Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I learned this week of the passing of Alija Izetbegovic, formerly the President of Bosnia-Herzegovina. As a former Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I knew President Izetbegovic and followed the situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina closely and with great concern.

Under Izetbegovic's early leadership in 1990 and 1991, Bosnia- Herzegovina sought to cope with the disintegration of the former Yugoslav federation of which it was a part, a particularly difficult task given the republic's very multi-ethnic population which had benefitted greatly under that federation. Eventually, Izetbegovic led Bosnia-Herzegovina to respond by asserting independent statehood in early 1992, an act used immediately as a pretext by the regime of Slobodan Milosevic in neighboring Serbia to wage a war of aggression and genocide. Seeing the international community take little action to stop well-armed Serb militants from seizing more than two-thirds of the country, the regime of Franjo Tudjman in Croatia, another neighbor, later joined the fray. In the next three years, the ethnic cleansing associated with this conflict would cause the forced displacement of millions, the death of hundreds of thousands and the rape or torture of tens of thousands of innocent people.

By 1995, the international community was essentially shamed into taking more decisive action by atrocities like that which occurred in Srebrenica and fresh attacks on civilians in Sarajevo. The international community also recognized that not doing so had definite implications for the future of post-Cold War Europe. The result was NATO intervention and the negotiation of the Dayton Agreement, which preserved Bosnia territorial integrity on the one hand but hampered its recovery and development by legitimizing internal division on the other. Alija Izetbegovic, ethnically a ``Bosniak'' or Muslim Slav, retained power, but shared the presidency in a new arrangement with Bosnian Serb and Croat counterparts.

Given these circumstances, it is difficult to assess Izetbegovic's legacy. As a dissenter in Tito's Yugoslavia and as a politician during the emergence of multi-party politics, Izetbegovic expressed devoutness to the Islamic faith and pride in Bosnia's Muslim heritage. The conflict, however, denied Izetbegovic the chance to prove his claimed desire to respect the religious beliefs of others, to embrace Bosnia's

cultural diversity and to become part of Europe. While Sarajevo was under siege, he correctly asserted that international principles of tolerance and respect were as threatened as that city's population. As the feckless United Nations and Europe failed to stop the conflict quickly, Izetbegovic's Bosnia became increasingly vulnerable to militant Islamic infiltration as well as corruption, both of which plague the country to this day.

From his hospital bed in late September, however, Alija Izetbegovic was quoted as saying to the media that Bosnia will survive as a state if ``Serbs stay Serbs, Croats stay Croats, and [Muslims]stay [Muslims], but they also should all be Bosnians . . . Nobody should seek revenge but rather justice, because revenge starts a chain of evil that has no end,'' adding that people ``should not forget the past but not live in it. They should turn toward the future.''

As I note the passing of Alija Izetbegovic, Mr. Speaker, and we express our condolences to his family, friends and supporters, we should also recall with equal sadness the troubled times he and the people of Bosnia-Herzegovina faced a decade ago.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are all going to vote for this CR; but I think as we consider it, it is appropriate for us to reflect on the allegations of mismanagement that were made over the years about how Democrats ran this House, to reflect on that and relate it to present performance and look at how well the appropriations process has been managed since the Republicans took over in 1995.

I want to look at the facts here. It is now October 21, 21 days since the start of the fiscal year, 2004, and this Congress has passed and President Bush has signed only three of the 13 annual spending bills into law: defense, homeland security, and the legislative branch appropriation bill. The Members will notice in addition that the military construction bill, one of the least controversial bills considered by this House every single year, is still mired in conference, although I would observe it is going to have maybe the distinction of being the only real conference that we have had in some period of time. If that is not indicative of this Congress's mismanagement, then I am not sure what is.

The fact of the matter is since the majority party regained the House majority, this Congress has had to pass an omnibus appropriation bill in 7 out of 9 years. That is right. In only 2 years since consideration of the fiscal 1996 spending bill did this Congress pass stand-alone legislation for all 13 appropriation bills. By comparison, and I hope everybody on my side of the aisle will note this, and the other side of the aisle, of course, will discount it and not believe it, by comparison in fiscal year 1994, that is 1993, and fiscal year 1995, that is 1994, when we had a Democratic President, Bill Clinton, and a Democratic Congress, we passed every single spending bill as a stand- alone piece of legislation, every one, which meant that we could fully debate and not hide anything in those bills.

Mr. Speaker, the Members of our side of the aisle can hardly wait to hear what excuse is now used by our colleagues on the majority side for failing to complete the appropriation work on time. It is going to be tough to blame poor Senator Daschle who was the scapegoat last year when not only did we not pass the fiscal year in the year in which we were supposed to, we had to go to the next year and did not pass most appropriation bills until January of the following year. They certainly cannot blame the Democrats on this side because we do not make many decisions on this side.

So what is their excuse? We all know what the truth is, and it is not that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of our committee, or anybody on the committee has mismanaged the appropriation process. It is the direct result of the majority party's inability to agree with itself. It is an affliction that is not just holding up the appropriations process. It is also preventing us from passing an energy bill, from extending the child tax credit to 6.5 million working American families, and from giving our seniors a real prescription drug benefit that is not designed to destroy Medicare. The truth is we have not completed our work on time and the majority party is the only group that is responsible for this failure.

Mr. Speaker, we will vote for this continuing resolution, which is an admission and a perfect example of not getting the work done that the American people expect us to get done on time and for their benefit and for the benefit of this country.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) for the purpose of informing us of the schedule, and it seems to me we did this just yesterday.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information, and for his optimism. The gentleman indicated that Members should expect there will be votes in the House next Friday. That is Halloween. How certain is the gentleman that we are going to have votes on that day?

Better trick or treating at home than here.

Mr. Leader, November 7 is indicated as the target date for adjournment. So that Members can plan, how confident is leadership that we can meet that date? How strong is leadership's intention to meet that date?

Madam Speaker, I ask the gentleman, would it be fair to conclude there will be no action on the child tax credit?

Mr. Leader, I think I am correct that every tax bill that we have passed over the last 3 years has been sunsetted. Therefore, pursuant to your rationale on child tax credit, in effect those bills would be raising taxes, sometimes in 2010, sometimes a little before, and sometimes a little after, 2006, 2007 some sunset. How does that rationale differ from the rationale being applied to the child tax credit?

Unfortunately, it is our position that the children, those 12 million children, the 6.5 million families, the 200,000 military families who would otherwise be eligible, are the ones who are paying the price for the inability of the two Houses to come together when apparently both Houses believe that they ought to get the tax relief of which we speak, and but for the difference on making it permanent, would be getting.

I would again reiterate our hope in the next 2 weeks that we plan on being in session, that if we cannot resolve the differences between the two Houses, we would urge leadership to reconsider that and pass at least the 1- or 2-year extension while we try to reach agreement on the differences that exist between the two Houses.

Mr. Leader, on the FSC bill, it is our understanding that the Committee on Ways and Means will mark up this legislation on Monday. Does leadership expect the bill to be on the floor next week or does leadership expect it to pass before we leave?

As the leader knows, this bill comes about by a WTO ruling which places in jeopardy the United States, and we believe that we have a solution which advantages U.S. manufacturers, and we are very hopeful this does move ahead so our country does not confront at the end of this year, as the European Union has suggested it might, take action if we have not corrected the deficiency which the WTO has found. I hope that we could move that bill before we leave here.

The leader mentioned several conference reports which will come up next week. Which are the most likely? Energy was mentioned. Energy was a possibility for this week. How confident is leadership that energy will come next week? This is a complicated bill, a very important bill; and I would ask you to comment, and I would ask you to facilitate the availability of this bill as soon as possible, and more than 24 hours before because it is a complicated bill. We need time to review it; and as the leader knows, we have not been included, from our perspective, in the conference proceedings so we do not know what is in this bill at this point in time.

First, how confident is the gentleman that the conference report will come next week; and, second, can we be assured that we will receive a copy of the report and the accompanying bill hopefully by Friday afternoon?

Reclaiming my time, we would hope that would give Members no less than 48 hours to review the bill, have the staffs review it, so we know what is in it. Because, as I said, we have not had the opportunity to be included in the conference.

On the Medicare prescription drug, the gentleman mentioned the Medicare bill in response to my question. Can he tell me the status of the Medicare conference, and can he tell me whether or not he expects that bill to be on the floor prior to the November 7 target date for adjournment?

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Leader, I keep harping on this because I think it is important to make the point. Our folks are not included in whatever discussions are going on. As a result, we have no idea as to whether or not we think, in fact, Medicare is being strengthened or whether it is being weakened, whether prescription drugs are being made available to seniors, whether they are affordable, accessible, guaranteed, all of which we think is very important. We think this needs to be a voluntary program. I think we agree on that.

But as a result of not being included, we do not know, and we think it is not good for the process that whatever meetings are going on are not what we believe to be conferences of conferees because conferees are not being included. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), specifically, have not been included, and they are chief conferees, as the gentleman knows. The gentleman from Texas is a conferee himself, as I understand. We would hope that if, in fact, they are going to bring this bill to the floor, and if, in fact, a real conference is to be scheduled that it be done soon and that all of the conferees be included to discuss the parameters of a bill which can pass both House and Senate and be sent to the President.

Of the appropriation bills the gentleman mentioned, does he know which ones are most likely to be on the floor next week?

Reclaiming my time, again on the Labor-Health bill, I am a conferee and I have not been either invited to nor have I attended any conferences on that bill. So if it is reported next week, I am not sure when the conferees are going to meet and consider it. But it is, again, indicative of the fact that on our side, we do not get notice of, or we are not being included in, conferences. That is not, we believe, the way the process ought to work.

Reclaiming my time, and I will notify the gentleman that I am not being noticed. My conclusion is different than his, however. My conclusion is that I would be invited if they were having them. I do not think they are having them, but I may be in error, Mr. Leader. If the gentleman will check on that and let us know whether or not, in his terms, a formal conference has been held or is scheduled to be held on the Labor-Health bill, it will be news to me. But I would appreciate that information, and I appreciate the gentleman's offer.

Madam Speaker, last week the gentleman and I had a discussion about these conferences. On the Labor-Health bill, we are very concerned about the Labor-Health bill's funding as the gentleman knows. In the No Child Left Behind, the President was very strong on the No Child Left Behind. We believe in that bill, that that is short about $8 billion. Does the gentleman have any information as to whether or not such sums may be added to the Labor-Health bill to fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act?

Reclaiming my time, the last question, the gentleman will be happy to hear. The House voted by a pretty good number to instruct the conferees on the issue of overtime pay, a substantial number of votes from his side and most of the votes from our side, if not all, all but two. Can the leader tell me whether or not he believes that instruction is being implemented by the conference?

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Leader, I look forward to hearing from the gentleman as to where these conferences are occurring because I assure the gentleman that I will be enthusiastic about participating and raising this issue and other issues when we find out where that elusive conference is occurring.

I thank the leader for his information.

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

My friend who just spoke and I are going to vote together on final passage of this bill, but my friend and I disagree on the process that we are pursuing to accomplish the objectives of which he speaks. He speaks of the objectives and not the process because he feels comfortable defending the end result, but obviously not comfortable discussing the process. Why?

This bill that we are considering is larger than 10 of the 13 appropriation bills. As a matter of fact, it is almost 100 times larger than the District of Columbia appropriation bill which we spent in debate in committee and in hearings 10 times longer to consider. Hear me. The District of Columbia bill is 1/100ths of the dollars that we are appropriating in this bill, yet we spent 10 times the time of Congress and Members and allowing the public to have input as we have on this bill.

Now, we passed a bill, I tell the gentleman from Missouri, just a few months ago, almost $70 billion. It tragically has not made our men and women safe, as the gentleman says this bill will. I hope the gentleman is right. But we have over 100 amendments and a number particularly that are very substantive in nature that ought to be considered on their merits, because it may make the bill better. It may make the men and women in our armed services safer. It may more cheaply accomplish the objective of reconstruction in Iraq that will pursue our progress and make our success more probable.

So I say to my colleagues that we ought to reject this rule, this gag rule that shuts down the consideration on one of the largest bills we will pass this year for just a few more hours to give Members, elected by 600,000 Americans, the opportunity to offer their alternatives.

Now, in committee, we considered some of those alternatives; but that committee is but a portion of the House of Representatives. In particular, I say to my colleagues, the ranking member who would be the chairman of this committee if his party, my party, were in control, so he is not just a back-bencher, has a very substantive alternative that got a lot of votes in committee. And what it says is, yes, we need to take responsibility. And, yes, we need to sacrifice. But guess what? We who are here at home, safe in our sanctuary, ought to make a little sacrifice too, and we ought to pay for this bill and not pass it along to our children and to our grandchildren. That is responsible. That is fair. That is the moral position, in my opinion, we ought to be taking.

But the gentleman from Wisconsin who has that amendment is being precluded from offering that amendment, along with 30 or 40 other Members who have substantive, important proposals to bring before this House, the people's House, the people's representatives, to consider the alternatives available. Is that not sad? Does it not undermine our democracy and our product?

Let us reject this rule. Let us vote against the previous question. Let us consider in full the proposals made by the Members elected to this House by the American public.

Mr. Speaker, I take this time for the purpose of inquiring about the schedule.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to my friend the distinguished majority leader for the purpose of discussing the schedule for the coming week and perhaps the weeks thereafter.

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

Just to reiterate for the Members, am I correct that we will have votes starting at 6:30 on Monday?

Then we will be going in at 9 a.m. on Tuesday?

Which is different, a little earlier. I thank the gentleman for that.

The continuing resolution, Mr. Leader, you point out there will be a continuing resolution that, perhaps, will be considered next week. The current one goes to October 31.

Can you tell the Members what date you contemplate the continuing resolution going to?

So am I correct then that the contemplation would be that the CR that we would consider next week would go until November 7? I know that is not firm, but is that your current thought, that that would be the objective?

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, with respect to the appropriations conferences, I know the chairman is on the floor, but could the leader tell us which conference reports are most likely to be on the floor and will those be, I take it, single in nature, that is to say, a conference report on one of the appropriations bills, as opposed to an omnibus bill or a multiappropriation bill piece of legislation?

Reclaiming my time, I will certainly not ask you which party is in charge of the other body. That might not be an appropriate question on the floor of the House. But having said that, Mr. Leader, the chairman, again, being on the floor, I am on the Labor-HHS committee, and I have not attended any meeting of any conference committee on the Labor-HHS bill. You say it is in conference. Where?

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I am sure if it is up to the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations I will be; but in a nonhumorous, but still friendly way, we are very concerned on this side, Mr. Leader, when we hear you announce that there are conferences going on, that conference reports may come out and, to our knowledge, we have not been invited to any conferences. We have not sat down to try to resolve differences in the bills.

As the gentleman knows, the labor-health bill in particular was very controversial on this side of the aisle. We want obviously to participate and try to resolve those differences and try to address those deficiencies that we see. Therefore, in light of the fact that we are going to be leaving tonight, tonight is Friday, not coming back until Monday night, and if we have a conference report, presumably that has to come out and the staff work is going to be done, because we cannot have a conference Tuesday morning or Monday night; no conference has been called as far as I know on the labor-health bill, and we cannot have the committee staff do its work between Tuesday

morning if we had a conference and Tuesday afternoon, that just will not work, for us to consider the conference report.

So we have a concern on our side of the aisle, Mr. Leader, in terms of how conferences are being carried out and, frankly, the definition of what a conference is now-a-days. A conference seems to be the appointment of conferees on either side of the aisle, and then the ranking Republican, either of the committee or subcommittee, meeting with the ranking Republican or Chair of the committee or subcommittee in the other body; and that is now called a conference. That may be a meeting of your side of the aisle, but it is not our perception that that is a conference as we have historically known it.

When we were in charge, frankly, I did attend on a regular basis conferences with both sides of the aisle, with my ranking member when I chaired the Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury and Independent agencies, and where the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and his ranking member attended when they had conferences. I do not mean that they did not discuss things, but I think it is appropriate for us to voice that concern.

Next, on the Iraq supplemental which we have just passed, do you expect a motion to go to conference next week on that? I yield to the leader.

The gentleman mentioned also, Mr. Leader, reclaiming my time, the energy conference report. How likely is it that we will have that on the floor next week? Is the gentleman pretty confident that that will be here? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for that information. I would reiterate, having discussed with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), who is, of course, the dean of this House and has 50 years of experience in this House, his concern that he is not sure what is going on in the conference on the energy bill. He is not sure what the schedule is on the energy bill. Neither his staff nor he know what product is going to be reported out.

Again, we are meeting next week for maybe, if we go late into the night, maybe 10 hours, 15 hours next week, and without really having had the opportunity to be fully involved in that conference. As a result, if that happens, our conferees on our side are not going to have any time to consider that substantively, not to mention the Members who will not have time to consider it in a very substantive way.

So I do not think there is any way to solve it now, because as far as we know, there have been no meetings of the conference scheduled. We have not been noted for conferences either Saturday, Sunday, or Monday. So that if something is going to happen, it apparently is going to happen without a formal meeting of the conference if that conference report comes to the floor on Tuesday.

I do not know whether the gentleman wants to comment on that. That is just our concern, Mr. Leader.

I am glad to yield.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I am not sure how that is going to happen, Mr. Leader. I hope it happens. I hope the gentleman's representation is carried out, but it is hard to see in the next 72 hours how that can be effected, not counting the balance of today.

In any event, can the gentleman tell me if the gentleman expects the conference report to include the Clear Skies initiative? Does the gentleman have knowledge?

Yes, sir. Does the gentleman know that?

I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know, but I do know that our conferees again who have not been included in the discussions are very concerned about an issue that is rumored to be included in the conference report that has not been debated at all by either the conferees or by the House. So I raise that concern and would hope that the gentleman would raise that concern with the Chair of the conference committee.

I know today is the day the congressional Republican leaders have articulated as the day that they would complete the conference on the Medicare prescription drug bill. Could the majority leader bring us up to date on the status of that and when, if the gentleman expects between now and November 7, for that conference report to be brought back to the House. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, of course, as the gentleman knows, we all would like to have a bill; but there are, obviously, differences of opinions as to what ought to be included in that bill, which always makes the legislative process difficult and time consuming. But this is another example, Mr. Leader, whereon Mr. Breaux and Mr. Baucus on the Senate side have been included, to some degree, in the conference. However, on this side, none of our Members have been included in meetings related to the policies that ought to be included in the conference report.

I have mentioned now the appropriation bills, the energy bill, and now the prescription drug bill. It is of great concern to us that there is an obvious pattern of not including the minority, who are appointed conferees by the Speaker, not including them in discussions. And in light of the fact that there are no meetings formally of conferences and are not noted for conference meetings, it is impossible for us to know, A, what is going on; B, to have input; and, C, reach any kind of an agreement which might make the passage of prescription drugs, child care tax credits, an energy bill, appropriations bills, or any other legislation on behalf of the American public, made easier. I do not know if there is anything further the leader can say on that.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I do not want to be very confrontational, and I do not think these colloquies ought to be confrontational; I think it is a good discussion, but I think the gentleman needs to know honestly our view on this.

Let me remind the gentleman of the Patients' Bill of Rights. It passed the 106th Congress of this House with some 60-plus Republicans. However, the gentleman indicates that conferences are being held with people who want to pass a bill. The Speaker, as the gentleman knows, appointed over two-thirds of the Republican conferees who voted against the bill, and that bill never came out of conference. We were not surprised. In the 107th Congress, we were precluded from having a bipartisan bill because the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) concluded that he was going to withdraw from discussions with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) on that.

So with all due respect, Mr. Leader, if you make a judgment that you are not going to include people that you think do not have the same view that you have or that your chairmen have or that your Chairs of subcommittees have, then calling them conferences, we believe, is not appropriate. They may be meetings; they may be meetings of the Members of your side of the aisle who have responsibilities for the bills, but they are not conferences in any classic sense of bringing together the two Houses and all of the conferees who were appointed by the Speaker, not by us.

Conferees are appointed by the Speaker. We are not given any notice of hearings, we do not attend any hearings. And for the gentleman to say that people are meeting, we do not doubt that. We think the gentleman is absolutely right. We hear about those meetings. We read about those meetings. We read about the large conference on the energy bill when the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and Mr. Domenici get together and talk. We think that is appropriate. They ought to do that. They need to do that. It is their responsibility. But it is not a conference from our perspective. And there is not an opportunity for us to sit down and represent the point of view that we bring to the table, that we have been elected to put forth.

I am glad to yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his observation; and, obviously, he and I disagree as to how this process occurred when we were in charge and how it is occurring now. But the gentleman and I have both had the privilege of being on the Committee on Appropriations for many years.

The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) is now, as the majority leader, not on the committee because he has been elevated to his present position. But the gentleman and I have sat in many conferences together, he on one side of the aisle, me on the other side of the aisle, in which we had probably 30 members of the Committee on Appropriations from our side, usually eight or nine from the majority side, 12 or 15, so 20 to 25 Members, and discuss issue by issue and go through it. That is what we expect the conference to be, because that is what we expect the democratic process provides in a conference committee to resolve differences that might exist.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I want to assure the majority leader we want a prescription drug bill. We have been fighting for a prescription drug bill, but that does not necessarily mean we want your prescription drug bill. We want a bill that has the support of the majority, the American people, and that we believe we can have. We are fighting for such a bill.

We want an energy bill. We think this country needs an energy bill, certainly in light of the August 14 blackout in the northeast. We think we need to address that issue.

So let me assure the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) that we want to see these bills passed. But let me also assure the gentleman that if the condition preceding to having a conference in which we are included is saying that we will agree to it as it passed the House, if we oppose it, that is neither a reasonable request on your part, I believe, nor is it the expectation of either side that they be included in a conference only on a condition that they will agree to what the leadership wants to do.

I think we have probably discussed this sufficiently, but it is a real concern that we are not including both sides in these conferences. Because on the energy bill, I do not believe there has been a conference nor does the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) as we understand a conference. But we have a different view, perhaps.

Mr. Speaker, unless the majority leader wants to make additional comments, I would yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise in support of this supplemental. We must give our troops in the field who have performed brilliantly in deposing the despotic Taliban and Hussein regimes the equipment and materiel they need to succeed in their mission. That tragically was not done with our previous appropriation. It must be done with this one. Failure in Iraq is not an option, and additional funding is vital to our efforts.

I also believe that the reconstruction grants in this bill are inextricably linked to our opportunity to achieve success. As The Washington Post stated yesterday, ``Rebuilding the electricity grid, fixing the water supply, getting the oil flowing, maintaining public safety, all of this is central to hopes for stability and representative government.''

However, Mr. Chairman, my support today does not come without reservations or deep concern about administration failures to date. American troops and American taxpayers are bearing a disproportionate share of the burden, and I believe the responsibility for that falls directly on the Bush administration and its failed diplomacy.

Virtually every assumption that the administration made going into Iraq has either been wrong or has yet to be proved correct. Administration officials disputed General Shinseki's prediction that we would need several hundred thousand troops to succeed in Iraq. He was right. Today, we do not have enough military personnel to secure Iraqi weapons caches. Assistant Defense Secretary Wolfowitz prior to the war assured us that ``we are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.'' Consideration of this bill today demonstrates the falsity of that claim.

Furthermore, the administration's postwar planning has been abysmal. As Senator Hagel, a Republican of Nebraska, stated in September, ``I think the Bush administration did a miserable job of planning for post- Saddam Iraq. They treated many in the Congress, most in the Congress, like a nuisance. To that extent our allies are treated like the people's elected representatives here. This Congress has a constitutional duty to hold the executive branch accountable.''

I am pleased that the Committee on Appropriations and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), as well as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), have scrutinized this legislation last week and made modifications and adopted amendments I offered requiring the administration to provide quarterly reports on a range of issues and advanced review of no-bid contracts raising justifiable concerns of war profiteering.

Finally, I believe the international community must recognize that the interests of the civilized world coalesce in Iraq; and thus the law-supporting nations of the world have an obligation, yes, a duty, to assist in securing and reconstructing Iraq. I urge the international community to step up and meet its responsibility at the donor conference next week.

Mr. Chairman, I supported our policy to remove the Hussein regime from power. It was a dangerous, genocidal regime that threatened the security of the region and the world. Having undertaken this task, we must succeed. The American people expect it, and our security demands it. We must, therefore, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the brave young men and women who are bearing the risks and burdens of this endeavor, and our taxpayers who are bearing its costs, carefully and with conviction review the policies, plans, and actions being proposed and taken to accomplish this critical mission. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is correct in that.

The war on terrorism is a very different kind of war. There are no defined battlefields and no easily identifiable enemy. It is a global war, and it is, like all wars, dangerous and costly. But it is a war we must win if freedom and security are to be achieved in this

21st century. I will, therefore, support this effort to accomplish that victory.

Mr. Chairman, I will vote for this emergency supplemental appropriations bill providing $87 billion for our continuing efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We must give our troops in the field, who have performed brilliantly in deposing the despotic Taliban and Hussein regimes, the equipment and materiel that they need to succeed in their missions. That tragically was not done with our previous appropriation. It must be done with this one.

Failure in Iraq is not an option. And additional funding is vital to our efforts.

I also believe the reconstruction grants in this bill are inextricably linked to our opportunity to achieve success.

As the Washington Post stated yesterday: ``Rebuilding the electricity grid, fixing the water supply, getting the oil flowing, maintaining public safety--all this is central to hopes for stability and representative government.''

However, Mr. Chairman, my support today does not come without reservation or deep concern about administration failures to date.

American troops and American taxpayers are bearing a disproportionate share of the burden, and I believe the responsibility for that falls directly on the Bush administration and its failed diplomacy.

Virtually every assumption that this administration made going into Iraq has either been wrong or yet to be proved correct.

Administration officials disputed General Shinseki's prediction that we would need several hundred thousand troops to secure Iraq.

Today, we do not have enough military personnel to secure Iraqi weapons caches.

Assistant Defense Secretary Wolfowitz assured us that: ``We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon.''

Consideration of this bill today demonstrates the falsity of that claim.

Furthermore, the administration's post-war planning has been abysmal. As Senator Hagel stated in September: ``I think [the Bush administration] did a miserable job of planning for a post-Saddam Iraq. They treated many in the Congress, most in the Congress, like a nuisance.''

To that extent, our allies are treated like the people's elected representatives here.

This Congress has a constitutional duty to hold the executive branch accountable.

I am pleased that the appropriations committee scrutinized this legislation last week, and made modifications and adopted amendments I offered requiring the administration to provide quarterly reports on a range of issues and advanced review of no-bid contracts, raising justifiable concern and outrage about war profiteering.

Finally, I believe the international community must recognize that the interests of the civilized world coalesce in Iraq.

And thus the law-supporting nations have an obligation to assist in securing and reconstructing Iraq.

I urge the international community to step up and meet its responsibility at the donor conference next week.

Mr. Chairman, I supported our policy to remove the Hussein regime from power. It was a dangerous, genocidal regime that threatened the security of the region and the world.

Having undertaken this task we must succeed. The American people expect it and our security demands it.

We must, therefore, on behalf of the brave young men and women who are bearing the risks and burdens of this endeavor and our taxpayers who are bearing its costs, carefully and with conviction review the policies, plans and actions being proposed and taken to accomplish this critical objective.

The war on terrorism is a very different kind of war. There are no defined battlefields and no easily identifiable enemy. It is a global war. And, it is, like all wars, dangerous and costly. But, it is a war we must win if freedom and security are to be achieved in this 21st century. I will support this further effort to accomplish that victory.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Maryland District 7 Softball Team--this year's winners of the 2003 Softball Big League World Series.

This softball powerhouse breezed through the tournament to win their fifth championship title in seven years at the Big League Softball World Series. In eight innings, Maryland defeated Puerto Rico in the Championship Game by a score of 3-1. I want my colleagues to know about the hard work ethic and determination these outstanding young athletes possess.

Mr. Speaker, this is a sports success story and fans were thrilled by the championship effort and heart displayed by these young women from Maryland. Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating the Maryland District 7 Softball Team on their triumphant season.

The Maryland District 7 Softball Team: Jamie Baden, Lacy Cochran, Kim Fowler, Heather Hall, Heather Holley, Carrie Higdon, Cory Karcesky, Amanda Mitchell, Caryn Moreland, Lindsey Preuss, Kelly Seger, Maris Smith, Danielle Sturman, Jamea Waltersdorff, Abbey Welch, along with coaches Andy Adams, and Mike Kriner and manager Tommy Morrison.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important piece of legislation. And I want to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) for his leadership and sponsorship of this legislation. This bill is part and parcel of our Nation's continuing war on terrorism. And it is a necessary reminder to states that want to belong to the family of civilized nations while simultaneously sponsoring and providing safe harbor to terrorist organizations, you cannot have it both ways.

Syria has regularly appeared on the State Department list of state sponsors of terrorism. Let me recall the remarks of our President as he spoke to a joint session of Congress on September 20. He said, ``And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make,'' our President said, ``either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.''

Now, when he said ``us,'' he did not simply mean America; he meant the civilized law-abiding nations of the world and peoples of the world. ``From this day forward,'' he went on, ``any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.'' Strong words but appropriate words.

Syria provides safe haven and support for terrorist groups operating in Israel and throughout the region, including, as has been mentioned, Hezbollah. I saw that, Mr. Speaker, with my own eyes when I led a congressional delegation to Israel just a few weeks ago. We traveled to the Israel-Syrian border in the Golan Heights where members of Hezbollah openly walk about on the Syrian side, have arms on the Syrian side, have missiles, and launch terrorist attacks from the Lebanese- Syrian side.

As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, Syria's relationship with Hezbollah is reason enough to end economic relations with Damascus, as the President indicated we would do, but there are others as well. Damascus has failed to fulfill its agreement to withdraw its forces from the security zone in southern Lebanon. In recent years, Syria had become a major supply route for oil flowing out of Iraq and illegal arms shipments into Iraq. And Syria is believed to be pursuing both nuclear weapons and missile development. Syria, in fact, is subject to fewer sanctions, fewer sanctions than any other country designated by our government as a state sponsor of terrorism.

This bill would require the President to impose economic and diplomatic

penalties on Syria unless immediate and meaningful changes are made in its policies.

Left unchecked, I strongly believe Syria poses a grave risk to Israel, to the Middle East, and to our interests. It threatens regional stability and is ultimately a major U.S. national security concern. This bill seeks to reign in one of the major impediments to peace in the Middle East. And I urge my colleagues to support it.

The President was correct, you are either with the civilized law- abiding nations of the world or you are not. And if you are not, our relations with you should not be normal. In fact, they should impose sanctions and penalties for such conduct destabilizing and making less secure the region and the world.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleague and good friend from Virginia, Mr. Davis, in supporting H.R. 3054, the DC Military Retirement Equity Act. This measure goes a long way in providing a fair solution to an unjust problem.

When I was notified that hundreds of former military service members and retired Firefighters, Police Officers, Secret Service personnel, and U.S. Park Police were having their annuities forcibly reduced due to no fault of their own, it was clear that this was an injustice in need of swift action.

The solution, H.R. 3054, will allow retired and active duty DC Firefighters and Police Officers as well as U.S. Secret Service and Park Police to buy back any military service time in order for them to maintain their monthly annuity. An oversight in the administration of their retirement plans neglected to account for a federal law prohibiting any post 1956-military service from being credited towards a retiree's benefits once that retiree becomes eligible for Social Security.

In the past few months, many retirees have had their hard earned monthly annuities reduced by up to $600 per month. Future retirees can expect similar reductions, unless we pass this measure. Unlike options given to federal employees under FERS and CSRS, these members were never told about this provision and never offered an opportunity to buy back their time. H.R. 3054 will allow retirees to maintain their monthly annuities and will allow working men, women and their families to accurately plan for their retirement. These dedicated men and women selflessly served their country in the military and continued in their service by protecting our communities. We have a responsibility to ensure that they receive what they have rightfully earned.

I am pleased that Chairman Davis, Chairman Weldon, Ranking Member Waxman, Ranking Member Davis, Congresswoman Norton and I have been able to work in a bipartisan manner to develop a positive solution to a potentially crippling injustice. I would urge my colleagues to support

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chief deputy whip, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill), not only for his extraordinary leadership on this mission to Israel and to visit with the leadership of the Palestinian authority, Mr. Abbas, but also I want to thank him for his being here this evening. I had intended to be here throughout the course of this special order, but the scheduling was such that I could not be. I thank the distinguished chief deputy whip from Indiana for standing in.

Mr. Speaker, no region of the world in my opinion holds out more promise and presents more peril than the Middle East. Our Nation's security is closely tied to the developments there, from our efforts in post-Hussein Iraq where 130,000 American troops are on the ground today, to our desire to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, to the continuing hunt for al Qaeda operatives, to the ongoing Israeli- Palestinian crisis.

The United States, Mr. Speaker, has interests and allies throughout the region but we have only, in my opinion, one true friend there, the democratic state of Israel. As President Kennedy remarked 40 years ago, he said this, ``We will never turn our back on our steadfast friends in Israel whose alliance to the democratic way must be admired by all friends of freedom.''

Today, Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that a new generation of American leaders recognize the special relationship that has developed between our two nations and understand why a free and secure Israel is vital to America's national security. Indeed, developing a deeper understanding of the U.S.-Israel bond was the purpose of a congressional delegation trip to Israel that I was pleased to lead from August 2 to August 10.

In all, Mr. Speaker, 29 House Democrats made this trip. That is the largest congressional delegation to visit Israel in its history. Our delegation included Representatives from every region of the United States, as well as the territory of Guam. More than one-third were serving their first year in Congress.

Nearly one-third were women, and for many this was their first visit to Israel.

This was my fourth trip to Israel as a Member of the House. I had been there before, and this was my sixth trip in all.

We made this long journey to see and to learn. We traveled throughout Israel, and visited the Gaza Strip and West Bank as well.

We were privileged to meet with Prime Minister Sharon and members of his cabinet; Labor Party chairman Peres, one of Israel's most distinguished statesman. We met also with Speaker Reuven Rivlin and members of the Knesset; and in addition to that, we met with the then- Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, who sadly, subsequently, resigned after being continually undermined by the purveyors of death and destruction in his authority. He led, I think, an effort for peace, but that effort was subverted by Arafat himself.

We also, Mr. Speaker, were privileged to meet with representatives of the academic, religious, press, and medical communities. We saw firsthand the security challenges and realities that confront Israel and were left with several strong impressions.

First, security is an absolute precondition for peace. The much- discussed security fence was regarded as a reasonable attempt by our delegation to reduce terrorist attacks, and events, frankly, subsequent to our trip have not altered that view. However, Mr. Speaker, the route of that fence is an issue and properly continues to be examined.

Secondly, the dismantlement of the Palestinian terrorist organization, all of us believe, was essential if security was going to be effected, which is a precondition for peace, as I have said.

Thirdly, we cannot ignore, we must not ignore morally, politically, or intellectually the plight of the Palestinian people whose cause has been undermined, in my opinion, by the tactics of terror, the incitement to hate and refusal to seek peace.

Our trip, Mr. Speaker, occurred during a 7-week period of relative calm in that troubled part of the world; but that calm, as all of us know, was shattered on August 19, just a few days after we left, when a Hamas homicide bomber in Jerusalem murdered 22 people, including five Americans, and injured 130 others.

Since then, Mr. Abbas, as I said, has resigned. He resigned on September 6. A homicide bomber killed 19 people in Haifa last Saturday, and Israel retaliated 14 hours later by striking suspected terrorist camps inside Syria on the 30th anniversary of the Yom Kippur War.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the continued, unconscionable violence by Palestinian terrorist organizations has left the President's so- called road map for peace in tatters.

I might say that I remember a conversation we had with Mr. Abbas, the prime minister then of the Palestinian Authority. It was on a Monday that we met with him. We met with him in Gaza, and he made the observation that there were thousands of Palestinians on the beach in Gaza enjoying a Sunday afternoon. He had said they had not done that in a very long time because they, too, like the Israelis, are concerned about security. They understand that terrorist attacks bring retaliation. They understand that the violence that the Palestinian terrorists perpetrate begets violence committed against them. The two, in my opinion, are not analogous. One is the cause of the other.

Mr. Speaker, we responded not only deep into the heart of Afghanistan when we thought that they were providing a haven and training ground for terrorists; we destroyed their government and replaced their government and drove them from the land. The Taliban, of course, is what I am talking about; but we know that if terrorism would stop, the chances for peace would escalate geometrically.

The Palestinian side must know the basic precondition for peace is and must be the unconditional cessation of the campaign of terror and violence against Israel. Not only does it undermine the security of Israel, but it undermines the security of the Palestinian people as well.

The United States, Mr. Speaker, stands ready, I believe this Congress stands ready, to work with other nations to obtain a better life for the Palestinian people; but this Nation will always be committed to Israel's survival, security and success as the haven and homeland for the Jewish people. No people on Earth perhaps has been more savaged through the centuries.

My friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), will speak in just a minute. African Americans unfortunately and tragically fall in a similar condition. For us to allow any peoples, whether they be Jewish, African American or Palestinians, to be savaged in a world that calls itself civilized is unacceptable.

We must call, therefore, we must urge, we must demand the cessation of

the use of terrorism perpetrated against Israel, the United States, or any other nation. At the same time, we must seek justice, for without justice, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) knows so well, there will be no peace.

Mr. Speaker, I had the great privilege of coming to Congress in 1981. Some of my colleagues on the floor were here when I came. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and I came in the same class. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the dean of the Massachusetts delegation, was already here. Those who came after 1987 lost an extraordinary experience, and that experience was to serve in this House with one of America's great political leaders, so defined by Bob Dole. His name, of course, was Thomas P. O'Neill. He was a large man physically, but his heart was much larger, and his commitment to people even larger still.

Those of us who came to the Congress at that time obviously met Tip, serving under Speaker O'Neill and with him. But shortly thereafter, we had an extraordinary privilege, and that privilege was to meet his partner. Mildred A. O'Neill, affectionately known to all of us as Millie, became, in many respects, at least for those who were young enough to consider her as such, as sort of the den mother of the Democratic House. She was a wonderful, warm, committed, devoted human being. She was the kind of human being that everybody would want to be born and have as their grandmother or their mother, period, because she was filled with love and caring for humankind. And my, how she loved our Speaker. And my, how our Speaker loved her.

We talk about family values. It is easy to talk about family values, but I suggest that no one has lived family values any more than Tip O'Neill and Millie O'Neill.

Millie O'Neill was born in 1914, the same year that my mother was born. My mother, unfortunately, passed away in 1975 at a too-young age. Millie O'Neill lived until just a day ago. She died at the age of 89, having seen extraordinary history in her State and in her country and, indeed, with her husband, had impacted on that history in a most positive way.

When Tip O'Neill left the Congress, or shortly before, there was a poll taken in the South. And the two most popular figures in the United States, political figures at that time, were Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill in the South.

Now, obviously, they disagreed on many issues. So what was the cause of that support and popularity? It was because they were both viewed as two men of principle and the courage of their convictions. People could disagree with either one, but there was that respect for their character that was reflected. Millie O'Neill was a critical component of the character of her husband. They had been married for over half a century. Tip in his book referenced how loyal, how important Millie was to his life, both at times of triumph and times of trial.

Mr. Speaker, I count myself uniquely privileged to have come to Congress in time to know and become a friend of Mildred A. O'Neill. I believe she loved each and every one of us; and there is no doubt in my mind, Mr. Speaker, that each and every one of us loved her.

Let me say that I was also advantaged because, on the other side of the aisle, there was a leader who shared the compassion and commitment to this institution that Tip had, and that was Bob Michel. Bob has a wonderful wife, Corrine. She is ill today, and I know that she, too, and Bob Michel will grieve for the loss of their friend. It was a time, frankly, I say to my colleagues, when Bob Michel and Tip O'Neill knew that they were friends, knew that they had different views; but both were committed to this institution, and their wives, Millie and Corrine, were fast and true friends as well. America has lost a great American, a great grandmother, a great

mother, and a great supporter of this institution.

Mr. Speaker, let us be crystal clear about what this House is doing today. We are making a medical judgment. That ought to be of deep concern to every American who believes that the Federal Government has no business injecting itself into the middle of the doctor-patient relationship. If we pass this partial-birth abortion conference report, elected representatives of the people of the United States, not the medical community, not doctors, not trained persons, will be telling every American woman that she cannot obtain certain medical procedures that are currently legal and available to her. If that does not trouble you, this should: this conference report is patently unconstitutional.

The proponents of this conference report are literally trying to paper over Supreme Court precedent in direct contradiction of the Supreme Court's decision 3 years ago in Stenberg v. Carhart. This conference report deliberately excludes an exception for cases in which a woman's health is in jeopardy. Instead, the proponents of this conference report have added dozens of pages of congressional findings that conclude that the prescribed abortion procedure is never medically necessary. The distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) quoted Justice Thomas in saying that that would not work and could not work.

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that anyone here believes that abortion is a desired outcome to a woman's pregnancy; no one believes that. I think without question that this belief is even stronger when an abortion is obtained in the later stages of pregnancy. However, Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, this legislation, and I have said it before and I will say it again, would not prevent one abortion.

This legislation will not prevent one abortion, not one. Why? Because it leaves in place other procedures. That is because, while it claims to ban a specific medical procedure performed in the most tragic of circumstances, it leaves other means of terminating a pregnancy in place. To that extent, this legislation is without effect.

I would challenge any proponent of this legislation to tell me why it prohibits the termination of a pregnancy. I understand the proponents say it prohibits a procedure, but there will be not one proponent because it will not be medically justifiable to say so, that it precludes the termination of a pregnancy at any stage.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this House has again missed an important opportunity to seize what common ground exists in this difficult issue. The bipartisan Late-Term Abortion Restriction Act, which failed on this floor, which I co-sponsored this year, addresses the heart of the matter: the termination of pregnancy in the late stages of pregnancy. That legislation would have precluded all late-term abortions by any method except to save the life or protect the health of the mother.

It is clear that the conference report before us is nothing but a veiled attempt to undermine the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Roe versus Wade. It will fail. It will fail in the courts. How else can one explain the conferee's decision to strip out the Senate language reaffirming Roe? I hope my colleagues reject this bill.

Mr. Speaker, to reiterate what the gentleman from Wisconsin has just said, the 1.3 million people are protected by the gentleman's motion, and they will be advantaged; but the millions of people who will be disadvantaged by the proposal of the Department of Labor will be protected by the gentleman's motion. That is the issue.

Under the Bush administration and this Republican Congress, our economy has lost more than 3 million jobs, including 2.5 million manufacturing jobs. President Bush has the worst job creation record of any President since Herbert Hoover, and with a new unemployment figure out tomorrow, the Department of Labor reported today that jobless claims rose last week to nearly 400,000 Americans.

The fact is working families have borne the brunt of the Republican Party's failed economic policies. The poverty rating increased last year for the second consecutive year. The ranks of the uninsured swelled by 2.4 million. The median household income plunged for the third straight year under this administration.

While millionaires reaped an average tax cut of $93,000 from the GOP's tax bill this year, this Republican Congress has failed to extend the child tax credit to families earning less than $26,000, 6.5 million families, 12 million children and 200,000 military personnel.

Now, as if to add insult to injury, the GOP is pushing new regulations that would strip more than eight million people from their eligibility for overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act on which they rely to support their families, pay college tuition for their kids, pay their mortgage payment and car payment. The Secretary of Labor claims that businesses are lobbying for that change, and listen to this, ``not because they are getting any particular benefit but because they just want clarity.'' Give me a break.

``Firms that represent employers can hardly contain their glee,'' according to the Washington Post. Hewitt Associates, a human resources consultant, said ``Employees previously accustomed to earning, in some cases significant amounts of overtime pay, would suddenly lose that opportunity,'' under the Department of Labor's proposal. And the law firm that represents clients who will be advantaged by this bill said, ``Thankfully, virtually all of these changes should ultimately be beneficial to employers.'' I am for benefiting employers, but I am not for not benefiting employees.

Mr. Speaker, this Democratic motion instructs conferees to accept the Senate-passed provision to block the Bush administration's proposed rule changes that adversely affect employees while keeping those that do.

Mr. Speaker, we have been advised that profanity was out of order on this floor; doing things that are profane ought to be as well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring 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 majority leader. I appreciate the information the gentleman has given us. Essentially, we will be meeting Tuesday night and Wednesday next week.

The gentleman did not mention the Iraq supplemental, I do not believe. I would like to know because, obviously, that is a matter of great concern to every Member of this body and to the American people, when the gentleman expects to consider that supplemental appropriation on the floor. And additionally, can the gentleman assure Members that we are going to have a full consideration and fair process to consider this bill on the floor, a process that will allow a full debate so that Members will have the ability to address all of their concerns? They may well want to support it, but I think the Congress and the American people want to know exactly what we are doing.

I yield to the gentleman.

Is it the gentleman's expectation now that the bill as reported from the Committee on Rules to the floor will be subject to amendment?

Further conference reports from the Committee on Appropriations. The Majority leader mentioned several conference reports that would come up next week or may come up next week. I would note that neither the Medicare prescription drug legislation nor the child tax credit legislation is on that list, but could Members be told which of those that were listed are most likely to come to the floor? I know we have had them on the list a number of times. Does the gentleman have any greater feel for which bills would be most likely to come to the floor?

I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I understand from those last comments, then, the position still is, if we cannot do it permanently we will not do it temporarily.

Reclaiming my time, I understand what the gentleman is saying about standing with the American families, but the American families, at least the 6 and a half million and 12 million children that we talked about and the 200,000 military families, are not getting relief because, as I understand it, they cannot get permanent relief.

I would suggest to the Majority Leader that we passed a major tax bill that expires in 2010. So by its definition, therefore, it was temporary in nature, and, notwithstanding that fact, we passed it. I would urge the majority to apply the same logic to the child tax credit, to those families making less than $26,000 in our society, most in need of help, very frankly, as opposed to those of us who are doing much better and some, of course, doing much, much better than we are doing but we are doing well. So I would urge the gentleman to look at that.

With respect to the Medicare conference, we have heard some information on this side that the President and some of the majority conferees have reached an agreement that there is going to be an effort to reach agreement by October 17 in the conference. Is that information accurate?

I do not want to speculate on which side God is on the Medicare prescription drug bill. I have my own perspective, however, I will tell my colleagues.

The gentleman indicated that there are a number of meetings going on of conferees discussing this. And lamentably I want to tell the leader that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) are not aware of any meetings that have occurred involving, at least, them; and they are conferees. If we are going to be able to pass this legislation, in my opinion, it will be necessary for us to proceed in a bipartisan way.

Could the gentleman comment on the fact that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) have not been in any of these meetings to which he has referred?

Reclaiming my time, very seriously I want to tell the gentleman that any implication that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), who has fought for Medicare and health care legislation longer, harder, than any member on this floor from either party, and whose father preceded him in that fight, is somehow not interested in passing a bill is inaccurate, Mr. Speaker. The gentleman made a mistake if that is his premise. I want to advise him, respectfully, that he is wrong.

I also believe that Mr. Berry and Mr. Rangel are extraordinarily interested in passing a bill. Now, their perspective may be different. As far as we know, there have been no conference meetings in the sense of the conferees getting together and discussing differences and trying to iron those differences out in the last 2 months.

Mr. Speaker, rather than go back and forth on it at this point in time, I will be glad to ask Mr. Dingell and Mr. Rangel when the last meeting was that they were invited to.

That was a meeting with the President. I agree with the gentleman. It was not a conference meeting, however. It may have been a meeting with the President.

We hope that we will proceed.

The FAA conference report, we were told that that was going to be on the floor last week and this week. We understood that we would consider it this week. The rule was not brought up. Can the gentleman illuminate for the Members where that bill stands? I know the previous week we could not find the papers, as I recall. This week we understand the papers have been found, but we did not move ahead on that. Can the Majority Leader tell us why we have not proceeded on that and what he perceives to be the future of the FAA reauthorization bill?

I thank the gentleman for that information because I know we need to move ahead on that authorization. If the gentleman could answer the question, however, we understand there seems to be a disagreement. However, the House passed a provision that directed that there be no privatization of the air traffic controllers. The Senate passed a provision providing that there should be no privatization of air traffic controllers. But we understand there is a difference in the conference on this issue. Can you explain to me, Mr. Leader, when the House took a position on behalf of insuring on the continued public nature of the air traffic controllers and the Senate took the same position, why there might be a difference on that issue?

I thank the gentleman for his candor on that. Each of us finds ourselves in that position from time to time. I would urge the gentleman, however, because both Houses have taken the same position on that very critical issue, in my opinion, to the security of our Nation, if you might urge the conferees at least to take that item on which apparently the House and Senate both acted in concert off the table, it might facilitate the movement of the conference.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to note the passing of one of my predecessors in representing the Fifth Congressional District of Maryland--Richard E. Lankford--who passed away at the age of 89 at his Easton home on September 22.

Born in Wilmington, Delaware, on July 22, 1914, Dick Lankford was raised on St. Paul Street in Baltimore's Guilford neighborhood. He earned a political science degree from the University of Virginia in 1937 and then received his law degree from the University of Maryland in 1940.

After being admitted to the Maryland Bar that same year, Dick practiced law in Annapolis, where later in life he worked as a tobacco and cattle farmer. However, his legal career was interrupted by World War Two, during which he served in the Navy as an intelligence officer in Europe.

After the war, Dick worked on the campaign of Governor William Preston Lane, Jr., and then in 1948 he entered public life himself when he was appointed to fill a vacancy in the Maryland House of Delegates. He won the election to retain that seat in 1950, and four years later he won election to this House of Representatives, defeating the incumbent, Republican Frank Small, Jr. Congressman Lankford was re- elected four times to the House of Representatives, serving 10 years in Congress, before deciding to retire in 1964.

Mr. Speaker, I vividly recall Congressman Lankford as my own Congressman when I was still completing my undergraduate studies at the University of Maryland in the early 60s. The old Fifth Congressional District, which I have been privileged to serve since 1981, then stretched all the way from South Baltimore to suburban Washington, and included industrial workers in the Curtis Bay area, tobacco farmers in Calvert County, Federal government employees in Prince George's County, and watermen in Charles County. It's a testament to Dick Lankford's ability that he successfully served constituents from such varied backgrounds and livelihoods.

In Congress, Dick Lankford worked hard to secure pay raises and to improve working conditions for Federal employees. He also was an early advocate for cleaning up Maryland's rivers and the Chesapeake Bay, as well as mass transit in the Baltimore-Washington areas. He also served with distinction on the Armed Services Committee.

I want to extend my sincere condolences to Dick's wife, Edna, as well as his daughter, Sallie, of Massachusetts, and son, Richard Jr., of Millington.

Dick Lankford was proud of his service in this House. He brought to his constituency and to our State energy and a commitment to his country that served all of them well. Today, we honor his service to the State of Maryland and these United States, and we affirm that it indeed will be remembered for many years to come.