Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, Democrats want to make sure that we help the victims of Katrina first; secondly, we want to make sure that there is oversight on the money that we are spending, a lot of money; and, thirdly, we want to have an oversight, meaningful, in depth, honest, searching, courageous as to why the Federal Government was so inept in its response and so late.

The good news is that the men and the women of the National Guard, the Coast Guard and other elements of the Federal Government are now acting so courageously and effectively. That is what we want, and that is why we oppose this bill which would create a partisan congressional committee to investigate the inept Federal response to Katrina. Because we believe it is imperative to establish an independent commission modeled on the highly regarded 9/11 Commission.

I will ask my friend who chairs the Rules Committee, who used to come to this floor on a regular basis and say, when Democrats were in the majority, why will you not allow us to consider an alternative? Are you afraid that the majority of this House will say, yes, a commission is the right way to go? Are you afraid that you cannot keep your Members in line? Are you afraid and therefore do not give us an amendment, do not give us a motion to recommit with instructions?

What is the fear? It is the fact that you are so focused on not having meaningful oversight, of keeping it in-house, of not having independence, that you do not allow us and the American public's representatives to have that alternative considered on the floor.

Ladies and gentlemen, oppose this resolution and continue to demand an independent commission, just as the American people want. We did it with 9/11. We can do it with Katrina. We can do the work that the people expect us to do. Vote against this resolution.

Madam Speaker, let no one be mistaken about why Democrats oppose this legislation.

We oppose this bill--which would create a partisan congressional committee to investigate the inept Federal response to Hurricane Katrina--because we believe it is imperative to establish an independent commission modeled on the highly regarded 9/11 Commission.

We are not alone.

In fact, a Washington Post-ABC news poll revealed this week that 76 percent of Americans support an independent commission.

Some Republicans support such a commission, as well.

Just this week, the Republican Senator Vitter of Louisiana--whose constituents were directly affected by this devastating hurricane-- expressed his support for a commission.

Yet, Madam Speaker, this Republican majority today has denied Democrats the opportunity to even consider the bill offered by Mr. Hastings, which would create such an independent commission to investigate the local, State and Federal response.

Let's be clear: There is not bipartisanship coming from the other side of the aisle regarding the creation of real oversight.

The Speaker and Senate majority leader announced this proposal without even consulting Democrats.

The reality is, if this Republican majority were charged with investigating the actions of a Democratic administration, there is no doubt in my mind that its oversight would be real and vigorous.

But as the columnist David Broder pointed out recently: ``Majority Republicans see themselves first and foremost as members of the Bush team--and do not want to make trouble by asking hard questions.''

This majority has refused to conduct oversight over this administration during the last 4 years.

Why should we believe that it is prepared to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities now? We have no basis for believing that. And, that is why an independent commission is needed.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purposes of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come, and I am pleased to yield to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for that information.

First of all, on the general proposition for the month of October, we had had discussions last week; and it is clear that the second week of October, it will not be practical to meet because of the various important dates on that week. The first week was somewhat in flux at that point in time.

Could the majority leader bring us up to date on where currently the thinking of the leader's office is on where we will be on the first week of October?

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I realize the problems of doing that; but many of our Members, particularly those who come from

far away, are concerned about traveling on that Wednesday, as the gentleman knows, which makes it problematic because we will have to be very late Thursday. We will obviously accommodate what the majority believes it is going to do.

In that regard, last week, we had thought we probably, or might, be in tomorrow. We are not going to be in tomorrow. Can the majority leader give us a view on what might be the status of next Friday? I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I am presuming, and there was some discussion about this last week, that at some point in time in the next couple of weeks, we are going to have to do some sort of continuing resolution. Is that the gentleman's belief as well? I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman have any thoughts at this point in time regarding the length of time of the initial CR that we would consider? I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman.

The GSE, the GSE bill was initially, our thought was that would be on the floor this coming week.

The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Financial Services, is on the floor and has been very involved in this bill.

I am not sure you even know this, but the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) informs me that there are very significant sums that would be available to the gulf area for housing in the GSE bill, which will be regular order, and the benefit would be that this money would be available, and we know we are going to have to spend money in that area.

Can you tell me why the GSE bill is not on the floor? This deals, as you know, with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentlemen from Texas (Mr. DeLay) does not object, let me yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking member, because I know he has worked very hard with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), as you well know, in a very bipartisan way. You mentioned 63 to 5, 65 to 5; and so we did not perceive there to be much opposition to the bill.

Reclaiming my time, I know the leader understands those were largely rhetorical questions.

The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), however, does express a view that a bill that can be very helpful to us that came out 65 to 5, overwhelming agreement, came out months ago. We do hope that this bill can be brought to the floor, certainly before, hopefully if not the end of next week, the week following. Because we believe it is the kind of legislation that people would be proud of. Democrats and Republicans came together, worked on it, came out with a bill, and it is a very good bill.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time.

I appreciate the majority leader's response. There obviously is a difference of view of how soon that those dollars could flow from the ranking member of the subcommittee and the ranking member of the full committee.

You mentioned days. I would certainly hope it could be days. Because I think we would all be advantaged in a bill, particularly if we could pass it with the overwhelming majority that was received both in the subcommittee and in the full committee.

Moving on, Mr. Leader, in addition to the bills you have listed for next week, do you anticipate any Hurricane Katrina-related legislation will come to floor? And if so, will those bills go through the committee of jurisdiction and be considered under rules on the floor that allow full debate?

You mentioned, as a preface to that, obviously almost all of us voted for the $52 billion. But I think everybody on the floor was concerned about the level of information we had about what had been spent of the $10 billion, how much was going to be spent, on what, of the $52 billion.

In that context I ask that question.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time. I thank the leader for that observation and information.

I would urge the leader, as we bring additional bills to the floor, that we give the opportunity to have these bills fully considered by the floor. We want to move them. We want to move them quickly.

The overwhelming majority of us on both sides of the aisle have voted for all of the bills that you just referenced on the theory, as you said, that we need to move ahead on the Pell Grants and TANF and on the dollars themselves, on liability issues.

But the failure to give full consideration to them, assuming full consideration does not mean days and weeks delay but a full day of consideration of these pieces of legislation, we believe is appropriate, particularly if we deal with another very large money bill.

We hope it goes through committee, and we hope it comes to the floor with an opportunity for Members to make suggestions in forms of amendment, either cutting or adding or shifting, as the case may be, those resources. Because we think that is, you know, the theory of the process is, our collective judgments are better than our individual judgments. And that is what democracy is.

I thank the gentleman. I would simply add again that as the gentleman indicated, trying to go regular order, obviously, both sides understand that these are things we need to move with great dispatch so we can help the people that need help and get it to them when they need the help. We are all for that.

On the supplemental, the President has indicated there is going to be a need for another supplemental. Do you know when we might consider such a supplemental; how much that supplemental might be for? And if we start considering it early, while the $52 billion is still available to be expended to assist those, it will give us a little bit of time to go through the process that the gentleman indicates is the best process.

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for that information.

Now, there is some speculation about an energy bill being considered. Obviously, gasoline prices are extraordinarily high. The American public is very concerned about their energy costs, about the policies of this country. Do you anticipate an energy bill coming to the floor any time within the next 2 weeks or 3 weeks?

I thank the gentleman. Do you have any idea what ``as soon as possible'' is, the time frame? Next 3 weeks, next month, late October, November? Do you have any idea on that?

Reclaiming my time, and I agree with you that is not a problem. Please convey the Democratic congratulations to the chairman and more importantly his wife, the mother.

Two last bills I will ask you about, Mr. Leader, and I appreciate the time we are taking on this. Reconciliation: There was a discussion about putting off reconciliation. We have put off reconciliation at least until the end of the month, as I understand it probably until October. Can you tell me whether or not we still anticipate reconciliation moving forward and, if so, are there going to be two bills? One the $35 billion in mandatory spending cuts among which is $10 billion in Medicaid cuts, and/or the $70 billion in tax cuts that was included in the budget reconciliation instructions.

Reclaiming my time, the last bill I would ask you about is the subject matter that has been one of the biggest subjects that we have been considering this year. The President put it on the agenda, the Social Security privatization, private accounts act. Can you tell me whether or not we anticipate a Social Security bill coming to create private accounts or privatize in some way Social Security coming to the floor this year.

I thank the gentleman. Let me say on behalf of the minority, the Democrat side of the aisle shares your concern and commitment to assuring retirement security for our people. As you know, we strongly disagree with the suggestion that has been made by the administration with reference to the creation of private accounts and what we perceive as privatizing parts of Social Security. But I want you to be assured that we share your view that we want to make sure that retirement accounts are secure and that Americans have opportunities to participate in the creation of retirement accounts. I thank the gentleman for his observation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens in our gulf coast

region have been devastated and displaced by the worst natural disaster in our Nation's history. The needs of the survivors and affected communities are great and our willingness to respond must match the challenge. This great Nation must respond in a manner that the American people expect and demand.

I have every expectation that every Member of this House will vote today for this emergency supplemental appropriation because our paramount concern must be to assist the victims of this catastrophe, our brothers and sisters in the gulf States. But it pains me to say, Mr. Speaker, that once again we have abrogated our obligation to conduct real, meaningful, effective legislative oversight of the executive branch. We want to help, but we have an obligation to assure ourselves that the help is going where it is needed.

Ten and one-half billion dollars by unanimous consent; I was for that. Fifty-two billion, plus; I am for that. No hearings, no oversight, no questions. No examination of when and how and where and who will spend the money and who will get it. As I understand it, neither the chairman nor the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations was consulted in the drafting of this legislation.

The unfortunate truth is, Mr. Speaker, this compliant Congress has acted more like an adjunct to this administration than the co-equal branch that the Constitution demands we be.

Now, more than ever, the American people deserve honest answers to hard questions about the inadequate Federal response to this disaster. For example, why did Federal agencies and officials fail to appreciate the magnitude of this disaster, even as they were being warned by hurricane experts of the potential devastation? We all watched it on television being reported to us. Why was the Federal response too slow and initially too inadequate?

As the columnist David Broder wrote on Sunday, ``The majority of Republicans see themselves first and foremost as Members of the Bush team and do not want to make trouble by asking hard questions.''

I close, Mr. Speaker, by simply saying that, of course, we are going to support this, but, Mr. Speaker, I urge us to have oversight. Fifty- two billion dollars is a lot of money, and we are going to spend whatever is needed, but let us make sure we spend it right and let us make sure the right people get the money.

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the majority whip the schedule for the week to come. Oh, I am sorry. I was told that the leader was not going to be available, but the leader is available. So I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), my friend, the leader.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, with all due respect, I hope that is not the case.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader for the information.

If I might start with perhaps a general question, I noted in the paper that the leader indicated that he thought we would probably be here through at least the week before Thanksgiving, which is what I related to my Members in the whip's meeting this morning; but I wonder perhaps if he could amplify that. The gentleman has had a few days to discuss it with the leadership and with the administration and perhaps the Senate leadership to have some better idea of where we might be going. Obviously, with Katrina and other challenges, I know it is very flexible, but I appreciate and I know the Members would appreciate getting my colleague's further thought on where he sees the possibilities for the balance of the session.

I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader for those comments.

On a more immediate basis, next week we are scheduled obviously to come in on Tuesday at 12:30, and Friday is on the schedule. Is it the majority leader's expectation that we will probably be in on Friday or is Friday there if we need to be?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the leader's remarks. We have advised our Members to be available for Friday, and they will be, obviously, if we have a session.

In addition, the gentleman has indicated and just reiterated the possibility of doing further legislation as a result of Katrina and responses to Katrina. Can the majority leader give us an idea of what legislation might be possible in response to Katrina next week?

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the leader's observations and his comments. Again, we will certainly respond to that.

We have a lot of ideas on this side, as all the Members have, in trying to respond to this and trying to anticipate what the needs will be in this crisis situation. As the leader pointed out in his closing remarks on the supplemental, we have had literally millions of people whose lives have been adversely affected, displaced, moved, and some whose lives have been put at great disruption; so I am sure Members on all sides have ideas of how we can best respond. So we will do that.

Let me say, Mr. Leader, and I appreciate your remarks about working together on this, that there is not a person on this floor on either side of the aisle who does not want to work together to have an effective response so that we can help our brother and sister citizens who have been traumatized. I would hope that we would have an opportunity on whatever the legislation might be that we come up with over the next 48 hours, or by Monday, to have that perhaps reviewed. And because of the crisis and the need to move expeditiously and quickly, even if it is an hour or two notice to have a subcommittee or committee or, frankly, the bipartisan leadership look at a piece of legislation to discuss what is in it and what could be in it and what should be in it, I think that would be very helpful.

The gentleman observed that the American people want us to act together on this, and I agree with him. Not only do I agree with the gentleman, but we want to do that. So that would facilitate that, and I hope we can do that.

Let me ask something else, and I say to the leader that, unfortunately, there was not the kind of discussion that I think would have helped us on this. I agree with you, and every Member here I think agrees with you, that today or tomorrow or next Monday is not the time to look at what went wrong and how do we make it right. What we need to do is respond, rescue, and recover.

On the other hand, it is hurricane season. We still have threats, as the gentleman knows. There is a tropical storm off Florida right now that is forming, so we do need to ensure that we have the best opportunity to respond in an emergency manner.

The Speaker and Mr. Frist met yesterday and announced a committee. We believe that perhaps a commission might be more appropriate, with both parties participating equally to respond to this and to see how we can do better. Can the gentleman tell me anything about the status of either the joint committee or commission that the gentleman's side might be thinking about?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader, and reclaiming my time, I think I have suggested this before, but I believe it would be useful, perhaps at some point in time in the near term, that the Speaker convene the leadership of both sides of the aisle to discuss how we are going forward.

I understand there were precedents for the action that was taken, but it was not taken after discussions with this side of the aisle. And as the majority leaders know, both on the Senate side that was the case and on the House side it was the case.

Again, I agree with the gentleman's proposition that the public wants to see us move ahead together and respond to this crisis together because those who have suffered are our focus, not party politics or ideological differences, but helping those who are hurting and making sure that we protect those who may still yet be vulnerable. I think we can best do that by working together.

On another subject and moving on, can the majority leader tell me where we stand on reconciliation? Press reports indicate that there is a delay in the development of those bills, as called for in the budget resolution, at least for some period of time. Can the gentleman bring us up to date on what the present status of reconciliation is?

I appreciate the gentleman's comments, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the gentleman is familiar with the letter that the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and Mr. Conrad and others have sent with reference to reconciliation. We are concerned, of course, because of Katrina and for the exact reason we have postponed reconciliation, we are very concerned that the needs are so large at this point in time that we need to be very careful about the issue of Medicaid and, frankly, the issue of additional tax cuts.

In light of the fact we have just spent $62 billion additional, which we did not anticipate and which will exacerbate, therefore, our budget deficit, and which absolutely had to be done, everybody, almost everybody supported that effort, including the majority leader and myself, but we hope that we can perhaps have discussions about that issue as well.

Lastly, Mr. Leader, I talked about the long term and Thanksgiving. October. We have a number of holidays in October. Could the gentleman perhaps amplify on what his expectation is of the first 2 weeks in October?

My understanding is the probability is that we will be in Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday of the first week of October, but the second week of October, can the gentleman give us some thoughts on what that might be in light of the Jewish holidays and the Christopher Columbus holiday?

I thank the gentleman for that comment, Mr. Speaker, and presume, therefore, that we are reasonably safe in advising our Members that the second week of October we will probably not be in session; is that accurate, Mr. Leader?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for his information.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this Joint Resolution calling on President Bush to issue a proclamation recognizing the 30th anniversary of the signing of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, commonly known as the Helsinki Agreement.

The Helsinki Final Act--which was signed on August 1, 1975--was the first international agreement to accord human rights the status of a fundamental principle in regulating international relations, and has been widely credited with helping to expose human rights violations in the former Soviet bloc.

In fact, I firmly believe that the political process set in motion by the signing of the Helsinki Final Act laid the groundwork for the forces that consumed the former Soviet empire.

In 1975, many of the Final Act signatory states viewed the language of the act dealing with human rights and the obligation that each state had toward its own citizens, as well as those of other states, as essentially meaningless window dressing. Their objective was to secure a framework in which their international political position and the then-existing map of Europe would be adjudged a fait accompli.

They were proved wrong. The Helsinki process, which provided a forum and international backing for Refuseniks and others fighting behind the Iron Curtain for fundamental freedoms and human rights--led inevitably to the collapse of Soviet communism.

Today, we celebrate the freedom yielded by our steadfast commitment to the Helsinki process and by our demand that the former Soviet bloc countries adhere to and implement the human rights standards enshrined by the accords.

The fall of the Berlin Wall transformed the world and demonstrated without reservation that respect for the dignity of all individuals is fundamental to democracy.

As we reflect on this 30th anniversary, we understand that the countries and peoples of the region are still in transition and will be for decades to come. Great strides have been made by many former communist countries in building democratic societies and market economies.

But in my view, Mr. Speaker, it is critical that the United States remain engaged with the peoples and governments of Europe and the countries that emerged from the former Soviet Union, especially Russia.

We must remain committed to a Europe whole, free, democratic and at peace. It is in our strategic and national interest to do so. And by doing so, we honor the memory of all those who sacrificed so much to hold high the banner of freedom.

Finally, let me note that this Joint Resolution reasserts the commitment of the United States to fully implement of the Helsinki Act; urges all participating states to abide by their obligations under the Act; and encourages Americans to join the President and Congress in observing this 30th anniversary.

I urge my colleagues to support this important Resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 376, which expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that the Federal Trade Commission should investigate the publication of the video game ``Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas'' to determine whether the publisher deceived the Entertainment Software Ratings Board to avoid an ``Adults- Only'' rating.

I believe that the government should always tread lightly and carefully in taking action that evaluates the content of video games, music, movies, books and similar materials.

I also believe that parents have the primary responsibility for evaluating and monitoring the content available to their children.

However, the content industry--movie studios, television networks, record labels, book publishers, and video game developers--also has a responsibility to accurately, honestly and responsibly label and market their products.

Thus, I believe it is appropriate and necessary for the Federal Trade Commission to inquire and investigate the development and marketing process for ``Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.''

There is no question that pornographic material was embedded in this video game, and that it has been marketed to teenagers and sold in stores in every community in America. The developers and publishers of this video game owe an explanation. Were they aware that the game contained embedded scenes that would inevitably be revealed? And, did they purposely pursue a rating from the Entertainment Software Rating Board of ``Mature'' rather than ``Adults Only'' to ensure that the game could be sold teenagers and thus a broader market?

This is the purpose of this investigation and this bill. Intentional deception must not go unpunished.

Mr. Speaker, as we commemorate the fifteenth anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which occurred this week, I would like to share the attached Statement of Solidarity, signed by 170 national organizations and numerous state and local organizations. This Statement of Solidarity demonstrates the strong commitment in our nation for building upon the progress achieved in the first fifteen years after passage of the ADA, and continuing to strive to improve the lives of all Americans with disabilities.

Statement of Solidarity on 15th Anniversary of Americans With

Disabilities Act--July 26, 2005

Fifteen years ago today, with bipartisan support in

Congress and broad endorsements from the civil rights

coalition, President George H. W. Bush signed into law the

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), calling for the

``shameful wall of exclusion'' to come tumbling down. As we

mark this significant anniversary, we celebrate improvements

in access to polling places and the secret ballot, government

services and programs, transportation, public places,

communication and information technology. Parents pushing

strollers, workers delivering packages, and travelers pulling

roller bags have grown accustomed to curb cuts, ramps, and

other accessibility features less common in 1990. Our country

is more accessible today thanks to the ADA, and all Americans

are better off.

Although substantial progress has been made, we are

reminded every day of the significant remnants of the

``shameful wall of exclusion'' that continue to prevent this

great country from realizing the full promise of the ADA. The

majority of Americans with disabilities continue to live in

poverty and unnecessary isolation. Most adults with

disabilities are either not working or not working to their

full potential, robbing the economy of the contributions of

tens of millions of would-be workers. Children and youth in

special education continue to drop out of school in alarming

numbers before obtaining a regular high school diploma. The

promises of higher education, accessible and affordable

housing and transportation, quality affordable healthcare,

and a living wage continue to elude many adults with

disabilities and their families. The ADA is slowly driving

policy changes that have enabled more people with significant

mental and physical disabilities to live independently in the

community, but the ongoing institutional bias in the Medicaid

program keeps too many people trapped in nursing homes and

other institutions, unable to enjoy the freedoms and personal

choices about where and how to live that other Americans take

for granted.

New technologies are increasing the independence and

productivity of many Americans. Yet, advances in technology

alone are not guaranteed to improve the lives of people with

disabilities. As we develop applications like Voice-over-

Internet-Protocol (VOIP) telephony, wireless

telecommunications, widespread broadband internet

connectivity, new medical devices, new computer applications,

and a plethora of new genetic tests, it is critical that

these technologies be designed and used in a way that

increases the inclusion, independence, and empowerment of

Americans with disabilities as well as America's growing

senior population.

The ADA has begun to change the landscape of our cities and

towns, but a civil rights law alone does not create the kind

of transformation of attitudes that Americans with

disabilities, their families, and allies are fighting to

achieve. This kind of change requires widespread discussion,

education, and consciousness-raising.

In 2005, how do fears, myths, and stereotypes continue to

artificially limit understanding and acceptance of disability

as a form of human diversity? What role do the mass media and

entertainment industries play in forming public perceptions

of disability, and how can decision makers in these important

fields be influenced to produce more content that depicts the

actual life experience and first person perspectives of

people with disabilities? What can be done to further improve

accessibility at the design stage of new products and

programs? How can disability awareness and disability-

friendly practices create more productive places of business

and learning? What concrete actions can worship communities

and sports and recreation programs take to foster full

participation of children, youth, and adults with

disabilities in these activities?

Why do so many Americans continue to view disability as a

fate worse than death, and how do these views affect

surrogate medical decision making and the application of new

genetic testing technologies?

These questions form the basis of an American conversation

that still needs to take place.

Widespread social change cannot simply be legislated, and it will not occur without bold leadership from all sectors of American society.

Public and private employers, in particular, must make a

serious, concerted effort to recruit and advance qualified

workers with disabilities within their labor force.

Election officials must take the necessary actions to

ensure that every adult is able to enter his or her polling

place and cast a secret and independent vote.

School administrators and university presidents must

embrace their responsibility to deliver a worldclass

education to all their students.

It is time for leaders across America--business owners,

little league coaches, moms and dads, sheriffs and clergy--to

reject exclusion, paternalism, and segregation and to take

personal responsibility for removing barriers to full

participation that still exist in every community in this

country.

With the aim of making America work better for everyone,

the undersigned organizations pledge to build on the progress

of the last 15 years and join together to promote the full

participation and self-determination of the more than 50

million U.S. children and adults with disabilities. We

believe that disability is a natural part of the human

experience that in no way should limit the right of all

people to make choices, pursue meaningful careers, live

independently, and participate fully in all aspects of

society. We encourage every American to join us in this

cause, so that our country may continue on the path that

leads to liberty and justice for all.

Signed (as of July 25, 2005):

National Organizations

AAPD (American Association of People with Disabilities);

AARP; Abilities, Inc.; ABILITY Awareness/ABILITY

Magazine; ADA Watch/National Coalition for Disability

Rights; ADAPT; AFL-CIO; ALDA, Inc. (Association of

Late-Deafened Adults); Alliance for Children and

Families; Alliance for Public Technology (APT);

Alliance for Retired Americans; American Academy of

Audiology; American Academy of Physical Medicine and

Rehabilitation; American Association for Active

Lifestyles and Fitness; American Association of Leisure

and Recreation; American Association of Mental

Retardation; American Association of the Deaf-Blind

(AADB); American Association of University Women;

American Association on Health and Disability; American

Congress of Community Supports and Employment Services;

American Council of the Blind; American Counseling

Association; American Dance Therapy Association;

American Diabetes Association; American Federation of

State, County and Municipal Employees; American

Foundation for the Blind;

American Institute on Domestic Violence; American Medical

Student Association; American Medical Women's

Association (AMWA); American Music Therapy Association;

American Network of Community Options and Resources

(ANCOR); American Occupational Therapy Association;

American Psychological Association; American Public

Health Association; American Therapeutic Recreation

Association; Americans for Democratic Action (ADA);

Amputee Coalition of America (ACA); APSE: The Network

on Employment; Assistive Technology Industry

Association (ATIA); Association of Assistive Technology

Act Programs

(ATAP); Association of State Independent Living

Councils (ASILC); Association of University Centers on

Disabilities (AUCD); Brain Injury Association of

America; Campaign for America's Future; Center for an

Accessible Society; Center for Disability Issues and

the Health Professions (CDIHP);

Center on Disability and Health; Central Conference of

American Rabbis; Chemical Sensitivity Disorders

Association; Child Care Law Center; Christopher Reeve

Paralysis Foundation; Coalition of Religious

Communities; Common Cause; Consumers Union; Council of

Citizens with Low Vision International (CCLVI);

Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF);

Disability Service Providers of America (DSPA); Easter

Seals; EIN SOF Communications; Enable America; Epilepsy

Foundation of America; Ethel Louise Armstrong

Foundation, Inc. (ELA); Exceptional Parent Magazine;

Exploding Myths, Inc.; Family Voices; Fannie Lou Hamer

Project;

Federally Employed Women; Federation of Families for

Children's Mental Health; Friends Committee on National

Legislation; General Federation of Women's Clubs;

Gerontological Society of America; Hadassah, The Womens

Zionist Organization of America; Inter-National

Association of Business, Industry and Rehabilitation

(I-NABIR); Judge David L.; Bazelon Center for Mental

Health Law; Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under

Law; Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR);

League for the Hard of Hearing; League of Women Voters

of the United States; Legal Momentum; Lift, Inc.;

Little People of America; Medicare Rights Center;

MindFreedom Support Coalition International; Mobility

Golf;

Mobility International USA (MIUSA); NAACP Legal Defense &

Educational Fund, Inc.; National Asian Pacific American

Legal Consortium (NAPALC); National Association for

Visually Handicapped; National Association of Councils

on Developmental Disabilities; National Association of

Social Workers; National Association of State Head

Injury Administrators; National Association of the Deaf

(NAD); National Business & Disability Council (NBDC);

National Center for Environmental Health Strategies;

National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence;

National Chronic Fatigue Immune Dysfunction Syndrome

Foundation (CFIDS), Inc; National Coalition Against

Domestic Violence; National Congress of American

Indians; National Consumers League (NCL); National

Council of Jewish Women (NCJW); National Council of La

Raza; National Council on Independent Living (NCIL);

National Council on Rehabilitation Education.

National Council on the Aging; National Disability Rights

Network; National Down Syndrome Congress; National Down

Syndrome Society; National Employment Lawyers

Association; National Empowerment Center (NEC);

National Federation of Temple Youth; National

Federation of the Blind; National Gay and Lesbian Task

Force; National Health Law Program, Inc; (NHeLP);

National Home Visitability Organization; National

Indian Telecommunication Institute; National Industries

for the Blind (NIB); National Multiple Sclerosis

Society; National Organization For Women; National

Organization of Nurses with Disabilities (NOND);

National Organization on Disability; National

Recreation and Park Association; National

Rehabilitation Association; National Research Center

for Women & Families.

National Spinal Cord Injury Association; National Women's

Law Center; National Women's Health Network; 9to5,

National Association of Working Women; NISH; Not Dead

Yet; On a Roll Communications, LLC; Paralyzed Veterans

of America; Parent Project Muscular Dystrophy; People

for the American Way; People Who; People with

Disabilities Broadcasting Corporation; Physically

Challenged Bowhunters of America (PCBA); Presbyterian

Church (U.S.A.) Washington Office; Progressive

Coalition; Research and Training Center on Independent

Living at the University of Kansas; RESNA

(Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology

Society of North America); Rock the Vote; Screen Actors

Guild--Performers With Disabilities Committee.

Self Help for Hard of Hearing People (SHHH); Sikh

American Legal Defense and Education Fund (SALDEF);

Spina Bifida Association of America; Stop Family

Violence; TASH; TDI (Telecommunications for the Deaf,

Inc.); Telecommunication Services for the Deaf; The Arc

of the United States; The Mitsubishi Electric America

Foundation; The National Coalition on Self

Determination, Inc; The National Coalition to Amend the

Medicare Homebound Restriction; The National Women's

Conference; The Rolling Rains Report; The Silent

Witness Project; Tourette Syndrome Association, Inc;

Union for Reformed Judaism; Unitarian Universalist

Association of Congregations; United Cerebral Palsy;

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union

(UFCW); United Spinal Association; USAction; Vocational

Evaluation and Career Assessment Professionals (VECAP);

WGBH National Center for Accessible Media; Women In

Media & News (WIMN); Women of Reform Judaism; Women's

Committee of 100; Workplace Fairness; World Institute

on Disability.

To see a listing of state and local organizations, please

visit www.aapd.com.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, those of us who have been here for some period of time quickly learn that those who serve this House, this institution, who may not speak in the well, who may not introduce legislation, who may not participate in debates, nevertheless are absolutely critical to the legislative process. As a group they bring a degree of love of country, love of the House of Representatives, and commitment to their work that surely if paralleled somewhere, it is only in a few places.

I have had the privilege of working with the desk officers, the reporters, the parliamentarians for now over a quarter of a century, less time than Susan Hanback has served this House. She was here when I came here in 1981.

Her decision to retire as Chief of the Office of Official Reporters is, of course, wonderful news for her and her family. We had an opportunity to discuss it on the floor just the other evening about how she is going to enjoy her Virginia residence, perhaps much more peaceful, less hassled, but from time to time perhaps a little less interesting as well, but certainly more restful. And she deserves the rest because her service has been extraordinary.

As has been said by the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), she has worked in the House since the late 1960s. She witnessed during that time some of the most important events that have occurred on the House floor, including debates on legislation affecting every aspect of Americans' lives as she transcribed innumerable speeches and statements of hundreds of Members of Congress.

Those who transcribe history are critically important because future generations will learn from the historic record that they have set down, and the accuracy of that reporting is critically important not only to the deliberations of this body today, but it will be critically important to the precedents of tomorrow.

Mrs. Hanback has dedicated her career to serving the American people just as surely as every one of us who serves here in elected office. Those who serve as reporters and at the desk and as the parliamentarians and in every other aspect of making sure this House runs correctly serve America, serve America's citizens, serve America's freedom. By accurately reporting for and helping oversee the production of the Congressional Record, Susan has helped ensure that there is a government accessible to the people and is, therefore, a government for the people, of the people, and by the people.

Susan was critical, as so many of you are whose names are not known to the public and, indeed, whose names may not be known to many who serve here by your sides every day. But because your names are not known, it does not mean that the service you perform is not absolutely essential to our democracy.

Susan Hanback was offered a job, Mr. Speaker, as a Senate official reporter in 1987. As testimony to the love of this House, she turned that offer down and chose to stay in the House because she thought it was more interesting, and the people said, Amen.

We are all, of course, very grateful, Susan, that you made that decision. We have been advantaged not only by the skill with which you have performed your job, but by the warmth of your personality and the grace that you have served this body.

I would like to wish you all the very best. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), minority leader, and the leadership on this side joins with the Speaker, the majority leader, the majority whip, and all the officers, including the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), on that side of the aisle to say in a nonpartisan, bipartisan, unanimous way, Susan, you have served us well. You have served your country well. We wish you the very greatest of happiness as you now retire from this body to serving so well your family as you have done for so long, but now will do so much more present with them, and we wish you the very best.

Mr. Speaker, I have been a strong advocate for free trade and open markets because I believe that the American businesses and workers can compete in a global market. The United States is the most powerful Nation in the world, and it is incumbent upon us to lead, to foster global trade, to engage our partners in a system based on rules and law and to work to raise the living standards of working men and women both at home and abroad.

However, the centrality of free trade in our interdependent world cannot relegate our commitment to working men and women to the peripheral. We must seek to provide a level playing field for American workers and improve living and working conditions for foreign workers by guaranteeing fair wages and basic workplace protections. I have consistently supported legislation and trade agreements that have furthered these goals.

I was hopeful the Bush administration would pursue these objectives in negotiating CAFTA and that we would ultimately be presented an agreement that advanced the cause of free trade, promoted the rule of law, and generated economic development in countries in great need, and extended to U.S. workers, farmers, and businesses the advantages of expanded access to new markets. Regrettably, the agreement before us does not meet these goals.

Specifically, CAFTA fails to ensure the implementation and enforcement of the five core internationally recognized labor rights. Compounding the problem is the failure to allow trade sanctions to enforce the deal's modest labor provisions. In other words, the enforcement structure is absent.

I am, therefore, regrettably unable to support the Central American Free Trade Agreement for its failure to guarantee basic workplace protections for Central Americans and a level playing field for American workers.

It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, that given the problems that we have with CAFTA, given the questions that have been raised, that the majority is unwilling to give sufficient debate to develop the arguments. This is a critically important issue. NAFTA was an important issue. It was 8 hours of debate. This is one-quarter of that.

We are unable to fully develop the deficiencies in this bill with the 1 hour of debate that the minority will be given. Perhaps that is the point. Perhaps that is the objective. Perhaps the meaning of this rule is to shut us up, shut us out, and shut us down. That is a shame, that my colleagues do not have the confidence in their proposition that they put on this floor to give it a full airing, a full debate in the light of day.

Why do these issues always come up in the late of night? I do not understand that. Oppose this rule. Oppose this bill. It is not good for America. It is not good for the countries that have signed it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and rise in support of H.R. 22. It is a good bill that should be enacted this year.

I applaud the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh). The gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) has made a career of this bill, and we are thankful for that. He is not on the floor, but I want to congratulate him on his efforts.

Just a few months ago, the Committee on Government Reform marked up and passed this bill 39-0. Given the current political environment, that is amazing. An extraordinary achievement. Such bipartisanship on Capitol Hill is all too rare these days. When it happens, we should take note. The fact that every Democrat and Republican on the committee embraced H.R. 22 testifies to the need for postal reform that puts politics aside and focuses on pressing issues.

It is also a tribute to the hard work and energy that postal employees, business groups, and postal customers brought to bear educating lawmakers about the merits of reform.

Let me say something as an aside. The United States Postal Service is the most efficient and productive postal service in the world. It may surprise some to learn that some years ago when I took testimony in the Treasury Postal Subcommittee as chairman, the United States Postal Service was 40 percent more efficient than the number two postal service in the world which was Japan. I observed if we had that kind of productivity efficiency with respect to VCRs, we would not be buying JVCs, we would be buying RCAs made in America or Emerson or some other manufacturer.

Why has H.R. 22 earned my support and the support of a bipartisan group? Simply put, because it satisfies four areas. First, it protects universal service. That is absolutely essential. Secondly, it protects collective bargaining. Since the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 established collective bargaining as a fundamental right, there has not been a single work stoppage or significant disruption in service as a result of labor-management discord. It is appropriate to protect it and continue it.

I noticed the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) is back on the floor. I congratulate the gentleman. I said how steadfast you have been in the face of coming right up to the brink of passage and then having to withdraw. We all owe you a debt of gratitude and appreciation for the work you have done on this particular piece of legislation.

H.R. 22 ensures the Postal Service is treated exactly the same way every other Federal agency is in the area of military pensions. Our postal workers who served in the military served America, not the Postal Service, America. It is the U.S. Government that ought to compensate those military veterans. H.R. 22 mandates that the proportion of their retirement that comes from military service will be paid for by the Treasury, as it should be.

Lastly, H.R. 22 provides the Postal Service the flexibility it needs to set postal rates in a competitive manner. This is a difficult area. I know the committee has grappled with it, but I think the committee has come out with a solution that ought to be supported. There is no legislative reason why postal reform should not be enacted before the end of the year.

Unfortunately, however, I understand the administration has signaled its opposition to key provisions of H.R. 22 and its Senate counterpart S. 662. It is my hope and, yes, my expectation, that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) will be successful in resisting efforts by the administration to weaken or repeal provisions that are the product of years of hard bipartisan work.

I urge support of this product. I again congratulate the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) on the work he has so ably led for so long.

Mr. Speaker, we talk a lot about families on this floor, and properly so. We talk a lot about caring on this floor, and properly so. We talk a lot about relationships on this floor, and properly so.

And I am proud to rise today to say how pleased I am, and I know all Members of the House will be, the youngest Member on our side of the aisle is the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren), and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren) this weekend took to himself a beautiful bride from South Dakota, Andrea.

Let us wish them well as they embark upon this new family.

Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the Science Committee and Chairman Boehlert and Ranking Member Gordon on bringing to the floor a fair, balanced NASA authorization bill. The unanimous vote to report the bill out of the committee is testament to the positive outcome that results when Members work together in a bipartisan fashion to make good public policy.

And this is a good bill for NASA, for Goddard Space Flight Center in my district, and the American people. The bill restores our investment in a more vigorous, forward-looking space agency and provides multi- year funding and detailed policy guidance to NASA at a critical time in the history of space exploration.

NASA has a unique set of challenges as we seek to return to flight and expand our reach in space. What we do now will determine how well we meet those challenges in the future.

That's why I was pleased to see that the bill included $150 million for a new servicing mission to the Hubble Space Telescope and a directive to NASA to devise a plan to send a crew to repair the Hubble Telescope after completion of the currently planned space shuttle mission.

This funding is a clear recognition by the Committee of the unique role that the Hubble Space Telescope plays in broadening our scientific understanding of the observable universe. I applaud the call for a manned servicing mission to repair Hubble and extend its life so that future generations will be able to further understand and explore distant galaxies and the mysteries of space. I look forward to working with my colleagues to make sure that a new servicing mission is adequately funded and supported.

The bill also renews focus on the significance and future of science research. While Mars/Moon exploration also continues to be a major focus of the work at NASA, we must not lose sight of the needs and promise of a core area of future inquiry such as science. This bill finds the right balance. Not only does the bill provide increase funding for NASA science programs, but it also directs NASA to develop a comprehensive science policy through 2016, complete with proposed missions, priorities, budget, and staff to bring much-needed focus back onto science research. This will go a long way in bringing new focus to science in the 21st Century.

Finally, the bill provides funding and brings attention to such important areas as aeronautics, education, and space operations and exploration activities that will help our nation further understand and explore distant galaxies and develop breakthrough technologies important to our health and security.

This is a big step forward in our efforts to maintain innovation and ingenuity at NASA and in space and technology industries in the years ahead. Working together, Congress will pass a bill that would make NASA stronger and better prepared to face the future challenges that it may confront.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I take this time for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come.

I yield to my friend, the majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information. Realizing that next week is a busy week and there are a number of very important items on the agenda, how likely, Mr. Leader, do you think it is that we will be in on Friday?

I yield to the distinguished gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, thank you for that information, Mr. Leader.

Mr. Leader, obviously next week I suppose the most controversial and most focused-upon piece of legislation will be the Central American Free Trade Agreement. This week, of course, the PATRIOT Act, which we thought was going to start Thursday and go through today, in fact was accelerated and NASA was taken today, clearly to ensure full consideration of the PATRIOT Act.

Might it be possible with some assurance to let the Members know when the CAFTA bill will be on the floor, in effect adopting a similar procedure?

I yield to the majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader for that response. I understand the problem of pinning down now exact times. Would it be fair, however, Mr. Leader, to say that it would not be considered on the last day we are here, on Friday, or not, so that we could make sure that Members knew and had some degree of confidence, because it is such an important piece of legislation, that it would not be considered on the last day we are here?

I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the postal accountability bill, you seem to indicate that that might be considered earlier in the week rather than later. Is that accurate?

I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader.

Reclaiming my time, you mentioned appropriations bills. Are we likely to have motions to go to conference on appropriations bills next week; and if so, can you anticipate what bills that might be?

Those conferences would be on the floor, is that what the gentleman is saying, possibly?

In terms of motions to go to conference, do you anticipate motions to go to conference on any appropriations bills next week?

I appreciate that. On the bill of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), I think it is H.R. 2355, dealing with the insurance issues, there is a lot of interest on our side of the aisle. Will that bill be considered? Did you list that as one of the health bills that would be considered?

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Leader, I take it that in light of the fact you have not mentioned it, at this point in time it is not on the schedule. But there is a lot of discussion on this side of the aisle about that bill. Do you think it would be possible that it might be added to the calendar?

I yield to my friend.

Because there is so much interest in that bill on our side, Mr. Leader, would it be fair to say that that decision would be made prior to the close of business on Monday so that we would have some notice of that in time to fairly consider it?

I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, we would appreciate that.

The other bills that I would like to talk about, the highway bill conference report the gentleman indicated as a possibility, can the gentleman inform us of the status of that conference and where we are on this bill?

I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I presume, am I correct, that the gentleman's effort would be to try to pass it prior to the expiration of the last temporary extension, or would the gentleman anticipate another, which I guess would be the tenth or the eleventh extension; or does the gentleman think he can perhaps get it through prior to Wednesday night?

I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the leader for his comments and observations. We are certainly hopeful on our side, and I know the gentleman is on his side, that we get this bill through. It is probably as significant a jobs creation bill as we will pass in this Congress, and it has been delayed for a very long period of time. I know the gentleman has been frustrated by it, and we have been frustrated by it, and hopefully, we can get that done by next week.

The energy bill conference report, can the gentleman tell us where that stands? I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, in light of the fact, Mr. Leader, I will simply observe that if we get all of those things moving we are going to have a lot of work to do next week, and I presume our Members ought to be prepared for long days and, clearly, if we get all of that done, it will be Friday late before we get out of here.

In light of the fact we will not have a colloquy next week because we will be going on recess for the summer work period, can the gentleman tell us what he anticipates might be on the agenda when we come back on September 6, what might be on the agenda early in the September weeks? Clearly, appropriations bills conference reports, to the extent they are done, will be on the calendar, but other than that, can the gentleman enlighten us as to what your thoughts are? I yield to the leader.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for that information.

Lastly, there are two pieces of legislation, major pieces of legislation that the gentleman did not mention but have been talked about, and that is, of course, the Social Security legislation and the campaign finance legislation, one or the other bill, or both.

Can the gentleman give me his thoughts on where they stand and when they might come on the agenda if, in fact, they will be coming on the agenda?

I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader for all of the information.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule, but before I speak on the rule itself, let me say to our friends in Great Britain, one of our strongest allies in the fight against terrorism, we are with you. We empathize with the pain that has been visited upon you once again. We are in this fight against terrorists together.

Everybody on this floor views themselves and acts as a patriot on behalf of America, its values, and its people. All 435 Members of this House. They will see things differently as we consider this bill, but they are all 100 percent committed to defeating terrorism, to ferreting out terrorists, to getting them off our streets, out of our country and incarcerated, as they should be. Make no mistake about the commonality of that commitment. I know that the Members of this House on both sides of the aisle are united in that commitment.

Today, on this House floor the American people will see no division in our willingness to do what is necessary to fight terrorism. What they will see today, however, Mr. Speaker, is an abuse of power by the Republican majority, which has deliberately and purposefully chosen to stifle a full debate on this critical legislation.

I voted for the PATRIOT Act. I think we need to reauthorize the sections involved, but we ought to look at them carefully. A Republican rule that has been offered today is nothing less, and I use my words carefully, than a craven failure of our congressional oversight responsibility on legislation that involves the government's power to intrude on the lives of Americans. We must protect Americans, we must confront terrorists, but we must also ensure our constitutional values.

Every single year, Mr. Speaker, this Congress reauthorizes the Department of Defense programs. This reauthorization process allows us to assess, reexamine, and to recalibrate our defense policies to changing circumstances. Today, however, we are being asked to give up that oversight responsibility and permanently authorize many sections of this bill.

Now, let me make it clear to the public that the overwhelming majority of the PATRIOT Act is in law right now and will not be affected by this legislation. Sixteen sections only are the subject of this legislation. We are being asked to extend two provisions, particularly one that involves roving wiretaps, and the other dealing with the FBI's power to demand business records for 10 years.

Democrats have suggested we ought to sunset these provisions. Why are you afraid to have a vote on the floor of the House of Representatives on that provision? Why are you fearful? Why do you fear the democratic process? I do not know.

The Sanders amendment. You failed to offer that, yet 238 Members of this House, just days ago, voted for that provision. Why are you afraid to have another vote on the floor? Are you afraid you cannot get your Members to change their minds? Are you afraid of the democratic process in this, the people's House? Do you undermine that democracy which we confront terrorists for doing?

My friends, this rule is not consistent with the open democratic process in adopting one of the most important bills that we will consider. I agree with the gentleman from California. That is why I voted for the PATRIOT Act, to give law enforcement the capability and assurance we could confront and catch terrorists and protect Americans in our country, but we should have come with a better rule. It is lamentable that we did not.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House and for the purpose of inquiring of the Majority Leader the schedule for next week.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Majority Leader. You announced next week you expect to have legislative business on Monday through Friday. For purposes of planning, how confident are you that we will be here on Friday? Do you think we might be able to get through our work by Thursday evening?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader and presume that Members will act accordingly to let their staffs know that Friday is more likely than not, would that be pretty accurate?

Mr. Leader, you just indicated the sequence of bills. Would it be correct, therefore, to assume that the Foreign Relations Reauthorization Act would be on Tuesday? The leadership expects to take that up first?

And NASA next, either late Tuesday or Wednesday or even Thursday depending on how long the Foreign Relations Reauthorization Act takes?

And the PATRIOT Act would be on Thursday and/or Friday?

Mr. Leader, the highway bill, we have discussed trying to reauthorize the highway bill, and both sides feel it is important to get it through. We have had the 8th extension, and that expires this coming Tuesday. Can the leader shed some light on the status of the conference?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader for that information. The information I have is the eighth extension ends Tuesday. It is not on the list, but would it be the gentleman's expectation that we would have another short-term extension?

Obviously, the problem is, as the leader well knows, if there is a gap of authorization existing in law, it has adverse consequences obviously on existing projects or the possibility of pursuing existing projects. I would hope if we cannot get to conference, which would be probably impossible by next Tuesday, we would have an extension so that would not cause anybody any problem in the contracting field.

Mr. Leader, it is my understanding that the CAFTA legislation, a very important piece of legislation, is not on the calendar for next week. Would it be the expectation of the leader that the CAFTA legislation would be on the last week we are in session?

But the gentleman is confident at least it will not be next week?

The last two pieces of legislation, there has been a lot of talk and a lot of newspaper coverage about both campaign finance reform and possible Social Security and/or pension or Social Security pension legislation. Can the leader tell us whether there is anticipation on your side of the aisle that we will be considering either one of those or both? Campaign finance, I know there are two separate pieces of legislation, Pence-Wynn and Shays-Meehan, pending. Will either one of those subjects, do you think, be on the calendar prior to the July 28 recess date?

That is a good way to put it. I will then ask about the Social Security and/or pension or combination thereof. There was some talk it might be before recess. Now we have read some comments it might not be until September. Can the leader shed some light on the majority's view when that will come forward?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Majority Leader for that information.