Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart as we mark the passing of a man that meant a great deal to the State of California and our Nation as a whole. Armed with nothing more than a $5,900 investment and a winemaking pamphlet from the public library, Ernest Gallo--along with his brother, Julio--created one of the world's largest wineries out of a small family-owned business, employed thousands of hard-working Americans over the years, and revolutionized the way the wine industry operates in the United States.

And while his role as co-founder of the Gallo Winery may be his claim to fame, Ernest Gallo was also a generous philanthropist who willingly answered the call when his community needed him most. Ernest created an endowment at the Gallo Center for the Arts in Modesto, CA. He established the Ernest Gallo Clinic and Research Center at the University of California at San Francisco. And those are just two examples of his strong support for educational and health-related endeavors the world over.

Ernest Gallo was the personification of the American Dream--a self- made man who transformed his personal business successes into tangible public benefits that enhanced the lives of countless Americans. And I would like to extend my most heartfelt condolences to the family and friends of Ernest Gallo as we mourn his loss.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the fifth centenary of the word ``America''--a name that has become

synonymous with opportunity, equality, freedom and hope.

On April 25, 1507, German cartographer Martin Waldseemueller and Vautran Ludd, Chaplain to the Duke of Lorraine, created a map that gave the name ``America'' to the new world discovered by Christopher Columbus 15 years earlier. According to historical accounts, the name was a tribute to Amerigo Vespucci, a Florentine navigator who made 4 voyages to the new world between 1497 and 1504.

Waldseemueller and Ludd published 1,000 copies of the map that first coined the term ``America,'' and I am proud to say that the only surviving copy--a priceless relic of our shared heritage--now resides in the Library of Congress, after being purchased in 2003 from the German Prince Waldburg-Wolfegg for $10 million.

In the 500 years that have passed since the word ``America'' was first used, the term has become more of an idea than a name--a concept that celebrates what is best about humanity; a principle that defines what liberty, justice and unity are really all about; and a goal for the people of the world to strive towards.

We have come a long way over the last half-millennium--from a name on a piece of paper to a moral, political and economic leader among nations. And it gives me great pride to mark this momentous occasion on the House Floor and to join people all over the world in celebrating the fifth centenary of the word ``America''--a notion that now means so much to so many people from all walks of life.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise to join him in thanking Paul Hays for the extraordinary service he has given to this institution.

Our reading clerk, Paul Hays, who after 19 years in this position as reading clerk and, as has been noted by the distinguished minority leader, 41 years as an employee of this House, has announced he will retire effective Monday, April 30, and begin a new phase of his life.

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, Paul Hays, with his deep, crisp, commanding voice is perhaps most recognized to our viewers on C-SPAN, perhaps more than many of the rest of us, because he is here all the time and that voice is heard and his visage is seen.

It has been a privilege, I know, for him to serve here, but as I have noted on other occasions when other members of the desk have retired, they serve our country as well as those who have been elected to serve, and we appreciate their service.

Since 1789, the House has employed reading clerks, who are responsible for reading aloud, obviously, the text of bills, amendments, motions, messages, special rules and other privileged resolutions and veto messages. Our reading clerks almost always, almost always, have been appointed from the ranks of existing House employees who have extensive prior floor experience. Paul was one of those.

Paul, a graduate of Georgetown University, is no exception. In fact, Paul was appointed reading clerk in 1988 by one of the most distinguished persons with whom I have served, one of the most decent Americans that has served in this House, the distinguished minority leader, Bob Michel.

It is no coincidence, Mr. Speaker, that given his speaking talents, Paul, as I understand it, intends to do voiceover work in the future.

Now, Paul, we want you to be very discriminating in what voiceovers you do. There may be a lot of requests. We want you to know how nice we are being to you today.

Paul, I want to thank you. I want to thank you for your service to this institution and to our country. As you go from this phase of your very successful life into the next successful phase of your life, not only do we thank you, but we wish you well.

[Applause, the Members rising.]

I thank my friend, Mr. Blunt, for yielding.

On Monday, the House will meet at 12 noon in pro forma session. No legislative business.

On Tuesday the House will meet at 10:30 for morning hour business and noon for legislative business. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. A complete list of those bills will be made available by the close of business tomorrow.

On Wednesday and Thursday the House will meet at 10 a.m.

On Friday no votes are expected, assuming we complete our business scheduled for Wednesday and Thursday.

We'll consider H.R. 1429, the Head Start reauthorization bill; H.R. 1867, the National Science Foundation reauthorization bill; H.R. 1868, the NIST reauthorization bill; and H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement and Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

Votes could occur as early as 12 noon. It will be a full day. Even though we are not here Monday, usually you're in 6:30 the next day. But because of the shortness of the week, we will be in, as I indicated, at 10:30 a.m. for morning hour and then 12 for business. There could be votes as early as 12 noon.

The answer is I have not talked to Rules Committee Chairman

Slaughter about the specific nature of those rules. But, as you know, the Rules Committee is scheduled to meet on the Head Start bill and two science bills on Tuesday, and they will do the rules then.

We'll do the hate crimes bill rule later in the week, probably Wednesday, for consideration on Thursday.

But I understand the gentleman's observation that there was significant debate on both these bills. There are issues that a number of people want to raise on the floor, and I would think that the committee would want to try to make in order some amendments to accomplish that objective.

Obviously, to some degree, that is dependent upon how quickly the President acts. Obviously, he has a number of days to act. But our presumption is he will act soon. And one of the reasons that we have put the time of 12 noon, I mean, it depends upon how early in the day he vetoes that bill. We may have it back here very soon. I talked to the majority leader in the Senate just an hour ago. It's his expectation that that vote will occur today. It's our expectation that we will send the bill down either late Monday, obviously the funeral is occurring and people won't be here, or very, very early Tuesday so that the President will have it Tuesday. And then it will depend upon how soon the President acts. But it would be our expectation that we would act quickly on any action the President took if he vetoes the bill.

We, of course, as you know, are hopeful that he will sign the bill. We think it gives all the money for the troops that the President has asked for, and then some additional monies, and it does not either micromanage the troops or set any precipitous withdrawal dates. But obviously the President has expressed a contrary opinion.

So I think you're right; I think the expectation, based upon the President's representation, is that he is going to veto that bill if it comes to him, and we will have to consider that veto.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Of course, as you know, that bill was scheduled for consideration last week. We did not get to that bill. We took it off the calendar.

Let me find out.

I am not sure of the exact sequencing. But let me say this in answer to your question, because your question was really not necessarily about this specific bill, but about general process.

Clearly, we are trying to pursue a process which gives notice to Members about what they are going to consider.

As you noted, I hope, we waited the full 24 hours on the supplemental conference report so that Members will have the full 24 hours. And as a matter of fact, we were almost to the hour at 5:50 p.m. yesterday. And although there were some Members whom it had caused a problem to because of their schedules, we had said we were going to give 24 hours' notice, and we did give 24 hours' notice, and we want to continue to do that.

On the amending process, obviously, we are going to many times require that amendments be filed timely so that Members have an opportunity to see what amendments are going to be asked of the Rules Committee. But we will pursue what we believe to be, and hope in consultation with you, is a reasonable time frame to expect people to notice their amendments. Clearly, they have to be out of committee. Clearly, they have to have time to see the bill and prepare amendments. But we want to have amendments in many instances noted so that the membership can know what they are considering.

If the gentleman would yield.

Certainly we want to make a process where all Members on either side of the aisle have the opportunity to note their amendments in a fashion that does not put them in a place where it makes it very difficult for them. On the other hand, obviously, it is not just the floor that considers it. It is the Rules Committee that has to; so you have to consider when the Rules Committee is going to meet as well.

And although I appreciate the gentleman's observation about Fridays, I have heard a lot about what we can or cannot do on Fridays, I will tell my friend, or what we should be doing on Fridays.

But having said that, assuming a Member is working with his staff and/or the committee's staff or CRS in preparing his or her amendment, obviously if they get it ready and the Rules Committee is going to meet Monday or Tuesday, an expectation that it would be filed by close of business on Friday I don't think is unreasonable, even if we are not here on Fridays, because presumably their staff has been working with them on their amendment and

can make sure that amendment gets filed even if the Member is not physically present here.

Will my friend yield?

Because you said as long as the bill has been available at least a week before. I want to think about that timeframe. That was sort of an add-on in your comment. I don't want my silence to be perceived as, oh, yes, okay, that's a procedure we can follow. I am not sure we can follow that. But certainly the substance of your comment we do want to follow, and that is give Members a reasonable opportunity to prepare an amendment to a bill. Obviously they considered it in committee and they reported it out of committee, but there may be times, as you observed, when that doesn't happen and it goes more quickly.

I will try to be precise so that your response will be germane to my observations.

Let me say that with respect to the GSE bill, there has been a reference to another committee. That committee has not reported out that bill, so obviously we have to find out what it does.

On your general question, let me say it is my hope during the next 30 days prior to the Memorial Day break there will be a number of significant things we will do. We mentioned this coming week's work. We will start the appropriations process. I am hopeful that we will adopt a budget resolution conference report by that time. If we do not, as I indicated last week to you, it would be my hope that we would have the Appropriations Committee move ahead and mark bills to the House-passed level, as we have done in the past, and deem its passage.

I would hope that we would pass a number of appropriations bills in May. And as the gentleman also knows, as we have historically done, we will be considering the defense authorization bill in May.

So appropriation bills, the authorization bill. There will be some other pieces of legislation, but I expect them to be the major focus of the balance of time between now and when we take the Memorial Day break.

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

I thank my friend Mr. Ackerman for yielding, and I thank him for his leadership and commitment for decades to issues of human rights, humanitarian concerns, and peace.

I thank my friend Barbara Lee who has been such an extraordinary leader. She worked for a gentleman that is a great hero of mine, Ron Dellums, who, when he was on this floor raised his voice for peace, raised his voice on behalf of the dispossessed, raised his voice on behalf of those who were under attack. Barbara Lee has continued that very strong voice in representing that district. She is one of the experts in this House on issues relating to Africa, issues relating to AIDS, and on efforts to attain peace and securing this world for the citizens of this world.

I am also, Madam Speaker, very pleased to join my friend Chris Smith. I had the privilege of cochairing the Helsinki Commission with Mr. Smith for a number of years and serving with him for 15 years on the Helsinki Commission before I became the minority whip and took leave from the commission. I want to thank him. Not only in a collegial sense does he participate in these matters, but probably as much as any Member in this House of the 435 and the literally, probably, 2,000 that he and I have served with over the years has personally, individually, gone to some of the most troubled spots in the world. No publicity, no large delegation, no Air Force plane; I am going to speak briefly about the fact that we were able, but on his own.

He and Frank Wolf, two of our Members who have gone to people in trouble and at risk and taken their hand and heard their story and brought it back and exposed it to the light of day. I thank Mr. Smith for his leadership over the more than two decades, almost a quarter of a century that he and I have served together in this House.

This is a serious issue.

I want to congratulate Jerry Moran. Jerry Moran had not been on many codels or traveled. Barbara Lee came over to me as he was speaking and said he got the message.

That is why we travel. Sometimes the public thinks that traveling is just a junket. Going to Darfur is no junket. Living in Darfur is much worse.

When I determined that I was going to take a delegation overseas as my first trip as majority leader of this House, I thought that I wanted to go to someplace where it was important that we tell the world that we thought they ought to be paying attention to. The world has been paying attention to it, so many people have gone to Darfur. But we went to Darfur, 11 of us went to Darfur, myself, Barbara Lee from California, Jerry Moran from Kansas, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen as the ranking Republican on the Foreign Affairs Committee, Greg Meeks from New York, Brad Miller from North Carolina, G.K. Butterfield from North Carolina, Bob Goodlatte from Virginia, Ray LaHood from Illinois, John Barrow from Georgia, and Jim Costa from California. A delegation of Democrats and Republicans who, when the plane took off from Andrews Air Force Base, flew not as Republicans or Democrats, but flew as Americans, flew as Americans who were concerned about humanitarian distress.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from California, Congresswoman Lee, for her hard work in bringing this important bipartisan resolution to the floor this morning and for her dedicated leadership in focusing attention on the continuing genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan.

Jerry Moran is correct; all of us know that we talk about never forgetting, but never forgetting is not enough. Remembering is the first step, but acting is the absolutely essential step.

Since 2003, more than 400,000 people have been killed in Darfur, and an estimated 2\1/2\ million people have been displaced, mothers, sisters, brothers, old and feebled, sick.

Our delegation, as I know you have, Mr. Smith, Mr. Ackerman, I know you as well, have had the opportunity to visit in the camps, in the medical facilities, talked to the mothers, talked to the children. I talked to a grandmother who had been forced away from her home by somebody. Was it the government? Was it a rebel group? Was it simply a band of thieves and criminals? Whatever it was, she was homeless. Her family was dispossessed, and she had nowhere to go except a displaced person's camp. That calls out to us to us in this House, it calls out to everybody in this globe to respond in a positive way to relieve that suffering.

The United Nations has identified the situation in Darfur as the worst current humanitarian and human rights crisis in the world. The United States calls it genocide.

Simply stated, the international community must not turn a blind eye to the suffering of innocents as has happened far too often throughout human history.

The international community's plaintive cry ``never again'' requires real collective action in Darfur now. There are people acting now, but they do not have enough help. This time we must prove that we mean it: Not now, never again.

House Concurrent Resolution 7 has 115 cosponsors on both sides of the aisle, and it is my hope that it will get 433, we have two Members who are no longer with us, 433 votes. This is an important step in this cause.

Congresswoman Lee's resolution calls on the League of Arab States to acknowledge the genocide in Darfur, to support and accept the United Nations peacekeepers as the best option to enforce a cease-fire, protect civilians, and ensure access for humanitarian workers, to work with the international community to bring about a lasting peace in Darfur.

In fact, Madam Speaker, during the recent bipartisan congressional delegation that I have spoken of to Sudan, a codel which included, as I said, Congresswoman Lee and the others, we also went to Egypt. Egypt is one, of course, of the most important members of the arab League, the largest Arab state, an important member in the league. I have been told that President Mubarak, at our request when we met with him, followed up on his pledge to our delegation to reach out to Sudanese President Bashir who has, unfortunately and tragically, been part of the problem, not part of the solution, deemed by the international community as someone who has facilitated and, yes, even participated in the humanitarian crisis that exists. We urged his government and President Mubarak says that he has urged Bashir to accept and facilitate humanitarian workers' work, to make their visas acceptable, make their travel around the country easier. I also understand that Foreign Minister Gheit, with whom we met, is currently in Sudan, and it is my hope that he is delivering the same message that we spoke of.

Now is not the time to offer a full report of our codel; however, I do want to briefly highlight the five specific steps that I believe must be taken in Darfur without delay.

First, it is imperative that we continue to ensure humanitarian access in Darfur.

Second, the international community must insist that the Bashir government accept more peacekeeping troops.

Third, we must initiate a process by which a political solution between the warring factions can be reached.

Fourth, we must make a stronger effort to engage Sudan's neighbors in the peace process, which was what this resolution is designed to do.

And, fifth, we must work with the Sudanese Government to help forge a comprehensive plan for stability and reconstruction across the whole of the country. North Sudan was mentioned by my friend Bill Pascrell, as well as South Sudan which we visited.

Madam Speaker, I again want to thank Congresswoman Lee, Congressman Ackerman, Congressman Smith, and all of our colleagues for this effort today. They continue to focus on Darfur. I urge all of my colleagues to unanimously support this very important resolution, a call to action, a call to humanitarian relief.

Mr. Speaker, last summer, Hezbollah militants kidnapped two Israeli soldiers and instigated an armed conflict in which they indiscriminately fired thousands of rockets and mortar shells into Israel with the hope of inflicting as many civilian casualties as possible.

And what was most disturbing about Hezbollah's actions was not that they targeted innocent men, women, and children with their attacks--the world has come to expect such cowardly tactics from terrorist organizations that are dedicated to inflicting anguish and destruction.

Rather, it was the fact that Hezbollah embedded their equipment and bases of operations amid the Lebanese civilian population--effectively using them as ``human shields'' to protect them from retaliation.

This brutal exploitation of a civilian population--and others like it that take place all too often in areas controlled by Hezbollah and Hamas--stands in direct violation of international humanitarian law and laws of war during armed conflict.

Today, I am proud to join with my fellow Members of Congress in condemning the use of human shields in armed conflict--and I stand with all of the people of the world who understand that the role of a soldier is to protect civilians, not exploit them for security or political gain.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to tell the Members that tomorrow we have only one bill scheduled. That is H.R. 249. We will consider that bill. I am hopeful that we will complete that bill early afternoon.

On Monday, the funeral is being held for Congresswoman Millender- McDonald, and many of our Members on both sides of the aisle I know will be attending that funeral. We will have no business on Monday. Not only no votes, but there will be no business on Monday.

On Tuesday, you need to expect votes anytime after noon. So we plan to have a full day on Tuesday, not a 6:30 coming in here, but there will be no votes until noon on Tuesday.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is not cut and run. It's think and succeed. It's a good policy to try.

Mr. Speaker, tonight this House will adopt this reasonable conference report that fully funds our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and that responds to the will of the American people, who are demanding, demanding, that our Nation change course. I urge all of our Members here, on both sides of the aisle, to support this bill.

After the Senate passes this conference report and it is sent to the White House, I urge and implore the President to sign this bill, even though he seems determined to veto this legislation, thereby defying the will of the American people, 70 percent of whom disapprove of his handling of the war in Iraq.

I know there is not a Member in this body who does not pray for our success in Iraq and for the safe return of our brave servicemen and women who serve us there. However, we cannot ignore the facts. After the loss of more than 3,300 American soldiers and nearly 25,000 injured, and after the expenditure of more than $400 billion, which will be after the end of this fiscal year some $600 billion, on a war now in its fifth year, even President Bush and Secretary of Defense Gates acknowledge that our efforts are not succeeding.

The Defense Department has concluded that the situation in Iraq is ``properly descriptive of a civil war.'' The Army Chief of Staff has issued warnings about the effect of the war on America's overall military readiness. And the Iraq Government has failed to meet political goals, such as reversing debaathification, drafting a plan for national reconciliation and disbanding militias, all of which are essential if we are to reach a political solution, as General Petraeus says is necessary.

In fact, last week, six ministers loyal to Muqtada al Sadr withdrew from the Iraqi Government, imperiling the chances of political resolution, which General Petraeus, as I said, says is imperative because, quoting again General Petraeus, ``There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq.'' General Petraeus: ``There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq.''

Meanwhile, the violence in Iraq continues. In just the last 2 weeks, a suicide attack inside the Iraqi Parliament killed eight, and spectacular car bombs, which occur almost daily, have killed hundreds.

Thus, Mr. Speaker, the question before the Members again today is this: Will we change direction in Iraq, or will we continue to stay the course with a failing policy? That is the question before this House tonight.

The answer, I think, is clear. After 4 years of rubber-stamping this administration's failed policy, not a service to the American people, this Congress must insist on accountability and a new direction. As the Speaker has said, more blank checks from this Congress would constitute an abdication of our responsibility and of our duty.

In short, this conference report protects our troops, requiring deployments to adhere to existing Defense Department standards. Mr. Murtha has not adopted these standards, nor has Mr. Obey, nor have any of us on this side of the aisle. These are Defense Department standards for training, acquiring equipment and armor, while allowing the President to waive those standards that are the Defense Department standards if, in his judgment, national security requires it. How much

more responsible a position can we take?

The conference report holds the Iraqi Government accountable. I think that reflects the sentiments of the American people, who believe that the Iraqis need to step up and take responsibility. What Secretary Gates said was if we do not have a consequence of not taking responsibility, they will not do it.

In fact, even if Mr. Maliki wants to do it, he will not be able to get the disparate factions in Iraq to do it, unless they feel a necessity to do it. We've seen that here in this Congress. That's democracy at work. So this is an assistance to the Iraqi Government to bring people together, because it says if you don't, there is a consequence. The American public supports that alternative.

And it includes a responsible strategy for a phased redeployment of U.S. forces and refocuses, refocuses our efforts on fighting al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. There is nobody in this Congress who does not want to nor is not committed to confronting and defeating terrorism. No one should be misled by the false claims of those who argue that we must follow the same failing stay-the-course strategy. This bill does not constitute capitulation or micromanaging this war.

This may sound harsh, but had somebody told Custer that you are not supporting the troops unless you leave them here, they would have been wrong. As retired General Paul Eaton, who was in charge of training the Iraqi military in 2003 and 2004 recently stated, ``This bill gives General Petraeus great leverage for moving the Iraqi Government down the more disciplined path laid out by the Iraq Study Group. The real audience for the timeline language is Prime Minister Maliki,'' as I have said, ``and the elected Government of Iraq.'' So concluded Paul Eaton, the general in charge of training Iraqis in 2003 and 2004.

Mr. Speaker, the American people want and deserve a Congress that holds the Iraqis accountable for making progress. The American people are paying a steep price; our children are paying a steep price for this war. They haven't been given the bill yet, but they will be. And our young men and women, and not so young men and women, are paying with their lives, with their limbs, and with their health.

The American people want and deserve, as I have said, a Congress that holds the Iraqis accountable, that holds the administration accountable for implementing a policy designed to succeed. This conference report gives us that opportunity.

I urge all of my colleagues, on every side of the aisle, from whatever party, support this conference report. I urge the President, when we pass this conference report, when the Senate passes it and we send it to the President, sign this conference report. It fully funds our troops, it does not micromanage the war, it tells the Iraqis we expect accountability; because if they take accountability, our troops will be safer, our country will be better off and Iraq will be on the path to democracy that we hope for her and pray for her.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with deep sadness that I rise today to note the passing of our colleague and friend, Congresswoman Juanita Millender-McDonald, a dedicated public servant who worked tirelessly on behalf of her constituents in California's 37th Congressional District and a devoted representative who cared deeply for those she served.

Congresswoman Millender-McDonald was someone who never allowed the conventions of her surroundings to define the role she would play. Because she understood that education would unlock her budding potential as a community leader, Juanita achieved something extraordinary by earning a bachelor's degree from Redlands University at the age of 40, and a master's degree from California State University at the age of 47.

Because she recognized her duty to give back just a little of what she had learned, Juanita made our children's future her life's work by teaching math and English in the Los Angeles Unified School District.

Because she could not sit idly by when she had much to offer, Juanita turned to public service in 1990, becoming the first African American woman to serve on the Carson city council, the first African American woman to chair two committees in the California State assembly, and the first African American woman to chair a full committee in the U.S. Congress.

And because she never let go of her abiding faith in the fact that our tomorrows can be better than our todays, Juanita will be remembered, remembered as a leader who inspired action, drove progress and labored diligently to improve the lives of people throughout our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, the advocates of equal rights for women and minorities have lost a powerful voice in the U.S. Congress, one that always sought to bring people together by elevating the bonds that unite us as Americans and as human beings. Children and the working poor have lost a compassionate

ally. Men and women seeking to participate in their own governance have lost a steadfast guardian of voting rights who fought to expand the reach of democracy, not only in spirit but in practice as well. And defenders of human rights have lost a champion of their cause who never missed an opportunity to remind the free world of its obligation to help alleviate suffering and restore fundamental human dignity to those who have gone without it for far too long, such as those suffering in Darfur. Juanita Millender-McDonald personified what it means to serve others before serving self.

Mr. Speaker, I want Juanita's husband, James, and her children and grandchildren to know that the thoughts and prayers of a grateful Nation are with them as they mourn their loss. We join them in their mourning but we also join them in their joy of a life well-lived.

I thank the gentleman 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. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. There will be no votes before 6:30 p.m.

On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning hour business and at noon for legislative business. We will consider additional bills under suspension of the rules. A complete list of those bills, Mr. Speaker, will be available by the end of business today. We will also expect to consider H.R. 362, the 10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds Science and Math Scholarship Act; and H.R. 363, Sowing the Seeds through Science and Engineering Research Act.

On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. on both those days. On Friday, no votes are expected, and Friday is not scheduled at this date. We will consider H.R. 1332, the Small Business Lending Improvements Act; and H.R. 249, a bill to restore the prohibition on the commercial sale and slaughter of wild free-roaming horses and burros.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Of course, as he knows, it was only 38 days ago that the President made his last request for an addition to the supplemental, and 94 days sounds like longer than I think it has been. But notwithstanding that, we do expect the supplemental to be on the floor next week. That is our expectation. If things go as we hope, the supplemental will be on the floor, and, hopefully, we can get that to the President either very late next week or no later than a week from this coming Monday. We think that is important.

As you know, you and I and others were down at the White House to discuss whether there was room for agreement and accommodation on this issue. We are still having those discussions, as you know, and we are hopeful that that can be reached.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his question. And, frankly, I don't want to anticipate what the conferees are going to do, having been appointed just last night. There was a vote on the House floor. Frankly, the vote would have had no effect whether it passed or

failed in light of the fact that it instructed the House to do what it had already done. So if it had failed, presumably the House was going to be in the same position that it otherwise would have been in.

But notwithstanding that, I don't want to anticipate what the conferees are going to do in light of the fact that they have just been appointed, but I do know that the chairmen of the conference on both sides, House and Senate, want to see this matter resolved quickly, sent to the President, would want to see the troops funded. We were very pleased to see the Department of Defense make it very clear, as, frankly, General Speer and General Ward made clear to me in Europe, that funding is available and will be able to be accommodated through June.

As the gentleman knows, last year when the President made a request for a supplemental, that was not passed until mid-June, that supplemental. So I was pleased to see the Department of Defense indicate that that would be okay. It is not perfect. That is not what they would choose, but, in any event, through the month of June. We hope to get this work done long before that.

Obviously, we are very hopeful that we will pass a budget, that we will pass a budget in a timely fashion. As you know, we did pass a budget through the House in a timely fashion. The Senate passed its budget. It is now in conference.

Because of the April break, Easter-Passover break, we have not reached the April 15th. As a matter of fact, I talked to Mr. Conrad just an hour ago, I talked to Mr. Spratt just an hour ago, and we are very hopeful that we will come to an agreement.

I would observe, of course, last year the disagreement was between the Republican leadership in the Senate and the Republican leadership in the House. I understand what the gentleman is saying. Some of the votes in the Senate were overwhelming and bipartisan in terms of some of these issues. So this is an issue that we've got to overcome. We hope we can overcome it and move the budget.

But I want to tell the gentleman, he is absolutely correct. I am very focused. Mr. Obey is very focused. We are going to pass appropriation bills in a timely fashion. We hope to finish by the 30th of June. Very frankly, the more quickly we can move appropriation bills, perhaps the more flexibility we will have in June's schedule. But as you know, June now is scheduled for every Monday and every Friday meeting to effect that business, which is critical.

As the gentleman knows, we met last year for the full year. We left here in December and nine of the 11 appropriation bills were unpassed. We don't want to be in that position. The gentleman knows, and I know, that part of that problem was the Senate's inability to move its business as quickly as we would like, as quickly as we did. The Labor- Health bill, of course, never passed this floor last year, but we are hopeful that that will happen.

I will go over the schedule of the appropriations process with the gentleman at some point in time. We are hopeful that mid-May to the end of June we will pass our appropriation bills. I will tell the gentleman it will be my intention to discuss with both Chairman Spratt and Chairman Obey that if the budget process cannot be resolved, not in this House, but in the other House, that it would be my hope that the House would mark its bills to the House-passed number, as you know we have done in the past; and that would certainly be my intention.

Again, I have not discussed that with Mr. Obey at this point in time, that's premature, nor have I discussed it with others, but we are hopeful to move ahead on the appropriation bills.

As you know, passage of the budget has a much greater impact in the Senate than it does in the House with respect to the rules process under which appropriation bills are considered in the Senate.

Would the gentleman yield?

The gentleman and I have a slightly different perspective on what the rule provided.

First of all, as you know, motions to recommit were available in both of the bills that were on the floor. The tabling referred to that, if the second bill had not been adopted or the PAYGO provision had not been adopted, they would both be tabled. The reason for that was, we wanted to be consistent with our pledge to the PAYGO principle.

What we didn't want, what I don't want, and you and I have discussed this, is, I'm frankly ``perplexed,'' might be the word, as someone who has been in the legislative body for some 40 years; and I think the parliamentarians were accurate in their determination of germaneness, but germaneness has always meant to me in 40 years, I will tell my friend, that it is pertinent to the subject at hand.

You know that when you add a PAYGO provision, which frankly you abandoned on your side in 2002, you did not want to be constrained by PAYGO. I understand why you didn't want to be constrained by PAYGO because you couldn't pay for your tax cuts. You talked about spending. We've cut revenues very deeply. There were different philosophical arguments about that; but the fact is, they were not paid for, and as a result, the deficits have in large part expanded very greatly.

With respect to the rule, yes, the rule was structured in a way that limited to the subject matter at hand, whether it was the tax bill or the D.C. voting rights bill, motions to recommit to those subjects, as opposed to expanding to subjects that, frankly, from my perspective, are used for political purposes.

I will tell my friend that the motion last night and the motion on the previous D.C. bill had nothing to do with D.C. voting rights. And last night's bill had everything to do with trying to focus on our Members being targeted. And, in fact, the memorandum that you sent--not you, but somebody sent around to all of your Members expressed the purpose of your motion to recommit to target Members for political reasons, from my perspective.

In that context, if you are asking me if it is my intent in the future to try to limit you from doing that, the answer to that question is ``yes.'' If your question is, do I want to make sure that you have a motion to recommit with or without instructions, a motion to recommit, of course, kills the bill, as the motion to recommit to report back promptly kills the bill.

The irony is, the gentleman from North Carolina offered a motion to recommit the other day with respect to guns that related to the District of Columbia. Excuse me, I'm not sure it related directly to the District of Columbia, which would have had the perverse effect of offering the amendment and, if adopted, would have killed the amendment in the same process. That is because it was referring it back to committee. The committee would not have reported out that amendment.

If he had really been interested, in my opinion, in passing that amendment, as opposed to politically giving a vote that was difficult for Members on our side of the aisle, what he would have done is moved his gun amendment to be reported back forthwith and had his vote on that up or down.

But I will tell my friend, as he well knows, I want to make sure that from my perspective, and I have told him, I will not suggest a change in the rules, we did not change the rules, there was some discussion about that, without discussing it with him. I want your side to feel that you are getting a fair shot at relevant motions to recommit with or without amendments that do not kill the bill in the process. I don't think that is something that is unfair to expect.

Will the gentleman yield on that issue?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

We could go on for some period of time on this. We have a different perspective, not on providing fairness for all Members. I said the gentleman from North Carolina; it was the young gentleman from Texas, and I thank you for correcting me on that.

Frankly, I want to tell my friend that if the gentleman from Texas was sincere, in my view, in wanting his amendment adopted, he would not have rereferred it to committee. Very frankly, in my opinion, his amendment would have passed. The bill would have been reported back forthwith, and the bill would have passed.

We all make a judgment as to what the purposes of amendments are. My view is, the gentleman voted against the underlying bill. The gentleman was opposed to the underlying bill. His motion was to do two things: to provide

an instance where on an issue not related to voting rights in the District of Columbia, but on an issue he thought the majority of the House supported which, I think he was correct, he wanted attached to that, and therefore create a dichotomy for Members. They either had to vote for an issue they were for and kill the bill, or vote against an issue they were for and be perceived as being against the proposition.

I understand what you are saying. I do not believe that it is fair legislative process to necessarily believe that that needs to be made in order.

Now, having said that, we did not amend the rules. Consistent with the rules, we provided a process on PAYGO. You waived PAYGO on a regular basis when it was in effect. As a result of doing so, you narrowed the scope of amendments. Not only did you do that, but you also waived the necessity to pay for things from time to time.

But, having said that, I want to reiterate to my friend, and we have had good discussions and will continue to have good discussions, but I am not going to say that we are going to allow our Members to be put in very difficult positions for what we perceive to be for political reasons only, not for the substance. If the gentleman from Texas had wanted to amend the substance with the motion to recommit, he had that available to him and have it reported back forthwith so it could be adopted. He had that available to him. He chose not to take that route.

It caused us some consternation, as was noticed, I am sure by some, particularly to me, because I felt very strongly about that bill. The majority of this House has now passed that bill, with significant support from your side of the aisle. As a matter of fact, it was a bill sponsored by one of your leaders, a former chairman of your campaign committee.

We want to make sure that we consider legislation on this floor fairly, and we will certainly work with you toward that end. But I don't want to assure the gentleman that I am not going to try to provide for the consideration of legislation and amendments thereto which are germane and relevant.

If the gentleman will yield on that, you understood my phrase. It was my perception. I did not question his sincerity. But the perception of what he did, offering the amendment, and within the ambit of the same amendment he offered killing the bill to which the amendment would be attached, appeared to me to be an act that was at least contradictory.

I thank the gentleman for his observations. This has probably gone on longer than the Members or the public wants it to, but let me simply observe that waivers obviously relate to and PAYGO relates to entitlement spending, and while you may not have waived it with respect to spending, because PAYGO does not affect discretionary spending, what it affects, of course, is entitlement spending.

The reason it affected the D.C. bill was because the Member from Utah would have had to have been paid and would have been entitled to be paid. So a relatively de minimis sum was involved in that.

Frankly, the gentleman and I have a disagreement in terms of the rule that was used. First, the rules have not been amended. They have not been amended. Secondly, this rule was consistent with our rules.

The only thing that this rule did that I think caused so much consternation on your side was it adopted PAYGO without opening the bill up to what were amendments that were extraneous to the subject matter and offered the bill on its merits. You were free to offer a motion to recommit, with or without amendments, on the subject matter of the bills, either bill. That was your right then.

The tabling simply referred to making sure that we kept our promise that bills would have PAYGO on them, and if they didn't have PAYGO on them, we weren't interested in passing them, because we were going to be faithful to our pledge on that rule. That is what the tabling dealt with. It didn't deal with your motion to recommit.

If you had defeated H.R. 1906, the second bill with the PAYGO provision, H.R. 1905 would not have gone forward. But our side of the aisle believed that both were important and wanted them together because we wanted the PAYGO provision in there, a relatively de minimis sum in terms of the budget, but consistent with our rule.

If I can make another observation on another matter, you mentioned the supplemental had been pending 94 days. It has been pending 73 days. I think that is an important distinction. That is almost a month of legislative work, if not more.

I am sure.

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, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's observation, but as you know, I schedule legislation for the floor in my capacity as the majority leader.

May I ask my friend, if this came to the floor as a constitutional amendment, would my friend be supportive of that constitutional amendment?

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a critical step in support of democracy. This legislation is important legislation. The District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act is designed to do one thing, to address and rectify the unjustified disenfranchisement of more than 500,000 citizens of our country, whose only distinction between any of us who sit on this floor, other than the distinguished representative of the District of Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton, is that they live in a few square miles designated by their country, gifted by the State of Maryland, as our Nation's capital.

Since 1801, when Washington, D.C., became this Nation's capital, the citizens of the District of Columbia have not had representation in the Congress. Let me speak briefly of that, because although I have not heard all of the debate, I am sure the Constitution has been referenced that Representatives shall represent citizens of the several States.

Let there be no mistake, every resident of the District of Columbia is a successor to citizens of the several States in 1800. I don't mean that every one of them is a direct descendant, obviously, but politically they were part of the several States, unlike all four others of the representatives who cannot vote. They are distinguished and discrete in that regard. That, I suggest to you, is wrong.

It is wrong as a matter of principle because District citizens pay Federal taxes, sit on juries, serve in our Armed Forces and give their lives for their country, as do other Americans who enjoy full representation in this body. It is wrong politically because District citizens since 1801 have effectively been a ward of Congress. Very frankly, I don't think the citizens of Maryland intended that or the citizens of any other State of the Union when they acquired the District of Columbia.

And it is wrong morally, because the United States of America, which has the freest, truest form of representative government perhaps in human history, deprives only one portion of its citizens, a small portion, 500,000 out of 300 million, deprives a small portion of its citizens of its very own capital a voice in the national legislature.

Let me add, the United States of America is the only representative democracy that does not afford the citizens of its capital voting representation. Thus, this is not only a national disgrace, but an international embarrassment, and the American people and Members here on both sides of the aisle recognize this injustice and want to remedy it. That is what this legislation is about.

In fact, 82 percent of respondents in a recent national poll indicated that residents of the District of Columbia should have representatives that can vote in the Congress. And I should note that legislation virtually identical to this bill was reported out of the Republican-controlled Government Reform Committee in the last Congress when the committee was chaired by Mr. Davis of Virginia, who is a cosponsor of this legislation. Mr. Jack Kemp, a former colleague of ours, a leader in this Congress, a vice presidential nominee of the Republican Party, has strongly urged the passage of this piece of legislation.

The truth is, the absence of representation in Congress for District citizens underscores the failure of the Congress to use the authority vested in it by the Constitution of the United States to correct this injustice. The authority I refer to, of course, is article I, section 8 of the Constitution, the so-called seat of government clause, under which, and I quote, ``The Congress shall have power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over the District of Columbia.''

Now, I asked my friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) who talked about needing to do this through a constitutional amendment, I said, would you support a constitutional amendment? He said ``no''; his view was, only if the District of Columbia were given back to Maryland and the District of Columbia residents were told, you are no longer residents of the District of Columbia, you are residents of Maryland.

I suggest if you ask the residents of Virginia or Delaware or Pennsylvania, which are contiguous States to our beloved State of Maryland, they would say, thank you, but no thanks. We like being Pennsylvanians or Delawarians or Virginians.

The District of Columbia residents are proud of their jurisdiction. They are proud of being citizens of the District of Columbia. What they want to have is full democratic representation.

Plain and simple, this sweeping language gives Congress extraordinary and plenary power over our Nation's capital city, including the authority to adopt legislation to enfranchise the District's 550,000 residents with a full vote in the House of Representatives.

I am not alone in my view of this article. Twenty-five legal scholars from law schools, and I am sure this has already been discussed by our distinguished chairman and the extraordinarily able Representative and outstanding lawyer and law professor who represents the District of Columbia, my good friend Eleanor Holmes Norton, have already pointed this out.

Even Kenneth Starr, a distinguished lawyer, I have disagreed with him pretty strongly on some things, but the former conservative jurist and current dean of Pepperdine Law School, has concluded that Congress has the authority under article I, section 8, to do this.

Now, do I delude myself that this is not going to be brought before a district court or a circuit court or the Supreme Court? No, I do not. That is appropriate. That is available to residents. They can do that, and the court will ultimately have to rule. However, this is an opportunity for us on this floor to make a stand for democracy, to extend to these 550,000 people the civility and respect we would expect for ourselves.

That Congress has for two centuries failed to use its authority to correct an injustice is no reason to persist in that failure today. It is always timely to do the right thing.

This institution exists, after all, to eliminate injustice and to make our Nation ``a more perfect Union.'' How much more perfect can we make the Union than to include all of our people as full citizens within that Union?

We, the Members of this House, must never, never be seduced into thinking there is no such thing as a settled injustice within our authority but beyond our duty to correct. For an injustice planted two centuries ago is just as harmful to what America aspires to be today as one planted last year or last week.

Mr. Chairman, as Frederick Douglass, who spent his final years just a few blocks from where I stand today, said, ``Man's greatness consists in his ability to do and the proper application of his powers to things needed to be done.''

We need to make the citizens of this Nation's capital full citizens of the United States of America.

I will certainly seek to enfranchise the citizens on a continuing basis until that is accomplished.

I believe this will be tested, as I said before. Many on your side of the aisle have indicated that. If that is the case, I would hope it would be expedited.

I believe this is constitutional, and I certainly think, based upon that conviction, I would hope the court would sustain that view.

Mr. Speaker, this is a serious matter. It is my understanding, I am now told, I have not seen your motion to recommit; I have no intention of supporting your motion to recommit.

This bill has a long way to go. I hope it passes this House, I hope it passes the Senate, I hope it passes the conference, and I hope the President signs it.

My response to you was a fair response. But the question was to get me on the record on your motion, apparently, and I will tell my friend from Virginia, who disagrees with my other friend from Virginia, Mr. Davis, on this issue, that I have every intention of opposing the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, am I not correct that by adoption of the rule, we ensured that 1905 will not pass through the door to the Senate without PAYGO being attached to it?

Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.

Am I correct that the interpretation of that language means that if the D.C. enfranchisement bill does not have PAYGO added to it, it will not pass this House?

I thank the Speaker for the clarification.