Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 365 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.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution provides for the consideration of H.R. 2601, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for fiscal years 2006 and 2007. It is a structured rule with 1 hour of general debate and provides for the orderly consideration of 38 separate amendments specified in the text of the resolution. It is important to note that the rules made in order the majority of the amendments that were filed, even some that will be reconsidered here on the floor, and will provide for a wide-ranging debate on virtually all aspects of U.S. foreign policy. The rule also ensures that the bill fits within the budget resolution, thereby also maintaining fiscal discipline within this year's budget.

H.R. 2601 was reported out of the Committee on International Relations with a unanimous vote which is a testament to the tremendous efforts on both sides of the aisle which have gone into this bill. Even though they have dealt with some of the most controversial issues before us, this bipartisanship demonstrated in the unanimous vote by the Committee on International Relations is all that more remarkable and a testament to the fairness, the professionalism, and the statesmanship of both the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), as well as the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos). We will also be joining in an en bloc amendment, further illustrating their unique efforts in this particular matter.

They are to be commended for demonstrating to the rest of us how Members can work through differences in a constructive manner to move legislation forward for the best interest of our country. Indeed, the Prime Minister of India just a few minutes ago on this floor said there is much we can do together, and this committee has illustrated they can do that.

That is not to say there will not be differences of opinions or views on some of the matters. The rule which we are considering would provide for adequate as well as a wide-ranging debate on all sides of different issues.

The bill, H.R. 2601, is a 2-year authorization for the U.S. Department of State, their activities and programs. Since 1985, or for the past 20 years, the foreign assistance authorization measures have been folded into the State Department authorization legislation. H.R. 2601 continues this pattern. It authorizes for fiscal year 2006 $10.8 billion and $10 billion for 2007. Included in that is $1.5 billion to fortify U.S. embassies and $690 million to bolster security for American diplomatic workers abroad.

It was significant that the ranking member did bring before testimony of the Committee on Rules that this bill fully funds the administration request for worldwide security for our embassies and our personnel working abroad. As he illustrated in 2003, one of the terrorist extremists attacked the British consulate and other British interests in the city of Istanbul. When interrogated, he said that he considered the U.S. consulate, but in his terms, even a bird cannot fly in there, which means that our efforts for security since the tragic bombings in East Africa in 1998 have had some success.

This continues on with that particular practice.

$930 million will also be authorized for border security; $67 million to continue broadcasts into Cuba. The ranking member also illustrated that once again there is an initiative to disrupt the nuclear black markets, that this initiative will help prevent nuclear weapons and weapons technology from getting into the hands of terrorists or rogue nations which is extremely important for our national security. The measure also commits new international mechanisms to restrict the trade in missiles and their components. As the ranking member also pointed out, Secretary Rice is continuing the practices of Secretary Powell in trying to reform the Department of State and this bill authorizes adequate resources for a first-class and well-trained diplomatic service and diplomatic corps.

These are some of the issues that were brought forth with a plethora of amendments that were adopted on both sides of the aisle during the International Relations Committee markup of this particular bill.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 356 provides for a structured rule and makes in order the majority of the amendments which were filed in the Rules Committee. Once again, it is a fair, comprehensive and balanced rule. I urge its adoption as well as the adoption of the underlying legislation.

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

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

I appreciate the remarks that have been given so far by the gentleman from Florida as well as the gentleman from Massachusetts. Saying there were 70 amendments proposed happens to be rounding up the number, but of those that were not allowed in the process, six were withdrawn by their sponsors. The majority of the others were either duplicative or not germane. And may I remind this body that why we are talking in a structured rule is because the bulk of the issues should have been done in the hearing and in the committee level. The committee who did hear these issues did pass this bill, I remind you once again, unanimously from both sides of the body. The issues that have been addressed so far will have a chance because there is also another amendment that deals with Colombia, so the gentleman from Massachusetts will have a chance once again to give some dramatic rhetoric one more time on this particular issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), one of the subcommittee chairmen, one who has spent a great deal of time working on this significant piece of legislation.

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.

Mr. Speaker, as I said at the introduction of this particular rule, this bill covers a wide range of issues. As you can see from the discussion we have had so far, there are a wide range of issues that are covered in this particular bill. That is why it is also remarkable, one more time, that this particular bill came through its committee in a uniquely bipartisan way, in which there were hearings and then a markup, over 62 amendments presented, bipartisan, discussed, and once again with a bipartisan result were submitted to us.

The committee process that we have in the House is of a unique and supreme importance. Without trying to make any kind of value statement on what is done on the other side of this particular Capitol, former Senator McCarthy of Minnesota once said that the Senate has rules, but it does not

matter because no one over there follows them.

We on the House side though, have an orderly process in which to discuss issues and bring them in a timely and consistent manner, and the specifics of those are the importance that we put on the committee, and especially the hearing process in the committee. It is the committee process in which issues of specifics as well as long-range importance should be debated and discussed and allow that hearing process to go forward, so that what is brought to the floor becomes a significantly refined model, and that therefore on the floor we can narrow our process and narrow our discussion into those particular areas and into certain particular areas.

This bill is still a significant issue. It is a significant bill. It is a 2-year authorization, and within that authorization is a blueprint for the reform of the State Department. It is significant that that move forward, because we are talking about how we fully authorize and fully purport to have a well-balanced and strong core of diplomatic personnel representing us in every institution.

Within this bill are specific and important issues that fully authorize the safety and security of that personnel. Those are significant issues, and though we may differ with specifics of what is happening today, we must also look to the fact that this bill deals with long-term results, long-term goals, long-term aspirations of our State Department and our foreign policy.

Mr. Speaker, what I am trying to say is this bill has had significant debate on a wide variety of issues within the committee process, and that is the way the House tries to function, by also authorizing 38, which is a majority of the resolutions. Once again, the majority of the amendments not offered were taken away either from withdrawal or from redundancy or from germaneness issues.

But by authorizing 38 and providing a process for that discussion means that, once again, we are going to take these issues in a wide range and a wide variety and move forward with those with that type of discussion on the floor. My only hope at this stage is that as a floor, we can be as wise as the Committee on International Relations was when they came up with a bipartisan product and a 44-0 vote and presented it here for our further considerations.

Hopefully we will maintain the same kind of collegiality and standards that particular committee did, because I think it sets a standard and a goal for us to try and emulate as we go through with the floor discussion.

I am proud of the underlying bill and I am proud of the rule because it provides the fair representation for this bill as a continuation of the committee process, but does not supplant the committee process, which is what we do here on the House floor for an orderly discussion of those particular issues.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

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

I appreciate the debate that we have heard so far. It has been very riveting rhetoric that has gone on. Sometimes I am a little bit surprised at it, as we are told we cannot debate the things we are debating.

In specific, if I could mention something about the Colombia policy, which, once again, it was said we are not going to be able to talk about, even though we have, I think the United States has a great record in what it has been doing so far down there. We are making progress. There is much to do, but we are making progress.

There is already a 17 percent reduction in South American purity of heroin that is coming from Colombia. Hospital overdoses from that same issue are down by one-third.

It is significant that that issue, that issue that was brought up before was debated in the Committee on International Relations. They debated demobilization of terrorists. They adopted two resolutions. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) presented a resolution on this same issue that was adopted that dealt with section 944 on the issue, and it was about the demobilization of Colombia, and it was passed with bipartisan support in that particular committee.

The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) also had an issue that dealt with Colombian tax policy. What I am trying to emphasize is, once again, we have had opportunity to discuss these issues in the committee process, which is the appropriate process. There will also be other opportunities to discuss this issue, not only here but, again, in other areas.

I appreciate what the gentlewoman from New York just said. On the issue of Iraq, we have had a defense authorization bill as well as defense appropriations for 3 days. We have had the opportunity to debate these particular issues on the floor. There will also be one other time to bring those positions up. Whether the amendment is passed, either for or against, that opportunity will still be here.

These issues are before us; but, once again, what we are trying to do with this rule is what we are trying to do with the House process, that is, to do things in an orderly fashion so that the bulk of these issues can be heard in the committee and could go forward in the committee where the true interaction takes place in a much, much more specific way by those people who become experts in this particular area.

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

Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, as we continue on after the passage of this rule, I am looking forward to an hour of general debate, which will be as riveting as what we have had discussing this particular rule.

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

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 351 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 before us is the rule for the consideration of a package of four bills, H.R. 739, 740, 741, and 742. They are pieces of legislation which passed with a significant bipartisan majority in the 108th Congress and are once again being brought to the floor today to help reduce the impact of unduly burdensome regulations for American small businesses and thereby enhancing American competitiveness, and to restore fairness in applying workplace safety regulations to small business.

The rule before us, House Resolution 351, provides for the separate consideration of each of these four bills. Under the rule, each bill will have its own debate time and the opportunity to be thoroughly debated and voted on by this body.

Finally, the rule also provides that at the close of consideration of these measures, the Clerk of the House will be directed to combine the text of each of these bills that do pass the House under this rule as one engrossed bill, and send that bill to our friends on the other side of this Capitol, where they will have a better opportunity this time to be both deliberative and, hopefully, active at the same time.

While this may seem to be a complicated rule, the effect is quite simple. The bills brought up for consideration under this rule will allow small businesses to focus more of their energy on competing in the marketplace, providing their customers with better goods and better services and creating new jobs across America, rather than spending their time paying questionable fines, wrangling with regulators, worrying about the uncertainties created by an inadequate dispute process, created by staffing shortages, or having to pay for lawyers' fees to help fight a just cause with occasionally insensitive, but most often distant, Federal bureaucracy in Washington, D.C.

The gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) and the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), as well as the hard work by both Republican and Democratic Members of this committee, are to be commended in bringing a well-balanced small business fairness package to the floor today.

The first of these four bills, 739, which is the Occupational Safety and Health for Small Businesses Day in Court Act, tries to provide flexibility to employers filing responses to OSHA citations.

We currently have a hard and very arbitrary standard of 15 days to respond to an OSHA citation, even though in the 1980s, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure granted employer relief to file a late notice if there was a mistake, inadvertence, a surprise, or excusable neglect.

This bill simply codifies this commonsense practice. Hard and fast deadlines in instances sometimes work an injustice, but in any case they provide only a safe standard for the bureaucrats, but lack the common sense to help small businesses which were clearly recognized in the Federal Rules on Civil Procedure.

There is no good reason why we should not codify for all what is occasionally given to some and allow for some discretion in granting relief to innocent employers for, as the law says, mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. There should be no controversy over this commonsense bill.

The second bill, H.R. 740, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission Efficiency Act of 2005, provides for the addition of two additional members to the review commission, and the additional human resources will allow it to complete its work in a timely fashion for the benefit of both employers and employees. For two-thirds of the life span of the review commission's existence, the commission has frequently been paralyzed by vacancies that have resulted in several critical and well-documented inefficiencies and rendered the entire regulatory scheme devised by Congress to resolve OSHA disputes as unworkable. The byproduct of this breakdown delays final adjudication. It harms real business. It hinders real job creation. There is a simple and easy way to resolve this particular problem.

The third bill, H.R. 741, the independent review of OSHA citations, by legislative history and practice, OSHA was designed to be responsible for rule-making, enforcement and adjudication. But Congress also established a review commission. Its intention was to give an independent review of OSHA functions as a check on prosecutorial excesses by OSHA.

A 1984 court decision extended the concept of administrative deference to the agency and subsequent court decision which have been conflicting, have compounded the problem, and conflicted the process of checks and balances Congress intended. This bill simply restores responsible checks and balances to the current system by making it clear that it is the commission's legal interpretation that should be given proper judicial deference.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the fourth bill, H.R. 742, deals with small employers' access to justice. This simply provides for a small employer to have payment of attorney fees when that small employer prevails in litigation that was prompted by the issuance of a citation by OSHA. The legislation is simple in its rationale: Small business people should not be intimidated into blindly following mandates because they do not think they can afford to fight a case in court in which they would otherwise prevail. This levels the playing

field so that small businessmen and businesswomen have an equal chance with powerful government bureaucracies that have virtually unlimited legal resources of the Federal Government behind them. This bill helps the mom-and-pop businesses to be able to have the courage to speak up for themselves when they are right.

Small businesses still provide a majority of the jobs in this country, and they feel the economic pressure brought by government regulations and taxes every day. It is only fair that through these four bills in these very specific areas that we take care to remove any economic incentives for the fostering of an insensitive Federal regulatory bureaucracy.

Mr. Speaker, these are four commonsense good bills which, once again, enjoyed a bipartisan majority of Members' support in the 108th Congress.

Our country has had 35 years of experience with OSHA. As documented in testimony before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, modest improvements are needed to restore balance to the regulatory scheme through these bills as they relate to small business. Last year, the Office of Management and Budget reported to the Congress the annual cost of major Federal regulations for the decade from 1992 to 2002 was somewhere between $38 and $44 billion which means that, for every dollar we spend for regulation, we also as a government spend $1.50 for compliance costs and the private sector spends $45 in compliance costs.

The over-regulation of business puts us at a competitive disadvantage with the rest of the world, places unlimited, unnecessary limits on our economy and harms the consumer.

I am proud the congressional leadership is continuing to look at ways to pare back the overwhelming growth in regulation and bureaucracy, and I urge my colleagues to support the rule for these four bills to keep American businesses competitive in a global marketplace, to keep jobs here in America. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bills.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am appreciative of being able to talk about the four bills dealing with regulatory reform, all of which have had full debate in the committee this year, as well as full debate in the committee last year. And the Committee on Rules did approve every amendment that was germane. Unfortunately, of the three amendments that were present, none of them were germane to the topic of regulatory reform.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), the subcommittee chairman, to address this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to note that, though I appreciate the very articulate remarks of the gentleman from California about the issue at hand, which is a significant issue we should somehow debate, I remind him that we are talking here about reform of a regulatory process of OSHA. The gentleman's comments are not germane to this particular bill. There will be a point in time for that discussion, but we should not cloud what this bill is actually doing.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis) to hopefully clarify this.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, I have enjoyed the articulate and emotional discussion that has gone forward on this rule so far. Eventually, we may actually have a bill that meets the debate.

I would remind my colleagues that these four packages are how we help small business negotiate through the stream of Federal regulation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) to once again reemphasize that point.

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 reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), subcommittee chairman.

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

Mr. Speaker, last term, when I was a freshman here, having had some State legislative experience, I remember sitting back there by the rail talking to some other freshmen saying one of the things we need to do desperately in this body is have the rule that there should be one bill and one issue. If we did that, it would create better transparency and actually better legislation that people would understand.

I think our discussions today illustrate that point. I have a great deal of empathy for the gentleman from Texas who spoke a few moments ago, a good friend, a good legislator, and he said, the bills we have before us would not solve the problem that he introduced. He was totally accurate, because the topic of his amendment is not the same as the topic of the bills we have before us today, which is why they were ruled nongermane and not put in on the rule itself.

I think we have had some fascinating words that I have enjoyed. I am going to call it fascinating rhetoric today, not really debate, because like ships passing in the night that never touch, so has our discussion from both sides of the aisle gone forward, but never really discussed the same topic at the same particular time.

The four bills we have before us are very narrow in their approach, and they are very good bills, because they help small businessmen and small business women to try and negotiate the rule process with OSHA. They deserve our support, as they deserve the support they got last year when they were discussed in committee; last year when we passed them with bipartisan support on the floor; this year, once again, as they were discussed in committee, because the goal of those bills is to eliminate the conflict between the Federal Government and small business and, instead, to enhance cooperation. And that enhanced cooperation will make a better atmosphere for the business community in America and make a better country for all of us. That is the point of these four very good, very narrow and very specific bills.

I urge the Members to support this rule. It is a fair rule. I urge the Members to support the four underlying bills. They are good bills.

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

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it may be in order at any time on Tuesday, July 19, 2005, for the Speaker to declare a recess, subject to the call of the Chair, for the purpose of receiving in joint meeting His Excellency Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister of the Republic of India.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a constituent and friend, who after 37 years is retiring as an officer of the largest credit union in my congressional district, the America First Federal Credit Union.

Barney B. Chapman's service to constituents' financial needs in my district over the years is impressive, but his work in the community is the reason he deserves the respect and thanks today.

The organizations which have benefited from him include: The Air Force Reserves, Boy Scouts of America, Chamber of Commerce, Legislative and Military Affairs Committee, the Federation of Independent Business, several Governors Advisory Boards, Salt Lake Community College, the Junior League, Junior Achievement of Utah, the United Way, Weber School District and Weber State College.

Like the good old boy scout that he is, Barney Chapman does his best to do his duty to God and his country and to help other people at all times, but I am particularly grateful for his commitment to the Air Force. A good airman lives by three principles: integrity first, service before self, excellence in all he does. These are the Air Force core values, and as a full colonel retired, they are his as well. They typify the life of Barney Chapman, and for that, I do honor and thank him today.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 319 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 resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill H.R. 2745, the Henry J. Hyde United Nations Reform Act of 2005, and provides a structured rule for consideration of 28 different amendments, including an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the minority.

The rule provides for the offering of the 28 specified amendments according to subject areas as designated in the text of the resolution, and with a cumulative total of an hour and 40 minutes of general debate to be divided equally by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on International Relations.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand before the House today in strong support of this rule and the underlying legislation, H.R. 2745, the Henry J. Hyde United Nations Reform Act of 2005. Madam Speaker, with 28 amendments in order, to poorly paraphrase Winston Churchill, never will so much be said by so many about so little, in this case, just a single subject act.

It is fitting, though, Madam Speaker, that this bill be named after our esteemed colleague to my right, the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), who has served and is serving with such distinction and integrity and has been a stalwart in these halls for the past 30 years. He is to be commended for putting together a well-thought-out, comprehensive measure aimed at helping to bring about real and needed reforms within the United Nations.

I commend also the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member, as well for the long-standing cooperation and dedication to bipartisanship in the area of U.S. policy and diplomacy which is evident in many important aspects of this legislation.

In fact, Madam Speaker, when these two distinguished gentlemen were testifying before the Committee on Rules on this bill, I was struck by the fact that the House, and indeed the entire Nation, is the beneficiary of decades' worth of their collective wisdom and firsthand experience.

We spent the last few weeks discussing DOD authorization and appropriations, Interior, State and Justice appropriations, and these acts have a wide range of topics and generated a multitude of amendments. This specific act has generated 28 potential amendments on a single topic, and, Madam Speaker, I know my colleagues are going to love listening to all 28 of those amendments, but let that not overshadow the reality of this bill.

This bill is unusual in the bipartisan unity of the content. When it comes to the issue of United Nations reform, I was also impressed that both gentlemen, the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Ranking Member Lantos), seemed to be of one mind when it relates to the necessity for reforms in the wake of continued scandals within various United Nations functions.

There was also a unique, bipartisan unity in supporting the need for a penalty to follow failure of reform. There is a small disagreement on who should trigger that penalty, which differences I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will bring forward, but there can be no doubt as to the underlying need of this penalty phase. That is telling.

To put it in a nutshell, Madam Speaker, this legislation is long overdue. It would require 39 very specific reforms within the areas of U.N. budgeting, oversight, accountability, and human rights. It provides clarity and a reasonable timetable under which the U.N. must act. With the U.S. footing the largest share of dues of any Nation, a share consistent with our voice, this act should provide some real teeth and real incentives to get the job done. To not require such withholdings would only create a paper tiger.

As an old teacher, I learned that I never made a threat that I was not willing to carry out. If students ever thought I was not seriously going to follow through on my disciplinary commitments, I would lose all credibility and lose both the respect and the cooperation of the kids. It would create an atmosphere of weakness and chaos. No learning would take place. Such an atmosphere of distrust cannot be part of our foreign policy. We have seen that too often, and such a potential cannot be ignored.

There are indeed precedents for what we are trying to do both in the 1980s and 1990s when actions by Congress ensured change within the United Nations.

It is regrettable, Madam Speaker, that this bill is even necessary. It is regrettable that the United Nations would not undertake to clean up its own act in the wake of the oil-for-food scandal, irregularities in the accounting and uses of its funds, misconduct by entrenched U.N. bureaucrats, and the deplorable state of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights.

We all witnessed the appalling lack of resolve and consistency in the U.N. when it failed to live up to and enforce the 17 different resolutions condemning Saddam Hussein's murderous regime.

When I am at home in my district, some of my constituents will say to me that we ought to pull out of the United Nations entirely. It is hard to argue with many of them who say that the U.N. is merely a haven for corruption, waste and, frankly, anti-Americanism. We must do all we can to try and rectify all these problems, and to not act would indeed be irresponsible.

This act sends an unmistakably clear message that specific reforms must be enacted or face real consequences. If these reforms are not enacted, the future looks bleak and will only increase the calls to replace the United Nations with a more updated handling of international disputes.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, this rule is a good and fair rule. It made every single amendment in order, all 28, which were filed before the Committee on Rules. In short, the only complaint that one may have with this rule is that is may be somewhat parsimonious in its general debate, and we will provide in those 28 amendments a

long and wide-ranging debate of all of these important issues.

With that, Madam Speaker, I urge adoption of this rule.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the Committee on International Relations.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), one of the leading voices on the Committee on International Relations.

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

I love history. In fact, this is not necessarily unprecedented. The Kassebaum-Solomon amendment in 1985 asked for change, and meaningful change took place. In 1994, we insisted on an oversight committee and an oversight committee took place. And under the bipartisan Helms-Biden approach, once again we insisted on changes with the United Nations. The United Nations responded to it. This bill is keeping a tradition that is historical going back for at least 20 years in this body.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), a member of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul), also a member of the Committee on International Relations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the kindness and flexibility of my good friend from Florida.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity for having had a very quality debate here today. It is interesting to note once again that the ranking member and the chairman have said the need for reform is obvious. There is no disagreement on that point. It is seemingly the mechanism of doing that.

Once again I point out that in 1985, 1994 and 1999, this House set precedent by doing the exact same concept that is there. And it is true that maybe I have heard a new concept here that I do not need to make all Ten Commandments to get to heaven, but I also know that when I was in my classroom and I put high standards and high expectations, my kids met those standards; and if I wavered, then they wavered at the same time.

This is a good piece of legislation. It is an excellent rule, and I urge its adoption and passage of 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, it is with a combination of perhaps resignation and frustration with which I stand here.

Will Rogers once said, in explaining the length of a political platform, that it takes a lot of words to straddle an issue, and I have every intention of using a lot of words here this morning.

I think, like many people, like most of us, we have no fear of free trade, that the United States, playing on a level playing field, can easily compete in the world market, and I do not ascribe to some of the statements that I think have been somewhat overzealous or vitriolic in describing policies here. I also agree that in some respects moving out of the policy we have right now without a substantial alternative would be chaotic. Having said that, this is where the ``but'' comes in.

I intend on either giving a symbolic vote or maybe a symbolic speech in place of that vote with concerns of sovereignty issues that are dealt with here and that some of those voices that are concerned about sovereignty issues are not just simply those fearful of the dark but there are legitimate concerns which require a periodic reanalysis of what we are doing.

I speak specifically about a case which has sent the Attorney General from the State of Utah to join 28 Attorney Generals from other States in protest of the situation in which the World Trade Organization has thrown State statutes in jeopardy.

Antigua, with which we had a policy dating back to 1993, has complained that laws prohibiting Internet gambling as well as gambling and betting paraphernalia, which have been for about 100 years the social policy of Utah, violate trade organizations; and the trade organization ruled in favor of Antigua.

It is inherently wrong for any adjudicative panel of any organization, internationally or trade, to put in jeopardy the kinds of State laws that we have in place, especially when they deal with social policies that have been there for almost 100 years. Whether this is simply a glitch in negotiations that can easily be worked out or whether this is a systemic problem or whether, as the Attorney Generals are arguing, that the States need a greater voice in the organization and the application of these trade policies, especially if it is going to relate to State law, that is the discussion that needs to take place.

My State may have lucked out because a clerical error in this particular case did not refer specifically to the Utah State law; and, therefore, it may not be applicable. But the fear factor is still there, that in the future State efforts, State regulations and State policies may be put in jeopardy not only by our trade policies but also by Federal regulations that affect those trade

policies when they ought not to be. That is the issue that needs to be periodically addressed.

I recognize that this particular resolution is very narrow in its application. It may not be specifically on that point, but it does at least give us the opportunity of saying not only is that an issue and a concern for the future but it is an issue that we should take seriously and we should discuss seriously and we should address seriously so that these particular problems, especially as it deals with State issues and State rights, will not be put in jeopardy with the future.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules may meet next week to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 2745, the United Nations Reform Act of 2005. The bill was introduced on June 7, 2005, and referred to the Committee on International Relations which ordered the bill reported yesterday and is expected to file its report with the House tomorrow.

Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment to the Committee on Rules in room H-312 of the Capitol by 10 a.m. on Tuesday, June 14. Members should draft their amendments to the text of the bill as reported by the Committee on International Relations. Members are advised that the text of the bill will be available for their review on the Web sites of both the Committee on International Relations and the Committee on Rules.

Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate format. Members are also advised to check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. Chairman, I note that the gentleman from Ohio included in the committee report a provision directing the Secretary of Energy to begin moving commercial spent nuclear fuel into interim storage at one or more Department of Energy sites. I want to be sure that your intent is for the Secretary to focus his attention on existing DOE sites and not go looking for private sites that might be used for interim storage.

Is my understanding of the gentleman's intent correct?

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

So the gentleman does not see any reason the Secretary would consider a non-DOE site for interim storage?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his hard work and his courtesy.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it shall be in order at any time without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House H.R. 810. The bill shall be considered as read; the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) three hours of debate on the bill, equally divided and controlled by the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) or their designees; (2) one motion to recommit; and during consideration of H.R. 810, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the bill to a time designated by the Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 287 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 resolution provides for an open rule on H.R. 2361, the Interior Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2006, and provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

For the purpose of amendments, this rule provides for priority recognition to Members who preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record, and the rule also allows for certain points of order to be raised in the course of consideration of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, this bill deals with filibusters in the U.S. Senate. Actually, Mr. Speaker, it does not, but until you say that magic word the media does not send its attention to the fact that the House is actually continuing on with the input of good government in our processes, so this bill actually, for which I am pleased to stand before the House and support the rule on the underlying legislation, is the Interior Appropriations Act.

I appreciate the hard work and the hard choices that the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), and many others have put into making and putting this essential funding bill together, which does live within the budget discipline, and in fact reflects the priorities of this Congress.

At the same time, it reflects important committee priorities within the budget itself. We realize that this Congress, this Nation, does not have the money to do everything. But what we decide to do we should do well.

By prioritizing the needs, this provides, for example, an increase in six of the eight EPA programs for the environment. It provides for a $118 million increase for Indian health services, a $25 million increase over last year's funding level for restoration of the Everglades.

These are simply examples. A few others. Provides for National Heritage Area grants and historic preservation, something that to an old history teacher I appreciate. This bill provides important resources to help manage our Nation's public forest resources and our national parks.

It includes, for example, a $70 million increase for the national parks base funding, but at the same time $440 million to help reduce the backlog of national park maintenance. That is how these bills and these monies should be prioritized, to help preserve and enhance these unique national treasures.

It also provides for a record amount of funding to the national fire plan, and gives the Department flexibility in these accounts to help prevent and fight the annual onslaught of raging fires on public lands in the West, which have plagued many areas, especially California in recent years.

I am also pleased in particular that the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) has been diligent in funding the vital Payment in Lieu of Tax Program, or PILT, which so many western and rural counties depend upon for these vital public services.

Since this is an open rule, any Member will be allowed to offer germane amendments. This is a good rule. I think it supports a good bill. I strongly urge their adoption.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the rule.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, once again with this particular rule being open, it allows any Member who wishes to, to bring an amendment to the floor. It is the wonderful prerogative of the Members to do that. It is also very nice to note that the Committee on Appropriations which is tasked with trying to prioritize needs and fund those that are truly significant in that prioritization, and in this particular situation, the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) in a very collegial way have done just that, and have presented a good and balanced bill.

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 Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), and I commend the gentleman for the one statement he asked us all to do which is to go to our State and local leaders and find out what their priorities happen to be.

I would like to do something unique so far in today's debate and talk about something that is actually in the bill, and something about which we will be debating later, and preface it with the comment of why, when we try to prioritize, should we spend new taxpayer money for new recreation areas and programs when some of the existing programs, long- time recognized, long time in the bill, are not totally and fully funded.

If I could, Mr. Speaker, I come from a western State that has a great deal of Federal land. In fact, 67 percent of my State is owned by the Federal Government. If we add military lands on top of that, it is almost 80 percent owned by the Federal Government. And, unfortunately, my State is not the worst situation. There are States that have more of their land owned by the Federal Government.

Oftentimes I have Members come to the floor and say these lands belong to all of us, but the cost of maintaining those lands is not borne by all of us; it is borne by the citizens who happen to reside within those particular States.

Now I am an old teacher, and as I look at the situation of education, I find a unique phenomenon that the area of this country in which education funding is growing the slowest, the area of this country where the classrooms are the largest, the area of this country where the student population is increasing the fastest, and the area of this country where State and local commitment in tax base is being paid by their citizens all happen to be found in the 13 States of the West. And the common denominator for all is the amount of public lands that happen to be in these particular States.

Those Members east of the Rocky Mountains sometimes do not comprehend the concept because there is very little of your land owned by the Federal Government, and you can maximize the amount of input, but you cannot do it in the West.

One of my counties has an area known as the Black Box, something that no one in Utah would ever try to raft down. One of our good constituent friends from another State decided to come and raft in the area of the Black Box; and, unfortunately, he lost his life doing it.

The problem is my County of Emery had to expend its resources and have their rescue team risk their lives to retrieve the body. All of the money that was budgeted for that year's critical rescue missions was expended on that one individual entering from the east using all of these public lands. All of the cost of that was borne by the citizens of that particular county, which means once again these lands belong to all of us, but the expense attached to these lands do not belong to all of us.

There is a program that we have long had called ``payment in lieu of taxes,'' which recognizes the burden placed upon the West and the burden that should be funded. From the mid-1970s until the early 1990s, virtually no new money was placed in this program. It was flat funding for almost that whole period of time. This Congress put $1.4 million of new money into the burgeoning problem of trying to pay for the Federal lands in the West. Under the direction of the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) and others on the subcommittee, that has increased significantly, almost doubling. They have recognized the need, but they have never fully funded the cost imposed on western States through payment in lieu of tax funding.

This last year, this program, traditionally run through the Bureau of Land Management, was taken over by the Department of the Interior with the idea of prioritizing it. They did not. Instead of prioritizing this program, they recommended a cut in this program and increased funding to the administrative overhead of the Department of the Interior.

I commend the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) for recognizing the unfairness of this and by increasing the payment in lieu of taxes to last year's level plus $3 million, but it is still not close to full funding.

I am confident and hopeful that we will discuss that particular issue because it is a well-established program. It is not new, and we should be funding those well-established programs fully before we launch into new endeavors.

I commend the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) for zeroing out the land acquisition budget except for necessary administration costs because it comes up with the same policy: we do not start buying new land until we fully fund those lands that we already own.

We have an opportunity of expanding this in conference. This is one of the issues in this free-flowing open rule that we will be discussing later on. This is an issue where I commend the chairman for doing what he has done in this bill and urge him to continue on, because the citizens of the West, the kids in the West, the education system of the West have been harmed too long by policies that all of us in Congress for over 30 years have been implementing. It is an unfairness that must be dealt with.

I commend the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) and the committee for moving the first step forward. But I hope that we can look at other amendments as this debate goes forward that would look at funding the programs we already have that have been there for many years that desperately need to be fully funded before we launch into others, and that is specifically what an appropriations process should do. It should prioritize our needs. Once again, we can go back to the concept that we cannot fund everything, but what we fund, we should fund well.

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

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

I appreciate the opportunity coming here and discussing this particular open rule that allows for us to discuss the prioritization which is the key element of what we do in every appropriations issue. The gentleman from Wisconsin is free to come here on the floor and talk about whether he believes the prioritization of this committee is accurate or not, whether he believes the Democrat approach would be a tax increase or not. But the same discussion also takes place in another area and it takes place in the committee process before it ever comes to this bill. I am here to still contend that the committee, both Republican and Democrat, did a good job in coming up with a prioritization process.

When the gentleman from Wisconsin talks about the desire for having new land, I do not dispute that nor do I oppose it necessarily. What we are saying is it is part of the prioritization. I would support acquisition of new land once we finally fully fund and take care of the lands we have. This committee has looked into that. This committee put significant new money not just into national parks but to maintain the backlog that we have of maintenance in our national parks. That is prioritization.

This committee recognized by putting PILT up to at least the level it was last year that there is a prioritization that takes place there at the same time. I was saying with PILT, and I will say it again, that what we have to do is fully fund it because it has been looked at for too long, especially when the minority party was in charge here and there were basically no increases in PILT funding, it has been looked at for too long as welfare for the West. It is not. It is rent that is due on that land and if you prioritize the budget, you prioritize those programs first before you expand anything else. I have to commend this committee for actually doing that.

I think there are some areas in which I think they could go ahead and move forward in those particular areas but once again prioritizing those commitments we have already made and fully funding those first. That is what this committee has tried to do. Whether you like or dislike their end product, they should be congratulated for coming that close.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I have to reiterate the fairness of this open rule and urge its adoption because of that along with the underlying appropriation legislation. No bill is perfect. I am sure we can all come up with issues here and there in the appropriations bill or, for that matter, in any other bill we have where we would like to have it come out differently had we had our way, but in judging this bill as a whole and the process that has been through it to get to the point, I believe it is worthy for Members to support this particular piece of legislation.

And then I do want to talk to my good friend from Florida about what we really did with education in Utah. He is summarizing the New York Times, not reality. But other than that, we will forget that point right now. I will talk later to him about that.

Again, I urge Members to support this rule.

The text of the amendment previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

Previous Question on H. Res. 287--Rule for H.R 2361 FY06 Interior

Appropriations

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

sections:

Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this

resolution, the amendment printed in section 3 shall be in

order without intervention of any point of order and before

any other amendment if ofered by Representative Obey of

Wisconsin or a designee. The amendment is not subject to

amendment except for pro forma amendments or to a demand for

a division of the question in the committee of the whole or

in the House.

Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as

follows:

Amendment to H.R. 2361, as Reported Offered by Mr. Obey of Wisconsin

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the

following:

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

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 254 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose 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.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 254 provides for the consideration of H.R. 366, the Vocational and Technical Education for the Future Act, under a structured rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, and provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

The rule makes in order the amendments printed in the Rules report and provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand before the House today in support of this rule, and for the underlying legislation, H.R. 366, the Vocational and Technical Education for the Future Act.

The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the Chairman and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the subcommittee chairman, the original sponsors of the bill and many other committee members on both sides of the aisle, have put forward a bipartisan reauthorization of the Perkins Vocational Education Funding Programs, which have helped and will continue to help our Nation's young people, as well as older workers, attain the real-world technical skills that are vital in today's highly competitive world marketplace.

I make special note that this legislation was reported out of the full Committee on Education and the Workforce unanimously on a voice vote, and with no surviving opposition. This legislation reauthorizes the Carl Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act through fiscal year 2011, and it would authorize $1.3 billion for grants to the States in fiscal year 2006, and ensure that all States are held harmless, and receive at least at a minimum the amount of vocational education funding as was in fiscal year 2005.

Mr. Speaker, this is a program that has been funded in one way or another from Congress since 1917. In talking to some educators from Utah who happen to be with me today, and I was meeting with today, to find out how this works in the real world, this particular program in one district in Utah, provides for a student center coordinator and a workforce coordinator within the district, a separate student counselor within the alternate learning program, and English as Second Language language assistance to help those trying to gain these skills to improve their ability to communicate within the language.

All of these programs come from this money. All of these programs could have been there without this money, but it would mean that other programs essential in the education community would have to be cut to compensate for that.

This bill goes beyond reauthorization and incorporates several changes to the past Perkins programs. Among those improvements is the combining and streamlining of two existing funding streams, the traditional State grant funding with a tech prep funding, and encouraging the States to apply the higher educational goals of the tech prep program in mathematics and science to all of the recipients.

At the same time, it would also give States and local recipients critical flexibility in customizing their implementation plans for incorporating tech prep education goals based on local needs and local concerns.

Mr. Speaker, this approach taken by this legislation increases local accountability for the use of these funds, and, according to the Congressional Budget Office review of H.R. 366, as published in the committee report, the bill does not contain any unfunded Federal mandates on State and local governments.

The bill does recognize that State and local communities shall have the final say as to what is taught in local schools and explicitly rejects the one-size-fits-all Federal standard for curriculum or academic content.

And, finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill reduces the amount of funding that can be consumed in administrative overhead from 5 percent to 2 percent, and instead pushes these extra cost savings out to the local recipients, actually resulting in more funding available on the local level for more student and better student programs.

This rule makes some very important amendments in order. The rule is fair. The rule allows this legislation to move forward.

And with that, Mr. Speaker, I would urge adoption of the rule.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern). If I could go through the speech itself and divide it into two halves of it, the points that the gentleman made under ``bad news'' basically are not germane to this particular bill and are issues that will be addressed in other positions that will be coming through at another time and another place. I am sure when we do address those particular issues on relevant pieces of legislation, the comments that the record number of Federal money that has gone into education over the last 5 years will be clearly made and clearly understood.

However, I also do appreciate his good points that he said because each of those good points did, indeed, deal with this particular bill, this particular program and they were laudatory; and I am assuming that that means that this particular bill has some positive aspects that are within the gentleman from Massachusetts' (Mr. McGovern) purview.

I appreciate the gentleman bringing up what I think is one of the strengths of this particular bill which deals with the administrative costs and realizing fully that when we are talking about education there are two funds that will drive education. One is program costs. The other is the maintenance and operation costs. Within a traditional education program, once the maintenance and operation is there, that becomes a standard cost and standard form and everything else is driven by the program aspect which is almost always salaries. To tie administrative costs to that as a clear percentage makes a lot of sense.

In this particular area when you are dealing with a system that has both programs as well as the operational costs that are separate, but while the program costs may be constant, the operational costs, therefore, come in uniquely motivated fashion, which is high front end. To try to put a percentage on that and drive that automatically skews the entire area that deals with administration. That is why it is one of the bright parts of this particular bill, to try and scale back that so that more money can go into the programs and directly help kids and people trying to get jobs, as opposed to just simply the administration.

And I agree once again with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) that at least without this bill, nothing goes forward as providing vocational, technical, agricultural training. And there are high-paying jobs out there begging for this kind of technical training that we need. I have seen them. I have seen the programs that do that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), someone who

has a unique insight into the needs of education.

I have two more speakers.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) who spends much time working in this particular area, is very knowledgeable, and has a great deal of respect for the education system in all the States, including my own, the chairman.

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

I appreciate this opportunity because the reauthorization of the Perkins vocational funding is a fundamental part of the educational funding of this Nation, as well as American competitiveness.

This bill will help provide both the public and private sector of our economy with an educated, capable, highly trained skilled workforce, which is essential for our economy to grow and be competitive in our environment.

This is a good, well-balanced and bipartisan, I emphasize that word ``bipartisan'' bill that deserves its vote on final passage.

I am appreciative that the words that were said here today, talking specifically about this particular bill, have all been positive. We may have differences on other educational concepts and issues at other times, that will be the point at other times and other places, but for this particular bill it moves us forward.

With that, I urge the adoption of the 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, I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, in the late 1880s, House Speaker Thomas Brackett Reed was easily one of the most powerful speakers that has ever served in this body, and probably one of the most sarcastic speakers that ever served. Anyone who can be asked if he is going to attend the funeral of one of his political enemies and have the presence of mind to say, ``No, but I approve of it,'' one has to like that kind of a speaker.

One day Speaker Thomas Brackett Reed returned from watching proceedings in the Senate, and looked at his colleagues sitting in this Chamber and told them to thank God the House is not a deliberative body. I would never deign to give advice, or for the sake of the parliamentarian, to make a value judgment as to the actions of our brethren, and sisters, over in the Senate, but as they contemplate what is popularly called the ``Constitution option,'' or the Byrd option, or the nuclear option, it would be useful to briefly review the history of the House.

No Child Left Behind may not think history significant enough to be tested, but an understanding of congressional history may indeed smooth the troubled times ahead.

Historian David McCullough noted that ``Congress rolls on like a river, always there and always changing.'' So for all the fealty we give to traditions of each body, each tradition of both the House and the Senate had a beginning point when the body made a conscious decision to implement a tactical course of action. As McCullough intimated, though we do not like to admit it, each body is constantly making those course changes. The same principle applies to filibusters.

A filibuster is not a Constitution doctrine but a tactical course of action, and the concept of the filibuster has often been used for noble causes. During the 1990s, the Senate engaged in a filibuster of what I saw as a devastating attack upon the economy of the west based upon another administration's Federal land policies. I applauded them for that effort, but what can be used for good can also be used to abuse. And when that abuse becomes egregious, commonplace, and detrimental for the overall well-being of this Nation, changes should then be considered.

The Senate has changed its practices on filibusters several times with this tactic. They did so in 1917 and again in the 1950s, and again in the mid-1970s. And as the Senate considers whether to make an adjustment again, they should review the House's tradition with a tactic that was both similar and yet the exact opposite of the Senate filibuster.

The Senate developed the filibuster, a tactic designed for the minority to obstruct and frustrate the will of the majority by talking. But in the 1800s, the House had an Act called the disappearing majority. It was designed by the minority to obstruct and frustrate the will of the majority by silence.

In the early 1800s, former President John Quincy Adams, the only person to leave the White House and return here to this House body, refused to vote on a pro-slavery amendment. When his name was called, he just sat. Others joined him until there were not enough votes cast to make a quorum and the motion failed. There would be few who would criticize him for the nobility of that particular action; but unfortunately, that tactic caught on and by the speakership of Thomas Reed was being abused in an effort to frustrate any positive action in this body. On a quorum call, those people would simply refuse to answer, and with a lack of a quorum, all business would be brought to a screeching halt; the same goal as a filibuster, just a different approach.

This was common in the House practices in the 1800s, and the refusal to allow a vote resulted in minority government. As Speaker Reed said at the time, ``If the majority does not govern, the minority will; and if you think the tyranny of the majority is hard, the tyranny of the minority is unendurable.'' The rules then, he said, ought to be arranged to facilitate action of the majority. The Speaker made up his mind if, in his words, ``political life consisted of sitting helplessly in the Chair and seeing the majority powerless to pass legislation,'' he had had enough of it and was ready to step down.

He did not step down. Instead, he decided to step up to the challenge. Thus, he instituted a policy of counting as present Members in this Chamber, whether they were speaking or voiceless, and it led to a wonderful exchange between the Speaker and a Democrat Member from Kentucky, James McCreary. The outraged McCreary demanded to know what parliamentary right the Speaker had to declare him present. And Reed simply responded, ``The Chair is making a statement of fact that the gentleman from Kentucky is present. Does he deny it?''

Well, the precedent for the tactic was broken and even though the minority took this issue, ironically enough, to the Supreme Court in 1892, the Supreme Court upheld the position of the Speaker.

The House then evolved into a body with centralized or majoritarian authority, while the Senate remained decentralized with minority authority. These tactics, all of them, are not ordained by the Constitution, they are traditions of the Members of each body. House historians Oleszek and Sachs once wrote, ``The forces of centralization and decentralization are constantly in play, and they regularly adjust and are reconfigured in response to new conditions and events.''

In less scholarly terms, whatever has been born in a noble cause can degenerate into abuse; and if the abuse of that tactic harms the Nation in such situations, Congress should make changes. They should adjust.

The House did in the 1800s. The Senate would do well to learn from our experience. As McCullough might be saying right now, the river is ready to change.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 126 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose 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 purposes of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 126 is a structured rule providing for 1 hour of general debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. The rule makes in order only those amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report, and for the time specified in the report. And finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand before the House today in strong support of this rule and support of the underlying resolution legislation, H.R. 27, the Job Training Improvement Act of 2005. The gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) and the gentleman from California (Subcommittee Chairman McKeon) and the committee members from both sides of the aisle are to be commended for their diligence and hard work in putting together a comprehensive measure reauthorizing vital job training programs while, at the same time, providing for improvements of those programs aimed at providing greater flexibility, accountability, targeting Federal dollars where they will be most effective and where there is the highest demonstrated need.

Mr. Speaker, my favorite movie of all time has always been ``Inherit the Wind.'' I still think it is Spencer Tracy's greatest role. But in that he, playing the character of Henry Drummond, talks about the other main character, Matthew Harrison Brady, who was a well intentioned, yet flawed, character. And in talking about his death, Drummond says of Brady, a giant once lived in that body. But Matt Brady got lost because he was looking for God too high and up too far away.

Federal Government is a lot like Matt Brady. We are well intentioned, the greatest of desire to serve; but we oftentimes get lost and allow too many people to fall through cracks and harm people because we try to solve problems from too high up and administer programs from too far away.

From this isolated Hall, we often concoct specific standards that fail people who have the needs but do not fit our preconceived standards. Last Wednesday in my district at a town meeting, I met a young lady by the name of Micaela, who offered me also this five-page letter of her efforts and her concerns. She is in need of vocational rehabilitation services, but does not quite fit our standards we have designed.

In her letter she said in her years of trying to receive services that she was told she had too many disabilities, too few disabilities. You could not visually see her disability. She was too young, too old, and too rare of a circumstance. You name it, she had heard it. And she has also been basically told that I am not worth helping, hiring, or even listening to.

Oftentimes the Federal Government, in fact, not oftentimes. The Federal Government's only advantage is that of uniformity. By definition we can deal with people only as objects on a factory conveyor belt designed to meet the Federal factory specifications.

But if we truly believe that people are each individuals, that they have a spark of divinity, that individual needs are there that require individualized

help, then we do not need uniformity. What we need is creativity, efficiency, and caring; and that can only be done effectively on the State levels, which is why this particular bill has gone from several years ago, 63 programs, has now taken three funding streams and tried to bring it into one so they could help individual people by trying to apply 70 percent of the funding that has been given to students to those who have been unserved and out of school, to create a demonstration project for personal reemployment accounts to meet individual needs to be addressed by that individual, and to present the President's community college program and tie them all together to give local governments the ability to work with individuals so that Micaela here does not slip through the crack by definition.

Prior to coming to Congress, I had the opportunity, like many of you, of serving in the State legislature, and I was a teacher for a long time. In that position, or those positions, I witnessed firsthand the years of oftentimes Federal programs and mandates shoved on States, on local school districts, on local units of governments with this one- size-fits-all uniform approach. What was often, too often, left out were, quite frankly, the bona fide local needs. A uniform Federal approach stifles innovation with the heavy hand of Federal regulations and professionalism.

The philosophy behind H.R. 27, therefore, is to give Governors as the chief political officer of the States the flexibility over job training programs to promote economic development and jobs based upon local needs, and that way, the States become responsive to employment and to job markets.

Recently, I attended a community college, a community technical college in my district. And I was amazed at the benefits I saw of partnerships with local private industry, government contractors, and local employers coming together. In their diesel program, to find the kinds of materials that were provided by the industry, they have to get hands-on experience for first-rate technicians. And in program after program in that particular college, I saw, through innovation and hard work, the community college has been able to leverage the State and Federal dollars and to attract private contributions for equipment and training that met the need of training qualified workers in the high- tech future.

Vocational rehabilitation services in State after State does the same thing. But these type partnerships are not just allowed in this bill. They are encouraged under this legislation, which is vital in helping provide workers for the competition of the 21st century.

H.R. 27 is strongly supported by a coalition of community colleges which authorizes $250 million for community-based job training grants to strengthen the role of those communities' colleges and to promote the United States' full workforce potential.

We face a 21st-century challenge in an ever-changing technology and the aging American workforce. We must provide States, local workforce boards, Governors flexibility to fit real people with real skills for real jobs. And they vary in need from State to State. We must allow them the opportunity to work together as they see fit to help people like Micaela.

I further support H.R. 27 because it targets Federal funds to groups of youths who are presently underserved, because it provides for individual self-help efforts.

I would like to point out also that H.R. 27 builds upon legislation passed in the 108th Congress, namely H.R. 1261, the Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act of 2003, which was passed by this House.

There may be some who would oppose this bill because it respects both the letter and the spirit of existing law. If there is a problem with existing law, this is not the proper venue for that discussion.

Let us not, in the debate over the rule or the bill, lose focus and lose sight of our goal, which is to help the Micaelas of this Nation who need services, which are and will continue to be distributed fairly without precondition.

It is significant that we not confuse services rendered with the desire of some to sanitize and regulate legally diverse practices, reaffirmed in a rare moment of sanity by the courts, which do not impact the rendering of those employment services. Others beside sanctioned-government programs care and help and are effective, and we ought to forget the old pattern of confrontation and pointless attacks on groups that we see as different; we should join for the common goal of helping people.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good rule, supporting a bill that has been discussed and amended in committee through regular order. The rule allows for three specific amendments to focus discussion on key elements of the proposal. I am looking forward to riveting debate on this bill, with the realization our goal is to help the Micaelas of this world who have been hurt because there have been programs which are too high, too far away, and forgot our purpose of helping real people. I urge adoption of the rule.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

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

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

May I respond simply to the arguments about our veterans because they are so important to us. Let me reiterate that H.R. 27 does not harm worker-retaining programs for veterans. Not one dollar from this account comes that is meant to help veterans with their training. The programs that we already have in place, specifically the Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program, the Local Veterans Employment Representative Program, the Vocational Rehabilitation Program, already are required to contribute to the infrastructure of these one-stop career center programs. Any money that would come to the one-stop center would be coming out of their administrative funds, not from the money going directly to the training of veterans. That is an area that was specifically covered in this bill.

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

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

In closing, my friends on the other side have had numerous objections to provisions in H.R. 27. They have a right to do so and I expect it will be warmly discussed in the ensuing discussion of the bill itself. I believe strongly in the ability of our States, Governors, local boards, workforce boards, to be creative and innovative. There is no omniscient power that we have here. People can think for themselves in other parts of this country. And the essence of our government demands that we give them the opportunity to succeed without the benevolent help of the Federal Government.

Our job, might I remind my colleagues, is to make sure the Micaelas of the world never slip through the cracks. I believe, and I have confidence in the ability of local governments to be creative and effective, and I think so does H.R. 27. What we have today is a confusing patchwork of employment, training services. The duplication of those reduces the amount of money we get to use to help Micaelas. Many amendments that we will be discussing

on the floor have also been discussed in committee. A lot of other amendments were heard in the committee. This was fully discussed in committee and voted upon.

May I just, in closing, ask us not to lose sight that the goal is service and how to provide training for people which is given without any precondition. Hiring practices that are protected by existing law are that, protected by existing law. If we feel there is a problem with that, then we should attack the existing law, and there are venues to do that. This is not the venue in this particular bill. Faith-based institutions out there, which are not rich, are still nevertheless effective. They care. They have the same goal as we do. Our goal should be to try to join hands to help all the Micaelas in the world solve the problem of employment, retraining, and servicing, not to try to change our friends in other particular ways but to join together on a common front, in a common effort, to help people, not to harm people.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I urge adoption of the 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, I take this time for the purpose of making an announcement

The Committee on Rules may meet the week of February 14 to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 310, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005. Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment to the Committee on Rules in room H-312 of the Capitol by 12 noon on Tuesday, February 15, 2005.

Members should draft their amendments to the bill as reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce on February 9, 2005, which is expected to be filed on Monday, February 14. Members are also advised that the text should be available for their review on the Web site of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Rules by Friday, February 11, 2005. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate form and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain that their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for giving me this opportunity of taking a few moments here with my colleagues. I hope you will apologize as we talk about this historic event; I am still an old history teacher at heart, and sometimes I talk too much about it, but I see historical precedence that we sometimes forget all about.

In the late 18th century, the revolution took place in France, which ended with the overthrow of the monarchy, the beheading of the king. The Jacobins established the republic, with three goals in mind: liberty, equality, and fraternity. While this was happening, across the English Channel, in the British Parliament, Burke was watching it all unfold, and he made the statement that now the French are free to do as they please. We ought to see what it pleases them to do before we risk congratulation. As my colleagues know, before the century was done, the French Revolution had degenerated under Robespierre into the Reign of Terror, as we call it now, into which all of those noble concepts were lost in the blood of the beheadings that took place.

We sometimes do things here on the floor in which small minorities take upon themselves their rights and prerogatives which extend our debate, totally free to do as they please, but I am not so sure if the American public will always congratulate those types of occasions.

I do want, with some credit going to J. D. Crouch, from whom I have read an article, to talk about an election that I do think risks congratulations; it rises to that particular level now. I am talking obviously about a country that is far away from here, that has a culture and a language so vastly different from ours, that was lead by a brutal dictatorship, a corrupt family, one man whose brutality in murdering his rivals, even relatives, is almost unparalleled; a one- party domination whose control squandered their resources and wealth, destroyed the economy; a secret police that invaded everyone's rights and terrorized people and led to ethnic violence. Of course I am talking about the country of Romania, pre-1989.

Because what we did not realize is that last year, there was an election in Romania, where the Prime Minister, Adrian Nastase, lost the election and peacefully transferred power to the opposition leader, Traian Basescu. I apologize for not knowing how to pronounce that name because, quite frankly, it was not in the news. I do not have any news reports of people trying to properly pronounce his name, because this election in Romania was so blase, we did not even cover it; we did not even talk about it. It just simply seemed to happen.

We can make some vast parallels between Romania pre-1989 and Iraq in 2003. Romania had the Communist Party, whereas Iraq was dominated by the Ba'athist Party, a brutal dictator in Hussein versus a brutal dictator in Ceausescu. The Fedayeen Saddam of the secret police was similar to Romania's Securitate. The Kurds and the Sunnis, who were ethnically abused similar to many of the Hungarians and the natives in Romania at that time. It is true, I will admit, that Slovakia and Moldavia did not send all sorts of rebels across the border to try and stir up ethnic violence, but they did in the 1990s have significant clashes where bloody miners attacked peaceful demonstrations, and the result of the world to that was to meet it with both patience and support for their efforts of moving towards a democracy.

Fifteen years later, Romania now still has some effect of a one-party state, but they are moving away from that as new Romanians are coming back into the country who were trained in the West and are bringing a spirit of entrepreneurship with them. There is still some element of the communist corruption, but no longer do people think in Romania that it is the grease of commerce, and there are tough laws against it. Fifteen years later, Romania is a strong democratic nation and a powerful friend of ours as a member of NATO.

We need to not forget in the history of this world, it took 7 years after World War II to have the first election in Japan, and 4 years after World War II to have the first election in Germany. We have done the same thing in Afghanistan in 18 months. The first election that showed clearly to the world that most of Iraq is not in chaos, that that small lens of the camera has to focus in on the picture so you do not see a full view of what is happening over there. It showed that al- Zarqawi is not a leader.

We had a Member who serves in this building, not necessarily in this particular body, who said our military and the insurgents are fighting for the same thing: the hearts and minds of the people. I have to reject that. That is an inaccurate analysis. We are not fighting for the same thing. Those fighting to destroy democracy coming to Iraq are the Ba'athist Party seeking a return to power. It is very similar as George Will in one of his articles quoted ``1984,'' George Orwell where he describes the government as the boot stomping on a human face forever. That is what the Ba'athists would like to return to Iraq.

The other is al-Zarqawi which is a radical rejection of the idea that government derives legitimacy from the

consent of the governed. It is a concept of popular sovereignty that Western traditions accept as the basis of our government as something he still thinks of as an evil principle. His rage would have the same effect, a different kind of boot, but still on the face of the people forever. Those insurgents are not fighting for the hearts and minds of the people; they are fighting for chaos and terror and pure political control.

The hearts and the minds of the people are those who went to the polls on Sunday and voted, like the 32-year-old Samir Hassan who said, I would have crawled here if I had to, to the first vote ever held in his country; and he used that phrase because he had one of his legs blown off in a car bomb prior to the election. And then he went on to say, I do not want terrorists to kill other Iraqis like they tried to kill me. So much for the idea that Arabs do not want democracy.

Freedom is the antidote for terrorism. The Iraqis have had a defining moment and the good guys, those who went out to vote, they won. What we now must give Iraq is the same thing we gave to Romania 15 years ago: patience, international support. Despite any smug predictions to the contrary, we are moving in Iraq at a faster pace toward a truly new style of government in which people count; not power, but people count. And with an eye to that future, with an eye to that future, I think the election in Iraq is one that rises to the level where we can risk congratulation.

I thank the gentleman from Georgia for allowing me to share this time with him.