Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, much attention has been paid to the recent conversations President Bush and President Putin have had about democracy. Less attention has been paid to their other discussions regarding market economics, supply and demand, and U.S. energy security.

Although there are varying ideas in American political discourse about the proper role of government, in the post-September 11th world there can be no disagreement that our government's main concern is security of American citizens. National security discussions usually focus on threats to public safety, but I would like to call attention to a less-noticed facet of American security: the importance of our energy security. One of the great strengths of our nation is our access to affordable, reliable energy. Safeguarding that energy security means ensuring that access to energy continues.

In earlier Administrations, energy policies concentrated on lowering the United States' increasing dependence on imported oil. But the oil embargo of 1973 changed America's approach to energy policy. The focus shifted to reducing dependence on other countries to meet our energy needs and to minimizing the economic impact of future oil disruptions. The measures put in place (enhanced energy efficiency, increased industrial fuel switching capabilities, decreased use of oil for power generation, and others) altered America's use of energy by decoupling energy growth from GDP growth and decreasing our average energy intensity, important factors in making the U.S. less vulnerable to oil supply disruptions. Other measures such as developing strategic stocks (building and filling the strategic petroleum reserve, or SPR), developing international institutions to respond collectively to energy disruptions, and diversifying the sources of oil imported into the United States have brought more certainty and stability to the energy market. While energy security policies have not stopped oil disruptions (nor stopped the growth of oil imports which are at 58 percent of to day's consumption) they have enhanced our ability cope with disruptions while limiting economic and market impacts.

Diversifying the sources of energy refers to both fuel and geographic diversity, as well as work to develop other types of energy supplies. Increasingly, America is looking to imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to fill the supply gap with diverse, reliable, long-term supplies as United States demand increases, domestic supplies decrease and imports from Canada stabilize. The Bush Administration has identified liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports as one important way to decrease our over-dependence on a small number of countries.

Russia plays an important role in both gas and oil markets, as the location of the world's largest gas reserves and the world's largest producer and exporter. In the international oil market, Russia is challenging Saudi Arabia as the largest crude oil producer. The Bush Administration recognized Russia's increased importance in energy markets, and launched an energy dialogue in May 2002 to enhance United States investment opportunities in Russia and to enhance Russian opportunities for energy trade with the United States.

Results under the Energy Dialogue have been mixed. American company investment opportunities in Russia have been dampened by recent events. Despite President Putin's attempts to mollify the international investment community by indicating that Russia is open to foreign investment, the Russian investment environment has deteriorated through actions undermining the rule of law and contract sanctity such as renationalizing oil assets and limiting bidding on strategic leases in oil, gas, and mining sectors. U.S.-Russian oil trade, however, has been stymied through lack of Russian infrastructure (a deepwater port that

would make it economical to ship crude in large vessels to the U.S.) and pipeline decisions directing future crude oil shipments to the Far East. The more rational, economic choice of a pipeline to the Barents Sea in the north of Russia and the development of a deepwater port near Murmansk has been delayed despite backing by both Russian and American firms.

But there is positive news coming from the Russian gas market, which is dominated by Gazprom, of which the government owns 38 percent. Gazprom exports one third of its production to Europe via pipeline supplying about 25 percent of Europe's gas needs. Over the last two or three decades of service, there has been only one day of interruption in gas service due to a payment problem in Belarus. Gazprom now is seeking to expand and diversify its markets, through both expansion of its pipelines and entry into the LNG trade. Gazprom spoke at the U.S. LNG Summit in December 2003, and the U.S. held a workshop at Gazprom's headquarters in June 2004, again urging Gazprom to focus on the U.S. market. Gazprom President Alexsey Miller signed agreements last year with three U.S. multinationals to explore developing Russian gas and LNG facilities, and marketing the LNG to the U.S. In fact, Gazprom expects to enter the U.S. LNG market indirectly by 2006, and directly by 2010. After the summit meeting, the joint communique from President Bush and President Putin referred to this issue, saying, ``We are interested in increasing U.S. commercial investment in Russia, so as to create additional capacity for liquefied natural gas (LNG) in Russia, and also with the aim of increasing LNG exports to U.S. markets. We would welcome increased Russian oil exports to the world market and an increased presence of imports from Russia in the United States.'' That would be welcome news to the U.S. market.

The U.S. must remain engaged in the U.S.-Russia Energy Dialogue, despite recent adversities. We should not shrink from discussing these setbacks openly, frankly and seriously. But we need to support the May 2002 agreement to increase energy trade between the U.S. and Russia in both oil and gas, since it would enhance U.S. energy security through diversity of supply, while helping to stabilize Russia's economy and tie its interests to American success. Both countries will benefit from a long-term, stable trade in both oil and gas.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Hensarling and I rise to honor the memory of the late Honorable Glenn Box. Glenn served his fellow citizens with distinction on the Dallas City Council from 1989 to 1995. We are greatly saddened by his passing, as Dallas lost one of its strongest advocates to cancer.

Glenn passed away from a rare form of cancer, mesothelioma, on February 17, 2005 at Baylor University Medical Center. We mourn the loss of such a great civic leader for the people of Dallas. At the age of thirty, Glenn had already been elected to the Dallas City Council, and would serve as the chairman of the Public Safety Committee from 1991 to 1995. Upon his retirement from public service, Glenn joined the Coca-Cola Company and most recently served as a regional vice-president for Coke sales throughout eleven Midwestern states.

Glenn was born and raised in Dallas, graduating from W.T. White High School and then attended Southern Methodist University for his undergraduate degree. After earning his law degree from the University of Texas at Austin, he returned to Dallas to join the law firm of Jackson & Walker.

In addition to his loving wife and mother, Glenn is survived by his two sons and his brother and sister. We join the Box family in honoring the memory of Glenn's life and his tireless service to improving the lives of the citizens of Dallas.

Mr. Speaker, in mid-January China and Taiwan agreed to allow direct flights between the Chinese mainland and Taiwan during this year's Lunar New Year holidays. This agreement was considered a breakthrough in cross-strait relations and could signal the beginning of a thaw in relations. Unfortunately, we learned that in March this year Beijing will enact an anti-secession law, the intent of which is to force unification on Taiwan.

The anti-secession law assumes China's jurisdiction over Taiwan and gives China the right to invade Taiwan when and if China considers the invasion necessary. This law severely erodes Taiwanese people's goodwill for China. In recent years, Taiwanese businesses have invested as much as $100 billion in China and have directly created the Chinese miracle of unprecedented economic growth and prosperity. Instead of reciprocating Taiwanese goodwill, China is now attempting to lay the legal groundwork for China's possible invasion of Taiwan.

Mr. Speaker, it is now time for us to speak up against China's proposed anti-secession law. It is an unfriendly law against the Taiwanese people as well as a provocative law

threatening to change the status quo in the Taiwan Strait. It is possible that the peace-loving Taiwanese people may seek their own legislation against China's annexation attempt. This will, in turn, inflame Chinese leaders and provoke them to enact even harsher legislation against Taiwan. Consequently tensions will rise and war in the Taiwan Strait will become a possibility.

It is still not too late for the Chinese authorities not to enact the anti-secession law against Taiwan. Taiwanese people and their leaders are all peace-loving people who do not seek to change the status quo in the Taiwan Strait. Why must China take upon itself to unilaterally change the status quo?

Friends of Taiwan in the United States must make clear to China that the United States will not stand idly by if China uses force against Taiwan. Taiwan Relations Act assures Taiwan of our concern over any military action against Taiwan. The United States will not allow China to impose its own style of government on the unwilling Taiwan. Taiwanese people must be given their own voice of self-determination regarding their future, and their liberty mustn't be taken away from them by any adversary.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 75 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

The rule under consideration completes the work begun by the general debate rule passed yesterday by the House. It provides for further consideration of the rule under a structured rule and provides that no further general debate shall be in order.

This rule provides that the amendment printed in part A of the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole and that the bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill for the purpose of further amendment and shall be considered as read.

It makes in order only those amendments printed in part B of the report and provides that these amendments may be offered only in the order printed in the report and only by a Member designated in the report. These amendments shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.

Finally, this rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in part B of the report and provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, this rule will complete the work begun yesterday on H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act of 2005. As a number of our colleagues have already made it very clear during the debate yesterday of an hour and 40 minutes, this legislation will continue the efforts of our President, George W. Bush, the 9/11 Commission, and of Congress to ensure that America never suffers another terrorist attack like the tragedy of September 11, 2001.

H.R. 418, authored by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) will improve security by focusing on four main areas: Number one, implementing much-needed driver's license reform, closing asylum loopholes, defending our borders, and strengthening our deportation laws.

Implementing the driver's license reforms included in H.R. 418 will provide for greater security for the American people. Because of lax standards and loopholes in the various current State issuance processes, terrorists have been allowed to obtain driver's licenses, often multiple driver's licenses from different States, and abuse these false identities for illegal and harmful purposes. The September 11 hijackers had

within their possession at least 15 valid driver's licenses and numerous State-issued identification cards listing a wide variety of addresses.

These terrorists were then able to exploit many of the benefits conferred upon them by possession of these cards, such as enabling the bearer to acquire other corroborating identification documents, transfer funds to a United States bank account, obtain access to Federal buildings, purchase a firearm, rent a car, or board a plane, just to name a few.

By establishing minimum document and issuance standards for the Federal acceptance of driver's licenses, requiring applicants to prove that they are in the country legally, and requiring identity documents to expire simultaneously with the expiration of lawful entry status, this legislation will ensure that individuals harboring malicious intent or who have illegally entered or who are unlawfully present in the United States cannot have access to these valuable and sensitive documents.

Closing the asylum loopholes identified by H.R. 418 will provide greater security for the American people because, as the 9/11 Commission report noted, ``a number of terrorists . . . abused the asylum system.'' By strengthening judges' abilities to determine whether asylum seekers are truthful and credible, we will be able to prevent terrorists from gaming the system by applying for asylum as a means to avoid deportation after all other recourses for remaining in the United States have been denied to them. This will prevent abuses of the system like in the case of the ``Blind Sheik'' Abdul Rahman, who was able to stay in the United States and force an immigration judge to hold a hearing on his asylum claim only weeks before his followers bombed the World Trade Center in 1993.

Defending our physical border, as provided for in the REAL ID bill, will also provide greater security for the American people. We know from the 9/11 Commission that the hijackers had 25 contacts with consular officers and 43 contacts with immigration and customs authorities. As a result, the 9/11 Commission and Congress are recommending to take a number of appropriate actions that would make it more difficult for terrorists to enter the United States through the visa or other legal immigration process, and this bill will go even further towards attaining that goal. But closing down only the legal means by which they will try to infiltrate this country is not enough.

Because increased vigilance has made entering the country through normal, regular channels more difficult, we must also increasingly prepare for the certainty that terrorists will use illegal, clandestine methods to enter our country and do us harm, and we must take steps now to close the gaps in our border security where we feel we are most vulnerable.

Finally, strengthening our deportation laws as provided for by H.R. 418 will provide greater security for the American people. Currently, although it seems unbelievable, not all terrorist-related grounds for keeping an alien out of the United States are also grounds for deportation. This means that terrorists and their closest advocates can be denied entry to the United States for their actions in support of terrorism, but if they are able to make it to our shores, we cannot deport them legally under those same actions.

The REAL ID Act will bring some common-sense balance to this troubled oversight and make the law consistent by providing that all terrorist- related offenses that make aliens inadmissible would also be grounds for their deportation. It would also provide that any alien contributing funds to a terrorist organization could also be deportable.

This rule makes in order five amendments from Members from both sides of the aisle, including one that I have submitted to ensure that aliens and terrorists who are in the United States and ordered deported are actually deported so that they can no longer pose a threat to the security of American citizens.

By supporting this rule, the House can complete its consideration of these five important amendments and the underlying legislation.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this fair and balanced rule.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I do understand that not everybody is in agreement about what we are doing today, but for the Members that are paying attention, the 9/11 Terrorist Travel Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, known as the 9/11 Commission, said on page 43, and I would like to quote this: ``September 11: As the hijackers boarded four flights, American Airlines Flights 11 and 77, and United Airlines Flights 93 and 175, at least six hijackers used U.S. identification documents obtained and acquired in the previous months, three of which were fraudulently obtained in Northern Virginia.''

Mr. Speaker, we would have to really not respect this 9/11 Commission if we were not going to follow up on the work that they did. That is why we are here today. We are here for the best reason, for the security of this great Nation and the wonderful people who care and entrust upon the United States Congress the ability to make sure we do all that we can to avoid attacks in the future.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) that at this time I do not have additional speakers.

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

This rule makes in order five amendments for Members of both sides of the aisle, including one that I have submitted to ensure that aliens and terrorists are not in the United States illegally, and if they are, we are going to deport them.

I think that this is a good bill, a good rule; and I support H.R. 418. We need to implement much-needed driver's license reform. We need to close asylum loopholes. We need to defend our borders, and we are going to strengthen our deportation laws. And I encourage all of my colleagues to support the underlying legislation in this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, in August 2004, the bipartisan chairman of the 9/11 Commission testified at the Select Committee on Homeland Security that border security combined with the routine and effective enforcement of immigration laws must be a top priority for Congress and the administration if our country can expect to secure the homeland and prevent another tragedy like what happened on 9/11 from happening again here in America.

The 9/11 Commission report states on page 384 that ``looking back, we can also see that the routine operations of our immigration laws, that is, aspects of the laws not specifically aimed at protecting against terrorism inevitably shaped al Qaeda's planning and opportunities.''

There is no more basic homeland security function of our legal system than deporting aliens who have been afforded due process and who have subsequently been ordered deported by a Federal judge. Sadly, according to our government's best statistics, only 13 percent of the aliens arrested entering the country illegally and ordered deported are actually removed.

As a result, people entering the country illegally with criminal or terrorist intent have quickly learned that, if arrested, they can be quickly released on their own word, and that they can be

confident in the knowledge that they do not have to show up for their hearing, knowing they will likely never be deported.

My amendment seeks to remedy this threat to our safety by clarifying the use of delivery bonds by the Department of Homeland Security. This concept is nothing new. The authority to leverage delivery bonds to compel attendance at Federal deportation proceedings already exists in Federal law. The Department simply needs guidance from Congress on how to best use its existing bond authority to reach the goal of 100 percent repatriation of all aliens ordered deported, and that is exactly what my amendment will provide.

Quite simply, the amendment makes certain before an alien is released from Department of Homeland Security detention pending an upcoming hearing, the Federal judge must first certify that the alien is not a flight risk, and more important, that he does not pose a security risk to the United States.

By improving this routine and fundamental operation of our laws, my amendment will limit terrorists' planning and opportunities to attack Americans here at home, and to begin fulfilling what the 9/11 Commission identified last summer as a top priority for Congress. I ask that all Members of this House support my amendment and build upon the strong deportation reform initiatives already included in H.R. 418.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), a former subcommittee chairman for the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

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

This amendment that I have comes as a result of my paying attention to not only the 9/11 Commission, but also my service to the Select Committee on Homeland Security in the prior Congress. It was very obvious to members of the committee, as we heard testimony, including from the Immigration and Naturalization Service's Inspector General report from the Department of Justice where they recognized the deficiencies that they had, where a person who had gone through an entire process in front of a Federal judge was ordered removed and yet only 13 percent of those were removed from the country.

We have a problem. We have a problem that was enumerated in the 9/11 Commission report. We are utilizing the techniques that are not only available in the law, but also that many courts utilize today, Federal courts as well as city and State courts across the United States. We need to make sure that people who have gone through a hearing have been given the opportunity to make sure that they can present their case, but then have been ordered deported do so.

The United States and, I think, Members of this Congress need to make sure that the things which we do, we give the tools to implement those necessary ways to enforce the laws of the United States to be done; for those who have been ordered to be deported and have not done so, we are giving them a better tool kit. That is why the Sessions amendment is being offered.

I support this, and I hope the members will vote ``aye'' on the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for asking.

The impetus behind this is, these are aliens who have been ordered deported by a Federal judge as a result of a hearing, who do not show up. They have had their day in court. The process is through. They have been ordered deported, and only 13 percent actually are deported.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 71 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

I will perhaps apologize to the gentlewoman from Texas. I had thought that the minority was well equipped to have a document which I will enter into the Record from the Congressional Budget Office, a cost estimate dated February 7, 2005, concerning H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act of 2005, which is a summary of the issues that the gentlewoman from Texas is bringing up.

The information that the gentlewoman is referencing is addressed within this document by the CBO. If I could, I would like to summarize for the gentlewoman, pending such time as we get her a copy of this, and I apologize that evidently one has not been provided to her. And I quote: ``As a result, the additional costs that would be imposed by H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act of 2005, would not exceed the annual threshold established in the Unfunded Mandates Act, $62 million in 2005,'' which is the annual adjustment rate for inflation. This bill authorized appropriations for grants to States and appropriations would be under that amount. And I would be pleased to make sure that the gentlewoman has that at this time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate and respect the gentleman from Michigan's joining with the gentlewoman from Texas in bringing this issue before the House today. I would offer perhaps a different vision or view of the words that the gentleman has spoken. I believe that the Republican majority did sponsor the legislation for the Unfunded Mandates Act; however, I believe at the time that was done, there was a general understanding that unfunded mandates would have a threshold that was necessary to be met so that we would have to appropriately understand those items when we would have an unfunded mandate that would be necessary for us to understand what we were placing upon the States or municipalities that we would not then appropriate money to.

The gentleman is at least correct that the Republican majority did introduce this legislation and pass it. However, the threshold that was established at that time, now as a result of inflation several years later, we are aware of, and that is why we have made sure to ask the question about what we are imposing on States for this very important issue that is within the jurisdiction of these States, but as a result of the needs of this great Nation to address driver's license inconsistencies and the integrity behind those.

We believe it is necessary. So for the gentleman to bring this point of order with the gentlewoman from Texas, purely appropriate, I would remind all of my colleagues that we have addressed this issue, that CBO has been very clear that we do not reach those thresholds which would trigger this sort of point of order. So I would ask that my colleagues would pay attention not only to this argument but to understand that we have not violated any rule as it relates to the unfunded mandate.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Texas has politely articulated something that I believe is misguided and inappropriate.

The Congressional Budget Office is a professional organization that assists the United States Congress in knowing in a nonpartisan way those impacts of the laws that we pass, and I have respectfully made sure that the gentlewoman had a copy and had been advised that before she came to the floor, evidently, the minority was in possession of this new document of 2005. And the Committee on Rules, in a meeting that we had yesterday where we considered this legislation, had to understand the implications or some of the implications as it related to this act, and we rely upon the current information that has come from the Congressional Budget Office.

So I am very disappointed that my colleague has chosen to think that we have placed pressure upon this professional organization, that we have fudged the numbers; and I would say to the gentlewoman from Texas that that, I believe, is not only an unfair accusation to this Member but, more specifically, to the Congressional Budget Office, which I believe is a professional organization, delivers a product that they put their name on and makes available to all who might read it.

So I respectfully disagree with the gentlewoman, do not accept the characterization that she has given to this Member or to the Congressional Budget Office, and would hope that the gentlewoman would find the time perhaps later in the day to bring this issue up upon full scrutiny of the documentation to recognize that, in fact, the professional conduct of the Congressional Budget Office was correct in their assertion.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we have had an opportunity to hear from the gentlewoman from Texas about a document that is old, that contained the best estimate and work at the time from the Congressional Budget Office. I have made available to the gentlewoman from Texas and for each and every Member of this body to see that the Congressional Budget Office has very clearly talked about the costs that would be associated with what might be known as an unfunded mandate. We believe, and they have concurred from the Congressional Budget Office that we are well within budgetary amounts to where we would not trigger this unfunded mandate clause.

I think it is important that we do have this law. I am glad we have debates over how much burden we are placing upon States or municipalities, but in this case, I would urge my colleagues to understand that we have the official document that is as of yesterday by the Congressional Budget Office; and I would ask that they would support our position, knowing that we have fallen within the rules of the House.

Mr. Speaker, as a result of this, I would simply say that our position is, we value and hold and believe we are well within the rules of the House of Representatives.

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

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only.

This general debate rule provides for 1 hour and 40 minutes of general debate, with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Government Reform, and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security.

It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, and provides that after general debate the Committee of the Whole shall rise without motion and no further consideration shall be in order except by subsequent order of the House.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to begin the debate on fulfilling Congress's promise to the American people made in the wake of the tragedy of September 11, 2001, that our government will do everything it can to protect them from another deadly attack on our homeland. This promise was made in the days immediately following September 11 when President Bush committed to the American people that the full force of American power would be used to bring terrorists and their sponsors to justice.

This promise was continued by the efforts of the September 11 Commission and the subsequent efforts of Congress to study the frailties and oversights of our national security system that the 9/11 terrorists were able to identify, exploit and use against us. And this promise will continue again today through the consideration of the REAL ID Act of 2005, which has been authored by my good friend, the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

This legislation continues the reform mission begun by Congress in the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act. By implementing the additional security measures including the REAL ID Act, Congress will help to ensure that our borders are secure, that terrorists cannot travel to America, and that the rule of law is respected by those who come to our Nation.

The narrowly constructed legislation by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) accomplishes this goal by focusing on four common- sense areas: implementing much-needed driver's license reform, closing the asylum loopholes, defending our borders, and strengthening our deportation laws.

Implementing the driver's license reforms included in H.R. 418 will provide greater security for the American people because lax standards and loopholes in the various current State issuance processes allow terrorists to obtain a driver's license, often multiple drivers' licenses from different States, and abuse these fake identities for illegal and harmful purposes. The September 11 hijackers had within their position at least 15 valid driver's licenses and numerous State- issued identification cards listing a wide variety of addresses.

These terrorists were able to exploit many of the benefits conferred upon them by the possession of these cards, such as enabling the bearer to acquire other corroborating identification documents, transfer funds to U.S. bank accounts, obtain access to Federal buildings, purchase a firearm, rent a car or board a plane, just to name a few.

By establishing minimum document and issuance standards for the Federal acceptance of driver's licenses, requiring applicants to prove that they are in the country legally, and requiring identification documents to expire simultaneously with the expiration of lawful entry status, this legislation will ensure that individuals harboring malicious intent who have illegally entered or who are unlawfully present in the United States, cannot have access to these valuable and sensitive documents.

Closing the asylum loopholes identified by H.R. 418 will provide greater security for the American people because as the 9/11 Commission staff report noted, ``A number of terrorists . . . abused the asylum system.'' By strengthening judges' ability to determine whether asylum- seekers are truthful and credible, we will be able to prevent future terrorists from gaming the system by applying for asylum as a means to avoid deportation after all other recourses for remaining in the United States have been denied to them. This will prevent abuses to the system like the case of the ``Blind Sheik'' Abdul Rahman, who was able to stay in the United States and force an immigration judge to hold a hearing on the asylum claim only weeks before his followers bombed the World Trade Center.

Defending our physical borders, as provided for in the Real ID bill, will provide greater security for the American people. We know from the 9/11 Commission that the hijackers had 25 contacts with consular officers and 43 contacts with immigration and customs authorities. As a result, the 9/11

Commission and Congress have recommended and taken a number of appropriate actions that have made it more difficult for terrorists to enter the United States through the visa or other legal immigration process; and this bill will go even further toward attaining that goal. But closing down only the legal means by which they will try to enter and infiltrate our country is simply not enough.

Because increased vigilance has made entering the country through normal, regular channels more difficult, we must also be increasingly prepared for the certainty that terrorists will try to use illegal, clandestine methods to enter our country and to do us harm, and we must now take steps to close those gaps in our border security where we are most vulnerable.

Finally, strengthening our deportation laws as provided for by H.R. 418 will provide greater security for the American people. Currently, although it seems unbelievable, not all terrorism-related grounds for keeping an alien out of the U.S. are also grounds for deportation. This means that terrorists and their closest advocates can be denied entry to the United States for their actions in support of terrorism, but if they are able to make it to our shores, we cannot deport them for those same actions.

The REAL ID Act would bring some common sense to this troubling oversight and make the law consistent by providing that all terrorist- related offenses that make aliens inadmissible would also be grounds for deportation. It would also provide that any alien contributing funds to a terrorist organization would also be deportable.

Mr. Speaker, this rule is intended to allow debate to begin on this important legislation and to give Members an opportunity to come to the floor and to voice their support or concerns about its contents as the Committee on Rules finalizes an appropriate rule for consideration of possible amendments. I encourage all of my colleagues to improve America's national security by supporting this rule to begin the debate on this legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), our whip.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the time remaining for both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), the chairman of the Republican Policy Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), one of the bright new members of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the favorite son from San Dimas, chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, we are all deeply saddened by the loss of life of our brave men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. While we all understand the need to spread freedom and democracy throughout the world, words can barely express the emotions and sorrow felt by the families of those who have given the ultimate sacrifice.

A constituent of mine recently brought to my attention a poem that was written in memory of Sgt. Byron Norwood, USMC, by Gene E. Blanton. While this poem is in memory of Sgt. Norwood, I believe that this poem is a fitting tribute to all servicemen and women who have fallen in combat. I would like to share this poem with my fellow colleagues:

Your Son

(By Gene E. Blanton)

To the Mothers and the Fathers

Of United States Marines

Who have fought and bled and died

So that freedom's bell still rings

From the Halls of Montezuma

To the shores of Tripoli

From the alleys of Fallujah

To the frozen Yudam-ni

From the sands of Iwo Jima

To the hills around Khe Sanh

From the smoky hell of Belleau Woods

Your Son fought and won

Your Son battled dictatorships

Communism and tyranny

God's Son died to make men holy

Your Son died to make men free

There is a debt we owe Your Son

That we can never repay

We owe Your Son more than platitudes

Heard on Veterans or Memorial Day

Your Son is a son of America

One of the Proud and the Few

Your Son volunteered to do the things

Other men would not or could not do

Your Son was Semper Fidelis

Always Faithful to the end was he

Your Son was a shining example

Of what a man is supposed to be

Now Your Son's been reassigned

To stand guard on Heaven's streets

And when my tour of duty is over

I know that we will meet

I'll thank Your Son for my freedom

For keeping terror on a distant shore

I'll thank Your Son for our way of life

And sacrifice he bore

So tonight when you cry out to God

While praying on your knees

Know that He's a loving God

Who will listen to your pleas

To lose Your Son for freedom's cause

God truly understands

God sent His Son to die for us

So you can see Your Son again

May God continue to bless our solders who are currently in harm's way.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the hundreds of students and advisors that will be gathering in Austin from February 3- 7 for the 57th annual YMCA Texas Youth and Government Conference. Each year, delegations of high school students from around the Lone Star State travel to Austin to learn about their government through hands-on activities at the State Capitol. I am very proud of the school delegations that travel from the 32nd Congressional District of Texas to attend and learn from this wonderful conference.

My best wishes to Youth Governor Nathan Gonzales of Benbrook, Youth Lt. Governor Grant Reid of Garland, and all of the other youth officers and delegates that will be making a difference in Austin this week. My special thanks to YMCA Texas Youth and Government State Director Suzanne Mabie for all of the tireless hours of service that she commits to make this conference the great success that it is each and every year.

I've had the privilege of being involved with this conference for the last several years and have always been impressed with the talents of the young individuals who are involved with the program. All my best wishes for a successful 57th annual conference in Austin.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the requirement of clause 11(a)(1) of rule X, during the 109th Congress, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence be composed of not more than 19 Members, of whom not more than 11 be from the same party.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 42 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that section 2 of the resolution be stricken.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services. It provides that the bill shall be considered as read for the purpose of amendment and makes in order only those amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying this resolution. It provides that the amendments made in order may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. These amendments shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. The rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report. Finally, it provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce this fair, structured rule for H.R. 54, the Congressional Gold Medal Enhancement Act of 2005. This legislation builds on important reforms that my good friend, the former Governor and now Member of Congress, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) has made to the Commemorative Gold Coin program almost a decade ago.

Today, we have the opportunity to bring these same improvements to the Congressional Gold Medal program and ensure that the original intent and prestige of the Congressional Gold Medal program as the Nation's highest civilian award and the most distinguished award given by Congress is preserved.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 54 will improve the Congressional Gold Medal program by limiting the number of medals awarded by Congress to no more than two in any calendar year. It would also ensure that the tradition of only awarding these medals to living or recently deceased individuals for their meritorious service continues, as was originally intended by the program.

The proud tradition of this unique honor began when the first Congressional Gold Medal was authorized in 1776 and presented to George Washington in 1790. The tradition of only awarding these medals for military service continued until 1858 when Congress awarded Dr. Frederick Rose, an assistant surgeon in the British Navy, with a medal for the kindness that he showed to sick American naval personnel.

With Dr. Rose's receipt of the gold medal, Congress also created the Medal of Honor as the first permanent military decoration. The creation of the esteemed Medal of Honor allowed Congress to begin using the gold medal exclusively to recognize individuals that have performed an achievement that has an impact on American history and culture that will be recognized for generations to come.

Over the years since its inception, without strict rules governing how it was awarded, this venerable program has acquired a small problem. By a slow process, as currently administered, it has grown much larger than it was originally intended. From 1776, when Congress established the award, to 1904, Congress approved only 47 medals. In the last 100 years, Congress has awarded almost twice as many, 86 medals, including 20 in the past decade alone. In the 1990s, Congress faced this same problem of proliferation within the Commemorative Coins Program, which has grown out of control and was costing taxpayers far more than ever envisioned when that program began.

In order to maintain sound fiscal discipline and the prestige of the Congressional Gold Medal Program, we are here today to approve the commonsense reforms by the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), our chairman, and supported by the Committee on Financial Services chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley). Many of these reforms simply codify what is already an existing practice in the House Committee on Financial Services and the Senate Banking Committee.

By adopting this legislation, Congress will be able to move more effectively and efficiently to manage the Congressional Gold Medal Program while maintaining the prestige and the purpose for which it was originally created.

I support this rule and urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

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

I appreciate the comments from the gentleman from Florida, my good friend from the Committee on Rules, and would like to ask him at this time if he would like to consume the time. At this time, I may have one additional speaker, but do not at this time and would wish that the gentleman would consume his time. Then I would expect to close. I would like to ask the gentleman if he would like to do that.

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

Mr. Speaker, today we have a bill which the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) has brought to the floor, which we believe is a good bill, supported by the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley). I urge my colleagues to support this rule, as well as the Oxley manager's amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Joel David Brooks retirement as the Executive Director of the Southwest Region for the American Jewish Congress. I join my fellow colleagues in honoring the 40 years of service that Mr. Brooks has given to the local community and the rest of the world.

I am honored to give my complements to a man who has pursued the improvement of human rights for people all across the globe. He has played such a great role in improving lives and families, as I encourage others to continue his dedication to the betterment of our fellow man.

I congratulate the Brooks family on this momentous occasion. I wish Mr. Brooks a well-earned retirement, and am sure that he will be successful in all of his future endeavors during his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in honoring Don Kyzer's retirement from the YMCA after his lengthy service to young people across the country.

For the past several years, I have been honored to serve as the Congressional sponsor for the YMCA Youth Governor's Conference. The YMCA Youth Governor's Conference brings together some of the most outstanding youth leaders in America. YMCA Youth and Government is a nation-wide program that allows thousands of teenagers to simulate state and national government. Kyzer has played a pivotal role in making the conference a rewarding experience for the hundreds of youth leaders that he has personally mentored. From 1991 to 1997, Don served as the director for the conference and has left a lasting legacy with those who have benefited from his tireless efforts.

In addition to the Youth Governor's Conference, Kyzer has been distinguished by a number of organizations. He has been awarded the John R. Fisher Service to Youth Award, Distinguished Service Award from the YMCA International Management Council, Florida Association of Professional YMCA Directors Program Director of the Year Award, Paul Grist Service to Youth Award, and was runner-up for the Florida State Teacher of the Year Award.

I congratulate the Kyzer family on this momentous occasion, and wish him all the best for a well-earned retirement.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 846 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman

from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

The resolution we are considering today would provide for the same- day consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules. It waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII, requiring a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Committee on Rules, against certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules.

The rule applies to the waiver to any resolution reported on or before the legislative day of November 20, 2004, providing for consideration or disposition of any of the following measures:

First, a bill or joint resolution making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2005, an amendment thereto or a conference report thereon; or, second, a bill or joint resolution making general appropriations for fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and an amendment thereto or a conference report thereon.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear what we are trying to do. We are trying to make sure that as a result of the action that we took on or about October 8 as it related to the funding of the government that we would make sure we would responsibly work on behalf of the American people to make sure that all spending bills would be necessarily approved and done properly by this House. But we wanted to make sure that the government was funded from that day forward.

Today, as we end what we believe will be the last day for the House of Representatives for the 108th Congress, it allows us a chance to make sure that we are prepared to do just that. As we speak, up in the Committee on Rules right now here in the Capitol, the Committee on Rules is meeting to approve the omnibus appropriations bill. This bill will make sure that we can bring this very important bill to the floor and then we can get on with our work today and hopefully adjourn tonight.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the gentleman's speaking about the way in which the House is operating today. I am proud of what we are doing. And in just a few hours we are going to hear the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, come and say that this package before us represents a freeze or a 0 percent growth in nondefense discretionary spending. That is hard work. That is hard work, Mr. Speaker, but in the very beginning of this year the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), chairman of the Budget Committee, as a result of enlisting the Members of Congress, decided that we were going to have a budget that did the right thing for 2005. And that is exactly what this Republican-led Congress has done.

The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) worked very diligently to make sure that the budget that this conference put forth and this House put forth is something that will be passed. We intend to make sure that we are not going to have any wild spending sprees like we have done in the past. It is going to be responsible. I am proud of what we have done. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), our great Speaker, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader, have made sure that the things that are in this bill deal with the essence of what is good for America. I am very proud of what we are doing.

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

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

The gentleman from Maryland I believe articulated a hope and a dream that both of these parties want to stand for, and that is that we can continue to work together. He expressed great confidence not only in the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and Jim Dyer, who is the staff director of the Committee on Appropriations; he appropriately talked about the service to this body of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), a Congressman from Texas 17. But he also talked about our hope and dream for the ability that we have to control ourselves, to bring forth spending that is worthy of the American public will.

The only thing that I would add is that we also need to have an economy that works, that is competitive with the world. We know we passed this last year, a medicare prescription drug bill that, for the first time, will allow senior citizens not to have to make a choice between food, clothing, housing, and getting the prescription drugs that were ordered by their doctor. These too are accomplishments that we have done, and it does come at a cost and a price, but it is the right thing to do.

I continue to believe in the American dream. I think that is what we are all about here today on a Saturday, working hard. And yes, the gentleman referred to us working until 2, 3, and 4 in the morning. I think that is good too. I think this body is faithful to the American public, and I believe in what we are doing.

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

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

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

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

It is a great way to start a Saturday morning, the opportunity to get up and debate before the American public the important parts about not only America and our process and the ability that we have by majority vote, but it is also an opportunity for us to look the American public right in the eye and to say that we have done what we said we would do, that this is a lean package. It follows exactly what we said we would do in the budget earlier this spring.

The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has brought forth a package as a result of what we heard was bipartisan work, informing people what was in the bill, the opportunity to make sure that not only as the gentleman from Maryland said to keep him updated but others in his party to make sure that they were aware of what was happening on an omnibus spending package that is important to this great Nation and an obligation of this Congress.

Yes, I am proud that we have the ability to say today we will bring this to the floor of the House of Representatives. The Committee on Rules has acted, and subsequent to us leaving today, we will have a measured and wonderful debate. I am proud of what we have done. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 859 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

This rule provides that suspensions will be in order at any time on the legislative day of Friday, November 19, 2004. It also provides that the Speaker or his designee will consult with the Minority Leader or her designee on any suspension considered under the rule.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership of this House has sent out a positive legislative plan for this week and the balance of the 108th Congress on behalf of the American people. The goal of this plan is to clean up this Congress's legislative calendar by passing a number of bills before we adjourn that will improve America's economic and national security.

Over the past year, Congress has passed a number of important new education, trade, tax, and national security bills that will keep Americans safer, create new jobs, and improve our economy. Later today, and for the rest of the week, we will consider legislation to improve the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and provide for consideration of outstanding spending measures to ensure that Congress can complete its work before we adjourn.

I understand that Members on either side of our aisle may have different views about how to address these issues, and we have had and will continue to have the opportunity to hear a great deal of debate from both sides not only on these issues but also on other issues that are important to this Nation.

However, some of this legislation that the Republican House leadership has also scheduled for consideration on behalf of America has broad support from Members of both the majority and the minority. And, in an attempt to make sure that this important work is finished by the end of the 108th Congress, we are here today to pass this rule to provide for consideration of these bills under rules that will require them to pass by a two-thirds majority.

This balanced rule provides the minority with the ability to consult with the Speaker on any suspension that is offered, ensuring that their input and views are duly considered before any legislation is considered under this rule brought to the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this uncontroversial and balanced rule.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the American people understood exactly what the parties stood for, the accomplishments of those parties, and that is what the election was about. I am pleased today to be back in the United States Congress on the floor of the House of Representatives touting not the things that the gentleman from Florida talked about that did not get done but rather the things that did get done, accomplishments that occurred during this year.

I am very proud of the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) our Speaker, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) who have provided this body with the leadership to ensure that the things that were done in the 108th Congress got done.

Mr. Speaker, I hold up 15 pages worth of bills, of accomplishments that this body was a part of. Mr. Speaker, this body was a part of making sure that we would answer the question about how Medicare would address the needs of senior citizens and low-income seniors, and we understood and we understand today that 95 percent of all of the money that is spent in Medicare is spent on major, critical, life-threatening issues that people have. We have changed that now to, instead of dealing with a person once they are sick, we are going to change that to preventative type of spending. That is what we believe Medicare should be doing. That is not something that we should be ashamed of. That is something we should be proud of.

We are proud that we will have in place this next year again, once again, for low-income seniors, the ability for this government to help them not have to make a decision in buying and receiving their prescription drugs. That is something I am proud of.

I am proud to know that we, once again, had a tax bill, a tax bill that would make sure that we become competitive with this marketplace. Mr. Speaker, when we cut taxes, business gets that money, and they do a bunch of things that are great for this country. They buy more equipment, they

employ more people, and we become competitive with the world.

I would say that Republicans have a different philosophy than Democrats. We believe that we should do a few things and do them well, and that is what this Republican Congress has done this year. We have not just rushed out and tried to tackle every single issue. We have done the things that will make a huge difference for the American public.

I believe that that is what this election was about, and I believe that this President stood before the American people and talked about what his policies had been and will be. I think they are accomplishments that I am proud of, I think that this body is proud of them, and I darn sure know that the American people turned out in record numbers to say thank you so much for the service to this great Nation.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Florida engaging in this wonderful discussion. I have been here for 8 years. During those 8 years as a Member of Congress, I believe 5 of those years I have been here at Christmas time, the week of Christmas, doing the job that needed to be done.

I do understand that we do have these 13 spending bills that need to be done. I also recognize we have a process. The gentleman and I sit up late at night in the Committee on Rules attempting to work through those processes to make sure the President does get the needed legislation before him. But we have the underpinnings of the Constitution where we have two bodies, the Senate and the House. If we do our work, it does not mean they have to do their work. Likewise, if they do their work, it does not mean we have to. So we have to come to an agreement and those agreements sometimes take a little longer, but what we have avoided is shutting down the government.

The government has done its business. We have been very successful to make sure that we address those issues. So I would say that, well, yes, the President is supposed to sign those bills, but at least we have not gone home before he will get a chance to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman for his observations about our not being able to do the things that need to be done because of tax cuts. Mr. Speaker, there is a difference between our parties. One of the differences is taxing and spending. We, as Republicans, believe that if we give the American people back more of their own money that they earned that we will create a circumstance, an environment, an economy in this country that grows to where people become employed, we become competitive with the world, and we do the things ultimately to give people, the American public, more of their own money so they can live their own dreams and make their own dreams happen.

I do recognize we have a difference in our opinions. I do recognize that one party wants to tax and spend. I do understand that one party wants to give tax cuts and grow the economy. But at some point we also have to get our work done, and that is what we are trying to do today by saying that this rule is about allowing that necessary business when the minority leader, when the majority leader, and Speaker agree on legislation that can come to this floor.

We are waiting here for other business to be finished and done, but it does not mean we should shut off debate or for other very important legislation if there is complete bipartisan agreement about moving forward. So I am proud today once again to stand here before the American public and to say we are ready to do business here in the House of Representatives, and in a few minutes we will have more work that needs to be done.

We will handle legislation dealing with what is called IDEA, the Individuals With Disabilities Act, that deals with important education changes that have also been worked on and have bipartisan agreement that the gentleman and I heard about last night in the Committee on Rules.

So for us to say we are not doing our work, that we are a failure is simply not, I do not believe, a correct enunciation of what this House of Representatives has stood for these last few years or stands for today. We are ready, capable, and able to work and reach out across the aisle to bring legislation that is important to the American people and for it to be sound legislation, for it to make a difference to the American people, but more importantly that it be done in a proper, cautious fashion that creates health and opportunity for the American economy and for the American family.

That is what this United States Congress should be all about, producing a product that are accomplishments that we can be proud of.

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

Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 858 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

This rule waives all points of order against the conference report for H.R. 1350 and against its consideration, and provides that the conference report shall be considered as read.

Mr. Speaker, shortly after my second son, Alex, was born in 1994, my father gave me some healthy words of advice when he said that Alex Sessions would be the greatest thing that would ever happen to our family. He knew and understood that in fact Alex was a very special baby. He was born with Downs Syndrome. The past 10 years have reaffirmed my father's words to me, and Alex has become one of the greatest parts of our family's life.

Ten years later, Alex is a very happy third grader at Lakewood Elementary in Dallas, Texas; and Alex has the support of numerous teachers, students, and parents who provide him with remarkable educational lessons and invaluable friendships. For each of the last 2 years, Alex has been rewarded with the school's highest citizenship honor, to be a Lakewood Super Stallion.

In the last 3 weeks, Alex has successfully written for the first time his first and last name. While these are great personal achievements for Alex and our entire family, stories like these are being told all across the country because of the extra efforts of those dedicated educators who are working diligently with these wonderful children under landmark Federal legislation known as IDEA, or Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

Several decades ago, Congress passed this legislation to guarantee children with disabilities full access to a fulfilling and appropriate public education. And while I have talked today about the many successes and achievements of this important program, there are also areas within the law that could and can use improvement and adjustment. I am proud to support the bipartisan legislation that is before us today to reauthorize and improve this most important education program to ensure that the true promise and intent of this act is carried out to the fullest extent of our abilities as Congressmen.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1350 creates an educational atmosphere focusing on the future of our most vulnerable children. It builds on the existing strengths of IDEA, while modernizing and improving the program to guarantee that children with disabilities have the most appropriate tools to fully utilize their gifts. The changes that we are making in IDEA will give children measurable goals to ensure they reach their postsecondary living and employment goals.

H.R. 1350 directly addresses perhaps the greatest problem facing IDEA, the effective monitoring and enforcement of the act. Effective July 1, 2005, it will give the Secretary of Education clear authority to enforce standards to monitor and enforce whether or not schools are in compliance with IDEA, authority that has been lacking since the inception of this education initiative. States will be empowered to create an acceptable set of standards; and if they are not met, the Secretary of Education will now have the tools necessary to take appropriate and reasonable action to work with State and local educators to remedy the situation.

This conference report provides Congress with a 6-year glidepath to fully fund IDEA by 2011. Under President Bush's leadership, funding for all education programs, in particular IDEA, have been a high priority. In his first term, President Bush increased IDEA funding to States by $4.8 billion, or what we would know as a 76 percent increase. This Republican-controlled Congress, which I am proud to be a part of, has increased the Federal share of IDEA funding to 19 percent in 10 years, whereas our predecessors in the Democrat-controlled Congresses only allowed the Federal share of IDEA costs to reach 7 percent.

H.R. 1350 also restores trust and constructive dialogue to the relationship between parents and school personnel promoting an earlier resolution to problems before they end up in court. This legislation creates the opportunity for a resolution session within 30 days of a complaint being filed to quickly resolve the problem. The constant threat of litigation creates an atmosphere of distrust between parents and schools, an environment that harms everyone involved.

Today's legislation also solves another problem that has plagued IDEA for too long. Today, many children with reading problems are misidentified as learning disabled and wrongly placed in special education classes, a costly mistake which siphons away valuable funding from students who truly need IDEA services. To address this issue, H.R. 1350 requires districts with significant over-identifying of students to operate early intervention programs to reduce over-identification, eliminating the outdated IQ discrepancy, a model that relies on a wait- to-fail approach, and introduces a response to intervention model that identifies specific learning disabilities before the students are at a failing grade level.

I am proud of this new IDEA legislation. Because of the important resources that H.R. 1350 provides to our schools, it may one day help my son Alex to further meet his goals of learning to read.

I am pleased to note that the House version of this legislation successfully passed through the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and then through the House in April of 2003. Today's conference report enjoys the overwhelming bipartisan support of its conferees, and I am confident that this report will enjoy wide bipartisan margins in both Houses before it is signed by President Bush.

I would ask that all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle demonstrate their commitment to the special education needs of our country's disabled children by supporting this conference report. I would like to thank the House sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), and the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), for their dedicated hard work in producing the conference report.

I would also like to take a minute to commend the conferees from both bodies that have labored to produce this fine product, including the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), Senator Edward Kennedy, and Senator Judd Gregg.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule and the underlying legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, last night, late in the Committee on Rules, the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), came before our committee and talked with great confidence and exuberance about the hard work that had been produced by not only the conferees but also that proud committee. Today, I am very pleased to have that chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), who has worked diligently for the past few years not only with me as a parent with a child who falls under IDEA but also with all Members who bring thoughts and ideas about encouraging our teachers and our parents and our children to achieve greater things. I would like to publicly say that not only the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) but also what the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) has done has been of great service to our country, and I would like to thank him for that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner).

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

Today we are having a discussion about some of America's greatest gifts, and that is our children with disabilities. An observation I would make is the kind words on both sides have come as a result of a lot of hard work, a lot of hard work not only within this body but also with the Senate. It also came as a result of a lot of hard work where members of that committee and subcommittee had to go out all across America and listen to parents and listen to educators and to listen to people. Certainly the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) was a huge part of this success.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, however, I would like to suggest that the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) was a great leader in this process. He made sure of the strength of his argument so this law would make a difference. So I, like the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner), stand here to say that the gentleman from Delaware (Chairman Castle) has done a great job on behalf of so many students.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Education Reform.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).

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

I, too, would join with the gentleman from Massachusetts in enunciating our support of not only the staff members of the Rules Committee and for the hard work that they put in day in and day out and night in and night out but also would join in support of what the gentleman from Massachusetts said when he talked about our colleague Martin Frost. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has served for 26 years as a distinguished Member of not only the House of Representatives but also in his service to the people of the 24th Congressional District of Texas. During that period of time the gentleman from Texas has distinguished himself as a person who would articulate not only the position of the Democrat Party but also a position that was very successful in support of veterans all across this country and in many other issues that he so deeply believed in, including a major piece of legislation which was known as the Amber Alert system for children who had been taken from their parents.

Mr. Speaker, I include for printing in the Congressional Record a resolution that was passed by the Rules Committee last night, November 18, 2004:

Resolution of the House Committee on Rules November 18, 2004

Whereas, Martin Frost has served the United States House of

Representatives and the citizens of the United States with

excellence since first elected to this body in 1978;

Whereas, Martin Frost began developing his extensive

political and legislative expertise as a reporter for

Congressional Quarterly, and then as a practicing attorney in

the Dallas area, while honorably serving the country as a

member of the United States Army Reserves;

Whereas, Martin Frost has represented the constituents of

the 24th district of Texas, serving the citizens of the

Dallas and Fort Worth areas for 26 years in the House of

Representatives with outstanding diligence and passion. He

has taken on issues of importance to the diverse population

of his district, such as the active- and reserve-duty

military, and Medicare, and has been an integral figure in

the creation of the nationwide AMBER Alert system for missing

children;

Whereas, Martin Frost has utilized his status as the

highest ranking Southern Democrat in the House, and as a

senior member of the Texas delegation, to address concerns

vital to his region, such as transportation issues, veterans

affairs and youth violence;

Whereas, Martin Frost has exemplified himself as a model of

leadership of the Democratic Party in the House, serving in

the capacity of chairman of the Democratic Congressional

Campaign Committee, as well as chairman of the House

Democratic Caucus during his career in Washington, proving

himself to be an astute policy and political strategist;

Whereas, the Committee on Rules has benefitted greatly by

the service of Martin Frost since his appointment to the

committee as a freshman in 1978, most recently through his

leadership as Ranking Minority Member of the Committee,

acting as a sounding board for the Democratic delegation in

advocating legislative priorities and providing his extensive

knowledge of the House rules and practices garnered from his

26 year service to the Committee to ensure success in

fulfilling its jurisdictional duties;

Whereas, the tenure of Martin Frost in this United States

Congress has been characterized by honesty, integrity, and a

general willingness to work together with colleagues, on a

variety of important issues: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Committee on Rules, That its Members

express their deep appreciation for the service Martin Frost

has selflessly given to the country, our citizens, the House

Rules Committee, and the United States House of

Representatives, and wish him the best of luck and godspeed

on all future endeavors.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

I thank the gentleman for his comments, also, about our colleague from Texas (Mr. Frost).

Mr. Speaker, we have also earlier thanked a number of people, the Members of Congress who were a part of making this bill, IDEA, successful. Certainly we will have in a few minutes the opportunity to hear from Chairman Boehner once again and his colleague, the ranking member, George Miller, from California. Both of these gentleman spent an incredible number of hours working together. We have heard obviously from the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). We will also hear from the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

But I think it is important that we also say that there have been a number of people who have worked behind the scenes to make this bill successful and they really come from both sides of this great hall, the Senate and the House. I would like to personally thank Connie Garner from the office of Senator Kennedy; David Cleary from the office of Chairman Boehner. David has worked tirelessly not only on behalf of these children but also doing town hall meetings to make sure that we got this right. Melanie Looney, who is also from Chairman Boehner's office; Alex Nock, who is from Mr. Miller's office; Denzel McGuire from the office of Senator Judd Gregg.

I would also like to thank from my staff Bobby Hillert and from the White House Elan Liang for their hard work to make sure that this document not only enunciated a better policy but also took in all the feedback from educators, parents and students from across this country who wake up every day to make IDEA better.

I do, too, encourage all my colleagues to support this bipartisan piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.