Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for offering this important bipartisan resolution recognizing the 58th anniversary of the independence of the State of Israel. And I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it.

Throughout the last 58 years, Israel--an oasis of freedom in a sea of despair--has been vilified, threatened and attacked by those who seek her destruction. And yet, she has prevailed and prospered--just as she will prevail and prosper today, tomorrow and in the future.

Harry Truman made the United States the first nation to recognize the new State of Israel in 1948, just 11 minutes after its creation.

``I had faith in Israel before it was established, I have faith in it now,'' said President Truman. ``I believe it has a glorious future before it--not just another sovereign nation, but as an embodiment of the great ideals of our civilization.''

Israel's security and success is not only a strategic imperative for the United States. It is a moral imperative, as well. Ours is a relationship of shared values and common aspirations, and of principle and conscience.

We are nations of immigrants, safe havens for the oppressed and partners for peace. And, we are united in fighting terrorism.

No people on earth have been subjected to more bigotry and violence than the Jewish people, and no people are more in need of a sovereign, secure homeland to provide safe haven and to protect identity.

I have had the privilege of leading Congressional delegations on tours of Israel twice in the last three years. And, I can say with confidence that the special bond that exists between the United States and Israel is strong, growing stronger and will not break.

Last August, our Congressional delegation saw firsthand the pain caused by Israel's unilateral disengagement from Gaza--another bold step undertaken in the pursuit of peace and stability.

But more importantly, we saw a people deeply committed to the democratic process and the rule of law. What our Members saw was a reflection of themselves: People who love their country; people who want to live in peace and freedom; and people who want their children to have even greater opportunities.

Today, as our allies in Israel prepare to celebrate their 58th anniversary of independence, let us honor their determination to fulfill the vision of Zionism's founding father, Theodor Herzl, who observed, ``If you will it, it is no dream.''

Through courage and will, Israel was born and the dream of generations was made real--and it will endure.

I want to congratulate the citizens of Israel and the entire Jewish community on this 58th anniversary of Israel's founding.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the majority leader for the purposes of inquiring about the schedule for the balance of the week and the week to come.

Mr. Leader, could you comment perhaps on the Communications Opportunity Promotion and Enhancement Act, the Telecom Act.

I yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for that information. Of course, there was expectation that we were going to pass the lobbying reform act that was offered. We are obviously not doing that. You mentioned that it would be up on Tuesday. My question is, is that accurate? I am sure that you would tell the truth, but, I mean, I want to make that clear.

I yield to the majority leader.

I think that is very important, Mr. Leader, for us to know and maybe we can work on that because obviously Members want to speak on amendments and they would have to know whether they have to be back before the 6:30 voting if you were going to take it up prior to that.

I yield to my friend.

Yes. We have not discussed that, but I am sure that would be fine.

That is acceptable to us. We think the bill needs a lot of work, and that will give you some more time to work on it.

I am sorry. I couldn't help myself.

Now, Mr. Leader, the budget. We have not voted on a budget yet. And you did not mention it in your schedule. Is there any expectation that you might have, Mr. Leader, that the budget might be on the floor either next week or some week after that?

I yield to my friend.

Still?

I presume the Appropriations Committee, at some point in time, will proceed without the budget. Would that be your expectation if we don't pass a budget in the near term?

Mr. Leader, let me turn the page here. The other bills that you and I have talked about, one in particular we think is extraordinarily important. I know you feel it is important, and that is the pension bill. There are literally millions of Americans and thousands of companies very concerned about the status of the pension conference. Can you bring us up to date on whether or not you have any expectation that the pension conference would be completed in the near term and come to the floor?

I yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time. Mr. Leader, again, I say this with all due respect and seriousness. I read in the paper today that the conferees met last night. With all due respect, Mr. Leader, the conferees did not meet last night. Apparently, the Republican conferees met last night. You indicated both sides of the aisle. It is my understanding, from our conferees, that they are not being included in the discussions of the conference. Again, it is our perspective that cuts out about 125 million Americans that we represent on this side of the aisle from discussions about an issue that you have worked very hard on, Members on our side have worked very hard on, and that we all agree is critical to our country and to millions of Americans individually. I would hope, Mr. Leader, that you would prevail on the chairman of the conference to include our side of the aisle in the discussions.

We can't be helpful or, frankly, we can't know what is going on if we are not in the room.

I would be glad to yield to my friend.

Mr. Leader, I hope that is accurate. I understand that in any conference, the chairman of the conference ought to take the position that unless all things are agreed to the conference is not closed on other issues that might have been tentatively agreed to. But if, frankly, our side of the aisle is not included, does not have the opportunity to put our input into the issues, very frankly, too often, I have been here a long time. You are right, and I have been in a lot of conferences. And those have been real conferences. They have not been conferences that one side has agreed on, comes to the conference and says it's done.

The leader looks at me somewhat disparagingly or at least incredulously that there haven't been such conferences that occurred prior to the leadership of the Republican Party. I understand what he is saying, but this is a pattern, Mr. Leader. We have talked about it on a regular basis. And it is not good for this institution.

I yield to the leader.

Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the representation of the leader, and I take him at his word. I have found his word to be good in the past. I certainly take him at his word, and I thank him for that.

No doubt in my mind. I am not going to quote Ronald Reagan.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois, in my opinion, is casting aspersions on the character and motives of a Member. That is clearly against the rule. But what I want to stand and say is that clearly, as we know, Duncan Hunter offered a resolution on the floor of this House in response to Mr. Murtha's press conference, that mischaracterized Mr. Murtha's position, but, more importantly, we had some hours of debate on that resolution, and Mr. Hunter, of course, voted ``no'' on that resolution.

Furthermore, I would say to the gentleman from Illinois that a Member may well be opposed to a bill, I say to my friend, and want the opportunity to offer an amendment, but when that amendment fails, the situation has changed. The circumstances have changed. And the circumstances that have changed is then that Member is left with either supporting a bill that he may not think was perfected as he thought it should be but on which the majority of the House disagreed. At that point in time, I say to my friend, the situation has changed.

And so for any one of us 435 to judge our 435th Member who sees a different situation confront him is, in fact, as I respectfully tell my friend, against the rules of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Because the irony is Members are put in a position where they have no alternative by the Rules Committee because their amendments are not made in order, which may well have been supported by the overwhelming majority of the House of Representatives, and that is the position that Members are put in on a regular basis. The situation, I suggest to the gentleman, does, in fact change when an amendment is defeated, and a Member then has a new judgment to make. That was my point.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Davis) for yielding me time. I want to thank my friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) for his leadership on this issue.

Madam Speaker, for the 16th straight year, I am proud to sponsor the resolution allowing the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby Association to hold its annual race on the grounds of the United States Capitol.

H. Con. Res. 349 authorizes the Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board to work with the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby Association to ensure that all the necessary arrangements are made to conduct this race in complete compliance with the rules and regulations governing the use of the Capitol Grounds. The 65th annual Greater Washington Soap Box Derby will be held on Saturday, June 17.

Soap box derby racing, Madam Speaker, in our Nation's Capital has a long and rich tradition. In 1938, Norman Rocca beat out 233 other racers to win the inaugural Greater Washington Soap Box Derby, which was held on New Hampshire.

Over the years, thousands of the region's young people have participated in this great race, although the location has varied from the original site on New Hampshire Avenue to Capitol Hill, with stops on Massachusetts Avenue, Pennsylvania Avenue, and Eastern Avenue along the way.

The essence of the race has remained the same. homemade gravity- powered cars, the spirit of competition, and the pure joy of racing. The Soap Box Derby consists of dozens of drivers, both boys and girls, ranging in ages from 8 to 17. These racers are divided into three division: stock, superstock and masters. The local winners of each division will automatically qualify to compete with racers from around the world in the 69th All-American Soap Box Derby in Akron, Ohio, on July 22 of this year.

The festivities in Akron begin when the racers receive a police escort into town and conclude in the winner's circle with the awarding of scholarships and merchandise. In between, the racers and their families participate in a whirlwind of activities that leave them with enduring friendships and memories to last a lifetime.

The past 6 years, the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby has had one of its participants finish in the top 10 in the All-American competition. In fact, last year's master's division champion, Robbie Reuss of Waldorf, finished an impressive second in Akron. Robbie's finish surpassed Gene Bean's third in the 1941 All-American and is the best finish for a representative of the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby. I am very proud of Robbie, and I am hopeful that this might finally be the year when one of our racers from the Greater Washington area is finally crowned world champion.

Madam Speaker, this event has been called the greatest amateur racing event in the world, and it is an excellent opportunity for the contestants from the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia to learn basic building skills while gaining a real sense of accomplishment.

Madam Speaker, I strongly encourage my colleagues, as I expect them to, to join me with the other original cosponsors of this resolution, Representative Frank Wolf, Representative James Moran, Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton, Representative Al Wynn, and Representative Chris Van Hollen, in supporting this resolution and congratulating all the participants.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend, Mr. Davis, the chairman of the committee, for bringing this resolution to the floor in such a timely fashion.

I certainly want to thank my good friend, Curt Weldon, the cochair of the Fire Service Caucus, who has been the leader of the Fire Service Caucus, and the Fire Service of America and emergency medical response teams have no better friend than Curt Weldon in the Congress of the United States or, frankly, in any place else.

I am pleased to rise in support of our Nation's firefighters on this day that 2,100 of them from around the country are gathered in Washington for the annual National Fire and Emergency Services Dinner.

As Mr. Weldon said, we will be bringing them this resolution in just a few minutes as we go down to the Hilton to address them. I am proud to have cosponsored this resolution.

And I want to say that the Fire Caucus has long championed initiatives to improve the safety and well-being of our Nation's firefighters. Specifically, we have worked to establish and fund the assistance to the Firefighters Grant program, which has provided more than $3 billion in equipment and training grants for career and volunteer departments across the country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments. I again thank the chairman and Mr. Weldon for their leadership on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, this is a turtle. In Maryland, we call it a terrapin. Fear the turtle. But today we need to revere the turtle. Sixteen magnificent young women got on a court in Boston, and we had one of the most exciting, well-played basketball games, male or female, in the history of our country.

Madam Speaker, this morning I want to congratulate Coach Brenda Frese and the University of Maryland women's basketball team on winning the championship last night with a stunning 78-75 overtime victory over a valiant Duke University team. This game, Madam Speaker, was a demonstration of college athletics at its best.

The gentlewoman from North Carolina just spoke; our athletic director comes from North Carolina, Debbie Yow, and she recruited Brenda Frese. We thank you for that.

The Terrapins erased a 13-point second half deficit, the second largest in history, and Maryland freshman guard Kristi Toliver hit a three-point shot with 6.1 seconds remaining to send the game into overtime. ``We've played like this all year,'' said Terp Marissa Coleman. ``Nothing gets to us. We never thought we were going to lose this game.'' The Terps' win caps a tremendous 34-4 season and makes Maryland only the fourth college in America whose men's and women's basketball teams have captured national championships.

Madam Speaker, I know that all of us join together to congratulate those 16 young women who showed America what women can do and what an extraordinary athletic event they can provide. Both teams were magnificent. We in Maryland are proud of our victory. But those in North Carolina who come from Duke ought to be proud of their team as well.

Mr. Speaker, the United Nations has identified the situation in Darfur, Sudan, as the worst current humanitarian and human rights statement of crisis in the world. And, the United States has labeled the killings in Darfur as genocide.

History is littered with examples of the international community recognizing the existence of genocide, while at the same time failing to put an end to the murder, rape and dislocation of innocent men, women and children.

Sadly, the case of Sudan is yet another sorry demonstration of the international community's collective lack of will to confront those would commit such horrific acts of cowardice.

The nations of the world must stop turning a blind eye to the suffering of innocents.

I am pleased that we are considering legislation to provide further assistance to the African Union Mission in Sudan, and to strengthen the arms embargo against the Janjaweed militia.

But we must not delude ourselves: the resolution before us today will not by itself solve the crisis or put an end to the suffering in Sudan.

As recognized in this legislation, the mission of the African Union peacekeepers must be expanded to allow them to intervene when acts of violence are being committed against innocent Sudanese.

How can we not have learned the lessons of Bosnia, Kosovo and Rwanda, where we watched in horror as troops in blue helmets stood by and witnessed the rape, murder and displacement of thousands?

The humanitarian crisis currently taking place in Sudan is among the most grave the world has seen in the past decade, and at its heart is the genocidal campaign being waged by the Khartoum government.

The most important, immediate step the world can take to stem the violence is to empower the forces already in place to actually protect the people of Darfur.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. And, I urge the U.S. Representatives at the United Nations to carry out their mission as directed in this bill to provide to African Union peacekeepers the authority to stop this genocide.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida.

At a time when this Congress is embroiled in the most serious scandal in a generation, when a culture of corruption has swept over this body with no sign the Ethics Committee is addressing it, this body should be devoting the precious few days it has here to reforming its own culture and practices.

Today, the Republicans are doing what they so often do. They are trying to gag their opponents and further empower their supporters. They again abuse their legislative power to assault their adversaries. This is not reform. It is retaliation.

It is ironic that so many of the Republican leadership in opposing campaign finance reform argued so strenuously against campaign expenditure limits but now advocate limitations, not because of principle but because of political power and the abuse of that power.

The Republican leadership has chosen to take on political organizations in a cynical attempt to appear serious about reform and divert attention from its own ethical failures.

Mr. Speaker, the problem confronting our polity is not independent groups whose political activities are legal and are disclosed regularly to either the IRS or the FEC. We know who spends this money. The public can make a judgment.

Rather, it is the degree to which the Republican leadership has sacrificed the public interest, good public policy, and its own ethical conduct in order to amass, consolidate and perpetuate power through unseemly and unethical alliances with special interests like Jack Abramoff.

If this body were serious about reform, we would be debating the best way to eliminate the culture of corruption, not restrict the first amendment rights of political organizations.

Now, the previous speaker mentioned campaign finance reform. Let me quote some debate during the course of that consideration of that bill. The gentleman who brings this bill to the floor today, Mr. Dreier, I always like to quote Mr. Dreier because they are such different points of view that are reflected; you can almost get the whole spectrum of thought.

``Mr. Dreier: So we have these attempts being made by some to impose extraordinary, onerous regulations on the American people, jeopardizing their opportunity to come together and pursue their political interests that they have, that a shared group has; and I believe that is wrong,'' says Mr. Dreier. ``I believe it is wrong,'' Mr. Dreier said on February 13, 2002, ``to impose those kinds of regulations.''

We then had a vote on campaign finance reform by the same folks who are offering this bill to reform, and Mr. Hastert voted ``no,'' Mr. Boehner voted ``no,'' Mr. Blunt voted ``no,'' Mr. DeLay voted ``no,'' and, yes, my friend and my colleague from California (Mr. Dreier) voted ``no.''

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, if you will yield yourself some time, I will be glad to have some debate with you.

I would be glad to have a debate with you but you need to yield some of the time.

I still have time, thank you very much.

Mr. DeLay said in another quote, ``Those who want to regulate through government the participation in the political process, I respect them trying to do that; I disagree with it.'' That is the way he voted, as you have pointed out. ``We ought to let the voters decide through instant disclosure to be able to tell and see while people are collecting their money and spending it to decide.'' In other words, disclosure. These are disclosed.

My view is, in light of the fact they are disclosed, you will vote ``no'' on this bill. My obvious supposition is you are not going to do that.

Today, this bill is about politics. You have changed your principle, in my opinion. You have changed your point of view. That is why you are voting differently than you did on campaign finance reform.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, what the gentleman has just said, he stands by what he said but he is going to adopt what I said to support this legislation. As usual, we have somewhat of an Alice in Wonderland approach.

This bill is about politics. This bill is about getting opponents that they presumed who have outraised them in the last election, but until the last election they did not want regulation. Why? Because their premise was they would raise more money, but when they found out that their opponents who disagreed with their failed policies for this country were communicating with the American public, then they said, oh, my goodness, we have to do something about that. They had this included in lobbying legislation, which we need to reform, as I have said, but guess what, they have taken it out, for political reasons, not for principle, I tell my friend from Massachusetts, not for principle, but for political reasons to try to undermine their opponents.

Today, we are missing an opportunity to look inward and expose ugly truths about the devolution of the legislative process from the one that the Framers had in mind when they created Article I of the Constitution.

I challenge the other side to explain to me why, 15 months into the 109th Congress, nothing, nothing has been done by this House to come to terms with the culture of corruption.

I challenge the other side to explain how H.R. 513 will increase the public's faith that elected representatives are addressing and adhering to the strictest ethical code and will pay an appropriate price if they veer from it.

I would suggest that today's debate underscores the extent to which a party that came to power 12 years ago, promising a bold new direction, has become insensitive to the issues that really matter in our Nation in 2006.

This bill is about politics. This bill is about a fear of losing power. This bill is about trying to undermine the voice of opposition in this country. This bill results from a fear that those who are opposing policies bad for the United States, bad for our people, bad for our families, undermining the security here at home and around the world will somehow be communicated correctly to the American people.

It was not until the last election, not until then, did those 176 people who on principle said we should not constrain this speech, this constitutional right that we have, and testified before the House Administration Committee, including Speaker Gingrich at one point

in time, and said that it was disclosure that was the issue, not constraint. It was not until the last election that that opinion was changed, that this bill came to the floor to undermine and gag those who oppose the policies being pursued.

Mr. Speaker, for years, the University of Maryland Terrapin sports fans have advised our opponents that they should ``fear the turtle.'' Well, tonight, in my opinion, we can alter that formulation somewhat. They should ``revere the turtle.''

Tonight, Mr. Speaker, I want to extend my congratulations to Coach Brenda Frese and her coaching staff and the University of Maryland Women's Basketball Team on winning the national championship last night with an exciting, nail-biting 78-75 victory in overtime over a talented, courageous Duke University team.

Mr. Speaker, there is a deep, long-standing rivalry between University of Maryland, my alma mater, and Duke University. But I think anyone watching that game last night, regardless of who they were cheering for, had to be unbelievably impressed by the athleticism, the teamwork, the sportsmanship, the determination shown by the women of both teams, the University of Maryland and Duke, two great universities.

Quite simply, this was college athletics at its finest, and I might say, at least in the second half for me, the most entertaining. Who could not be impressed by this awesome display of basketball fundamentals, from shooting, to passing, to rebounding, to sound team defense.

In their come-from-behind win, the Terrapins erased a 13-point second-half deficit. The largest deficit that had been overcome, except for a 14-point deficit, and the freshman guard, Kristi Toliver, hit a 3-point shot with 6.1 seconds left to play, and she hit that shot over an extraordinary center who plays for Duke who is 6 foot 7 fully extended, and she got that shot over her outstretched hand. Kristi is not lacking in confidence, you can tell.

Terp Marissa Coleman said, ``We've played like this all year. Nothing gets to us. We never thought we were going to lose this game.'' That positive psychology led to victory.

The Terps win caps a tremendous 34-4 season and makes Maryland only the fourth university in America, and the gentleman from Connecticut is here, and Connecticut is one of those universities who has had both of its men's team win the national championship and its women's team win the national championship. They are two extraordinary programs, both the men and women in Connecticut. Stanford is one of those four, and then there are two ACC schools that fit that category, the University of North Carolina and the University of Maryland. Our men's team won the national championship just a few years ago in 2002.

The Lady Terps' championship quest was not paved with ease, however. Before reaching the final matchup with Duke University, the team defeated Sacred Heart 91-80; St. John's, an outstanding program, 81-74; and defending national champion Baylor 82-63; Utah in overtime 75-65; then perennial powers North Carolina, 81-70. And lastly, for the national championship, the extraordinarily good Duke team.

Mr. Speaker, this was a consummate team win for the most unselfish of teams. In this championship game, for example, three Terps scored 16 points each. One scored 12 points, and another scored 10 points. In other words, all five starters were in double figures.

And, what makes this championship win even more impressive is that the Terps have no seniors on their team. They started two freshmen, two sophomores and one junior so we are going to be around for a little bit of time. The Lady Terps are extraordinary young women, proud today, as they will be tomorrow when I think we are visiting the White House. They are: Charmaine Carr; Marissa Coleman; Shay Doron; Laura Harper, who was voted the most outstanding player of the tournament among a lot of outstanding players; Crystal Langhorne, an All American; Kristi Marrone; Kalika France; Ashleigh Newman; Aurelie Noriez; Jade Perry; Angel Ross; Kristi Toliver and Sa'de Wiley-Gatewood.

The coaching staff, in addition to Head Coach Frese, includes Jeff Walz, Erica Floyd, Joanna Bernabei, and Director of Basketball Operations Mark Pearson.

Let me say that Head Coach Frese deserves extraordinary credit for turning the Maryland women's program around in just 4 short years she has been at Maryland. We got her from Minnesota. I know Minnesota is sorry to have lost her, but what a great gain for us. Brenda arrived in College Park in 2003 from the University of Minnesota after leading the Gophers to a 2-8 record in 2002 and being named the Associated Press National Coach of the Year.

In 2003, the Terps went 10-18 in a rebuilding year, and in both 2004 and 2005, just the next season, Brenda Frese saw her teams advance to the second round of the NCAA tournament with records of 18-13 and 22-10 respectively in those years.

Let me also note the extraordinary leadership and vision of the University of Maryland's athletic director, Debbie Yow, who recruited Brenda Frese to take the head coaching job.

My colleagues will be interested to know that some years ago one of the curmudgeons and one of the real characters, and I think one of the most popular Members of this body came up to me, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) and he said to me, You are a friend of the President of the University of Maryland.

I said, Yes, I am.

He said, Well, you have considered a woman for Athletic Director. Her name is Debbie Yow. She is from North Carolina.

Now this curmudgeon does not always impress me as being a feminist, and I thought to myself if Howard Coble thinks this woman can be the Athletic Director, and I had never met her, but I knew she was an impressive lady.

The next day I picked up the phone and called the President of the College Park campus and said I don't know Debbie Yow, but I will tell you this, in North Carolina she has a Congressman who thinks she is absolutely one of the best talents around. I think we ought to hire here. Within a week we hired Debbie Yow to be our Athletic Director. Shortly thereafter she brought Ralph Friedgen to lead our football team, and he had three 10-win seasons back to back, although we have not done too well the last 2 years.

But in closing, let me say that we are extraordinarily proud of the Lady Terps. As the father of three women in particular, I am proud of the extraordinary talent displayed and the courage displayed and the athleticism displayed by not just the Maryland team but by all of the young women who played the NCAA tournament.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this resolution, H. Con. Res. 355, recognizing the benefits and importance of school-based music education programs.

I have long been a strong advocate for music education programs, both in my home State of Maryland and nationally. I believe that music education should be available to students of all ages and a part of every student's academic experience.

Music education programs enrich the whole student, and are a critical component of a well-rounded academic curriculum. In my home State of Maryland, educators and administrators have worked to integrate music and arts programs into academic curriculums in order to provide students with these important benefits. At a time when education programs are struggling for adequate funding and State and local governments across the country face tremendous budget pressures, it is more important than ever to highlight and emphasize the importance of music education programs.

I frequently meet with artists, songwriters, musicians and other creators who are actively engaged in ensuring that schools and communities continue to work music and arts into the school curriculum. These artists know that music education can enhance intellectual development and skills integral to improved learning. Skills learned through the study of music help children become better students. Skills learned through music transfer to improve study skills, communication skills, and cognitive skills. Also, studies have shown that students involved in music classes are less likely to be disruptive, have better attendance, and are more likely to receive academic honors and awards.

Studies have also shown that participation in school-based music education can increase student success. For example, in 2001 the College-Bound Seniors National Report showed that students with coursework in music performance and music appreciation scored notably higher on the SATs than students with no arts participation. Studies have shown that participation in music class correlates with increased proficiency in mathematics and success in science.

We must place a high value on music education. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this resolution supporting the importance of music education programs and urging that the benefits of music education should be available to every student.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman. The gentlewoman from California and I have cochaired a caucus on copyrights. We have worked very closely with Mr. Goodlatte, and my good friend, Mr. Berman.

I do want to acknowledge that the education community and the entertainment community have been working cooperatively, Mr. Chairman, for more than 2 years to develop ways to reduce illegal file sharing and develop legal alternatives.

Some universities are true leaders, in fact, in combating piracy on campus. But we have no data, Mr. Chairman, that ensures that all institutions are aggressive in their efforts to educate students on piracy and in deterring this activity. I thank the gentleman for agreeing to work with us on this critically important issue, and I yield back to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my good friend, the majority leader (Mr. Boehner), for the purpose of inquiring about the schedule for the week to come.

I thank the gentleman for that information. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman indicates that we will be considering the 527 reform bill. My understanding is that is a freestanding bill. We expected it might be in the lobbying reform bill, but am I correct that the lobbying reform bill will come later and the 527 bill deals only with 527s?

I thank the gentleman. Can he tell me when he expects to move lobbying reform legislation.

So, in any event, it would not occur until after the Easter break.

I thank the majority leader for that information. The concurrent resolution on the budget, you indicate Thursday and Friday. Is there a possibility we might start it on Wednesday and then complete it on Thursday, or do you expect to have it on the floor and hopefully completed on Thursday itself from the comments that you made?

Reclaiming my time, would I be correct in advising my colleagues that the probability is, and that the plan is, as it has been in years past, to allow such substitutes that are offered: the Black Caucus usually has a substitute, the Progressive Caucus has a substitute, Mr. Spratt obviously we think will have a substitute. I don't know if there are others. In the past, of course, they have been made in order. Is it your expectation we would follow that same practice?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for that. That will facilitate a fuller consideration of the budget issues.

Mr. Leader, the tax reconciliation and pension conferences have been in meetings, I presume, or at least have been authorized for some period of time now. Can you bring us up to date on, if you know, the status of both the tax reconciliation conference and the pension conference. I know there was some concern on your side of the aisle and on ours, I think, to get the pension conference done prior to April 15. It appears that that might not happen at this point in time. Can you bring us up to date?

I yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Leader, not since you have been leader, but in times past, as you know, our side of the aisle has been very concerned about the way conferences have proceeded. Senator Enzi, who is one of the Chairs of the, I guess, the pension conference, has indicated he wanted to see a bipartisan conference, a full conference, a conference, frankly, as I historically remember them.

My understanding, frankly, is from both now, the two ranking Democrats of the relevant committees, particularly the ranking Democrat of the Ways and Means Committee, but also the ranking Democrat, I guess, of the Education and Labor Committee, there is a concern that the conference is now proceeding essentially in a partisan fashion, that is to say, Democrats are not being included in the discussions. In fact, we believe that Mr. Thomas is negotiating the tax and pension provision with Republicans as if the two conferences were one.

I want to tell you, Mr. Leader, obviously, we have some substantial concerns about that, as we have had in the past in terms of our ability to participate in putting our views forth in the conferences themselves. I don't know whether you have any comment on that, but I would be certainly very interested to hear it so I could relate to my colleagues what they might expect.

I yield to my friend, the majority leader.

Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the sentiments of the majority leader. I know the majority leader has a history in dealing with his bills of pursuing them in that fashion, and we have appreciated it, as the gentleman knows. I have expressed that to him in the past. It has not always been our experience. Clearly, these bills are of extraordinary consequence to working men and women in this country, particularly as it relates to the pension bill as well as the tax reconciliation.

Without trying to catch you up on your words, but if I could just somewhat, perhaps humorously, I hope, but

you said that you are not moving ahead rapidly, but you will let us know, and you will not do so until the Democrats are in the room. Frankly, Mr. Leader, our concern is, and the concern of Democrats has been, that once the Democrats get back in the room it moves exceedingly rapidly, without really an opportunity for Democrats to make substantive contributions, whether they win or lose in the conference.

I yield to my friend.

I appreciate the comments of the majority leader, and I have confidence that he will work towards that end, and we look forward to it. I thank the gentleman for both his information and for his concerns about doing it in that fashion.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to express my strong support for H. Res. 680 and to pay tribute to the long and distinguished career of Dr. I. King Jordan, the first deaf President of Gallaudet University. Dr. Jordan's compelling life story, keen intellect, and unbridled passion have combined to make him an extraordinary educational leader, one of our nation's foremost advocates for people with disabilities, and an international leader and role model for the deaf and hard of hearing.

Over the 18 years that he has served as University President, as well as his years as

Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences and Chair of the Psychology Department, Gallaudet University has thrived under Dr. Jordan's leadership. Gallaudet is the world's only university in which all programs and services are specifically designed for deaf and hard of hearing students. As President, Dr. Jordan dramatically expanded the University's endowment, improved and expanded academic programs, added new facilities, and recruited world-class faculty and administrators.

I got to know Dr. Jordan during the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which was signed into law in 1990. Dr. Jordan was a lead witness during a joint session of Congress and delivered key testimony, which was instrumental to the passage of this landmark civil rights legislation.

Dr. Jordan has never relented in his commitment to improving the lives of people with disabilities. Last year, I was privileged to join Dr. Jordan in receiving the George Bush Medal for the Empowerment of People with Disabilities. That distinguished award is just one of the many that Dr. Jordan has received for his work. His numerous accomplishments and awards include no fewer than eleven honorary degrees, the Washingtonian of the Year, the James L. Fisher Award from the Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CASE), the Larry Stewart Award from the American Psychological Association, the Distinguished Leadership Award from the National Association for Community Leadership, and the U.S. Presidential Citizens Medal.

In 1990, President George Bush appointed Dr. Jordan Vice-Chair of the President's Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities (PCEPD), and in 1993 he was later reappointed as Vice-Chair by President Clinton of this influential body that made national recommendations on issues of employment.

Dr. Jordan recently announced that he will retire as Gallaudet's first deaf President on December 31, 2006. While the University will be losing a remarkable leader, I know that Dr. Jordan will continue to be a driving force in our community.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my deep gratitude to Dr. Jordan on behalf of the millions of individuals he has helped and inspired throughout his career. His tireless efforts have improved not only Gallaudet University, but also our nation and our world. I wish Dr. Jordan the best of luck in his retirement. His leadership and legacy will never be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank both Mr. Ross and the Blue Dog Coalition for focusing on what I believe to be one of the most critical problems confronting our country. I am going to speak a little bit about that.

I lament the loss of one of the great leaders of the House, one of the great leaders of the Blue Dog Coalition, Charlie Stenholm. No Member with whom I have served over the last 25 years, a quarter of a century, has been any more focused on trying to instill fiscal responsibility in the policies of this House than was Charlie Stenholm.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friends in the Blue Dog Coalition for organizing this important Special Order hour. The Blue Dogs have long been focused on this issue of fiscal responsibility, and I believe there is no more important issue in our Nation today.

I do not make that statement lightly. It is not hyperbole. I realize that our Nation is at war. Our gulf coast is still reeling from the worst natural disaster in American history. We are struggling, nearly 5 years after 9/11, to address our homeland security vulnerabilities.

Forty-five million Americans have no health insurance. Health care costs, gas prices, and college costs are all up for our citizens; and median household income, at the same time, as you know, Mr. Ross, is down. These are many of these critical issues that we face today. However, what the Blue Dog Coalition knows, and what every American needs to know, is that these issues that we face will all be impacted by the dangerous fiscal policies that we are embarked on.

Why? Because the record Federal budget deficits and exploding national debt that have been instigated over the last 5 years will affect our ability to address virtually every issue confronting the American people. That is why this matters.

This is not just some pie-in-the-sky issue that Mr. Ross and I are talking about. Mr. Ross made it very clear what he could do with just 3 days' interest in terms of bringing economic vitality to an area that needs growth and jobs and help with prosperity. Other issues such as the war on terror, homeland security, health care, education, Social Security and Medicare are all going to be impacted by these incredibly huge deficits that we are creating.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I know you are interested in these comments, but here is what David Walker had to say, the Comptroller General of the United States. He told the Senate Budget Committee on February 15, and I quote, ``Continuing on this unsustainable fiscal path will gradually erode, if not suddenly damage, our economy, our standard of living and, ultimately, our national security.'' Now, that is the gentleman whom we have appointed as the watchdog for the Congress on the finances of this country to make sure we don't waste money. What he is saying is, these policies are unsustainable, dangerous and will undermine our national security.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me no pleasure to say this, but I believe it is an undisputed statement of fact. This administration, through its insistence on unaffordable tax policies, is the most fiscally reckless administration in American history. Just listen to former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey of Texas, who told the Wall Street Journal in January of 2004, and again I quote, ``I'm sitting here and I'm upset about the deficit, and I'm upset about spending. There is no way I can pin that on the Democrats. Republicans own the town now.'' That was the former Republican majority leader saying, Republicans are responsible for this reckless, irresponsible fiscal policy that worries Dick Armey.

Simply look at the facts. When President Bush took office in January 2001, he inherited a projected 10-year budget surplus of $5.6 trillion. That is what he said. It is not what we said. He said that in a statement to the Congress.

President Clinton reduced the budget deficit every year during his first term, and then, Mr. Speaker, in his second term, presided over four straight budget surpluses. That hadn't been done for 70 years prior to that time. The first time that happened was 70 years ago. In fact, the Clinton administration paid down the national debt by $453 billion during that second term. In fact, the surpluses were over half a trillion dollars. But we paid down the debt by $453 billion.

So, not surprisingly, President Bush issued this bold prediction on March 31, 2001. Before I get to that, my friend has put up on the board, Mr. Ross, the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas, has put up on the board the deficits over the last 25 years. Now, I have been in Congress every one of those years, Mr. Speaker. 17 of those have been with Republican Presidents, 17 of those years. Eight of those years have been with a Democratic President.

Now, Mr. Speaker, some say, oh, well, 9/11 happened. It did. It cost us. It was serious. We needed to respond to it. But, very frankly, from 1982 to 1993, 9/11 didn't happen. Did we go to war in Iraq? Yes. And the good news was President Bush and Jim Baker went around the world and said, this is an international problem, and the international community paid for it. We didn't.

But if you will look at those figures that Mr. Ross has put up, every year, every one, without fail, under a Republican President over the last 25 years has been a deficit year.

And then you get to the Democratic year. Now, frankly, Mr. Ross has them in blue, but the first four numbers are, in fact, red numbers. We ran deficits. Why? Because we were pulling ourselves out of the deep debt that had been created by the prior two administrations. And then when we did that, it then took us into surplus for 4 straight years. But here's the good news.

Seventeen years, it is the bad news first; 17 years under Republican administrations, $4-plus trillion of deficits. Under Bill Clinton, $62.2 billion of surplus. That is an amazing record.

But here's what President Bush issued, a prediction in March of 2001 inheriting these surpluses, quote: ``We will pay off $2 trillion of debt over the next decade.'' That is what President Bush said, over the next 10 years. He has now been here 6 years. Two billion dollars of debt over the next decade; that will be the largest debt reduction in any country, ever. Future generations, President Bush said, shouldn't be forced to pay back money.

Now, I want, Mr. Speaker, I know you will be interested in this and others will be interested, other colleagues. President Bush said this: ``Future generations shouldn't be forced to pay back money that we have borrowed. We owe this kind of responsibility to our children and grandchildren.''

Tragically, although President Bush said that, his policies have led to exactly the opposite and have placed, if you add--Mr. Ross says $28,000, but if you add the added debt limit, $30,000 per child, per grandchild, per wife, per husband, and depending upon the size of your family, if it is four, $120,000.

The reality, of course, shows that notwithstanding what Mr. Bush said he was going to do, the President said he was going to do, he has done exactly

the opposite. In 5 years, the Bush administration and this Republican Congress, Mr. Speaker, have created the four largest budget deficits in American history: As Mr. Ross pointed out, $378 billion in fiscal 2002, $412 billion in fiscal 2003, $318 billion in fiscal 2005, and a projected $371 billion in fiscal 2006. And the Congressional Budget Office, Mr. Speaker, is projecting deficits as far as the eye can see.

So not only did this administration not reduce the deficit by $2 trillion, it has added $3 trillion. That is a $5 trillion mistake.

As far as paying down the national debt, the administration and this Congress have been forced to raise the statutory debt limit four times in 5 years. As Mr. Ross knows, and my good friend, Mr. Matheson knows, during the last 4 years of the Clinton administration, we never raised the national debt, not once. And, in fact, during the entire 8 years, we only raised it twice.

This administration has raised the statutory debt limit four times, for a total of $3.015 trillion, with a T. The national debt limit now stands at $9 trillion, which means that every man, woman and child in America owes about $30,000 of debt, as I said.

Consider, as the gentleman has pointed out, and he talked about it in terms of a day. We are borrowing $600,000 per minute, $600,000 per minute. In the last years of the Clinton administration, we didn't need to do that because we had responsible fiscal policies that we were pursuing.

Consider, the first 42 American presidents borrowed a total of $1.01 trillion from foreign governments and financial institutions over 211 years. This administration, in 5 years, now in their sixth, has borrowed from foreign entities, China, Saudi Arabia and others, $1.055 trillion. In other words, this President, in 5 years, has borrowed more money from foreign governments, foreign banks, foreign financial centers than all of the other Presidents America has had, combined.

Mr. Speaker, you don't need a doctorate in economics to appreciate that our Nation's economy and its security is more vulnerable when we are deeply indebted to foreign creditors.

Our deteriorating fiscal condition also has other serious side effects, Mr. Speaker. For example, the interest payments on the national debt are exploding. This is just like the interest consumers pay on their credit cards. In fiscal 2007, those interest payments will total a projected $243 billion.

Now, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, $243 billion is more money than every bill we will pass appropriating money for health, for education, for infrastructure, for environment, for crime prevention, for fighting terrorism, except the defense bill. So of the 11 appropriations bills we will pass, only one is larger than the interest we have to pay on the debt because we are mortgaging our future. In fact, interest payments on the national debt over the next decade are projected at $3 trillion.

Mr. Speaker, our children and grandchildren won't be able to buy anything for that. As a matter of fact, that sum is so large that just with the interest we are paying, we could pay all of Medicare expenses over the next 10 years. Think of that. These interest payments constitute resources that could have been used for national and homeland security, for Social Security and Medicare, for health care and education, and yes, Mr. Speaker, for tax cuts.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me close by saying it is highly ironic that President Bush traveled the country last year warning of Social Security's imminent demise, while at the same time he was spending every single nickel of Social Security surplus over the last 5 years. $817 billion of Social Security surpluses we have spent. And, in fact, what we have done is, we have taken those FICA taxes from working men and women and given it to some of the richest people in America in their tax cuts. My, my, my, what responsible policy. And, in fact, under the Republican budget policies every nickel of the Social Security surplus will again be spent over the next 5 years, a total of $1.148 trillion in total.

Consider that just a few years ago the chairman of the House Budget Committee, Mr. Nussle of Iowa, confidently predicted, now, this is Mr. Nussle of Iowa, our colleague who chairs the Budget Committee, who talks about fiscal responsibility, he said this: This Congress will protect 100 percent of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, period.

This is Mr. Nussle. No speculation, no supposition, no projections.

That statement of course, Mr. Speaker, proved absolutely, undeniably false, wrong. We have spent every nickel. We haven't saved 1 cent of that Social Security surplus. And I hope the Members of this House and the American people will keep this representation and others made by our Republican friends in mind as we prepare to consider this coming budget because they are going to say a lot of things, as they have in the past.

We will likely hear many more confident, bold predictions in the days ahead, predictions that are simply unmoored in fiscal reality. Every single Member of this House knows that the one tried and true method of restoring fiscal discipline is to reinstate the common-sense pay-as- you-go budget rules that were adopted when the Democrats were in charge in 1990. And George Bush I joined in that bipartisan agreement to get a handle on our fiscal posture in America.

Our Republican friends allowed those paygo rules to expire, Mr. Speaker, in 2002. We urged them to keep them. We have offered them in our budget resolution every year. They have been rejected. And our Nation has rued the day that that rule was changed.

I urge my colleagues, join Democrats in supporting pay-as-you-go budget rules. Let us end this cycle of deficit and debt that threatens our Nation's security and future.

And I thank my friend, Mr. Ross. I thank Mr. Matheson, who cochairs the Blue Dog Caucus, for continuing to focus on this issue which, in my opinion, is the most important that confronts our country because every other issue will be impacted by our fiscal irresponsibility.