Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friends for yielding. I am glad that I got here in a timely fashion.

I join with my colleagues in supporting House Resolution 911 expressing our deep sympathy to the people of India in the aftermath of last week's horrific terrorist attacks in Mumbai and strongly condemning these reprehensible and cowardly acts.

I want to commend my colleagues, Representatives Joe Crowley and Joe Wilson, for sponsoring this resolution.

On July 11, during the height of the evening rush hour, a series of coordinated explosions shook the heavily traveled commuter rail lines in Mumbai. I am sure that has already been discussed. 207 people were severely injured and killed. Hundreds more were injured less severely. It is my understanding that this represents the deadliest terrorist bombing since the attacks of September 11 of 2001.

Mr. Speaker, in recent years relations between United States and India have improved dramatically. There was a period of time during the Cold War when we did not have good relations, but now the world's oldest democracy and the world's largest democracy are forging a partnership and friendship that I think will redound to the benefit of not only the peoples of India and the peoples of the United States, but, indeed, the peoples of the international community.

In the immediate aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks, India pledged its full cooperation and offered the use of all its military bases for counterterrorism efforts. That was their offer to us.

Mr. Speaker, we mourn the loss suffered by our friends in India and offer our prayers to those who have lost loved ones and those injured in those heinous attacks.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues. Quite obviously this will be a bipartisan effort on behalf of us all. Too few times we act in a bipartisan fashion, but certainly the respect that we have for our democratic friends in India, the respect we have for their history of bringing together almost 1 billion people and soon over 1 billion people together in a democracy and forging a free and open society is one that we can all respect and admire and certainly support.

When friends like those sustain great injury, we share with them a sadness and empathy, and we wish them the best, and we let them know that we will be there for them as they have been there for us.

I thank Mr. Leach for yielding his time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time.

The choices before the Members of this House today are clear and straightforward. Will the Members of the Republican majority choose to stand with George W. Bush, who just minutes ago vetoed this legislation, ironically the very first veto of his Presidency, and, as a result, impede medical research into diseases that afflict millions of Americans? Or will the Members of this Republican majority choose to stand with more than 70 percent of the American people; the most respected members of America's medical research community; and 238 Members of this House and 63 United States Senators, including, of course, majority leader Bill Frist, all of whom support embryonic stem cell research?

There is little question, Mr. Speaker, about the utility of such research. Scientists, including 80 Nobel Laureates, believe that embryonic stem cell research could lead to treatments and cures for diabetes; Parkinson's; Alzheimer's; multiple sclerosis; cancer; and, as the gentleman from Rhode Island indicated, the rehabilitation of nerves.

Dr. Zerhouni, director of the National Institutes of Health, chosen by George Bush, has stated: ``Embryonic stem cell research holds great promise for treating, curing, and improving our understanding and treatment of disease.''

The American Medical Association and 92 other organizations stated last week in a letter that ``only H.R. 810 will move stem cell research forward.''

Senate Majority Leader Frist, a heart surgeon, has stated, ``Embryonic stem cells uniquely hold specific promise that adult stem cells cannot provide.''

Nor is there doubt about the need for more stem cell lines, since the lines designated by President Bush in 2001 have proven much less useful than hoped. Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy And Infectious Diseases, has stated, ``Our institute believes that embryonic stem cell research could be advanced by the availability of additional cell lines. We may be limiting our ability to achieve the full range of potential therapeutic application of embryonic stem cells by restricting research to a relatively small number of lines currently available.'' This legislation seeks to do just what Dr. Fauci says ought to be done.

Mr. Speaker, the Castle-DeGette bill quite simply would authorize Federal funds for research on embryonic stem cell lines derived from surplus embryos at in vitro fertilization clinics that would otherwise be discarded. That would otherwise be discarded. That seems to me to be critical to every Member's decision.

Equally important, the bill would allow Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research only if strict ethical guidelines are followed. We do not pursue this irresponsibly.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the most important votes that Members will cast in this Congress, and it will be long remembered by the American people. I implore my colleagues, vote to advance ethical embryonic stem cell research, not impede it. Vote to override the President's misguided veto, which will be looked upon years from now as a momentary victory for ideology over medical research and progress.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, first let me say that, unfortunately, there wasn't as much bipartisan drafting of this resolution as I would have hoped.

Hopefully there is no one in this Chamber who does not empathize with those who want peace, those who work for peace, those who are caught in the environment of hate, those who are caught in the environment of attacks on innocent people, those who are harboring in their midst those who attack a nation because of the religion and ethnicity of their population. All of us have empathy for innocent people caught in the grip of terror and terrorism.

But all of us also ought to have the expectation that those people would exorcise from their societies those who undermine peace, security and safety, and the Lebanese people have not done that. They have either not done it because they are incapable of doing it, or they have not done it, as too often I hear verbalized, I tell my friend, because of their sympathy for Hezbollah.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this resolution condemning the recent terrorist attacks against our Nation's staunchest democratic ally in the Middle East and supporting Israel's inherent right for self- defense, and I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to support this resolution as well.

Israel is absolutely justified in undertaking the defense of its territory and its people. As the Israeli columnist Ari Shavit recently wrote, Israel's actions are ``not a war of occupation, but rather a war of defense. Not a settlements war, but rather a green line war. A war over the validity of an international border that was drawn, defined and recognized by the United Nations.''

No one should be mistaken: The actions taken by Israel over the last 8 days have been a direct response to the premeditated, unprovoked attacks of Hamas and Hezbollah, terrorist organizations which are underwritten and encouraged by their sponsors, Syria and Iran.

Palestinian militants, including members of Hamas, dug a tunnel 300 yards inside of Israel territory. And when, on June 25th, militants emerged from that tunnel, they killed two Israeli soldiers, wounded three and kidnapped one.

Then last Wednesday, July 12, Hezbollah terrorists crossed Israel's internationally recognized northern border, and in a brazen daylight attack killed three Israeli soldiers and kidnapped two. Another five Israeli soldiers were killed by Hezbollah terrorists when they tried to retrieve the bodies of their fallen comrades.

Mr. Speaker, these premeditated, unprovoked terrorist attacks on Israel are indefensible. One can only imagine the American response if a terrorist group attacked and killed American citizens from just across our border.

It also must be noted that Israel has exercised great restraint over the last year, during which Palestinian militants, as has been referenced on this floor, have launched over 1,000 rockets from Gaza into Israel and Hezbollah has launched four separate attacks on Israel.

While I am convinced that Israel is using every possible effort to avoid civilian casualties, it is clear that the terrorists in Hamas and Hezbollah purposely, purposely, staged their actions from within civilian communities, thereby putting civilians at grave risk.

Furthermore, while Israel makes every effort to minimize civilian casualties, it is clear that the terrorists of Hamas and Hezbollah deliberately attempt to maximize such casualties by indiscriminately firing rockets upon Israeli population centers.

Mr. Speaker, as a first step towards restoring calm, it is absolutely imperative that Israel's soldiers in Gaza and Lebanon be returned unconditionally and unharmed and that indiscriminate rocket attacks on Israeli civilians by Hamas and Hezbollah cease immediately.

It is also long past the time for the international community to facilitate the implementation of Security Council Resolution 1559. If that U.N. resolution had been carried out, there would be no innocent citizens on either side being killed this day. The tragedy of our international community is the United Nations talks a much better game than it ever plays. That resolution, which was adopted in September of 2004, calls for the Lebanese army to control southern Lebanon's border, and for all militias, including Hezbollah, to be disabled and disbanded.

So long as the international community fails to ensure the implementation of Security Council Resolution 1559, I believe Israel as a sovereign nation with an inherent right of self-defense has every right to strike armed terrorists which seek her destruction. Disarming and disbanding terrorist organizations is essential to Middle East peace.

We empathize, we sympathize, we have deep concern for those caught in this web of violence and terror, but that will not rationalize nor will it excuse the lack of action to exorcise those terrorists from the body politic of the Middle East. Until that happens, innocent civilians will ever be at risk.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill and in opposition to the four amendments which I perceive to be weakening. In particular, I want to commend Congressman Watt, Congressman Sensenbrenner, the chairman of the committee and, of course, the ranking member, Mr. Conyers, for the extraordinary work that they have done to come together on a bipartisan piece of legislation, reauthorizing key provisions of the Voting Rights Act.

Let me add, too, the Members of the Congressional Black Caucus and the Hispanic Caucus and the Pacific Caucus deserve our thanks for their instrumental work on this bill and on these issues.

This legislation is a recognition that our democratic system is not perfect. While our Nation has made tremendous strides in its ongoing quest to guarantee the ideals of our Constitution, the specter of discrimination still haunts us and our people.

And thus, we, the Members of this Congress, have a special responsibility today to be vigilant in perfecting and protecting the most fundamental expression of equality in any democracy, the right to vote.

We must never forget our rights, though God-given, have been hard won. Brave American citizens have been subjected to intimidation, violence and, yes, even death, to secure the rights that are theirs under the Constitution.

Our colleague, Congressman John Lewis, is a living testament to that bravery. Forty-one years ago, John and his fellow marchers were brutally attacked when they simply tried to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, on their way to Montgomery to register to do what every American believes is a birthright, to vote.

The Declaration of Independence says that ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.'' That is what it says. This legislation is about making it so.

The people who walked across the Edmund Pettus bridge and in millions of places and had the courage to challenge rank injustice in their peaceful actions still inspire us today.

Our Nation did the right thing 41 years ago. It is important for us to do the right thing today.

I urge my colleagues, vote for the underlying bipartisan bill and against those amendments which were offered, which will weaken our commitment.

We must keep faith with the promise and requirements of our Constitution. We must reauthorize these key provisions of the Voting Rights Act.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for 1 minute for the purposes of

inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come.

I would be pleased to yield to my friend, Mr. Boehner, the majority leader.

Thank you, Mr. Leader, for that information.

Tuesday is the marriage amendment. Would it be fair to believe that these, they are listed relatively in chronological order, therefore, the pledge protection bill would come on Wednesday probably, and then Oman on Thursday probably?

On the veto override, you expect H.R. 810 to pass the Senate and then be vetoed and come back to us at that point in time, which would be either Thursday or Friday, depending upon how quickly we were doing our business?

If it were Wednesday, are you going to try to keep the other two bills that would come over from the Senate with that bill? Are you going to try to do all three of them at the same time, or is that not necessarily the case?

I yield to my friend.

So if you were trying to keep the three bills relatively together at the White House, is that what I am hearing you say?

Then we might pass those earlier in the week?

I thank the gentleman for that information. And I appreciate what you are saying about Friday. That will be dependent upon how quickly we get the work that is before us done. I understand that.

Mr. Leader, we have had some discussions, and we still have pending, as you know, one appropriation bill, the Labor-Health bill which is pending. It has, as you know, attached to it an amendment adopted in a bipartisan fashion on the minimum wage, taking the minimum wage to $7.25 in three increments.

Can you tell me the status of the Labor-Health bill? I know it is not on the calendar, but can you tell me its status?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for that information. He anticipated my question, but I noted in the paper that there are some 25 or 25-plus Members on your side of the aisle who have written suggesting that we bring this to the floor. I would think if that is the case that we do have a majority, I would think, who would be for bringing this to the floor and, quite probably, a majority who might vote for a minimum-wage bill, assuming it comes to the floor as a minimum-wage bill.

Mr. Leader, I am very hopeful that that can happen, and it would be wonderful if it could happen before we left here for the August break. But I hear you saying that is still under discussion, and, hopefully, the result will be a positive one from the perspective of having an up- or-down vote on the minimum wage. I thank the gentleman for that information.

Lastly, Mr. Leader, the pension conference, you and I are very concerned about it. Literally millions of people are very concerned about it. But it still languishes in the conference committee. Can you give us any update on where the pension conference is and what expectations there might be for the pension bill to come to the floor?

I yield to my friend.

Hope springs eternal. Let's hope the bill is not eternally, however, in the conference committee.

Mr. Leader, if I could comment as well, you and I had a discussion and I had a discussion with your predecessor on this issue as well and with Mr. Blunt, when he was acting in the capacity you now have, with reference to the bipartisan inclusion of conferees in the decision- making process as to what the pension bill is going to be. In our experience in dealing with you when you were chairman of the committee, you did that. We appreciated that. We think it was the right thing to do. And, frankly, we think it manifested itself in some good products. But, Mr. Leader, I must tell you that the minority members and the ranking member have not been included, in the information I have, in the conferences or deliberations that have been going on with reference to the pension bill.

In light of the fact, as you point out, it is a complicated bill, a difficult bill, we think that would be useful certainly for us; but very frankly, we think it would be appropriate for the process itself.

I yield to my friend in hopes that he will, as he indicated he would, try to prevail on those powers that be to effect that happening, as he indicated he thought ought to happen.

I yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time, I hope that is the case. And perhaps I will privately discuss with you whom these consultations have been with because on my side of the aisle, they have not talked to me yet. But I thank the gentleman, and I will talk to him privately.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I rise and I certainly adopt the remarks of Mr. Obey from Wisconsin.

We are talking about a credit bill. We are talking about making it in order. In order to have credit, you have to have resources. In order to have resources in our country, we think you need to work. And when you work, we ought to pay you. We ought to pay you a decent, fair wage for working hard and playing by the rules.

Now, some would say, well, we ought not to put this on this credit bill. If we defeat the previous question, we are going to offer an increase in the minimum wage to $7.25 over three increments starting with January 1, the Miller-Owens bill. We are going to offer that because we think it is the right thing to do. We are going to offer it because we think the overwhelming majority of Americans think it is the right thing to do. In fact, in polling data, they show that 86 percent of Americans think it is fair and right and timely to increase the minimum wage.

If, in 1968, we applied simply the same cost-of-living adjustment we provided for Social Security recipients, minimum-wage workers would be earning $9.05 today. Now, what would that do? That would take them above the poverty line. Right now, if you work hard and play by the rules and you are one of 6.6 million Americans, 75 percent of whom are adults, and you take them and pay them fully the minimum wage, they are living in poverty. That is not right in America.

In Florida, they put this issue on the ballot, and 72 percent of Floridians went to the polls and not only increased the minimum wage, but included in it a cost escalator for inflation, 72 percent of Floridians.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is the fair thing to do, it is the right thing to do, it is the timely thing to do.

And, very frankly, those on the minimum wage, mired in poverty and hopelessness, we talk about an opportunist society. There is no opportunity living in poverty. If you believe in an opportunist society, you believe in paying people a decent wage so in the richest Nation on the face of the Earth they have an opportunity to survive.

This President talks about an ownership society. Which one of you thinks that on $5.15 an hour you can own anything, your car, your home, your hope?

What defeating the previous question will do is it will give hope to 6.6 million people, and indeed many more, because those 6.6 million people live in families that are struggling as well, and they are participating in trying to make it with those families.

Ladies and gentlemen, defeat the previous question. Let us pass the minimum wage. It is far past the time when we should have done that, but it is time today that we do do that. Let's be fair. Raise the minimum wage.

Mr. Chairman, I think Perry Mason would be very proud of Mr. Davis on this effort. I understand, you and I have talked about it, it is an important effort. I sympathize and am going to vote with Mr. Markey, but I nevertheless think that your effort is certainly some small attempt to reduce, by some little bit, the $600 billion. I thank the gentleman for his efforts.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that H. Res. 900 be included in the Record at this point in time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 900.

Let me read H. Res. 900's opening resolution: ``Supporting intelligence and law enforcement programs to track terrorists and terrorist finances conducted consistent with Federal law and with appropriate congressional consultation.''

Everybody in this body supports tracking terrorists. Everybody.

The gentleman who chairs the Intelligence Committee just talked about process. Neither the New York Times nor the Los Angeles Times nor the Wall Street Journal raise their hands and swear to defend the Constitution and protect the laws of the United States of America. We do that, and we have processes to determine how best to do that.

We are at war, and we ought to be united, and I will lament the fact that the Republican leadership continually presents resolutions designed to divide rather than to bring us together. There was not one second of hearing on the resolution before this body, not one. There was no process. There was no oversight. There was no fact-finding. There was no way to determine what, in fact, the facts are.

We are not the newspapers. We have sworn an oath before God and to our constituents to do our work in a way that protects and defends the Constitution and the statutes of this land. You have not done that. You have not brought us together. You have not said let us come together on a resolution. Not only that, but we have an alternative. I have read you its preamble, which accomplishes the same objective you want but without adopting premises that none of us, not one of the 435 of us, know that those premises are accurate.

I tell my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), he has not had one minute of hearings in his committee on this resolution, not one.

Is that responsible? Is that the way the people of the United States want us to carry out important functions of government when we are at war? I think not. I think they expect more of us. We do not honor this institution or its processes or our Constitution by the actions we take today on this floor.

I will oppose this resolution, but I will support H.R. 900, which says very clearly and emphatically that we want to determine what terrorists are doing. We want to intercept the information from financial institutions that further a conspiracy to create terror and injury and damage to our country and to our people. But we should have done it, I tell the chairman, in a collegial way, in a cooperative way, in a partnership against terrorism, not in a partisan effort to divide and to make political points.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to pay tribute to my good friend, the late Philip Merrill, who passed away earlier this month. And I rise as well to celebrate the life of a colorful and accomplished man and to say to his grieving family, his wife Eleanor, known to all of us as Ellie, his son Doug, his daughters Cathy and Nancy, his sister Suzanne and his four grandchildren, and to his other loved ones as well as his countless friends, that he will never be forgotten by Marylanders and by all those whose lives he touched.

He was a man of immense and innumerable talents. Phil worked literally all over the world. He served as counselor to the Under Secretary of Defense as a member of the Defense Policy Board at the Defense Department from 1983 to 1990, as Assistant Secretary General to NATO from 1990 to 1992, and most recently, as president and chairman of the Export-Import Bank of the United States from 2002 until last year.

In all, Phil served in six administrations. That impressive resume alone would be enough for most people to hang their hat on. Yet for Phil Merrill it is only half of his story. It was in his beloved home State of Maryland, particularly in southern Maryland, where he left his greatest mark and improved and enriched the lives of all of us who live in the region. Indeed, he was a presence in the Washington metropolitan area and in Washington itself.

Mr. Speaker, I trust that you are familiar with the Washingtonian magazine, a publication owned by the Merrills. The Washingtonian was only a part of his vast publication business. Yet, I think that in this magazine we can truly see an imprint of Phil's spirit and the way that he approached life.

Washington is a diverse city, a place where many, maybe even most, of those who live here come from other parts of the country. And because of that, the Washington area is extraordinarily diverse in background and experience and taste and opinion and in world views. Yet, those of us who spend so much time in this city, Mr. Speaker, usually end up too often becoming too consumed by the work that we are doing and the issues that we care about to fully appreciate and to truly enjoy the unique culture that exists here.

That is where the Washingtonian magazine steps in. It was designed to encourage people to step back for just a moment and to take in the immense natural beauty and cultural offerings of this historic city. That is just what Phil Merrill did for the people around him. He inspired others to see that there actually is time in a busy life to do things like enjoy the outdoors. In his case, it was sailing and skiing and spending time with his beloved family that he so dearly loved for so long.

The other facet of Phil's publishing business was Capitol Gazette Communications, comprised of five local papers and the Capitol, Annapolis' hometown paper. As the New York Times recently reported, Mr. Merrill bought the paper as a moribund afternoon daily in 1968 and built its circulation from 13,000 to 47,000. It goes without saying, Mr. Speaker, that the Capitol and the other newspapers in the Capitol Gazette Communications chain are a vital part of the daily lives of many of us and of my own constituents. They help unite our community.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say that Phil Merrill, publisher, successful businessman, diplomat, also will long be remembered as one of the most generous philanthropists of the Washington metropolitan area. During his life, Phil contributed tens of millions of dollars to his favorite causes, including the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, designed to restore and keep clean his beloved Chesapeake Bay, and the University of Maryland, for whom we shared a great love and commitment. He committed many dollars to the College of Journalism, one of the best now in the Nation. In addition, he contributed generously to the Johns Hopkins University's Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies.

Mr. Speaker, Phil Merrill was a giant. I attended his memorial service, and there were clearly well over 1,000 people in attendance. He was a man who thrived on living each hour of each day to the fullest. His pioneering spirit, his dedication to this country, and, above all, his unwavering love of family and loyalty to friends serve as a model for all of us to live by.

Phil Merrill will be missed, but he will not be forgotten.

This has nothing to do with the economy and everything to do with fiscal responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, over the last 5\1/2\ years, this Republican majority has repeatedly pushed tax legislation that is blatantly unfair, grossly irresponsible, and fiscally ruinous. Today, however, they outdo even themselves.

Our Nation is at war, our brave troops are under fire, our Nation is facing record budget deficits. That is the legacy of this Republican leadership. And the national debt, which now stands at $8.4 trillion, is exploding under this Republican Congress and administration.

Despite all the challenges facing the people of our Nation, today this Republican majority insists that we give a huge tax break to the heirs of the wealthiest people in America. I am for modification that is in process, not this bill.

If there ever was a bill that demonstrated the Republican Party's misguided priorities and the deep differences between our parties, this is the one. Democrats are continuing to fight to raise the Federal minimum wage which has not been increased since 1997 and which is at its lowest level in half a century; 6.6 million workers would be affected, 7,500 people in this bill.

As the majority leader told the press on Tuesday: ``I am opposed to it,'' meaning the increase in the minimum wage, ``and I think the vast majority of our conference is opposed to it.''

But this bill comes to us, not been to committee, never marked up in committee, comes directly to the floor with no consideration.

Let us be clear about the facts. Less than 1 percent of all estates in America will pay estate taxes in 2006 under this year's exemption before this bill. And when the exemption increases in 2009 to $3.5 million, which I have supported, $7 million for couples, only 7,500 estates in America will be subject to the estate tax. But that is not enough. Warren Buffet said they talk about class warfare and his class is winning. Amen, Mr. Buffet.

Today, House Republicans are falling all over themselves to give the heirs of approximately 7,500 estates a tax cut. This bill is not only morally reprehensible but fiscally irresponsible. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that this Republican bill will cost $762 billion over its first 10 years.

You don't have $762 billion. We are all correct, you are going to borrow it for the Chinese, from the Saudis, from the Germans, from the Japanese, and others. And who is going to pay the bill? Our children are going to have to pay the bill, our grandchildren are going to have to pay that bill, because you don't have the money.

The Wall Street Journal, which was quoted by Mr. Thomas, said the other day they didn't agree with PAYGO. Why don't they agree with PAYGO? Because it would undercut tax cuts. Why would it undercut tax cuts? Because you neither have the courage nor the ability to pay for your tax cuts.

Vote against this bad bill.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, a vote is in progress.

The House is in the process of a vote.

motion to table offered by mr. thomas

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. I make a point of order that that motion is not in order. The Speaker called for a vote. The aye votes were taken. The next question is the no votes. We are in the process of a vote. And until such time as that vote is concluded, a motion is not in order.

Mr. Speaker, point of order.

Mr. Speaker, you can run over us. We understand that. We do not have the votes. But you called the vote, Mr. Speaker, and we were in the process of a vote, and he had not been recognized at that point. Now, the fact that he was seeking recognition or not is irrelevant.

Yes.

That the gentleman's motion is not in order because we were in the process of voting on the issue that was propounded by the gentleman from New York.

I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I have appealed the previous ruling of the Chair. An appeal to the ruling of the Chair is pending.

I do. I make a parliamentary inquiry.

I would propound this parliamentary inquiry. Is it appropriate during the course of a vote, and after one side of the vote has been made and pending the request for the nays in this case, is it appropriate to stop that vote and then recognize someone at that point in time?

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

The Speaker's recollection is different than mine. The Speaker propounds and the Parliamentarian advises that apparently you began. Frankly, we were in the process. You had called for the ayes, the ayes had been made, and you were then about to call for the nays.

So I would suggest it was not a question that you had begun and then saw that the gentleman from California had risen and then sought to recognize him. What you did was, after asking for the ayes, which were enunciated, you then stopped the vote and then recognized the gentleman from California.

My question to you, therefore, you did not respond to. Once the vote is in progress, and I suggest to the Speaker and those who might advise him that the Record will reflect that the vote had been called, it is in that context that I again ask you, Mr. Speaker, not if you had started, but, in fact, we were in the progress of a vote.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, for 5\1/2\ years now the Republican Congress and the administration have pursued what I have said repeatedly is the most reckless fiscal policy in the history of our Nation. I believe that.

When George Bush took office, he inherited a projected 10-year budget surplus of $5.6 trillion. There is no dispute on that. George Bush said that on the floor of this House. In March of 2001, he promised the American people, ``We can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits, even if the economy softens.''

Let's compare Republican rhetoric with reality. That projected deficit surplus has been turned into a projected budget deficit of some $4 trillion, a historical fiscal turnaround of more than $9 trillion.

Republicans have created the four largest budget deficits in American history. We Democrats have no power in this House or in the Senate or in the Presidency. It has been Republicans alone that have created these deficits.

They have raised the debt limit four times, and House Republicans have voted to increase it by an additional $653 billion, to a total of $9.6 trillion. Let me repeat: we had a $5.6 trillion surplus in January of 2001, according to President Bush; we now have an authorized debt of $9.6 trillion.

They have spent every single nickel of Social Security money. It is no wonder that former Republican House majority leader Dick Armey of Texas told the Wall Street Journal in 2004, ``I'm sitting here, and I'm upset about the deficit, and I'm upset about spending. There's no way I can pin that on the Democrats. Republicans own the town now.''

Given their record, I think it takes some audacity, chutzpah perhaps would be a better word, for our Republican friends to come to this floor today with this so-called Legislative Line Item Veto Act and bemoan the growth in Federal spending and the dire fiscal condition, created by whom? Created by them. Republicans, after all, own the town, as I said Dick Armey noted.

Yet the President has failed to veto one bill. We are talking about a line item veto? This President has not vetoed a bill. This President has gone a longer period of time than any President in over 195 years in this Nation and he hasn't vetoed anything. All of the spending has been marked ``approved'' by George W. Bush, the President of the United States. He doesn't exercise vetoes.

This Republican majority refuses to embrace the one real method of restraining spending and restoring fiscal discipline, the pay-as-you-go budget rules that applied to both spending and taxes and were adopted, I tell my Republican friends, in bipartisan votes in 1990 and again in 1997.

But you jettisoned them. Why did you jettison them? You jettisoned those rules because you knew you couldn't fit your tax cuts into them. You didn't have the courage to cut spending to meet your tax cuts. That is a fair policy. If you don't want to spend, fine. If you want to cut taxes, fine. Cut spending. That is a fair policy. You haven't done that.

You cut revenues, and you increased very substantially revenues, period. And don't talk to me about the war. You included spending very radically on entitlement programs, the biggest increase in entitlement spending since 1965 on your watch, with very little help from Democrats, who overwhelmingly voted against those increases.

As the New York Times stated on Monday: ``The line item veto bill is an attempt to look tough while avoiding the tried-and-true, and truly tough, deficit fix: reinstating the original pay-as-you-go rules.''

Mr. Speaker, this bill is very different from versions introduced in the 1990s. It not only fails to include PAYGO rules, but also applies to mandatory programs, including Medicare and Social Security. It gives the President 45 days to send a rescission message and fails to give Congress the power to amend the rescission package.

We are the policymakers. Article I. This Congress is the most complacent, complicit Congress perhaps in history in terms of being a lap dog for the President of the United States. We are a coequal branch. We are not a branch to ask leave of the President to take action.

The majority, unfortunately, refused to allow us to consider the substitute John Spratt wanted to offer. Don't you have the courage to argue the merits of your case and let us argue the merits of our case and have a vote? Are you so afraid of the alternatives that you won't even allow the vote?

We ought to vote this down. It is a ruse, it is a fraud, it is a sham.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to my friend, Mr. Boehner, the majority leader, for the purposes of inquiring about the schedule for the week to come.

I thank the gentleman. Reclaiming my time, you did not mention the time at which we will have votes on Monday night, but I presume it is 6:30. Is that accurate?

Okay. And you have just answered my question on Friday.

Let me ask you, we are talking about Fridays, after the July 4 work period, the schedule tentatively has on there working Monday through Friday on the 3 weeks in July. We have been pretty efficient in getting the appropriations bills through. We have two left. I will ask you about a couple of those.

But is it still your expectation, given that the appropriations bills will probably, hopefully, all be done by that time, that we would still schedule 5-day weeks?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman. And I know the Members will appreciate a more definite schedule when you are able to give that.

Mr. Leader, we had expected that the Voting Rights Act would be on the floor this week. I think you had expected that as well.

This is obviously, from our perspective, I think from your perspective, a very important bill and we thought we had bipartisan agreement on the bill. It came out of committee, as you know, in an overwhelming bipartisan vote. Do you have an expectation of when we might see that bill on the floor?

I yield to my friend.

I appreciate the gentleman's comments. Obviously we share the view that this is an important bill. We understand that the act has some time before reauthorization needs to be done, but in light of the fact that it came out of committee with very bipartisan support, and Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Watt, and others worked

very hard on this bill, we are hopeful it can move as soon as possible so the Senate can itself consider it.

The next bill that we had thought was going to be on the calendar last week, the Labor-Health bill, is not listed for this coming week. I have noted some of your comments in the papers, but obviously this bill, as you know, includes an increase in the minimum wage, which was voted out of committee on a bipartisan vote, and we believe that if it is brought to the floor, it will be approved on a bipartisan vote.

But can the gentleman tell me what the expectations are for the Labor-Health bill?

I yield to my friend.

You have no expectations, then?

Clearly the appropriation bills have been bills which I know the majority wanted to move, and I would hope, notwithstanding the fact that there is a provision that the committee approved, that we would not subject that to a majority vote on the floor.

I will be glad to yield.

Reclaiming my time, that was my assumption as well, that there are other issues. But in terms of the gentleman's observation regarding the rules, just as typically it has been our observation that if the majority wanted something on the floor, they simply waived the rules, and they have done so on a very frequent basis. We are just hopeful that you would see your way clear to doing that just one more time.

I thought you would.

Mr. Leader, the Health IT bill and other health care-related bills, I know this was supposed to be Health Care Week. I may have missed it, but in any event, if it went by me, it is Health Care Week.

Can you tell me whether or not the IT bill might come at some point in time?

I yield to my friend

I thank the gentleman for that information.

Lastly, Mr. Leader, there has been a lot of talk on it, and we have voted on it numerous times, the so-called pledge protection bill. Do you know whether that might be on the floor next week?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for that information. He and I share the view that the pension bill is a very important bill for employees and for employers. I know the gentleman has been working hard on it.

But in light of the fact you did bring it up, last week we talked about the inclusion of both parties in the deliberations. After our conversation, I had the opportunity to check with Mr. Rangel, and I don't think he has been included. I do believe that Senator Kennedy and Senator Baucus have been included, and there was a lot of discussion, but I will tell my friend that the information I have, which may be incorrect, is that at least in terms of this House, the ranking member has not been included in the deliberations. I think that would really be helpful when it comes back out so that our Members would be able to have the information from our ranking member as to his insights into what has been done, and I would hope that could occur.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my colleagues, Representatives Inslee, Jones and Van Hollen, which would prohibit the use of funds in this bill to be expended on specific elements of the National Security Personnel System.

In February, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ruled that the Department of Defense, in establishing a rule to execute the National Security Personnel System, had failed to ensure the rights of the approximately 700,000 civilian employees of the Department of Defense.

Specifically, the judge determined that the rule:

Fails to ensure that employees can bargain collectively.

Does not meet Congress's requirement for ``Independent Third Party Review'' of labor relations decisions.

And that the process for appealing adverse actions fails to provide employees with the ``Fair Treatment'' required by the Congress.

Yet, despite the decision, the department has proceeded with the implementation of the rule.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply ensures that the Department of Defense will not continue to pursue a policy that is clearly against the law and against the best interests of our national security.

I commend the gentlemen for their continued efforts on behalf of our Federal employees and urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

Thank you very much. The hour is late and the time is limited. Mr. Speaker, I rise, however, to briefly urge my colleagues to take action on raising the minimum wage. This is an action of fairness. It is the right thing to do. It is an issue of values. The American people believe it is the right thing to do. Eighty-six percent of them have said we ought to raise the minimum wage.

This issue clearly illustrates the different priorities, it seems to me, between the Democratic and Republican sides of the aisle. We Democrats have been trying to get this issue on the floor for years now.

Let us look at the facts, Mr. Speaker. Democrats have been fighting to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour over 2 years. Today, if the minimum wage were at the rate it was in 1968, we would be paying $9.05. We are not getting there, but we ought to do better than we have done.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Republican side of the aisle is fighting us tooth and nail while attempting this week to bring up legislation once again that gives the heirs of the wealthiest families in America a break on the estates tax and drive our Nation even deeper into debt. That is right, while the working people struggle to make ends meet, doing what we expect them to do, this Congress is rushing an estate tax bill, what I call the ``Paris Hilton Tax Relief Act,'' to the floor.

Of course, as usual, the bill is not paid for and continues the majority's fiscal irresponsibility and will increase our costs of borrowing by $280 billion over the next 10 years. We are borrowing because we have no money to give a tax cut, so we are going to have to borrow it from other nations.

Last week, in the Appropriations Committee, I offered an amendment to the fiscal year 2007 labor-health bill. That amendment passed, raising the minimum wage 70 cents on each of the next Januarys, 2007, 2908 and 2009, bringing to $7.25 the minimum wage. Seven Republicans, Mr. Speaker, on the committee voted for that bill, several of whom have tough races. So they were listening very carefully to their people at home; and their people, again by overwhelming majorities, say this is the fair and right thing to do.

We thought we were going to consider that labor-health bill this week. It was announced it would be on the floor this week, but it was pulled. I am not sure exactly of all the reasons, but in part surely it was pulled because there was a question about the rule.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, when that bill comes to the floor, the rule vote will be a minimum-wage vote. And if you think that the minimum wage ought to be increased, if you think working Americans ought to be given a wage that gets them out of poverty, if you think that somebody who works in America ought to be able to support at least themselves, then you will vote against the rule, unless it gives a waiver for this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Miller and I, and the others who will speak on this floor, believe very strongly that in an America that honors work and in an America, the richest Nation on the face of the Earth, that is an example for the rest of the world, we ought to make sure that those who work, those who get up in the morning and work hard, play by the rules, as Bill Clinton used to say, ought to get a decent, fair wage.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that when this bill comes forward that every Member of this House will vote for a rule that ensures an up-or-down vote on raising the minimum wage in America for all our workers who work at that level. There are 6.6 million people, Mr. Speaker, 6.6 million Americans trying to support themselves and participating in helping to support their children and their families. It is the right thing to do.

Over 86 percent of Americans think it is the right thing to do and the House of Representatives ought to do the right thing.

And, five of those seven Republicans who voted with Democrats last week flip-flopped. The other two failed to vote.

And, the amendment failed.

Mr. Speaker, the failure of this Congress to act on the minimum wage is a national embarrassment.

It has been 9 years since we last raised the Federal minimum wage-- the second longest period without an increase since a minimum wage was first enacted.

Today, the minimum wage is at its lowest level in 50 years, when adjusted for inflation.

Had the minimum wage been indexed for inflation since 1968, it would be $9.05 an hour today--not $5.15.

People who work full-time in the United States of America--the richest nation on earth--should not be poor.

But in 2003 there were 3.7 million workers who worked full-time, year-round, and still lived in poverty.

And, let's disabuse ourselves of this notion that ``no one'' really makes the minimum wage any more.

Not true.

In fact, a minimum wage increase would directly benefit 6.6 million low-wage workers--most of whom are adults who work to support themselves and their families.

An increase would specifically benefit 760,000 single mothers who toil day in and day out, sometimes at 2 or 3 jobs to provide just the basic necessities for themselves and their children.

Let's also dispense with the Republicans' favorite argument--that raising the minimum wage will somehow cost us jobs.

Again, not true.

We know that this argument is false because 20 States and the District of Columbia have raised their minimum wage above the federal rate.

And, a study conducted by the Center for American Progress and Policy Matters Ohio shows the following:

Employment in small businesses grew more (9.4 percent) in states with higher minimum wages than Federal minimum wage states (6.6 percent).

And, inflation-adjusted small business payroll growth was stronger in high minimum

wage states (19 percent) than in Federal minimum wage states (13.6 percent).

Raising the minimum wage is an issue of fairness and an issue of values.

A PEW research poll in December 2005 found that 86 percent of Americans support raising the minimum wage.

The time to increase the minimum wage is long overdue, and Democrats are going to keep fighting for a fair wage for America's working families.

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purposes of inquiring of the majority leader the calendar.

I yield to my friend Mr. Boehner, the majority leader.

I thank the leader for his information.

The leader and I had a brief conversation, as you recall, with reference to the time when we would vote on Monday. I know that you have considered that, but I would again reiterate, as you know, one of the problems is in order for a Member on the west coast to get here, they need at least until 5:30 to be assured of being available for a vote. I know you must have considered this.

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman. I look forward to working with him on this to accommodate those Members on the west coast in particular.

There is a change in the announced schedule with regard to first votes, as we have discussed, and I appreciate your responding to that.

With respect to the Labor-Health bill, it was our expectation that the Labor-Health-Education appropriations bill, which was reported out of committee this week, would be on the floor this coming week. As you know, that included within it a bipartisan-approved increase in the minimum wage, by $2.10, to $7.25 over the next 30 months. I notice that that bill is not on the schedule for next week. Can you tell me the status of the Health and Human Services appropriations bill?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for that information.

If I might follow it up, we would very much hope that the amendment that was adopted, and we believe is supported by over 80 percent of the American public, would be protected under the rule. We obviously understand that it is legislation on an appropriation bill and would require a waiver, as many have been given in the past. I would respectfully request that you look at that and, in light of the fact of the bipartisan support in the committee, seriously consider and hopefully give a waiver so that that matter may be considered on the floor with a vote by the membership.

If you have any comment, I would be glad to yield.

It will be continuing. I thank you.

We understood next week was supposed to be health care week. Yet no health care legislation is listed. For example, the Health IT or the bill authored by Mr. Shadegg are not on your announcement. When do you anticipate we may see either of these pieces of legislation on the floor?

Thank you.

The last question I would ask you, Mr. Leader, you and I have had a discussion. You have been in the leadership of the consideration of the pension reform legislation. Obviously, we all know it is critical to employees, critical to companies. It has been now pending in conference for many, many months. I am wondering whether or not you might give us some thought as to its status and its prospects.

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for those comments.

As you recall when we discussed this matter, it is still my understanding that the Democratic conferees have yet to be really engaged in the conference proceedings. You and I had a discussion on that, and I would hope that that might happen.

I yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time, you indicate that the leadership on both sides of the aisle have been involved.

I mean the leadership of the committees is what I was talking about.

I appreciate the comments and would hope that is the case, and we will talk to our leaders on that so that we can both, working together, move this bill forward.