call things what they aren't. We follow the regular order of this House, as has been established, going back at least to the 103rd Congress when Mr. Moakley, the chairman of the Rules Committee, said, this is what we will call things, this is what an open rule is, this is what a modified rule is. That is the point we are trying to make today, that you should call something what it is.

At this time, I would like to include a statement of administration policy on this bill.

Statement of Administration Policy--H.R. 1257--Shareholder Vote on

Executive Compensation Act of 2007

(representative frank (d) massachusetts and 27 cosponsors)

The Administration opposes H.R. 1257, which would require

public companies to hold a separate advisory shareholder vote

to approve the compensation of executives. The Administration

does not believe that Congress should mandate the process by

which executive compensation is approved.

The Administration supports full transparency to

shareholders regarding executive compensation decisions.

Recent enhancements in corporate governance and disclosure

have strengthened the executive compensation decision-making

process of boards of directors. Corporate governance changes

have made boards more independent, including through the

establishment of compensation committees composed solely of

independent directors. In addition, as a result of the

Securities and Exchange Commission's revised disclosure rules

on executive compensation, which recently became effective,

shareholders are receiving comprehensive information on

executive compensation. Before additional corporate

governance requirements are legislated, the Administration

believes that recent enhancements should be given time to

take effect.

The statement of the administration is quite succinct, and that is at the end of this statement it says ``before additional corporate governance requirements are legislated, the administration believes that the recent enhancements should be given time to take effect. That is in reference to the SEC and what the SEC had done.

Mr. Speaker, I am asking Members to oppose the previous question so that I may amend the rule to make it a true, modified open rule. As the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Financial Services pointed out yesterday at the Rules Committee, he is expecting that consideration of the bill is likely to continue through the end of the week.

But under a normal modified open rule, Members would still be allowed to submit amendments for printing today or tomorrow so that they might be considered tomorrow or Friday. This restrictive rule severely limits the fluidity which traditional and modified open rules allow. This rule is not an open rule as it is currently drafted. It would not even be qualified as a modified open rule. This is a restrictive rule.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment and extraneous material be printed just before the vote on the previous question.

I also urge Members to oppose the previous question.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would, very simply, provide sunshine and transparency for shareholders so that there is full disclosure about who is financing efforts to influence their vote on this new congressionally mandated, nonbinding shareholder resolution. Let me give an example of a substantially similar disclosure requirement that every Member of this body understands, because it is already a current practice.

As Federal candidates, we are each obligated to disclose to the Federal Election Commission the name, occupation and amount given from each of our donors. These funds can then be used for FEC-approved campaign purposes. We require this, as well as we create caps for the amount that can be donated over a legislation cycle, because public interest is advanced by letting those who cast votes for their Members of Congress know who funds these campaigns.

My amendment would not limit the amount that can be spent like the FEC does for political contributions on the amount that people or organizations like labor bosses, environmental groups or consumer advocates spend on influencing this new mandatory nonbinding vote.

The purpose of this amendment is not to impede the ability of organizations to influence this vote. If they hold shares in stock, they would be willing to express their desires. The point of this amendment is simply to provide voters, in this case, shareholders, with access to information about who is spending money to influence that vote.

My amendment tasks the Securities and Exchange Commission with setting a de minimis level of spending and with collecting important information about anyone or any organization that spends over that amount to influence this vote, including who is spending the money, what they are spending the money on and how much they are spending to influence the votes of other shareholders. If an individual wants to

spend more than this de minimis amount and not disclose their identity to shareholders, they are still perfectly able to do so. However, their votes would no longer count in this mandatory vote.

My amendment provides an appropriate level of transparency for shareholder elections. And if we believe that voters deserve this information, then we should also be willing to give shareholders this same level of transparency.

I firmly disagree with the Democrat majority, with the underlying premise of this legislation that it is the Federal Government's job to place this nonbinding mandate on private entities, especially because public companies are already empowered to take this shareholder vote if they so choose and because there is no obligation for anyone to own shares in the company if they do not like the way that it is being managed.

I am also confused by the Democrat majority's recent conversion to the merits of democracy in determining an organization's actions. Less than 2 months ago, the same leadership brought to the floor legislation that strips American workers of the right to use a secret ballot to decide whether or not to unionize, and provides for unprecedented intimidation of employees by union bosses under a fundamentally antidemocratic process known as ``card check.''

But if we are going to pass this interventionist legislation, my amendment would be one small step in the right direction towards giving shareholders all the disclosures that they might need to make an informed decision.

Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a letter of support from the American Shareholders Association that was sent to Speaker Pelosi in support of my amendment.

American Shareholders Association,

Washington, DC, April 18, 2007.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Pelosi: On behalf of American Shareholders

Association (ASA), I wish to express this organization's

strong support for an amendment to be offered to H.R. 1257 by

Rep. Pete Sessions. In short, this amendment seeks greater

disclosure of funding designed to influence shareholder

votes.

Over the past several years we have witnessed the rise of

special interest groups seeking to turn boardroom votes into

political campaigns. While activist investors seeking to

increase shareholder value is welcome by our standards, we

have become increasingly concerned by activist investors

seeking to achieve political gain with board votes and little

regard to what is in the best interests of shareholders.

As such, today's vote on H.R. 1257 should be amended to

impose sunlight on the political campaigns being waged in

corporate boardrooms, which the Session amendment achieves.

This is accomplished by tasking the Securities and Exchange

Commission with collecting information regarding the

shareholders spending money to influence the vote; the amount

spent; and the activities the money was spent on.

While corporate governance is a worthwhile objective we

have witnessed a substantial increase in the number of

shareholders using this term as a guise at the expense of

individual shareholders. The Sessions amendment is designed

to protect individual investors from these activities and I

urge you and the entire Democratic Caucus to support this

very worthy amendment.

Sincerely,

Daniel Clifton,

Executive Director.

I don't have an objection. I would ask the same.

Then that would be fine; the gentleman may continue.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from California as well as the gentleman from Massachusetts, who, as the chairman of the committee, has forthrightly come before the Rules Committee, made himself available and is doing so again tonight on the floor.

Mr. Chairman, it is quite simple that this is about transparency, and I think that is what this bill is about. It is about bringing transparency and some clarity to a shareholder, to be able to know a little bit more and to express themselves about what they think about executive compensation.

I disagree with that. But let's add some more transparency and at least say that if someone else is going to become engaged in the effort, other than the individual shareholder, that they be given an opportunity to have to at least register their activities and what they are doing. The Securities and Exchange Commission, just like the Federal Election Commission, has a lot of knowledge about how business works and how transactions work. I have no reason to assume that, let's say, GE, that they would have a shareholder for GE held to some standard of $500 or $1,000 as the gentleman suggests, that some retiree could not influence as many people as they wanted, that they would have to go through a reporting process.

Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is that this should be about doing the right thing, where we would understand who was on what side, what they were attempting to influence and whether they were trying to influence the corporation in some way. I think shareholders should know about that.

I believe that the SEC could forthrightly understand that the size of the company, the size of the mailing and those things that happen would be appropriately determined. Obviously, if you are going to go on TV, that threshold might be less. If you are going to go in the mail, perhaps a different threshold. But what I am suggesting to you is it is not us setting the standard; it is the Securities and Exchange Commission that wants to regulate, in a fair and proper way, the marketplace.

I do thank the gentleman in fairness for giving me the additional minute that they were given.

So I would ask this body to understand today that we might well be passing this bill, but that this amendment process is to bring forward ideas that bring clarity and understanding of transparency. I believe shareholders would also be entitled to know who is attempting to influence them and what those words might be that they choose, rather than just beating up a company. I don't think it is good for anybody in this country to receive a message that might be aimed at someone without full disclosure, without the proper notification about who they were and what their intentions were. This is about transparency. This is about sunlight. This is about doing the right thing that would enhance the bill that is before us today.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity for Mr. Frank to be able to not only forthrightly offer me the time in fairness, I would also like to thank the Rules Committee, of which I have been a member now for 9 years. I understand what we are doing here, and I will say that I appreciate the way this bill has been handled.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Sessions

Amendment No. 13: Page 6, line 13, strike the close

quotation marks and following period and after such line

insert the following new paragraph:

``(3) Disclosure of activities to influence vote.--

Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) or (2)(B), a shareholder's

vote shall not be counted under such paragraphs if the

shareholder has spent, directly or indirectly, more than a de

minimis amount of money (as determined by the Commission) on

activities to influence a vote of other shareholders, unless

such shareholder discloses to the Commission, in accordance

with rules prescribed by the Commission--

``(A) the identity of all persons or entities engaged in

such a campaign;

``(B) the activities engaged in to influence the vote; and

``(C) the amount of money expended on such a campaign.''.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to proudly recognize T.C. Marsh Junior High School as the home to the National Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps (JROTC) Middle School Champions. Thirty-five of the school's 217 unit members qualified for the competition which was held on March 31 in Dallas. Under the guidance of teacher David Bates, the students competed against units from all over the country. Bates served for the army as a corporal in the First Calvary. As a former Florida Gator football player, Bates coaches W.T. White varsity softball and football teams and until this year, coached 8th grade football, basketball and baseball at T. C. Marsh. I congratulate David Bates and the students of T.C. Marsh Junior High School for their well- deserved victory and wish them all the best in future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in memory of Lieutenant Colonel William Benjamin Dixon, Sr. and in honor of his patriotism and a life dedicated to service.

After spending his life dedicated to serving this great Nation, Bill passed away on March 23, 2007. He began as an Air Observation Pilot flying an L-4 and served in the War in Rhineland and Central Europe with the 2nd Infantry Division. He received multiple honors including the EAME Campaign Medal with two Bronze Stars, American Campaign Medal, WWII Victory Medal, a Purple Heart, and two Air Force Commendation Medals for meritorious service.

He is survived by his wife of 59 years, Purna Lee Dixon; five children, Laura Elizabeth Hansbrough of Kansas City, MO; William B. Dixon, Jr. of Bryan, TX; John Robert Dixon of Hingham, MA; Carol Ann Erwin of Sanger, TX; and Milly Ann Vickery of Frost, TX; and 12 grandchildren.

He will be remembered as a devoted family man, a decorated Army Air Corps veteran, and a proud graduate of Texas A&M University. May God bless all those he loved, and may I convey to them my sincerest condolences and the gratitude of the American people.

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to congratulate the students of the University of Texas at Dallas for their victory at the 2007 Final Four of Chess held in Dallas/Fort Worth this weekend. With this win, the team earned the title of the top collegiate chess team in the Western Hemisphere.

The University of Texas at Dallas chess team won the President's Cup trophy after defeating the University of Maryland at Baltimore County, Duke University and Miami Dade College. The team's five and a half point margin of victory was the largest in the tournament's seven year history.

Team members Alejandro Ramirez, Magesh Chandran Panchanathan, Marko Zivanic, Drasko Boskovic, Dmitri Shneider and Davorin Kuljasevic were guided by their coach, Rade Milovanic. The team credits their victory to a thoughtful strategy and a rigorous practice regimen before the tournament. Drasko Boskovic, a junior business administration major, was selected as the tournament's Most Valuable Player. He outscored all other competitors and had a perfect 3-0 record.

The University of Texas at Dallas is an outstanding school of high academics; the freshman class typically boasts above average SAT scores. Located at the convergence of Plano, Richardson and Dallas, the school enrolls more than 14,500 well-rounded and ambitious students. The university offers bachelor's degrees, master's degrees and doctoral degree programs. I am proud to represent the University of Texas at Dallas in the 32nd Congressional district of Texas.

I congratulate these students for their success in collegiate chess, a true indicator of intelligence, and wish them the best of luck in their future academic and chess endeavors.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule and to the unprecedented tax increase that the Democrat majority is bringing to the House floor today. The massive and irresponsible tax increase included in this budget would be the largest in American history, weighing in at a shocking $392.5 billion over the next 5 years. This Democrat budget, which is balanced on the backs of everyday taxpayers, will be used to finance bloated new government spending that my colleague just spoke about that will be well above the rate of inflation through 2012 while ignoring the brewing entitlement crisis. Spending, more spending, and more spending rather than worrying about the brewing entitlement crisis that faces this Nation. Around 77 million baby boomers will be retiring in the near future and will begin collecting Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. Funding this new spending represents the greatest economic challenge of our era and is a challenge the Democrat budget has chosen to completely ignore while going on a spending spree everywhere else.

If fiscal discipline is what the Democrats promised voters this past fall, then by my count it took all of about 3 months for the Democrat candidates to abandon their campaign trail promises and show their true tax-and-spend stripes here again on the floor today.

This deeply flawed budget would increase taxes on almost 8 million taxpayers in my home State of Texas, costing each of them an average of $2,755 per year. It would collect these taxes by allowing the 2001 and 2003 tax relief provided by the Republican Congress to expire. In real terms, for every taxpayer, this means reducing the child tax credit for working families so that government can collect $27 billion more to finance the new spending that the Democrat majority chooses. It means reinstating the marriage penalty and the death tax to collect an additional $104 billion so that the majority can kick that further down the road rather than reforming and strengthening our Nation's entitlement programs. And it means completely ignoring the alternative minimum tax crisis which is projected to hit 23 million middle-class families if not dealt with quickly.

Madam Speaker, I believe the voters watching this debate on C-SPAN understand what these tax increases mean for our economy and our ability to compete globally, for, you see, I remember just a few short years ago when America was shipping thousands and thousands of jobs overseas and then the tax cuts took place and now we can't find enough workers in America. Madam Speaker, I would suggest to you, that is the way to be globally competitive, when you have plenty of jobs in America. But the voters and those people watching this debate may not realize that for a family of four with $60,000 in earnings, it would mean a tax increase of some 61 percent. It means that a single parent with two children and $30,000 in earnings would see a tax increase of 67 percent. And it means that an elderly couple with $40,000 in income would see their taxes increased by a whopping 156 percent.

Now, one would think that a tax increase of almost $400 billion impacting every American taxpayer would be enough to finance the Democrats' appetite for big government programs. But hold on. This is just the start. There's more to come. This budget also contains 12 reserve funds, or pet initiative IOUs, which set the stage for more than $115 billion in future higher spending which will have to be financed by, let me say, you guessed it, the taxpayer. Higher taxes.

For the last 4 years, responsible budgets passed by the Republican Party kept discretionary spending at or below inflation for all non- defense, non-homeland security spending. This budget plan brought forward by the Democrats brings this tradition to a screeching halt by allowing about $25 billion more in discretionary spending than requested by President Bush or even the spendthrift Senate, which asks for about $7 billion less than the House.

Thankfully, it is not too late to stop this fiscal train wreck. My friend, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, Paul Ryan, has proposed an alternative budget that achieves balance by 2012 and ends the raid on Social Security without raising taxes. The Republican alternative maintains our strong economy, reforms and strengthens entitlement programs, and does this while keeping in place the tax relief that has contributed so much to our economy since 2001.

Without meaningful tax relief passed by recent Republican Congresses, our economy would not have seen the massive job growth--with 7.6 million new jobs or roughly 170,000 per month--and

economic growth of 3.5 percent a year that it has experienced over the last 15 quarters.

The Republican budget contains no increase in marginal rates and leaves in place the 10 percent bracket for low-income filers. It includes no reduction in child tax credit, no rollback of the marriage penalty or death tax relief, and no increase in capital gains or dividend tax rates. It provides for an extension of alternative minimum tax relief, the research and development tax credit, and the State and local sales tax deduction that is so important to people all across this country, including the 17 States that it benefits. It ends the raid on Social Security and fully funds the President's request for national defense and the war on terrorism. It also makes important budget reforms, such as a legislative line-item veto; earmark transparency; requiring PAYGO to be offset by spending reductions, not tax increases; discretionary spending caps; requiring a vote on any debt limit increase; and requiring a vote on any bill that seeks to spend or authorize more than $50 million.

Madam Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to listen very carefully today about what the choices are that are on the floor of the House of Representatives and what they can support and to stand up for fiscal discipline, economic growth and responsible budgeting by opposing this rule and the underlying legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from San Dimas, California (Mr. Dreier).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the favorite son from Pasco, Washington (Mr. Hastings).

Madam Speaker, by the way, I encourage the gentleman from Oregon to read the bill. The Democrat budget does not address the alternative minimum tax, as he stated.

I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

You know, a reserve fund out there in the future does not fix a darn thing.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Suburban Caucus from Highland Park, Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heller).

Madam Speaker, the Rules Committee does not charge for people to come and attend our meetings, and it seems like a good number of Members probably needed to be there last night.

The gentlewoman from Connecticut would have heard that this big increase that she is talking about in SCHIP is in a reserve fund. It is not paid for. As a matter of fact, it is going to have to find an offset somewhere if they are going to get to it. So it is not reserved in the budget as necessarily to be paid for; it is in a reserve fund.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the budget expert from the Republican Party from the Fifth District of Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we have heard the debate today about this budget, about the priorities of the new Democrat majority, about how they have set aside all these 11 reserve funds; and we have seen Member after Member after Member from the new Democrat majority take credit for all these things that are going to be done. And yet, in fact, what they are is reserve funds set aside to find a way to either increase taxes or to find an offset.

We think that this is an irresponsible way to run the government. We think this is an irresponsible budget. We think raising taxes $395 billion, which is included in that budget; we heard the testimony last night from the chairman of the Budget Committee and the ranking member that the assumptions that are based on the Democrat budget are that the tax cuts will go away, that tax increases will fill their place. We disagree with that. We think that hardworking American families deserve the right and the opportunity to continue their best wishes for their families, for their children's education, and take care of their family needs through the hard-earned money that they earned, to be able to keep that rather than bringing it for more spending that this new Democrat majority has in mind.

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to oppose the previous question so that I may amend the rule to make in order a very thoughtful amendment offered by Mr. Brady of Texas which was rejected by the Rules Committee last night. The Democrats in the committee voted down on party line.

Mr. Brady's amendment would amend the budget resolution to add reconciliation instructions to the Committee on Ways and Means to extend the State and local sales tax deduction through 2012.

Currently, the Democrat budget resolution does not contemplate the extension of any meaningful tax relief provided by Republicans in 2001 or 2003. In fact, the Democrat budget resolution is relying on tax increases to reach this balance. As Americans make their household budgets, they should be able to rely on a consistent and fair Tax Code. The Democrat budget resolution will undermine this goal by imposing double taxation and will help eliminate the stability in the Tax Code that Americans deserve.

So even if all the substitutes are defeated, we will still be able to consider and debate this very important amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material printed in the Record just prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

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

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

I rise today in opposition to this closed rule and the potentially unconstitutional measure that the Democrat

majority is presently bringing before the House.

I also rise in opposition to the majority's gaming of the system by bringing this legislation up under a closed rule with no input from the minority, even after this measure failed to win the support of two- thirds of the House when it was considered under the suspension of the rules just last week.

I believe that the 162 ``no'' votes that were cast last Wednesday prove that this measure carries with it some measure of controversy. I have heard the gentleman from Florida explain very clearly and carefully in addressing this issue his desire for us to understand that in fact nothing more other than the words that are on the paper are intended and implied in this bill. However, I would say there is also room to make sure that is not only correct, but also to improve this legislation.

I am also confident that an overwhelming number of Members would likely support the final measure if they were given a chance to improve it through the amendment that perhaps we are hearing that the majority intended perhaps in the first place or at least did not unintend to make it happen.

Unfortunately, in what is becoming a standard practice for the Rules Committee, last night the Democrat majority rejected along party line the only amendment offered to this legislation that would have offered the solution on behalf of the 162 ``no'' votes. This amendment was offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) who simply would have made it clear that there is nothing in this legislation that should be constructed to confer a special relationship between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people for the purpose of establishing a government-to-government relationship.

This amendment is necessary because in 2000 the Supreme Court decided in Rice v. Cayetano that the current configuration of Justices would likely strike down most Federal benefits flowing to Native Hawaiians as an unconstitutional racial set-aside if, given a chance, by accepting Mr. Neugebauer's amendment, or at least allowing its merits to be debated and voted on, Congress would have had the opportunity to make it crystal clear to any future court that this legislation should not be construed as Congress' abuse of its power under the Indian commerce clause to indirectly confer tribal status on the Native Hawaiian people.

I will take the words that have been given to me by the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) as well as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) from the Rules Committee that they do not intend this legislation in any way, and it should not be construed as told to the minority, that they would intend to pass power under the Indian commerce clause to indirectly confer tribal status on the Native Hawaiian people. I will take them at their word as the understanding and the basis and the intent of this legislation.

But by shutting out this amendment, the Democrat majority has done nothing to address the concerns of the 162 Members of this body who do believe that this legislation under consideration is vague at best and unconstitutional at worst.

Nor have they done anything to clarify the intent of this legislation to the courts. While, Mr. Speaker, you and I recognize that courts in their deliberations would look at congressional intent, we would like for it to be so stated. While the majority has indicated they do not intend this, we wish it had also been in the form of an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that, once again, the majority has silenced the minority in this effort. I am disappointed also that, by failing to include this amendment, Congress may very well be opening up this legislation to be overturned by the courts. In doing so, Congress would be depriving Native Hawaiians access to the loan guarantee programs provided for in this bill simply for the sake of speed at the cost of accuracy and good legislation.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule so that this legislation can be passed in a clear, constitutional way that makes it transparent to the courts that this is not a back-door attempt to lay the groundwork for other legislation to confer tribal status on the Native Hawaiian people. Native Hawaiians are just as much a part of America, this great land, as any of us. Their history is covered by the Constitution, and they are part of this country. I oppose this rule and the underlying legislation.

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

I would notify the gentleman from Florida I have no additional speakers. If he would engage with me in a quick colloquy, we can figure out where we are in terms of moving forward.

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the gentleman from Florida, his conduct on the Rules Committee, him working with the minority on a number of bills. We wish we could have been successful on this amendment, just the one amendment to add into this piece of legislation.

We will take them at their word that they do not intend for this to be any sort of a back-door attempt to form a government-to-government relationship with the tribal Native Hawaiians.

I will tell you that we do believe that public housing and housing for Hawaiians, who are many times faced with increasing not only land costs but prices that escalate in the beautiful, beautiful State of Hawaii, that this is a good idea. We should be helping these people out. We simply wish that the amendment had been made in order for the proper clarification.

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.

I appreciate the gentleman's inquiry.

At this time, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) is intended to represent the minority on the Rules Committee. He is not here at

this time. So until further notice or until his arrival, it would be my intent to have the gentleman accept me in his stead.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a straightforward attempt to prevent any further taxpayer money from being spent to place additional unnecessary cost on Amtrak's 10 least profitable routes.

I would like to talk a little bit about what this amendment does not do.

This amendment does not remove any currently appropriated funds.

This amendment does affect the 10 routes that are affected by the amendment that currently cost the taxpayer $161 million per year and will continue to cost the taxpayers $161 million if it is enacted.

This amendment does not affect the funds made available in section 108, which would be used to upgrade and improve the Northeast corridor tunnels in New York City, Baltimore, and Washington, D.C.

This amendment does not tie the hands of the administration, because it provides the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security with the flexibility to waive this provision should that Secretary deem that a security upgrade on one of these most unprofitable routes, or even a partial part of it, would be deemed to be critical to Homeland Security.

What this amendment does, and it does it very simply, is stop adding unnecessary costs to the 10 worst routes that already cost Amtrak $161 million a year. The worst route in Amtrak's system, called the Sunset Limited, which runs from New Orleans to Los Angeles, had a net loss of $20.4 million last year, or, on a cost basis to taxpayers, 25.5 cents per seat for every mile of that journey.

The tenth worst route in Amtrak's system is the City of New Orleans, which runs from Chicago to New Orleans, which had a net loss of $9 million last year, or a cost to taxpayers of 10.4 cents per seat for every mile of that trip.

This amendment seeks to prevent further good taxpayer dollars from being thrown after bad by limiting the costs on these already unprofitable routes.

All in all, it says that if Amtrak wants to compete for the $4 billion worth of funds made available under this Act, they must ensure that they are being used for routes that cost the taxpayer less than 10.4 cents per seat over every single mile, a hurdle that is hardly unreasonable.

This amendment will provide fiscal discipline and accountability to a system that has already received over $30

billion in taxpayer subsidies over its lifetime.

My amendment is supported by the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste and Americans for Tax Reform, which are three of the most prominent groups committed to monitoring the effective use of taxpayer dollars.

On behalf of fiscal discipline, I don't know if there is anything that's possible that they could want to support on behalf of taxpayers that would be more. I encourage all of my colleagues to support my amendment.

Council for Citizens Against Government Waste,

Washington, DC, March 27, 2007.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: Soon you will have the opportunity to

vote on an amendment to H.R. 1401, the Rail and Public

Transportation Security Act of 2007, that will be offered by

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas). This amendment will prevent

Amtrak from using any of the appropriated funds in the bill,

except those noted in Section 108, from being used for any of

the top ten revenue losing long-distance routes that were

noted in Amtrak's September 2006 monthly performance report.

On behalf of the more than 1.2 million members and supporters

of the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW),

I ask that you support this amendment.

Amtrak has failed to produce a profit since its inception

in 1971 and still has not met the Congressional deadline of

December 2, 2002 to achieve self-sufficiency. As a result, it

has become a black hole for taxpayer dollars. Fewer and fewer

people are using the rail service due to less costly and more

efficient alternatives, yet everyone pays for Amtrak through

their taxes. This amendment will ensure that tax dollars will

not be used to prop up non-profitable Amtrak routes and that

the money will be used in appropriate areas in order to

provide greater protection and safety for our nation's public

transportation. It does provide a waiver from this provision

if the Secretary of Homeland Security believes a route or a

portion of an Amtrak route is critical to homeland security.

All votes on H.R. 1401 will be among those considered in

CCAGW's 2007 Congressional Ratings.

Sincerely,

Thomas Schatz,

President.

Mr. Chairman, so that the gentlewoman from Texas is not confused, I will repeat what we have said. The routes that we have selected, the 10 most unprofitable routes, do not have enough people on them to support this additional security and additional necessary things that would come under the billions of dollars of this bill.

My amendment is straightforward. It allows the management of Amtrak to be able to reallocate those resources where there are a lot of people, namely, the east coast and the west coast, rather than providing all these new security concerns all across the country that has little to no passengers, that is unprofitable.

I am trying to allow Amtrak and the management, including the people who live in the east coast and the west coast, to be able to get the full measure of the security enhancements that would be necessary.

I am trying to allow the men and women, the management of Amtrak, to be able to run their own business where the allocation of resources should be made.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this closed rule and to the blatantly unconstitutional measure that the Democrat majority is bringing to the House floor today.

There is not much to celebrate in this deeply flawed legislation that constitutional scholar and law professor Jonathan Turley has called ``the most premeditated, unconstitutional act by Congress in decades.''

But I am an optimist, and I have found a very small silver lining in what I think is a cynical political exercise that is designated for President Bush's veto pen, that is, if it ever makes it that far.

Today, the American taxpayer can be grateful that at least this week that the Democrat majority has trained its sights on simply trampling on the Constitution rather than propping up the fledgling ranks of big union bosses for the fourth week in a row. While this may not seem like much, it seems to be the best that the Democrat majority is willing to do at this time.

My opposition to this measure stems from its incompatibility with a pretty basic foundation of American Government, the Constitution. Section 2 of Article I clearly states that ``the House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the People of the several States.'' The way I see it, any fourth- grader in the country can tell you that D.C. is simply not a State.

Supporters of this legislation will claim that the ``District Clause,'' which gives Congress the power to legislate over our Nation's government seat, also gives Congress the power to grant D.C. a Member of Congress. But this same clause makes it clear that by its very nature, D.C. is not a State, which brings us back to the original problem of this bill being completely unconstitutional.

But do not take my word for it. If the Democrat leadership will not listen to reason, one would hope that at least they would listen to one of our Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton, who offered an amendment to the Constitution that would have provided D.C. with a vote in the House. Unfortunately, that amendment was defeated on July 22, 1788.

But if neither my word nor the Constitution nor the actions of our Founding Fathers is good enough, I wonder if the Democrat majority would be willing to listen to an equal branch of our government for their opinion on this matter.

In 2000, the Federal district court in Washington, D.C., concluded that ``the Constitution does not contemplate that the District may serve as a State for the purposes of apportionment of Congressional representatives.'' It seems pretty clear to me, but perhaps not every Member of this body.

So, for a moment, let us ignore my word, the Constitution, the actions of our Founding Fathers, and the decisions of the Federal judiciary.

What would it mean if Congress simply gave D.C. a seat in the House? Rather than going through the necessary process of passing a constitutional amendment, which, by the way, was attempted in 1978 and failed, it would create a precedent that said Congress would give the District three votes next year, or they could give them 10. It would mean that if Congress did not like the way the new Member from D.C. was voting, it could simply take the seat away, because if Congress has the power to create a seat, it certainly has the power to take that seat away, which it cannot do under the Constitution, the same Constitution that gives States those rights.

It would mean that Congress could deny D.C. voters the protection from, let us say, racial discrimination, given by the 15th amendment to the Constitution, or deny them protection from discrimination based on sex given to them in the 19th amendment. Is this the kind of precedent that we should be setting?

But rather than discuss the facts or logic of this approach, I suspect that the supporters of this legislation will come to the floor and simply talk about fairness. But I fail to see how it is fair that this would give every voter in Utah an unprecedented two votes,

one for their Member of Congress and one for a new at-large Member, while keeping the one man, one vote principle in every other State.

Perhaps a Member on the Democrat side would be kind enough to come down to the floor and explain this logic to me, but I am sure I will not hold my breath.

Mr. Speaker, as Members of Congress, we take an oath to uphold and support the Constitution, not to trample on it. Personally, I think this is a fairly low bar that has been established. So last night in the Rules Committee, Congressman McHenry and I offered a commonsense amendment to have this new Member from D.C. act to preserve the individual right to keep and bear arms of the residents of the District of Columbia as also provided in the second amendment to the Constitution and upheld on March 9, 2007, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

No matter what the supporters of this bill may claim to the contrary, the Constitution is not a cafeteria. You simply cannot pick and choose which part you are going to respect and which part you are going to ignore.

That is why our Framers, in their infinite wisdom, created an orderly, lawful process for amending the Constitution, if you so choose. So despite the fact that this underlying bill is designated for history's trash can, I am attempting to improve it slightly by forcing this entire body to recognize that the rights given in the whole Constitution, not just certain parts, should be recognized by anyone who claims to uphold and defend our government's founding document.

Unfortunately, this amendment was defeated on a party-line vote in the Rules Committee, which is fast becoming the graveyard of good ideas in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to reject this rule and the underlying assault on the Constitution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), a former member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, if I could inquire upon the time that remains on both sides.

If I could inquire from the gentleman from New York if he has any additional speakers, with the understanding that he has the right to close.

You do anticipate two additional speakers?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman to run down his time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, if I could please inquire upon the time remaining on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, if I could, I would like to try to get us back to a balance if we could. I would encourage the gentleman to run his time down.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman, the ranking member of the Rules Committee from San Dimas, California (Mr. Dreier).

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to inquire of the gentleman from New York if, due to the imbalance of time, if he would like to perhaps have some more of his speakers. If so, I would reserve the balance of my time if he chose to go that direction.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Davis.

I thank the gentleman for inquiring. I would like to save my 2 minutes for my close and would like to ask if the gentleman would allow me 1 additional minute for a speaker that I have.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to, before I really begin, extend my thanks to the Members of Congress, including Mr. Arcuri, who has taken time and been very gracious in his professional nature today on the floor, as well as the other Members who have been here, and I want to thank them for working together with us.

Mr. Speaker, I will be urging Members to oppose the previous question so that I may offer an amendment to the rule which would make in order the constitutional amendment offered by Representative Dana Rohrabacher, as described today, which was presented to the Rules Committee last night. At a minimum the House should be allowed to vote and debate on a practical, legal alternative.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to reject the previous question. If the previous question is agreed to, I urge Members to reject the closed rule and the unconstitutional underlying measure.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record the amendment and extraneous material just prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I want to inquire if the gentleman has notified the Blue Dog Caucus that it is time for them to rush out front of their offices and put an extra $25 billion on the national debt. Have we given that notice yet for their offices to begin doing that?

We will find out whether they are going to vote for this 25 extra billion dollars that I think is way too much in the emergency supplemental.

Mr. Speaker, once again the Democrats are refusing to operate under the rules they campaigned on to open up the political process and use PAYGO rules to fully fund and offset any new mandatory spending.

Today is a particularly egregious example of their irresponsible leadership as they threaten to leave our troops in the lurch by micromanaging the war against the United States by terrorists, while also leaving American taxpayers holding the bag by declaring hundreds of millions of dollars in new mandatory spending as an ``emergency.''

SCHIP is an important program where States are given a fixed annual allotment to assist them in providing health care coverage to near- poverty children and pregnant women. However, a few States want to use their SCHIP program to provide health care services to expanded populations that go well beyond the scope of the original program, even though they signed an agreement stating that they promised to pay for any additional costs with their own State funds or to offset those within the Medicaid program.

Despite this agreement, Mr. Speaker, a number of States have told Congress that overspending their Federal allotment was their intention all along. Once again they come to Uncle Sam to get a bailout.

Mr. Speaker, this is not an emergency. This is a loophole being exploited by the Democratic leadership. So today the Democrat leadership is telling these States, You don't have to keep your promises to the Federal Government, and you don't have to worry. We don't mind exploiting a loophole in the rules and calling this an ``emergency'' even though we have known for years that this would happen.

Mr. Speaker, I am voting against this.

Madam Speaker, two years ago, China passed its anti- secession law, codifying its use of force against Taiwan. Despite Taiwan's pleas for friendship and worldwide condemnation of the legislation, China has continued its military buildup along the coast of Taiwan and heightened its rhetoric against the people of Taiwan. The 23 million people of Taiwan feel insecure and worry about present or future military confrontations in the Taiwan Strait.

Even more ominously, China recently successfully tested an anti- satellite missile, threatening the surveillance satellites of India, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the United States, Europe and Russia. China's development of space-based technology will seriously threaten U.S. military operations and world peace. This action, when combined with other actions by the PRC, should raise serious concerns among my colleagues about future moves that China may conduct.

For the sake of world peace, I urge my colleagues to continue to speak out against the Chinese military buildup. China's military intimidations against Taiwan pose a serious threat to the well-being of the peaceful 23 million people that reside in Democratic Taiwan. It is in our best interests for people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait to live in peace and any military action against Taiwan will lead to chaos and destruction for many countries in the region. As a start to maintaining this critical peace on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, China should rescind its anti-secession legislation now. This legislation should have never been adopted by the Chinese, and therefore I ask for its immediate repeal.