Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at noon tomorrow; when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday, March 19, for morning hour debate; and further, when the House adjourns on Thursday, March 22, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. on Friday, March 23.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to offer my congratulations to the South River

Ruritan Club in Edgewater, Maryland. This weekend they are hosting an event to mark their 50th anniversary.

The South River Ruritan Club, a community service organization, was chartered on March 13, 1957, and for 50 years has been providing much needed services to the citizens of Edgewater, Annapolis and southern Maryland.

The club, whose members are all volunteers, have contributed well in excess of half a million dollars in direct financial aid, and countless hours of time, to numerous community service projects.

The club awards local students scholastic and vocational scholarships and provides assistance to local Scout Troops, youth athletics, and other youth-related programs. They conduct an annual essay contest for 5th grade students, and have sponsored students to the National Association of Student Council Conference and Exchange Student programs.

They contribute annually to the local fire and rescue departments, the Maryland and Anne Arundel County police departments, and support environmental programs, including efforts to protect the Chesapeake Bay.

Our active duty military, retired and disabled military, and veterans organizations also benefit from the volunteer efforts of the club. They have sent direct aid to our troops in Iraq, and provide additional financial assistance through the military's Morale and Welfare assistance programs.

Their work also includes assistance in such areas as financial aid to needy families, victims of violent crimes, families displaced by catastrophes such as fires, and hurricanes, and assistance through Habitat for Humanity. They contribute annually to St. Jude Children's Research Hospital and Johns Hopkins Hospital Children's Center and they loan wheelchairs, walkers and other medical assistance equipment to members of the community.

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the South River Ruritan Club on their wonderful record of community service over the last 50 years, and wish them enormous success as they continue their commitment to improving the overall quality of life of the residents of Anne Arundel County and the State of Maryland.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, the chairman of the committee, who has done such an extraordinary job for decades now in taking care of the environment and particularly providing for clean water and sewer treatment for our country, so critical to our public health and to the health of our country.

I want to, at the outset, however, make an observation, that I am not surprised, very frankly, I tell my friends on the other side of the aisle, that they are concerned about Davis-Bacon provisions in this bill. After all, of course, most of those who have risen voted against raising the minimum wage in this country from $5.15 to $7.25 over a 2\1/2\-year period.

If you don't believe in raising the minimum wage from $5.15, it is not surprising to me that you are not for paying a prevailing wage to workers on public projects.

I have observed in the past, of course, how much cheaper projects would be if we didn't pay our laborers at all, and we just forced them to work. But hopefully we will not pursue, ever, a policy like that.

I want to commend the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Mr. Oberstar of Minnesota, for all of his hard work and leadership on this important legislation reauthorizing the Clean Water State Revolving Fund for the first time in 13 years.

It is interesting that our friends on this side of the aisle have been in charge of this Congress and bringing legislation to the floor for the last 12 years. So since they took charge, they have not reauthorized this program; again, not because of the observations, as has been pointed out, they didn't think we needed to have a clean water program, but because they didn't want to pay prevailing wages.

I want to thank Chairman Oberstar for his leadership, and I want to thank my dear friend, Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, for her very important leadership as well.

As you know, we have passed two other bills this week reauthorizing sewer overflow control grants, H.R. 569 and H.R. 700, related to combined sewer overflow grants to States for aging sewers. We know that is a problem throughout this country. That handles storm water and sewage water, and H.R. 700, which is a pilot project for getting clean water to rural communities. We know that we focus on urban communities, but it is very important for us to also make sure that our rural communities have clean water.

I believe that this bill, as has been indicated, has bipartisan support, notwithstanding the difference on prevailing wage.

Madam Chairman, the fact is a clean safe water supply is vital in communities, both large and small, rural and urban, all across this Nation. We are not talking about a luxury, a perk or a non-necessity. Clean water, safe water is absolutely indispensable to the good health of all Americans, as well as our way of life and our continued prosperity.

Just consider, my colleagues, that our Nation's farmers and fishermen and manufacturing and tourism industries rely on a clean water supply, and their activities contribute hundreds of billions of dollars to our economy every year.

Our Nation, as has been pointed out, now faces a clean water crisis. As the Environmental Protection Agency warned in a recent report, and I am quoting from the administration's Environmental Protection Agency: ``Without continued improvements in wastewater treatment infrastructure, future population growth will erode away many of the Clean Water Act achievements.''

And I want to congratulate Mr. Baker and Mr. Oberstar for their leadership in trying to confront that crisis. One key reason for the clean water crisis is that much of the water infrastructure in our Nation is rapidly approaching or already exceeding its projected life.

So I am proud today, Madam Chairman, that the new House majority, with the support of many Republicans, will take an important step toward addressing our Nation's water needs by reauthorizing the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and authorizing $14 billion over the next 4 years to ensure safe water for our families and for our people. And I congratulate both sides of the aisle for working towards that objective.

The fund is the primary source of Federal funding for clean water, helping to provide low-interest loans to local communities for construction of wastewater treatment facilities and other water pollution abatement projects.

In fact, since 1987, when the fund became the major Federal source of clean-water funding, it has provided States with more than $50 billion for more than 18,600 low-interest loans to local communities.

The unfortunate truth is, the recent Congresses allowed the Clean Water State Revolving Fund to expire in 1994 and failed to reauthorize it because, as I have said, and as we have seen on the floor, the concern about Davis-Bacon, the concern about paying a prevailing wage, wages that I think are fair and appropriate for public projects.

In recent years, the former majority cut funding for the funds involved in this project by 34 percent, and the President has proposed cutting it even further.

Madam Chairman, it is a new day in this, the people's House. It is long past time for us to act on this important legislation.

The new House majority is absolutely committed, under the leadership of Jim Oberstar, who has been one of the giants on this issue, for, as I said, decades, not days, not weeks, not months, not years, but decades he has been in the leadership of this effort.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, in a bipartisan way, to reauthorize this critically important piece of legislation.

I thank the minority whip for yielding. 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, Madam Speaker, on Monday before 6:30 p.m.

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, and a complete list of those bills for the week will be announced by the close of business today.

On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. We will consider several important pieces of open government and accountability legislation from the Oversight and Government Reform Committee: H.R. 1309, the Freedom of Information Act and amendments; H.R. 1255, Presidential Records Act Amendments; H.R. 1254, Presidential Library Donation Reform Act; H.R. 985, Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act; and H.R. 1362, Accountability in Contracting Act.

Notwithstanding everybody is requesting to meet next Friday, we are not going to do that.

Will the gentleman yield?

Nobody in the House, other than yourself and Mr. Boehner, know that pressure more than I.

The supplemental I expect to be marked up in committee. We have moved it one week, as the gentleman knows, as we have worked on trying to get language that is appropriate language from the perspective of the committee. And Mr. Obey has been working very hard on that, as have others. I expect that to be marked up next week, and I expect the language to be available early next week.

Yes.

I believe that is the week of the 19th.

Yes, sir. I expect the supplemental to be on the floor the week of the 19th, and then we are very hopeful that the budget will be on the floor the week of the 26th.

We don't know that yet. We are discussing that. I don't know yet

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for the question. As you know, I feel very strongly that the representative of the District of Columbia should have full voting membership in the House of Representatives, as does the representative in parliament of, I believe, every other capital of every other democracy in the world, except for the District of Columbia.

I expect that legislation, and hope that legislation, will be on the floor before we adjourn for the Easter work period, which would probably mean the week of the 26th. The legislation is the legislation, as you know, that is sponsored by Mr. Davis, Tom Davis, the Republican former chairman of your campaign committee, but more importantly, the former chairman of the Government Reform Committee, and cosponsored by Mrs. Norton, the representative of the District of Columbia.

I would expect that legislation to include, as the original legislation included, an additional Member from Utah and full voting rights being extended, and full membership as a full Member, both of the new Utah Representative, but also of the Representative of the District of Columbia.

The hearings I expect to be held next week, I believe. Hearings and markup, I think, will be next week, so I can't tell you exactly, obviously, because it hasn't been marked up yet. But it is my contemplation that there would be a special election in the case of the District of Columbia Representative, and in the case of the Utah Representative.

As we all know, the only way you can get to be a Member of this House is to be elected. There are no appointments to this, so that we would contemplate providing for a special election for both.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

As you know, Mr. Davis is the author of this bill. He had extensive hearings on this bill, as you know, in the last Congress; reported this bill out in the last Congress. It was never brought to the floor, but it was reported out.

And as you know, it was Mr. Davis' and the committee's conclusion that this could be effected by legislation, as has been the admission of States to the Union, and the admission, therefore, of new voting Representatives in the Congress of the United States.

Now, I don't represent that there is not another view as to whether or not you can do this statutorily or whether you need to do it constitutionally. But I can tell you, as you well know, that it was Mr. Davis' conclusion, the committee's conclusion, under his leadership when your party was in control of the House, and it was the conclusion of the committee that it could be done statutorily, and we are proceeding on that theory.

Will the gentleman yield before we go on to a different subject?

I would ask my friend, would the gentleman be for a constitutional amendment if such an amendment were brought to the floor?

I would expect a markup, certainly this is the target for markup, the week of the 19th and on the floor the week of the 26th.

No, I expect the supplemental to be marked up in committee next week.

And on the floor the week of the 19th.

So you would have on the week of the 19th the supplemental and on the week of the 26th the budget on the floor.

Madam 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.

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

Madam Speaker, I am proud today to join Congresswoman Jan Schakow-sky--who continues to do a great job as a Chief Deputy Whip--in recognizing the importance of International Women's Day on March 8.

Almost 100 years ago, a group of courageous women proposed creating an International Women's Day to honor the women's rights movement and to continue the fight for universal suffrage. This day has since expanded in scope to serve as an opportunity to celebrate the accomplishments of women, and recommit ourselves to ending discrimination and violence against women across the globe.

Since the first commemoration of International Women's Day in 1910, women have made significant advances. Women have been elected to the highest levels of government across the world, and they serve as the leaders of nations such as Chile, Liberia, and Germany. An estimated 10.4 million businesses in the United States are owned by women. Worldwide, women receive eighty percent of all micro-loans to start small businesses. In the United States, women are graduating from high school and college at record rates.

However, while these accomplishments are indeed significant, we still have far more work to do. In the United States and across the world, women still face obstacles to political and economic equality. While women work two-thirds of the world's working hours, they earn only one percent of the world's income. Of the 1.3 billion people living in poverty, 70 percent are women and children. Violence against women continues at a horrific rate. These are unacceptable statistics, and we must do everything we can to change them.

As we mark this year's International Women's Day, we must renew and reaffirm our commitment to stopping violence against women and putting an end to discriminatory practices so that all women have a real opportunity to participate in society to the fullest.

By recognizing International Women's Day and all that it represents, we give hope to women across the world. We honor the women who have fought--and continue to fight--for their rights, and I am proud to stand with them as we continue efforts to achieve equality and justice.

Again, I thank Congresswoman Schakow-sky for introducing this important bill.

Madam Speaker, today I join Congressman Gene Green and a bipartisan group of the Texas delegation in supporting the renaming of the Department of Education headquarters building to the ``Lyndon Baines Johnson Federal Building.''

It is a fitting tribute to name the building that houses the Department of Education after President Lyndon B. Johnson. Under his watch, over 60 education bills were signed into law, several of which changed the face of education in America.

One such bill enacted by President Johnson is the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. For the first time, Federal funds were explicitly directed to elementary and secondary public schools. These funds have improved the quality of education received by millions of students over the past 42 years.

President Johnson soon followed this measure with the Higher Education Act of 1965. This legislation made a college education possible for millions of Americans by creating the Federal student aid program.

Additionally, the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 contained the provisions creating the Head Start Program, which has put generations of preschool-age children on the path of learning and success. Head Start gives children the foundation they need in order to be successful in school in the future.

As President Johnson himself once said, ``Poverty must not be a bar to learning and learning must offer an escape from poverty.'' By opening the doors of education to millions of Americans, President Johnson improved countless lives and put the American dream within the reach of many.

I thank Congressman Green for bringing this bill to the floor so that we all may recognize the contributions of President Johnson to this Nation and to our educational system.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support legislation by Congressman Jack Inslee that will save thousands of lives by speeding the kidney donation process.

By making paired kidney donation legal, this bill will facilitate the identification of kidney donors and speed the process by which donors are matched with patients. In fact, this bill could increase the number of live kidney donor transplants performed each year by 14

percent according to a study by the Journal of Transplantation.

In addition to the positive effects for kidney transplant patients, speeding the donation process will also help reduce federal spending. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this bill will reduce Medicare spending for dialysis by $500 million over 10 years.

This legislation has a wide base of support from the medical community, including the United Network for Organ Sharing, the American Society of Transplantation, the Kidney Fund, the Transplant Surgeons, and the Association of Organ Procurement Organizations. I am proud to add my vote of support to this list.

This bill will give much needed hope to the more than 95,000 people who are waiting for a life-saving organ donation. I commend Congressman Inslee for introducing this important bill.

Madam Speaker, on the occasion of his retirement this month, I'd like to take this opportunity to recognize and thank Jerry Director, our Deputy Law Revision Counsel, as he concludes a long and distinguished career spent serving the American people in the U.S, House of Representatives.

Jerry joined the Office of the Law Revision Counsel in 1976, just two years after it was established, and we've been lucky enough to have him here with us ever since.

Throughout his career, Jerry has been an indispensable member of a small but essential group of nonpartisan professionals who prepare and publish the United States Code and draft legislation to improve the codification of federal law. He has played an important role in maintaining the Code from year to year, and Jerry has used his expansive wealth of legislative knowledge to guide and train each and every attorney that is currently charged with updating the laws of our land.

In 1997, Jerry rose to his current position of Deputy Law Revision Counsel, and his leadership, expertise and tireless efforts have been invaluable in ensuring the accuracy and quality of the volumes that govern every aspect of American life.

Jerry's easygoing demeanor, patient manner and high standards are greatly appreciated by his colleagues and those of us who have had the pleasure of getting to know him over these last 30 years. And when he thinks back on his time in the People's House, I know he will do so with all the pride and satisfaction that accompany an outstanding career of public service,

Later this month, Jerry will retire to Richmond, Virginia, where he plans to continue his love of golf and spend more time with his family. But before he goes, I want to congratulate Jerry Director on a wonderful career and wish him all the best as he embarks on the next-- and hopefully, the most fulfilling--chapter of his life.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding.

I want to congratulate George Miller, to start out with, as the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee. George Miller has been, throughout my career, all 26 years that I have been here, he and I have served together. He has been one of the most courageous, emphatic and faithful speakers on behalf of working Americans that we have in this House.

I want to thank my friend, Rob Andrews, who has been an indefatigable advocate of making sure that working Americans had opportunities in our country.

Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan legislation, the Employee Free Choice Act, is simply about establishing fairness in the workplace and providing America's workers with a free choice to bargain for better wages, benefits and work conditions.

I think that is absolutely essential if we are going to stop this growing disparity between the very wealthy and the haves and the increasingly have-nots.

America is a great and strong country because of its middle class. That is shrinking. That is a challenge to our country. This is an effort to address that.

The fact of the matter is the current system for forming labor unions is badly broken and undemocratic. Far too often, employers intimidate, harass, coerce or even fire workers who support a union.

To address this blatant unfairness, this legislation simply allows workers to form a union if a majority signs cards saying they want a union. Under current law, workers may use the majority sign-up process only if their employer agrees.

In contrast, the Employee Free Choice Act would leave this choice, whether to use the National Labor Relations Board election process or majority sign-up, with the employees, not the employer.

It is simply a red herring to claim that the legislation abolishes the NLRB election process. Although I will say as an aside that the delays, the underfunding, the rule complication essentially abolishes in some respects the NLRB's intent. In any event, it does not abolish the NLRB. The NLRB process is still available if workers choose it.

We all know what is really going on here today. It is no secret. The administration and many in the Republican Party have a long-standing, deep-seated animosity toward the organized labor movement, despite the fact that working men and women are the backbone of our economy and have built this country into what it is today.

Now, I am a strong proponent of the free market system. I am a strong proponent of business and those who grow businesses and create jobs. I say all over this country, the Democratic Party is the party of workers. If we are going to be the party of workers, we have to be the party of employers, but we need to make sure there is a balance.

We are not the representatives of either. What we are representatives of is the American people. We need to make sure that it is a fair opportunity.

Over the last 6 years, the administration, among other things, has dropped an ergonomic safety standard, tried to eliminate Davis-Bacon protections, denied collective bargaining rights to Federal employees. 800,000 Federal employees, we have denied bargaining rights, 800,000 Federal employees. Now, there are about 1.8, 1.9 million civilian Federal employees, and we just reached in and said, oh, no, if you are a DOD, Defense Department employee or a Homeland Security employee, you cannot have collective bargaining rights.

I asked the Office of Personnel Management to cite me one instance in the last half a century where collective bargaining rights have put at risk any national security issue. They could not name one in the last half century, not one. I have the gentleman there pointing at himself; I can name you one. Well, this administration's Office of Personnel Management could not.

It is no surprise today that they would oppose this legislation, which seeks to give workers a meaningful choice in selecting their representation and stiffen penalties for discrimination against workers who support a union.

Madam Chairman, hardworking families today are increasingly squeezed by stagnant incomes and the rising costs of education, health care, transportation, food and housing, and there is not an employee who is on even footing as an individual. I say that. Perhaps that is not correct.

I was with Alonzo Mourning just the other day. He is almost 7 feet tall. He may be on equal footing because his employer needs him very, very, very badly, and there may be some few like that, but if you are 6 foot 2 you may not be in that position.

American workers deserve to be fairly compensated for the dedication, loyalty and skill they bring to their jobs, and this legislation will help restore fairness to the workplace.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle not to be pro-labor or pro-business but to be pro-worker, pro-middle class, pro-growing America. Vote for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, Mr. Blunt, the minority whip, for yielding.

On Monday the House will meet, Mr. Speaker, 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 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 those bills, Mr. Whip, will be available later this week.

On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m., and on Friday the House will meet at 9 a.m.

On Wednesday King Abdullah of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan will address a joint meeting of the House and Senate.

We will consider under a rule several important pieces of legislation from the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee that will help clean our environment and create jobs: H.R. 700, the Healthy Communities Water Supply Act; H.R. 720, the Water Quality Financing Act; and H.R. 569, the Water Quality Investment Act. We also will take up the committee funding resolution.

I think that is our expectation.

I don't know. It is being worked on, and I don't know when that will be available.

I don't want to make a representation because I don't know the answer to that and don't want to misrepresent it.

I really don't. But I want to make two observations. First of all, we are 100 percent of the number of open rules that we had in the last Congress where we had one. We have now had two.

With respect to open rules, I know that, in talking to Mr. Frank, he intends to bring some bills to the floor under an open rule. And we have been urging Members to have, if not open rules, structured rules. As you know, we have had some structured rules contemplated as well, offering amendments, allowing, obviously, amendments from your side as well as from our side.

And we want to make sure that we have the opportunity to consider views from both sides of the aisle. So we hope to do that. I cannot represent to you how many open rules there are going to be.

And I understand what the gentleman is saying about the fact that these bills were supported by large numbers, and in the latter case by all Members, but that doesn't mean that they were necessarily perfect. And amendments were offered, as the gentleman knows, and we took 7 hours, I believe, on the one that was of very little controversy 2\1/2\ or 3 weeks ago.

Unfortunately, I don't have the record of the last 12 years right in front of me.

I was thinking that was probably the case.

Having said that, it is Mr. Spratt's hope, and he is working towards meeting those deadlines.

Now, as you know from experience, the plans, as difficult a process as putting together a budget is, sometimes do not meet expectations. However, I will tell you that it is my intention and Mr. Spratt's intention to try to meet those deadlines. And at this point in time we are scheduled to meet those deadlines.

That is correct.

We, of course, on this side, call it the Hastert rule, because after you criticized it roundly for a long period of time, you adopted it.

Let me say seriously; there is no alternative to increasing the debt limit. Both sides pretend that there is. There is not. The administration, if the debt limit is to be extended, is going to request a level to which they would like it increased. Frankly, your side of the aisle, you were not here at the time, I tell my friend, but regularly voted against increasing the debt limit, almost unanimously, in large numbers. It was obviously an effort to try to make it appear that our Members alone were responsible for raising the debt. That was not an honest representation, in my opinion, because we passed bills with Republican votes which resulted in that, whether they were appropriation bills, tax bills, whatever economic bills they were.

So in answer to your question let me say this: We obviously adopted your rules, as you recall, at the beginning of this session. So rule XXVII was a rule that you had in place at the time that you were in the majority. We adopted your rules, and we are pursuing that under those rules.

I think my friend is correct on that. And that is why I started my remarks with really the Congress, if it is going to be responsible on either side, Republican or Democrat, has a responsibility to set the debt limit so that the United States of America meets its obligations, whether it is to our own people on Social Security, whether it is meeting a payment on our debt to foreign countries, whether it is simply funding our government and keeping services to our veterans and everybody else that we vote to give services to, we need to do that.

I agree with you. And I would hope at some point in time, frankly, both parties can get together and say look, this is something that we need to do. And frankly, whether it is the Gephardt rule or the Hastert rule, essentially that is what both sides were doing so that it could not be, I don't want to say demagogue, but misrepresented as agreeing that we ought to have that debt level.

Now, I think almost everybody disagrees with the rate at which we have been going into debt, and the fact that we have borrowed 94 percent of our operating funds that we have borrowed from foreign governments over the last 6 years. I think there is probably nobody that thinks that is a good policy.

But the underlying policies that drive that are really what is at issue.

But I agree with the premise of the gentleman that both sides of the aisle have tried to hold the other responsible for the debt. On our side, frankly, we disagreed with the fiscal policies that were being pursued, which, as you know, we think took us from a $5.6 trillion surplus to now a $3 trillion deficit in the last 6 years. We tried to make that point through that vote. But the gentleman's basic premise I think is absolutely correct. There really isn't an option of when we get to the debt limit, we either ought to stop spending money, reduce very substantially our entitlement obligations, or we have no alternative but to raise the debt.

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; and further, when the House adjourns on Thursday, March 8, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. on Friday, March 9.

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