Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am introducing today a joint resolution to repeal outright the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution. The 22nd Amendment requires that no person who has served two terms or has served two years of another President's term be permitted to serve another term of office.

The time has come to repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, and not because of partisan politics. While I am not a

supporter of the current President, I feel there are good public policy reasons for a repeal of this amendment. Under the Constitution as altered by the 22nd Amendment, this must be President George W. Bush's last term even if the American people should want him to continue in office. This is an undemocratic result.

Under the resolution I offer today, President Bush would not be eligible to run for a third term. However, the American people would have restored to themselves and future generations an essential democratic privilege to elect who they choose in the future.

A limitation on the terms that a President could serve was not fully discussed by the Founding Fathers. However, Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist Paper 72, recognized that one important benefit of not having term limits on the President would be:

to enable the people, when they see reason to approve of his

conduct, to continue him in the station in order to prolong

the utility of his talents and virtues, and to secure to the

government the advantage of permanency in a wise system of

administration.

After President George Washington retired after serving two terms, a custom emerged that was not broken until President Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected to four terms. The people chose President Roosevelt because they desired trusted and effective leadership.

We do not have to rely on rigid constitutional standards to hold our Presidents accountable. Sufficient power resides in the Congress and the Judiciary to protect our country from tyranny. As the noted attorney and counsel to Presidents, Clark Clifford, said:

I believe we denigrate ourselves as an enlightened people,

and our political process as a whole, in imposing on

ourselves still further disability to retain tested and

trusted leadership. The Congress and the Judiciary are now

and will remain free to utilize their own countervailing

constitutional power to forestall any executive overreaching.

Furthermore, a ``lame duck'' President serving in his second term is less effective dealing with the Congress and the bureaucracy than a President should be. I do not believe that the people want a popularly chosen President who will be weakened in a second term. The removal of the President from politics as prescribed by the 22nd Amendment has the effect of removing the President from the accountability to political forces that come to bear during regular elections every four years.

The 22nd Amendment reflects a fundamental distrust of the judgment of the American people. However, trust of the good sense of the people is one of the cornerstones of democracy.

In 1820, Thomas Jefferson wrote: ``I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion.''

I believe the repeal of the 22nd Amendment will restore power to the people themselves and make our Constitution more democratic. 1 hope my colleagues will join me in this effort.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), for the purposes of informing us of the schedule.

I thank the gentleman for that information. With respect to the class action, the gentleman indicated, as I understand it, that that bill has passed the Committee on the Judiciary?

Mr. Leader, I know in the past the gentleman has been very reluctant to simply take the Senate's work product, and I am somewhat shocked that the gentleman apparently suggests that process now. I do not know whether that is going to be a precedent for the future. But may I ask the gentleman, is it his contemplation that it would come directly to the floor and not go to committee for consideration?

As the leader knows, we have been for that process from time to time when there seemed to be agreement between the two Houses. Obviously, however, Mr. Leader, as the gentleman knows, what that does is it precludes Democrats from participating in committee consideration, offering amendments in committee to the subject legislation.

My question to the gentleman is, in the event that that is done, would the gentleman bring that to the floor with an open rule that would allow amendments to be offered as Members see fit so that we could have some full consideration of that piece of legislation on the floor of the House of Representatives?

Reclaiming my time, the reason, Mr. Leader, I asked that question because of the very high respect I have for the gentleman's influence with that committee; and I thought, therefore, the gentleman might have some inkling as to what might be done. I say that somewhat jokingly, but I really do believe that if we are going to take the bill that the Senate sends over, bring it directly to the floor without committee consideration, that not only in a sense of fairness but in a sense of getting the input of the 125 to 130 million people that this side of the aisle represents, that we give us the opportunity to offer such amendments as we think to be appropriate with respect to that legislation.

Mr. Leader, with respect to the continuity of Congress, this has been an issue we tried to deal with in the past. It is a very important issue with which we should deal. I know at times I have talked to the gentleman and the Speaker and particularly to my friend, the majority whip, with reference to having a bipartisan proposal so that both parties, on an issue of great magnitude to this institution in terms of continuity and how do we form a majority to take action, has this been to the gentleman's knowledge, and I do not have that knowledge. I have not talked to anybody on the Committee on Rules or any other committee out of which this might have come. Does the gentleman know whether or not we have bipartisan agreement with respect to the legislation the gentleman intends to put on the floor next week?

I appreciate that.

And reclaiming my time, Mr. Leader, I understand what you are saying in terms of the number of folks who voted for it. There were a very substantial number who voted for it.

This is not a partisan issue. It should not be a partisan issue. This is a practical judgment as to how constitutionally and appropriately within the framework of our democracy and representation that we frame or have legislation framed so that does reflect the interests of our democracy as well as the interest of ensuring continuity.

From that perspective of not just having a number of votes for it, but having the leadership on both sides, I do not mean necessarily the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and myself, but the committee leadership on both sides, whether it is the Committee on Rules, Committee on the Judiciary or any other committee that might consider it somewhat in agreement.

I yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time, no one is suggesting unanimity. I understand that. We are suggesting, though, that we work together on this issue. And the mere fact that we have the ability to get a large number of votes for a bill is critically important. Your observation is correct in terms of numbers necessary to pass the constitutional amendment or to pass other legislation by two-thirds. It is obviously important.

But it is equally important, it seems to me, and might facilitate passage of this through the entire Congress, not just through the House of Representatives, to have input from the leadership of both parties to try to come to grips with what I perceive not to be a partisan issue, but a difficult issue on which constitutional scholars have differed as to how we can do this, on which Members of this House on both sides of the aisle have differed.

But we do not need to pursue it. I understand the gentleman's point. But I would hope that we could have significant discussions about this and hopefully come to agreement of the minds.

Mr. Leader, we are not going to have a scheduling colloquy next week because it will be the Presidents' Day recess. But can you indicate what we may have on the floor the week that we return from the Presidents' Day recess?

Mr. Leader, thank you for that.

I understand we may receive the President's tsunami supplemental appropriations next week. Do you anticipate we may also receive the Iraq-Afghanistan supplemental request as well?

Yield to my friend.

Thank you for that. And you answered my second question. The energy bill you had brought up in our previous colloquy, can you tell us where that might stand at this point this time?

Yield to my friend.

It would be fair to assume, then, that certainly it is not going to be in the next 2 or 3 weeks?

Yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to join my colleagues and friend, the majority whip, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), who I presume has already spoken, in urging Members on both sides of the aisle in supporting this important bipartisan resolution that we have offered.

Over the last half century, the Members of this body have seldom had occasion to commend those on the Palestinian side whose cause, in my opinion, was hijacked by a leadership that preached death and destruction rather than reconciliation and peace. But today we would be remiss if we did not do so.

Three weeks ago on January 9 an estimated 70 percent of the 1.1 million registered Palestinian voters turned out to cast their ballots in an election that was declared fair by most international observers.

This strong turnout, in my judgment, not only reflects the universal appeal of democracy but also the human heart's yearning for freedom and self-determination.

This resolution commends the Palestinian people for conducting a free and fair election and congratulates the new Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, who has previously disavowed terrorist activity and recently earned the praise of Israel for deploying more Palestinian security forces in Gaza to try to halt rocket and mortar attacks on Israeli citizens.

Among other provisions, this resolution urges the new Palestinian leadership to advance democratic ideals by reforming its political structure, advancing human rights and ending corruption.

It strongly condemns terrorism and urges President Abbas to immediately take steps to dismantle the Palestinian terrorist infrastructure, to bring terrorists to justice, and to end the incitement of hatred in the Palestinian media, schools, mosques, and other institutions.

It restates our Nation's strong commitment to and support, unwavering support, for the State of Israel.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say that the election of President Abbas is an important opportunity and could prove to be an historical turning point in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Israel has made repeated overtures over its history in an effort to speak peace, and, today, it continues to move forward with its withdrawal plan in the Gaza strip. Tragically, over the past 5 decades its efforts were consistently rebuffed by the Arafat-led Palestinian leadership.

Without question, there are great challenges ahead, but the election of President Abbas hopefully marks a new day, a day in which the Palestinian leadership becomes a serious, committed partner, a partner for peace in the Middle East.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), a giant in the area of human rights and supporting democratic efforts throughout the world, for his leadership, and I thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for her unending efforts, in concert with the rest of us, to ensure that this Nation stands by Israel but stands with those in the Palestinian population who reach out for peace and partnership and a better tomorrow for all of the people of that troubled area of the world, and I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the additional time.

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

I would like to acknowledge the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) and his leadership. We had the opportunity to travel recently to Iraq, to Amman, and to Israel. Both Israel and Iraq have now passed through two very historic elections. I had the opportunity of speaking about the Palestinian election just recently.

Despite the fact, Mr. Speaker, that we have differences over our Nation's military action in Iraq, I supported the effort and will support the funding to accomplish the objectives. But I have made valid criticisms, as others have, of the administration's administration or execution of the policy. However, Mr. Speaker, I believe that all of us are united today, hopefully, in saluting the courageous Iraqi people who turned out to vote on Sunday. I know that every Member of the body commends the bravery and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform whose patriotism and professionalism made this important day possible.

We must hope that 50 years from now a future generation of Iraqis can look back at this election, this event, as a turning point in the history of their nation and as a victory for freedom over tyranny, for democracy over despotism.

After toiling under the boot of Saddam Hussein for decades and weathering a vicious terrorist insurgency over the last 2 years, the Iraqi people said no, no to intimidation, and yes to the most basic democratic right, the right to vote.

Sunday's election, Mr. Speaker, in which millions of Iraqis cast ballots, is a stunning repudiation of those who despise freedom and democracy. Zarkawi, that criminal leader of terrorist activity and insurgency in Iraq, said it accurately for the terrorists: They despise democracy. They despise freedom. They fear the decisions of free people. That is why they tried to intimidate the Iraqi people.

Having lived under the totalitarian Saddam Hussein regime all these years, however, the Iraqi people know that the insurgents offer nothing but further repression and violence.

Last Friday, Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of visiting the out-of- country voting station in New Carrollton, Maryland, and watched as many of these Iraqis Diaspora cast their votes freely for the first time in their lives. The joy and pride on their faces and in their hearts had to move everyone with whom they spoke. It was a moving moment, it was an historic moment, and it was a poignant reminder to all of us that our rights, while God-given, must never be taken for granted; a reminder that the cost of protecting those freedoms is sometimes high, and we must honor those with the courage and commitment even for others across the sea to protect those rights in the realization that democracies and free people are safer for us here at home than the tyrannies that have prevailed in history.

Without question, Mr. Speaker, there are difficult days ahead. The truly hard work that remains in establishing a viable, stable democracy that is capable of maintaining internal order in Iraq is not finished by far. But today, today at least, Mr. Speaker, let us celebrate the courage of the Iraqi people and express our gratitude and pride in the bravery of our Armed Forces, our men and women in uniform who made that day possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to yield to my friend, the gentleman from Texas, the majority leader, for the purposes of informing us of the schedule.

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

With reference to the Real ID bill, Mr. Leader, can you tell us at this point in time the type of rule that that will be considered under; and, in particular, what amendments, not necessarily specific amendments, but whether amendments will be allowed, motions to recommit, and items of that nature.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time once again, I presume the gentleman is talking about merged at some later date. Obviously, the must-pass bill would not be available next week. Am I correct?

So the gentleman is talking about merging it at some time in the future after passage?

Mr. Leader, with respect to the energy bill, it is my understanding that there is some discussion that the energy bill may proceed not next week but the week following. Can you tell me whether that is a reasonable possibility, or probability?

Mr. Leader, I might say that I think all of us understand the importance of energy legislation. All of us understand the necessity to become energy independent. I would suggest, in that framework, that I think personally that we can pass an energy bill. Obviously, there are some items that are in the energy bill or that are proposed for the energy bill that have significant opposition on one side of the aisle or the other.

I would hope, Mr. Leader, if we could, in working with the various committee Chairs, and I suppose most primarily the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) in this respect, to come to as bipartisan an agreement on the substance of that bill so that we could see it not just pass through the House of Representatives, which may be interesting in terms of the political claim that we passed it, but which does nothing for our energy independence, which is, I think, our objective.

So I would hope that we could deal with this in as bipartisan a fashion as possible so that when we send it to the other body that we may have more success there, more success out of conference, and send a bill to the President that will facilitate both energy independence and the effective and efficient discovery, development, and delivery at retail to the consumer of energy options. I do not know whether you want to say anything.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for referencing the Committee on Ways and Means, but I certainly agree with him that having the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) work closely together, and perhaps their respective Chairs of the subcommittees that might deal with that work together, would be very, very useful to accomplishing an objective as opposed to simply passing a bill that then languishes in the Congress and never gets to the President.

If, in fact, we consider that, and it sounds to me like we certainly do not have enough information to determine whether or not the week after next the energy bill might be on the floor, but if and when it comes to the floor, Mr. Leader, would you contemplate the possibility of having an open rule on that piece of legislation, given its importance and scope?

I am happy to yield to the gentleman for a response, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope on that bill, because of its great importance to the security of the Nation and to all of our consumers of energy, which is to say all of us, that we would have as broad a consideration of it as possible so that we could get everybody's ideas put on the floor, voted up or down, and move the bill with as big a consensus as we can accomplish.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished majority leader for the purpose of inquiring of him the schedule for the coming week.

I thank the gentleman. I appreciate the information.

I understand he anticipates a substantive resolution on the Solomon amendment and the court ruling thereon. But can I ask you, is it your understanding that a resolution regarding the recent Palestinian elections will come to the floor next week as well? Is that possible?

I thank the leader. I know that the majority whip and myself are working on this, and running it by your office as well as we are the leader's office on our side. Hopefully we can move that. I know that all of us believe that we have an opportunity to at least resolve the violence and hopefully reach towards a peaceful resolution of that dispute, and hopefully we can move forward on this resolution. I thank the leader for his response.

Secondly, Mr. Leader, the supplemental appropriation, we hear about the supplemental appropriation, clearly for the tsunami victims as well as further assistance to our troops and efforts in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Can you tell us whether or not there is any possibility of that coming next week, or do you anticipate that would be the week following or sometime thereafter?

I thank the gentleman for his information.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of House Resolution 49, the Clerk be directed to make the following change:

In the paragraph regarding the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, strike ``Mr. Higgins''.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Chairman (Mr. Hyde) and the Ranking Member (Mr. Lantos) for bringing this important legislation to the Floor today.

As the former Chairman and Ranking Democrat on the Helsinki Commission, I was honored to advocate for the basic human rights of dissidents in the former Soviet Union, including in Ukraine, and know well their commitment to freedom and democracy.

And today, as this legislation recognizes, the people of Ukraine have achieved their long sought goal and under the leadership of their new President, Viktor Yushchenko, and today are moving forward with a spirit of optimism and hope.

Over the last several months, the people of Ukraine have weathered nothing short of political crisis.

The November 21st presidential runoff between then-Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich and President Yushchenko, who was then the opposition leader, was racked by voting irregularities and illegalities.

Ukranian and international observers both determined that state resources were abused in support of Prime Minister Yanukovich, who ``won'' that runoff. There was illegal voting by absentee ballot, multiple voting, assaults on election observers and the use of counterfeit ballots.

Ukranian citizens bravely engaged in peaceful demonstrations, the Parliament passed a resolution declaring that there were violations of law during the runoff, and it passed a resolution expressing no confidence in the government of Prime Minister Yanukovich.

Then, the Ukrainian Supreme Court declared the runoff invalid and ordered a new presidential election on December 26th.

As all the world watched, the people of Ukraine elected Victor Yushchenko as their President by a clear margin.

Mr. Speaker, I specifically want to note the great personal courage of President Yushchenko, who was poisoned by dioxin in late summer. He also has shown maturity and leadership throughout this political crisis.

In fact, yesterday, on his first full day in office, President Yushchenko visited Russian President Putin in Moscow, who had openly backed Mr. Yankukovich.

The new President's leadership, as well as the people of Ukraine's commitment to democracy, bodes well for this nation. And I join my colleagues in congratulating them on this accomplishment.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. First of all, I want to congratulate him on the extraordinary work he has done in leading the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe on behalf of the Congress and on behalf of the American people known as the Helsinki Commission. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) has been a stalwart, steadfast, strong voice on behalf of making sure that we confront anti-Semitism; that we confront prejudice; that we confront hate; that we confront the adverse effects of all of those human emotions, and has been a strong voice within the Parliamentary Assembly of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe dealing with this issue of anti-Semitism.

In fact, the gentleman from New Jersey and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), and others, but primarily the gentleman from New Jersey and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), have been responsible for the seminars that have been held in Europe raising the consciousness of all Europeans, as we need to raise the consciousness of all Americans and all peoples of the world to be aware of the invidious, tragic, horrific consequences of prejudice and hate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the gentleman from New Jersey on his extraordinary leadership. He has been a giant in this effort, and I thank him.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise as well to say that no Member of this body has been any more personally affected, and certainly no Member of this body has more consistently raised the consciousness of the American people and, indeed, the international community on the importance of never forgetting.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), who is committed to this issue and has been a leader and has traveled and headed the delegations of the Helsinki Commission to the Parliamentary Assembly and raised our voice in foreign lands.

I also thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member, the only Holocaust survivor ever elected to Congress. In particular, I want to say to the gentleman from California, his indefatigable commitment to human freedom and basic human dignity is a source of inspiration to all of us privileged to serve with the gentleman. It should be emulated by us all.

Madam Speaker, 60 years ago at 3 p.m. on January 27, 1945, Soviet Red Army soldiers entered Auschwitz concentration camp. Those of us who visited Auschwitz long after that date but who saw the horrible implements of death constructed there by the Nazi regime can only imagine, knowing the horror that we felt, the horror and revulsion that those Soviet soldiers, human beings, must have felt as they entered that camp in a village in southern Poland 30 miles west of Krakow. What they discovered there haunts us today and should haunt us every day.

A Russian Army officer described the reaction to the sight of the camp's remaining 7,000 prisoners, who had been too ill or weak to move and were left to die in the cold by the fleeing Germans. He said, ``The soldiers from my battalion asked me, `Let us go. We cannot stay. This is unbelievable.' It was so terrible, it was hard for the mind to absorb it.''

But the mind, Madam Speaker, must never forget it. The Nazis had spent weeks moving the most able-bodied prisoners, destroying documents and bulldozing buildings. But the liberation of the largest Nazi concentration camp, where 1.5 million innocent souls were murdered, women and children, young and old, opened the world's eyes to the unspeakable evil of the Holocaust.

While it is appropriate that this somber day be marked in ceremonies all around the globe, it will be a further tragedy if on this occasion we only look back without also looking ahead. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) did that.

We cannot remember the liberation of the concentration camps and the defeat of the Nazis in World War II and at the same time cast a blind eye toward the growing problem of anti-Semitism that still infects the world today, and tragically grows today. Nor can we ignore the hatred and prejudice that fuels the genocide in Sudan today. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) mentioned Darfur.

Hatred knows no gender, no race, no ethnicity. It lurks in man's heart today as surely as it did during the Holocaust. Even today in this country we talk about some people in our country in a way that demeans them and dehumanizes them and gives to others the misapprehension that they can act against those people, whoever they might be. We see tragic instances of that. And that reality, as painful as it is to accept, compels us to use this solemn occasion to restate our commitment to freedom and basic human rights. And it compels us to fight hatred and prejudice wherever it rears its head.

Our President spoke just a few days ago in his Inaugural Address about the commitment of this country to freedom, to liberty and, yes, to human rights. He was right to do so. We owe those souls who perished at the hands of Nazis at Auschwitz, who perished at the hands of Milosevic, who died at the hands of those in Sudan and in every other place where hate and prejudice was the motivation for murder. We owe those souls our unremitting pledge to never, never, never permit these horrific periods in human history to be repeated. I was one of those who felt that we waited too long as we saw the genocide in Serbia and in Kosovo and in Bosnia. We must not delay our response. If we do so, we remember Auschwitz, but we remember it without learning its lesson.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) for his presentation.

We were told the President wants to proceed on a bipartisan fashion in the next 4 years to deal with the important issues that confront our Nation.

I think that is appropriate and, hopefully, we will do that. However, on this first day, the rules package is usually a partisan package. It was when Democrats were in charge; it is now when Republicans are in charge. That is understandable. But as the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) has so correctly pointed out, there was an exception, and that exception was dealing with the ethics of this institution which, in fact, deals with the confidence that the American public has in this institution.

Mr. Speaker, the opening day of a new Congress should be one in which the interests of this institution are paramount. The body of rules we adopt to govern debate, decorum, and the actions of our Members should reflect that. To be sure, the American people who elected us to this great body can expect to see sharp differences on this floor over the substance of legislation. That is as the framers of the Constitution planned.

But the framers also intended, I believe, and the American people deserve to know, that this House is committed to holding its Members to the highest ethical standards.

Today, as I think has been attested to by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), the House moves in the wrong direction. The rules proposed for the 109th House ignore the fundamental principle of protecting the ethics of this House. The proposed Republican rules before us will seriously weaken the ability of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to enforce standards of integrity by providing that no action will be taken on a properly filed ethics complaint after 45 days unless the committee votes by a majority vote to take action. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) will speak, who chaired with Bob Livingston, our former colleague, the amendment of these rules.

Under the current rules, which have functioned well since 1997, a properly filed complaint that has not been addressed by the chair and ranking member or the committee itself automatically goes to an investigative subcommittee. That is as it should be. Inaction ought not to be tantamount to dismissal. That is what this proposal does. The Republican proposal would make it extremely difficult to investigate properly filed complaints.

Under this new rule, either side, either side will be able to guarantee a deadlock when a legitimate, factually strong ethics complaint against a Member is filed, provided the chair or ranking member take no action.

We have been told that the most egregious attempts to weaken the ethics systems have been abandoned. I beg to differ. The most egregious attempt is the one before us now currently remaining in this rule. Let no one miss this distinction: the proposal to protect an indicted leader, a proposal that has been withdrawn by the majority, always was speculative, because we do not know if a leader will be indicted. In sharp contrast, however, the rule before us will have a concrete, demonstrable effect on every ethics complaint filed from this day forward.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is the only mechanism that this institution has to police itself. When we weaken the committee, we weaken the standards that we are all expected to uphold, and we erode public confidence in this institution.

The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) spoke eloquently to the maintenance of the status quo when he was in the minority urging us to be vigilant in rooting out unethical behavior in this institution. He was right then. He is not correct now in offering this rule which weakens that process.

The adoption of this rule will substantially weaken our commitment to ensuring ethical conduct. I think the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) was right in his letter. I think he had the intellectual honesty and integrity on this floor when he spoke. He is going to vote for the rule because he believes that some offensive aspects of the proposal have been taken out. But I tell my friend that the most egregious, long-lasting, impacting change remains in this package.

Therefore, I urge my colleagues on behalf of the American people, on behalf of the integrity of this institution, on behalf of our commitment to ensure ethical conduct on behalf of the American people, that this not be passed.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

At the present time I am, Mr. Speaker.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that this was not unanticipated. I rose during the consideration of the rule on Saturday and said, ``But the fear of the American people,'' referring to the bill that was to be considered pursuant to the rule that was then under consideration, ``is in the dead of the night, in the cloudiness of quick consideration that many things are included in these bills which perhaps both Houses would not have put in there, as has happened too frequently during the course of this Congress, or that either House really knows is in there.''

I said that on Saturday.

Later that day it was discovered on the floor of the Senate legislation which had been discussed in this House but the ramifications of which, the meaning of which, the effect of which was really not known. That is of great concern. The chairman of the Committee on Finance in the Senate said it was ``an outrage.'' John McCain said ``the process is broken.''

Mr. Speaker, nine of 13 appropriation bills were included in the pages of the legislation that is before me here on the desk. Now, this is approximately 1,500, 1,600 pages. The bill is actually between 3,300 and 3,400 because the bill has fewer words per page on it. Seventy-five percent of the bill which we considered, which included the language which has brought us here today, 75 percent of that bill had never been on the floor of the United States Senate, never considered, never debated, never open to the public's review. Seventy-five percent of the bill that was brought to this floor.

Mr. Speaker, the issue here today is not the granting of unanimous consent to ensure that the government keeps running until the 8th of December. We are all going to be for that. That is the appropriate thing for us to do. Nor is, in my opinion, the staff work. We have an extraordinarily excellent staff on the Committee on Appropriations, led by an extraordinary leader of judgment, of wise counsel, and great integrity who was forced, along with staff, to work in an incredibly telescoped fashion.

So 75 percent of the bills were never considered on the Senate floor, one of the bills never on the House or Senate floor, and one never even reported out of the Senate subcommittee. In addition to that, and some may not know this even at this point in time, there were three major authorization bills included in this bill that have never been debated on the floor in terms of their effect: the Satellite Home Extension Reauthorization Act, the Snake River Water Rights Act, and the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act.

My presumption is, and I have not talked to each one of the ranking members of each committee, the Resources Committee in two of the cases, Committee on Energy and Commerce in the third, my presumption is that they agreed and therefore did not object to their inclusion.

In addition to that, we deleted provisions that were approved in the House, approved in the Senate, one affecting millions of Americans on minimum wage. This House directed the conference to keep it in by a significant majority vote. The Senate adopted it. It was dropped without really any ability to discuss it, as my ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations said, in conference.

I have been on the Committee on Appropriations not as long as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), but a significant number of years, 23 to be specific, and was used to going to conference, to sitting at the table representing the 662,000 people I represent and saying I believe that we ought to do A or B. There was no opportunity given by this procedure to do that.

Now the sad fact is that this is not an abberation. As the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) pointed out, this is the way we do appropriation bills now. Last year we did not adopt the majority of the appropriation bills until the following calendar year; the year before that until the following calendar year, once in January and once in February. My goodness, it is November 24 today. We are doing it early, one could say.

But the fact of the matter is this has become the practice of this House, the practice of this House not to have conferences, not only on appropriation bills, but not to have conferences on Ways and Means and tax bills that affect millions and millions of Americans, not to have conferences even when we refer bills from the floor back to a conference. And we have found last year a bill being reported back that had never gone to that conference notwithstanding the vote of this House to send it to conference, and no conferee had an opportunity to say anything about the bill.

Mr. Speaker, the lamentable fact is we are here because of a process that is undermining this democratic institution. We are here because we are not taking the time to include all interested parties, including the American people, in the consideration of this legislation. We have closed rules, closed conferences or no conferences, conferences called without Democrats being included, dropping items approved by both Houses, and adding measures not approved by either House. This is unfortunate.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we are not going to object to this unanimous consent. It is the appropriate request to make. The good news for the American people is, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) has observed, it will give us an opportunity to do something that has been vetted, that has been considered, has been considered in the open with due hearings, on television, in a bipartisan fashion, reported out, and I refer of course to the 9/11 Commission report.

This report seeks to prevent another tragic attack on the United States of America and the loss of 3,000 souls within hours, within minutes. This report was unanimously adopted. This report was passed overwhelmingly by the other body with less than four people opposing it, and it came to a conference, essentially, a meeting: the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) on our side, a number on the other side of the aisle. The Senate came together. Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins came together and agreed and were overwhelmingly supported by their Senate colleagues. They said we have a bipartisan agreement to make America safer.

Governor Kean and our distinguished former colleague, Lee Hamilton, said we must act now. They said that in July.

Mr. Speaker, we have not acted. But as a result of what we do today, we will come back to this House on the 6th or 7th of December with an obligation to act on the omnibus appropriation bill, but it will give us an opportunity to do the right thing and pass the 9/11 Commission report which is overwhelmingly supported.

I will tell my friends in this body, I was somewhat dismayed at the Speaker's spokesman when he said that what good was it to pass a bill that the majority of the conference did not support. I will tell my friends in this House, without fear of contradiction, not one, and I invite anybody to come to the floor to contradict me, if the 9/11 Commission report is put on this floor as reported out of the Senate and as agreed to in the conference committee on this bill, it will be passed overwhelmingly in this House.

And I will say to my friend, the spokesman for the Speaker, the good is that the American people will be well served, whether or not a majority of your conference agrees. That is the good. That is why we are here. That ought to be our focus. And because of this happenstance, this mistake, this rightfully-to-be-reconsidered provision that was put in the bill without due consideration, or, if given due consideration, inartfully drawn by someone not in this body, then we will be advantaged because we will have an opportunity to respond to the American public's concern and the unanimous recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and to the support of the President of the United States who asked this to pass.

Now, Mr. Rumsfeld, our Secretary of Defense, says he is supportive of the President's view that it ought to pass. Now, if we have the President, we have the Secretary of Defense, we have the overwhelming majority, I do not know of anybody on our side of the aisle who

is going to oppose it. Maybe there are some. And I am sure that there are certainly sufficient Members on your side of the aisle to ensure 218 votes to pass such a unanimously and supported recommendation to make America safer.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend from Wisconsin under my reservation.

Reclaiming my time under my reservation, I thank the gentleman for his comments and would join him in reiterating the fact that the fault lies not in the staff. The fault lies not in the objective in this particular provision that was trying to be attained. It was that a significant, very harmful mistake was made. Whoever made it made it, as the gentleman from Wisconsin has pointed out, in the press of a process which did not give time for reflection, so that, having been caught at a time when we did not then have time to correct it because the rush to judgment was in place, we now have taken that time, and I think that is a good thing. I appreciate the staffs helping us get to that point on both sides of the aisle.

I want to say, secondly, that our Founding Fathers set up a process, Mr. Speaker, that was not as efficient as authoritarian regimes claim to be. If you have the votes and you can jam something through, so be it; but our Founding Fathers, Mr. Speaker, wanted a reflective process, a process where there was full and fair consideration in both Houses, because their concern was that democracy would work if everybody had the opportunity to see it and to participate in it.

This process of thousands of pages of bills being passed within hours under a martial-law rule did not allow that process to occur, and the result was inevitable, that things would be passed unknown to this body, unknown to the American public and of great concern to them which would not have enjoyed a majority of support in this House or the Senate if they had been fully aired.

Hopefully, this will be an object lesson which will lead us to a process more open, more open to minority views, with time given to staff and Members to digest, to reflect, and to make wise judgments.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe it appropriate for me to rise in light of the gentleman from Texas's remarks. First of all, I note that the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations is on the floor. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) is one of the most respected Members in this body. He is a gentleman who has led our committee with fairness and great ability. Mr. Dyer is also on the floor, our chief clerk of the Committee on Appropriations. The Committee on Appropriations continues to be, in my opinion, one of the committees that really strives to work in a bipartisan fashion to meet the responsibilities that it has and the responsibilities that this Congress has to the American people.

The budget to which the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) spoke has resulted in a dysfunctional appropriations process over the last 4 years really. I have served on the Committee on Appropriations for 23 years, so I have some experience of the workings of that committee. In the early years that I served, it was also difficult to pass appropriation bills. Then we got

into the 1994 election, the majority changed and, in 1995, of course, we shut down the government on November 22, 1995. The government essentially remained shut down and with sporadic periods of being open between then and early in January of the following year.

Since that time, particularly since the election of President Bush in 2000, in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004, this year, we have clearly had a dysfunctional budget and appropriations process, about which my friend from Texas seems to be so proud. In fact, this is the third year in a row where we have passed an omnibus appropriations bill including most of the appropriations. We have ignored the regular order. We have ignored the process of adopting appropriation bills one by one. We have ignored the process of having our appropriation bills open to full disclosure and consideration, not only by the House of Representatives, but by the American people. We have prevented the American people from having the opportunity to make their views known on these appropriation bills. Why? Because we have passed them in the dead of night, as we did last night, come out with a very quick Committee on Rules report, a martial law rule, and an inability to expose those to the light of day.

Now, most of those appropriations bills, the nine bills that will be incorporated into this omnibus have, in fact, been subjected to hearings, discussion on this floor, discussion on the Senate floor, and most, I do not know what percentage, but I would guess well over 90 percent, perhaps even as close to 97 or 98 percent of the bills have, in fact, been subjected to the regular order and the legislative process as it should run.

But the fear of the American people is that in the dead of night, in the cloudiness of quick consideration, that many things are included in these bills which perhaps both Houses would not have put in there, as has happened too frequently during the course of this Congress, or that neither House really knows is in there.

So when my distinguished friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) refers to this as being a process that is contrary to regular order, he is absolutely right. It is not something of which we ought to be proud. To that extent, I disagree with my good friend, the gentleman from Texas. It is, in fact, something that we ought to commit ourselves to not repeating. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), my good friend, is on the floor, and was the chief of staff of one of the most distinguished leaders with whom I have had the privilege of serving, Bob Michel, himself a member of the Committee on Appropriations. I used to remember Leader Michel during the times when he was the Minority Leader of this House saying that this process was wrong when we pursued it, when we got into a deadlock and could not get bills passed.

So it is not that it is solely the actions of one party. It is, however, to say that we ought not to pretend that when we are doing it, that it is good, and that when the other guy is doing it, it is bad. It is not a good process. We did not in the year of last year pass eight of our appropriations bills until the calendar year following the beginning of the fiscal year. It was January. The previous year, it was February before we adopted most of the appropriations bills. I regret that we do not consider the appropriations bills one by one. There has not been a conference on the Labor-Health bill, a bill which will have approximately $150 billion in discretionary funding in this bill. It has not been conferenced. I have been a member of that committee for 23 years. I did not participate in a conference on that bill.

Now, because of the way our committee operates, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and others have kept me apprised, and I am not surprised at that. As I said, they are good and decent and fair leaders of the Committee on Appropriations. We ought not to delude ourselves because of their fairness and because of the fact that they have kept me informed and kept the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) informed and others informed. But the American people who have been precluded from seeing that bill conferenced have not been informed as our democracy contemplates, so I do not share the gentleman's pride in this process.

Mr. Speaker, because I have the time and I am on my feet, I also want to make a comment. I may make this comment again when he is here. In my view, the House of Representatives has sustained an extraordinary loss in the last election. I do not speak in terms of the fact that another candidate won the election. I, in no way, denigrate that candidate. But I do rise to lament the loss of a giant of this House, a Member of this House who, in my opinion, is arguably the best legislator in this House, a Member of this House whom I have grown to have the highest respect for, for his intellect, for his integrity, for his focus on fiscal responsibility. No one, no one in this House or in the United States Senate has any more faithfully focused on fiscal responsibility than my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Charles Stenholm). It is a great loss to the House that he will not be serving with us next year.

As we consider this appropriation bill, and as the gentleman from Texas remarks with respect to constraining funding, I will tell my friend that we have constrained funding less over the last 4 years perhaps than at any time since I have been here, less than we did during the Clinton years. Domestic discretionary spending has risen higher over the last 4 years, as perhaps the gentleman knows, discretionary spending has risen higher. Now, there have been some reasons for that. Certainly, 9/11, terrorism, the war in Iraq. As the gentleman from Texas knows, I have supported that funding. We cannot, we must not send our best abroad to fight terrorism without supporting them fully. I have done that, and I intend to do that. But having said that, I do not intend to pretend that that money is for free, that somebody is not going to pay that bill.

Earlier this week, the Republicans increased the debt of this Nation by $800 billion, meaning that over the last 42 months we have increased the national debt by 25 percent, $2 trillion. I personally do not believe that that is something of which to be proud, $2 trillion in additional debt. I have three grandchildren. One is a little older, one is little younger, and one is very young. And all of them are going to pay that bill. Because this generation of Americans, acting through its Members in the House of Representatives, has determined that it will not pay its bills. I think that is an immoral policy. It is the refusal to accept personal responsibility for the challenges confronting our generation, and we are going to allow the next generation and perhaps generations thereafter to pay that bill.

The immediate consequences, of course, were evidenced yesterday. I hope they will be ameliorated. I hope interest rates will not skyrocket. I hope the deficit will, as the gentleman from Texas hopes, will be constrained. But I will not delude myself, I tell my friend from Texas, that it is discretionary spending that has caused our problem, because those of us on the Committee on Appropriations know it is not discretionary spending. In fact, discretionary spending as a percentage of the budget is less today than it was in 1962 and 1972 and 1982. So we ought not to delude ourselves that our failure to fully fund No Child Left Behind, as the gentleman from Florida has said, is something of which to be proud. There are going to be children left behind as a result of us failing to do that.

So I rise, Mr. Speaker, to say that I will vote for this omnibus bill when it ultimately gets to the floor. I will vote against this rule, but I will vote for the omnibus bill. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), Jim Dyer, and each one of our chairmen and ranking members have worked hard to try to come to grips with bills that meet our responsibilities. These bills do so only in part. I thank my chairman and would say that there are areas in which we are short, not because we want to be short, but because the resources are not there to meet our commitments.

So, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this brief time, at a time when debate is not fulsome and I had time to ruminate to some degree on what I consider the very serious fiscal challenge that confronts our country. We cannot pretend that we can have tax cuts and war and investment in education and transportation and energy and other needs of our country and simply pass the

debt along to our children and our grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, that is not right.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin, our ranking member, who does such an extraordinary job on the Committee on Appropriations in focusing us on our priorities as a Nation.

Mr. Speaker, initially I want to rise and say that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), our chairman, is like Sara Lee, nobody doesn't like Bill Young, and that goes for everybody on our side of the aisle.

I want to say some nice things, and let me take just one second, but I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, during the consideration of the rule that I perceive Bill Young as one of the fairest, most decent, and most positive leaders in this House. It is an honor to serve with him. I will tell my colleagues, as an opponent of term limits, I think the fact that Bill Young is leaving as chairman of the committee is another compelling argument against term limits. His talent, his fairness, his vision will be missed as our chairman. Thankfully, he will still be on our committee, giving us his sound counsel and leadership.

And, Bill, I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for the example you have set for all of us of what it means to be an American, working together on behalf of our country and not on behalf of our party, on either side. I thank you for that, sir.

Mr. Speaker, here we are yet again this year considering an end-of- session omnibus appropriations bill not because of our Chairman Young but because of the disagreements, frankly, within his party. This is the fourth in the last 5 years and the eighth time in 10 years since our Republican friends regained the House majority that we have not passed appropriation bills as they should have been passed.

This clearly is not how our appropriations process should work, with this House rolling nine separate appropriation bills into one and giving the Members just a few hours to review it. My chairman said 14 hours. The distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture is reviewing the bill right now. It is, I judge, at least two feet tall, right in front of her. I do not know whether the camera panned to that, but it is an extraordinary document.

It epitomizes this failed 108th Congress in which Republicans failed to enact the budget, failed to enact an energy plan, failed to enact a transportation bill, failed to enact welfare reform, failed to enact higher education reauthorization, and failed to enact a patients' bill of rights.

Now, despite this dreadful appropriations process, there are many good provisions, as Chairman Young has said, in this bill. Not only that, I am going to vote for this bill.

For example, there are more than $90 million to support an African Union peacekeeping force intended to end genocide in Darfur, Sudan. We must act on that. This bill also maintains the Federal commitment to election reform, providing $14 million for the new Election Assistance Commission. And we again recognize the dedicated service of our Federal civilian employees by providing a 3.5 percent pay raise, which is consistent with the pay increase for our men and women in uniform. Our staffs, hopefully, will all receive that as well. These funds also allow FDA employees to move from substandard workplaces into modern, state-of-the-art facilities.

Finally, let me say that I am disappointed, however, that the A-76 outsourcing, supported by the majority of this House and the majority of the Senate, was nevertheless dropped out of the conference report. This will put Federal employees at greater risk.

Let me conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that I am disappointed that we once again failed to reimburse small airports in the Washington, D.C., area. The Republicans and ourselves say we are on the side of small business. These airports have been disadvantaged by the actions of the terrorists and by our security concerns closing them down. We should have made them whole in this bill. We did not. I hope that in the future we will.

Again, I thank Bill Young for his leadership and for his service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Terry R. Carlstrom who for four decades has managed the stewardship of some of our Nation's most precious natural and cultural resources. Mr. Carlstrom is retiring after 41 years in Federal service during which he served with the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the National Park Service.

Mr. Carlstrom's stewardship extended over the past 22 years to the protection and enhancement of 14 units of the National Park System and the numerous memorials in our National Capital Region. First, as Associate Regional Director for Professional Services, and then for the past 8 years as Regional Director of the National Capital Region, he has extended his watchful eye and guiding hand to the protection of our most symbolic National Icons: the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial, the Jefferson Memorial; Presidential Memorials to FDR and Lyndon Baines Johnson, the White House; and memorials commemorating the American heroes at home and abroad in the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and in World War II. His leadership in the complete reconstruction of the 5 major scenic parkways, which provide the gateways to our Nation's Capital, ensured their scenic protection while providing for user safety. He also was instrumental in the creation of the Streetscape Standards for the Monumental Core by an interagency task force.

I join the men and women of the National Park Service and the National Capital Region in recognizing Mr. Carlstrom's sincere interest in the welfare and safety of every employee, a dedication which is evidenced by his support and leadership in a safety program that reduced the lost time accident rate by 100 percent during the last 5 years. He established the National Capital Region's Communications Command Center in Hagerstown, Maryland, which has assured continuous and complete communications for our park rangers in remote locations throughout our far ranging parks.

Mr. Carlstrom has provided oversight of 14 parks in the National Capital Region: the National Mall and Memorial Parks; Anacostia River Parks; Rock Creek Park; the White House and President's Park; C&O Canal National Historical Park; George Washington Memorial Parkway; Civil War Battlefield Parks at Antietam, Monocacy, Harper's Ferry, and Manassas; the Wolf Trap Farm National Park for the Performing Arts; Prince William Forest Park and Catoctin Mountain Park; and the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail. During his tenure he guided the establishment of Mary McLeod Bethune Council House and Carter G. Woodson National Historic Sites, the President Lincoln and Soldier's Home National Monument, and the boundary expansions of Monocacy Battlefield and Harper's Ferry National Historical Park. Further, he was a leader in establishing numerous partnerships, including the preservation of the Washington Monument; refurbishment and joint management with Montgomery County of Glen Echo Park; the Accokeek Foundation and National Colonial Farm; and the Alice Fergusen Foundation's Hard Bargain Farm. Recognizing the importance of these important relationships with agencies and individuals beyond the National Park Service, he established an Assistant Regional Director for Partnerships.

Mr. Carlstrom leaves a lasting legacy to Americans from coast to coast. As a young forester in the 1960s, he established sensitive timber management programs for the Bridger National Forest in Wyoming and for the Chippewa people on the White Earth Reservation in Minnesota, which today provide for timber demands, enhanced recreational opportunities and excellent wildlife habitat. Through his efforts wetlands in North Dakota have been protected for waterfowl propagation, a portion of the St. Croix National Scenic River in Minnesota and Wisconsin has been preserved for future generations, and resource protections were enriched as a result of his master planning for five Arizona national parks--Tumacacori National Historical Park, Fort Bowie National Historic Site, Coronado National Memorial, Saguaro National Park and Organ Pipe National Monument.

As Chief of Planning of the National Park Service's Denver Service Center Western Team, he led several planning initiatives to protect Redwood National Park, to expand protection of the watershed and to preserve the remaining ancient Redwood groves. Remnants of the ancient Anazazi culture, which can still be found in Grand Canyon National Park and Lake Meade National Recreation Area, remain protected today because of wilderness plans initiated under his leadership. Those wilderness plans, which were prepared at the direction of Congress, recognized that the areas should be under the protection of the National Park Service and not exposed to multi-use land management.

In 1980 the Alaska National Interest Lands and Conservation Act brought 55 million acres under the auspices of the National Park Service. The Act was carefully crafted to provide for the continued subsistence use and protection of the living culture of the Native peoples and enable the appreciation of these unique lands by future generations of their fellow Americans. Mr. Carlstrom headed the multi- agency task force which prepared the environmental documents and analyzed thousands of public comments that permitted President Jimmy Carter to create National Monuments via Presidential Proclamation as an interim measure pending the ultimate placement by Congress of these millions of acres into National Parks and Preserves.

Mr. Carlstrom's four decades of devotion stand as examples to all of us who preserve the treasures of which our Nation is proud, our vast resources, our varied cultures, our storied history. I am proud to recognize him today for his years of service and thank him for his hard work, care for his fellow human beings, and his many, many accomplishments.