Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10:30 a.m. on Monday next for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Madam Speaker, as the Washington Post so aptly put It last month, ``tiny colleges in rural Southern Maryland aren't supposed to win national championships in anything.'' But apparently, no one told that to the young men and women of the St. Mary's College sailing team, who won two out of the three legs of the NCAA sailing ``triple crown'' in 2007.

The Lady Seahawks swept the national title in convincing fashion-- besting the next closest competitor by 44 points--and leading sailor and Olympic hopeful, Adrienne Patterson, was named female sailor of the year. In the team race, St. Mary's prevailed in a much closer battle, beating a very strong Yale team by a score of 12 to 11. And while the Seahawk sailors fell just short of their goal of winning all three major sailing championships in one year by taking the coed national title as well, they still managed to finish sixth in that leg of the competition and cement their place among the elite sailing teams throughout all of the NCAA.

St. Mary's College had won 10 national titles entering the 2007 season--and its performance in this year's NCAA championships is proof positive its legacy of greatness is not only intact, but growing stronger with each passing year.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to offer my heartfelt congratulations to the 2007 St. Mary's College Seahawks, their fans, their friends and their families. And I wish them all continued success in whatever life holds in store.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this concept of community schools Mr. Walsh correctly refers to is a concept that is present in many States, many communities.

My wife Judy was the supervisor of early childhood education in Prince Georges County, Maryland, just down the road. She started a concept in our county of full service schools, community schools. There are now 24 Judy Centers in the State of Maryland. Maryland has paid for them, started them.

The problem with a full service community school, as Judy found out and as all of us know, is the turf battles. The turf battles are ferocious. Some people have made fun of the fact that it takes a village to raise a child. Now, obviously, hopefully every child has a good parent. But we have many services available to make sure that our young people, when they get to the ninth grade, are ready to succeed in the ninth and 10th and 11th and 12th

grades. But those services in many communities are discordant and not coordinated. So the concept of a full service or a community school is to bring together services, not in a forced way, but in a cooperative way.

Now, the gentlelady refers to the authorization on the appropriation bill. I know that the ranking member is shocked by that ever happening. I remember, perhaps before the gentlelady got here, when Bill Frist added 40 pages in the dead of night of authorizing language to an appropriation bill just a few years ago to preclude insurance company liability.

The fact of the matter is this $10 million in NIE is to encourage, facilitate cooperation, not to mandate spending more money; but to encourage educators, social services, child care providers, other services, as they have in the State of New York. I have visited some of them in the city.

So I would hope that we would not take this $10 million and add it to an $11 billion program. A critically important program, the gentlelady is absolutely correct, but it is a program that is funded $800 million more than President Bush asked for by this bill. And in order to add that $10 million to an $11 billion program, you will undermine the effort to see if we can create cooperation, in effect magnifying the role of each as they cooperate with one another. That is the concept, and it is a concept that works.

Superintendent Grasmick in my State has talked about this concept all over this country. I have talked about it to Secretary Spelling; I have talked about it to their predecessors. In fact, we did pass a bill through the House that didn't make it through conference which Lynn Woolsey had sponsored which had this concept. It is a concept that the Education and Labor Committee is now considering. They may go much broader than this.

But this is what NIE is all about. It is trying to facilitate better ways to deliver education to our children. And I remind the gentleman from New York, who is my friend and I am pleased to see him as the ranking member, but we do participate significantly in the education of children in this country, particularly children at risk. That is what this attempts to do as well, to magnify the services available, coordinate them, bring them together so they are accessible by people who can't get in their car at $3.15, and drive from this place to the other place to the other place to get services for their children.

So I would hope, ladies and gentlemen of this House, that we would reject this amendment. I thank the chairman for including this provision in the bill, and I would hope that the amendment would be rejected.

I would simply say to the gentlelady, it so happens I have known two of your Governors pretty well, once as a young person, Terry Sanford, and as a contemporary of Jim Hunt, who was a good friend of mine for the last 45 years.

You mentioned the programs that you have in North Carolina. Bobby Etheridge, of course one of the former superintendents of your State's system, your State has been an innovative, progressive leader in education and Jim Hunt has been one of the educational leaders in our country. I have no doubt, because I have worked with him over the last 20 years that I have been in Congress on various programs while he was Governor and since then, that, yes, you have moved ahead in North Carolina, but you have also done it in partnership with many Federal programs. I know that because I have worked with your Governor on that. I simply wanted to make that point. Again, this is a partnership. And I thank my friend for yielding.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in opposition to this amendment.

I rise as someone who has, for 25 years, as a member of the Labor- Health Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee serving with my friend, Mr. Obey, supported increases in funding at NIH.

Mr. Castle is absolutely right. Many of those who come to our office want to make sure that we invest properly in the research and the basic biomedical research on disease.

John Porter was the chairman of our committee when we doubled the funding of NIH. We did so, of course, over the objections of the Republican budgets, as you may recall, which is why John Porter voted against so many of the Republican budgets because he said it did not sufficiently allow him to do his job. We agreed with him.

I care deeply about the process of discovery at NIH that brings so much hope to all the world for conquering and curing so many diseases that afflict humanity. Let me be clear, this amendment does not help medical research in my opinion. Not because it doesn't give it some more dollars. We have had a billion dollar increase, as you know, over the President's request.

I do not question the gentleman's motive in offering this amendment. I do question the wisdom of the measure which is, after all, what debates are about.

This amendment takes away from the whole spectrum of research, and particularly our ability to translate the research results from that basic research to its application to prevent, treat and cure illnesses that afflict mankind.

While this amendment may sound good, as very frankly some of the amendments that have been offered before which say we are going to take from here and give to there, which sound good on the surface, all of us would like to give more money to NIH. Simply stated, we do not have, however, the luxury of supporting research

for the sake of simply having research if we do not translate it, have the statistical data available and the application. I take a backseat to no one in supporting medical research, but to cut funding for other public health service agencies as proposed under this amendment is simply not good policy. It is not good for the health of our people.

If the gentleman would like to offer an amendment to increase funding for NIH without harming other health priorities, then certainly that should be discussed and supported. But let me note that this bill includes a $750 million increase in funding for NIH. I said a billion, which is a billion higher than the President's request.

If we are to take molecules and turn them into miracles, the research that all of us seek, then we must support the long-term quality of our research efforts. I have done so for the last, as I said, 25 years. It is important for us to do so. But I think, frankly, the gentleman's amendment will harm the objective that he ultimately seeks and that Mr. Castle spoke of and that all of us support. So I urge defeat of this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call for the immediate and unconditional release of Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, Israeli soldiers who, as of today, have now been held captive by Hezbollah terrorists for a full year.

On July 12, 2006, a month-long military conflict between Israel and Hezbollah was instigated when the armored humvee Ehud and Eldad were riding in was bombarded by Hezbollah rockets.

Ehud and Eldad were captured during the course of this unprovoked attack and have been held hostage ever since.

In February of this year, I had the pleasure of welcoming Ehud Goldwasser's energetic wife, Karnit, to the U.S. Capitol. She told me how trying it has been to live without the ``the love of her life'' and how her once bright hopes of raising a family with Ehud are now in peril due to the cowardly and illegal acts of a terrorist organization whose only goal is the destruction of her homeland. It is my hope that when I meet with Karnit again in August, Ehud will once again be by her side.

Terrorist acts like the kidnapping of Ehud and Eldad are not military actions between warring nations. They are despicable crimes that tear families apart and shroud entire communities in grief and suffering. As the leader of the free and democratic world, the United States has a responsibility to condemn such attacks whenever and wherever they occur, and to help advance peaceful solutions to ongoing crises whenever they can be reached.

To that end, I stand by Karnit Goldwasser, I stand by Israel, and I stand by like-minded activists throughout the world in calling for the immediate and unconditional release of Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev--courageous individuals who answered Israel's call to serve and who have sacrificed greatly in fighting for the democratic principles for which our two countries stand.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.

We have no more serious matter to debate than war and peace. I thank the gentleman for his extraordinary leadership and for bringing this bill to the floor.

I must remark that how different I think the debate would be if not one of the facts were changed but one: that if it were Bill Clinton in the Presidency and all the other facts were the same, I ask my friends on the other side of the aisle what would their comments reflect.

I have said it before many times on this House floor and I will say it again today. Every Member of this great body who swears an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, is committed to fighting and defeating terrorism. We must not lose sight in this debate that terrorism is a real threat to our people and to our country. We do not lose sight of that on this side of the aisle. We are committed to defeating terrorists and protecting America. Any suggestion otherwise demeans our discourse and is beneath, frankly, the dignity of the Members of this institution and the American people.

After nearly 4\1/2\ years in Iraq, a war that has been, I think, superbly peopled by our men and women in uniform but they have been trying to pursue an incompetently planned policy, this is what our Nation has to show for its efforts:

More than 3,600 brave American servicemen and women have been killed in action. More than 26,000 others have been maimed and injured. The American taxpayer has spent $450 billion on this war, with a pending request by the administration for an additional $147 billion.

And yet the President's policy in Iraq is not succeeding. Just today the administration released the ``assessment report'' on Iraq demanded by this Democratic Congress. The bottom line is the Iraq Government has failed to meet a single one of the security, political, and economic milestones for success. Perhaps most jarring, the administration rates as ``unsatisfactory'' the number of Iraqi security units capable of operating independently. That is over 50 months later.

The report states: ``There has been a slight reduction in units assessed as capable of independent operations since January, 2007.'' In other words, the administration says we are going backwards in terms of the capability of the Iraqi forces.

While the administration and congressional Republicans try to put a positive spin on the so-called ``progress'' in Iraq, other respected voices are not so optimistic. Yesterday, Thomas Fingar, the Deputy Director for Analysis at the National Intelligence Council, told the House Armed Services Committee that there have been ``few appreciable gains'' in Iraqi political progress. Even General David Petraeus, our top commander in Iraq, a gentleman that all of us respect as a military leader, told the New York Times that ``while some measures of violence showed a downward trend, it was too early to suggest that there has been a lasting turnaround in the war.'' That is over 50 months later.

Mr. Speaker, last January in an address to the Nation, President Bush stated: ``America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.'' We have not done so. We said we would do that, but we have not done so. Today the President shows no intention of changing course even as the Iraqis fail to meet those benchmarks.

Our fight against terrorism must and will be tough, but it also must be smart. And it is long past time that we recognize the following: The President's stay-the-course strategy is not working. The Iraqis must take responsibility for their own country. This war has severely diminished our military readiness and diverted our attention in the war on terror. If that were not the case, Osama bin Laden would still not be at large and al Qaeda would not be reported as being back at the strength that it had on September 11 of 2001.

After $450 billion and precious blood being spilled by American troops and others, we must change course by voting for this legislation, which calls for a responsible redeployment of American forces in Iraq and a comprehensive plan in U.S. policy in Iraq and the broader region.

Mr. Speaker, we must have a specific strategy for missions our remaining forces would undertake as well as plans to engage Iraq's neighboring states and to locate and eliminate al Qaeda and allied terrorist networks, which seek to destabilize and destroy the United States and other democracies. Jonathan Alter at Newsweek just a week ago referred to this as a ``pull and strike'' strategy. Redeploy so that our forces are able to focus on the terrorists, not on the civil war in which they find themselves embroiled.

Mr. Speaker, the American people and an increasing number of our friends on the other side of the aisle have lost confidence in the President's Iraq strategy because we have yet to see demonstrable, sustainable progress in that effort. Our troops have done everything we have asked them.

I'll tell you that we are so proud of those of you who have served in the Armed Forces of the United States. I was so proud of Patrick Murphy's statement that he gave here today, so proud of all of those who have served not only in Iraq but in every theater of conflict to which Americans have responded.

But as Senator Domenici told the Baltimore Sun yesterday, one of the senior Members of the United States Senate and a leader in the Republican Party, he said this: ``There is no reason to wait . . . I am trying to tell the President that he must change his ways because there is nothing positive happening.''

That is not a Democratic Member of the Senate speaking, that is a senior Republican leader saying there is no reason to wait.

This bill is on this floor this day because there is no reason to wait. Hopefully this body will overwhelmingly respond to the will and focus of the American people, which are pleading for a change in strategy, a new direction, a policy of success against terrorists, and ensuring the safety of our Nation and its people. Let's change our strategy and demand that the Iraqis step up and be responsible for their country.

Our presence there, General Casey observed, has been undermining their taking responsibility, not enhancing it. Let's be responsibly redeploying our troops. And let's focus our resources and efforts on disrupting and destroying the terrorist networks that threaten our national security. This legislation allows us to accomplish that mission.

I urge my colleagues, for this body, for their constituents, for this country, and for our troops, pass this legislation.

I thank my friend.

I first would announce, notwithstanding the requests of almost every Member in the House and over their vigorous objection, we're not going to be meeting tomorrow. You know that.

But we will come back on Monday, and the House will meet at 12:30 for morning hour business, 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes rolled until 6:30 p.m.

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.

In addition to several bills under suspension of the rules, a list of those bills will be, as is the practice, announced by the close of business tomorrow, we expect to complete consideration of the fiscal year 2008 Energy and Water Development appropriations bill and the fiscal year 2008 Labor, HHS and Education appropriations bill. Again, to the great disappointment of the Members, there will be no votes on Friday.

I thank my friend for yielding. And I want to tell the gentleman it's possible that there will be a vote on some facet of our policy in Iraq next week. I don't know when that would be, and I don't want to say that it will be, but it is possible.

I thank my friend for yielding. There may well be bills that we have already considered in committee and/or portions of bills that were considered in committee broken out of those bills and brought to the floor. That is a practice which, as you know, was not unheard of in previous Congresses, and that is possible.

Will my friend yield?

I thank the gentleman for his observation.

Of course, the bill that was on the floor was, while not exactly alike, very, very close to legislation we have considered at least twice on this floor, one of which we sent to the President. The President vetoed that legislation.

But with all due respect to my friend, I do not believe either the subject matter or the process that was set forth in that bill was unique and had not been contemplated by, frankly, every Member of the House. It was not the same bill. I understand that. But it was very much like it.

And my answer to your previous question was, there may be similar pieces of legislation which have been considered, either by committees or by the House, that may be brought up next week or the week after.

I think it is likely that we will go to conference on the 9/11 bill next week. They may link that up with another piece of legislation. But it is likely that we will go to conference next week.

We're obviously hopeful that we can move the lobbying and disclosure conference. The Senate has not agreed to go to conference at this point in time. We're hopeful that they will, so that is a possibility. There may be other conferences, but I don't think so for next week. I don't have any specific information on a conference. The WRDA bill is, I think, pretty close to being ready, but I don't have any specific information on that bill.

Will my friend yield?

Thank you. I understand the gentleman's concern about Iraq, but I want to say, first of all, that all of us understand on this floor that there is no issue which has the attention more than Iraq of the American people, number one.

Number two, the American people feel it is a critically important issue. Not only does it have their attention, but they think it's critically important.

And my friend will remember, I think, returning here, I received a call Saturday afternoon that we were going to have a session on Sunday. Many of our Members were overseas. But the issue was perceived as so important by the majority leader that he reconvened us, with the Speaker's participation, as you recall, on the following Sunday afternoon.

We voted on a bill that many felt was a very important bill that hadn't gone through a committee late that Sunday evening.

Many people in this country and on this side of the aisle and I think on your side of the aisle feel that Iraq is a critical issue. So I say with all respect, we do intend to continue to address this issue, and we hope the votes do change. If they don't change, they don't change. There is nothing we can do about that. But we can continue to focus on an issue we think is critically important.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Clearly that is one option that, as the gentleman indicates he has heard, is being discussed. No decision is being made on that yet. However, it is our intention and hope that we will have the energy bill on the floor from the 11 committees that have been considering energy legislation on the floor prior to the August break. The week of the 23rd is, I think, a target week, but we have not made that decision at this point in time. But we do hope that we will have the energy bill on the floor prior to the August break.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 4 p.m. tomorrow, and further, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday, July 16, 2007, for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

I thank the chairman for yielding, and I want to congratulate the chairman. There is nobody in this body who has served longer with more focus on the quality of education, the access to higher education, and whether we're dealing with primary, secondary or higher education, more concern than George Miller of California, and I congratulate him on the service that he has given.

I also want to congratulate the ranking member, who himself has been an outspoken advocate of education quality in America.

Let me say, before I start my remarks, that I'm always interested to hear the comments of the ranking member of the Budget Committee and of the leader of the Republican Study Committee. I'm interested to hear their remarks because of course they have both said nine new entitlements. I was here with both of them for 3 hours one night, from 3 a.m. to 6 a.m. in the morning, and we enacted the largest entitlement that has been enacted since the 1960s, and we were told that was going to cost $395 billion by the administration. The administration did not tell us the truth, and they knew they were not telling us the truth. And the person who knew the truth was prohibited by the administration from giving us the truth on pain of being removed, a civil servant, not an administration appointee. He knew the cost of that program, as he projected it, was $524 billion, or $125 billion more than we were told on this floor. But it was told $395 billion additional entitlement.

Now the interesting thing is that Mr. Ryan and Mr. Hensarling both voted for that program. That program has a larger unfunded liability as of this day than Social Security. So I think the lecture on fiscal responsibility is, frankly, not well taken.

I would be glad to yield to my friend.

The gentleman, of course, is not on this floor lamenting

the creation of entitlements as is my friend from Texas, so I suggest your question is inappropriate because your concern is about entitlements. But you voted for an entitlement that was the largest entitlement passed on the floor of this House in four decades, about as long as I think the gentleman has been alive. I wish that I could say the same; unfortunately, I've been alive a lot longer than that. So I think the question begs the question, my friend.

But let me say about this landmark legislation, the College Cost Reduction of 2007 is yet another example of how this Democratic Congress is committed to moving our Nation in a new and better direction and working on behalf of the American people.

In short, this legislation will provide the single largest investment in college financial aid, and about $18 billion over the next 5 years. Now, that is about one-fifteenth of the mistake that was made in the entitlement that you supported, my friend. And it's the largest since the GI Bill was funded in 1944. The GI Bill was an entitlement. And very frankly, the Greatest Generation was worth investing in. And that investment has paid off 100 fold in the economy that this Greatest Generation built in America, and it will do so in this case as well. And it does so at no new cost to the American taxpayer by cutting excess subsidies paid by the Federal Government to lenders in the student loans industry. The administration suggested $16 billion. We're a little above that. So there is not a disagreement as to whether or not there is an overpayment here; it's a question of where you're going to put your money. In fact, it includes a $750 million, not a lot of money in the scheme of billions of dollars and trillions of dollars, reduction in the deficit.

A few months ago Bill Gates, the chairman and cofounder of the Microsoft Corporation and one of our Nation's great innovators, wrote in the Washington Post, ``If we, the United States, are to remain competitive, we need a workforce that consists of the world's brightest minds.'' That's what this bill seeks to enhance. Mr. Gates added, ``Education has always been the gateway to a better life in this country.''

Mr. Speaker, this legislation not only recognizes that education is a key to personal development, fulfillment and success, but also, and critically, a crucial factor in our national competitiveness, our continued prosperity, and yes, I suggest to all of my colleagues, our national security.

Simply stated, this legislation will make a college education more affordable for millions of students and their families. The fact is, college tuition today is exploding. Tuition at 4-year public colleges has grown by 35 percent in the last 5 years. Let me say in my State of Maryland, tuition cost has gone up 43 percent in the last 4 years. America cannot afford to shut people out of the access to college education if we're going to be successful in world markets in a flat world, as Tom Friedman refers to it. Too many students graduate with tremendous debt, and too many others simply don't go to college because they cannot afford it. To address this situation, this bill will increase the maximum Pell Grant scholarships by at least $500 over the next 5 years. That will not come close to what the Pell Grants initially, when they were adopted, replaced in tuition costs, about 70 percent. We're now down to 30 percent. When combined with other Pell scholarship increases proposed by Congress this year, the maximum Pell Grant will reach $4,900 in 2008, $5,200 in 2011, up from $4,050 in 2006. Notwithstanding, the President in 2000, in his campaign, said he was going to increase the Pell Grant very substantially. It doesn't happen.

The bill also will cut interest in half on subsidized student loans over the next 5 years, and it will guarantee that borrowers will not have to pay more than 15 percent of their discretionary income to loan repayments. In addition, this bill seeks to ensure highly qualified teachers in every classroom, a critical need in our Nation, by providing up-front tuition assistance to qualified students who commit to teaching in public schools in high-poverty communities or high-need areas. That is important for our country's ability to compete and to develop every mind in America. There is not a child to waste in America. We know that.

It encourages and rewards public service by providing loan forgiveness for first responders, law enforcement officers, firefighters, nurses and others. And it encourages landmark new investment, $500 million guaranteed over 5 years, for Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, and tribally controlled, native or predominantly black institutions.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a very significant and important step toward realizing the goal of making college affordable for every qualified student.

I want to congratulate Chairman Miller once more and the staff and all of the members of the committee and Mr. McKeon for the positive role, whatever position one might take for or against, the positive role that the committee has played. It is a historic investment in our people and our Nation. I urge every Member to strongly support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 500th anniversary of the first use of the word ``America''--a name that has come to symbolize liberty, opportunity and an unyielding hope for humanity.

In the 500 years that have passed since the word ``America'' was first used, the term has become more of a concept than a name--an idea that celebrates what is truly special about the world in which we live; a principle that defines what democracy, equality, freedom and unity are all about; and a goal that people all over the world have embraced since our country's inception.

We have come a long way since 1507--from a simple name on a map, to a moral, political and economic leader among nations. It gives me great pride to mark this 5th centenary of the name ``America,'' and to express my sincere hope that the next 500 years of our country's history provide just as many benefits to the people of the world as the last 500.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

First, I would like to congratulate Mr. Serrano. This is his first bill that he has brought to the floor and handled, and he has done it very well. I want to thank him.

I also want to congratulate my good friend, Ralph Regula. I had the great honor of serving for 6 years under his chairmanship of the Labor Health Committee of which I had the honor of serving. He did an outstanding job, he's done a good job with this bell as well. I thank him for facilitating consideration of this bill.

I will yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, at this time, however, I would like to mention a matter. I would have liked to ask for a unanimous consent. I will not ask for that unanimous consent because it has not been agreed to. And under our rules, I therefore am constrained to ask for the unanimous consent.

The Senate passed yesterday, by unanimous consent, without objection, obviously, by definition, the Transition Medical Assistance and Abstinence Education Program. That program is a program which provides for transitional medical assistance for those who transit from welfare to work. It's a very important program. It, unfortunately, expires on June 30. We will not

be here on June 30. This could have been passed, and I would hope would have been passed by unanimous consent. Unfortunately, that has not occurred, and therefore I will not be offering, as I said, such request.

I would say, however, that it will be our intention to offer this as soon as we return the first week that we're back. We believe this is very important to pass. And as a result, we will move it as quickly as we can.

I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the House of what I perceive to be the schedule for the coming balance of the week.

It is our intention to go until 1 o'clock tonight on debate only. We will roll votes. There will be no further votes. I've talked to the leadership on the other side. There will be no votes for the balance of the evening.

It is my expectation, barring some unforeseen action in conferences, that we will conclude this bill tomorrow, hopefully, with the consideration of all Members, relatively early, in the late afternoon. And that would conclude the week's business if we don't have any conference reports.

Now, I want to make it clear, should the unforeseen happen in the conference, there are a couple of conferences pending, if they move, that would change. I don't expect that to be the case, but I want everybody to understand that we do have some conferences that may go forward. I doubt that they would be in shape to come here, but if they did, that would change.

But presently, Mr. Speaker, I believe the schedule would be we go until 1 o'clock, debate amendments, offer amendments. Those amendments that called for votes would be rolled until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock. We would vote on those. And then we would complete the bill and be complete for the week and take leave for the July work period at that point in time.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

How did it get to be $8.8 trillion? When you took over, it was only at $5 trillion. How in heaven's name over the last 6 years could you possibly be so irresponsible to take it from $5.5 trillion to $8.8 trillion? I am amazed, shocked, chagrined, and saddened.