Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my extraordinarily generous friend from Michigan, for whom I have not only great respect but great affection as well. I want to thank him for his more than half a century of leadership on issues of health care in America, on extending health care and insurance to every American, to ensuring

that in this great country of ours every American has the opportunity to receive the extraordinary quality health care that we have available in this great country.

I also want to thank my good friend, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Charlie Rangel, who has for so many years fought the good fight. As he said on this floor, this is an opportunity for us to extend to children the benefits of health care. I want to mention the President's intent as well.

I want to thank my friend from California, Pete Stark, who has been the Chair of this subcommittee and who has been so faithful.

And I want to thank Mr. McCrery and the ranking member of this subcommittee. I understand we may have a difference of view, but we are working together now, as the American people expect us to do.

I said on this floor last night that we would have a robust debate on this important legislation, the Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act. I think we have had that robust debate.

While we may disagree on elements of this bill, I believe that virtually all of us agree that it is unacceptable and, indeed, immoral that millions of children in the wealthiest Nation on the face of the Earth do not have health insurance. That is unlike every industrialized nation in the world, other than ourselves.

This historic legislation addresses this national challenge, building upon the successes of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which received strong bipartisan support in the Republican-led Congress in 1997 and which was signed into law by a Democratic President, President Clinton.

Under this bill, 11 million American children, six million who currently are covered under SCHIP and an additional five million children who currently lack health insurance, will have access to quality, affordable health insurance. It seems to me that is why so many of us serve in this body, to ensure that our people have that access.

Let us be clear. Contrary to the claims of some, including, sadly, at this point in time, President Bush, this legislation does not expand the SCHIP program. Let me repeat that. This legislation does not expand the SCHIP program. Instead, this legislation provides the resources needed to enroll children who are eligible under existing law but who are currently not enrolled. Let me reiterate. The CHAMP Act maintains current law regarding eligibility for SCHIP.

Furthermore, this legislation ensures seniors access to the doctors of their choice by stopping a scheduled 10 percent payment cut to doctors. It phases out overpayments to private plans.

My friends on the other side, of course, want to make sure that the government is very careful in its expenditure of funds, and it urges us to adopt the practices of the private sector, which are driven by competition on price. However, in this case, we have mandated by law that the competitors receive 100 percent reimbursement while the competitors that are favored receive 111 to 130-plus percent. That is a little bit like the prescription drug bill where we can't negotiate for price.

This bill maintains competition and access, and in so doing, the bill would extend Medicare solvency by 3 years, while protecting seniors and people from disabilities from having to pay higher monthly premiums. In addition, my friends, this bill improves Medicare by, among other things, providing new preventive benefits.

I must note, Mr. Speaker, that nearly 3 years ago, in the middle of a presidential campaign, President Bush said the following, and I quote. And this, by the way, was at the 2004 Republican national convention when President Bush was seeking the votes of Americans throughout this country to be reelected President.

This is what he said: ``America's children must have a healthy start in life,'' to which clearly all of us as we watched the television said, Amen. ``In a new term,'' he said, ``we will lead an aggressive effort to enroll millions of poor children who are eligible but not signed up for government health insurance programs.''

Mr. President, that is what we are doing this afternoon.

But now, unfortunately, a mere 36 months later, the President is threatening to veto legislation that does precisely what he said he wanted to do in 2004 as he was running for President and seeking the votes in that convention.

Mr. Speaker, contrary to the claims of the President and other opponents of this bill, it does not constitute a government takeover of health care. That is a straw man. That is a shibboleth. That is not accurate. In fact, three-fourths of the children in the SCHIP program receive care today through private insurance plans that contract with the States.

Nor is the bill fiscally irresponsible. A curious claim, I would say, coming from the President and congressional Republicans whose policies added more than $3 trillion to the debt. I got a letter just a few days ago, maybe you got it as well, Mr. McCrery, from Secretary Paulson. He said, ``you know, we are running up against the debt limit.''

Does anybody here know in the 4 years preceding this Bush administration's policies how many times we raised the debt? Not once. But we have raised it five times in the last 6 years, if we raise it again.

So when we talk about fiscal responsibility, it is fiscally responsible to invest in the health care of our children, because they will be healthier citizens, more productive citizens, and we will have a better, more economically viable country. In fact, the Democratic majority has taken pains to pay for this legislation and abide by pay- as-you-go budget rules which provided for 4 years of surplus immediately preceding this administration.

Mr. Speaker, in the final analysis, the question before the Members of this body really is this: Do you support reauthorizing this critical program and providing health insurance to eligible children, eligible children, eligible children, or not? I urge my colleagues, vote to provide health care for our children. Vote to improve and protect Medicare. Vote for the CHAMP Act.

I thank the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee for yielding and thank him for his extraordinary leadership in bringing this bill to the floor and would allay somewhat the grief that is felt by the former chairman of the Rules Committee, the ranking Republican.

Mr. Speaker, on the one hand he says much of this bill is that which we passed last time offered by our friends on the minority side. If that is the case, we, as I understand the premise, we have adopted much of what you have proposed. It's hard to say that you weren't consulted when we have adopted what your contention is, much of what you have proposed. So I would hope that the grief would be allayed in that respect.

Secondly, let me say this. No conference. Why no conference? Because a Republican Member of the United States Senate wouldn't let us go to conference. That's why there was no conference. He stood day after day after day objecting to adopting this important reform package.

As a result, we couldn't go to conference. So you can't complain on the one hand we are not in conference when it is a Republican Senator from South Carolina who day after day, week after week, objected to doing just that.

Today is a proud day for this body. Again, I congratulate my friend, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers, and a dramatic example of how the Congress that was elected last November pledging to clean up the culture of corruption is making good on its promise.

I will talk about that a little bit at the end in terms of rules are nice, but performance is better. Last January, on the first day of this new, Congress we enacted sweeping ethics changes. Today, with this Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, we have a simple, straightforward purpose, to continue to restore public confidence in the legislative process.

I commend Chairman Conyers, as I have, for his leadership in making possible this comprehensive reform measure. By shining a bright light on the campaign contributions that registered lobbyists bundle for Members of Congress, the conference report before us increases transparency and gives the American people important insight on the legislative process.

By denying Members convicted of crimes their congressional pensions, the conference report ensures that Members who break their oath to uphold the laws of the land will not only suffer public disgrace and criminal sanction, but also lifetime financial loss.

There is no reason for taxpayers to subsidize criminal behavior of Members of Congress. Freshman Member Nancy Boyda deserves a great deal of credit for her work on this provision. By requiring Members engaged in any job negotiations to recuse themselves from any matter in which there is a conflict of interest, the conference report before us will end the practice of Members trying to cash in on the legislation they steer through this body.

I don't know how many of you had the opportunity to watch ``60 Minutes'' this past Sunday and hear the comments of Mr. Burton and Mr. Jones, but that is trying to address that critical problem.

As important as this legislation and the ethics changes made in January are, they alone will not ensure the integrity of our process and this institution. Rather, the Members of this House will ensure the integrity of this House when we conduct ourselves openly and honestly and hold accountable, through a vigorous pursuit of the enforcement of our rules by the Ethics Committee, hold accountable those who abide, do not abide by the rules in the highest ethical standards.

Thus we have an obligation to ensure that the Ethics Committee does the job that it was constituted to perform. It did not do so in the recent Congresses. The implementation of rules, while critical, must be followed by effective real enforcement.

This conference report is an important step forward, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I want to thank Members on both sides of the aisle, including Mr. Smith, for the work that they have done through the years to bring us to this day and close by congratulating Mr. Conyers and the leadership of our Speaker in accomplishing this objective.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, when the Supreme Court wrongly decides a case, as they do from time to time, particularly when congressional intent is at issue, the United States Congress can and should act to remedy it. That is precisely what this carefully crafted measured legislation, the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007, is designed to do.

I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), and I thank the ranking member as well for the work that they do on this committee.

Make no mistake. The Court's 5-4 decision on May 29 in Ledbetter v. Goodyear was wrongly decided. The merits of Lilly Ledbetter's wage discrimination claim seemed beyond doubt. A Federal jury agreed that she was discriminated against. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission agreed with Ms. Ledbetter's claims, although the Bush administration switched its position once the case got to the Supreme Court.

Most importantly, Lilly Ledbetter was paid less than all of her male counterparts, all of her male counterparts, even those who had less seniority. This clearly was not a case where her performance was suspect. Goodyear gave her a top performance award in 1996.

The fact is, the Court majority took an extremely cramped view of the title VII of the Civil Rights Act, holding that Ms. Ledbetter and claimants like her must file their pay discrimination claims within 180 days of the original discriminatory act. In other words, even if the discriminatory acts continued, every week, every biweek, every month, that they would have to look back to the original first check.

There are at least three serious problems with the Court's flawed analysis. First, the unlawful discrimination against Ms. Ledbetter did not begin and end with Goodyear's original decision to pay her less than they paid her male counterparts.

In fact, every paycheck that Lilly Ledbetter received after Goodyear's decision to pay her less was a continuing manifestation of Goodyear's illegal discrimination. As Justice Ginsburg said

in dissent, each subsequent paycheck was ``infected'' by the original decision to unlawfully discriminate.

Secondly, the Court dismissed the realities of the workplace far too casually. Detecting pay discrimination is not easy, and sometimes it may take years to uncover.

Now, each of us in this body knows what the other Member of the body makes, but that is not true in almost every workplace in America. Why? Because people generally do not talk openly with their coworkers about their salaries, raises and bonuses. In fact, many employers strive to keep such information confidential.

Just consider, Ms. Ledbetter apparently did not become aware that she had been discriminated against until she received an anonymous letter alerting her to the discrimination.

Third, the Court majority ignored its own holdings that Congress intended title VII, the majority ignored its own holdings that Congress intended title VII to have a broad, remedial purpose, to make persons whole for injuries suffered on accounts of unlawful employment discrimination.

Finally, let me say that those who claim that this bill somehow eliminates the statue of limitations are incorrect. Under this bill, as we thought the law was for 30 years, an employee must still file a charge within the statutory filing period after receiving a discriminatory paycheck.

This bill is fair, it is just, and it comports with the intent of this Congress in passing the Civil Rights Act.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill, to make sure that what Congress intended is, in fact, what the law remains.

Madam Chairman, I intend to ask for unanimous consent after the motion that I make and we rise, and then I will make a statement on the schedule that I perceive to be in front of us for such time as it may take to complete the business of the people of our country.

I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for 1 minute for the purposes of informing the Members of the schedule for the week to come, for today and for tomorrow.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, obviously, the American public sent us here to get its work done. Obviously as well, we have differences on what work we ought to be doing and what the substance of that work ought to be, and they expect us to debate that, and they expect us to have our differences, and then they expect us to resolve those differences through voting and moving legislation.

The Agriculture appropriation bill is on the floor. Mr. Obey, myself, and Mr. Boehner had very long discussions about how we would consider the appropriation bills. On or about June 14, it was June 12 and 13 that we really discussed, we came to agreement. We came to agreement on how we would consider the appropriation bills, essentially the time frame that would be accorded to those bills, that we would have open rules on the appropriation bills, and that we would come to only unanimous consent agreements on the constraint of debate.

Furthermore, we agreed that we would offer a rule the Monday following June 14 to provide for a point of order on items added to appropriation bills.

I believe that I have, as leader, done everything I said I would do.

On Monday, I offered a unanimous consent, a request to add to our rules the point of order that the minority felt important to protect its rights. That unanimous consent, obviously, was not objected to. It is now part of our rules.

Since that time, on 10 appropriation bills we have had open rules, as we said we would. The agreement, as you have heard me state before, contemplated that you would give us, on the minority side, essentially the same unanimous consents that we gave to you in an election year 1 year ago.

Notwithstanding that understanding, we have taken 50 hours longer to consider the appropriation bills since that time than we took last year when you were in charge and Mr. Obey gave the unanimous consent. You've heard me complain about that because I thought that was not consistent with the agreement.

Notwithstanding that, we have proceeded on this floor with open rules, and the Agriculture appropriation bill has come to the floor with an open rule. The Agriculture appropriation bill has been on the floor for some, 4, 4\1/2\ hours, and we are not really considering the substance of the Agriculture appropriation bill.

I know there is upset on your side of the aisle, I say to my friends on the minority side, about another bill. But there was nothing in the agreement that said if you were upset with another bill that the agreement reached between Mr. Boehner and I and Mr. Obey would not be honored. There was nothing that said that if we're angry about another bill that we will disrupt the appropriations process.

And, therefore, it is my perception, and I think, based upon the facts that everyone in this country has observed over the last number of hours, that my perception is the agreement has not been honored. I regret that.

I will tell you that I pride myself on honoring my agreements, even when it may anger my side of the aisle, because I believe that if we are to proceed in a civil way, in a way that we can trust one another, that is what we ought to do. Notwithstanding the extra 50 hours that we've spent, we were prepared to proceed.

Now, let me read just briefly, Mr. Shadegg was on the floor just a little while ago and spoke. This is what Mr. Shadegg said on the 14th:

``As I understand it, this'', meaning our agreement to move bills forward, ``is an attempt to make sure that we don't waste time on dilatory tactics; that, rather, we proceed through these bills in an orderly fashion, but if someone has a substantive objection that should be accommodated. Is that correct?'' Mr. SHADEGG asked me.

In response, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee stated, and I quote Mr. Obey: ``It is our hope that you will respond as we did in the minority by agreeing to reasonable time limits on each of those bills in return for that.'' In return for that was giving reasonable time for substantive amendments.

Again, my friends on the minority side, you have had 50 additional hours above and beyond the time that we debated the bills last year when you were in charge.

And Mr. Shadegg responded, ``Certainly. And I think we will.'' We do not believe that that has been done.

During that same debate, on June 14, I stated to the minority, ``We expect to move forward on open rules.'' We have done that. ``But I want to make clear, if we are subjected to what we believe were dilatory tactics, then that would not be consistent with the agreement, and therefore our provision would be that, in lawyers' terms, the agreement has been breached.''

I also stated, and again I quote, ``We are proceeding with reliance on the good faith of each to proceed in a manner that we believe accommodates what has been done last year and what we hope will be done this year, and that is consider these bills with the inclusion of earmarks in the bills in a manner that facilitates their being passed through this House.''

In fact, Mr. Hensarling stated, and again I quote, ``I believe I heard that there is hopefully an expectation of open rules. I understand the majority leader's caveat.'' That was my caveat that dilatory tactics would not be employed during the course of consideration of appropriation bills.

He went on to say, ``I understand there is an anticipation of unanimous consents,'' he said, ``UCs, as historic norms dictate.''

I carry around in my pocket, I've shared with my friend, Mr. Blunt and Mr. Boehner, the times that we spent considering the appropriation bills last year. Those were the historic norms that we referred to when on the floor we talked about generally replicating the time constraints of last year.

``I understand,'' Mr. Hensarling went on, ``there is an anticipation that if bills are of historic norms, that debate time may be of historic norms.''

Again, I say to my friends on the minority side, I believe we have followed those dictates and that understanding to the letter.

Now, as to the schedule, I want to tell my friends that I have, for many months, articulated the bills that we were going to consider this week. Among those bills were the appropriation bills, the Defense bill, the Agriculture appropriation bill. I've discussed with my friend, Roy Blunt, the possibility of considering a FISA bill. We also have some conference reports. The WRDA conference report is ready, we believe. We're also going to consider the Defense appropriation bill, consistent with our agreement; and we're going to consider an energy bill.

There may be some other conference reports that will be ready. The Higher Education conference report possibly would be ready, although I think that may not occur. There are other bills that we're going to consider.

The reason I rise is, first of all, to discuss the agreement that we had, which I think has not been honored, with respect to the considerable appropriations bills. It was not with respect to other bills, but we were considering the appropriation bill.

And I tell my friend that I have discussed with the members of my caucus that we are going to complete this agenda. We will complete this agenda if it takes all of next week to complete. That will disrupt my schedule, it will disrupt your schedule, and it will not be a happy time for any of us in this body. I regret that.

I hope that those of you on the minority side who have dealt with me through the years believe that I try to treat one another as I want to be treated by them.

I regret that we are now going to go to the Rules Committee on the appropriations bills. We will go to the Rules Committee on the Agriculture appropriation bill. We will go to the Rules Committee on the Defense bill. We will go to the Rules Committee on each and every other bill.

That does not mean I expect you to sit back and simply say, well, that's fine. I expect that we will not have a happy time over the next coming days. But I also believe that you have not left me or my party with an alternative, if, in fact, we are to proceed with the people's business.

We have disagreements. That's fair. Amendments expressing those agreements offered on this floor is fair. Demanding votes on those amendments and on those bills is fair and what the American people expect.

What the American people, in my opinion, do not expect is for us to simply do nothing, to simply circle one another, yell and scream at one another, point fingers at one another and not proceed with their business.

We believe very strongly that children ought to have health care. I believe you think children ought to have health care. We have a difference of opinion as to how we accomplish that objective. That is fair.

What is not fair, from our perspective, is to simply disallow the House to proceed to do its business, to have its disagreements, to make its votes, to express its will.

And so I say to you that we will complete the agenda that I have set forth. I hope we pass all those bills. If we don't pass them, so be it. But if we pass, or whether they fail, we will consider them during this sitting, before we recess for our summer break. I regret that, but it is the only alternative with which I think I am left if, as majority leader of this House, I'm going to facilitate the accomplishment of the people's business.

I yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time. That was the proposition that the gentleman put to us and Mr. Obey when

we discussed the appropriations bills. We agreed, and we have followed to the letter, bringing every appropriation bill considered under an open rule, every one.

There were no constraints imposed beyond unanimous consent constraints so that we had an open process. Everybody got an opportunity to make their points and to vote.

There is no one on this side of the aisle who has served for the last 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 years who does not understand the pain that you express of your Members. They have all felt it. You know that, and I know that. Frankly, we had a previous majority leader who was not nearly as tolerant as the present majority leader, I say with some degree of perhaps humor but some degree, I think, of real truth. I believe we have complied with that agreement.

We will now conclude the business for tonight, and we will back tomorrow, and we will complete the work that I have set forth on behalf of the majority that the House contemplates. And we hope that we can try, over the next few hours, to reach a greater level of civility on both sides so that we can proceed and try to accommodate the concerns of every Member. But that has not happened.

I will be glad to yield, and then we will conclude.

I will look forward to discussing the next 4, 5 or 6 days with my friend.

Mr. Speaker, the United States has many tools in its national security arsenal. And one that is too often overlooked and under-utilized--despite the fact that it works--is economic leverage.

Today, it is long past time that the United States--and the international community--exert maximum pressure on the Sudanese government to stop the suffering in Darfur, where an estimated 200,000 to 400,000 civilians have been slaughtered and 2.5 million more have been driven from their homes.

The United Nations has identified the situation in Darfur as the worst humanitarian and human rights crisis in the world today. The United States has labeled the killings there as genocide.

We must not turn a blind eye to this horrific human suffering, which shocks our collective conscience. Thus, the United States must lead the international community in turning up the pressure on the Sudanese government through an effective divestment campaign similar to the one employed against South Africa three decades ago.

The Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act--introduced by a leader on this important issue, Congresswoman Lee--seeks to utilize targeted divestment to exert further pressure on the Bashir government in Khartoum.

This legislation requires the Treasury Secretary to establish a list of companies whose business activities in Sudan directly support the genocidal practices of the Bashir regime in Khartoum. The measure also authorizes State and local governments which choose to divest their pension fund holdings from companies on the list, and it contains ``safe harbor'' provisions for managers of mutual funds and corporate pension managers who choose to do the same even though their charters may mandate that they seek to maximize gains.

Furthermore, the bill would ban U.S. Government procurement contracts with companies on the Treasury list and authorizes the prohibition of these types of contracts at the State and local level.

The fact is, while the United States currently prohibits companies from conducting business operations in Sudan, millions of Americans are inadvertently supporting Bashir's government by investing in foreign companies that conduct business operations there.

According to the Sudan Divestment Task Force, the Khartoum regime ``relies heavily on foreign investment to fund its military and the brutal militias seeking to eliminate the non-Arab population of Darfur.'' In fact, it is estimated that as much as 70 to 80 percent of oil revenue in Sudan is funneled directly into the military.

Given our experience in South Africa, we know that increasing economic pressure through targeted divestment can work. We have been talking with the Bashir government for years now--with little effect. It is time to leverage our dollars in an attempt to stop the suffering in Darfur.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this legislation, the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2007 (H.R. 2347), which would authorize state and local governments to direct divestiture from and prevent investment in entities with investments of $20 million or more in Iran's energy sector.

As Iran continues to pursue its nuclear agenda--in defiance of UN sanctions and international pressure--the United States must leverage not only its diplomatic resources but its economic influence when it comes to Iran. Simply put, we must act aggressively to ensure that we are not providing Iran with money to develop nuclear weapons.

This legislation will help us do that.

Among other things, this bill would require the publication of entities, both inside and outside the United States, that have an investment of more than $20 million in Iran's energy sector. Any entity designated on this list could delay publication of its name if it demonstrates that it is taking steps to divest from Iran.

Furthermore, the bill provides a safe harbor for investment and pension fund managers from lawsuits alleging that divestment would lower a fund's profits.

Mr. Speaker, Iran's support for terrorist groups such as Hezbollah is well known and it is listed as a state sponsor of terrorism by our State Department.

In addition, the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has made repeated outrageous statements toward the United States and our ally, Israel, even calling in October 2005 for Israel to be ``wiped off the map.''

Given Iran's continued hostility and defiance of the international community, it is imperative that we use all the tools in our national security arsenal to attempt to change Iran's behavior. And, state-level divestment campaigns are an essential way for state officials to prevent retirement funds from helping Iran pursue nuclear weapons and fund terrorism.

Although U.S. companies have been barred from directly investing in Iran since 1996, there are investment avenues not covered by those restrictions. This bill would close some of the loopholes in previous legislation and executive orders by prohibiting public pension funds from investing in foreign companies that do more than $20 million in business in Iran's oil and gas sector.

Iran is already struggling with domestic instability, gas rationing and falling foreign investment. This legislation provides a useful diplomatic and economic tool to further push Iran toward complying with international pressure, both to stop its nuclear activities and to cease its sponsorship of terrorist groups.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I thank my distinguished friend, Mr. Etheridge, chairman of one of our subcommittees on the Ag Committee.

I rise to congratulate Mr. Peterson; indeed, I rise to congratulate Mr. Goodlatte as well, who did work together. In fact, as late as Monday, we were together coming back from New York and talked about this bill. He indicated he thought it was a good bill. He did express then, quite honestly, he wanted to look at the pay-fors. That was obviously fair. He has decided that because of them, he cannot support the bill. I regret that.

I want to thank the chairman of the committee, Congressman Peterson of Minnesota, for his hard work on this important legislation and his efforts in crafting a bipartisan reform bill. I think he has a bipartisan reform bill. I understand the pay-fors may preclude some, hopefully not all, from voting for this.

I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, you were very good at spending money and not very good at paying for things. You are consistent to that extent today. You went from a $5.6 trillion surplus to a $3 trillion deficit because we did not pay for what we bought. This bill does that.

It is a testament to the hard work of Mr. Peterson and others on the committee that this farm bill reauthorization passed out of the Agriculture Committee on a voice vote, that is, with unanimous bipartisan support.

I also appreciate the work of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) who cares deeply and thoughtfully about agriculture and our rural communities. His effort, with respect to this bill, was a very positive one. He has made important contributions on this issue, and I congratulate Mr. Kind, one of the finest Members of this body.

I believe that this farm bill deserves to pass today with strong bipartisan support. And I note that the ranking member of the committee, as I have said, even expressed on the House floor

yesterday, Mr. Goodlatte said he would support this bill were it not for the inclusion of a pay-for.

About that provision, let us be clear. At literally the 11th hour, as this farm bill was about to be considered on this floor, the White House issued a veto threat and amazingly complained that we are actually trying to pay for this legislation, in part, by closing a corporate tax loophole. Now, when you close a loophole, does it mean that somebody is paying taxes that they otherwise would not pay? That's the definition of a loophole. Not just any corporate tax loophole, mind you, but a corporate tax loophole that the Bush administration itself recommended closing in 2002 and which Bill Thomas, the Republican chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, agreed with.

Let me quote Ken Dam, then-Deputy Treasury Secretary, and I quote, ``Opportunities for earning stripping through artificial deductions and income shifting may exploit the network of tax treaties the United States maintains around the world.'' That's what we're dealing with. That's what Assistant Secretary Dam was talking about.

In 2002, the Treasury Department concluded, 2002, Republican Treasury Department concluded, ``The prevalent use of foreign related-party debt in inversion transactions is evidence that these rules should be revisited.'' That is what we're doing.

So we're asking those who make good money in America to pay their fair share of the taxes in America. I believe the overwhelming majority of Americans agree with that proposition. Yes, Democrats would make it harder for overseas companies to use tax havens to avoid taxes on U.S. profits from hardworking Americans who buy their products and expect them to pay a fair share, a position formerly held, as I said, by the Bush administration, and even Bill Thomas.

The provision is not only good tax policy, but also a clear manifestation of this new Democratic majority's commitment to abide by the new pay-as-you-go budget rules that will help us restore fiscal discipline.

Those rules were adopted in a bipartisan fashion in 1990, reiterated in 1997 in an agreement which I voted for, President Clinton supported, and it was not until 2002 that those were abandoned by the Republicans because you could not pay for your tax cuts. That's why you abandoned PAYGO. And that's why the $3 trillion debt occurred from a $5.6 trillion surplus.

Now, as to the substance of this farm bill, Chairman Peterson has written a bill that focuses on getting vital benefits to family farmers, investing in America's producer, stimulating rural economies, and securing renewable energy sources.

I, too, want to join in congratulating Stephanie Herseth Sandlin on the role that she has played in terms of the rural focus of this bill.

This bill imposes real payment limitations that will begin to reduce subsidies, moving in a new and right direction. It makes historic investments in programs to support food and vegetable producers, an important element for not only California and the northeast, the middle Atlantic, but other areas as well.

It improves funding and access to conservation programs. It imposes payment limits that prevent millionaires from receiving farm subsidy benefits and makes payments transparent. Could we go lower? We could. Should we in the future? Yes. But we have made, in my opinion, a very significant start.

It invests in nutrition programs that help families in need. In the richest country on the face of the Earth, we ought to make sure that no child in America goes to sleep at night or wakes up in the morning hungry. We're trying to move towards that. I see the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca) who has been very involved in these programs as well.

And it encourages the expansion of renewable fuel production, providing loan guarantees for the development of refineries that produce renewable fuels. Energy independence is a critical objective, and this bill moves us towards that objective.

Mr. Chairman, I am particularly pleased that this legislation includes more than $175 million in direct assistance to help our farmers in their ongoing efforts to be good stewards of the Chesapeake Bay. We have made some strides to restore this magnificent estuary, but much more work needs to be done.

I want to thank my friend Tim Holden from Pennsylvania and Nona Darrell, his chief staffer, who helped work on this effort.

To move us forward in this regard, the bill will implement an innovative strategy targeting individual river watersheds, including the Patuxent and the Potomac, to help our producers prevent shoreline erosion, control sediments, reduce nitrogen loads, and establish a long-term monitoring program.

Again, my colleagues, I want to congratulate Chairman Peterson on this bill. I also want to congratulate Mr. Goodlatte. I wish he was supporting this bill at this point in time, but I know that he worked to get much of the bill, which but for the pay-fors it's my understanding he would support. But the pay-fors are critical if America is going to pay its bills and not simply pass them along to future generations, whether they be farm children, suburban children, or rural children.

This bill is a responsible, important step forward in farm policy and energy policy and nutritional policy and in conservation policy. I congratulate the members of the committee on their product, and I urge my colleagues to enthusiastically support this product.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate both Mr. King of New York and the chairman of the committee, who I know worked very hard together in a bipartisan fashion to get us to a place where we all want to be. Where we all want to be is a safer America, a safer homeland, and safer Americans living here at home.

Mr. Speaker, this is a critically important day for this Congress and indeed for our Nation. We have no higher duty than to protect the American people, defend our homeland and to strengthen our national security. We know, nearly 6 years after the horrific attacks on September 11, 2001, that Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda terrorist network continue to present a real, serious threat to the American homeland.

In fact, the most recent National Intelligence Estimate released just this month states: ``The group, al Qaeda, has been able to restore key capabilities it would need to launch an attack on U.S. soil: a safe haven in Pakistan tribal areas, operational lieutenants, and senior leaders.'' That is cause for concern for every one of us that represents the 300 million Americans in this country.

Thus, today, with this conference report implementing the recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, we will be taking an enormous step forward in hardening our Nation's defense and combating and eliminating the terrorists who seek to harm us.

Let me say my friend, the gentleman from California, the former Attorney General of California, is correct. Steps have been taken, and these are taking additional steps. Unfortunately, as the gentleman knows, when we were assessed by the 9/11 Commission itself, it gave five Fs and 12 Ds to our performance up until last year. That does not mean we didn't do some things. We did some very good things, and we did them in a bipartisan fashion. He is right, we got 9 Cs and two incompletes for failing to implement fully the 9/11 Commission.

Today, we make this top national security priority, the first major bill that we considered in this Congress, H.R. 1, a reality, and I believe we will adopt the conference report which passed the Senate 85- 8 with strong bipartisan support, as has been expressed on this floor.

This legislation, among other things, will substantially improve our homeland security by doing the following. I know it has been referenced, but we ought to repeat it, so the American public and all of our colleagues know what we are doing:

Significantly increasing the share of State homeland security grants provided on the basis of risk. Where are we most vulnerable? The gentleman, of course, from the New York area knows that very well. I know it as well, representing the Washington metropolitan area.

Requiring scanning of 100 percent of maritime cargo containers by 2012. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler, has been working on this issue every day since 9/11, and I congratulate him for the efforts he has put in and the efforts that others have put in on this issue.

Requiring screening 100 percent of air cargo within 3 years. If the Transportation Security Administration cannot meet this goal, it must provide classified briefings to Congress on its process.

Withholding assistance to Pakistan for fiscal year 2008 until the President certifies that the Pakistani Government is cracking down on the Taliban. We still have a sanctuary for the Taliban. We still have a sanctuary for al Qaeda. We still have a staging area for al Qaeda. That is not acceptable because it continues to cause us great risk and danger.

Significantly strengthening the Cooperative Threat Reduction, Nunn- Lugar Program, and creating a new National Bio-Surveillance Integration Center which would support Federal efforts to rapidly identify and track biological threats.

Additionally, Mr. Thompson and Mr. King have included in this conference report, it seeks to reduce extremism by enhancing the International Arab and Muslim Youth Opportunity Fund and establishing a Middle East Foundation that will promote economic opportunities, education reform, human rights and democracy in the Middle East.

Let no one, however, be mistaken: this legislation alone cannot immunize our Nation from attack. However, it does represent a very important step forward for our national security.

As former Congressman Lee Hamilton, the cochair of the 9/11 Commission, has noted, and again I quote: ``The bottom line is that when this legislation is enacted and implemented, the American people will be safer.''

That is their expectation of us; that is our duty to them and to the Constitution we have sworn an oath to defend. That must be our objective every day, and it is surely our responsibility.

I congratulate, again, Mr. Thompson, who has led this committee; Mr. King, who has fought so ably over the years to make our country safer; and I urge the support on both sides of the aisle for this very critically important legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the winners of the 70th Annual All-American Soap Box Derby--one of whom, I am proud to say, is one of my neighbors and constituents from Mechanicsville, Maryland.

On July 21, 550 soap box champions from 183 cities in 43 states gathered in Akron, Ohio to compete for the National Championship. In the Stock Division, Tyler Schoff took home first place. In the Super Stock Division, Andrew Feldpausch bested the field to earn a national title as well. And in the Master's Division, Kacie Rader, of Maryland's Fifth District, took the National Championship after winning the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby in a race held right here on the Capitol grounds. Kacie is the first racer from the National Capital region--or the entire state of Maryland for that matter--to win a National Championship.

Kacie, who started her racing career at the age of 7, has worked tirelessly to earn such a noteworthy win. Last year alone, Kacie competed in 40 Soap Box Derby events and traveled to 6 different states over 20 weekends to compete. Kacie, who will be beginning her senior year at Chopticon High School in the fall, will now continue on to Indiana for the National Derby Rally Championship where she will be ranked number one in points. I along with the people of Maryland wish her the best of luck.

My congratulations go out to Kacie, Tyler, Andrew, and everyone who participated in what has become a national tradition over the last seven decades. The All-American Soap Box Derby is one of the oldest road races in America today--second only to the Indianapolis 500. And those who compete in this race are part of a long-standing legacy that highlights the best that American youths have to offer.

That is because it takes more than just athletic prowess to be a champion soap box racer. It takes imagination and creativity to design a vehicle that has the durability, handling and speed needed to win. It takes hard work and diligence to build a racer once it has been designed. And it takes intelligence and grace under pressure to successfully command a soap box racer in a racing environment.

Once again, I offer my congratulations to everyone that participated in the ``greatest amateur racing event in the world.'' And I want to thank Kacie Rader, of Mechanicsville, Maryland, for bringing national acclaim to Maryland's Fifth District by winning the All-American Soap Box Derby Master's Division Championship.

Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Speaker, this is not about substance. This is about killing this bill. The gentleman will say it comes back promptly. It doesn't come back promptly.

We spent 14\1/2\ hours trying to get money to law enforcement, immigration enforcement and all the other objects in law enforcement, first responders, in this bill. This is about killing this bill. This is about delay. This is about politics, trying to give some of our people a bad vote.

Vote this motion down because it is not real. It is not for substance sake. It is not for the objective as it is articulated in the amendment. It is designed to fail. Reject this chicanery on this floor. Vote ``no.''

Once again we are confronted with politics, not substance. The groans you hear are those of the self-indicted. If you were serious, if you were concerned about the veterans, if you were concerned about those in need, then this would be a substantive amendment subject to consideration now, not later, not tomorrow.

My friend will ask the rhetorical parliamentary question in a few minutes that he has asked every time we have done this, and every time this process is political only.

If it were substantive, I tell the gentleman from New York, if you wanted to accomplish this objective, you may get the votes on this side, but you will not get the votes on this side to kill this bill.

We have now taken 50 hours longer on consideration of appropriation bills than we did last year with unanimous consents from Mr. Obey. You can groan, but the people who are looking for these funds, the people who want the benefits of this bill, the people who understand the work on both sides of the aisle that has gone into fashioning this bill, the people who have seen us vote on rejecting amendment after amendment on substantive grounds that you offered, and you could have offered this amendment, of course, as well, know full well this is a political process, not a substantive process. Reject this process. Let us move on with the business of the American people. Let's do what they sent us here to do. Let's act. Reject this motion.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

We will have another vote, and then it will be our intention to go to debate on the Transportation-HUD bill. We will go to debate after the votes until 10 o'clock. We will then end the debate on the bill at that time, have no further proceedings on the bill after 10 p.m. tonight, and go back to it tomorrow morning after 1-minutes.

If the gentleman would yield.

If that's the case, then we would expect no additional votes tonight for the Members.

Announcement by the Speaker pro Tempore

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

This motion will be defeated because it kills the bill. If the gentleman from Nevada were serious about this motion, he would have asked that it be forthwith. That would have passed his amendment. This is not a serious amendment, I tell my friend. This is, unfortunately, however, why the American public is so upset with the Congress of the United States: because what they see, they say that Congress is not getting its work done, and they are right. And they are right because obstructionism is occurring on this floor and on the floor across the hall. And if it were in the name of serious legislating, perhaps they would understand. But this is not serious legislating, A, because the money can be spent for that now; and, B, because it kills a bill that is for the education and the health care of our people.

Reject this specious motion. Pass this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

On Monday, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning business and noon for legislative business, with votes rolled until 6:30 p.m. In addition to several bills under suspension of the rules, and a list of these bills, of course, will be announced by the end of the week, we expect to begin consideration of the fiscal year 2008 Transportation- HUD appropriations bill.

Let me reiterate that because that will require a vote on the rule, there will be a substantive, and perhaps more substantive, votes on Monday. So Members cannot be assured that there will not be controversies on the floor on Monday night. Usually we do only suspension bills.

On Tuesday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for morning-hour business and 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. In addition to completing consideration of the Transportation-HUD bill, we have one additional fiscal year 2008 appropriations bill, the Commerce- Justice-Science, as well as the farm program reauthorization.

FISA legislation, as the gentleman knows, is being worked on by the Intelligence Committee now. I don't have a specific answer for you. I am hopeful that we will perhaps be able to address some very important issues before we leave here.

On the other, I think it is possible that we will have some legislation dealing with Iraq, but that decision has not been made. Obviously, there is still ongoing discussion both in the Senate and in this body on that subject. But whether there will be legislation next week is still in discussion.

I tell my friend that I do not have any immediate information on that particular issue. I know the issue, but where it is, I am not sure. So I don't have specific information on that.

I can say with respect to conferences, we have every intent of doing the 9/11 conference, as the gentleman knows, and passing that before we leave for the August break.

I understand press reports, but there is no decision that has been made on that.

Mr. Speaker, will my friend yield?

We are very, very hopeful that the lobbying disclosure conference can proceed. As the gentleman

knows, we have not gotten clearance on the other side to do so, so we are very concerned about that. This House passed the lobbying disclosure bill overwhelmingly. Our view is it will pass overwhelmingly in the Senate when that happens. But, unfortunately, it has not yet gone to conference.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I thank the gentleman.