Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, 2 minutes is obviously not sufficient time to respond to simplistic arguments. The previous speaker said he has heard simple legal arguments. He talked about why people came to America.

I chaired the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Helsinki Commission, and I went to numerous countries in which the judiciary was not independent, where it was dictated to by the legislature and the executive departments if the judiciary did not do what the legislature and the executive wanted them to do. That is the perverseness of this legislation. That is the demagoguery of this legislation. This is the simplistic approach that this legislation takes.

Let me say, I believe that ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance is absolutely appropriately there. It is constitutional, and it ought to be there. And frankly, if the Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional, I would vote for a constitutional amendment to ensure its presence.

The gentleman is correct; Thomas Jefferson intoned those compelling words that we get our rights not from the legislature, not from the executive, not even from the majority. Those basic rights are within us as children of God. That is the difference between this country. That is what Marbury v. Madison meant. It meant a legislature, irrespective of its animus, irrespective of the prejudice that it wanted to include, not in this instance but in other instances, could be overseen by the courts of this United States.

The gentleman mentioned the Dred Scott decision. It was not the legislature that overturned that decision or the majority of Americans that overturned that decision; it was the Supreme Court of the United States ultimately that said that is wrong. The gentleman is absolutely correct; the Supreme Court said separate is not equal. But had they been precluded from having the jurisdiction over that case, we would still have segregated schools. We would still have separate but equal, but it was the courts that stepped in and made sure that the dream of America was the reality of America.

Defeat this legislation. There is no case pending. It has been dismissed by the Supreme Court.

No court in this Nation has precluded. Every child in America now stands and proudly stands, as we do in this chamber, and pledges allegiance to our flag and to this Nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. But we have found through the centuries that justice, justice, justice is protected by our independent judiciary. Let us keep it that way for all Americans. Defeat this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, this morning in the Wall Street Journal, former Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough wrote, and this is a conservative, a Republican former member from Florida: ``Ten years ago, Republican congressional candidates like me were running as Washington outsiders, promising to balance the budget and pay off the debt,'' but, Joe Scarborough added, bluntly, ``we lied.''

That is what Joe Scarborough said, referring to ``we'' being Republicans running as outsiders for the Congress of the United States. Joe Scarborough, ``We lied.''

Mr. Speaker, that is Joe Scarborough, former member of your Republican Conference, issuing that indictment. Not Steny Hoyer, not the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), not even my friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), but Joe Scarborough: ``We lied.''

Last year's record budget deficits of $375 billion will be eclipsed by a projected deficit of $422 billion this year and deficits totaling nearly $2.3 trillion in the next 10 years. That is the result of ``we lied.'' And because of the Republican Party's fiscal mismanagement, this Congress is on the verge of increasing the ceiling on the national debt for the third time in 3 years to $8.1 trillion, but it lacks the courage to do so on an up-or-down vote before the November elections. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) has tried to have us do that.

Very frankly, if that is the issue, I vote aye. I am not for America welching on its debts. I am not for doing it secretly. I am not for doing it in the dead of night. I am not for hypocrisy which said, when we were in charge, oh, you cannot do that, and when you are in charge, hiding it under the rug.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I join virtually every Member of this body on both sides of the aisle in supporting the extension of middle-class tax cuts, the child tax credit, marriage penalty relief and expansion of the 10 percent income tax bracket. But we cannot continue to disregard fiscal reality. It is very nice to say that we are going to give everybody a tax cut and have the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania come up here and say, the extensions will help. They will; we agree with her. But deep deficits will not help our economy in the years ahead. We cannot ignore the historical turnaround from budget surpluses to record deficits and exploding debt during the last 4 years.

We conservatives are offended by going deeply into debt. Fiscal irresponsibility is radical, is not conservative. It puts our country at risk. We cannot continue to pretend the tax cuts have no effect on our Nation's ability to invest in homeland security, invest in education, veterans and health care, and we must not ignore this generation's responsibility to our children and grandchildren.

I have three children and three grandchildren, and we are putting them very deeply into debt. That is wrong. Saddling them with deeper debt and a diminished future is nothing less than fiscal child abuse. Hear me: fiscal child abuse.

I urge my colleagues to vote conservatively, to make sure that we do not plunge this country deeper into debt. Let us extend these tax cuts, but let us pay for them. That is what this generation has a responsibility to do for the next generation.

Let me continue to read from what I know my colleagues want to hear from their conservative colleague, Mr. Scarborough: ``Mr. Bush, like most Republicans these days, only pays lip service to smaller government and balanced budgets. He is, after all, a President who inherited a $155 billion surplus and turned it into a $442 billion deficit.'' Mr. Scarborough, our conservative former colleague said, ``It is ironic that we Republicans took control of Congress in 1994 by attacking Bill Clinton for his free-spending ways. But spending grew annually under Mr. Clinton at a 3.4 percent rate, while exploding under President Bush at a 10.4 percent clip. Republicans taking credit for restraining Mr. Clinton need to explain why they did not hold their own President to the same standards.''

How ironic it is that my Republican friends claim credit for restraining the government when we had the presidency, but they cannot do it when their own President is in charge. Can anybody believe that representation?

I am going to vote no on this tax bill. I urge others to. The individual items in this bill are good, but the overall policy is disastrous, and Joe Scarborough told the truth.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to inquire of the majority leader the schedule for the coming week.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

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

The gentleman has cited the marriage constitutional amendment. Mr. Speaker, this bill, as I understand it, has not been marked up in committee at this point in time. Is it the gentleman's expectation that this will come to the floor, the constitutional amendment, without being marked up in the committee?

I yield to the gentleman.

I am sorry? He does expect it to be brought to the floor without being marked up, but under a rule?

Mr. Speaker, I have not spoken to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) about that, but obviously, because it is a constitutional amendment, I understand there have been four hearings. Presumably those four hearings were an attempt to elicit some information about the merits of the constitutional amendment and any changes that may or may not be necessary, which could obviously be perfected by an amendment in the committee.

Does he expect any amendments to be considered in the Committee on Rules?

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

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

Next Friday is the beginning of the new fiscal year, as the majority leader knows; and we only passed, as he knows, one fiscal year 2005 appropriation which has been signed by the President, and that, of course, is the Defense bill. Assuming we will have a CR, can the leader give us an idea for what time period that CR may be?

I further yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that range of possibilities.

Does the gentleman anticipate having another supplemental appropriation before we either adjourn or recess for the election?

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

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

Another piece of business that has not been completed but is in the works or at least pending is the transportation reauthorization. Can the leader tell me whether or not there is an expectation of passing that bill or a relatively short-term extension prior to our leaving on whatever date we may leave?

I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. The gentleman had to leave early. I think he had a plane to catch. And the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and I had a colloquy on this. I will inform the leader that I think I am safe in speaking for my side of the aisle with reference to the transportation reauthorization. We believe, and I am sure the gentleman shares the view, that this is a very important piece of legislation to pass. We would have hoped it would have passed by last September when the authorization expired. This is a bill, as the gentleman knows, that for every billion dollars we spend, we get 42,000 American jobs.

My observation, Mr. Speaker, is that I believe on our side of the aisle we would support the number that passed, as we overwhelmingly did. We would vote for a compromise between what the House passed and what the Senate passed, or we would support the Senate-passed number. So I tell my friend that for his planning's sake, I believe my side of the aisle will support anything at the level that we passed at a compromise between the two or at the Senate-passed level. We would hope this bill would move, and we want to be cooperative in accomplishing that objective.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would partially agree with my friend, the leader, which is better than most times. I would partially agree that the problem is not in this House; but it is my observation that the problem is in another house, not the other side of the aisle.

White would be the color of the house. And I say that somewhat facetiously; but, frankly, as I said to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), I think this independent branch of government pretty much has a consensus on what we ought to do. We ought to do it, and if the other branch of government disagrees with us, under our system, he can send it back, and we will deal with it as we will deal with it. But we have been holding it, frankly, from our observation, Mr. Speaker, for a long period of time, not based upon real subsequent disagreements between the two Houses, we could accommodate those, but between the disagreement between this branch and the other branch; and we think that is unfortunate.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, and I appreciate the information, of course I do not have the specifics on what the house colored white agreed to in terms of a number; but I might inquire, is that number that they are keeping down the deficit more or less than the deficit we would add by the tax bill we passed just minutes ago?

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is what happened in 2001?

It even happened after 1993, as I recall. The gentleman did not mention that. It happened in 1994 or, that is to say, after 1993.

But, Mr. Speaker, revenue went up after they occurred, and we balanced the budget 4 years in a row.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, on the intelligence legislation, obviously there has been a lot of discussion about that. We have been very concerned

about passing that legislation in a bipartisan fashion. The 9/11 Commission report has now been on our desks for many weeks now.

Can the leader inform us of where that legislation currently stands?

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

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

I have not talked to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) or the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and I see the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) is on the floor, about the substance of the proposal; but I will certainly discuss it with them. I hope they have been included in these deliberations of a bill that may be introduced because if they have, I think it would make it easier for us to get it passed in a bipartisan fashion in a very efficient and speedy way.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further inquiries as to the schedule, and I appreciate the leader's engaging in somewhat the colloquy about the transportation bill, which we feel very keenly about. I hope that we can speed that bill as quickly as possible. I thank the leader for his comments.

Mr. Speaker, ``with the opening of the National Museum of the American Indian today, the sun shines a bit brighter on the National Mall. This long overdue addition to the Smithsonian is both an architectural and cultural feat achieved through hard work, imagination and perseverance of Native communities across the country. With its combination of traditional materials and state-of-the-art technological exhibits the museum is a true testament to native communities' commitment to moving forward while honoring the traditions of the past.

``Potomac is Algonkin for `where something is brought.' Therefore, it is fitting that today on the banks of the Potomac River the Native community brings our great nation the gift that is the National Museum of the American Indian. By meeting adversity with strength and a renewed commitment to the health, welfare and prosperity of their people and traditions, the Native community is an inspiration to all Americans.''

``While we celebrate the opening of the museum we must also take the time to recommit ourselves, our nation and our resources to helping Native communities across the country. The challenges of providing adequate housing, health care and education in Indian Country must be met with our full dedication and vigor. We must recommit ourselves to providing full ballot access to all of Indian country in this fall's election and support the efforts of the legal teams of the Native Vote 2004: Election Protection.

``In addition to dedicating ourselves to addressing the needs of the Native community, my Democratic colleagues and I are steadfastly committed to protecting tribal sovereignty and protecting the trust rights of all in Indian Country. The government-to-government relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes must be protected as we legislate and direct funds in Congress. We must honor our nation's responsibility to protect the land and resources of Native Americans fully and to the benefit of all in Indian Country.''

``It is a brighter day in our nation and in all of Indian Country on this opening day of the National Museum of the American Indian.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask for a separate vote on the Stenholm amendment trying to contain the national debt.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), for yielding me time.

I want to join the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) and others in congratulating the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for his leadership, his tenacious, unwavering leadership on this issue, calling the Congress's attention, calling America's attention, indeed, focusing the international community's attention on the genocide that is occurring before our eyes.

Mr. Speaker, the international community can no longer avert its eyes from the humanitarian and human rights catastrophe that is occurring in the Darfur region of Sudan today. Secretary of State Powell has labeled the killings in Darfur as genocide, pointing out that the attacks on innocent men, women, and children by the Sudanese government and the Arab militia group called the Janjaweed are part of a ``coordinated effort, not just random violence.'' This is an intentional, considered act of murder.

The United Nations calls the situation the ``world's worst humanitarian crisis.'' An estimated 30,000 civilians have been murdered. More than 400 villages have been destroyed. One million people have been displaced, and 130,000 have fled to neighboring Chad. And still, and still the international community stands on the sidelines.

Mr. Speaker, inaction in the face of genocide must not be an option. The international community and the United States must be prepared to act to end the armed conflict at the heart of this crisis. Regrettably, the U.N.'s record of responding to crises of this type and magnitude, notably in Rwanda and the Balkans, has been shameful, shameful. The United Nations talks about it, but it does not walk. The United Nations rings its hands but does not raise its hands to stop the killing.

I watched with grief as the United Nations blue helmets were on the ground in Bosnia, watching genocide be perpetrated, and they did nothing to stop it. We watched as the world, ourselves included, lamented what was happening in Rwanda and 800,000 defenseless, innocent souls perished because the mighty stood by and watched. History will not judge us well for that negligence.

Did the slaughter of hundreds of thousands 10 years ago not teach us anything? Does the painful memory of our inaction then not compel a different response today? The answer is muted at best.

We pass resolutions in this body. We talk in New York and people die. We continue to talk in New York and people are displaced. We continue to talk in New York and women are raped. We continue to talk in New York and children starve. Talk is cheap. Talk does not stop killing. Talk does not stop genocide.

It is time for the world to act. This resolution by itself will not diffuse the crisis or stop the bloodshed, but it is nevertheless a siren call to the world that we can no longer ignore the genocide, we can no longer rationalize those who commit it. We ought not to treat as citizens of the world and the United Nations nations who commit genocide.

This resolution is an explicit recognition that is not only a perverse, but a grotesque, situation that Sudan is allowed to retain its membership on the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. What kind of world do we live in where the perpetrator of genocide is included on the nations of the world's Commission on Human Rights? Is there no intellectual honesty in the international community?

This resolution would urge our Nation's representatives at the U.N. to seek the immediate suspension of Sudan from the commission. I would go further than that. I would suggest the immediate suspension of Sudan from membership in the United Nations until this genocide stops. But this resolution is appropriate. It is not enough, but it is a step; and I support it.

I thank my friend from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for his leadership and for his yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment. I thank him for his extraordinary leadership on the issue of fiscal responsibility in this country.

My presumption is that every conservative in the House of Representatives will vote for this. The President talked about who is conservative and who is liberal. It is conservative to be fiscally responsible.

Like the gentleman from Texas, I have supported a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. I am for investing in programs that I think help America, but I am for spending money that we have, and I am not for spending money that we do not have.

Quite simply, his amendment would force our Republican friends to come to grips with their irresponsible fiscal policies. They talk about balancing the budget, but they have not had a bill vetoed by this President that spent more money than we had, period; not one, not ever. And they are going to spend all of Social Security funds, they are going to spend all of the money that they borrow.

Just two months after taking office, President Bush promised the American people, ``We will pay off $2 trillion of debt over the next decade.'' He explained, quoting again, ``Future generations should not be forced to pay back money that we have borrowed.''

Amen, Mr. President. Why do you not practice what you preach?

Well, Mr. Chairman, the President and Congressional Republicans have run rough-shod over that rhetoric. They did not pay down the debt in 2002; they increased the debt limit by $450 billion. They did not pay down the debt in 2003; they increased the debt limit without a straight up or down vote, which they always demanded when they were in the minority, they increased it by $984 billion.

When I came to Congress, the entire debt from 1789 to 1981 was $985 billion, just $1 billion more than we raised it last year alone. Now the Treasury Secretary is back for more. He warns that the national debt will exceed the statutory debt limit, now $7.384 trillion, later this month or in October. As a result, our Republican friends desperately want the Treasury Department to temporarily dip into the retirement funds of Federal employees to avoid breaching the debt limit, for which they wanted to impeach Bob Rubin. What short memories they have.

Very simply, Mr. Chairman, the Stenholm amendment would prohibit the Secretary from doing that.

Mr. Chairman, the Republican party can run, but it cannot hide, from the debt disaster that its economic policies have caused. None of us will allow the United States to default on its obligations; none of us. But let us show some courage. If the debt limit must be increased, we should vote on it in the open, up or down.

I urge my colleagues to vote for the Stenholm amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California, Mr. Royce, as well as Chairman Hyde and Mr. Lantos from the International Relations Committee, for bringing this resolution before us today.

In recent weeks the world watched in shock and horror as terrorists brought down two Russian aircraft and detonated a deadly bomb at a Moscow train station. Russia is no stranger to the global war on terror; still the devastation and timing of these attacks were notable and shook the confidence of the Russian people.

But nothing prepared the world for the unspeakable act that was perpetrated in Beslan beginning the morning of September 1. On their way to the celebrate the first day of school, more than 1,100 schoolchildren, parents and teachers were taken hostage by approximately 30 armed terrorists. These innocent men, women and children were inhumanely held with no food or water for more than 52 hours, and their treatment at the hands of these terrorists was savage and cruel.

Tragically, the siege ended in a hail of bullets and series of explosions. In the end more than 355 innocent hostages were killed, including 156 children. Nearly 200 persons still remain unaccounted for amid the rubble of the school.

Let there be no mistake. These were not the actions of rebels or freedom fighters; these were the despicable and abhorrent acts of terrorists. As the Russian people attempt to come to terms with their loss and cope with the anguish inflicted by these loathsome individuals, may they find comfort in knowing they are in the thoughts and prayers of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, the heart-wrenching scenes of parents frantically searching for missing children, or mourning the loss of their children have steeled the resolve of the United States to stand with the people of Russia, and rededicate ourselves to rooting out these cowardly terrorists from every corner of the world.

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the distinguished minority whip the schedule for the week to come.

I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

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

Apparently we are going to do some suspension bills on Tuesday, and then we will go back to the Transportation-Treasury appropriation bill?

Mr. Speaker, my question is in light of the fact that general debate and most of the bill has been objected to or much it has been objected to, there are still pending amendments. At what time do we need to advise Members who have amendments that are pending that they must be here? Obviously we are starting at 2. There are suspension bills, but can we give them some perhaps target time that they should be here to protect themselves in the offering of those amendments?

Mr. Speaker, I will so advise Members.

Mr. Whip, you indicated some of the legislation we are going to consider, and you did not specifically mention Friday. Can the gentleman advise us at this time what the intention is for Friday of next week?

Mr. Speaker, assuming on Tuesday or Wednesday we pass the Transportation-Treasury bill, that will leave only the VA-HUD bill pending from the Committee on Appropriations from the House perspective. Can the gentleman advise us whether or not the VA-HUD bill may be coming to the floor next week? It was not mentioned for next week, but the week following?

Are you pretty confident it will not be on the floor next week?

Mr. Whip, we are approximately 15 days from the end of the fiscal year. The only appropriation bill signed by the President is the defense bill, leaving 12 appropriation bills still pending. Presumably we are either going to do something that would be extraordinary, passing those bills within the time frame left to us, which I guess is 6 or 7 legislative days at most, or passing some type of CR or omnibus. Can the gentleman advise the House as to what the leadership's current thinking is on how we are going to proceed as we approach the end of the fiscal year on September 30?

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman, if a CR is needed and the appropriation bill does not move forward or some omnibus does not move forward, can the leadership inform us as to how long a period of time they may be contemplating a CR would cover?

Reclaiming my time, we are all enthusiastic about that objective. We are now 9\1/2\ months into pursuing that objective and it has not happened yet, but perhaps it will.

But let me ask the gentleman more pointedly, I suppose, as it relates to the length of the CR, it is my understanding that there was some expression from the highest junctures of leadership in his party that a lame duck session was not particularly favored by the leadership but we hear rumors about possibly having a lame duck, that possibly being sometime in mid-November when his organization and probably ours will be scheduled. Can the gentleman shed any light on his current thinking, in light of the fact we have 15 days left to go in the fiscal year and about, I suppose, another 20 or 25 days left before we presumably will recess or adjourn prior to the elections, as to whether or not there is a substantial probability or possibility of a lame duck session?

A couple of other questions, if I might, Mr. Speaker.

The transportation bill is one of those conferences that the gentleman referred to that is pending that possibly will come back. If it does not come back next week, does the gentleman contemplate having an additional extension? The present extension, as the gentleman knows, expires very shortly in terms of the continuation of the previous authorization of the highway bill. Does the gentleman contemplate having another extension? And, if so, has there been discussion about how long a period of time that might be for?

Reclaiming my time, I appreciate that objective and I want to tell the whip, as I have, I think privately, that this side of the aisle will be very supportive of, I think, any figure that the majority can agree among itself, the White House, the Senate and the House, between the House-passed bill which passed overwhelmingly in a bipartisan fashion and in fact, of course, as the gentleman knows, Democrats, Chairman Young and all of the Republican members and Democratic members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure believe we ought to have a substantially higher number to meet the needs of the Nation than was passed here or passed in the Senate. My representation to the

gentleman from Missouri would be that I think that the votes will be there on our side for, I hear a figure of very close to $300 billion being mentioned. I think on this side of the aisle in talking to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), we will be obviously substantially influenced by what the gentleman from Minnesota recommends as our ranking member but we would be very, I think, supportive and we could forge a significant majority to send that bill down to the President and have the President consider it.

As the gentleman knows, every $1 billion that we have in that bill creates 42,000 jobs here in America. We believe that bill is very important. We would have hoped it would have passed last year, but I want to tell my friend that he and I have the similar responsibilities of trying to count votes and I think we will have the overwhelming majority of our people for a bill. If we just split the difference between the Senate and the House, which is essentially what is being talked about, I think we would support it on this side of the aisle. I hope the gentleman's Members would support it on his side of the aisle, we send it to the President and obviously the executive, a coequal but separate branch of government, would have to make its determination as to what it wanted to do. I do not know if that is a possibility but I think we could work together in a bipartisan fashion to get that done.

I yield to my friend if he wants to make a comment.

Reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman has put his finger on the impasse, and that is the White House. I think frankly the Congress can reach agreement on this and I think we ought to. I urge the majority reaching consensus in the Congress and, as a separate and coequal branch of government, sending our judgment down to the White House. Obviously the White House then has its full prerogatives to exercise its judgment. But we have waited far too long on that, I believe.

The last question or the last inquiry I would make of the whip is there has been a lot of talk, of course, about the middle-class tax cuts. I think both sides of the aisle feel very strongly that we want to make sure the middle-class tax cuts continue. In particular, we have focused on the child tax credit, as the gentleman knows. There has been a lot of discussion back and forth. That has been held up for a very long period of time, particularly extension to those families making up to $26,000. There are some 200,000 service families, as the gentleman knows, that are not qualifying for the child tax credit at this point in time.

Can the gentleman tell us whether or not he has any optimism about that conference report coming back to us anytime soon?

I thank the gentleman for that information.

I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his generous yielding of time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my concern about the funding in this bill. I realize the chairman's hands are tied by the allocation given to the subcommittee which is in turn driven by the budget resolution passed by the House earlier this year, but not passed by the Congress. I thank Chairman Young and Ranking Member Obey for doing the best they could with the limited resources available to this committee, but this committee did not have sufficient funds to meet its responsibilities.

This highlights the fact that the decisions we make about the budget and taxes have real consequences. With this bill today, we unfortunately see one major result of our decisions. We have failed to live up to the commitments we made to our constituents.

I am, however, pleased in certain instances that we have followed the President's recommendation. The FDA consolidation which we are about has been included in the bill, an extraordinarily important effort that a bipartisan effort of the administration and the Congress has pursued. These funds will go a long way in helping to relocate FDA employees from their current substandard facilities into modern, state-of-the-art facilities. The consolidation would bring to an end the practice of extending costly leases for various FDA offices throughout the region. We in fact will save money as a result of this.

On the other hand, I am deeply disappointed that the bill does not provide any election reform grants. We have funded the commission. That is appropriate. We had a press conference this morning with the president of the National Association of Secretaries of State. One of the most important things that remains left to do on election reform is revising the statewide election system of recording registrants and having those registrants available to each and every precinct. The grants that are due under the authorization are not included in this bill.

The administration, in my opinion, Mr. Chairman, must show a stronger commitment to election reform, including calling for more funding, if this Nation is to avoid a repeat of the 2000 election debacle. We will not do anything between now and November 2 with this money; but very frankly the registration that we require in the bill be a statewide system must be online

by January of 2006. That is a very brief period of time, some 14 months from now.

And if we do not fully fund the authorization, I fear the States will not meet that deadline. We made a promise to the States that the efforts to address the most serious deficiencies in their electoral systems would not turn into another unfunded federal mandate. By failing to fund fully the commitment of the authorization bill, we have mandated something and we have not helped pay for it.

Also, Mr. Chairman, I remain concerned that the proposed funding for tax law enforcement is insufficient to adequately enforce compliance and make our tax system fair and efficient. I am also disappointed there are no funds to reimburse small airports in the Washington region for the losses incurred when the Federal Government shut them down. I have had extensive discussions with the chairman on this issue. There is some language in the bill that hopefully will make this a conferencable item, but I will tell the chairman once again and I will tell the chairman of the caucus it is ironic that small business people who have invested and taken a risk in being entrepreneurs, as the majority party says it supports, are left hanging in the wind by governmental action and, through no fault of their own, none, zero, find themselves one of the few people who have not been reimbursed for the losses they have incurred. That is, I think, ironic and wrong.

While the bill recognizes that the Department of Transportation should consider ways to reimburse general aviation, the failure to provide funds will only leave small airports, specifically College Park, Potomac, and Washington Executive, dangling on the brink of financial ruin. We should do more for general aviation and small business, what we did for the airlines, large airports, and the insurance industry in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks, help ease the burden our actions have caused. Those actions were caused by terrorists.

I urge the chairman to include funds for general aviation reimbursement as we move forward to make fair restitution to the small airports.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, the failure to provide funds for DOT headquarters is short-sighted, in my opinion, and leaves the Department of Transportation headquartered in an aging building with an infrastructure well beyond the end of its useful life. I urge the chairman to correct this oversight, and we ought to look for the resources to do that.

I appreciate the committee's hard work, and I hope we can make some changes and make this a better bill. And I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the leader had to leave early to catch a plane. So for the purpose of inquiring of the chairman of the Committee on Rules the schedule for the coming week, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

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

I might ask, and I know it will be the leader and the leader's office, but part of the leader's distinguished staff is on the floor, so he will hear us. I know my friend from California will be appreciative of this.

As I understand it, one of the planes to California is at 2:55, or late, just before 3. This says ``early afternoon.'' The request on our side has been that if we could try to conclude by 1:30 so they could get from here to Dulles in time to catch that plane, so, of course, they could get home by sunset, if we could try to do that?

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

With today's vote, the House and the Senate have now both gone on record in a bipartisan fashion in overruling the overtime regulations which were perceived obviously by a majority of the House and a majority of the other body as putting at risk millions of Americans losing their overtime.

In light of the fact that the House has passed that and the Senate has also passed it, not in the same bill, can we expect, does the gentleman think, that the conference report will reflect the views of both Houses? We are very hopeful, of course, that that will be honored by the conference committee.

I would be glad to yield further.

Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's observation. Our concerns, of course, as the gentleman can well imagine, are based upon the fact that, for instance, in the air traffic controller situation, both Houses of the Congress overwhelmingly, almost unanimously, directed that they not be outsourced or privatized. Notwithstanding that, that was dropped from the conference report.

So we would just, on behalf of the minority, strongly request that the majority vote, bipartisan vote, in the House, be supported by our conferees. That is not a motion to instruct. It was a very strong vote, almost 40 of the majority, of the Republicans, and an overwhelming majority of Democrats. I hope that would be honored.

I yield further to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks.

Next week, the gentleman indicated, and we knew this was going to be on the schedule, the Transportation-Treasury appropriations bill will be on the floor. That is the 12th of 13 appropriations bills to be considered by the House, leaving only the VA-HUD bill to be the last to be brought to the floor.

The first question, and this may be unfair because this does not fall within your expertise, but perhaps you can be advised. When do you expect the VA-HUD bill, if there is an indication of when that might be on the floor?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that observation. I will tell the gentleman that the joint leadership, the Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), and myself were at the White House earlier this week, as the gentleman probably knows, and met with the President. But the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations in the other body observed that we may hold over 11 of the appropriation bills until next year. Now, that is a process that we have followed in the last 2 years because we have obviously passed the majority of appropriations bills in the year after the fiscal year began, in January and February, as the gentleman recalls.

I am wondering, can the gentleman tell me, if we have some 3 weeks left, are we contemplating the passage of the 13 appropriations bills prior to adjournment, or are we planning on a continuing resolution or an omnibus appropriation bill of some type?

Reclaiming my time, the gentleman is correct, we will want to work closely with you to accomplish that goal.

Let me ask you an additional question raised by your response. Would there be in the realm of contemplation on the majority side a lame duck session? When you refer to this calendar year, as I said, we have 3 weeks, maybe 4, I am not sure how long the majority intends to go prior to recessing or adjourning for the election, but does the majority, if the gentleman knows, contemplate the possibility of a lame duck session?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Reclaiming my time, I would simply request that, realizing the vagaries of the legislative process make it difficult to determine, but just as obviously Members will be making up schedules for the post-election period, either to take time off after the election or for other family-related matters or district matters that they might have. The sooner we might give them notice of that, obviously the more helpful on both sides of the aisle that would be.

I thank the gentleman for that response.

This week, after a long August recess, bipartisan bills were introduced to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission with regard to reorganizing the intelligence operations of our country in order to better protect our people and our country. Earlier this week we met, as I said to the gentleman, with the President, who asked us to send him legislation quickly.

The reason for my question is, the Democratic leader, after requesting participation by your side of the aisle and a determination was made not to participate, introduced legislation drafted to incorporate the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. In addition to that, Mr. McCain and Mr. Lieberman have introduced legislation in the Senate. Mirror legislation has been introduced by a Member on your side and a Member on our side as well.

The President, as you know, changed his position on the budget authority for the National Intelligence Director and apparently now supports that, so there may well be good bipartisan White House- congressional agreement.

Clearly the American public are very concerned about this, we are very concerned about it, and I know the gentleman is very concerned about it. We want to put our intelligence community in the best possible posture, as the 9/11 Commission recommended, to respond to the terrorist threat to this country.

My question is, therefore, sir, can we expect, do you think, to perhaps take the bipartisan bills that have been introduced in both the Senate and the House, mirror images of one another, and work on those bills and pass them prior to the time that we either recess or adjourn prior to the election?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for those comments. We are hopeful that we can in fact work together in a bipartisan fashion, as seems to be started by the Senate and in this House as well, to accomplish the objective of the early passage of a reorganization to make us better to respond to the terrorist threat to this country. We hope that that will happen.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding me this time.

I start by reiterating the observation that the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), has made. It is very nice to get up and say with a chart, this is what we have spent. Those figures are undoubtedly accurate. What is not accurate, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) so correctly pointed out, was that those were not the figures that the Republican House budget proposed in years past. In point of fact, when they talk about the 10-year period of time, the fight almost every year between the Clinton administration and the Republican House and sometimes Senate was that we had not put in sufficient funds to meet our obligations as it relates to education, Title I and other educational objectives. Invariably, the President got his way. So, yes, the figures are higher, but they are not higher because the Republican Committee on the Budget proposed them as such.

Mr. Chairman, this bill, in my opinion, fails to meet the crucial priorities that the citizens of this great Nation expect and deserve in education, in health care, in medical research, and in many other areas, including the promotion of the quality and safety of work in America.

But as I have said before, this is not the fault, and I reiterate, not the fault of the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula). The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) neither sits on the Budget Committee, nor, in my opinion, was he very enthusiastic about the Committee on the Budget's product. And it is certainly not the fault of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). As a matter of fact, earlier this year the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) made the correct observation that the budget was not real, and the numbers projected in the budget were insufficient to meet the obligations of the Committee on Appropriations to provide for the needs of the American people. That was the chairman of our committee speaking.

Instead, this bill's deficiencies have been caused by the Republican majority's irresponsible and unrealistic budget resolution for fiscal year 2005. This is not an unusual budget resolution. It is a political document, not a fiscal document. It was made for the purposes of making political points, not for investing in our people. It abandons fiscal discipline and makes crucial investments in the American people virtually impossible.

One would think that, because the Republicans have been in charge and they have proposed not spending appropriate funds even though they say they are going to, that we would have saved a lot of dollars. But in point of fact, as the whole country knows, we have been going deeply into debt over the last 40 months. In fact, the President's acceptance speech in New York says he wants fiscal restraint, but he has led this country, along with the Republican majority in this House and this Senate, from a $5.6 trillion surplus to a $3 trillion to $4 trillion deficit in 40 months. That is almost a $10 trillion turnaround from fiscal responsibility to fiscal irresponsibility in less than 4 years.

Despite the rhetoric coming from the other side of the aisle, the inescapable fact is that this bill underfunds the bipartisan No Child Left Behind Act by at least $9.5 billion this year. That is in the authorization bill, they imposed a mandate on the States. I supported that bill. We want accountability, we want performance, we want quality education for every one of our children. We said we are going to require you to do certain things, States, but we are going to give you resources to help you accomplish those objectives. We are $9.5 billion short in that promise, and $25 billion short over the last 3 years, short from what the President, in signing the authorization bill, said we were going to do.

Unfortunately, we are falling behind in other areas as well. At a time when this Congress and this administration proudly tout the doubling of National Institutes of Health just a few years ago, NIH today only gets the President's request level. This represents the smallest increase in NIH funding in 19 years. As all of our citizens know, NIH is charged with the responsibility of finding a cure for cancer, making heart disease less fatal, finding a cure for diabetes, seeing if we can find how to prevent Alzheimer's disease, and responding to the AIDS crisis in this country and around the world.

We are short-funding those critical efforts that afflict and threaten our people. Moreover, it is simply not enough to keep up with the medical inflation and will force NIH to lose momentum on the scientific progress they gained from the doubling that Republicans and Democrats all so proudly talked about.

In addition, Head Start, a program that Ronald Reagan said was a success, George Bush I said it was a success, and Bill Clinton clearly said it was a success, is cut by $45 million below the President's request. Thousands of children will have no seat in Head Start, notwithstanding the fact that we think it works. Ryan White HIV/AIDS programs are largely frozen. The maximum Pell grant is frozen. And the Department of Labor is slated for an overall cut of $98 million.

My friends, this bill is insufficient. It may well be better than a continuing resolution, but it is insufficient to meet our obligations and responsibilities. How sad it is that we pass the people's bill with insufficient resources to meet the people's needs.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Mike Bessler, the Chief Publications Clerk with the Office of Official Reporters under the Clerk of the House.

Mike will be retiring on July 30 after 23 years of service to the House making sure our committee transcripts are accurate, properly bound and delivered on time. I am pleased to have this opportunity to commend one of my constituents for his outstanding service to this institution.

Originally from the Bronx, New York, Mike served a 4-year tour in the Air Force, stationed at Wright Patterson in Ohio and Shemya in the Aleutian Islands.

He was finally discharged from Andrews Air Force Base, and with his wife, Peggy decided to stay in the Washington, D. C. area, where he spent over a decade in the private sector before being hired by the Office of Official Reporters in January 1981. He has served in that office with distinction ever since.

Mike has spent his years working closely with the House committees to ensure their satisfaction with the transcripts. Through his dedicated supervision of the Publications Office, he has been the quintessential dedicated public servant.

Those who worked with him are privileged to have worked with an individual of Mike's level of professionalism.

Mike and Peggy are the proud parents of two daughters, Michelle and Kelly, and doting grandparents of Erica, Ezra and Zoe.

Mike looks forward to spending time with them and enjoying gardening, home projects, and devoting more time to a lifelong fascination with film and movies.

Thank you, Mike, for your many years of dedicated, professional service to the House and the country. Best wishes to you and Peggy in your retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Salvatore and Myra Raspa of St. Mary's County, Maryland for their leadership as outstanding educators and service to their community.

In 1961, Sal was employed as a science and chemistry teacher at Great Mills High School. After teaching for seven years, he was appointed Assistant Principal and in 1978 became Principal of Great Mills High School. He later became Supervisor of Instruction for Science and Health with the Department of Curriculum and Instruction, St. Mary's County Public Schools. He was also Supervisor of Transportation and Assistant Superintendent before his retirement from the St. Mary's County Public Schools in 1999 after 38 years of service.

Dr. Raspa was dedicated to his profession and accordingly received numerous awards and commendations such as recognition from the VFW for Outstanding Achievement and Exceptional Leadership in the Community, the Governor's Citation for Outstanding Commitment to Public Education, recognition from the Naval Air Warfare Center and The Maryland Science Center, and the Joint Board of Science and Engineering Education Award as an Outstanding Educator. He also received the Governor's Award for Voluntary Service in Prevention of Drugs and Alcohol as well as the American Legion Award for Contribution to Youth in St. Mary's County and special recognition from Lions Clubs International for Promoting Drug Awareness Programs--Skills for Adolescence.

Myra Raspa began her teaching career as an English and Publications teacher at Leonardtown High School, where she was responsible for publishing two major publications: The History and Culture of the Chesapeake Bay and The Heritage/History of The St. Mary's County Fair. During her 20 years with the St. Mary's County Public Schools, she also received several awards and citations, such as the Citation from the Southern Maryland Legislative Delegation for ``Outstanding Educator and for Contribution to Youth'', the Governor's Citation for ``Excellence in Education'', Recognition from Comptroller Louis L. Goldstein for Exemplary Publication, The Heritage, Citation from St. Mary's County Commissioners for ``Outstanding Contribution to Students of St. Mary's County'', St. Mary's Board of Education Certification of Recognition for ``Outstanding Contribution to Student Achievement'', St. Mary's Award to Recognize Talent in Teachers, The St. Mary's Council on Children and Youth ``Outstanding Contribution to Youth'', recognition from Dr. David W. Hornbeck, State Superintendent of Schools for ``Outstanding Educator'', and National Council of Teachers of English for ``Outstanding Publication'', and a Commendation from Senator C. Bernard Fowler, Senator of Maryland, for ``Exemplary Contribution to Youth,'' and a Commendation from the Environmental Matters Committee for ``Excellence in Education.'' She is currently an Instructional Resource with the Department of Curriculum and Instruction with a focus on high schools.

Mr. Speaker, dedicated educators like Sal and Myra Raspa are today's hope for a better tomorrow. They are the role models to whom students and others within their workplace and their community look for guidance and support. By pointing students in the right direction, such educators contribute to the future accomplishments of their students.

They have applied this commitment to molding children's future to their own home, as well. Myra and Sal's children are Sal, Jr., Joseph-- deceased, Scott, Angela, Victor, and Anthony. Myra Raspa had to undergo a major juggling act between continuing her education and taking her children to Boy Scouts, band practice, football practice, wrestling practice, swimming lessons, and so forth. All the children attended Great Mills High School and were given their diplomas by their father during his tenure as Principal there. All are college graduates and are successful and are

contributing to society. Sal and Myra consider their children their major accomplishments.

As busy as Sal and Myra were, they still took the time to find a way to involve the entire family in a tobacco farming business for a number of years when the children were teenagers, even venturing into an experimental curing process which was monitored by the University of Maryland. The Raspas also operated an air conditioning and refrigeration business at one time.

The Raspas have constantly demonstrated their commitment to service through their participation in other civic activities in St. Mary's County. Sal served four terms on the Democratic Central Committee and served as chair for two terms. He belongs to the Lexington Park Lions Club and received the Melvin Jones Award in 2002, which is the highest award given by Lions Club International. He was elected to the St. Mary's County Board of Education in 2002 and currently holds the position of Vice Chairman.

Myra has been active on many county and state committees including the State Department of Education Standards Setting Committee for English; the Maryland Assessment Consortium; the Gifted and Talented Task Force; Integrated Support Team; PreK-12 Intervention Task Force; Project SMART Grant Advisory Committee; MSPAP MEGA-TASK Developer; Content Coordinator for English/Language Arts/Writing MEGA-TASK, Maryland State Department of Education; and TASK-WRITER for High School Assessments, Maryland State Department.

Both Sal and Myra Raspa are still very active in St. Mary's County and continue to advocate for children. They believe in contributing for the betterment of the community. Mr. Speaker, on this day I wish Dr. and Mrs. Raspa well in their future pursuits.

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

I supported the Defense of Marriage Act. I rise now in the defense of the Constitution of the United States. I rise now in defense of the separation of powers. I rise now in defense of a Nation of laws, not of men and women.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to seriously consider the ramifications of the legislation under consideration.

If this bill becomes law, it will represent the first time in our history that Congress has enacted legislation that completely bars any Federal court, including the United States Supreme Court, from considering the constitutionality of Federal legislation. Thus, it contradicts the Supreme Court's historic ruling more than 200 years ago in Marbury v. Madison, which enunciated the principle of Federal judicial review of Federal laws and established the separation of powers doctrine.

How dramatically different has that made America than every other nation in the world, in fact? A Nation of laws.

In Marbury, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote: ``It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.''

This legislation, however, would undue the deference and respect that Congress has given to the principle of judicial review. It would intrude upon the principle of separation of powers; and as a result, I believe it is unconstitutional.

This legislation also would undermine the independent Federal judiciary. Even the majority's witness, hear me colleagues, the witness called by the majority, Professor Redish, said that if Congress strips the courts of jurisdiction it would, the majority's own witness, ``risk undermining public faith in both Congress and the Federal courts.'' That was your witness, not ours.

And there is little doubt that this bill would set a dangerous precedent.

The author of the Defense of Marriage Act, one of the most conservative Members that has served in this Congress, Bob Barr, said this: ``My main concern with H.R. 3313 is that it will lay the path for the sponsors of unconstitutional legislation to simply add the language from H.R. 3313 to their bills.'' Bob Barr, the sponsor of the Defense of Marriage Act, said that.

If this end-run of judicial review becomes law, what is next? No judicial review of laws restricting freedom of speech or religion or laws affecting the right to vote?

I was elected to the Maryland State Senate in 1966. One of the first bills I voted on in January of 1967 was to repeal the miscegenation statutes that then were on the Maryland books. America has nevertheless stood strong.

Let us reject this undermining of what America stands for, a Nation of laws, not of men and women.