Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Pennsylvania for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, every Member of this House wants our Nation and our coalition partners to succeed in helping the Iraqis establish a democratic government that respects human rights and abides by the rule of law and to succeed in standing up Iraqi security forces that can maintain order and protect their citizens.

We pray, of course, for the safe return of our brave servicemen and - women who are fighting for freedom half a world away, and we applaud their success last week in eliminating the terrorist murderer Zarqawi. The professionalism, bravery, and sacrifice of our Armed Forces are indeed awe-inspiring.

This year, Mr. Speaker, 2006, should be a year of transition in Iraq; and it is my expectation that the United States will be able to reduce the American troop deployment over the ensuing months and transfer the risks and responsibilities to the duly elected government of Iraq. That is what has been proposed.

Today, it is regrettable that this Republican majority seeks to exploit this critical issue of national security for political advantage. The resolution before us, like the Hunter resolution that was debated last December, was drafted, in my view, for political reasons.

As Majority Leader Boehner explained, its purpose is an opportunity to create ``a portrait of contrasts between Republicans and Democrats.''

For our country's sake, for our troops' sake, the majority should have offered a resolution that sought unity, rather than division.

There are provisions in this resolution, of course, with which all of us agree. I, for one, strongly share the resolve to prevail in the war on terror. However, this resolution misstates, in my opinion, the facts about why the Bush administration instigated our military action against the Hussein regime in 2003. It paints a picture of Iraq today that does not comport with the reality on the ground, and it ignores the fundamental responsibility of this Congress to conduct meaningful oversight of the administration's conduct of this war.

The political motivations underlying this resolution have been laid bare; and, thus, I will be forced to vote ``no.''

The American people will not be deceived by this exercise today which our Republican colleague of North Carolina (Mr. Jones) labeled a charade.

The American people know, as Lieutenant General Gregory Newbold, the former commanding general of the 1st Marine Division, said, ``What we are living with now is the consequences of successive policy failures.''

The administration manipulated intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. It ignored the advice of top military commanders and sent too few troops to accomplish the task; and, consequently, we failed to stabilize Iraq after Hussein was rightfully removed from power.

It fired police and security forces and oil workers, which fueled the instability and initiated war before making alternative plans to shut off escape routes to the north when the Turks would not let us come in.

It had no effective plan to quickly get infrastructure repaired and rebuilt. It failed to properly equip our own troops, as Mr. Murtha has observed, 2,500 of whom have given the ultimate measure of sacrifice in this war.

It grossly underestimated the costs of the war at about $60 billion, which now stands six times larger and more.

And when confronted with concrete evidence of widespread mistreatment of detainees in American custody, the President failed to hold anyone in his administration accountable.

Sadly, and dangerously, according to the Pew Research Center, the global credibility of the United States has sharply declined.

The record of the Republican Congress is, in my opinion, no less disturbing. This proud body, the people's House, has abdicated its oversight role and failed to root out waste, fraud and corruption so prevalent in Iraq today.

Nearly $9 billion in reconstruction funds are unaccounted for. No-bid contracts have been awarded to private contractors such as Halliburton. Detainees in American custody have been abused and, in some instances, killed, and still, still, there is no effective oversight on these matters in the Congress of the United States.

In the face of one of the most important issues before our country, we have been presented with politics as usual.

It is an effort to divide, when an effort to unite was in our country's and our Armed Forces' best interest.

I regret that I have to vote ``no.'' I believe success in our efforts in Iraq is important to achieve, but partisanship only impedes the attainment of that objective; an objective, hopefully, that we all share.

Mr. Speaker, I am very, very pleased to welcome to our midst Father Joseph Kleinstuber, a constituent of mine and an extraordinarily loved leader in our area. Father Kleinstuber is pastor of St. Mary's Church located in my district in Bryantown.

Father Kleinstuber was born in Washington, D.C. He attended Gonzaga High School, as well as Georgetown and George Washington Universities before going on active duty as an officer in the Air Force. He spent 3 years in the Air Force as chief of the Aviation Physiology Department at Randolph Air Force Base in Texas.

Following his military service, he studied at St. Vincent Seminary and was ordained as a Catholic priest in 1964.

Prior to coming to St. Mary's, Father Kleinstuber served as an assistant pastor of St. Anthony Church in the District and St. Andrew the Apostle Church in Silver Spring, Maryland. He also worked for 25 years at St. John's College High School here in Washington as chaplain, director of counseling, a member of the science department, and, of interest to our Speaker, wrestling moderator.

Since 2001, Father Kleinstuber has been at St. Mary's serving as the pastor of this more than 200-year-old parish where he is affectionately known by the students at St. Mary's Bryantown Catholic School as Father

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise on behalf of and in support of the amendment offered by Mr. Obey, Mr. Hyde, Mr. Lantos and Mr. Green, and I associate myself with the remarks of Mr. Obey and Mr. Lantos.

I believe the alliance between ourselves and Egypt is an important one. I believe that Egypt has played an important role, not as expansive a role as I would have wanted, but an important role in the Middle East.

Mr. Chairman, in his inaugural address President Bush stated, ``It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in the world.''

Mr. Chairman, I agree with this unambiguous statement in support of democracy and freedom, and I believe Members on both sides of the aisle agree with it as well. In fact, it is the reiteration of the policy that has guided our Nation from Wilson to Roosevelt, to Truman to Kennedy, to the present day.

Yet today, Mr. Chairman, one of our Nation's key allies in the Middle East, our friend Egypt, has taken demonstrable steps that raise troubling questions about its commitment to democracy.

Mr. Chairman, I will give examples. Multiparty presidential elections in 2005, as has been stated, were marred by allegations of fraud, voter suppression and intimidation. The leading opposition candidate, Ayman Nour, was arrested and sentenced to 5 years in prison, prompting the State Department to comment, ``The Egyptian government's handling of this case represents both a miscarriage of justice by international standards and a setback for the democratic aspirations of the Egyptian people.''

In Egypt, judges who protested the election have been disciplined. More than 600 pro-democracy activists have been arrested, and members of the foreign and Egyptian press have been harassed and intimidated.

Let me add, Mr. Chairman, it troubles me that last year, Egypt voted with the United States of America on contested votes of importance only 8.9 percent of the time. Let me reiterate that. A country to whom we have given $67 billion since Camp David, voted with us in important votes 8.9 percent of the time.

Thus, today, Mr. Chairman, I believe this amendment gives us a clear choice: We can continue to turn a blind eye to the undemocratic behavior of the Egyptian government, which will receive $1.8 billion in military and economic assistance through this foreign operations bill; or, alternatively, through the adoption of this amendment, we can send a message to our friend that the United States of America does not approve of its undemocratic activities, and, indeed, believes those are inimical to Egypt itself. We expect Egypt to abide by its commitments on democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

The Secretary of State's letter has been referred to by the chairman of the subcommittee. I have read that letter, Mr. Chairman. It sets forth many things that Egypt has done which have had a positive effect on stability in the Middle East.

Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, those actions were in Egypt's best interests.

They did not do that for the United States. They did it to create stability in the region in which they live. I congratulate them for that. But they did not do it because we gave them aid, assistance.

The bipartisan amendment that has been offered, quite simply, would cut $100 million, as has been said, in economic assistance for Egypt. Like Mr. Lantos, that would not be my choice, but that is the choice of this amendment. Instead, it increases funding for disaster assistance for refugees in Darfur, one of the crisis regions of the world today. In addition, it increases the President's Global HIV/AIDS Initiative by an additional $50 million

At a time when this Nation has committed itself to promoting democracy throughout the Middle East, we have, it seems to me, a responsibility to expect that the most populous country in the region meets its democratic commitments.

Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Congressmen Martin Sabo and Curt Weldon for their leadership not only on this amendment, but also on so many issues of importance to our nation's fire service.

I also want to express my sincere appreciation to chairman Rogers for his support of our first responders and his assistance in bringing this important amendment to the floor.

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not recognize the contributions that Bill Pascrell has made to our nation's firefighters, notably his authoring of the original legislation to establish the assistance to the firefighters grant program.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment provides much-needed increases to both the fire grant and safer programs, and it moves us closer to fulfilling our obligation to ensure that our nation's firefighters have the resources necessary to guarantee their own safety--and to allow them to better serve each of our communities.

This amendment brings the funding in the bill to $651 million--$541 million for fire grants and $110 million for safer.

This is $357.6 million above the level requested by the president, and is a reflection of

congress's commitment to ensuring that our fire departments are properly staffed, trained and equipped.

However, these amounts are still well below the authorized levels, and far from meeting the needs of the fire service.

Thus, we must continue to work to increase the funding levels for each of these programs--this year and in the future.

The fire grant program was established by congress in 2000 to meet the basic equipment, training and firefighter safety requirements of America's fire service, and to bring all fire departments to a baseline of readiness to respond to all hazards.

The fire grant program has been a tremendous success, and congress has provided more than $3.5 billion for infrared cameras, HAZMAT detection devices, modern breathing apparatuses, improved training and physical fitness programs, new turnout gear, fire trucks, and interoperable communications equipment, to name but a few items.

The simple fact is that the equipment and training provided by these grants have saved the lives of firefighters and average citizens in communities across America, and I am proud to have played a role in establishing and funding this program.

The safer program--authorized three years ago and funded for--is a vital complement to the fire grant program because insufficient staffing, defined by the national fire protection association as fewer than four firefighters per apparatus, is a very real problem for far too many of the nation's career and volunteer fire departments.

Responding with fewer than four firefighters per apparatus prevents the first responder unit from complying with OSHA's ``2-in/2-Out'' standard for safe fire ground operation, and adds unnecessary risk to the already dangerous job of fire suppression.

NFPA estimates that an additional 75,000 firefighters are required across the country, and the additional funding we provide today will help move us closer to that goal.

Mr. Chairman, we have an obligation to provide our firefighters with the necessary resources to perform their jobs as safely and effectively as possible.

With the adoption of this amendment, and our continued support of the fire grant and safer programs, we fulfill this obligation made by firefighters across our nation.

Again, I thank Chairman Rogers for accepting this amendment, and for his leadership and continued support of the nation's firefighters.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Lantos and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen for bringing this legislation to the floor.

The premise of this bill is eminently reasonable, in my opinion, and one with which the American people, I think, strongly agree. In short, the United States of America should not, indeed it must not, provide assistance to a government run by terrorists whose very policy and purpose is the destruction of another nation.

All of us are concerned about the plight of the Palestinian people, who have suffered tragically for decades under the leadership of Arafat and now Hamas.

I share those concerns. I have been to Gaza. I have been to the West Bank. I have met with President Abbas and other Palestinian officials, and I have seen the deprivation, the frustration, and the lack of opportunity in the Palestinian territories.

I think there is not one of us on this floor who is not concerned about their plight, as we should be. However, our legitimate concerns for the Palestinian people must not obscure the fact that the Palestinian Authority is now controlled by Hamas, an organization designated as a terrorist entity by the United States and by the European Union. No one here, I understand, stands to defend Hamas; but it is a movement that is committed to the destruction of another nation, in this case our ally Israel.

Mr. Speaker, I believe this balanced legislation is warranted.

Among other provisions, it prohibits direct financial transfers to the Palestinian Authority. That is our policy: until the President certifies that Hamas recognizes Israel's rights to exist, renounces terrorism, agrees to abide by previous PLO and PA agreements with Israel and the United States, and does not have a member of a foreign terrorist organization in a senior policy-making position.

And despite the prohibition of direct assistance, the bill includes exceptions, as it should. For example, the President still may provide assistance for nonsecurity expenses directly related to facilitating a peaceful resolution of the conflict. Furthermore, the bill restricts indirect assistance through nongovernmental organizations unless the certification described above is made by the President.

However, let me add, this provision contains an unqualified exception for basic human health needs, such as food, water, medicine and sanitation services. I tell some of my friends, if that were not in here, I would have reservations, but those basic services are fully excepted in this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is, I think, measured and balanced and demonstrates the refusal of the United States to reward terrorists for terrorism. It should not be, and I think it is not, punitive as it relates to the Palestinian people. It provides, as I said, for health needs, food, water, medicine and sanitation services. They are in need of those services, and we ought to provide them.

But what we ought not to do and what we ought never to do is to give aid and comfort to terrorists or to terrorist organizations or to terrorist governments. Because if we do so, that will encourage others to commit heinous acts of terrorism, as were done here, as are done in Israel, and have been done around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come, and I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), my friend, the majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information, and I, again, would simply emphasize that the majority leader said, as he did last week and accurately so, our Members need to make sure that they are available for a Friday session; am I correct on that?

I thank the gentleman. I was going to ask him about the days for the appropriation bills, but I believe the gentleman has already indicated which days you anticipate that: Tuesday, the Ag bill; Wednesday, the Energy and Water, or Wednesday and Thursday; and then Homeland Security on Thursday.

Would you anticipate that one of those bills might go over till Friday, or is there other legislation that might be on the calendar for Friday?

Reclaiming my time, if the supplemental has not been completed by the conference committee, would you still anticipate that we would be in on Friday? I yield to my friend.

I thank the leader, and I want to comment that the leader has been very inclined to try to work together to make his schedule as accommodating for Members as possible. And I want you to know I personally appreciate it, and I believe we appreciate that on this side of the aisle.

Mr. Leader, on energy bills, you mentioned briefly, but do you anticipate, in addition to the ANWR bill that you mentioned as a possibility, any legislation on the refinery siting that might also be here?

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman. I am shuffling papers back and forth here, but, again, ANWR, can you anticipate what you might expect with respect to an ANWR bill?

Next week?

I thank the gentleman for that information.

Lastly, I want to ask about two conference committees, the supplemental appropriation conference and the pension conference, which we have discussed on a couple of occasions. Can you tell us what your expectations are with reference to those two situations?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for the information.

Mr. Chairman, I had not planned to speak at this point in time in the debate. But somebody, sometime ought to talk about facts.

The gentleman mentions the Contract with America. The first plank of the Contract with America was fiscal

responsibility. Now, you weren't in charge when the Contract With America came into your purview as the majority in 1995. Bill Clinton was President of the United States. I have served here, my 26th year; 18 of those have been with Republican Presidents. Eight have been with a Democratic President. Every one of those 18 years we had a deficit of over $100 billion.

Now, there is only one person in America who can stop spending, the President of the United States. Reagan didn't stop spending. Bush didn't stop spending, and this President has spent, and you have spent, twice as much as we spent under Bill Clinton. The Heritage Foundation will tell you that, not we Democrats. We will tell you that too, but the Heritage Foundation will tell you that, I tell my friend from Texas.

You have voted for budgets which have provided the largest deficits in our history. In the last 64 months, your budgets and your policies have resulted in an additional $3 trillion of deficit spending. Three trillion. You are in charge of the House, you are in charge of the Senate, and you have the Presidency.

Now you say, oh, we had 9/11 and then we had the war. You didn't have that during the Reagan years, and you had a deficit every year. You didn't have that in Bush I. You had the Gulf War I, but guess what, that President Bush had the rest of the world substantially pay for that effort.

$3 trillion in additional debt. And in this budget, you are going to add an additional 650 billion-plus to the national debt. Those deficits, by the way, so you understand, and these are facts, you are welcome to look at your little books, get out your staff and say, oh, no, Hoyer is lying. The public maybe is watching.

During Republican Presidents those 18 years, $4.3 trillion of deficit spending net. You know what you had under Bill Clinton? $62.5 billion of surplus. The only President in your lifetime, I say to all of you, who had a net surplus during the course of his terms.

So I hear the gentleman from Texas get up and talk about the Contract With America. It was blarney.

You said you were going to be fiscally responsible. The finances of this Nation over the last 6 years have been the worst since my service here, and perhaps in the history, I think in the history of America. You talk a good game, but you are not playing a good game. You are not playing for real, and you are trying to fool the American public. The problem you have is they are not being fooled.

Mr. Chairman, let me start by saying that Democrats have not spent any money over the last 6 years. None of our budgets have passed. The appropriations bills would not have passed but for Republican votes, and the Republican President signed the budgets. That is what this crowd has offered. They have done it all. What has that meant? Three trillion dollars of additional deficit spending. That is what it has meant. This budget continues that practice.

Mr. Chairman, the overwhelming majority of Americans now believe that our great Nation is headed in the wrong direction. Not difficult to understand why they think that.

The Republican Party's incompetence over the past 5\1/2\ years is undeniable, from the miscalculations in Iraq to the inept response to Hurricane Katrina, to failure to secure our ports and borders, to the historic turnaround in our fiscal health from the $5.6 trillion surplus that they inherited, which they have turned into a $4 trillion deficit, a $9.6 trillion turnaround in 64 months; 5.4 million more Americans live in poverty, 6 million more are uninsured. Real median household income has dropped nearly $1,700. Thus, today it is stunning that our Republican colleagues have brought a budget resolution to this floor that so badly betrays our values and fails to meet our Nation's priorities.

This shamefully short-sighted budget resolution cuts crucial investment in our Nation and our people. The difference, I tell my friend from Wisconsin, is we want to pay for what we buy. You are buying a lot. You are buying more than we bought when we were in charge. You are not paying. You are borrowing from the Japanese, the Chinese, the Saudis. You borrowed more money from foreigners over the last 5 years than were borrowed in the 210 years before that.

Over the next 5 years, it slashes education by $45 billion; veterans health care, to which the gentleman referred, by $6 billion; public health by $18 billion; and environmental protection by $25 billion.

Even worse, this budget resolution is a continuation of the most reckless fiscal policies in the history of our Nation, policies that have squandered, as I said, a $5.6 trillion budget surplus. Who said that? George Bush, March 2001, said that is what we had.

They added more than $3 trillion to the national debt and weakened our ability, weakened our ability to respond to national and international crises.

Listen, my friends, to the warning of the nonpartisan Comptroller General David Walker, not a Democrat, appointed by your side, who stated in February, ``Continuing on the unsustainable fiscal path will gradually erode if not suddenly damage our economy, our standard of living, and ultimately our national security.''

Mr. Chairman, that is what Mr. Walker says their budgets are doing to America; yet that is precisely what this Republican budget continues to do. It not only fails to rein in the record Republican deficits of the last 5 years, it makes them worse. Hear me. This budget makes the deficits worse. It not only fails to arrest our exploding national debt, it calls for a debt limit increase of 653 billion additional dollars.

Last year during our debate on the budget resolution, the chairman of the Budget Committee confidently proclaimed, and I quote, ``We will be able to give, I believe, our kids and grandkids the opportunities of a debt-free world if we begin with a small step again this year.''

That is the chairman who brings to this floor a $653 billion additional increase in our national debt. The chairman's assertion then has been eviscerated by the facts now. Vote for this responsible Spratt alternative and reject this fiscally reckless proposal on top of the last five fiscally reckless proposals.

The reality is, this budget resolution--and the Republican party's policies--have instigated a dangerous spiral of deficits and debt that constitute nothing less than fiscal child abuse, because they will immorally force our children and grandchildren to pay our bills.

In sharp contrast, the Democratic alternative is reasonable and responsible.

It would balance the budget by 2012; reinstate the pay-as-you-go budget rules that were instrumental in creating four consecutive budget surpluses in the 1990s; and invest in our Nation and our people.

Our Democratic alternative provides matching resources for defense, and more resources for education, veterans' health care and other health priorities, and the environment.

I urge my colleagues: vote for fiscal sanity.

Vote for the budget that puts America back on the right track.

Vote for the Democratic substitute.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rose to express my appreciation on behalf of the people of Maryland for allowing us to invest in some very important projects. I will continue to take credit for those. But your budgets are the only ones that have passed, and the appropriations bills are the ones you have offered on the floor.

But let me say to the gentleman, I have been here long enough so that in 1993 I heard all the arguments from all your leadership that adopting our budget proposal would send the country to rack and ruin, would explode the deficit, explode unemployment, and create a deep recession. Dick Armey, your leader, said that, the Speaker said that, the chairman, Mr. Kasich, of your Budget Committee said that.

You are 180 degrees wrong, dead flat wrong. Exactly the opposite happened. Under a proposal that we made that you said was a massive tax increase, you never talk about of course the $250-plus billion spending cut, but we had the best economy in the history of America.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. Speaker, this morning I want to express my deep disappointment that the Rules Committee declined to make my amendment concerning one of the most vital national security issues facing our Nation, our continued dependence on foreign sources of oil, in order.

As Jim Woolsey, the former CIA director, stated, ``The future of our economic and national security is more than ever coupled to our energy policy.'' That is why I believe this amendment would have been so appropriate on this bill.

Let me stress, the amendment that I offered, along with Congressman Bart Gordon as well as Mark Udall, who is on the floor with us right now, was decidedly nonpartisan. It was not offered in an attempt to gain short-term political advantage. It was offered in an attempt to encourage this body to focus on the national security implications of our continued addiction to oil, of which the President spoke in his State of the Union, and to suggest practical methods to address that addiction.

Let me add, when I testified before the Rules Committee on Tuesday, I was pleased with the serious discussion of this amendment, as well as the virtually unanimous support of the concept of this amendment. There was no opposition stated by any member of the committee on either side of the aisle.

In short, this amendment called for three things. First, it would have authorized $250 million for the Advanced Research Projects Agency- Energy, or ARPA-E, within the Department of Energy.

ARPA-E would encourage and support our best and brightest researchers and scientists to develop cutting-edge technology necessary to make America energy independent.

Second, the amendment would have required the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy and the Director of National Intelligence, to study and report to Congress on the national security implications of our increasing demand for foreign oil.

Finally, the amendment would have increased the funds available for the Defense Energy Support Center which buys and manages oil and other energy supplies for the military service, the largest user of petroleum in our country.

It also would have increased the funds available for the Advanced Power Technology Office which promotes the increased use of fuel cells, electric hybrids and hydrogen for military and homeland defense vehicles and equipment.

These proposals would have been paid for by shifting more than $300 million in excess funds from the $9.1 billion proposed for ballistic missile defense programs. I refer to them as ``excess'' because the staff says they cannot be spent in fiscal year 2007.

Let me conclude by saying that it is imperative that the Members address this vital issue. I am pleased that Mr. Skelton, Mr. Spratt and other members were supportive.

Energy independence must be addressed in a serious, thoughtful manner. When we put our minds to something, in my opinion, Americans can solve any of the problems that confront them. Now, more than ever, we must focus on addressing our addiction to foreign sources of oil.

I want to say in closing that I deeply regret that this important issue was not allowed to come to the floor. I understand that portions of this, only a portion, was considered in the committee, but surely the issue of addiction to petroleum products, which our President has talked about, is worthy of bringing to this floor, and I urge that it be done.

I oppose this rule because I believe it has been restrictive to the detriment of our national security and democracy in this House.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

We had a very thoughtful discussion about what you have raised as alternative sources of energy in our own country, or alternative sources for petroleum products in our own country. A full discussion. I think that is a worthy discussion.

I do not think the amendment that I offered in any way negates that discussion or negates the importance of having that debate. I agree with the gentleman.

With respect to the source of funding, the staff discussed it. We believe in the $9.1 million in 2007 this sum cannot be spent because of practical reasons, as the gentleman probably knows, and I think his staff agrees because we worked with his staff and with Mr. Skelton and Mr. Spratt to ensure that we were not undermining because as you know, I have been supportive of the defense system.

We believe this is such a critical issue. And as I said, the President raised the addiction. We have to transfer not only the price that the consumer is paying, which is affected by the lack of alternatives to petroleum products, and therefore, those producers of petroleum products throughout the world have us as a captive consumer and we do not have price flexibility, but also in terms of the price at the pump for our consumers.

So both from a national security standpoint and an economic standpoint, I think this was the way to go.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the distinguished majority leader the schedule for the week to come, and I yield to my friend from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

I thank the gentleman for that information. He has now said both initially and again about the budget. You have indicated there will be votes on Friday, obviously.

So no doubt in your mind about that?

I thank you for that. On the energy bills, do you expect any energy-related legislation on the floor next week, refinery siting, for example?

I thank the gentleman for that information. The telecom bill which was reported out of committee, I know it is not on this calendar for the coming week. Could you tell us your expectations of when that might be scheduled?

Reclaiming my time, would it be your expectation then, once the Parliamentarians make their judgment, that the bill will then be referred to the Judiciary Committee, if that was their judgment, so that it might be some time before that bill came to the floor? I yield to my friend.

All right. Thank you very much for that.

The Voting Rights Act reauthorization, quite clearly that got overwhelming bipartisan support. I know the chairman has worked very hard on that. Mel Watt and other members of the Judiciary Committee have worked very hard on that. Can you tell me when you expect that to come to the floor?

I yield to my friend.

If the budget does come to the floor next week, would you bring it in the early part of the week or the latter part of the week; do you know? I know you have had some hard work on this. I understand that.

That is such a pragmatic approach, and I thank the gentleman for that information.

Mr. Leader, I don't want to end the week on an unhappy note, but you and I had discussions in these colloquies the last 2 weeks in a row. After the tax reconciliation bill was reported out, I asked Mr. Rangel had he been included in the conferences in any meaningful way. It was his view that he had not. You had made assurances that would happen; I don't mean that you could guarantee that it would happen.

I will tell my friend that the ranking member of the committee does not believe there was meaningful participation by the minority in the consideration of that bill which obviously was a bill of some significant import.

I yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time, and I accept the gentleman's explanation. It was my thought that we were talking about both conferences that were then pending. I raised both conferences, but I take the gentleman at his word, he has always been truthful with me, that he was referring to the pension conference. I understand that.

I also understand that he is not in control of everything any more than we are on this side. But I will again reiterate, Mr. Leader, your experience and your performance in terms of dealing in a bipartisan way has been different than some, and we appreciate your view on this.

Whether it is the pension conference or any other conference, particularly bills of significance, we would hope that you would use your good offices to encourage and frankly request that the Chairs of the conferences make sure that the minority is included. After all, as I have said, we represent about 125 million people in this country, maybe more than that, and they should not be excluded.

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman. I think we certainly agree on that.

Mr. Speaker, America lost one of its finest scientists this week. And I lost both a constituent and a dear friend.

Kenneth Tenore, a coastal ecologist from Hollywood, Maryland, died of acute pancreatitis Sunday at University of Maryland Medical Center. He was 63.

I had the privilege of working with Ken in his role as director of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science's Chesapeake Biological Laboratory on Solomons Island.

Ken's work made an invaluable contribution to the health and vibrancy of the Chesapeake Bay, and his leadership brought together marine scientists from around the world to bolster the health of coastal waterways.

While at Solomons, he led collaborative research programs involving marine scientists from the United States, the Galicia region of Spain and Portugal.

His frequent visits to both countries have helped build strong scientific relationships that endure today.

At the time of his death, he was leading the Navigator Project, an international effort supported by the National Science Foundation and the Luso-American Foundation, to characterize and compare the ecology of coastal seas around the world.

Ken's efforts while serving the University of Maryland, my alma mater, reflect a man deeply committed to preserving the Earth for future generations.

While Ken was passionate about advancing technology to make new discoveries in his discipline, he was also a man that followed a higher moral code--even teaching a science and ethics course at the University of Notre Dame.

Father Ernan McMullin, a retired Notre Dame professor said of Ken: ``He was an inspirational teacher who had a strong feeling for the philosophical and ethical issues in science.''

Among his tremendous accomplishments, Ken founded and directed the Alliance for Coastal Technologies, a partnership of research institutions, environmental managers, and industry representatives which foster sensor technologies for use in monitoring coastal environments.

Ken leaves behind a sister, Dr. Elizabeth J. Tenore, a brother, Louis James Tenore, and a nephew, Louis James Tenore Jr.

Ken's life touched so many around the world: family, friends, and colleagues. I was privileged to know him.

On behalf of the Fifth Congressional District, I want to extend my sympathies to his family and join the scores of others in honoring his life's work.

Mr. Speaker, the first plank of the Contract With America was fiscal responsibility. No political promise has ever been so broken as that one.

Mr. Speaker, this blatantly unfair and grossly irresponsible legislation represents the last gasp of the Republican Party's failed economic policies which have only caused greater disparity in America and driven our Nation into the fiscal ditch over the last 5\1/2\ years.

Today, our Republican friends are desperate to pass this conference report because they realize after November the party is over. Make no mistake, Mr. and Mrs. America, about what this legislation means to you. According to the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, if you are among the 0.02 of households making $1 million a year, you get a tax cut of $42,000. If you are struggling to make ends meet, earning between $10,000-$20,000, you get $2 a year. If you are firmly in the middle with household incomes between $75,000-$100,000, you get about $400 a year, or $4.75 per week, enough to purchase about 3 gallons of gasoline.

Yesterday Republican Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine stated, ``The preponderance of these revenues will go to upper income people, people who make a million dollars or more. It is a question of priorities.'' Priorities, indeed.

Four months ago congressional Republicans slashed $39 billion from student loans, Medicaid and Medicare and child support enforcement. And today, 5.4 million more Americans live in poverty than when President Bush took office, and 6 million more are without health insurance. Real median household incomes are down $1,670, and still, Republicans want to give millionaires a new Lexus.

This conference report is a continuation of 5\1/2\ years of the most irresponsible fiscal policies in the history of our country. I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation. Stand up for our country, stand up for our children, stand up for our grandchildren. Vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Our Republican friends have talked a lot about jobs. Under the Clinton administration, we created 216,000 jobs per month. Under the Bush plan we have created 21,000, on average, per month.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is the second week in a row that it is my perception that the motivations and intentions of a Member are being put in question. Now it is being put as a question of parliamentary procedure. Particularly the second speaker who spoke on this clearly implied that and meant to imply it.

First of all, I would say, Mr. Speaker, if Members' amendments were made in order, if in a democratic fashion these amendments could be on the floor, if in fact you were to subject yourself to debate and a fair vote on these issues, perhaps this issue would never come up.

Secondly, I would say, Mr. Speaker, as I said last week when another Member's actions were questioned, whether they were within the ambit of the rules

or whether they were being honest in their representations, the fact of the matter is that a Member's view of a bill does in fact change in light of the action on a previous amendment or a motion to recommit or some other action that might occur.

So, as I said to the gentleman last week, the situation substantively changes. It may be the same bill, but it is a bill that has been subjected to an alternative amendment.

Then the Member who is opposed to the bill at that time without that amendment being considered, that amendment fails, the Member is put in a different position. He or she then has to make a judgment, do I support or oppose this bill as it now is and as I have failed to perfect it with an amendment.

So I suggest to the gentleman, who has now raised it a second time in a row, and I frankly thought it had been resolved, that he is wrong in his premise, he is wrong under the rules, and I would hope that we could put this behind us.

I would certainly hope, and the gentleman who chairs the Rules Committee is on his feet, that we could allow these amendments; that we could allow, as the gentleman so often when he was in the minority asked to have done, allow these amendments to be considered in a fair and open debate and subject them to a vote. So that in a democratic body, in the People's House, they could be voted on up or down.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman was fully within the rules and fully within his rights and did exactly the only thing that he was given the opportunity to do in order to raise an important issue in this democratic forum.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the Speaker indicated it was within the rules and within the precedents. In fact, the precedents were numerous times that Republicans rose and did exactly the same thing for exactly the same reasons.

Mr. Speaker, I take this time to inquire of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come. I yield to my friend, Mr. Boehner.

I thank the majority leader for that information for our Members.

Mr. Leader, do you expect any energy bills on the floor next week dealing with any facet of the crisis that confronts our citizens?

I thank the gentleman for that information.

Let me ask you further, Mr. Leader, do you expect the telecom bill to be ready for floor consideration next week?

I thank the gentleman for that information.

With respect to the budget, the fiscal year 2007 budget, we are now 3 weeks beyond the point when we should have had a conference report adopted under the rules. Yet we have not had the House version of the budget on the floor yet. Do you expect the budget to be on the floor anytime in the near future?

I know you hope so. But my question was, do you expect so?

We hope that you can come to some agreement in the near term.

Mr. Leader, the tax reconciliation conference and the pension conference, we have heard something about the tax reconciliation conference perhaps having reached agreement.

Can you tell me the status of those two conferences and when we might expect to consider the tax reconciliation

conference and/or the pension conference?

I thank the gentleman. I am glad. I did not know that the principals had met. I know you and I had had a discussion previously about the conference meeting with all of the conferees present, or at least both sides present, both the Democratic side and the Republican side, the majority side present as well. We hope that occurs. The leader said that would occur. We appreciate that.

Clearly you and I in particular, and I know you in particular, are very concerned about the pension conference. You have spent a lot of time working on that piece of legislation, know it well. Clearly many, many people in America, many businesses, many individuals are very focused on that, are very concerned about the status of their pensions.

So we are hopeful that particular bill can move in a positive way in the near term.

I thank the leader. I know that all of us hope that the leader's optimism is justified by results. I thank the gentlemen.

I thank the gentleman for not singing today.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I want to assure him that when we are in the majority next January, we are going to consider very carefully your proposal. The fact of the matter is that when I said both Republicans and Democrats have pursued this procedure, and when the Chair has ruled that they are acting within the rules, as the Chair has now done both times that the gentleman raised the issue, that we will understand, and perhaps better than we did in 1994, having served in the minority now for 12 years, we will better understand the frustration that is engendered by the failure to give to the minority its full opportunity to place on the floor and have debated fully and having a vote on an alternative that they believe is superior to the bill offered by the majority.

We better understand that frustration, but I will tell you that the gentleman from California, the chairman of your Rules Committee, rose and said he complained bitterly as a member of the minority. You remember that. I remember that. We have been here for some period of time. We understand that frustration.

But we also understand that repeatedly members of your party pursued the same process and were, as our members have been, held to have been in order. And for you to repeatedly raise this, raises, I tell my friend, and he is my friend, it raises the issue of the integrity of the Member making the order.

We believe it is within the rules. We have been ruled in order. I think that continuing to pursue this simply raises the motivation of the Member. I know you don't believe that. I know you are not raising that. That is not your intent. But it seems to me that is its effect.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would hope we could resolve this and move on.

Mr. Chairman, who do our Republican friends believe they are fooling today with this so-called lobbying ``reform'' bill?

I submit: not a soul. Certainly not the American people and certainly not editorial writers who have examined this legislation.

The San Antonio New Express called the Republican bill ``a disgraceful sham.''

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel calls it ``miserable.''

The Philadelphia Inquirer says, ``The House is just playing pretend.''

The New York Times calls it ``an Orwellian shell of righteous platitudes about transparency and integrity.''

And public interest groups have derided this Republican bill as a ``complete joke,'' ``a total scam,'' and ``phony.''

Let no one here be mistaken: this bill is not driven by a desire to address the most serious lobbying and ethics scandal this body has experienced in a generation. I have said before, and I repeat: the failure of ethics and honesty have been of conduct, not of rules. But rules can both inform of expectations and propriety.

The greed and flagrant abuses of convicted felons, former Republican Member Duke Cunningham and Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff, hang over this House like a dark cloud.

The K Street Project, proudly promoted by Mr. DeLay and Senator Santorum and the Republican leadership, in which quid pro quo was the blatantly articulated standard of conduct, is the most flagrant example of the aptly named ``culture of corruption.''

This empty shell of a bill is driven by one thing: the majority's cynical calculation that it will not pay a price with voters this November for failing to take meaningful steps to end this culture of corruption.

The chairman of the Rules Committee was quoted as saying that the adoption of the reform package ``would get this,'' meaning the repeated instances of rules violations and criminal conduct, ``behind us.''

The adoption of this bill or any bill will not do that. Only honest, ethical, principled behavior over a period of time will do that. But a strong reform package would have been a start. Sadly, that has not been an option before us today.

It does not diminish our moral responsibility, however, to demand and ensure ethical and honest behavior by all of us, not an endless political game of cross claims and allegations, but by an Ethics Committee that does not shun its responsibilities and sit moribund in the face of scandal after scandal. The people expect more of us. We should give it to them.

It may be fitting that this do-less-than-the-do-nothing Congress of 1948 Republican Congress is forcing Members to vote on this do-almost- nothing bill.

The American people see right through this ruse.

And they deserve better.

Lobbyists must be required to act honestly and ethically. But, it is Members who have sworn an oath before God and our fellow citizens to uphold the laws and protect the Constitution.

It is Members who bear the direct responsibility for the honest administration of the people's business. This Congress is not meeting that responsibility.

It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that the Republican leadership does not want a real debate on these issues.

Democrats offered a much stronger alternative, but the majority refused to allow it to be considered.

So much for openness, transparency and democracy.

I urge my colleagues: Vote against this Republican ruse.