Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman from California, the ranking member of the committee, for yielding time; and I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for her statement.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this important bipartisan resolution, which the majority leader (Mr. DeLay) and I have offered along with the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).

This is a balanced resolution, Mr. Speaker, that will further the cause of peace in the Middle East, enhance the security of our staunch ally, the democratic State of Israel, and move the Palestinian people closer to the realization of a homeland of their own. In short, this resolution does two things. First, it strongly endorses the principles for Middle East peace articulated by President Bush in his April 14 letter to Prime Minister Sharon.

The Members may recall that the President's letter welcomed Prime Minister Sharon's disengagement plan calling for the withdrawal of military installations and settlements from Gaza and the West Bank. The President believes that this plan will make a real contribution towards peace, and so do I. This plan in my view is a bold, historic opportunity to break the deadlock in Israeli-Palestinian relations. In addition, the President, among other things, reaffirmed the United States' commitment to the implementation of the road map to Middle East peace; reiterated in the strongest terms our commitment to Israel's security; insisted that the Palestinian side immediately cease all acts of violence and terror against Israel and her citizens; expressed our support for the establishment of a Palestinian state that is viable, contiguous, sovereign, and independent; recognized that in light of the reality, on the ground it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949; and in addition indicated that any final status will need to include the establishment of a Palestinian state and the settling of Palestinian refugees there rather than in Israel.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, this resolution supports continuing efforts by the international community to build the capacity and will of Palestinian institutions to fight terrorism, dismantle terrorist organizations, and prevent the areas from which Israel has withdrawn from posing a threat to the security of Israel.

Mr. Speaker, the plight of the Palestinian people must concern all of us. Their cause has been diminished by depraved and corrupt leaders, led by Yasser Arafat, who employ the tactic of terror, insight their people to hate, and refuse to seek peace, thereby tragically relegating their own people to poverty and severe insecurity. In fact, it is this absence of leadership on the Palestinian side, the absence of a sincere negotiating partner, that spurred Prime Minister Sharon to propose his recent disengagement plan, which is supported not only by President Bush, but also by John Kerry and Members on both sides of the aisle here.

Thus again, Mr. Speaker, Israel has stepped up and shown its willingness to take risks for peace and security. And let no one be mistaken about the special relationship that has existed between our two nations since the State of Israel was founded. Ours is a relationship of principle and conscience, of shared values and common aspirations, of peace and opportunity, and of a mutual commitment to freedom and democracy.

This resolution, Mr. Speaker, is an important statement by this House. I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 676, which recognizes and honors the 40th anniversary of congressional passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

On July 2nd, we will mark the passage of this historic act, which finally guaranteed equal rights for minorities in America. It is hard to believe that it was only 40 years ago when, facing prejudice and stubborn odds, President Lyndon Johnson guided the Civil Rights Act through the House and Senate and signed into law legislation that guaranteed rights that so many of our fellow citizens had been denied.

The Act made racial discrimination in public placed illegal and established standards to thwart the rigged voting system in the South. It also required employers to provide equal employment opportunities no matter a person's race. Projects involving federal funds could be halted if there was evidence of discrimination based on color, race or national origin. These are things inherent in our society today, but for much of the 20th century, these protections only existed for white Americans--not blacks.

Mr. Speaker, were it not for the unshakable faith and fierce determination of members of the civil rights movement--many who literally sacrificed their lives--the Civil Rights Act may have taken many more years to arrive.

Our own colleague, and my good friend, Senior Chief Deputy Whip John Lewis, was one of the leaders of that civil rights movement. He was just out of his teens when he was beaten because of his participation in the Freedom Rides. Yet he was not deterred. At the age of 23, he joined Dr. King on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial for the March on Washington, and in the years that followed, he continued the fight for freedom and human rights, despite more than 40 arrests, physical attacks and serious injuries.

In the years that followed its passage, the Civil Rights Act opened doors and created opportunities for black and minority Americans that were long overdue. With federal protections, blacks could attend any school or university, be hired for any job, and finally enjoy the Constitutional freedoms so many of us take for granted.

However, Mr. Speaker, despite much progress, minority Americans still struggle for equal access and advancement. Right now we face a struggling economy that is not producing enough jobs, and it has imposed even greater hardships on minorities. Since March 2000, black unemployment has soared to nearly 11 percent, almost double that of

whites. And there is still a glaring wage gap confronting minorities in the workforce. Black men earned 73.9 percent of what white men earned in 2002, measured by median full-time wages and salaries. That's barely up from 73.4 percent a decade ago.

In our health system, minorities still repeatedly receive inferior care. Last year's Institute of Medicine report found that health care delivery is very unequal depending on the race or ethnicity of the patient. That inequality is thought to be a major reason that African- Americans frequently have worse health outcomes than whites. The black infant mortality rate in fact remains twice as high as the white rate, and 20 percent of black Americans lack regular access to health care compared with less than 16 percent of whites.

Without early and advanced education, individuals face a great handicap in this world. Yet in our school system today separate and unequal is still the reality in far too many places. Even in higher education, there exists a large gap between the percentage of whites with a college degree and the percentage of blacks.

So Mr. Speaker, today let us acknowledge that the Civil Rights Acts we passed in Congress was a crucial step forward for our Nation. Our laws require vigilance so that every citizen has an equal shot at the American dream. As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said, ``Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable . . . Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering, and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals.''

Today, we must redouble our commitment to the Civil Rights Act and the America envisioned by John Lewis and every citizen who fought for equal rights four decades ago, and continue the effort for justice and equality. We have not yet reached the Promised Land, but it is up to us to ensure that America achieves the full measure of its promise.

Mr. Speaker, 11 years ago, the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), stood on this House floor and here is what he said: ``Here we are being asked this week to raise the debt ceiling so that this government can go on borrowing

money to take care of its spending habits, and I think that is outrageous. I hope Members of the House will vote against raising the debt ceiling.'' So said the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) the majority leader.

He went on to say, ``And I hope the American people will contact the Members of this House, Mr. Speaker, and urge them to vote against raising the debt ceiling.''

Now, the Chair of the conference, Republican conference said this: ``You see, certain lawmakers around this place have hopes of hiding a debt limit increase in a jungle of budget resolutions and conference reports. Mr. Speaker,'' said the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) chairman of the Republican conference, ``before we give them license to start construction, we must demand a separate vote on increasing the debt limit.''

I ask the distinguished lady from the Committee on Rules, are we doing that?

Well, my friends, the Republican leadership, is that your position today? Are you urging Members to vote against raising the debt ceiling for the third time in three years under your watch? Under Bill Clinton's watch in the last 4 years of his Presidency, we raised the debt limit not once. Not once. Under Ronald Reagan we raised it 17 times. In the 4 years of George Bush 1 we raised it 10 times. Under this president, this is the fourth increase and it is going to be probably somewhere in the neighborhood of $2 trillion additional debt that the children of America will be called upon to pay. And we do it without a vote.

This rule is a good rule. It should be passed unanimously. But just as they did last week in trying to pass their awful tax bill, they put things in to try to sweeten the pot. But this time you put it in to try to hide it.

Contrary to what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) said, contrary to what the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) said, contrary to what the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) has said, you are going to hide this vote because you do not have the courage to stand up and say I want to increase the debt, I want to undermine Social Security, I want to undermine Medicare. I do not want to be honest with the American public.

It is called situational ethics. It is not about ethics; it is about the situation. It is about whether we think it works. We ought to reject this rule. It is not right. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) said vote ``no.'' The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) said no. Let us vote ``no.''

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding. Rather than prolong the debate, I want to adapt that which has been put forward by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) in sponsoring this, and adopt the gentleman's remarks as well, and simply say that I think the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and the gentleman

from Washington (Mr. Dicks) have put their finger on it.

We abrogated essentially laws, statutes passed by the Congress, signed by the Presidents of the United States, without reviewing the changes that would be put before us and would impact on our Federal employees. That is all I think the sponsors are asking for the opportunity to do, and I would hope that the Members on both sides of the aisle would adopt this amendment, proceed in that fashion over the next year, and have the opportunity to review the changes that are suggested.

I thank the gentleman from Washington State, who has been a giant on behalf of Federal employees during our careers here, and I thank him for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I want to rise and thank the chairman and the ranking member for accepting the amendment that I offered in full committee on torture, and I want to speak just for a few minutes on that amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the American people watched with shock and horror, as all of us did, as the photos of physical and psychological abuse being inflicted upon Iraqi detainees at the hands of U.S. military personnel were broadcast for the world to see.

Many Members of the House have subsequently expressed their outrage, frankly, and disgust at the acts of torture that took place at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

Some, Mr. Chairman, believe there has been an overreaction, that we are spending too much time on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I disagree with that view. We must move beyond the mere expressions of outrage, and we must uncover the facts surrounding the torture that occurred at Abu Ghraib, and perhaps at other places as well.

Why? To undermine our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq? Absolutely not.

To in any way cast doubt on the integrity, courage and good conduct of the thousands of men and women who wear our uniform? Absolutely not.

But we must do so, Mr. Chairman, to emphatically affirm the values for which we fight. These actions represent a grave breach of decades of international and domestic law, and those involved in allowing or in creating an atmosphere in which such actions may seem to be condoned must be held as accountable as those who perpetrated them.

Does a 20-year-old army private decide to put a dog leash on a nude Iraqi detainee and parade him in front of the others and photograph him? I think not.

Do young military guards decide to release guards on detainees? I hope not and I think not.

Secretary Rumsfeld's recent admission of his own violation of the Geneva Convention ordering the secret detention of an Iraqi prisoner for 7 months raises serious questions about the extent of the coordination of the treatment of prisoners of war and detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay.

The international reaction to these actions damaged our standing in the world. It has undermined our credibility. It has made the already difficult job of securing a broader coalition of support in Iraq and achieving our objectives in Iraq, which I have consistently supported and support to this day, it makes that more difficult, and it has increased the danger of Americans in Iraq and around the world.

While it is true that torture is a clear violation of American and international law, that is not the reason that the United States of America renounces its use.

While it is true that torture undermines our credibility and increases the danger to any Americans traveling abroad, that is not the reason that we renounce its use.

While it is true that torture produces entirely unreliable information, that is not the reason that we renounce its use.

In fact, in a field manual 3452, a 1992 field manual still in force and serves as a basic primer for students and instructors in the army that outlines the Army's doctrine for conducting interrogations, it in the final analysis says this: Imagine that a technique was being applied to American prisoners of war, and ask yourself if it would be consistent with U.S. law. If a doubt still remains as to the legality of a proposed action, seek a legal opinion from your servicing judge advocate.

In other words, do not do these things if you think they would violate U.S. law.

There is another standard that was set forth in a manual of the Army which I thought made a lot of common sense. And it said to them if you would not want an American detainee or prisoner treated in the way you are treating a prisoner, do not do it.

Mr. Chairman, the United States of America renounces the use of torture and mistreatment of prisoners of war and other detainees because it is contrary to the principles upon which the Nation was founded, contrary to our commitment to human rights, and contrary to the value we place on the dignity of all people.

Torture, Mr. Chairman, is quite simply un-American. It is alien to who we are as a people. And where others may seek to rationalize its use, we must not. We must make clear to those who are watching, both friends and foe, that we do not tolerate the behavior that took place, that we will hold accountable all those who are responsible. And that it is not now, nor will it be, the policy of this great and good Nation to sanction the use of torture.

Mr. Chairman, today through language that was included in the fiscal 2005 defense appropriation act for which, again, I thank the chairman and ranking member, we again take an essential step by reaffirming that torture is, in fact, illegal under American and international law, that it is not consistent with American values, and that it is not a policy accepted by the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I take this time for the purposes of requesting of the majority leader information regarding the schedule for the week to come, and I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority leader, for the purposes of giving us the schedule.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, the majority leader mentioned two appropriations bills scheduled for next week: Defense and Energy and Water. Can the gentleman tell us on what days he anticipates those bills to be on the floor, and does he anticipate that they will come to the floor under the customary open rules?

I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information. The second question was, under traditional open rules, can we expect to consider them under such rules?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that response and I thank the gentleman for that procedure.

With respect to the Intelligence Authorization bill, the gentleman has listed that bill for next week. Under what procedures will this be considered and, specifically, can the gentleman comment on whether the Democratic amendments will be allowed, including amendments in the nature of a substitute?

The gentleman is anticipating me, and I will ask that. Can I ask one other question on the Intelligence bill first? Does the gentleman know, if we consider Defense on Tuesday, when does the gentleman think we would consider the Intelligence authorization?

I thank the gentleman.

Now, on the PAYGO bill, or the budget enforcement legislation, we marked up a bill some time ago, the budget itself. On this enforcement act, will Democrats, Mr. Leader, be allowed to substitute on this very important legislation?

I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, would it be appropriate for me to perhaps address the question to the Committee on Rules chairman? I will not do so if the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) thinks at this point in time that is premature, but I will do so if the gentleman thinks it is appropriate.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

About what?

Mr. Speaker, I really would like to have an answer to the question, if one is available. I yield to the leader.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas can make a joke, and then we will get serious.

That is what he said. That is why I took it jocularly and moved on.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I very much appreciate the leader's view on that. I think we share that view. There are obviously differences on how to accomplish the objective but, clearly, the objective; that is, of ensuring a responsible management of the fiscal affairs of this country, is obviously of concern to all in this body.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on Rules for his observation. As the gentleman knows, we were disappointed we did not get a substitute to the tax bill that was considered yesterday. With a substitute, we can offer alternatives in a way that we cannot necessarily via amendments.

We would appreciate and think it in the best interest of deliberations, whether one agrees or disagrees with the substance, that that process be followed; and we thank the gentleman for his consideration of that.

Mr. Leader, you have not listed, but I believe we do need to act, the transportation bill. You did not list it in your report, but would I be correct in anticipating that we would extend by some additional period of time the authorization or the existing transportation program? I yield to my friend.

That would be my question. Your anticipation would be that they would be agreed upon, that they would be on the suspension calendar?

I thank the leader for his information.

Mr. Speaker, the other side can say it over and over and over again, but the facts are correct that this is not about jobs here because if it was about jobs here, we could have passed the Manzullo- Rangel bill 6 months ago. We did not. We did not because we wanted to pass a partisan bill.

The Heritage Foundation says, ``There is always a certain amount of grease that is part of getting any tax policy changes through the process,'' but with this bill the Heritage Foundation says that ``the actual policy seems to be secondary to the grease.''

This is a sad day in this House. I have served here for 23 years. This is the worst tax bill that I have seen on the floor of this House. It is the most irresponsible bill. I challenge the Members on that side of the aisle to bring me one editorial, Members will not find it in the Wall Street Journal, Members will not find it out of the Heritage Foundation, one editorial that says this bill is worth passing.

We have been involved in an orgy of self-indulgence. That is how great empires fail, so focused on self and corporate and individual embellishment that they forget about the community, they forget about their country, they forget about investing in their people. They forget about investing in jobs in America.

The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) is not on the floor, he was just a few minutes ago. He and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) had a bill that spoke to jobs in America. This bill does not. Defeat this bill. Be responsible, stand up for America, send this bill back to committee.

Mr. Speaker, there will be some Members who will speak on behalf of this bill, but I have not talked to one of them that thought this was a good bill. They think there are provisions in this bill, as the chairman said, that have not been considered for some time, and they are voting for that provision. Not one Member have I talked to on this side of the aisle or that thinks this is a good bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and me.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and I have for many years had the great honor of cochairing the Fire Service Caucus, which is the largest caucus in this House. I notice that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), another cochair, is on the floor as well, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), who has been a cochair of the Fire Service Caucus, and others who have been strong supporters of the fire service, the emergency medical response teams, and when I say the fire service, both the paid professionals and the volunteer professionals who do such an extraordinary job in our community.

It has been said that there have been cuts in this bill to fire service assistance, and that is true. I know the chairman and the ranking member have fought very hard because the funds that they have available to them are limited. And I want to thank the chairman, as has the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon). I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), ranking member, for agreeing to work with us to offer this $50 million to the SAFER funding, which will provide additional dollars for personnel for both paid and volunteer departments which is so critically needed in the country today.

So without further prolonging the debate, I want to thank the chairman for facilitating the adoption of this amendment.

Madam Speaker, technology has become tremendously important in everyone's daily lives, but there are perhaps few places where technology plays as important a role in an individual's daily life than for individuals with disabilities.

That is why I am pleased to be a cosponsor and strong supporter of the Improving Access to Assistive Technology for Individuals with Disabilities Act of 2004, considered in the House of Representatives today.

Assistive technology devices and adaptations are critical to ensuring that individuals with disabilities can live with independence and pursue work, education, communication and other aspects of daily living.

Since the Assistive Technology Act was enacted in 1998, assistive technology state grants have provided funds to states to start-up and establish systems for distributing assistive technology devices and services. States have since made significant progress in building and improving these systems. The Maryland Technology Assistance Program, for example, provides a low-interest loan program to help people gain access to and afford critical technologies.

The previous authorization originally included a sunset provision to phase out the state assistance grants. However, as it has become clear that technology was increasingly important and that this program provided crucial assistance, support has grown to make this program permanent.

I am pleased that over the past several years, we have been able to include language in the Labor-HHS-Education bill to waive the sunset provision and adequate funding, so that states would not have to eliminate their programs.

With this important reauthorization bill, we will no longer have to include this language on an annual basis, and individuals with disabilities can be confident that this program will continue to provide states with needed assistance.

I am also pleased that this bill has been written to revise the program with greater focus on providing direct benefits to individuals with disabilities.

I hope all of my colleagues will support this bipartisan legislation.

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

I will say at the beginning when the majority leader got up to ask unanimous consent, I thought maybe something had happened and he was going to ask unanimous consent to have me give him the schedule. But hope springs eternal.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and tell him that we simply refer to it as the ANWR bill. It is so much easier.

Mr. Speaker, the majority leader has listed several pieces of energy legislation for consideration next week. Can he tell us the procedures that he anticipates these bills will be considered; specifically will amendments and/or substitutes be allowed, and will the rule bundle the bills to send them over to the other body, or will we pass them seriatim one at a time to the other body?

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman. I would hope that perhaps we could, particularly in light of the fact that these bills, although they are component parts, as I understand, of the larger energy bill that passed the House, but because they are not going to be considered in committee, that there would be some more flexibility as to the possibility of amendments in that regard.

The gentleman did not answer, because perhaps he does not know at this point in time. Is it our expectation that the energy bills the gentleman referenced would be sent to the Senate separately as individual bills, or would the rule bundle them at the end? I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the appropriation bills, two are listed for next week, Interior and Homeland Security. Does the gentleman think it is possible that we will get to the Defense bill next week, or not?

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

With respect to the two appropriation bills that the gentleman has listed, the Homeland Security and the Interior, does the gentleman expect them to come on an open rule to the floor?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. The FSC bill is also listed for the floor next week. Again, I think that bill will clearly not go to committee; but let me ask the gentleman first, is it the gentleman's expectation that the FSC bill will be marked up in committee?

And again, reclaiming my time, would it be the gentleman's expectation either that the substitute would be made in order, amendments may not be as a Committee on Ways and Means tax bill, but what we are reading, of course, is that there will be many extraneous or some extraneous provisions in the bill unrelated to direct tax consequences of FSC; can the gentleman tell us whether he is expecting at this point in time to provide for either amendments and/or a substitute?

I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, it is not our intention to go into further discussions at this time with reference to the schedule. The substance of the legislation, that will be left for weeks to come. But this week is set aside to honor our former President, Ronald Reagan, and certainly we intend to participate with the majority in doing just that.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) for yielding me this time. I am particularly pleased that the gentleman from Texas is managing the time, because I think if Ronald Reagan were here, he would say, Charles Stenholm was one of those who stood with me on principle, who believed that we needed to get this country moving, and believed that we needed to have sound policy; and Charles Stenholm stood with me. And as the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) just related, for Ronald Reagan the concrete cracked again, frankly, when he viewed the program adopted and thought that perhaps some changes needed to be made.

Mr. Speaker, like every Member of this House, I offer my sincere condolences to the family and friends of former President Reagan, particularly, of course, his beloved wife, Nancy, and his children. What a wonderful example Nancy Reagan set for our country. Ronald Reagan and Nancy Reagan clearly loved one another deeply and cared for one another, and Nancy Reagan has shown extraordinary courage and fidelity not only throughout the course of their marriage but particularly in the course of Ronald Reagan's final illness.

Mr. Speaker, Ronald Reagan loved this Nation and served it with distinction; and he will ever be remembered for his humor, his grace, his irrepressible optimism which mirrored the American spirit and buoyed it in periods of difficulty.

The last decade, when this man who had lived life with such physical vigor slowly slipped away, was an especially cruel blow. However, let us be comforted today that he has been summoned to a far better place.

Having been elected to Congress just 4 months after he took office, and just 6 weeks after an assassin's bullet nearly claimed his life, I had a front-row seat during President Reagan's 8 years in Washington. He was a man I both liked and respected. I liked him for his warmth and for the respect that he accorded others, and I respected him for the honesty of his convictions and the intellectual integrity that he displayed in pursuing them.

After signing into law what was then the largest tax cut in American history in 1981, President Reagan had the fortitude to face fiscal reality, just as the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) reflected upon. His policies caused yawning deficits and spiraling debt, consequences that he subsequently tried to address, although not as successfully as I am sure he would have hoped. Without question, Ronald Reagan held strong ideological beliefs. But one of his real strengths was his willingness to put pragmatism above ideology, to make sure that his country had programs that were working.

I also remember him as a person who early in life committed to equality and justice for all, and later in life to the success of freedom and democracy around the world. I believed he was right in that endeavor, and like the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), supported his efforts to build up our defenses, to deploy those Persian and cruise missiles, to, yes, even provide for multiple warheads on the MX missile, and say to the Soviet Union, if you want to compete, we are prepared to compete; but we would rather seek peace together. And he had the courage to build up, and he had the courage to make peace.

While Democrats disagreed with and strongly opposed much of his domestic agenda, our political differences never hardened into paralyzing personal animosity on his side or on ours. We were blessed by the fact that we were led by two great Irishmen, Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill. They were friends. And they had a third friend, his name was Michel, Bob Michel, an extraordinary leader of this House. And they, together, believed that country was more important than partisanship and party.

For the most part, they worked together. On those matters that they disagreed on, they took their own separate ways. But when they could agree, they did. The Social Security reform of 1983 was probably the most stark example of that cooperative spirit. It was good for the country, it was good for Social Security, and they came together, worked together, and succeeded together.

That was due in great measure to the leadership styles and personalities of President Reagan and Speaker O'Neill. These two men, the most powerful political figures in our Nation in the 1980s, one a Republican, the other a Democrat, demonstrated to all Americans that our elected leaders could disagree politically without being disagreeable personalities or personally. They reminded all of us that cynicism and mean-spiritedness are inimical to American democracy, and that our real adversaries lie beyond our shores, not here.

The surest tribute that we can pay to Ronald Reagan today is to commit ourselves to recapture the generosity of spirit that always guided him. In a very real way, Ronald Reagan's life was the embodiment of the American Dream. Both President Reagan and President Clinton, like Harry Truman, gave credence to the promise that in America neither privileged birth nor economic advantage is necessary to enable one to become the President of the United States of America. It was, for them, and for millions to follow their example, the land of opportunity.

President Reagan's leadership renewed the conviction that the future would be better, better than the past, and that America's best days were still ahead. That is a philosophy that all of us should embrace and convey to our fellow citizens. I believe it is the case, Ronald Reagan believed it was the case, and may God bless his soul and comfort his beloved wife, Nancy.

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

I yield to my friend, the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).

I thank my friend for that information.

First, if I can ask the leader, there are not bill numbers on the energy packages to which the gentleman referred. Have these bills been introduced, are there going to be hearings held on them, have hearings been held on them, will they be considered by committee? Can the gentleman fill us in on some of that information?

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

Let me clarify: Have some of these bills passed in perhaps the larger energy bill? Is that what the gentleman is saying?

So the gentleman is taking segments out of that bill to put in separate pieces of legislation?

All right, that is the Arctic Coastal Plan Domestic Energy Security and Abandoned Mine Lands Reclamation Reform Act?

I thank the gentleman.

The gentleman anticipates some of these may be introduced today. When would Members be able to have copies of these bills to review, and have these bills been reviewed by the minority on the committees of jurisdiction?

I thank the gentleman for that information. Hopefully we will have an opportunity so that our Members, certainly on the committees of jurisdiction on the minority side, will have an opportunity to review them and advise our side of the aisle at least their views on those, in light of the fact they are not going to be considered in committee and some will be on suspension. Others will go to the Committee on Rules?

I thank the gentleman for that information.

The FSC bill, there has been a lot of talk about the FSC bill. Can the leader tell me when we might anticipate a FSC bill being on the floor or being marked up in committee?

I thank the leader. I want to, on behalf of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), state our appreciation for that consideration. It is my understanding the gentleman is going to Normandy with the Speaker and they will not return until approximately 5 or so Tuesday afternoon, so that meeting at 6 o'clock would have been difficult. We appreciate the consideration that has been given.

You say the jobs bill; the American Jobs Creation Act?

I see what the gentleman is saying. It is one and the same.

Where are those jobs, Mr. Leader?

Actually, I meant are they overseas or here in America?

I presume that will be part of our debate, Mr. Leader.

Mr. Leader, lastly, the budget enforcement bill, is that going to be on the calendar at any time soon?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information. As the gentleman knows, I am sure both sides of the aisle feel that is a critical piece of legislation, in light of the deficits that are confronting us, as to how we can get those under control. I know there are differences of opinion on that, but I know on our side of the aisle we believe that that is a very important step for us to take in light of the budget deficits.

Lastly, Mr. Leader, if I can ask the leader, it was I think tentatively believed that we would be meeting next Friday. In light of the accommodation on the FSC or jobs bill, would Members be correct in thinking that Friday of next week may not be a legislative day?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I thank all of you for participating in this program. It is important for America that you do so. You have gotten, obviously, something from this program, perhaps a great deal, but, in my opinion, America is getting more from this program.

The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), who has served on this board for longer than any other Member and with whom I served on the board for a short period of time, observed that you have been given a unique privilege, an insight into democracy that few Americans get. They see us on C-SPAN, they read about us in the newspaper, they see short clips, the 30 seconds or the 15 seconds, but you know better than almost all of your colleagues, your peers, that that 30-second clip is not necessarily the truth of what happens.

You have seen firsthand the dedication of Members. You have seen firsthand, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) pointed out, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) has as well, that those of us who have the great honor and privilege of serving here are just like you but a little older.

You are all different. You have different points of view. I am sure you have had discussions about some of the issues that you have heard debated on this floor. You have seen that in your own peer group that you differ, and that, in fact, probably each of you reflects to some degree some of the sentiment expressed on this floor and you agree with that. And you will find the gal sitting next to you say that, no, I do not agree with that; I think X was right and not Y.

That is the glory of our democracy, that we have created an institution in which the different points of view can come together and be discussed and be debated. You have seen that sometimes that debate becomes relatively heated and passionate, and it is because the issues discussed on this floor are very important and impact on all of us, but on you particularly, because you will live longer under the policies that we adopt today than the rest of us, at least on average.

You have been given a special opportunity, and I would hope that you would feel that that comes with a particular responsibility. One of the concerns that those of us who are older have is that those of you who are younger do not participate in very high levels, at least in percentages, of impacting on the decisions we make in our democracy. The way most citizens impact on those decisions is, obviously, through voting in elections. Young people, as all of you know, do not vote at a very high percentage. That is of concern.

I want to read you something that was said by an Englishman. He said, ``We live in an age when to be young and to be indifferent can be no longer synonymous.'' Think of that. ``To be young and indifferent,'' he said, can no longer be synonymous. We must prepare for the coming hour. The claims of the future are represented by suffering millions; and the youth of a nation are the trustees of prosperity.''

That was said by a gentleman who was the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Benjamin Disraeli. He said that in 1845. It is true today. It is true, in fact, as, again, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) pointed out, in every generation.

We had a dedication to perhaps some of your grandfathers, the World War II Memorial, and perhaps your grandmothers as well who were called by Tom Brokaw the Greatest Generation. But, in fact, as Roosevelt indicated and as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) pointed out, every generation is called upon to make its contribution.

In some generations, the challenge is greater than it is in others. In World War II, we lost 60 million people in the world. 60 million. 407,000 Americans killed in that war. We are engaged in another war today in your generation and in my generation, a war on terrorism. It calls upon a lot of young people and some middle-aged people, your parents' age, perhaps, in the Reserve or National Guard, to be deployed overseas, to confront those who would undermine our democracy and our security and our safety. And very soon, very, very soon, you will be called upon to be on the front line, perhaps not overseas but here certainly.

So I would ask you to take from this House, from this well and this room that we call the People's House, to which one can only come by election, we just had a debate on that this week that you will recall, and I hope that you will go back and you will talk to your friends, perhaps your brothers and your sisters, your schoolmates, your peers, and tell them what you have seen.

My experience has been that when I was president of the Maryland Senate, and we had a page program there, was that invariably those who were pages in the Senate, and my experience has been here with pages who have served in this House, that you leave with a more positive view than when you came. That does not mean that you have a rose-colored version of the House of Representatives. It is, after all, peopled by, as I said, people like you, with some strengths, some weaknesses, some faults and some extraordinarily good points.

So I urge all of you to return to your schools, return to your homes, return to your communities and spread the word about the fact that democracy works, that your participation makes a difference, and that in the final analysis, if democracy is to work well, if it is to work as our Founding Fathers conceived it, it will be because we all participate.

Good luck and God bless you. Thank you very much for your service.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Texas, the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me this time.

Those who will speak have been here for some years. Most of us who speak are known as institutions. We love this House. We believe this House plays a very unique role in this democracy. It is called the People's house, a House to which one can be elected but not appointed. It is a House where the passions and wisdom of the people are joined in this crucible of decision-making process. It is a House that is composed of persons of different views, different regions, indeed different races and nationalities. It is a House where our Founding Fathers designed American democracy to be realized.

And in that context it is extraordinarily important to have a House that plays by the rules. Our Founding Fathers knew that if we were to have democracy, it would have to be governed by rules.

The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), my good friend, the former majority leader, is on the floor; and I have heard him say so often that democracy is a substitute for war.

In that context, it is sometimes confrontational; and we need a wise person helped by wise staff to, in effect, be the referee, to say to both sides that we are a democracy and we resolve questions in a peaceful way, perhaps animated, perhaps heated, but nevertheless in a way that seeks to realize the dream of our Founding Fathers, a dream which has been sustained now since 1789 because of people like Charles W. Johnson, III. Not elected to serve but selected, selected by persons who themselves are elected and who know the value of this institution and the absolutely essential position that Charles Johnson III was called to serve in.

I am not objective. Those of us who speak will not be objective. We are his friends. We are his admirers. We are appreciative of the service that he has given to this House but, much more importantly, to this country. He is wise. He is also thoughtful. He is also caring of the institution, its staff and its Members but, most of all, of his country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleagues to thank Charlie Johnson for his service. Charlie's service will be long remembered. He will write a book, and like his predecessors, that book will be used for generations to come to help manage this center of democracy, the people's House.

I somewhat lament the fact that Charlie is leaving and will be replaced by John Sullivan, not because John Sullivan is not a worthy successor, but because I prefer Gary Williams to Bobby Knight, and Drew went to the University of Maryland and therefore leavened Charlie Johnson's University of Virginia experience.

But, Charlie, as you leave, as we honor you, as we thank you, we wish you God speed and wish you many years of the kind of productivity and success that you have enjoyed here in this House. You have been and continue to be a great American in the tradition of your predecessors who ensured that the people's House would be revered by its Members and respected by those it serves. Godspeed.

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

This has got to be a frustrating debate for the American public, these tax bills. It is a frustrating debate for those of us who were for much of what is proposed. It is certainly a frustrating debate for future generations.

Mr. Speaker, over the last 4 weeks, our Republican friends have worn their reckless tax cut hearts on their sleeves. That is a pretty harsh phrase. But for those of us who believe we ought to balance America's budget as we ought to balance family budgets, it is nevertheless, I think, accurate.

Republicans have cynically put popular tax legislation on the floor and dared Democrats to oppose it knowing full well that the only reason that many Members on our side of the aisle would cast ``no'' votes against such bills is because they were not paid for, and on the pretense somehow that cutting taxes, cutting revenues, cutting prices, if you will, for what we buy, whether it is defense, education, health care at NIH, CIA agents, FBI investigators, whatever we are buying, you will want to cut the cost and will not pay for it. You want to put it on our national credit card, and you want my kids and your kids and our grandchildren to pay for it.

Very frankly, if this were a Democratic President today making these proposals, there is not a person on your side of the aisle that would not be outraged at the fiscal profligacy, at the fiscal irresponsibility, at the fiscal immorality of the policies that you are pursuing.

I assume you go back to your districts and say, oh, the deficit will take care of itself, just as it did in the 90s. Baloney. What took care of the fiscal deficit in the 90s was a bill that George Bush, the first, had the courage to sign, a bill in 1993 that no Republican voted for in the House or the Senate. And in 1997, in a bipartisan way, we came together and passed a balanced budget amendment for which I voted, and we passed PAYGO, for which most of you voted, which said that PAYGO would apply to spending and to taxes.

You are digging a hole. You are not digging a hole for yourself, though. You are digging a hole for my children, my grandchildren, and all the children and grandchildren in America who are going to have to pay this debt.

I do not get it. I do not get the intellectual disconnect between what you said in the 70s and 80s and 90s and what you are saying today. I do not get it. And you are hoping the American public does not get it either. You are hoping the American public is saying only that I want tax cuts. I want tax cuts. I want tax cuts and to heck with my children.

We are talking about one another. How sad. The deficit is going to be half a trillion dollars this year. When I came to Congress it was $985 billion. Last year we raised the debt limit by $900-plus billion. And yesterday all of you voted, almost all, to increase the debt limit by $670 billion. And how your side of the aisle railed, and the gentlewoman from Connecticut has been here long enough to remember that railing, against increasing the debt. How awful that was and we ought to stand up and vote for it.

And what did you do? You hid it by the Hastert rule in your budget because you did not have the courage to stand up and say, these are the policies that I am going to pursue as a Representative of the Congress of the United States.

Democrats are for fixing the marriage penalty. Democrats are for keeping the 10 percent tax bracket. Democrats are for fixing the Alternative Minimum Tax. Democrats are for making the child tax credits permanent. We are for that, and we are for paying for it so that we do not say we are going to fix it. But generations to come, young people, hear me, young people, you are going to pay for it. That is bad policy. That is bad morality.

Let us pass the Democratic alternative, which seeks to be responsible and honest with America and with generations yet to come.

Mr. Speaker, today, I pay special tribute to Army Specialist Jason Christopher Ford who was killed on March 13, 2004

in Tikrit, Iraq. Army Specialist Ford epitomized the duty, valor and sacrifice that we honor in our members of the armed services.

Spc. Ford grew up in the Bladensburg, MD area. He was an optimistic young man who had an abiding love for his family. He was a good athlete--a swimmer, baseball player and avid bowler. Spc. Ford joined the U.S. Army in 2002 for the chance to travel. After completing basic training he was stationed in Germany and assigned to the 1st Battalion, 18th Infantry Regiment. In early March 2004 he was sent to Iraq. On March 13, 2004 while on patrol, an improvised explosive device exploded next to the Humvee Spc. Ford was riding in and he was killed.

Every day, the men and women of our armed services are exhibiting courage and making sacrifices ensuring that 25 million human beings who had been enslaved for a quarter of a century have been liberated. It is because of their courage and sacrifice that a dangerous dictator no longer menaces his own people or the world, but instead awaits the justice that he denied millions. And it is because of their courage and sacrifice that the universal aspirations of all men and women--freedom, democracy, and basic human rights--are being extended half a world away.

This generation of Americans, and future generations, are indeed blessed that when freedom's call came, brave Americans like Spc. Ford answered. We honor Spc. Ford's service to our country and his willingness to answer the call to duty. Today we say a special prayer for his family, friends and fellow soldiers. They must know that a grateful nation mourns their loss and shares their pain.

Daniel Webster, the noted orator, Member of Congress and Secretary of State, remarked nearly two centuries ago: ``God grants liberty only to those who love it and are always ready to guard and defend it.'' Army Specialist Jason Ford was ready and he defended liberty. Today we remember and we pay our respect to a beloved son, brother, friend, and now a fallen American patriot who has made the ultimate sacrifice for our nation and the principles for which we stand--liberty, justice, equality and decency.