Floor Statements

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this closed rule and to the financially irresponsible underlying legislation. I also rise with great regret to report to the American people that for the third week in a row the Democrat leadership is bringing legislation to the House floor that stacks the deck in favor of big labor bosses at someone else's expense.

Madam Speaker, in just a few minutes I am going to ask that we submit this into the Congressional Record, but the Congressional Budget Office estimates that this bill will cost a new $20 billion for 4 years after it is implemented. $20 billion. Yet we have just heard from the other side that this is responsible and the right way to do things. What do we expect? An additional $20 billion worth of spending. It is a real sad day, Madam Speaker.

Two weeks ago, American workers were the main losers in the Democrat- controlled House when the majority leadership forced through legislation that would provide for an unprecedented intimidation of employees by union bosses under a fundamentally anti-democratic process known as ``card check.''

Last week, in another unprecedented expansion of Davis-Bacon to important water projects across this country, the Democrat leadership set its sights on one of their all-time favorite targets, the American taxpayer. Other losers that were targeted in that bargain included some other perhaps more surprising targets, including local communities, small and minority-owned businesses and, perhaps most of all, the environment.

But I suppose that that is everything that the Democrat-controlled leadership says is good. Everything is a fair game when tilting the playing field in favor of labor bosses. That is what this new Democrat majority is about.

Given this well-established track record, it should come as no surprise that today, once again, the Democrat majority has placed a bull's eye squarely on the American taxpayers' back on the floor of this people's House. The legislation that we are being asked to consider today represents the triumph of politics over policy by attempting to taint every government contractor with the high-profile transgressions that only a few have done.

I do commend Chairman Waxman for his desire to provide proper and appropriate oversight for the use of government funds, and I do share his desire to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse in government contracting. However, the approach that he has brought to the floor is far-reaching and intrusive, expensive; and it misses the mark. The problem is primarily one of enforcement, and this is where Congress should be focusing its efforts on behalf of the taxpayer.

While these proposals may seem beneficial and look good on paper, in practice they add up restrictions upon restrictions simply for the sake of regulation. They would increase the cost and reduce government access to the solutions it needs, while increasing the burden on an already-overworked Federal contracting workforce.

While I am concerned about fiscal responsibility as a Member of this body, I do not believe that adding layer upon layer of additional regulations is a way to save taxpayer money or to be responsible.

Every day, private contractors provide the entire Federal Government with effective cost-saving solutions, and this legislation represents a large step backwards in giving these contractors the flexibility they need to provide these vital services. Rather than taking Chairman Waxman's approach and discouraging the vast majority of contractors that do not play by the rules from wanting to do business with the government, Congress should focus on dealing with those bad actors that have violated the public trust.

Right here on our Capitol campus, private contractors provide us with the services that we need to function on a daily basis. They include inspecting and delivering the mail, mowing the Capitol grounds, installing signs, repairing sinks, providing IT consulting and technology systems maintenance, and they do so at the lowest cost to taxpayers through competition.

The Federal Government should not be competing with a vibrant private sector that can provide these services better, faster, and cheaper than we can do them ourselves. I find that a good rule of thumb that I have used for years is if you can open up the Yellow Pages and find professionals willing to do the same services listed, then the government should not try to perform these tasks on its own, because it will end up costing the taxpayers a great deal more money.

Madam Speaker, I do understand that the Democrat Party wants to change this slowly and to stack the deck in favor of big labor bosses whose ranks have dwindled to 12 percent from a high of 35 percent in the 1950s. I understand that a very few contractors have behaved dishonorably and illegally, and for that they should reimburse the taxpayer and be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

But I simply don't believe that limiting the Federal Government's flexibility to contract, especially in the case of an emergency, is the answer to this problem. Nor do I believe that this legislation that is a new private sector mandate and that the CBO estimates will cost taxpayers over $20 billion, 20 billion new dollars, should be considered reasonable or should be considered financially responsible. This is not the correct solution to this problem.

Madam Speaker, I include for the Record the CBO cost estimate for

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

Madam Speaker, this is a costly bill. This is a bill that is an intrusion not only upon a system that works well, but it is also aiming at an unintended consequence, and that is it is not only going to be more expensive for the government to pay for those services that it wants to buy, but it is going to make it also more costly to the taxpayer in the amount of spending that takes place.

We think there could be better ways that this could be accomplished. I ask all of my Members to oppose this bill.

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

Madam 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.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this modified closed rule and to the underlying legislation. I also rise, regrettably, to report to the American people that, for the second week in a row, the Democrat leadership is bringing legislation to the House floor that benefits big labor bosses at someone else's expense.

Last week, American workers were the losers in the Democrat- controlled House when the majority leadership forced through legislation that would provide for unprecedented intimidation of employees by union bosses under a fundamentally anti-democratic process known as card check.

This week, the Democrat leadership has set its sights on one of their favorite targets, the American taxpayer. But the other losers in this bargain are far more shocking. They include local communities across the United States, small and minority-owned businesses, and the environment.

H.R. 720 would provide for an unprecedented expansion of the Davis- Bacon prevailing wage provision of the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund or SRF. When the SRF was established, it applied Davis-Bacon only to the Federal portion of a Clean Water project. But today, in order to help big labor bosses pad their dwindling ranks, they would apply these same provisions to all non-Federal funds, such as loan repayments, State bond revenues, interest and State-matching funds.

Since the SRF program expired in 1995, no SRF project has been subject to Davis-Bacon. But today the Democrat Party wants to change that and to stack the deck in favor of big labor bosses whose ranks have dwindled to 12 percent in 2006 from their high of 35 percent in the 1950s.

I insert into the Record a letter from my colleague from Florida, John Mica, to Rules Committee Chairwoman Slaughter and Ranking Member Dreier detailing the specifics of this unprecedented expansion.

House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure,

Washington, DC, March 8, 2007.

Hon. Louise M. Slaughter,

Chairwoman, Committee on Rules, Washington, DC.

Hon. David Dreier,

Ranking Republican Member, Committee on Rules, Washington,

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her words, except I would like to let her know, I know she was not in the body last year, but this body did pass a minimum wage bill last year. It should be noted that the bill included exactly what the Democrat leadership wanted, and we took their bill exactly as it was for minimum wage. The problem that the Democrat leadership had was that it was a balanced approach, and that is the reason why it did not move forward in the other body and why the President never got it.

Mr. Speaker, what the Republicans did was to take the Democrat bill on minimum wage and add to that a balanced provision which would help small businesses who are bearing the burden of most of the brunt of the minimum wage and allow them the opportunity to offset those changes so that we can continue growing the free market economy. Small business is the engine of our economy.

It is also worth noting, since the gentlewoman brought it up, that this body this year did pass a minimum wage without those equalizing factors or benefits to small business, and that is why it got stuck in the other body and why this body is having to come back to correct it to make it a more balanced view, the same kind of balanced view that the Republicans took last year in order to pass the minimum wage.

I know the gentlewoman was not here last year, but those are the facts of the case.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the Rules Committee we had an opportunity to receive a number of amendments and have feedback from Members who were talking about these important water projects, and I found one amendment yesterday that was presented very interesting. It was rejected by the Democrats, but it says this:

``This amendment quadruples the current penalty for dumping sewage into the Great Lakes to $100,000 per violation per day. The amendment also establishes a Great Lakes Clean-Up Fund within the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, and directs the sewage dumping penalties into this new fund to be spent on wastewater treatment options.'' Here is the interesting part: ``These provisions would become effective January 1, 2027.''

Mr. Speaker, a colleague brought forth an amendment as a result of a discussion with a major mayor of a city on the Great Lakes. I have heard all sorts of conversations about how important clean water is. Yet the Great Lakes, which is an area of about 20 million people that need this clean water, wake up today to find out that someone was willing to come forward with an idea which, even if enacted, doesn't take place until January 1, 2027.

No, we are not going to do that in the Rules Committee.

So on one side the Democrat majority talks about how great they are for all this clean water. But when it really comes down to it, still 20 million people are being denied this opportunity to start this clean water revolving fund and direct that sewage dumped into the Great Lakes would be cleaned up and have higher penalties. Utterly incredible.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to notify the gentlewoman I will now yield myself the balance of my time, and then yield back my time and allow the gentlewoman to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the statement of the administration policy on this bill.

Executive Office of the President Office of Management

and Budget,

Washington, DC, March 8, 2007.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 720--Water Quality Financing Act of 2007 (Rep. Oberstar (D) MN and

32 others)

The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 720, which

authorizes excessive Federal funding for the Clean Water

State Revolving Fund (SRF) and mandates the application of

Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wage requirements ``to the

construction of treatment works carried out in whole or in

part'' with SRF funding. For the reasons described below, if

H.R. 720 were presented to the President in its current form

his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

The bill would expand Davis-Bacon Act coverage to a program

that has not been subject to any Davis-Bacon requirements

since 1994--first by reinstating coverage for Federally-

funded clean water state revolving fund projects, and second

by expanding Davis-Bacon Act coverage to non-Federal clean

water projects, including for the first time ever, projects

financed by funds contributed solely by States and moneys

repaid to the state revolving fund. This provision will

increase project costs and impose new administrative burdens

on States. Furthermore, it is contrary to the

Administration's long-standing policy of opposing any

statutory attempt to expand or contract the applicability of

Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wage requirements.

In addition, the bill's total authorization of $14 billion

for the SRF during fiscal years 2008-2011 represents on

average a more than 250 percent increase over recent

appropriation levels and is unrealistic in the current fiscal

environment. This excessive authorization will distort market

signals by discouraging utilities and their consumers from

moving toward full-cost pricing, as they have elsewhere.

Instead, this bill may encourage municipalities to delay

undertaking needed infrastructure projects to wait for

Federal subsidies, potentially diminishing reliability and

increasing the eventual costs to the public.

To provide additional opportunities to communities for

financing needed wastewater infrastructure, Congress should

enact the Administration's Water Enterprise Bond proposal,

which would provide an exception to the unified annual State

volume cap on tax-exempt qualified private activity bonds for

wastewater and drinking water projects. To ensure the long-

term financial health and solvency of these drinking water

and wastewater systems, communities using these bonds must

have demonstrated a process that will move toward full-cost

pricing for services within five years of issuing the Private

Activity Bonds. Consequently, this proposal will attract more

private capital to meet the infrastructure needs of these

sectors, help water and wastewater systems become self-

financing, and minimize the need for future subsidies.

Mr. Speaker, part of what the President has said very clearly to Congress today is two things: number one, that this Davis-Bacon expansion will cost an incredible amount of money to local water districts that seek bonds and funding that go to the marketplace to get that money to match the Federal money; and that the President believes that by expanding Davis-Bacon arbitrarily, it will mean that the cost of all these projects will go up exponentially and make it far more difficult for local communities to get the funding they

need because it is more money than what should be paid reasonably for the projects to be done.

Secondly, the President makes a point which I think is very true, and that is by almost doubling the amount of money that is in this fund, America is now going to start looking to Washington to take care of these projects. Over my years in this body, we have seen over and over again the requests from the Democrats to let's go build more schools in this country--with Federal money. Oh, yes, with Davis-Bacon; but more importantly, it is a message to people back home, let's let Washington build our schools.

Republicans have said, the day we start doing that, there will be no more schools built by local people. Everybody will look to Washington.

The President is saying today, by this bill, people back home are going to start looking to Washington to take care of their water system needs. That is dangerous, and I think that is a problem.

Mr. Speaker, the choice that we are being asked to make is very clear. If you support fiscal responsibility, small business, States' right, rural communities, women- and minority-owned businesses and the environment, then you would want to oppose this rule and the underlying legislation.

However, I admit that the Democrats are going to win today, and we are going to lose; but instead, what that is going to mean is it is going to be environmental harm, market distortion, wasteful Federal spending and stacking the deck in favor of labor bosses. That is who is going to win today.

I include for the Record a letter to Speaker Pelosi and to the Republican leadership, John Boehner, signed by the National Association of Minority Contractors, the National Association of Women in Construction, the National Alliance for Working and Employee Rights, and the Women Construction Owners and Executives who make very clear their opposition for the reasons why we have talked about today: Excessive overspending and far-reaching expansion of Davis-Bacon that will mean that many of these communities who need the money the most will find that on up to 20 percent of their projects, the needs of their people cannot be met because of bloated spending that is contained within this bill. We want to make it very clear that we oppose this legislation.

March 7, 2007.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker of the House, U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. John Boehner,

Minority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington,

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

I do recognize that from time to time as we do these rules that people do come down. The gentleman who is asking to speak is a member of the Rules Committee, and based upon that request, I consent and agree, and I welcome the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim 2 minutes of my time as a result of us yielding back our time because we did not anticipate any additional speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. Speaker, we think we are trying to make a point here today that there were some strong reservations that should have been taken into account by the Rules Committee. We are not trying to chip away at minimum wage. We tried last year to pass a new minimum wage.

What we are trying to do is get work done that is in the best interest of not only Americans who need these projects to complete things that have been done to their communities as a result of damage but also to move forward with more efficiency.

We support spending money for clean water. We don't support bloated projects that are against the market-based abilities that communities have.

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.

Madam Speaker, on February 28th, President Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan delivered his annual state of the nation address entitled ``New Kazakhstan in a New World'' which outlined the strategy of Kazakhstan's development for the next decade. The goals set forth in President Nazarbayev's speech serves as a roadmap for the future and improve the quality of life for the people of Kazakhstan.

In only a decade, Kazakhstan has achieved impressive economic growth and developed a strong framework of democratic government. President Nazarbayev rightfully stated in his speech that ``We are no longer a country of the Third World. This is the main result of our work for the past 10 years.

Kazakhstan is now expected to double the country's gross domestic product by 2008 as compared to the year 2000. Accordingly, the GDP per capita has grown considerably, reaching $5,000 dollars in 2006 with the forecast of $6,500 dollars in 2007.

Kazakhstan's stable economic development has allowed the government to devote more resources to social reforms. What is most impressive are the measures to improve social protection for motherhood and childhood, to increase pensions, and to raise government controlled wages. In other words, Kazakhstan is not just offering a better future for its people, but it is also securing its democracy on the rich soil of economic and social prosperity.

Kazakhstan is blessed with abundant natural resources. However, Kazakhstan is not going to rely upon those resources alone, realizing that only a diversified economy will give this nation true independence and stability. President Nazarbayev envisions Kazakhstan as a ``regional locomotive'' of economic development and a successful player in the world economy by raising the effectiveness of extractive industries, ensuring the development of non-raw materials sectors, developing modem infrastructure, implementing swift administrative reform which takes into account international practices, and promoting the achievements and opportunities of a new Kazakhstan in Central Asia and the world. Central Asia needs and relies on Kazakhstan's leadership and strong presence that affirms democratic ideas and fosters economic values for the region.

Modernizing the political system in the region is among the most important goals, and its achievement will ensure political stability for the future. I will continue to monitor Kazakhstan's improvements in the coming months, and I applaud their ability to move forward with progressive reforms that will be of a great benefit to the U.S.- Kazakhstan bilateral relationship and to the people of Kazakhstan.

Kazakhstan's policy of promoting tolerance and inter-religious harmony among ethnic and religious groups also has been recognized internationally. Kazakhstan is making a considerable effort to deal with religious diversity in its country and in the region. In fact, all of the world's great religions are present and thriving in Kazakhstan thanks to a climate of tolerance and openness. For this reason, I welcome President Nazarbayev's willingness to ``serve as an international intermediary for finding mutually acceptable political solutions for conflict situations [and] expanding and deepening the dialogue of civilizations.''

The glowing sense of confidence that is portrayed in President Nazarbayev's speech is a direct reflection of the optimism of the Kazakh people. I applaud President Nazarbayev's vision and leadership in bringing Kazakhstan into a new level of its progressive development. His vision for a prosperous and democratic Kazakhstan will be a beacon to other nations in the region.

Madam Speaker, recently I had a very informative and productive meeting with H.E. Kanat Saudabayev, Kazakhstan Ambassador to the United States. I share his optimism for the future of Kazakhstan and the growing strategic partnership between our two nations. Kazakhstan has proven itself as our firm ally and partner, and our bilateral relationship based on common values is strong as ever. The U.S.- Kazakhstan partnership in promoting nonproliferation, combating terrorism, securing peace and stability for Afghanistan and Iraq is exemplary. We are grateful for Kazakhstan's support and friendship.

I strongly believe we should assist Kazakhstan as it continues to pursue a program of economic and democratic reform for it is in our Nation's best interest to have an economically strong and democratically developed Kazakhstan in this region of vital importance.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from California giving me time.

I rise in opposition to this closed rule and to the unprecedented creation of a new panel with no legislative jurisdiction and no authority to take legislative action. Mr. Speaker, it is like being air-dropped into this usually noncontroversial resolution without any committee oversight or consideration being given.

The cost to the taxpayers for this lopsided new committee to study the serious issue of climate change but that is not given the power by the Democrat leadership of actually doing anything; yet it costs $4 million.

This resolution also represents an increase of 14.3 percent over last year's Congress, raising the funding levels for these committees and staff salaries from just over $250 million to just over $291 million, one Congress to the next.

But with all of this new spending, the Democrat majority cannot find a way to adequately fund one of the most vocally stated priorities, at least on the campaign trail, the Ethics Committee.

This lack of funding is hindering the committee's struggle to untangle the confusingly drafted new ethics package passed by the new Democrat majority and to provide the training mandated by House Rules.

So, today, the American people can see where the Democrats' true priorities lie, in crafting and creating an unfunded mandate and leaving a campaign promise unfilled, while spending millions of taxpayer dollars on a new panel that has no authority to do anything.

Mr. Speaker, I do encourage all my colleagues to hear the straight story, and I also encourage them to vote against this rule and to defeat it.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 700 follows an authorization that the Republican Congress provided for in the year 2000, which authorized $75 million in grants for alternative water source projects.

We learned that the population growth was causing a number of communities to have to explore alternative supplies through reclamation, reuse and conservation. And so Congress created section 220 of the Clean Water Act. This amendment to the Clean Water Act required a 50 percent non-Federal cost share. And it expired in 2004.

Today's legislation doubles this authorization, but the troubling part to me is it allows this authorization to continue indefinitely. So if this legislation passes, there will be no sunset, no further oversight and no review of the effectiveness of these grants. My amendment would provide for the expiration of this authorization in fiscal year 2008.

I think it is fiscally responsible and allows Congress to reevaluate these grants, and not just leave them forever without oversight.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I understand that the gentleman Mr. Oberstar would wish to engage with me in a colloquy on this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Reclaiming my time.

It is my understanding then that the chairman and I have engaged in an agreement; that I would withdraw my amendment, pending such that he would place within the legislation that agreement. And I would agree with that, and I would agree to withdraw my amendment. And I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be withdrawn.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding me the time.

Being from Dallas, Texas, does offer me the opportunity to come in and join the Suburban Caucus members here tonight from Illinois and Pennsylvania; and tonight I would like to speak about

something that I think is very, very important and that is our economy.

Just yesterday, there was a brand new study that was released in Europe that mostly you will see in Europe, you probably will not see in the United States, but talks about how the United States economy, as it was 20 years ago, is now the size, or said another way, Europe is now the size of, their economy, in 2007, what the United States economy was 20 years ago. It comes as a shock to many people in Europe, even though they have already seen incrementally where their countries fall out.

But what has happened in Europe is they have seen a continuation of high taxes, of overregulation, of requirements on single payer or what we might call single payer system in health care, as well as rules and regulations that are given to unions to not only organize but to put additional restrictions upon employers.

So, tonight, what I would like to say is, thank goodness we live in America. Thank goodness we live in an America where the free enterprise system is alive and well.

Tonight, the Suburban Agenda that is being talked about by the Republican party is a part of trying to make sure that we grow our economy, to where America has the very best not only economy in the world but also a leading-edge and moving-forward economy.

What I would like to talk about tonight is also a part of our Suburban Agenda of growing the economy, and that relates to making sure that we have the opportunity to have lower tax rates that allow investment in opportunity.

As we know, in just a few short years, I think it is about some 1,381 days from now, the tax cuts that were passed by the Republican majority over the past few years will be going away unless the Democrats were to allow a vote and we reauthorize those. What would be gone away is the marriage penalty, depreciation, capital gains; and our tax rates would rise, also.

That is exactly right. What happened was, when Republicans came into office 12 years ago, we talked about how important it was to make sure that every worker in a family, in this case a husband or a wife, would have an opportunity to only be taxed upon their own income. What happened is, after 40 years of Democrat control, we had taxes at this high, high level, and what happened is that a married person would be taxed at the highest rate of the person in that household, whoever made the most money. That meant that if a wife worked full time and a husband worked part time, he would be taxed at her high tax rate.

So what Republicans did with President Bush is we came and passed something that was known as the marriage penalty, and that is that every single person would be taxed only at their own rate, based upon what their own earnings were.

That is exactly right.

Once again, said another way, a person would be taxed only at their own income, as opposed to combining that rate, which then would increase the amount of taxes that a person would pay.

What I am telling the gentleman is that in around 1,300 days, if the Democrat majority does not reextend these tax cuts, that all four of these taxes and more that I have talked about will go back to the rate that they were before the Republicans lowered those taxes.

That is exactly correct. The gentleman from Illinois is correct, that as a result of what Republicans have done, by cutting taxes, is that we have not only given people back more of their own money, we have allowed for America to be in a position to where we are more competitive with the world.

Is it not interesting that just a few short years ago all the talk was about outsourcing and these jobs that were going to other countries. Ever since we passed these tax cuts, the debate and discussion now is how do we get enough workers to do the work that we need done here in America.

The greatest threat against that would be that we do not have enough work that can be done here, and so companies go offshore to have work done on behalf of corporations and people here in this country.

That is exactly the point. The political debate in Washington has been that Republicans cut taxes and deficits go up. Well, the fact of the matter is, since 2001, exactly on 9/11/01, when we had a balanced budget at that point, we have seen the deficit go up, and that is because we lost 1 million jobs on or about that day in the months forward.

So what Republicans did is they said, we have got to spur our economy. We have got to do the things that will bring America back to work.

I am pleased to tell you that the budget is virtually balanced and is expected to be balanced by next year as a result of a strong, strong economy. Just 1\1/2\ years ago, we had a deficit of about $500 billion. This year, it is down to $140 billion. That comes from strong economic growth. That comes from the opportunity for people to go to work. That comes from investment and opportunity, but, most of all, we are competitive with the world, and these are the things that Republicans talk about that is a part of the Suburban Agenda but that is good for everybody.

The gentleman is correct, and if I could have the gentleman also continue to keep focusing on how we have done this, what has been done is we have turned to the free market, the free enterprise system, to Americans, and said, we need you to go work as hard as you can work and bring this country back. That is exactly what has happened. It was not because of a government program.

What we did is, we gave people back more of their own money, allowed them to invest that money in places like Dallas, Texas, where I live, Chicago, Illinois. And we have this robust economy that, since 2001, 5 million new jobs have been added. Tax receipts are up, 3 years ago, plus 8 percent over the year before; then plus 13 percent in this last year, plus 15 percent more than we had received the year before.

We have more people at work today. More people own their own homes. There is more money being made, and

the government has more money at its disposal. I hope and believe that next year this budget is going to be balanced.

As we close down our time here with Republicans being on the floor, I would like to remind the gentleman of something that is heard over and over and over again, and that is how great America is. But I would like to ask a rhetorical question. Have you ever heard of the China dream, the Brazilian dream, the French dream, the German dream? Probably not, but every single person in the United States and billions around the world have heard of the American dream, and the American dream is tied directly to not only the dream that they have about themselves, but a dream about their future.

This is where Republicans, working together on the suburban caucus, making sure we have a healthy and strong economy, where investment and opportunity and reduction in taxes happens directly in front of us, and then we can support this agenda that is so important for every one of us.

Offered By: Mr. Sessions

Amendment No. 5: Page 2, line 9, after the dollar amount

insert ``for fiscal years ending before October 1, 2008''.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this modified closed rule and to the Democrat leadership bringing legislation to the floor of this House which will provide for an unprecedented intimidation of employees by union bosses under a fundamentally anti-democratic process known as ``Card Check.''

Today, the Democrat leadership has scheduled a vote on the most dramatic change to our Nation's labor laws since the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, which identified and disallowed the most egregious union practices of its day. And every single Member of this body will have an opportunity to answer very plainly and clearly whether they think our economy should be nimble and adaptive to compete with countries that present tomorrow's challenges, or mirror the politics of Europe which will continue to keep our former competitors on the continent from realizing the jobs and the economic growth of the United States. We do not believe the policies of Europe are the way to go.

This legislation will give every single American voter a chance to see whether their Member of Congress supports the private ballots, a right which is given to every single American voter for obvious reasons, or if they support government protection and special treatment for labor unions by silencing one side over the debate of unionism.

Of course, as we watch what is going on today across America, everyone will be tuning in to C-SPAN to watch this debate to see how we are going to answer a number of statements from the majority about how this legislation will provide fairness and will improve conditions for American workers.

What they will not hear from the other side of the aisle is an explanation about why 16 Democrat cosponsors of this legislation previously signed a letter to the Mexican government imploring it to use the secret ballot in all union recognition elections because it would ensure that workers would not be intimidated into voting for a union that they would not have otherwise had.

Madam Speaker, I could argue this sentiment even more. I would like to insert a copy of this letter into the Congressional Record, and I doubt that that body will get an explanation from these signatories why they believe it is a matter of fairness that Mexican workers deserve protection from coercion, while American workers do not. We will find out. Perhaps they will take an opportunity to enlighten us later today.

August 29, 2001.

Junta Local de Conciliacion y Arbitraje del Estado de Puebla,

Lic. Armando Poxqui Quintero,

7 Norte, Numero 1006 Altos, Colonia Centro, Puebla, Mexico

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from the Rules Committee, Lincoln Diaz-Balart.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman Iowa (Mr. King).

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from San Dimas, California (Mr. Dreier), the ranking member of the Rules Committee, who argued very strenuously yesterday on behalf of the free enterprise system for America.

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

Madam Speaker, I would inquire if my colleague has additional speakers. I believe she has about twice as much time remaining as we do.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the ranking member of the Education and Labor Workforce Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, Washington is under a barrage of people from all over the country, union organizers, union bosses, the business community, this week talking about this bill. They are talking about this bill because they recognize what it will mean. It is the biggest change since Taft-Hartley in 1947 to the workplace.

I believe that you have heard today a story that this is an attack on the American free enterprise system, but Madam Speaker, I would also say that there are lots of groups that also understand the problems with this bill.

Groups in Opposition to H.R. 800, The Employee Free Choice Act

Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, 60 Plus Association,

Alabama Chapter of ABC, Alaska Chapter of ABC, Alliance for

Worker Freedom, Aluminum Association, American Apparel &

Footwear Association, American Beverage Association, American

Conservative Union, American Frozen Food Institute, American

Hospital Association, American Hotel & Lodging Association,

American Meat Institute, American Seniors Housing

Association, American Shareholders Association, American

Society for Healthcare Human Resources Administration,

American Society of Employers, American Supply Association,

and Americans for a Limited Government.

Americans for Prosperity, Americans for Tax Reform AMT--The

Association for Manufacturing Technology API, Arizona

Builders Alliance of ABC, Arizona Hotel & Lodging

Association, Arizona IEC, Arkansas Chapter of ABC, Arkansas

Hotel & Lodging Association, Arkansas IEC, Asheboro/Randolph

(NC) Chamber of Commerce, Ashland & Tri State Area Chapter

IEC, Assisted Living Federation of America, Associated

Builders & Contractors Heart of America Chapter, Associated

Builders and Contractors, Associated Industries of

Massachusetts, Atlanta Hotel Council, Automotive Aftermarket

Industry Association, Baltimore Metro Chapter of ABC, and

Bearing Specialists Association.

BKSH & Associates for National School Transportation

Association, California Hotel & Lodging Association, Capital

Associated Industries Inc, Carolinas Chapter of ABC, Center

for Freedom & Prosperity, Center for Individual Freedom,

Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, CenTex Chapter

IEC, Central Alabama Chapter IEC, Central California Chapter

of ABC, Central Florida Chapter of ABC, Central Indiana IEC,

Central Michigan Chapter of ABC, Central Missouri IEC,

Central Ohio AEC/EIC, Central Ohio Chapter of ABC, Central

Pennsylvania Chapter of ABC, Central Pennsylvania Chapter of

IEC, Central Texas Chapter of ABC, and Central Washington

Madam 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.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my fellow colleagues in mourning the passing of Congressman Charlie Norwood. My friend and the honorable representative for the people of the Ninth District of Georgia passed away on Tuesday after his long battle with lung disease and cancer. This Chamber, and the State of Georgia has lost a friend and one of our most capable and dedicated Members. Even before Charlie came to Congress in the election of 1994, he was a courageous individual and public servant. The former Army dentist was a decorated officer serving in Vietnam, having been awarded the Combat Medical Badge and two Bronze Stars for his service.

Words cannot fully express the sorrow that is felt by those who have known and loved Charlie. My heart goes out to Charlie's wife, Gloria, their two sons, Charles and Carlton, and their four grandchildren. I also will be keeping Charlie's staff in my thoughts and prayers, as I had the pleasure of working with Dr. Norwood on a variety of issues, and his staff was always a delight to work with. I can only imagine how tough it is for them, and all of Charlie's family and friends right now during this difficult time. I will be keeping Charlie's memory in my thoughts and prayers. He was always a dear friend of mine, someone who I looked to for his opinion and judgment.

Charlie is now leaving us for a better place, but he leaves behind a lasting legacy, and shoes that can never be filled. We have lost a hero and a champion, God bless.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from the Rules Committee from Miami, Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday evening at the Rules Committee, we met to bypass regular order once again, which seems to be a new regular order for the 10th time under the new Democrat leadership. I brought forth the ability to discuss a small tax item with the germaneness to the tax bill that we are debating here today. I wish that we were considering this rule under regular order that the Democrat candidates, out on the campaign trails, promised voters this last election cycle. I believe that the tax bill will end up enjoying bipartisan support on the House floor today. So since we are already bypassing regular order to consider this legislation, I offered an amendment to bring another tax bill to the floor that would enjoy also broad bipartisan support, making the State and local sales tax deduction permanent for residents of non-income-tax States.

This issue is a matter of fairness. It is quite simple in its honesty. It enjoys support from a huge number of Democrats and Republicans and would allow taxpayers a deduction for sales tax in lieu of income tax for taxpayers in States that do not have a State income tax.

Nine States currently have no income tax: Texas, Florida, Washington, South Dakota, Tennessee, Nevada, Wyoming, New Hampshire, and Alaska. The 1986 Tax Reform Act eliminated the sales tax deduction from the Federal Tax Code but maintained the State income tax deduction. That change has a disproportionate impact on States that do not use a State income tax.

A 2-year sales tax deductibility provision was signed into law as part of the American Jobs Creation Act. This law restored fairness to those in States with no State income tax for the first time in nearly 20 years and kept an estimated $3.6 billion in the hands of taxpayers that choose to deduct State sales tax in all nine affected States. This critical tax relief is said to expire at the end of this year and must be extended, or my constituents in Texas and taxpayers from eight other States will see a massive, unavoidable tax increase.

H.R. 60 would permanently restore fairness to taxpayers in the nine affected States. I am disappointed that the amendments did not include this one and it was defeated by the Rules Committee Democrats along a party-line vote.

While I support the legislation for continued tax fairness for small businesses that we are about to consider, I am sorry that we were not allowed to have this amendment on the House floor today as a golden opportunity for taxpayers to finally find this tax disparity and this loophole closed for good.

I appreciate the gentleman's extending the time to me. He also is from the State of Florida, which is hugely affected by this unwelcomed tax.

I appreciate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday night the Rules Committee met and after hours of testimony from members of both parties, the Democrat members of the committee voted along party lines to shut out every opportunity for amendments to be a part of this debate of this

resolution today that we will be debating for the next 2 days.

Our colleague from Texas, Congressman Sam Johnson, brought an amendment that would have clarified that Congress and the American people support our troops and that funding for our Armed Forces serving bravely in harm's way should not be cut off or restricted in any way.

Our colleague from Virginia, Frank Wolf, also brought to the Rules Committee a very comprehensive amendment that would have made clear that Congress supports the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, with its emphasis on providing American commanders serving in Iraq with the strategy and tactical means that they need for success and accelerating cooperation with Iraqi leaders to meet specific goals, as the strategy for moving forward to success in Iraq.

A number of other Members also spent a lot of their evening sitting in the Rules Committee waiting to share their ideas about how to improve this resolution which thus would help America in our message to not only the President but also the world. However, the 13 members of the Rules Committee are the only ones who had the benefit of hearing and debating these good ideas because none of them were given the opportunity to be considered and voted on by the House. Instead, rather than allowing this body to consider good ideas, today we are continuing debate on the floor with a completely closed process to debate a nonbinding resolution with no teeth and serious logistical flaws.

In two short paragraphs, without explicitly stating that funds will not be cut off for our troops that serve in harm's way, the resolution asserts that Congress and the American people will continue to support the members of the Armed Forces who are serving in Iraq. This nonspecific language is something that every single Member of this House already supports. It also states that Congress disapproves of the President's plan to deploy 20,000 reinforcements to Iraq to bolster the mission and provide additional support to the troops already there serving on the ground. This resolution gives no direction on how we should proceed in Iraq. Instead, it settles for some generic language about supporting the troops without guaranteeing that Congress will continue to fund their efforts and stand behind them as they remain in harm's way. And it simply amounts to a vote for the status quo.

Mr. Speaker, this is a serious debate about the serious challenges that America faces in not only this fight in Iraq but also against Islamic terrorism. We all understand the cost of failure in Iraq is too great to bear. It would embolden radical Islamic terrorists and give them a base from which to train from and to attack America for generations. But with this resolution, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle provide the troops with nothing: no guarantees that we will continue to fund their heroic efforts; no guarantees that Congress will heed the advice of the Iraq Study Group, which notes on page 73 of their report that it would ``support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, or to speed up the training and equipping mission.'' Nor does this resolution provide the American people with a clear picture of our direction in Iraq. It simply says ``no.'' It says ``no'' to the only strategy for success that has been placed forward. President Bush said, ``If you disagree with me, then come outthink me.'' This resolution in its simple form does not do that.

Mr. Speaker, I think Congress can do better than this nonbinding resolution for the status quo of Iraq. I know that a number of my Republican colleagues tried to improve this legislation but were denied that opportunity. But I know that our troops serving in harm's way and the American people deserve better than this simplistic resolution that provides no new ideas, outlines no strategy for victory, and makes no guarantees that we will continue to stand behind our troops with funding. I am greatly disappointed in this resolution and the Democrat majority's efforts to prevent this body from considering meaningful amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Los Angeles.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today as a result of the meeting in the Rules Committee last night where members of the Republican minority tried to speak about our desire to have more added to this ``simple resolution,'' as it is being called by the minority. And that it is, a simple resolution.

Mr. Speaker, we implored upon the committee to make in order more amendments which would specifically speak directly to the needs of trying to provide direction and to work with the President of the United States on where we are in Iraq. In fact, on March 15, 2006, Members of both parties from this body supported the creation of a bipartisan Iraq Study Group to review the situation on the ground and to propose strategies on a way to move forward.

For more than 8 months, the study group met with military officials, regional experts, academics, journalists and other high-level officials. This study group included James Baker and Lee Hamilton as cochairmen. It included Lawrence Eagleburger, Vernon Jordan, Ed Meese, Sandra Day O'Connor, Leon Panetta, William J. Perry, Charles S. Robb and Alan Simpson.

Mr. Speaker, we believe that the things which were embodied within this Iraq Study Group report, which came out this last December, embody the kinds of things that the President of the United States is attempting to do now in Iraq. The President stood before each and every one of us as we sat in this Chamber just a few weeks ago and he outlined very clearly the changes that are taking place and his willingness not only to work with this body, but willingness to be more specific.

I would like to read some of the things from the Iraq Study Group report that we will not be hearing as the voice of the United States Congress. That is, that the United States should work to ``provide political reassurance to the Iraqi Government in order to avoid its collapse and the disintegration of the country.''

America should ``fight al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in Iraq using more special operations teams.''

We should ``train, equip and support the Iraqi security forces.''

And we should ``deter even more destructive interference in Iraq by Syria and Iran.''

But there is more. The ``more'' is ``We could, however, support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, or to speed up training to equip the mission.''

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is what this resolution, that is nonbinding, is all about is to politically neuter the President of the United States, and, I believe, our forces and our mission in Iraq. It is about trying to do something that is politics, rather than policy.

The Rules Committee last night heard from several of our colleagues, one of them Sam Johnson, who brought forth an amendment that would clarify that Congress and the American people support our troops and the funding for our Armed Forces that are serving in harm's way to make sure that we do not put that element at risk.

Our colleague from Virginia, Frank Wolf, brought forth the things that I just spoke about. He brought to the Rules Committee the recommendations from the Iraq Study Group, with this emphasis on providing American commanders in Iraq with the strategic and tactical means to support this war. However, my colleagues on the Democratic side have decided that what they

want to do is they want to have this be all about politics and not about policy. They are after a simple answer.

Last night, the Rules Committee met--and after hours of testimony from members from both parties, the Democrat members of the Committee voted along party lines to shut out every opportunity for amendment to the Resolution that the House will be considering over the next 3 days.

Our colleague from Texas, Sam Johnson, brought an amendment that would have clarified that Congress and the American people support our troops and that funding for our armed forces serving bravely in harm's way will not be cut off or restricted in any way.

Our colleague from Virginia, Frank Wolf, also brought to the Rules Committee a very comprehensive amendment that would have made clear that Congress supports the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group-- with its emphasis on providing American commanders serving in Iraq with the strategic and tactical means that they need for success and accelerated cooperation with Iraqi leaders to meet specific goals--as the strategy for moving forward to success in Iraq.

A number of other members also spent a large part of their evening sitting in the Rules Committee, waiting to share their ideas about how to improve this resolution--however, unfortunately the 13 members of the Rules Committee are the only ones who will have the benefit of hearing and debating these good ideas, because none of them were given the opportunity to be considered and voted on by the House.

Instead, today we are on the floor with a completely closed process to debate a non-binding resolution with no teeth and a serious logical flaw.

In 2 short paragraphs, without explicitly stating that funds will not be cut off from our troops serving in harm's way, the resolution asserts that Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of Armed Forces who are serving in Iraq. This non-specific language is something that every member of this House clearly supports.

It also states that Congress disapproves of the President's plan to deploy 20,000 reinforcements to Iraq to bolster the mission and provide additional support to troops already serving on the ground.

This resolution gives no direction about how we should proceed in Iraq--instead, it settles for some generic language about supporting the troops without guaranteeing that Congress will continue to fund their efforts as they remain in harm's way--and it simply amounts to a vote for the status quo.

Mr. Speaker, this is a serious debate for serious people. We all understand that the cost of failure in Iraq is too great to bear--it would embolden radical Islamic terrorists and give them a base from which to train and attack America for generations.

But with this resolution my colleagues on the other side of the aisle provide the troops with nothing: no guarantees that we will continue to fund their heroic efforts; no guarantees that Congress will heed the advice of the Iraq Study group--which notes on page 73 of their report that it would ``support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, or to speed up the training and equipping mission.''

Nor does it provide the American people with a clear picture of our direction in Iraq--it merely says ``no'' to the only strategy for success which has been put forward.

Mr. Speaker, I think that Congress can do better than this nonbinding vote for the status quo in Iraq. I know that a number of my Republican colleagues tried to improve this legislation, but were denied the opportunity by the Democrat majority.

But I know that our troops serving in harm's way, and the American people deserve better than this simplistic resolution that provides no new ideas, outlines no strategy for victory, and makes no guarantee that we will continue to fund the efforts of our troops.

I am greatly disappointed in this resolution and the Democrat majority's efforts to prevent this body from considering amendments from thoughtful members to improve it.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party of this country is dedicated to coming to Washington, DC, and serving the people who believe that America's greatest days lie in our future. But there is also incumbent within that promise the opportunity to present new and better ideas that will help this country to deal with the things that lay ahead of us.

Yesterday, in the Rules Committee, Congressman Michael Burgess from Texas offered an amendment that would have doubled the tax credit for making biodiesel from recycled restaurant grease from 50 cents a gallon to $1 a gallon. This comes as a result of Mr. Burgess' working firsthand with people within his district who are trying to solve problems of not only air pollution, but also to take things that might normally be dumped into a recycle bin that ends up going somewhere to sit in a landfill.

Mr. Speaker, I think that Congressman Burgess deserves the respect of this House for new and better ideas that will help make sure that America is facing the problems that lie ahead of us and to make sure that we have answers for it.

I congratulate Congressman Burgess for bringing these ideas forward, and I hope we will continue to have other Members of this body do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) yielding time to me.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to debate noncontroversial legislation that will help to develop markets for biofuels and ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel through research and development.

And I am very, very pleased, and I appreciate the majority's decision to suspend its policy of a closed rule without regular order. I hope that this will not prove to be a unique circumstance, and one in which we will continue to see more open rules like the one which this legislation is being considered today.

However, I also believe that we are missing an important opportunity to improve this legislation by offering an additional provision to be considered that was offered yesterday in the Rules Committee by our colleague, Dr. Michael Burgess from Texas.

Congressman Burgess' amendment would have doubled the tax credit for making biodiesel from recycled restaurant grease from 50 cents a gallon to $1 a gallon, thereby encouraging its further use and production. This incentive would encourage the marketplace to reduce petroleum use and the pollutant associated with removing this grease without removing arable land from food production.

Mr. Speaker, this technology works. This technology is something that we need to do more of. But, this amendment is not germane; it requires protection from a point of order, which is what the Rules Committee's job is all about. Unfortunately, yesterday, the Rules Committee voted it down along party lines with every Democrat on the committee voting to prevent this amendment from getting the protection that it would need to be considered by the House. Said another way, good ideas don't necessarily pass in the Rules Committee.

This amendment would allow the House to consider new and innovative ways to achieve our goal of energy independence in a responsible way. And I am disappointed that my Democrat colleagues on the committee prevented us from debating that and passing that in the bill today.

I support Congressman Burgess through his thoughtful legislation to provide incentives for the free market to create new, responsible and leading-edge solutions to end our dependency on foreign sources of energy.

I hope, despite the setback that he will likely encounter today, that Congressman Burgess will continue to offer his amendments in the future, and I also hope that he will continue to come up to the Rules Committee to make sure his ideas, thoughts, are well understood and communicated.

Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee is open for business. That should mean that the best thoughts and ideas that may or may not have been considered throughout the process of going through regular order would be permissible in the Rules Committee. Good ideas should find the light of day upstairs in the Rules Committee, and it is my hope that the majority will continue to allow not only an open process, but will perhaps allow itself to engage in these ideas for the betterment of people who want us to make sure that we work not only in a bipartisan way, but solve, through creativity, the problems of this great Nation.

I thank the gentleman from the State of Washington.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this closed rule and to the underlying 137-page, as they call it, omnibus appropriations measure that is being rushed to the floor of the House of Representatives today without committee oversight, regular order, or input from the vast majority of Members of this body.

Last night in the Rules Committee, I offered an amendment that would have eliminated $44.5 million in unspent funds from an earmark that dates back to the 2004 omnibus appropriations measure that would have created an indoor rain forest in Coralville, Iowa. Because the project failed to meet its non-Federal matching funds matching requirement, this money remains unspent. It is sitting waiting for it to be spent.

Last night, I offered an amendment that could be used for better purposes. It could be used to make sure that we move the money to the veterans health care program, and that is exactly what my amendment said. Despite their claim of support for veterans health care and their stated opposition to earmarks, Democrats rejected my commonsense proposal on a party line vote of 9-4.

They also rejected along the same party line margin an amendment offered by my colleague from California (Mr. Campbell) which would have replaced the Democrats' omnibus spending bill with a clean continuing resolution that would have saved taxpayers around $7 billion.

Mr. Speaker, we are on the floor today because we believe that the process that should have included more time and more opportunity for feedback but at least the ability in the Rules Committee to do the right thing was rejected by the Democrats who stand up and say that they are for an open and fair process.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote against this bill.