Floor Statements

I appreciate my friend's comment. Aren't you the party that said that taxes were going to be cut up until 2010 and then because of the rules they will go back into effect?

Will my friend yield?

If the gentleman will yield.

I thank the gentleman for his question. It is an important question. And the answer to that question is, absolutely. And I am glad that we have this opportunity to clear up any confusion. I want to assure the gentleman, and all Members of the House, that the District of Columbia Voting Rights Act will not violate PAYGO, period. The House just voted to approve the D.C. Voting Rights Act of 2007. We have now proceeded to consideration of H.R. 1906, which amends provisions of the Internal Revenue Code regarding estimated taxes to pay for all costs attendant within the D.C. House Voting Rights Act.

While those costs are de minimis, essentially about $1.6 million out of $27 trillion if there is no escalation in government revenues, notwithstanding that, we wanted to adhere to the PAYGO rule, as the gentleman from Indiana has stated and for which he has fought so hard and been a leader on. The rule provides that the text of H.R. 1906 will be incorporated into the D.C. Voting Rights Act when H.R. 1906 is passed; in other words, every Member who voted for the rule voted to honor PAYGO.

The Congressional Budget Office and the Budget Committee have certified that when the text of H.R. 1906 is incorporated into the bill and the bill is engrossed, the bill will comply with the PAYGO rule. The rule further provides that if either bill fails to pass, both bills will be tabled. In other words, if the bill providing the offset to ensure compliance with PAYGO is not added to the bill, the D.C. bill would be rejected.

This process guarantees that two important things will happen, first, that an unmitigated injustice, the denial of voting for the citizens of the District of Columbia, is considered on its merits and remedied; and secondly, that we abide by our commitment to PAYGO.

Again I state, the gentleman from Indiana has been an extraordinarily consistent and strong leader on behalf of that premise.

The House, in conclusion, will not send a bill that does not comply with the PAYGO rule as a result of the rule. And I commend those who voted for the rule to be consistent with our PAYGO pledge.

I thank the gentleman for his question.

You still get to the promised land.

Parliamentary Inquiry

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Let me first of all say at the outset that I agree with Mr. Murtha. We're not fighting this war. There's nobody in the Congress of the United States that's paying more taxes to pay for this war. There's nobody who's saving on metal to fight this war. There's nobody who's saving on rubber to fight this war. There's nobody whose gasoline is being rationed to fight this war. Our troops are fighting this war, their families are fighting this war, but this Nation is not at war.

There is nobody in this Congress, not one of the 435 Members of this Congress, who wants to lose this war. There is nobody in this House who does not want to defeat al Qaeda. Nobody. Everybody wants to protect this country. Nobody wants to lose another American. Everybody understands that the fight against terrorism will require risks. But, Mr. Speaker, this House deserves more than this game playing of offering motions that we are then going to vote against. In effect, this is a motion to reconsider the vote by which the previous bill was adopted. It couldn't be made now, but that is effectively what it is. And those who voted against that bill will vote against this motion. The public needs to understand that a serious motion could have been made here to change the policy, but that is not what was done. This is an attempt to try to politically get people in a vote that is going to be characterized as surrender.

Let me call my colleagues' attention to June 24, 1997. Our troops were deployed in Bosnia stopping genocide, seeing a dictator arrested and sent to The Hague and tried for genocide. He died before the trial was over. But let me call your attention to that vote, because that vote was about setting timelines. It was offered by Mr. Buyer, who is now the ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. Mr. Buyer offered that motion and we debated it. I was opposed to it. We hadn't lost a single troop in Bosnia, not one. We had spent a pittance compared to what we have spent here. We have lost

10 percent of the troops we have lost in the last 120 days.

Bob Gates said this policy was failing. He's our Secretary of Defense. Or let me put it this way: he didn't say that; he said we were not winning. That's a different way of saying it more accurately. I'm sorry.

But on June 24, 1997, that came to a vote about setting timelines on an effort that was extraordinarily successful, brought peace to the Balkans, or at least a lack of genocide, a lack of ethnic cleansing. But Mr. Buyer said we need to come home. We weren't losing troops, it wasn't costing us that much money, and we certainly were not losing.

On that timeline, Mr. Boehner voted ``yes,'' after 18 months in Bosnia. Not 4 years, 4 years and 1 month. After 18 months, you wanted to set a timeline. Mr. Boehner, your leader, voted ``yes.''

Mr. Blunt, your whip, voted ``yes.'' Mr. Hastert, your former Speaker, voted ``yes.'' Mr. Hunter, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, setting timelines, voted ``yes.'' Mr. Hyde, who was then chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, voted ``yes.'' Mr. Hoekstra, who spoke earlier tonight, voted ``yes'' on setting timelines.

And yes, let me remind Mr. Lewis, you voted ``yes.'' You voted ``yes'' on a timeline where we had lost no troops, where we had stopped genocide in its tracks, where we were not threatened with loss of life. All we were threatened with was coming home and not keeping the peace, keeping the stability, trying to make sure that we were successful.

I urge every one of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this Republican motion. They don't mean it, but to reiterate to the American public that we were serious, that we want to make sure, as Bob Gates has said and been quoted by Mr. Obey and others, this was a useful effort for us to make.

Why? Because what we want to do is make sure the Iraqis at least are fighting this war, making sure that the Iraqis meet the criteria and benchmarks set by whom? By President Bush, not by us. President George Bush, the Commander in Chief, said they need to meet these benchmarks. But if the message we send them is, we're there forever, why meet the benchmarks? Why put their people at risk? If we're all prepared to simply have our men and women at risk in lieu of Iraqi soldiers and police at risk? Why indeed?

We need to expect accountability and participation by those whose country it is. We deposed their dictator and declared some few months later that our mission was accomplished. Unfortunately, because of the flawed policies that were pursued, we have not yet succeeded.

I voted to give the President authority and I disagreed with the gentleman from Pennsylvania when he said in November of 2005, let's get out, not immediately, but consistent with the safety of our troops. But I agree with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Obey and the overwhelming majority of the American public, some 70 percent, who say it is time to let the Iraqis know that it is their fight, that we have supported them, we will train them, we will protect our troops on the ground, we will protect our diplomatic missions, and we will give them assistance in arms, but this is their fight now. We are there to help them, but it is their fight.

That's what this says, and it says 15 months from now, not tomorrow. To characterize this as any kind of a surrender is not honest debate, I suggest to you. Because if it is, then your June 24, 1997, which almost all of you voted for, was a cry for surrender. I didn't believe it then, don't believe it now. You had a difference of view as to what would best resolve the situation in Bosnia. Now the issue is Iraq.

My colleagues on my side of the aisle, we took a position with which the overwhelming majority of the American public agree. They are ahead of us on this. Let us once again sustain that position. Nobody on this side of the aisle was not being serious. Nobody on this side of the aisle did not give this very serious, thoughtful, prayerful consideration. And when you voted, you voted for America. When you voted, you voted for our troops. When you voted, you voted for success in our foreign policy and in our fight against terrorism.

Our friends on the other side of the aisle have offered a motion which they are not for. They could have offered, I suggest, some serious alternatives. They did not.

I urge my colleagues, vote ``yes,'' reaffirm the policy statement that we need a new direction in Iraq. Staying the course has not worked. Let's make a change. Vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I join all 434 of my colleagues in rising to express our sorrow, our regret, our sympathy, yes, and in some respects our outrage that this calamity has been visited on so many of our promising and wonderful young people.

Mr. Speaker, as a grieving Nation tries to comprehend the senseless, horrific violence on the campus of Virginia Tech University on Monday, the full scope of this tragedy is only now beginning to come to light. Thirty-two innocent people, 32 young people of promise, some people not so young who were at great risk and survived, 32 people were stolen from their families and friends at the hand of a deeply disturbed young man who ended the carnage by taking his own life. More than two dozen others were injured during this random, murderous rampage.

Today, a profoundly saddened Nation recognizes that these were not mere strangers, although we may not have known the victims personally. They were members of our national family and in so many ways they were a reflection of us. They were hope for the future. They were brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers who were so full of life, hope and promise for a better future, for themselves, their families, their country and indeed the world.

Those slain included a 20-year-old political science major from Dumont, New Jersey, who attended Virginia Tech on an Air Force scholarship; an 18-year-old freshman from Centreville, Virginia who distinguished herself in drama and on Virginia Tech's dance team; a 22- year-old senior from Martinez, Georgia who was majoring in psychology, biology and English and who served as a role model for many; a 76-year- old engineering professor and Holocaust survivor who survived one of the worst terrorists and despots the world has ever seen, Adolf Hitler, to come home and to teach young people, to make them better able to meet the future and to have that ability robbed from him by a senseless act. And so many others, Mr. Speaker.

We may never know the answer to the question ``Why?'' Why have so many loving, promising people been taken through such senseless violence? However, let us mourn their loss and extend our heartfelt condolences and sympathy to their families and to their friends and to their fellow students.

Today, our thoughts and prayers are also with those who have been injured as well as Virginia Tech's students, faculty and staff, alumni and the entire campus community as they endeavor to cope with this monumental tragedy. Let us remind them they are not alone. Not only are they in our hearts but they will be in our prayers. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for giving me this time to join him and the Virginia delegation in recognizing the tragedy and reflecting our remembrance of those who have been hurt, those who have lost their lives, and those whom they left behind.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

As she has said, this is the law. This is another attempt, another opportunity not to substantively legislate because this is already the law. This is an effort to kill this bill indirectly and without telling the public that that is what you are doing.

I am asking all of our Members to vote ``no'' on this. This is simply a procedural motion to kill this bill. If they wanted to add a substantive amendment, they could have done it. This was a modified open rule. All they had to do was file and notice it.

So I ask all of my colleagues, we are not going to go down this road and play this political game. We want to substantively legislate. We are going to vote ``no'' on this motion.

I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I speak on every one of these budgets; and because I have been here a long time, I know the history of these budgets going back a quarter of a century. I sometimes believe the talking points on the other side of the aisle are written by Lewis Carroll, the author, of course, of that famous book which had as its theme saying one thing and meaning another: ``black was white,'' ``up was down,'' et cetera, et cetera.

I have listened since 1981 to the economic observations of such people like Phil Gramm, such people like Dick Armey, an economist, the majority leader of your party, and I think to myself how confused the American public must be when the assertions are made, an article by Dave Stockman in today's paper, you may have seen. David Broder wrote an article about that. Mr. Stockman is in a little bit of trouble with assertions that things that he said were true were in fact not true. In fact, David Stockman admitted that in 1983 what he said was true was not true; what he said they thought, they did not think.

The American public needs to place it in that context.

I have heard a lot, I say to my friend from Missouri, over the last few hours about debates about we are going to make these tax cuts permanent, and we are not.

Now, I am sure the American public knows that the President for the last 6 years has been a Republican. I am sure they know that the leadership in the House for the past 6 years has been Republican, and I am sure they know that the leadership in the Senate has been Republican. And guess what? Never did you make those tax cuts permanent. Why not? Because you wanted to play fiscal games. That is why not.

You wanted to count your out-years as looking better than they did. Why are you having a $274 billion tax increase in this bill? How do I say that? Because you are not fixing the AMT. Why aren't you fixing it? Because it is STI, your ``stealth tax increase.'' You liked SDI. This is STI, a stealth tax increase, where you say one year we are going to fix it, but, guess what, for the next 4 years we will get that additional tax revenue. A stealth tax increase.

There are no tax increases in this bill. In fact, it provides for tax cuts for the middle class. But they have to be paid for.

George Bush I and Dick Gephardt, the leader of this House, came together and said, ladies and gentlemen, we have to have fiscal responsibility, and we are going to do it. And the way we are going to do it is we are going to have PAYGO. We are going to pay for what we buy. George Bush signed that. And guess what? The Republican side of the aisle excoriated the President of the United States, George Bush, for entering into an agreement that ultimately would bring us surpluses.

I have also listened to these debates and have seen some very earnest, very intelligent, very articulate young men. Mr. Ryan is the third in a series of those earnest, intelligent, energetic, articulate young men, who talk about their vision for America, talk about where they want to take America.

Mr. Ryan puts up the children. Now, unlike Mr. Ryan, who I think has children, I have children, I have got grandchildren, and, as some people know, I have a great-granddaughter. And I am very concerned about all of those children whose taxes you have raised almost every year you have been in charge that I have been here, starting in 1981. And you raised their taxes by not paying for what you buy.

You talk about cutting spending, I tell my friend.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to tell my friend that there are more ways to skin a cat than one.

I tell the Chair that I have heard the argument of these earnest young men who have all stood on this floor. David Stockman at the age of 34 telling the country as director of OMB how we were going to balance the budget, how Ronald Reagan said we are going to balance the budget. Ronald Reagan ran over $1 trillion in deficits over his 8 years. Over $1 trillion in deficits.

There is one person in America who can stop spending in its tracks, only one, and that is the President of the United States. Ronald Reagan ran $1 trillion in deficits, actually $1.4 trillion. George Bush I in just 4 years ran $1 trillion in deficits. And this President in the 6 years he has been President has run over $1.6 trillion in deficits. $4.1 trillion of deficits during the Reagan administration, the Bush I administration and the Bush II administration.

Now, I tell the Chairman that my friend does not seem to be paying attention to these dramatic figures. But ladies and gentlemen of this House, I hope you are, and I hope all of our constituents are listening as well, because the rhetoric on this floor is cheap, but the performance is not.

During those 18 years of Republican leadership of this country, we ran $4.2 trillion in deficits. During the 8 years that Bill Clinton was President, we had a $62.9 billion surplus. The only President in the lifetime, I tell the Chairman, of my young friend from Wisconsin that that has been accomplished, notwithstanding Mr. Stockman or Mr. Kasich or Mr. Nussle, who all said they wanted to balance the budget, and none, none, none of them did it. None of them did it.

Now, we adopted a program in 1993, and I heard the same rhetoric, I tell my friends on this side of the aisle, that I am hearing today, the same rhetoric. Dick Armey not only was the majority leader of the Republican House, it wasn't a Republican House then, but he was also an economist, and an economist still. And Mr. Armey told the President of the United States, if we adopt this program, we are going to have deep debt, high unemployment and annual deficits.

That was the representation I tell my friends on this floor. Those representations were all wrong. That's why when we listen to debate on this floor today we see a balanced budget, a responsible budget that invests in our future.

Mr. Chairman, if I were speaking directly to him, I would tell my young friend, I have heard about these cuts that you talk about, for a quarter of a century I have heard about these cuts. Why is it that you spent more money as a party with the President with control of the Senate, control of the House by a factor of two, twice as much spending rise under the Bush Administration than under the Clinton Administration. Why is that?

Why do you come here and crow about cutting spending when you doubled the rate of growth when you controlled everything? That's what the American public needs to judge.

Now, I had some prepared comments here, and I apologize to my good friend who spent so much time doing this. But, ladies and gentlemen, Lewis Carroll is not writing this budget. Alice is not going to have to live under this budget. My children, my grandchildren, my great grandchildren and, more importantly, my country, are going to have to live under this budget.

We didn't adopt a budget last year. We didn't adopt appropriation bills last year. We didn't do any of the fiscal business that we should have done last year. Why? Because your party could not agree with one another. So you had no fiscal program. Your fiscal program was spending more money.

I hope that this House, for the first time in 6 years, adopts a responsible budget that will move us towards balance. It won't get there overnight. And when I say that, it is not empty rhetoric, because when we, in 1993, passed that program, we took this country for 4 straight years out of deficit.

Now, I know you will say, ``Well, we Republicans took over in 1995.'' And my response to that, of course, is, you didn't have the presidency. When you had it all, why couldn't you do it? When you had the presidency, when you had the Senate, when you had the House, tell me why you couldn't do it.

I will tell you why. Because it was the President of the United States who said this is the way we are going to do it or I am going to veto it. This President can veto it, and we won't be able to override his veto. I understand that. He is in charge. That's why we have these deficits, because he has not vetoed one spending bill. He vetoed one bill, embryonic stem cell research. Not one spending bill. Every nickel that has been spent in this country has been spent under the signature of George Bush, the President of the United States, every nickel.

So I ask my friends, vote for a responsible budget. Move us, as we did during the 1990s, 4 years out of debt, 4 years into surplus, the first time that had happened, and left you folks that took over with a $5.6 trillion surplus that you have squandered into a $3 trillion deficit. And, yes, 9/11 had an impact on that. And your tax cut, we had a very shallow recovery. You know that. Every economist says that. And a relatively shallow downturn in the economy.

This budget offered by Mr. Spratt is a responsible budget that provides for tax cuts for the middle class, provides for investment in education and competitiveness of our country, provides for investment in our veterans, provides for investment in defense, using the same number that the President gave us so that we can keep America strong.

Mr. Spratt, I thank you. I thank the members of your committee for having the courage and the wisdom and the fiscal soundness to come forth with this budget. It is worthy of support of every Member of this Congress.

I urge this House to adopt this budget this day.

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to our republican colleagues, let me say that to hear them talk about fiscal responsibility is nothing less than surreal.

In this debate on the fiscal 2008 budget, many numbers have been used.

But only two are really relevant on the issue of fiscal responsibility, and the Republican Party's lack thereof--$5.6 trillion and more than $3 trillion.

When President Bush took office, he and the then-Republican majorities in Congress inherited a projected 10-year budget surplus of $5.6 trillion.

The President proclaimed: ``we can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits, even if the economy softens.''

He promised that he would pay down the national debt, and some in the administration even worried publicly about paying down the debt too fast.

Well, as we have learned, the President's projections were unequivocally wrong and worries about paying down the debt were completely misplaced.

Over the last 6 years, the President and Republicans in Congress-- after enacting the most reckless fiscal policies in American history-- have turned a projected surplus of $5.6 trillion into record budget deficits and additional debt of more than $3 trillion.

In fact, the amount of foreign-held debt has more than doubled under the Bush administration--from about $1 trillion in 2001 to $2.1 trillion today.

And, interest payments on the national debt have increased from $206 billion in 2001 to a projected $256 billion under the President's budget for fiscal 2008--consuming more than 20 percent of all individual income taxes.

Let me say, too, that until the American people spoke last November and elected Democratic majorities in Congress, the President never--not once--budgeted the costs of the on-going war in Iraq, which today stand at more than $400 billion, with another $100 billion being considered.

Thus today, Mr. Chairman, with this budget written and offered by Chairman Spratt, House Democrats will take our Nation in a new direction and begin to clean up the fiscal train wreck left by Republicans.

Our budget is a statement of our values and priorities, demonstrating our unwavering commitment to defend our Nation, grow our economy, protect our children and strengthen families, preserve our plant, and ensure that the Federal Government is accountable and efficient.

First, this fiscally responsible Democratic budget will bring the Federal budget back to balance by 2012. Over the next 5 years, the cumulative deficit in our budget is $234 billion lower than the President's budget.

Our budget strictly adheres to the pay-as-you-go budget rules that were reinstated in January by the new majority, and which Republicans allowed to expire in 2002. The Concord Coalition even says this budget is ``a successful first test of how seriously they [House

Democrats] plan to abide by [the PAYGO] rule.''

Furthermore, this Democratic budget invests in our priorities without increasing the deficit. It provides for a robust defense, boosting Homeland Security funding and providing $3.5 billion more for veterans' services than the President's request for 2008.

It also makes critical investments in education, children's health care, transportation infrastructure, and alternative energy research and development--while rejecting the President's request to cut Head Start, LIHEAP, COPS and First-Responder programs, and community development block grants.

And, our budget accommodates immediate relief for the tens of millions of middle-income households which would otherwise be subject to the alternative minimum tax--while calling for the extension of middle-class tax cuts that are not due to expire until December 31, 2010.

This is a budget that we can be proud of. And, it stands in stark contrast to the extraordinarily irresponsible policies of the last six years.

I urge all of my colleagues: vote for fiscal responsibility and a bright future for our children. Vote for the budget that reflects our values and meets the needs of the American people. Vote for this Democratic budget.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I share the previous speaker's sorrow. I'm sorry that the policies pursued by this administration have not done what he wanted to do, support our troops. We sent too few, we equipped them too little, and we have left them too long and trained them for too short a time. Yes, I'm sorry.

The American public expects us, the Congress of the United States, to do something, not simply to say yes to failed policies, but to, on their behalf, speak out and try to take us in a new direction.

Mr. Speaker, there is not a Member of this body on either side of the aisle who does not pray for our success in Iraq and who does not pray for the safe return of our brave service men and women. However, after the loss of more than 3,200 American soldiers and more than 24,000 injured and after the expenditure of more than $400 billion on a war now entering its fifth year that Secretary Rumsfeld told us would take just a few months. With open arms and cheering in the streets, this war would be over and the mission would have been accomplished almost 4 years ago, said the President of the United States, who now asks us to rubber-stamp, no strings attached. Do it, as Mr. Putnam said, before supper. That is not what the American public expects of us. They expect better. They expect a new direction. They expect us to think, not simply say, amen, Mr. President.

The Defense Department says: ``Some elements of the situation in Iraq are properly described as a civil war.'' None of us who voted for the original authorization voted to put our troops in the middle of a civil war, not one of us.

The Iraq Government has failed to meet political goals. It is our responsibility to ask them to do so because we want to support our troops. And if the Iraqis do not meet their responsibilities, our troops will not be supported. A National Intelligence Estimate concludes that this war is increasing, this is the National Intelligence Estimate, increasing the global war on terror. The Army Chief of Staff has issued strong warnings about the effect of the war on America's overall military readiness. Mr. Murtha has talked about that for at least the last 2 years.

My friend, the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, with whom I served for a quarter of a century on that committee, he must share

the concern about military readiness that all of us share and know that we are eroding our military readiness every day. Thus, the question before the Members today is this: Will we change direction in Iraq, or will we continue to stay the course with a failing policy?

Mr. Speaker, I believe the answer is clear. It is long past time that this Congress assert itself and assist on accountability and a new direction in Iraq. More blank checks from this Congress would constitute an abdication of our responsibility and our duty. Four years of abdication is enough. It is time, my fellow Members, for Congress to assert its support of our troops by adopting policies that will keep them safe and enhance their success.

This legislation, the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act, will protect our troops, requiring deployments to adhere to existing Defense Department standards, not our standards, Defense Department standards, standards for training, equipment and armor, while allowing the President to waive these standards, which are his own, the administration's standards, if he believes it necessary. That is the right thing for us to do.

The bill also holds the Iraqi Government accountable, measuring its performance by the standards President Bush outlined in his January 10 speech, not our standards for Iraq, but the benchmarks that the President of the United States has set. But if they are only rhetorical benchmarks with nothing behind them to require that action, then we are wasting our time in supporting our troops because that will not do it.

The bill provides a responsible strategy for a phased redeployment of U.S. forces and refocusing our efforts on fighting al Qaeda. That is who attacked us, not the Sunni or Shia, but al Qaeda.

Some claim that this legislation will micromanage the war. That assertion is absolutely false and without ground. Our Commander in Chief, General Petraeus and our military commanders on the ground will retain all the flexibility they need to succeed. This legislation in no way undercuts their discretion on the ground. The only strings attached concerning troop readiness and the Iraq Government's progress have been endorsed by President Bush. Others assert that inclusion of a timeline for responsible redeployment is tantamount to capitulation. Mr. Hobson spoke on this floor just a few minutes ago. He voted to set a time line in Bosnia. Mr. Lewis sits as the ranking member of this committee; he voted on June 24, 1997, to set a timeline. Mr. Hastert, Speaker of the House, set a timeline. Mr. Delay voted for a timeline. Mr. Blunt voted for a timeline. Mr. Boehner voted for a timeline.

Every one of them voted for a timeline, and what were the circumstances? We hadn't lost a single troop, not one. We had spent $7 billion, not $379 billion. We had brought genocide to a stop, ethnic cleansing to a stop, and we were not losing people and we had a stable environment, yet they voted for a timeline.

Here, Secretary Gates says in testimony at his confirmation hearing: ``We are not winning.'' If that is the case, it is time for us to have a new strategy, a new direction, a new paradigm, if you will. That is what this bill does.

Mr. Boehner said just a few weeks ago, in terms of timelines, he said, ``I think it will be rather clear in the next 60 to 90 days as to whether this plan, the current escalation, is going to work.'' ``We need to know,'' Mr. Boehner said, ``as we are moving through these benchmarks that the Iraqis are doing what they have to do.'' Nothing in this bill will undermine that 60- or 90-day expectation that the minority leader, the Republican leader, has articulated. Under this legislation, if the Iraqis meet their benchmarks for progress, the redeployment of American forces will not begin until a year from now. This is not any precipitous withdrawal. And, indeed, if there is total success, it will be more than a year from now.

Finally, let me point out, as I have said earlier, that timelines were supported in July of 1997, 220-2. Only two Republicans voted against setting a timeline. I voted against that timeline. And I said ``at this time.'' Why did I say that? Because we were succeeding. We were not losing troops. We had stopped genocide. We had stopped ethnic cleansing. We had a stable government in Serbia. We were winning and our strategy was succeeding. And under those circumstances, I thought timelines were not appropriate. But there is not a military general I have talked to who has said that we are succeeding. Today, this very day, the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq lies deeply wounded, life at risk. If a Member of Congress goes to Baghdad, they will not drive you from the airport to the Green Zone. Why? Because they do not believe it is safe, almost 50 months after we started this operation.

My friends, it is time for a new direction. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle support the troops, represent America, represent your people who want to win but do not want to leave our troops in the middle of a civil war. Support this well-thought-out crafted piece of legislation, which in no way undermines the ability of our troops to manage this war, but says to them, we will expect the Iraqis to perform and we will give you a time frame in which the world will know that they must themselves take responsibility.

Mr. LEWIS OF California. Mr. Speaker, I recognize my colleague from California (Mr. Royce) for 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour business and 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 that Monday.

On Tuesday next, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning hour business and noon for legislative business. We will consider additional bills under suspension of the rules. A complete list of these bills will be available by the end of the week. We also expect to consider H.R. 1401, the Rail Security Act, out of the Homeland Security Committee.

On Wednesday and Thursday the House will meet at 10 a.m. On Friday, no votes are expected. We will consider H.R. 1538, the Wounded Warriors Assistance Act, and the fiscal year 2008 budget resolution.

On Thursday. I do not expect that we will be meeting on Friday, unless debate occurs longer than I expect. But otherwise we will not be meeting on Friday.

I will tell the gentleman my sense is that substitutes will be allowed.

I appreciate the gentleman's observations. I understand his concern. Although I do observe that there was no motion made to either add or subtract from the bill that we just considered in a motion to recommit. But I do expect substitutes will be made in order.

Would the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Having been in the gentleman's position for too long, I honestly empathize with his position. It is my expectation that the appropriation bills, as they have historically, will come to this floor starting mid-May and continuing through June, and we hope to complete our appropriations bills by the end of June. My expectation is they will be, as they are traditionally, on the floor with open rules, or at least structured rules. Obviously, open rules, if you have 500 or 600 amendments from all

the folks, we may not get finished, which is why we have structured rules. But certainly the gentleman is correct that that is the tradition. I would expect us to follow that tradition.

On supplementals, over the last 15 supplementals, I was looking around to see if I had it immediately in front of me, I don't, but on the last 15 supplementals there have been a variety. Seven of them were open, eight of them were less than open, some more structured than others.

I understand the gentleman's representation, and I certainly look forward to working with the gentleman.

As soon as possible.

I don't know that we will see it next week, although I would like to see it next week.

As the gentleman knows, I was very concerned and remain concerned about the interpretation of germaneness. And, frankly, that wouldn't have been a problem either had the minority been willing to offer the traditional motion, which was to recommit and have it immediately reported back to the floor. I will tell my friend we would have had a vote on that. I think you would have probably prevailed on the motion itself, and we would have prevailed on the bill. It would have carried that rider with it, of course. But the minority, frankly, from our perspective, chose to try to defeat the bill by not just making the motion to recommit to adopt the proposition that you offered, but sending it back to committee for that purpose, which was obviously not necessary, which leads me to believe, I want to tell you honestly, my friend, that this was a procedural device to kill the bill rather than let it come to a vote on its merits.

As the gentleman knows, I feel very strongly personally, others do as well, but I feel very strongly personally that we ought to extend a full voting franchise to the Representative who sits on this floor and represents 600,000 of our fellow Americans. The answer to your question is, I hope to bring that to the floor as soon as possible under conditions where we will protect ourselves from procedurally losing a bill which has the majority of votes on this floor.

I appreciate the views. Although, as the gentleman knows, that bill was reported out of the Government Reform Committee chaired by a Republican, with a Republican majority, with a majority of Republicans voting for the bill to report it out of the committee in the last session. So while I understand your view, it is not as if we were taking up a bill that hadn't already been processed by your committee in the last Congress, reported out of that committee, and because obviously there is opposition to it on your side of the aisle, not brought to the floor.

I understand the gentleman's point; but very frankly, the only reason it has not passed, because it has the majority of votes on this floor, was because the motion that was made was not the traditional motion of adopting a proposition, in this case the gun control issue, and reporting it immediately back out with that amendment attached.

I appreciate what the gentleman is saying, but I can't feel too guilty about bringing to the floor a bill that was reported out of a Republican-chaired committee with a Republican majority.

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.

Madam Speaker, this important legislation, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act, is designed to do one thing, enfranchise Americans fully with a voting representative in the House of Representatives. I have the great honor of representing the great State of Maryland. Maryland, at the request of the Federal Government, gave some square miles of its State to our Federal Government and to the people of America.

At that time there were Marylanders living, just a few, but Marylanders living within the confines of what was to become the District of Columbia. Now, this was post-1787, so that the miracle in Philadelphia did not contemplate disenfranchising those voters in the various States, as my friend from Texas mentioned, because the residents that then became, because of the generosity of the State of Maryland, residents of that Federal district, were then residents of the several States.

Washington, D.C. is the only capital in a democracy in the world, in the entire world, that does not have a voting representative in its parliament, in the world. Clearly, the successor residents of the District of Columbia succeed residents of the several States. The continued disenfranchisement of more than half a million Americans is unconscionable, is indefensible and wrong.

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, not in the House of Representatives and not in the Senate. It is wrong, as a matter of principle, because District citizens pay Federal taxes, sit on juries and serve on our Armed Forces, like all other Americans who enjoy full representation in this body do.

If they move tomorrow to Maryland or to Virginia or to Texas or to California, they will be fully enfranchised. They are not second-class citizens, but the area in which they live is being treated as a second- class area, this, the Nation's capital. You cannot cite another capital in the world that does that if they allow any of their voters to be represented in a true democratic institution.

It is wrong politically, because District citizens since 1801 have effectively been a ward of Congress without the opportunity to make their voice felt on the legislation that affects only them. Ironically on this bill, we are going to again have a motion to recommit, which affects only the residents of the District of Columbia.

It is wrong, I suggest to you, morally as well, because the United States professes to have the truest form of representative government in human history. We are proud of that, rightfully so. Yet we deprive the citizens of this Nation's capital of their voice in their national legislature.

Let me add, the United States is the only representative democracy, as I have said, that does that. 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, to correct an injustice.

I want to say to my friends in this body, so many of you have voted ``aye'' on propositions that only recently the Supreme Court of the United States has said are unconstitutional. You put in language to say, oh, well, it's constitutional because of X, Y and Z, to try to substitute our judgment for the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, but repeatedly you have voted for legislation which the Supreme Court has said is unconstitutional, and you know it.

We have spent $379 billion, 3,200 lives. We will vote tomorrow on a bill that seeks to spend $100 billion more so that the citizens of Baghdad, the citizens of Baghdad can have a parliament in which the citizens of Baghdad have a vote; but too many will vote not to give the same right to our sisters and brothers who live in the District of Columbia.

The authority I refer to for the constitutionality of this is, of course, Article I, section 8 of the Constitution, is the so-called seat of government clause, under which ``The Congress shall have power . . . to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever,'' exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, for as I remind you, those residents of the several States or their successors, who are now residents of the District of Columbia.

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

I am far from alone in my view of Article I, section 8. Twenty-five legal scholars, which have just been entered into the Record, make that assertion.

As the chairman of the committee, I am not used to quoting Kenneth Starr, and I quote Kenneth Starr, not as the supreme expert, but certainly as not a partisan of my party.

In fact, I would remind every Member of this House, this bill was reported out of the Republican-chaired, Republican-majority Government Reform Committee just last Congress.

Mr. Davis is a cosponsor, not only a Republican leader, but the former chairman of a committee and former chairman of the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, not just a back-bencher, but a leader in the party, who said this is constitutional, but in any event, it is the right thing to do.

Mr. Starr's tightly reasoned testimony before the House Government Reform Committee in 2004 in favor of the substance of today's measure should be required reading for every Member of the body who believes that somehow this may be a partisan vote. In fact, as we mentioned, we give to Utah as well, as has been historical practice, to usually do two at a time, as we did Alaska and Hawaii.

That doesn't unusually enfranchise, I would suggest, Utah's voters. I come from a State that had an at-large Representative for most of the 1960s. His name was Carlton Sickles. He lived in the county in which I grew up. He was an at-large Representative, yes, before Reynolds v. Sims and Baker v. Carr, but that was for the State legislature purposes. He was an at-large Representative in the State of Maryland. I am not sure that anybody here served with him.

We, the Members of this House, must never be seduced into thinking there is such a thing as settled injustice. Here me, settled injustice. The author of the Dred Scott decision was a Marylander. There is a statue of him, a bust of him, as you enter the old Supreme Court Chamber.

That was the constitutional law. It was wrong. It was wrong legally, it was wrong ethically, and it was certainly wrong morally. It is time, my friends, in this body, today, to stand up, speak out for democracy and justice for our fellow Americans. If we can fight for democracy in Baghdad, we can vote for democracy in Washington, D.C.

Madam Speaker, I'd like to take a moment today to recognize Rachel Klay, a devoted friend and dedicated public servant who retired from the United States Secret Service on January 19 of this year.

I had the pleasure of getting to know Rachel over the course of her 24-year career with the Secret Service--and I can say, with the utmost confidence, that she served our country with dignity and integrity every step of the way.

Whenever I or another Member of Congress would visit the White House, we could always count on Rachel to greet us with a smile or funny story. And whenever foreign dignitaries visited Capitol Hill, we could always count on Rachel to be right there with them, ensuring that foreign officials had a safe and comfortable experience while visiting our Nation's capital.

Rachel always fulfilled her duties with all of the dependability, professionalism and love of country that one would expect from a Secret Service agent. But she also brought a kind and lighthearted nature to the job that I, for one, will never forget.

And let me add that I have had the pleasure of employing Secret Service agents in my office through Congressional fellowship programs and, like Rachel, each and every one of them has represented the best our Nation has to offer.

From her upbringing in Orange City, Iowa, to her studies at Northwestern and Sangamon State Universities, to the U.S. Secret Service, Rachel has always excelled and stood out as a leader and as someone people can count on.

As she moves on to bigger and better things, I'd like to congratulate Rachel Klay on a proud career of service to our country and wish her the best of luck in whatever the future holds.

Madam Speaker, 4 years ago tonight, our Commander in Chief, President Bush, gave the orders that instigated Operation Iraqi Freedom. Whether they supported the President's decision or not, all, and I emphasize ``all'' patriotic Americans prayed for our success as well as the safe return of our brave service men and women. And 4 years later, we still do. However, today our success in Iraq is as elusive as it ever was and has ever been over the past 1,460 days. More than 3,200 American soldiers have given the ultimate measure of sacrifice, and more than 24,000 have been injured. The American taxpayers have spent more than $400 billion on this war, and the President asked for an additional $245 billion, including a $100 billion wartime supplemental spending bill that will be considered on the floor later this week. And thousands of Iraqis have been killed, while literally millions have fled to neighboring countries, triggering a refugee crisis.

Yet despite the sacrifice and hardship, how much progress has been made? Just last week, the Department of Defense reported record levels of violence and hardening sectarian violence in the fourth quarter of 2006, stating, ``Some elements of the situation in Iraq are properly descriptive of a civil war.''

Administration officials themselves admitted last week that political goals that were to have been met by the Iraqi government this month will take significantly longer to achieve, said the administration. The National Intelligence Estimate tells us the war has increased the global terror threat rather than reduce it. And General Schoomaker, the Army Chief of Staff, has issued strong warnings about the effect of this war on America's overall military readiness and our ability to respond to emerging strategic threats. Indeed, Ike Skelton of Missouri, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said that the situation with respect to America's readiness of its Armed Forces is grave and troubling. Meanwhile, the American people have wearied of administration claims that are divorced from reality. ``Mission accomplished'' and ``the insurgency is in its last throes'' are just two of the assertions that have proved, sadly, very badly mistaken.

From the outset, the administration refused to commit a force commensurate with the threat it articulated, and now it asks for patience while a fourth troop escalation seeks to accomplish what three others could not. It profoundly miscalculated the cost of this war. It went to war without a plan for postwar stabilization and security. And perhaps most egregiously, the administration sent our troops into battle without proper equipment.

Madam Speaker, given the repeated miscalculations by the administration over the last 4 years, and given the situation on the ground in Iraq, today it is past time, way past time for the United States Congress, the people's representatives, to insist on accountability and a new direction in Iraq.

As one who supported the authority of the President of the United States to remove Saddam Hussein, and in listening to the President's State of the Union when he said not one of us who voted voted for failure, that was accurate. I certainly did not vote for failure. And I want success and seek success, but the administration's policies have not garnered success. Therefore, more blank checks and questioning obeisance by this Congress would constitute, in my opinion, a dereliction of our responsibility and our constitutional duty. Thus, this Congress, for the first time in 4 years, will have the opportunity this week to change America's course in Iraq and to insist that the Iraqis take control of their own destiny.

The U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act offers the best way forward in Iraq. I urge Members of both sides of the aisle to support it. And I would call the attention to many of our Members to a vote in June of 1997, where so many Members on the Republican side of the aisle voted to set a timetable, set a date certain for withdrawal or exit strategy in amendments sponsored by Mr. Buyer of Indiana in which all the present leaders of the Republican

Party who were in the Congress at that time voted for.

In short, the legislation that will come before us is saying much the same, but after 4 years of a lack of success, why do I say a lack of success? Secretary Gates in his confirmation hearing said that we are not winning in Iraq. That was just a few months ago, and he was right. Again, I would reiterate in my opinion because we have never, not at the outset, not over the last 4 years has this administration deployed assets sufficient to meet the challenge. This legislation is designed to protect our troops, requiring troop deployment to adhere to the Defense Department's current standards for training, not new standards, not new timelines, not new requirements, but the Department of Defense currently articulated standards to keep our troops safe, trained and well equipped, standards for equipment and armor, with the President required to certify if he believes the Nation's security requires DoD standards be waived. None of us want to stand in the way if a crisis is imminent and deployment must be accomplished. However, all of us want to see our troops safe, equipped and trained.

The bill also holds the Iraqi government accountable, measuring its performance by the benchmarks President Bush outlined in his January 10 speech, again, the President's benchmarks, not those imposed by Congress, but the administration's own benchmarks for the Iraqis.

In addition, the legislation provides a responsible strategy for a phased redeployment of U.S. forces, provides greater protections for our troops and veterans, and refocuses our efforts on fighting al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

There are those of course who will claim that this legislation attempts to micromanage the war. They are wrong. There is nothing in this legislation that will be considered this week that micromanages this war. Neither General Petraeus nor any of his commanders on the ground or at CENTCOM will in any way be constrained from the tactics or the strategies that they deem best to employ on the ground in Iraq. The only strings attached are those benchmarks and standards endorsed by the President himself, our Commander in Chief. And let me add, is there anyone who believes that Congress would be strongly asserting itself today if the President's policy was succeeding. The answer, I think, is clear.

This legislation is the justified response of the people's representatives to a policy that is failing and a President who insists that we must continue to stay the course. There is not a new policy here. As I said before, we have increased troops on three different occasions. Unfortunately, lamentably, it did not bring the stability and security that it was planned to bring.

There are others who will argue that this bill will compromise our position in the war on terror. To them I say that this legislation goes above and beyond the President's funding request, supporting our troops deployed at the tip of the spear, and reaffirming our commitment to fighting and defeating al Qaeda. And there certainly are those who will argue that this bill doesn't go far enough, that even one more day of fighting is one too many. To them I say respectfully that this legislation for the first time sets a date for the responsible redeployment of American troops from Iraq. It is not tomorrow, it is not the day after, but it is a date, a date that provides the Iraqis with the time they need to ready themselves for the responsibility they must assume.

Madam Speaker, the Iraq war is already longer than our participation in World War I, World War II and the Korean War. The specter of 5\1/2\ years in Iraq, if our troops remain deployed until August 31, 2008, can hardly be called a precipitous cut and run.

As we enter the fifth year of this war, let us insist on a policy designed to achieve success. As we enter the fifth year of this war, let us respond to the plea of the American people for a new direction in Iraq. And as we enter the fifth year of this war, let us demonstrate to the world that American strength and American wisdom are not set in opposition. I urge my colleagues, vote for a new direction in Iraq, support the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act.

Mr. President, I did not vote for failure. I pray for the safety of our troops and for their success, but I also strongly believe that the legislation we will bring to this floor on Thursday is a reasoned, thoughtful way forward, a way forward that was initially suggested by the Iraq Study Group, five Republicans and five Democrats, headed up by former Secretary of State and adviser to this administration and previous administrations, James Baker. It is time that the Congress of the United States does not simply rubber-stamp the President's request, but on behalf of the American people exercises its best judgment to make policy for a change, to make policy for success, and make policy to ensure victory against those who would terrorize Americans, terrorize our Nation, and terrorize the rest of the world through the employment of their terrorist acts.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Resolution 107--a bill calling for the immediate and unconditional release of Israeli soldiers being held captive by Hamas and Hezbollah.

On July 12, 2006, Sergeant Udi Goldwasser and fellow soldier Eldad Regev were on patrol inside the Israeli border when their armored humvee was bombarded by Hezbollah rockets. Udi and Eldad were captured during this attack and have been held by Hezbollah militants for more than 8 months.

I tell this story because just over one month ago, I had the pleasure of welcoming Udi Goldwasser's wife, Karnit, to the United States Capitol. She told me about how hard it has been to live without ``the love of her life'' and how her dreams of raising a peaceful and loving family with Udi are now in jeopardy due to the cowardly acts of a terrorist organization that has said it will not rest until her country is destroyed.

Terrorist acts are not military actions between warring nations. They are despicable crimes that rob wives of husbands, husbands of wives and children of their parents. And as the leader of the free and democratic world, it is America's solemn duty to condemn such attacks whenever they occur and to support the justifiable actions of our ally Israel when it comes under heinous, premeditated attacks.

Today, I join Karnit Goldwasser in seeking to further the pursuit of liberty, democracy and peace throughout the world. And it is my sincere hope that Udi, Eldad and every other Israeli captive of Hamas and Hezbollah will be united with their families as soon as is humanly possible.

Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding. I thank Mr. Davis for his work on this legislation. And I rise in strong support.

I want to commend the chairman on the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Congressman Waxman of California, for his hard work and leadership on the five, not just this bill, but on the five government accountability and transparency bills considered on the House floor this week. This has been a very significant week for transparency, openness, and accountability in government, and I commend the chairman for his actions and the committee for its.

It is no mere coincidence that the four bipartisan bills we have considered so far have passed with an average of 340 votes, including on average 112 Republican votes for every one of these four and now fifth reform bills. So there is not a narrow partisan agenda here. What the committee has been bringing to the floor are bills broadly supported because we know that transparency and accountability in government have not been the norm. We need to restore the public's faith in its government.

In fact, there is a clear demonstration of the new Democratic majority's commitment to change the way business is done in Washington, to restore accountability for government practices and congressional oversight and to reach bipartisan consensus when possible. The four bills included measures to increase public access to government information by strengthening the Freedom of Information Act. After all, this information is gathered by taxpayer dollars.

To provide whistleblower protection to Federal workers who specialize in national security issues. To nullify an executive order issued by President Bush giving former Presidents and Vice Presidents broad authority to withhold presidential records or to delay their release indefinitely. The public has a right to know, and this legislation facilitates the redress of that right.

Lastly, to require the disclosure of donors to presidential libraries so there cannot be secret, very large contributions to Presidents before they leave office.

It should be noted that the first three measures passed overwhelmingly despite veto threats from the White House that apparently does not want openness or accountability or transparency.

All four bills are reasonable, prudent, and consistent with our Nation's democratic values and openness and accountability.

The legislation before us today, the Accountability in Contracting Act, is equally important. In short, this legislation would instruct Federal agencies to minimize the use of no-bid contracts. Why? Because we want lowest prices. How do we get lowest prices? By competition. That is the free enterprise system. This bill says let us pursue the free enterprise system.

It would promote the use of cost-effective, fixed-price contracts and limit the duration of no-bid contracts awarded in emergencies to 1 year.

This bill also would require the public disclosure of the rationale for using no-bid contracts and require agencies to report to Congress on contracts on overcharges.

Madam Chairman, it is unfortunate, but true, that problems in government contracting have arisen again and again during the last 6 years, and indeed before that, from the $2.4 billion, however, in no- bid contracts for Halliburton, that soon-to-be Dubai company based in Dubai, to the failed contracting in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Furthermore, Madam Chairman, it should be noted that spending on no- bid contracts has more than doubled under the Bush administration, even as hearings have exposed a pattern of reckless spending, poor planning and ineffective oversight by Federal contract officials.

This legislation, like the other four bills brought to the floor by Mr. Waxman considered this week, will help us begin to restore accountability and transparency to government. The American people expect and deserve no less.

This is a new day in this new Congress. The days of hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil are over. This Congress embraces its constitutional responsibility to conduct real, meaningful oversight, as well as our value of openness and transparency.

Two days from now is St. Patrick's Day. The Taoiseach, the Prime Minister of Ireland, will be at lunch just a few feet from here any minute. Honor St. Patrick; vote green on this accountability legislation.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Reclaiming my time, I want to say that I spoke a lot about accountability and the lack of accountability in the last Congress, and in my opinion, the two Congresses before that. The chairman of the Government Reform Committee was one of the few chairmen, in my opinion, in the last Congress who undertook some oversight responsibility, and I commend him for that. I think we need to go further; we are going further; but I commend him for his recognition that oversight is a critical responsibility of this Congress, just as the referee is a critically important component of any football game or basketball game.

So I thank him for what he has done in the past. I thank him for his cooperation in working with our chairman on the three bills that we passed this week so far, and I would hope that we can pass this bill. If we make it better in conference, that's fine; but this is a good bill and an important bill, and I thank the gentleman for his efforts.

I thank the distinguished Republican whip for yielding; and I would tell him on Monday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour business and 2 p.m. for legislative business. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules, as we usually do; but there will be no votes until 6:30 p.m. on Monday.

On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning hour business and noon for legislative business. We will consider additional bills under suspension of the rules, a complete list of which will be available by the end of the week. We also expect to consider H.R. 1227, the Gulf Coast Hurricane Housing Recovery Act, which has been reported out of the Financial Services Committee.

On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. We will consider the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act; the Caller ID/ spoofing bill; and the D.C. vote bill.

I do.

The committee has favorably reported that bill, and we expect it to be on the floor next week.

Yes, sir.

Because the bills, not the D.C. bill, but the supplemental was just reported out, I have not had, nor do I believe the Speaker has had an opportunity to discuss with Mr. Obey his recommendation on a rule, so I unfortunately don't have an answer for you on the supplemental.

On the D.C. bill, they are marking up right now, so I am in the same position, because they haven't finished their markup. They are marking up as we speak on that bill. So I have not had the opportunity to talk to Mr. Waxman about his advice or desire, or Mr. Conyers. It's a joint referral, they are considering it together, the D.C. bill. So I cannot give you an answer. I apologize at this point in time.

I appreciate your yielding and appreciate your observation. Although I am not now on the Appropriations Committee, you are correct, I served there for 25 years. I am on leave. I have no expectation of going back soon, I hope.

In any event, the gentleman is correct. As you know, the bill we are talking about is probably, as we discussed on the floor, one of, if not the most important bill that we might consider this year on funding our troops, supporting our troops in Iraq, and dealing with the policy that we are pursuing in Iraq.

Obviously there is a broad spectrum of views on that. Just as obviously, if you had some bills that in many instances come with an open rule, very frankly, I don't know about your experience, but our experience has been that there are a wide range of views.

It may well be that we will solicit a request for possible amendments and make decisions on them, because this is, to some degree, as you know, not a straight appropriations bill in the sense that this is where the money is, in or out, up or down. This is a consideration of policy and authorizing bills. Usually the tradition is to have amendments offered in the Rules Committee and the Rules Committee determines which amendments they want to make in order.

I cannot anticipate what we are going to do at this point in time. The gentleman's point is well taken, but we will have to see how we want to bring to this floor to try to reflect in the final product, as best we can, the views of the American people, which are divided, and I think will be reflected in the floor vote on that bill.

We expect the budget to be marked up in the latter part of next week, the middle or latter part of next week, and we expect the budget to be on the floor the following week. As I indicated last week, we are still on that path, that schedule.

That is my anticipation.