Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, today on the 22nd anniversary of its founding, I rise to offer legislation that would grant the Korean War Veterans Association a Federal Charter, enabling the Association to expand its mission and further its charitable and benevolent causes. The Association, comprised exclusively of Korean War veterans, has over 25,000 members and is one of the few such organizations of its size without a Federal Charter.

Being awarded such a charter will afford the Korean War Veterans Association the same status as other major veterans' organizations and allow it to participate as part of select committees with other congressionally chartered veterans and military groups. A Federal Charter--at no cost to the government--will also accelerate the Association's accreditation with the Department of Veterans Affairs, enabling its members to assist in processing veterans' claims.

More than 50 years have passed since the war-weary men and women who served in Korea returned home. Half a century later, history has revealed that the sacrifices made by these brave soldiers stemmed the expansion of communism and effectively contributed to a more peaceful world.

Granting this Federal Charter is a small expression of our appreciation for the extraordinary courage and sacrifice of our forces in Korea. This bipartisan legislation is an opportunity to express our gratitude and respect for our military, past and present, and to give Korean War veterans the long-awaited recognition they deserve to ensure that the ``forgotten war'' is forgotten no more.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my friend, Jack Valenti--a man whose prowess as a lobbyist for the movie industry was outshined only by the passion he brought to his work and the steadfast love he had for our country. Jack was a trusted Presidential advisor, a war hero, an author and a pioneer in the American industry.

As President of the Motion Picture Association of America, Jack was one of the most hardworking and dedicated advocates you would find anywhere on Capitol Hill. When he spoke, people listened--and by inventing the movie industry's rating system, he demonstrated just how vital America's business community can be in providing for the common good.

Jack was a consummate professional, a good friend, and someone that I will never forget. My deepest sympathies go out to his family and friends as we mark his passing and commemorate a life that meant so much to people all across this great land.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1281 to make it unlawful for anyone to disseminate false election-related information about an election in order to prevent another person from exercising the right to vote. I commend Chairman Conyers and Representative Emanuel for their leadership in bringing this critical bill to the floor.

The pernicious practices that H.R. 1281 would combat are not just academic to me. During the Maryland governor's race last year, there were numerous and substantiated reports of political operatives distributing false campaign materials on Election Day to confuse voters about the candidates, including endorsements they had allegedly received.

In recent elections in Maryland, including the 2006 elections, operatives have also spread false information about the time, place or manner of voting or qualifications for, or restrictions on, voting, or the political affiliations of candidates.

These grotesque practices are a direct assault on the most fundamental right of Americans: the right to vote and have that vote counted.

Over the past 40 years, tremendous progress has been made removing the most conspicuous obstacles and impediments to voting in order to guarantee that all Americans, regardless of their race or color, can vote. Unfortunately, there exists in our Nation a small but committed group of individuals who will sink to any low if they believe it will produce a victory. H.R. 1281 goes after these people, who are a disease on our democratic system.

I am hopeful that the House will overwhelming pass H.R. 1281 and send the message that deceptive campaign practices are un-American and anti- democratic.

Would the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Chairman, I wanted rise not to speak on the issue that gentleman just spoke so passionately about, but just to say a word about the two new leaders of this committee.

I have had opportunity of serving in this House for some period of time.

When I first came here, shortly thereafter, Vic Fazio, Congressman Fazio and Congressman Lewis, who is now the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, handled this responsibility that Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Zach Wamp are now handling. For almost at least a decade, Liz, I think they handled that responsibility. And they handled it in an absolutely bipartisan way to reflect the fact that 435 Members representing the 300 million people in this country care about this institution working well to their benefit, and to the benefit of our country.

I want to congratulate certainly Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who, in her third year, has become a cardinal, in large part because of her energy and her focus and her talent and her experience in the State Senate in Florida and the House in Florida, and what she brings to this institution. She is an institutionalist.

We are also fortunate with Zach Wamp from Tennessee, with whom I disagree from time to time and maybe a lot of times when we vote on substantive legislation, but who is a good friend of mine. We are blessed that the two of them are working on this bill.

I mentioned Liz Dawson, who has been, really, mothering this bill, I was going to say husbanding this bill, but for a very significant period of time, since she was a very young girl, and who cares a great deal about this institution. I want to thank her as well for her leadership.

But I think we ought to all feel fortunate that we have two people like Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Zach Wamp trying to make the accommodations for this institution to work well to represent our people. This is the people's House. To the extent that we have the resources to represent our people in a way that will reflect credit on this House and a positive result for our people, our country will be better. So I wanted to say that and congratulate Mr. Wamp and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Madam Chairman, I rise today to express concerns about GAO's response to GAO employees' petition for a union election, which was filed on May 8 of this year. As a legislative branch agency it is imperative that GAO conduct its labor relations in a manner that is a model for all Federal agencies.

I am particularly concerned by GAO's decision to challenge the eligibility of one-third of the employees covered by the union petition. GAO is asserting that these employees are not eligible for representation because they perform a supervisory role.

The facts of their employment status at GAO strongly suggests otherwise. If these employees are in fact determined to be supervisors, then they are supervisors in name only because they are prohibited from performing supervisory functions. Moreover, GAO would have a 1:3 ratio of supervisors to nonsupervisors. That would be one of the smallest ratios in any public or private organization.

I am deeply concerned that GAO's challenge is an attempt to delay balloting until the end of the year, one that will entail a considerable expenditure of resources that will only distract the agency from carrying out critical investigatory and oversight work for the U.S. Congress.

I strongly urge GAO to reconsider its challenge, which will be costly, undermine agency morale, and distract it from its mission.

Would the gentlelady yield?

It was my understanding you indicated this is the initiative of Speaker Hastert; am I accurate?

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

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

I want to reiterate that, as we did the other day. It will be 6 p.m. I would hope that the offices that are covering the floor, that they remind their Members 6 p.m. on Monday will be the votes. The congressional baseball game is at 7:30, and we want to give Members time to get to the game. It is a fun event and a collegial event, and we are going to accommodate that by accelerating by half an hour the votes on Monday at 6 p.m.

We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. A complete list of those bills will be announced later today.

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., and on Friday the House will meet at 9 a.m. We will consider the following fiscal year 2008 appropriations bills: Interior and Environment; Financial Services.

I will say to my friends that those two bills will be considered, and we will obviously, consistent, hopefully, with our agreement, try to enter into unanimous consent agreements in terms of the amendments and the timing of those amendments. And we will see how the balance of the schedule goes Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday.

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

The answer to that is yes. Again, we are going to complete those two bills at least. There may be some other legislative business. We don't know whether there will be conference reports. As you know, there is a conference on the 9/11 bill and some other conference reports on other items that may come forward. But the answer to your question, I think, is essentially yes. If we can complete the work that we have before us prior to Friday, there may not be a need to meet on Friday.

Lobbying disclosure is the other.

I really don't. But because I don't have a report, my speculation is that there is not anticipation that those conferences will be completed in time to consider conference reports next week. We don't have any report on that.

I am looking at the person who knows so much on my staff, Mr. Cogorno, to make sure that I am making a correct representation, but that is accurate.

Yes, there is. We had a lot of discussion about this. As Mr. Obey has represented, because of the reforms that have been adopted and the transparency that we want to effect, but also the certification that is necessary for the legitimacy of projects, the time frame necessary to do the State-Justice-Commerce was more than could be accomplished within the time frame that the staff had available. As you know, they had to deal with the Interior and the Financial Services as well. Science-State-Justice-Commerce was such that they simply could not get it done in time. Regrettably, therefore, it, too, as the other four bills, one of which was already scheduled for July, the defense appropriations bill, had to be moved to July.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, Madam Speaker.

It is our expectation that the first week back, which will be the week of July 9, I believe, Tuesday, the 10th, at 6:30 p.m., we will not have appropriation bills that week. There will be legislation that week, and we will give notice of that next week so that one can anticipate it for the week that we come back from the July break. But we do not expect appropriation bills to start until the following week, the week of July 16.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Yes. What I said was it is my expectation that at the end of next

week, there will be an announcement. The Speaker has made it very clear that this is a priority, energy independence, and addressing the issue of global warming is a priority item for our caucus and, therefore, for the Congress, and that we will be addressing what we intend to do in July prior to leaving here for the July break.

I don't know that it will be specific, but certainly it is our hope and belief that it will be the month of July.

That decision has not been made, but my thought would be it would come up in close proximity, whether before, just after, but it would be considered in very close time frame to the consideration of the other pieces of the energy legislation.

No. As I said, it is my expectation that we will have these bills on the floor in July.

And if I can, it has been somewhat complicated, as you can understand, by the fact that we now have four appropriation bills that we anticipated in June now scheduled for July. So to that degree, I want to be somewhat careful about what I represent, because we are still in the process of determining the scheduling of all of those bills.

July is the expectation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.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.

Mr. Speaker, I want to pay my respects, and I know the respects of all others in this House, to the nine Charleston, South Carolina, firefighters who lost their lives this week while fearlessly and courageously discharging their duties, and offer my condolences to the families and friends who lost loved ones in this great tragedy: Captain Billy Hutchinson, Captain Mike Benke, Captain Louis Mulkey, engineer Mark Kelsey, assistant engineer Brad Beaity, assistant engineer Michael French, firefighter James Drayton, firefighter Brandon Thomas and firefighter Melven Champaign. They made a commitment to one of our Nation's highest callings, a calling to service in the face of great danger, and a call to honor a tradition of heroes.

These fallen firefighters, Mr. Speaker, represented more than 100 years of service to the people they swore an oath to protect. And the dedication with which they lived their lives is something our Nation will not soon forget.

John Kennedy once said: ``The courage of life is often a less dramatic spectacle than the courage of a final moment, but it is no less a magnificent mixture of triumph and tragedy. A man does what he must, in spite of personal consequences, in spite of obstacles and dangers and pressures, and that is the basis of all morality,'' Kennedy concluded.

In their final moment, Mr. Speaker, these nine men taught us what true morality is really all about, a love and heartfelt concern for one's neighbors that provides the strength to rush into the breach while others are rushing from it, and a sense of responsibility that will not allow a man to stand idly at times when his help is most needed.

Today, Mr. Speaker, the thoughts and prayers of a grateful Nation are with the families and friends of these nine courageous men, firefighters, heroes. May their legacy of valor, gallantry, and service be something that lives on in our country forever.

Mr. Chairman, I have had conversations with Mr. Blunt and I have also had conversations with Mr. Obey, and I want to tell the Members of the House that it would be my intention if we complete this bill and we can complete the Legislative appropriations bill tonight in the next 5\1/2\ hours, then it would be my intention that we would not meet tomorrow.

I want all the Members to understand that we will complete the Legislative appropriations bill this week, but if we can complete both of those bills tonight, it would be my intention that we would not be meeting tomorrow.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding and I congratulate her for the work she has done.

First of all, this bill is $700 million below what the Republican President asked us to spend. All of this stuff about how we're the big spenders, when this bill is $700 million less than President Bush asked us to spend. Number one.

I have been in this House for 26 years. Eighteen of those years we have had Republican Presidents. During those 18 years, we have run up $4.5 trillion of deficit spending. One person in America can stop spending: a President. During those 26 years, a veto of a President that was vetoed because we spent too much money has never been overridden. Not once. $4.5 trillion of deficit spending under Ronald Reagan, George Bush I, and 6 years of George Bush II.

Now, Bill Clinton was President for 8 years during those 26 years that I have served. And we ended up with a $62.5 billion surplus in those 8 years. And perhaps if you come to this floor and say it enough, the big lie said over and over and over and over again, just like Frank Luntz wrote it for you, maybe the American public will believe it. Isn't it a shame, however, that Frank Luntz can't fix the figures in your budget document.

You have been in control, of course, for the last 6 years of everything. And guess what happened? We doubled the rate of spending from the Clinton administration to the last 6 years. Doubled it. And we, I can't know what the geometric figure is in terms of escalating the debt and going from a $5.6 trillion surplus which George Bush, President of the United States, said Bill Clinton left him, and you turned that into a $3 trillion deficit in 72 months. I daresay nobody in the history of the world has done that. Nobody in the history of the world has been that fiscally irresponsible. And for the large part you did it without a single Democratic vote. And you didn't need us to vote, because you were in control of everything.

And I sit there and listen to this, and I won't characterize it as my chairman characterized it, although I can't say that I come here and disagree with my chairman, but I won't characterize it. But honesty at some point in time has a virtue. You ought to try it. Just for a little bit.

Point of Order

My remarks are always addressed to the Chair, in case you need interpretation. Just assume that I am addressing the Chair.

Now, if any of my friends when they hear about me talking about irresponsibility would take that personally, understand that it is meant simply to be addressed to the Chair.

But if the shoe fits, put it on.

My friends, you have been a part for the last 6 years of the most fiscally irresponsible leadership in our history. The facts speak to that. Your budget book speaks to that. And what did you do, this family budget leadership group that we hear talking about? They jettisoned, they abandoned, they eliminated PAYGO provision which, by the way, was adopted in a bipartisan fashion in 1997 after we adopted it in 1990 in a bipartisan fashion. But you said, no, we can't live within PAYGO. That's too tight for us. Families might have to live in that, but we can't live in it.

So what did you do? You simply eliminated PAYGO. Well, we've reinstituted PAYGO, and our budget reaches balance. And we don't raise taxes. You like to say we raise taxes because, after all, Frank Luntz told you, Just say they're raising taxes. Doesn't matter whether it's true. The American public will believe it.

Ladies and gentlemen, this debate is designed to mislead the American public, because they don't read the budgets and the fine print. They perhaps do not remember that in 18 years, Republicans ran up $4.5 trillion of deficit spending while under Bill Clinton's administration we created a $62.5 billion net surplus with 4 years of surplus, the first time that has happened in the lifetime of anybody in this Chamber.

So I say to my friends that we can debate the substance of this bill, which is $700 million less than your President asked us to spend. The gentlewoman from New York has brought a responsible bill to this floor. The problem with these across-the-board cuts and what Mr. Obey really meant, Mr. Chairman, is that it is simple to say cut across the board, because you don't have to make any decisions. You don't have to defend any premise. You just have to say cut 1 percent. And as was pointed out earlier by Mr. Israel, does that mean 1 percent in defense spending? Does that mean 1 percent in military financing? Where they purchase, by the way, weapons from the United States of America. Does it mean a 1 percent cut in salaries or administration of critical programs that might be small programs? You don't have to decide. It's so simple. One percent. Won't hurt anybody. Fine. Then say where you want to cut.

I was an appropriator for 25 years and I don't like the across-the- board cuts because they are simplistic, imprecise, and cut the good with the bad. May there be bad in this bill? There may be. Offer an amendment to cut the bad and let's debate that, whether it's good or bad.

So, my friends, don't talk to me about fiscal responsibility. I've been here too long and I know too many of the facts. You cannot fool me. You can fool some of the people some of the time. You didn't fool them last November. And I don't think you're going to fool them in the future.

This is a responsible bill. If you don't like some portions of it, we've had 50-plus amendments for you to strike certain portions of it. But don't come to the floor and pontificate on fiscal responsibility. And, by the way, my friend, the government today is larger than the government when you inherited it.

Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 12 o'clock and 33 minutes a.m.), the House adjourned until today, Friday, June 22, 2007, at 9 a.m.

Madam Speaker, since 2001, people across the globe have come together on June 20 to show their support for the millions of refugees throughout the world who have fled their homes for fear of persecution, imprisonment or even murder. On this sixth anniversary of World Refugee Day, we make a solemn pledge to these courageous and resilient people that their plight has not gone unnoticed and they do not stand alone.

In April, I led a congressional delegation to Sudan and saw, first- hand, the effects of one of the worst refugee crises facing our world today. In Darfur, I saw mothers and fathers struggling to provide for their children's most basic needs--necessities we often take for granted, such as food, water, clothing and shelter. I saw people fighting to overcome years of physical and mental abuse so severe that they would rather wander the desert than remain in the torturous environment their homeland had become. And I saw things that made me wonder how the world could stand silent while suffering of this magnitude continued.

With more than 686,000 refugees, Sudan is now ranked as the third largest refugee crisis in the world, according to the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees, falling behind Iraq, where sectarian violence has created 1.5 million refugees--1.2 million fled the country in 2006 alone--and Afghanistan with 2.1 million. And it comes as no surprise that Sudan, Iraq and Afghanistan now also rank first, second and eighth, respectively, on the Foreign Policy Index on Failed States, which was released on Tuesday.

When people are forced to flee from their homes, they leave behind more than just material possessions; they often must trade their dignity, self-respect and hopes for the future for their very survival. And it is not just the refugees themselves that suffer. The instability and mortal dangers that create refugee crises threaten the safety and security of entire regions, if not the entire world.

On this World Refugee Day, I am proud to join with the defenders of human rights who are calling on each of us to not only acknowledge the tragedies suffered by refugees across the globe, but who are also challenging us to step up and do something about it.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my constituent, Mrs. Sally Morin, who will be retiring after 20 years of dedicated service to the Anne Arundel County Public Schools System.

Sally Morin started her career with the school system on July 7, 1987, at Germantown Elementary in Annapolis, MD. She will complete her time with the system at Lothian Elementary School. Throughout her career, every principal for whom she has worked has noted her dedication, skills, and loyalty. They have also witnessed her magnificent ability to relate to all members of the school community-- administrators, teachers, staff, parents, and, importantly, students.

While balancing a career with raising a family, Sally also went the extra mile and has been a very active member of her community. With her husband Maury and daughters, Lauri and Jeri, Sally opened her home to numerous Naval Academy midshipmen--offering a welcome respite from the rigorous coursework and intense training that these able young men and women experience at the academy. The Morin family also have been active members of their church and have been vigorous supporters of the construction of a new church building.

In retirement, Sally and Maury have decided to move to Delaware. While this naturally saddens their friends and neighbors in Anne Arundel County, I know that I join with them in wishing the Morins a very long and rewarding retirement.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to make Members aware now, so you have significant notice, in a full Chamber and very long in advance, that when the Committee rises, I intend to ask unanimous consent in the House that even the first vote in a series be a 5-minute vote, the first vote in a series.

I've not had an opportunity to discuss this. I wanted to give notice, and I will be discussing it with the leadership. Hopefully, they will agree. We have a lot of votes. I know Members want to get out of here today. We have the MILCON bill yet to come.

For example, on a possible motion to recommit, we're going to ask unanimous consent that that be a 5-minute vote, and there seems to be some enthusiasm for that. So, talk to all of our colleagues about not objecting to that unanimous consent.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Carter

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent

(1) That during all proceedings today on H.R. 2642, the Military Construction bill, the Chair be authorized to reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any question that otherwise could be subjected to 5-minute voting under clause 8 or 9 of rule XX or under clause 6 of rule XVIII; and

(2) That during proceedings in the House today on both H.R. 2638 and H.R. 2642, the Chair be authorized to reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on even the first vote in a series.

Mr. Speaker, by this order I am proposing that the first vote in any series in the Committee of the Whole will be, as usual, a 15-minute vote; that the first vote in a series back in the House after concluding business in the Committee of the Whole may be, and we expect will be, a 5-minute vote; and that subsequent votes in any series and in either setting may be 2-minute votes.

Mr. Speaker, I hope my recitation of the schedule for next week is a little more accurate than my recitation of the schedule last week, which had a little bit of a problem getting done.

In any event, my distinguished friend, on Monday the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour business and then at 2 p.m. for legislative business. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. A complete list of those bills will be announced later today.

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., and on Friday the House will meet at 9 a.m. We will consider the following fiscal year 2008 appropriations bills: Energy and Water Development; State, Foreign Operations; and the Legislative Branch bill.

In addition to that, in the week following, I am waiting for it to be written up for me, but I know Financial Services we hope to have up on the last week of the session; the Commerce, Justice, Science bill and the Interior bill in the last week; and then in July, the week we get back, which is the second full week of July, we expect to have the Labor-Health bill, the Agriculture bill and the Transportation-HUD bill.

In addition, after that, we will have the Defense appropriations bill as we had always planned to have that, approximately mid-July.

I want to tell my friend that obviously the three bills that are scheduled for the second week in July may slip to the third week in July because of the difficulty of getting together all of the projects that will be added to the bills as a result of Members' initiatives and the committee's action. But whether it is the second week in July or the third week in July, they will be in mid-July sometime.

If the gentleman will yield further, yes, the Energy and Water bill, again because of the numbers of projects in Members' districts that are very important to them and, I think, to the country, but will take time to vet properly to make sure that they are justified and to check with the agency, those projects are going to be added after we consider the Energy and Water bill, which is scheduled for next week.

But before the Energy and Water bill is sent to the Senate, we will have those add-ons added to another appropriation bill that will come to the floor and will be, therefore, subject to Members' actions on each and every one of the legislatively added provisions. When that bill passes, those provisions will then be added to the Energy and Water bill and then, and only then, sent to the Senate.

If the gentleman will yield further, let me be precise.

Let me be precise so there won't be any misunderstanding. I am not sure, but I think your rule dealt with more than appropriations conference reports. I may not be correct on that.

But in any event, the rule that will be offered Monday night, hopefully by unanimous consent, will be a rule that will say that a point of order will lie to a conference report from the appropriations conference which has added a project that was not listed in either the House consideration or the Senate consideration, and that point of order would have 10 minutes of debate on either side, 10 minutes for those in opposition to allowing the conference committee report to be considered, and 10 minutes for the proponents of the conference committee report being considered, effectively adding a third to the hour.

So it would be an hour and 20 minutes of debate rather than just an hour.

Obviously if the point of order is sustained, then the conference committee with the add-on or add-ons would be referred back to the conference committee.

If the gentleman would yield, obviously the gentleman is correct. There has been a change in the July schedule in part because of the moving of three of the appropriations bills to July. So they will not be considered in June. It was always the intent, however, that there would be an announcement prior to July 4 of component parts of an energy policy, not necessarily one bill but an energy policy prior to July 4. We always contemplated energy bills being on the floor in July. As far as I know, that is still the plan.

That is correct.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and not with precision in the sense of weeks or months or days, I mean. Obviously as the gentleman knows, Chairman Rangel and Chairman Levin of the subcommittee is working very closely with Ambassador Schwab and Secretary Paulson and the administration on these issues.

They have reached an understanding and that is moving forward, I believe, but I could not tell the gentleman at this time what will be scheduled or when it will be scheduled. As the gentleman well knows, there is discussion with reference to Peru and Panama and actions that may be taken in Peru or Panama, and that is being discussed, as a matter of fact, I think today between Ambassador Schwab and Mr. Rangel and others.

Clearly I think things are moving forward on that, but I cannot give the gentleman any time frames.