Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, here we are just 2 weeks after House Republicans claimed that they were restoring fiscal discipline to the federal budget considering a tax bill that will make our deficits worse and drive our Nation even further into debt.

In 5 short years, the Republican party's failed economic policies have instigated $1.57 trillion in budget deficits and added $3 trillion to the national debt. By the way, during the last 4 years of the Clinton administration, we added not a nickel to the national debt and all 4 years we had a surplus.

Even Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, is sounding the alarm. He recently said, ``We should not be cutting taxes by borrowing.'' That is what we are doing. But with this bill Republicans are doing precisely that.

Now the Republican response will be as predictable as it is wrong. They will claim that tax cuts pay for themselves, but at long last can we dispense with this supply-side snake oil. Last month the incoming chairman of the Federal Reserve told the Senate, ``I think it's unusual for a tax cut to completely offset the revenue loss.''

That is President Bush's appointee to the Federal Reserve. And the Comptroller General of the United States, David Walker, recently stated, ``Anybody who says you're going to grow your way out of this problem, (deficits and debt) would probably not pass math.''

Even the President's Council of Economic Advisers admitted in 2003, ``Although the economy grows in response to tax reductions, it is unlikely to grow so much that lost tax revenue is completely recovered by the higher economic activity.''

That is why we have $1.75 trillion in additional deficits in 5 years and $3 trillion of additional debt.

So my Republican friends can stop pretending that the tax cuts in this bill will somehow magically pay for themselves. You are suggesting cuts twice as large as you were prepared to cut in spending. They will not.

Finally, let me say that this tax bill perfectly illustrates the Republican party's misguided priorities. Its centerpiece is the capital gains and dividend

cuts from 2008 to 2010. Who do you think benefits from that? Certainly not those making less than $50,000 a year. They will receive 3 percent of the capital gains tax cut. The fact is 80 percent of the capital gains tax cuts go to those with incomes more than $200,000; and more than 50 percent goes to those with incomes over $1 million.

Meanwhile, this majority has refused to address the alternative minimum tax within this bill, thereby exposing nearly one-third of taxpayers making between $75,000 and $100,000 to higher taxes next year.

I urge my colleagues: Vote for fairness.

Vote for fiscal sanity.

Vote for the Democratic alternative.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the acting majority leader, for the purpose of inquiring about the schedule for the week to come.

I thank the gentleman for that information.

As you know, a lot of work remains to be done which is supposed to be, as I understand it, may be, I suppose, our last week. Many hope it will be our last week, at least for the month, including the completion of the conference report, as you have said, on Labor-Health and DOD appropriation, the DOD authorization, TRIA, PATRIOT Act.

So for Members' planning purposes, can you tell me when you expect to finish work for the year?

I thank the gentleman for that information.

If we do not pass, for whatever reasons, the DOD appropriation bill and the Labor-Health appropriation bill, presumably we will need a CR. Could the leader tell me how long you would anticipate that CR being?

I thank the gentleman for that information.

Focusing on the DOD bills, the authorization and the appropriation bill, technically, as I understand it, we have not gone to conference on either one of those at this point in time. One of the reasons is, I presume, that there will be a motion to instruct on the McCain amendment on one of those bills. Can the gentleman tell me when we might have a motion to go to conference? I know you have talked about them coming on the floor as conference reports, but in light of the fact we have not gone to conference yet, could the gentleman inform me as to when we might have a motion to go to conference?

I yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time, this is not a question, but let me tell you the difficult position this puts us in, which I hope we ought to really preclude in the future in fairness.

The purpose of a motion to instruct conferees is obviously to convey to them the opinion of the House as it relates to the product of the conference. Clearly, if that motion is not made until essentially after the conference work is done, the motion essentially is of little, if any, value. I understand the

problem that the majority has been dealing with and the differences between the administration and at least the Senate. But it does place us in a position where essentially whatever the House might want to do on a motion to instruct would be essentially a meaningless act.

That is certainly not, I think, the intent of the rule for a motion to instruct, nor is it the spirit, I think, of the rule. The gentleman does not have to comment on it. If he wanted to make a comment on it, I would be glad to hear it; but I think you understand our consternation for those of us who particularly feel very strongly on the importance and the appropriateness of the McCain amendment as passed by the Senate being in the final bill. Again, the gentleman does not have to comment on that. If he would like to, I will certainly yield.

I thank the gentleman.

On the budget reconciliation conference, when do you expect that to hit the floor?

I understand that knowing a specific day on which that could be done would be practically impossible. I appreciate the gentleman's observation.

On the border security and immigration bill, which you note will be on the calendar next week, can you tell us whether or not we can anticipate that being on, presumably, either Wednesday or Thursday? We are coming back Tuesday night. You indicated it is possible we could get out Thursday. So I presume that bill, which is ready for the floor, will be on either Wednesday or Thursday. Can you tell us specifically when you might anticipate that bill being on the floor?

Thank you. Reclaiming my time, as I understand it, the border security and immigration, one comes out of Homeland Security and one comes out of Judiciary. Mr. Leader, do you anticipate that they will be joined for purposes of consideration on the floor, or is it your anticipation that we will consider each one of them individually? I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman.

Something that is not on the notice, but there has been significant discussion of and great interest in on our side as well as your side, is the pension bill. I notice it is not on the announcement, but do you anticipate that that might be on the calendar; or has that been decided to go over? I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman. As he observes and I have observed, there is great interest. We know this is an important piece of legislation. Both sides and I think all interest groups want to address his issue as soon as we can. Hopefully, we can work together to effect a piece of legislation that can enjoy bipartisan support, can pass, and go into effect to assist so many millions of Americans who are concerned about the security that they have in their pensions. I know that is your desire, our desire, and hopefully we can proceed on that.

Mr. Leader, Mr. Taylor from Mississippi is on the floor and Mr. Melancon from Louisiana was also on the floor. Both of them had inquired of me, appropriately, the status of the Katrina relief legislation. We are very interested in that being brought to the floor next week. It is my understanding that it probably will be, but it might be brought to the floor attached to another bill.

That is a critical piece of legislation. I think all of us want to make sure that we have the resources necessary and some of the legislative authorizations and law necessary to facilitate rehabilitation of the gulf area. Can you tell me when that might come to the floor and on what vehicle it might come to the floor, either as a freestanding bill or attached to another?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for those remarks. Clearly, that is critical not only, as I said, to the people

that you mentioned from the areas affected, but to all of us who want to ensure assistance gets to the people there. And while the tax provisions may well be important, they are longer-term impacts, and in some respects shorter-term impacts, that we would otherwise provide.

Lastly, Mr. Leader, if I can, can you perhaps give us a preview of the schedule for next year? It is our understanding on this side that the probability is we will not be returning until the 31st of January. Has that been decided? Can you confirm that and maybe give us a brief preview of what our schedule next month and the months thereafter in the year to come might be?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for that information.

Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives is today considering a proposed free trade agreement between the United States and Bahrain. I support this agreement, and will vote in favor of the required implementing legislation. I also anticipate this agreement will enjoy strong bipartisan support in Congress.

In general, I have advocated free trade and open markets because I believe that American businesses and workers can compete and win in the global economy. Furthermore, I believe that increasing global interdependence presents our Nation with an opportunity to promote democratic reform, the rule of law and respect for basic human rights.

The agreement provides that all bilateral trade in consumer and industrial products will become duty-free immediately, as will 98 percent of U.S. agricultural exports, with the remaining tariffs phased out over 10 years. Textiles and apparel trade will also become duty free immediately for products that contain American or Bahraini yarn.

Key U.S. service sectors that will benefit under the agreement include audiovisual, express delivery, telecommunications, computer and related services, distribution, healthcare, services incidental to mining, construction, architecture and engineering. Furthermore, on the issue of intellectual property rights, the Agreement requires each government to criminalize end-user piracy, providing strong deterrence against piracy and counterfeiting.

Beyond the economic benefits that will accrue to the United States, this agreement is an important opportunity to bring increased development, prosperity and stability to a key ally and strategic partner in the region. Not only has Bahrain supported and participated in Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, as well as the first Persian Gulf War in 1991, the country has also served as the host to U.S. Naval forces in the Middle East for more than 50 years. This free trade agreement will further strengthen the already close US.-Bahrain relationship.

I have and will continue to support free trade agreements that strike the balance of expanding markets for American companies, while also providing a level playing field for American workers and improved living and working conditions for foreign workers by guaranteeing fair wages and basic workplace protections abroad. I am confident that these goals will be met with respect to Bahrain, in part thanks to a number of labor reforms that have been recently implemented by the government.

I will consider future trade agreements one at a time, taking into consideration the specific labor and environmental conditions that exist in the countries we seek to trade with, as well as the provisions included in the agreements to protect workers--both here and in the other countries--and environmental concerns. I will determine my position as those agreements are finalized.

Mr. CROWLEY, Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the United States Bahrain Free Trade Agreement.

As the Co Chair of the Caucus on Bahrain with my good friend from Wisconsin Mr. Ryan, we have worked closely to make today reality.

Bahrain has been a close friend of the United States for over 100 years and this agreement is taking us to a new level in our friendship.

This friendship is built on trust and respect for each other, so much so that the US Navy's Fifth Fleet operates in Bahrain, a friendly and secure environment for the fleet that watches over a dangerous region.

Bahrain continues to lead all gulf nations in political and economic reforms.

They have taken the bold step by rescinding its economic boycott of Israel. This lays the foundation for an economic relationship with Israel that will help develop both Bahrain and the entire gulf region.

Bahrain conducted its first national legislative elections in over 25 years, electing 40 members to the Representatives Council.

Women were not only allowed to vote, they also became the first women in the Gulf to run as candidates in national elections.

Bahrain is making the necessary changes by amending all provisions of its labor laws that so they are fully compliant with the International Labor Organization (ILO).

I would like to commend Ambassador Naser Al Belooshi for the fine work he has done to iron out some of the labor issues that had held this agreement up.

The Ambassador working with the Finance Minister showed great poise and determination to meet the labor requirements that Democrats pushed for before we would support this agreement.

The strong labor provisions that Bahrain has agreed to will help U.S. business thrive in Bahrain

This agreement provides market access for U.S. industrial, agricultural, and consumer products.

The agreement will greatly benefit the services sector and provide U.S. companies with the highest degree of access to service markets of any U.S. FTA to date.

Financial service companies will have the right to establish subsidiaries, branches, and joint ventures in Bahrain. Health and life insurance companies will have market access once this agreement is enacted.

This agreement is the first step in the political and economic reforms for the Middle East and I strongly believe the U.S. should continue to work with moderate Arab nations such as Bahrain to help balance out some of the more extreme elements in today's Middle East.

Mr. Speaker, I support this agreement and urge all of my colleagues to vote for this bill.

Mr. OXLEY, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the free trade agreement between the United States and Bahrain, a country which is and seeks to increase its stature as the 3leading financial center for the Middle East. As chairman of the Financial Services Committee, I want to focus on the benefits to American financial services and economic interests from this agreement.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the United States runs a large and growing trade surplus in the services sector. It was $55.9 billion in 2002 and $96.1 billion in 2003. As the most innovative and competitive country in the world, the United States has a strategic interest in fostering greater opportunities for our financial firms, consultants, accountants, and other high-end service professionals to export their services and products worldwide.

This is not a zero-sum game. The knowledge transfer from increased American exports of financial and other related services will help people in other countries develop more efficient and economically valuable capabilities, fostering economic growth abroad as well as an increased customer base for American goods and services. The multiplier effect associated with increased access to capital for foreign firms is also significant. To the extent that capital formation abroad also encourages growth of stock and bond markets, free trade in financial services can provide good working experience for how decisions can be taken through transparent decision-making processes which are the hallmarks of democracy.

This free trade agreement with the leading financial center in the Middle East will substantially open financial services markets in the region for American firms. At a time when high oil prices are generating large pools of capital in the Middle East, we have a strategic interest in making it easier for American financial firms to provide their intermediation services in the region. We also have a strategic Interest in making it easier for Middle East investors to become more integrated into the global economy.

Bahrain is also a valued ally in our fight against terrorist financing. It has demonstrated a strong commitment to cooperate with the U.S. on these issues. Bahrain's anti-money laundering law, passed in 2001, makes money laundering an extraditable offense. It has a ``know-your-customer'' standard and requires all financial institution employees to take a course annually on how to implement this law. In addition, Bahrain hosts the newly created Middle East and North Africa Financial Action Task Force, which is the key multilateral group that creates standards throughout the region to fight terrorist financing and money laundering.

Mr. Speaker, today we consider the conference report on the Treasury, Transportation, HUD bill. That in and of itself is a remarkable achievement, given that in recent years the tendency has been to circumvent the established appropriation process.

I want to commend Chairman Knollenberg and Ranking Democrat Olver for working diligently and cooperatively on a bill that is profoundly important to every American. We have seen much conflict over the last few days, and it is, I think, a happy event that we can come to the floor and be supportive of a bill that was worked on in a bipartisan, cooperative way; and I think that is a testament to Mr. Knollenberg and to Mr. Olver, and thanks to them as well.

Now, they would agree, and we all agree, this is not a perfect conference report, hardly any conference report is, and there are limited resources. Critical social programs are hurt. Public housing, Hope VI, people with AIDS, rural housing and economic development, Community Development Block Grants, brownfields, and the HOME program all face, frankly, fewer resources than I would hope they would have. But that is the reality of the dollars that were given to Mr. Knollenberg and Mr. Olver to deal with.

I am pleased that the transportation bill report includes an adjustment for our Federal civilian employees in their cost of living consistent with the pay adjustment proposed for the military personnel. It is essential that we provide this adjustment as recognition of the contribution made by both Federal civilian employees and military personnel to the safety and security of the Nation. It also allows us to recruit and indeed retain those that we need to carry out important and vital services for our citizens.

I am also pleased that the President's request for the FDA consolidation is in this bill. These funds will go a long way in helping to relocate FDA employees from their current substandard facilities into modern, state-of-the-art facilities.

I am enormously grateful, and I want to say this publicly, I have said it privately, to Chairman Knollenberg for his leadership in making possible reimbursement to small business people who operated small airports and, for security reasons, were shut down by the Federal Government and sustained substantial losses. We have been working on this for many years, and Mr. Knollenberg and Mr. Olver have now ensured that we resolve this, and I thank the chairman for that. The failure to provide these small businessmen with compensation in the years past has caused great difficulty, and this will be a welcome addition to this bill.

I also want to commend the conferees for withstanding pressure from the White House, including the Bond-Mikulski reform provision, which will correct fundamental flaws in the contracting-out provisions. Simply put, the provision will eliminate waste and save taxpayer money while, at the same time, preserving appropriate competition by employees with the private sector to get the most efficient and effective results for our taxpayers.

I want to close by saying that I am concerned about what I believe to be one very significant provision that is not in this bill, or funding that is not in this bill. As the sponsor of the Help America Vote Act with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), and it was overwhelmingly supported on this side, Senator McConnell and Senator Dodd on the Senate side, strong support, we promised the States some $3.8 billion in funding. We have given $3 billion to get our technology up to date, to ensure that every voter has access to the polls, that our registration rolls are up to date and accurate, that no American is precluded from voting because of inefficiencies in the registration system, and we required the States to have statewide registration systems, a centralized database so that no Marylander, no Massachusetts resident, no Michigander would be shut out of the process because they were not properly included on the rolls.

That is an expensive process, and the States are required to have it in place by January 1 of 2006. We have shortchanged them to this date $800 million of the promised $3.8 billion. Mr. Speaker, $3 billion is a large sum of money; but when you spread it throughout 50 States, it diminishes.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we could work together with the White House that has been helpful in the past and Speaker Hastert, who has been very helpful in the past; Mr. Obey and Mr. Olver have both been helpful in making sure that next year we can work with the administration to try to get this funding at the level that it really ought to be, because that is what we promised the States and, but for that, it will be an unfunded mandate.

So, again, in closing, I thank the chairman, I thank Mr. Olver, Mr. Obey and Mr. Lewis for working together to bring this bill to the floor, and I will certainly be supportive.

Mr. Speaker, the most profound issue that this Congress must consider is whether or not to declare and prosecute war, whether or not to send our Nation's sons and daughters into harm's way. A serious proposal has been made by the senior Member of this body, a Member who honorably served in the United States Marine Corps for nearly four decades, a Member who has served here for more than three decades, and a Member who has been one of our Nation's leaders on making our defenses the strongest they could be. That proposal raises legitimate and critical questions as to the prosecution of our Nation's war efforts in Iraq, efforts that I have always supported. It suggests an alternative course of action that deserves serious consideration and a full and fair debate. However, his proposal is not before us tonight. The Republican chairman of the Armed Services Committee offers a resolution to immediately withdraw our troops from Iraq. I don't support that. Mr. Hunter does not support it. He offers it to avoid serious consideration of the policy our country is pursuing and proposals for possible alternatives. The majority party's response seeks to deal with this issue in a way that trivializes our consideration of how to conduct this war effort in a manner best designed to attain success. As such, this resolution is beneath the dignity and responsibility of this institution and the Members of this body.

All of us have sworn to defend the Constitution and protect this Nation and the American people. All of us, all 435, support our troops. This resolution is unworthy of our responsibility to our men and women who are now serving our Nation and who are deployed in harm's way. Unfortunately, today's process mirrors, I say to you, the superficial consideration of serious policy issues in this Congress and demonstrates a continuing unwillingness to subject policy proposals to oversight and serious and thoughtful deliberation.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I do not possess the eloquence or the vocabulary to express the magnitude of my contempt with which I view this shabby, petty political maneuver. Our responsibilities to our country and to our men and women in harm's way in the defense of freedom demands more of us. The majority leadership demonstrates today, I fear, its lack of respect for this institution and for its great responsibilities to our democracy. The American people will see this day's proceedings for what they are, the rankest of politics and the absence of a sense of shame.

I hope that we reject this rule and this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) left the floor. The majority party neither funds the appropriate priorities in this bill nor meets its responsibilities for fiscal sound management of the Federal Government. It has taken this Nation $3 trillion into additional debt in the last 56, 58 months. During the last 4 years of the Clinton administration, we did not have to increase the debt once, not once.

Mr. Speaker, this appropriations conference report betrays our Nation's values and its future. It is neither compassionate, conservative nor wise, and I will vote against it.

Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, including my Republican friends on the Labor Health Committee, claim that there is little they can do to improve the funding levels in this key domestic program. They say that they have no options, no alternative, that they are only complying with the funding levels dictated by the Republican budget resolution, a resolution which results in an additional almost trillion dollars in additional debt.

But let me remind them, you voted for that budget resolution and you cannot have it both ways. You cannot vote for draconian cuts in April and disclaim responsibility when those cuts are enacted in November.

At a time when we should be striving to make American schools and American students the best and the most competitive in the world, this bill insures that our Nation falls further and further behind. Unconscionably, this conference report cuts the Federal investment in education below current levels by $59 million, for the first time in a decade. And it cuts funding for No Child Left Behind by $784 million, 3.2 percent cut, below the current level. This means that we have now reached a $40 billion cumulative shortfall below the amount we promised our children when President Bush signed this bill into law. We do nothing in this bill to make higher education more accessible.

In my State, and I am sure in the chairman's State, and the chairman I do not criticize. He is given what he is given and he does the best he can. But in my state, costs have gone up for college kids and their families. Despite the President's 2000 campaign promise to increase the maximum Pell Grant to $5,100, despite that promise, this bill freezes the maximum Pell Grant at over 25 percent below that, at $4,050. For the fourth year in a row, that promise has been broken, while tuition and fees have increased 46 percent since 2001.

However, the inappropriate funding levels in this conference report should not surprise anyone. They are the inevitable consequence, and I am glad my friend from Indiana has returned, because the budget deficits confronting this Nation and the underfunding of priorities in this Nation are the inevitable consequence of the fiscal policies of the Republican majority and this administration, policies that starve the government resources.

So let everyone here and everyone watching at home understand, the funding levels contained in this conference report are the direct consequence of the Republican Party's failed economic policies that have spawned record budget deficits. Why? Because the next bill that is coming down the line will cut taxes by some $70 billion. As the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) asked, is it saving money? It is not. And those failed policies are the proximate cause of this woefully underfunded and unacceptable conference report.

When we started on this budget disaster, Jim Nussle, Republican leader of the Budget Committee said this: ``We do not touch Social Security. It does not touch Medicare. In fact, this budget accomplishes the largest reduction of the debt held by the public in our history. The bill does not change in one way, shape or form. And by the end of 10 years, this budget will have eliminated the debt held by the public.''

In fact, it has taken, contrary to Mr. Nussle's representations, $3 trillion, with a T, additional debt has been accumulated under these budgets. All they do is underfund priorities and adopt fiscally irresponsible policies. What a shame for America. Together America can do better.

Mr. Speaker, I hope everybody in America knows, I say to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite), your party has been in charge for all 5 of the years that spending has gone out of control, and your conservatives are telling you just that, including Mr. Dick Armey, your former majority leader. It is you who have allowed spending to go out of control.

Mr. Speaker, I tell my friend, the chairman of the Budget Committee, this bill is no picnic.

Mr. Speaker, for 5 years, the Republican Party in Washington has pursued the most irresponsible and dangerous fiscal policies in the history of this country. Today, they claim they are getting tough on spending, that they are restoring fiscal discipline. I suppose that is the fiscal discipline that they threw away over the last 5 years.

I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, I have been a Member of this House for 25 years. For 17 of those years, there has been a Republican President in the United States of America. The one person that can stop spending in its tracks, none of the rest of us can, we can vote but only one of us in the government can stop spending in its tracks and that is the President of the United States. And during those 17 years that we have had Republican Presidents, every year without exception we have had large deficits. For 8 years, we had a Democratic President, and for 4 years we had surpluses, 4 straight years.

In every single one of those years that the Republican Presidents presided we had large and growing deficits. This bill today will perpetuate that Republican performance.

Five years ago, the Bush administration and this Republican Congress inherited a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion according to President Bush. President Bush promised the American people when he offered his economic program, ``We can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits even if the economy softens.'' But almost immediately, the Washington Republicans enacted policies that instigated deficit and debt that will immorally force our children to pay our bills and then threaten our Nation's future.

Under President Clinton, we had $559 billion of surplus in his last 4 years. Under your 5 years, I tell the amused chairman of the Budget Committee, you have planned and achieved $1.57 trillion of debt. At the very same time, Republicans have raised the debt limit four times. $4.15 trillion of additional debt during your last 5 years.

Do you know how much during the last 4 years of the Clinton years we raised it? Zero. Zero. You talk about fiscal responsibility and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) says you had a Republican majority. Is that not wonderful? My, my, my, you could do it when you had President Clinton as President but you cannot do it when you have President Bush. Is that not a strange thing to happen? In 5 short years they have driven us $3 trillion deeper in debt.

Today Republicans say they want to restore fiscal discipline. All of America must ask, Why do you insult our intelligence?

President Bush has not vetoed one spending bill that you have offered. If spending is out of control, it is out of control because you let it get out of control, you planned to get it out of control, and you passed bills that put it out of control.

Republicans rammed a prescription drug bill through. They told us, which was not true and they knew it not to be true, it was going to cost $395 billion. Why? Because your budget said you were going to spend $400 billion. That was a lie. You knew it was not true. In fact, 2 months later, you came by and said, no, it is 524. Now, it is over a trillion dollars.

You claim that you are cutting spending by $50 billion, but you are coming with a tax bill that is going to cut $57 billion in revenue, a net increase of the deficit. That is why you have had 17 straight years under your Presidents of deficits.

Look at the facts. I implore my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, face fiscal reality. Stop posturing, vote no on this irresponsible bill. Join Democrats in adopting a budget plan as we offered that balanced the budget in ten years. You did not even plan to balance it.

Let me read now a quote. ``We do not touch Social Security. It does not touch Medicare. This budget accomplishes the largest reduction of the debt held by the public in our history. By the end of 10 years of this budget, we will have eliminated the debt held by the public.'' Chairman Jim Nussle, May 25, 2001.

$1.57 trillion in budget deficits and $3 trillion later additional debt on the national debt. The gentleman from Iowa's (Mr. Nussle) representation was totally, absolutely, unconscionably wrong in 2001, and your predictions today are equally in error.

Vote against this bad bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time.

1984, it was Good Morning in America, the economy was growing, President Reagan was President, Bob Dole the Republican the majority leader of the United States Senate, and big deficits, big deficits, big deficits, big deficits, big deficits, big deficits.

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in supporting this Resolution, which condemns in the strongest possible terms the barbaric terrorist attacks in Jordan last Wednesday.

These attacks at three Amman hotels--including an attack on a wedding party--killed 58 innocent men, women and children, and are yet another demonstration of the uncivilized, unrepentant evil that possesses the Al Qaeda terrorist organization, which claimed responsibility. And this was, sadly, not the first time Jordan has suffered at the hands of terrorists because it maintains close relations with the West.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to commend King Abdullah for his forthright public comments after these attacks. As reported in the Washington Post today, the King stated: ``What the attack did was show to everybody what we've been saying--that this is an issue of ideology and the Muslim world can no longer be complacent. People can't sit in the middle.''

The fact is, the savage bombings last week in Amman were perpetrated by Muslims, who directed their hatred at Muslims.

The fact is, the entire civilized world--be they Christian, Muslim or Jew--must recognize our common interest in uniting and defeating this mortal threat to our way of life, to the democratic form of government, to basic human decency and to the rule of law.

None of us, as the King said, can be complacent.

Mr. Speaker, the people and the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan have been a stalwart ally in the war on terror.

And, I believe it is important today that this Congress condemn these cowardly attacks; express its condolences to the families and friends of those killed, and its sympathies to those injured; express its solidarity and support of the people and Government of Jordan; and express its readiness to assist Jordanian authorities in bringing those responsible for these outrageous attacks to justice.

I urge my colleagues to support this Resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues to reflect upon the life and service of Ed Roybal. I had a great privilege in that I served all of the time that he and I served together, from 1981 until his retirement.

I had the opportunity to serve on two of the appropriations subcommittees with Congressman Roybal. First on the Labor Health Subcommittee, on which I now serve with his daughter Lucille who does an extraordinary job and of whom I know he is extraordinarily proud. I then served with him as well on the Treasury Postal Subcommittee, a subcommittee that was very important to me in my district because of my Federal employees.

I was a young, new Member. Ed Roybal was a mentor. Ed Roybal was someone who had great experience and wisdom and who taught me much as a Member of the House of Representatives. He taught me about commitment to people and keeping people uppermost in our minds as we considered the policies before the House and before the Appropriations Committee.

I was privileged to work with Ed Roybal. I was privileged to learn from Ed Roybal. I was privileged to know a gentleman, an American, a proud Mexican-American, and an American who made a difference.

Lucille, as you sit there and listen to us talk, and you and I have talked before, I know that you are extraordinarily proud to be the daughter of an American who made a difference, of a Mexican-American who made his people proud, of a Californian who represented his State well.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to honor the memory and the record of a great American, my friend and mentor, Chairman Ed Roybal.

Mr. Speaker, today House Republicans had the audacity to claim that they are getting tough on spending, that they are restoring fiscal discipline. But I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, who do you think you are kidding? Do you not think the American public is watching what you have done?

Just this morning, USA Today reported on our Nation's dire fiscal conditions, quoting experts on both sides of the aisle.

For example, the newspaper said: ``To hear Comptroller General David Walker tell it, the United States can be likened to Rome before the fall of the empire. Its financial condition is `worse than advertised.' It has a `broken business model.' It faces deficits in its budgets, its balance-of-payments, its savings, and its leadership.''

The leadership, of course, of this city and this country is a Republican President, a Republican-led Senate, and a Republican-led House.

Mr. Speaker, I have been a proud Member of this body for 25 years. For 17 of those years, a Republican has occupied the White House. I would suggest to my colleagues, there is one person and only one person in America that can stop spending in its tracks, and that is the President of the United States. No single Member of Congress, no single member of the Senate, but a President can say ``no'' to spending. So when Presidents lament spending, they lament what they have done.

Here is the reality, Mr. Speaker: in every single one of those 17 years, this country has had substantial deficits. Let me repeat that: 17 years of Republican leadership and 17 straight years of deficits.

The Republican budget reconciliation bill would only perpetuate that record of irresponsibility and recklessness. Why? Because the net effect of their reconciliation package would add $20 billion additional deficits in this country. Five years ago, the Bush administration and this Republican Congress inherited from a Democratic President a 10- year budget surplus of $5.6 trillion and four consecutive budget surpluses from the Clinton administration.

I call your attention to this chart: budget deficits, fiscal year 1982, the first fiscal year for which Ronald Reagan was responsible, to fiscal year 2006, which is the current year we are budgeting for. Look at that, 17 straight years of Republican deficits, with no exception.

Now the Republicans come to the floor and they say, oh, my goodness, we have had Iraq. We have, but when Ronald Reagan said it was good morning in America, when he said the economy was doing extraordinarily well and that America was back and had an overwhelming reelection based upon that premise, guess what? We had a deficit of $212 billion. The next year we had a deficit of $221 billion. So the deficit picture you see on this chart is unblemished straight deficits until Bill Clinton is elected President of the United States.

Then Bill Clinton, as you can see on this chart, introduced an economic plan on this floor, and I will get to that.

President Bush had promised the American people that he would proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits, even if the economy softens. You will see he was dead flat wrong. So when you hear these Republicans make representations about what they are going to do, look at the 17 years Ronald Reagan said he was going to balance the budget. He did not do it. George Bush the First said he was going to balance the budget. He did not do it. The present President of the United States said we can adopt his economic program and we would pay off the national debt, we would not spend a nickel of Social Security, and we would not spend a nickel of Medicare. He was wrong, or I might say, he misrepresented politely every one of those points, and has run up deficits of 157, 377, 412, 319 and $323 billion.

That record is one that ought to be rejected. Democrats have been united in rejecting those proposals. We will continue to take that posture.

At the same time, Republicans have raised the debt limit not once, but twice, not three times--but four times in four years; $450 billion in 2002, $984 billion in 2003, $800 billion in 2004, and $781 billion this year.

The interest payments on the national debt are now the fastest growing category of spending in our budget.

So today, when Republicans say that they want to restore fiscal discipline, we must respond: You have lost all credibility on this issue.

President Bush has not vetoed one--not one--spending bill.

Republicans rammed a prescription drug bill through this Congress that they insisted would cost $395 billion. But they suppressed a more accurate estimate, and now that legislation is expected to cost $1 trillion.

The budget reconciliation bills are the Republican Party's latest charade.

They say that they are cutting spending by some $54 billion-- including cuts of $12 billion to Medicaid, $14 billion to student loans, $1 billion to food stamps and $5 billion to child support programs.

But they also plan to cut taxes on the wealthiest people in America by $70 billion.

Anyway you cut it, this Republican majority intends to increase the deficit, not reduce it.

Even Alan Greenspan, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, is sounding the alarm. Recently, he said: ``You should not be cutting taxes by borrowing.''

Fortunately, not all Republicans are willing to participate in this irresponsible fraud.

Last Thursday, for example, Senator Voinovich told the Washington Post: ``I do not know how anyone can say with a straight face that when we voted to cut spending last week to help achieve deficit reductions, we can now then turn around two weeks later to provide tax cuts that exceed the reduction in spending. That is beyond me, and I am sure the American people.''

So I implore my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: Demonstrate the courage of your convictions.

Put the interests of the American people ahead of the interests of your political party.

Oppose these irresponsible reconciliation bills.

Join Democrats in fighting to restore fiscal discipline to our budget.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the acting majority leader, for the purposes of informing us of the schedule for the week to come.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information.

I also want to reiterate what I understand has been the change in schedule for all of our Members to note that we will not be meeting on Monday, but Tuesday will be our day. I thank the gentleman for that information.

Which appropriation bills do you expect to come on the floor next week?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Do you anticipate a motion to go to conference on the DOD appropriations bill next week?

Do you know how early in the week that might be? Obviously, as you know, there is a very important motion to instruct which would be in order at that time. Many of our Members are concerned about that. Would you know when possibly that might be done? I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman. The current CR, as you know, runs out

on Friday. First of all, presumably, we anticipate another CR coming. I am sure we have to have another CR at least for some agencies. How long do you think that CR would run? I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information.

The budget reconciliation bill, we did not take it up today and the mandatory spending cuts bill today. When might we consider that?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. So it is possible that that bill will be back next week?

Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, from your announcement, the tax reconciliation bill will also be on the floor next week? I yield to my friend.

I thank my colleague for that information. Reclaiming my time, the pension bill, as the gentleman knows, which had passed through the Education and the Workforce Committee, was considered by Ways and Means and marked up on Wednesday, I believe. Is it my colleague's expectation that that might be on the floor next week as well? I yield to my friend.

Let me then go to that question about when is the end. As I understood from our previous colloquies, we are going to be out Friday for at least 14 days, that would be the Thanksgiving week and the week thereafter. And then if we need to come back, am I correct that we are still looking at coming back the week of December 5? I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his information.

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this important motion to instruct on the PATRIOT Act. Like so many, I voted for the PATRIOT Act the first time and the second time. But I agree with the gentleman from California and the gentleman from Virginia, and as I understand it, perhaps the chairman as well. I simply do not understand the reticence to include sunset provisions on a law that affects the civil liberties of every American citizen.

In fact, when we reauthorized the PATRIOT Act in July, the Republican bill permanently authorized 14 of the 16 provisions. The other two provisions, one for roving wiretaps and the other dealing with the FBI's power to demand business records, were extended for 10 years. Democrats fought to sunset these provisions last summer; and we do so again today, apparently successfully, because, I think, people have, upon reflection, thought that this is a better policy. Because when it comes to the government's power to intrude on the private lives of citizens, the United States Congress should not give the government unchecked power to do so.

Just last Sunday the Washington Post documented, and it has been referenced here, the hundredfold increase in the issuance of national security letters seeking information about U.S. citizens and visitors who are not even alleged to be terrorist or spies. There are terrorists. Terrorism is a serious threat, and we need to be serious in our response. But privacy concerns must not be casually dismissed. In fact, it was not until several sections of the PATRIOT Act were set to expire that the Justice Department began to respond to congressional inquiries and we had the opportunity to assess, examine, and recalibrate our policies.

I submit to my colleagues they have given the Justice Department carte blanche. No matter how good the leadership is in the Justice Department, it is not a policy that we ought to pursue and would be an abdication of our congressional oversight responsibility and contrary to the interests of the American people.

Madam Speaker, this motion would recede to the Senate and create a 4- year sunset on the most controversial provisions in the PATRIOT Act, orders by the secret Foreign Intelligence Court, blank wiretap orders and the surveillance of agents of a foreign power who act alone. This motion, in my opinion, is a step in the right direction, and I hope the Members support it.

As I said, and I will echo the comments of so many here, terrorism is an immediate and proximate threat, as we lawyers say; and we need to respond effectively to keep America safe. But in the process, we must also protect the basic rights that our Founding Fathers knew were the bedrock of the United States democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the success of the first ever Recording Arts Day on Capitol Hill, which was held on September 7, 2005. This grassroots advocacy day for music was organized by The Recording Academy, in conjunction with the Recording Arts and Sciences Congressional Caucus, of which I am proud to co-Chair with Representative Mary Bono.

Recording Arts Day brought 20 music associations and more than 100 music professionals to the Hill to discuss a variety of issues with Members of Congress, including protecting intellectual property rights, bolstering music education and emphasizing the importance of music preservation. Musicians, songwriters, singers, producers and other key members of the music community shared their experiences and raised awareness of the important role that the recording arts play in our culture and economy.

Music is one of our country's greatest and largest exports, in addition to touching millions of lives around the world. Recording Arts Day seeks to ensure that the private and public sectors are working together on these causes in order to nurture future artists and support music.

Mr. Speaker, I would once again like to recognize Recording Arts Day and thank The Recording Academy, and its president Neil Portnow, for organizing this great event.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California, chairman of the Rules Committee, I am not sure what the other titles are, for the purposes of informing us of the schedule for the week to come.

Mr. Speaker, I think most of the public believes that we hopefully are servants. The adjective I am not sure that they always agree with.

Mr. Chairman, you do not mention Friday. There is one bill mentioned, plus perhaps conference reports on appropriations bills. Do you anticipate that we will be meeting Friday next, or that Members can be reasonably confident that we will complete our work for the week by Thursday night?

Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for that information.

Regarding Wednesday's schedule, which I know has become somewhat complicated, first of all, it is my understanding that the majority has some meetings on that morning. In addition, as you know, and you mentioned the resolution that we are going to consider on Rosa Parks, Rosa Parks' funeral in Detroit is on Wednesday. Obviously, therefore, many, many Members will want to be attending that funeral, I am sure, on both sides perhaps. And we are wondering whether or not we can structure Wednesday's schedule to accommodate attendance at the funeral so that Members will not miss votes. It is my understanding that the funeral is at 11 o'clock.

I might yield to the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, who was very, very close to Mrs. Parks, to perhaps give us a thought on the time frame in which Members could be back from the funeral.

Could the gentleman give some idea as to when you believe that Members who attend the 11 o'clock funeral would be able to get back to Washington vis-a-vis votes?

And then given the fact that the Speaker's Office obviously is making these arrangements, I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for those comments.

In light of the fact that the Speaker is arranging for the aircraft to get Members there, I presume that they will schedule votes consistent with the leaving and the returning of Members from the funeral. That is my presumption. I understand that is a little bit up in the air, but we certainly hope that can be done. As the gentleman observes, Members on both sides of the aisle I am sure will be attending. I yield to my friend.

I appreciate the comments of both the ranking member, Mr. Conyers, who has been so involved in the life of Rosa Parks and such an advocate of civil rights, which was her cause and her life, as the gentleman from California has observed, and I thank him for his comments.

As I said, my presumption is that we will try to make sure, I say we, the Speaker's Office will try to make sure that we accommodate Members who are going, because I presume there will be a substantial number.

I am sure that all of us want to work this out, and I appreciate that comment.

Let me go, if I might now, to appropriations conference reports. They are not listed here, other than obviously we anticipate that there may well be appropriations conference reports. Do you know which ones we might expect next week and when they might be considered?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for that.

Do we have any read on where the defense appropriation bill is at this point in time?

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, we have been talking about budget reconciliation now for a number of weeks and the possibility of a budget amendment bill coming to the floor. Over the last 2 weeks that has not come. But, as you know, committees are marking to a figure substantially above the current budget resolution which was adopted by the House and the Senate. Can you tell me whether or not we are going to have a budget amendment bill on the floor either next week or the week after, and whether or not we will have a reconciliation tax bill on the floor in the near future?

Reclaiming my time, this is not the appropriate forum for debate on fiscal actions that have been taken or will be taken, so I will not enter that debate. I will, however, make the observation that the gentleman mentions that going back to 1977 there was a bill on this floor. Of course, in 1993 there was a bill for which 218 Democrats voted and no Republicans voted that I will remind the gentleman cut over $250 billion of spending.

I know you would want to be reminded of that and not forget that. I am prepared to get into a debate, but I wanted to correct that observation because very frankly your side tends to ignore the cuts that were effected in 1993 and look only to the revenue which was raised in 1993 which, of course, ultimately from our perspective, and I think accurately, created significant surpluses in this country for 4 years in a row.

I will yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time, the gentleman says any time is a good time to talk about fiscal responsibility. We have Rosa Parks that we need to really address and that is critical, but I do not want to let it go. The gentleman has made a mistake, but it is a mistake that is made regularly, and it is a misrepresentation.

In fact, if the gentleman will look to the record, if you use honest nominal numbers, the 1982 Dole-Reagan tax increase was larger, larger than the 1993 revenue enhancement, or tax increase, as you call it, which tried to pay for the things we were buying.

In nominal terms it was larger. In actual terms, not in nominal, in actual terms if you made $5 in 1993 and you make $5.10 now, you are technically making more money. Nobody in the world believes you are making more money. And that misrepresentation, we should not have gotten into this debate because it is the subject of a long debate with significant disagreements between the sides, on fiscal responsibility.

As a matter of fact, I would be glad to engage my friend in that debate. We can take an hour out and debate that.

I will yield to my friend for the purpose of quoting Thomas Jefferson.

Had Jefferson been questioned on that observation, he would have said it does not necessarily mean that both conclusions are correct.

Let me go to another subject because the gentleman and I could go on all day about this, and that is what the Members fear.

Immigration. This is an issue on which many of us have focused, on which great concern has been expressed. I am wondering whether or not you believe that prior to Thanksgiving we will have some type of immigration legislation brought to the floor.

Reclaiming my time, you believe it will come, but you are not sure that it will come before Thanksgiving. Is that I what I get from what you just said? I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for his information.

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, the new President of Iran made comments that chillingly confirm the hate, intolerance and militant intent to destroy Israel and her people that is shared by too many in the Arab world.

Speaking to 4,000 students at a conference called ``The World Without Zionism,'' the Iranian leader declared, ``Israel must be wiped off the map.''

He went on to say, ``Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic Nations' fury.''

This Congress and the American people and all civilized, freedom- loving people around the world must emphatically and unequivocally denounce these poisonous comments as outrageous incitement to international criminal acts.

Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, we just passed a resolution a little over an hour ago unanimously expressing that sentiment. All who seek international security, stability and respect for the rule of law must collectively and publicly reject these comments of the President of Iran, and not only reject them, but condemn them as well.

The silence in too many of the Arab capitals loudly testifies to the sympathy with which such despicable remarks were received. I am pleased, however, very pleased, that the prominent Palestinian negotiator Mr. Erekat reportedly told the media, ``We have recognized the State of Israel. We do not accept the statements of the President of Iran. This is unacceptable.'' That was said by one of the major Palestinian leaders. I congratulate him for those comments.

It is that spirit that will allow us to pursue peace on the roadmap set forth by President Bush. However, I am compelled to ask, where is the public outrage among other responsible respected leaders in the Arab world?

Mr. Speaker, I have been to Israel 8 times, 3 times in the last 2 years, and on each of those most recent visits, our Israeli allies have expressed increasing concern about Iran's support for terrorism and its continuing effort to develop and acquire nuclear weapons.

The President of Iran's dangerous comments only confirm our worst suspicions and fears about the Iranian government's intentions and malevolence. These remarks must inspire a renewed commitment by the United States and by our allies to do everything within our power to prevent Iran from acquiring weapons of mass destruction.

Those who rationalize acts of terrorism against Israel should reassess their opinion as to why Israel must be ever vigilant and must take all measures necessary to respond to terrorism and ensure the safety, security and sovereignty of its people and its land.

Mr. Speaker, we were right today to overwhelmingly and unanimously express our outrage at the President of Iran's suggestion that Israel would be wiped off the map. Peace will be possible in the international community only if the international community overwhelmingly, emphatically and without any tempering rejects and severely criticizes such comments when they are made.