Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, last month, our region was subjected to nature's unbridled wrath. And, despite the advances in technology that gave us fair warning that a storm of this magnitude was approaching, there was little anyone could do to escape the destruction Isabel left in her wake. The five counties I represent all suffered enormous damage, families were displaced and without power for days, homes and businesses were demolished, and our natural resources were destroyed by the strength of the winds and rain that accompanied this vicious hurricane.

Our region responded quickly and directed the full force of its resources to assist residents and business owners with their recovery efforts. I am extremely grateful to our first responders, local and state officials, and disaster assistance teams from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Maryland Emergency Management Agency (MEMA), the Army Corps of Engineers, law enforcement officials and community volunteers who I saw throughout our communities when I visited parts of St. Mary's, Anne Arundel, and Calvert counties in the week following the storm.

On Thursday, September 25 I joined Senators Sarbanes and Mikulski, as well as my colleagues in the Maryland Congressional Delegation, to hear from representatives from several federal and State of Maryland agencies on relief efforts underway to help the citizens of Maryland and small businesses throughout the State. We were informed that the counties were completing their Preliminary Damage Assessments which would be submitted to MEMA and FEMA so that funds could be designated to assist with the clean-up and recovery.

Thus far, Maryland has qualified for federal assistance with debris removal and emergency protective services. If the damage in other areas meets the threshold for disasters, Maryland could become eligible for more categories of federal assistance, including repair of roads and bridges, water control facilities, buildings and equipment, utilities and parks.

Recovering from this storm will be a long process, and we all will face challenges along the way. I will continue to work with elected officials and residents throughout the 5th District of Maryland to provide any resources I can to help in this recovery process.

Mr. Speaker, the Members on our side of the aisle can hardly wait to hear what half-baked excuse our Republican colleagues will use this year for failing to complete our appropriations work on time.

Remember last fall's favorite punching bag? Tom Daschle and Senate Democrats.

As if the other body had anything to do with the Republican majority's refusal to even bring up eight of the 13 annual spending bills on this floor for a vote.

We all know last year's little secret: The House GOP--so famously derided as the ``perfectionist caucus'' by Former Speaker Newt Gingrich--didn't have the votes on its side of the aisle to pass those bills.

So, you pointed the finger of blame at the Senate.

When we considered the first continuing resolution last year, the majority leader (Mr. Delay) said:

``The Democrat House leadership embraced the decision by the other body [the Senate] to proceed with no governing fiscal oversight called a budget. For any theoretical elective body, the decision to proceed forward without a governing budget would be foolhardy and grossly irresponsible.''

The chairman of the Transportation-Treasury Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. Istook, passed the buck with even more gusto:

``The law requires both houses to enact a budget. This body has done so. The other body still has not done it. No wonder we have gridlock and deadlock.''

But few could match the bluntness of my friend from Georgia (Mr. Kingston):

``There is a sinkhole on the Capitol, not over here, but over there [the Senate],'' said Mr. Kingston.

``Now, this sinkhole ate up the budget this year. So here we are forced to pass a continuing resolution because we cannot deal with some group that does not have a budget.''

Well, the last time I checked, my Republican friends, there was a Republican majority in this body, a Republican majority in the other body, and a Republican chief executive at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

And while this house has passed all 13 spending bills, we have only adopted three conference reports.

So what is your excuse this year?

We all know the answer to that. It's your inability to compromise even with members of your own party.

And it's an affliction that is not just holding up the appropriations process.

It's also preventing us from passing an energy bill, from extending the child tax credit to 6.5 million working American families, and giving our seniors a real prescription drug benefit that is not designed to destroy Medicare.

The GOP has no one to blame this year for this legislative failure but itself.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me the time, and I agree with everything he said; and I think the chairman agrees with most of what he said.

Usually when we discuss these issues, almost invariably those of us on this side of the aisle rise and first say that we do not hold responsible our chairman for the policies that are being pursued. It is his responsibility, however, to practically try to carry out flawed policies. He does so with a great deal of skill, with eminent fairness and with grace for which all of us who serve on his committee are very thankful.

But, Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations is operating in the context of the most fiscally irresponsible policy that any administration and majority has followed in the history of this country. I pause for emphasis. The children of America, the grandchildren of America are going to be called upon to pay the bill for this irresponsible policy. That is what the ranking member meant when he said that all of the dollars that are being requested to pursue a policy that I supported in Iraq will be paid for by our children and grandchildren.

An irresponsible policy. An unrealistic policy.

And I would recall for Members that just a few months ago, when we adopted that budget resolution, of which the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) spoke, we adopted it on a Thursday. No Democrats voted for it. Not one. We then, on the Tuesday following that Thursday, had a motion made by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), and that motion simply said that we instructed the conference not to do what was in the budget; not to cut veterans by $1.5 billion; not to cut housing, which is in short supply for middle America; not to do many of the things that would have undercut education, health care, and the environment that were proposed in that budget.

And I would further recall for Members, and unfortunately there are no press here, but I recall that the chairman of the Committee on the Budget (Mr. Nussle), sitting where the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations now sits, railed for about 29 minutes about how awful the motion to instruct was and how Members ought to vote against it. And then, lo and behold, the majority leader came to the floor, spoke quietly to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), and the vote was called.

Many Republicans rushed to the floor to vote against that motion to instruct, and, lo and behold, as the minutes went by, votes were changed. Lo and behold, as the minutes went by, the rhetoric of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) was forgotten quickly when the reality of the votes and the necessity to report at home the consequences of those votes was realized by our Republican friends on the majority side. So they changed their votes; or if they had not voted, voted for the motion to instruct offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). How ironic.

And now the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) is confronted with another reality. Last year, we could not pass appropriation bills. Eight of them were passed not only after the fiscal year, but after the Congress had adjourned. Why? Because the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) was forced to operate within a context of a totally unrealistic budget. And what did the Republicans say? They said, oh, it is Mr. Daschle's fault. It is the Senate's fault. They have not adopted a budget.

Well, now, they control the House, they control the Senate, they control the administration, and as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) pointed out, on a good day, they control the Supreme Court. I thought that was a good line and, unfortunately, true at times as well. But the fact of the matter is they control it all. And the lamentation that they put forward last year, the excuse that they put forward last year, the rationalization they pursued last year is not available to them; not to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) but to the majority leadership.

And so we are confronted with, yes, having passed our bills, and I might say some without a single Democratic vote. As a matter of fact, one of the largest bills, one of the most important bills for education of our children, for the health care of our families and citizens, not one Democrat voted for it. Not because we are not for education and health care, but because we knew that bill was an unrealistic bill.

So we are confronted today with a resolution that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) is required to put forward, and acting as he always does, responsibly, he must put forward, and

which I am going to support, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is going to support. It is the alternative we ought to pursue.

I said the most fiscally irresponsible administration. Why? Because after we adopt this budget or these appropriation bills, which will spend a lesser and lesser percentage of the gross domestic product of our country on discretionary spending that we will make decisions about, we will have created over a $.5 trillion deficit in this single year, more debt than we incurred in the first 90 percent of the days of this Republic, and our children are going to pay the bill. How tragic. How irresponsible.

We passed a bankruptcy bill in which we made it harder to declare bankruptcy, and each of us on the floor said we need to require personal responsibility of those who seek credit. If we applied that same criteria to this administration and to the Congress of the United States, we would fail. We are not exercising personal responsibility. In this instance, we must pass this resolution, and I will vote for it, but I lament the fact that it is passed in the context of the most irresponsible fiscal policy that I have ever seen and this country has ever seen, and which is disadvantaging our country and our ability to invest in the future.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's elaboration of what this bill does and what it does not do. I would say to the gentleman, I have a concern. As the gentleman knows, when someone who has been very much involved in the fire grant program, and focused on the fire service, not just as it relates to terrorism, but as it relates to safety in our neighborhoods and the safety of our firefighters and emergency medical response teams, am I correct that unlike the House-passed bill, we have now shifted from the fire administration, the fire grant program, into the Office of Domestic Preparedness?

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield for another question, is the gentleman confident that having done that, that the fire grant program will not be adversely affected in terms of its focus on firefighting, firefighter safety, and emergency response capabilities?

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would further yield, I thank the gentleman for his observation. I have had an opportunity to discuss this briefly with the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers); and I would hope that the committee, having accepted the Senate's position, which I do not share, as I share the gentleman's view on this, will ensure that this committee program, not just for our response to terrorist activity, but in response to making sure that our firefighters and emergency medical response teams can be effective, that we can also keep them safe in the normal

day-to-day, but risky, activities in which they undertake. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his observations. And I want to say that, although I would have agreed with the position of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) that it ought not to be shifted, I believe the gentleman is correct that he has tried to build in protections so that this program is not undermined. I appreciate those actions which I think certainly make this switch a more positive one than it otherwise would have been, and I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) who does such an extraordinarily good job, not only on this bill, but on so many other issues, and I thank him for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by expressing my support for H.R. 2657, which responsibly meets the needs of the legislative body, the body designed by our Founders to make sure that our Federal Government works as our citizens want it to; and this bill provides for the resources to accomplish that objective.

Let me also join the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) in congratulating not only his staff, but Liz Dawson, who has done such an extraordinary job for the Committee on Appropriations, not only this subcommittee but other subcommittees as well, for the work that she does.

Mr. Speaker, one matter that should concern every Member of this body is the fair treatment of the folks who work for us and with us, including temporary workers employed by the legislative branch. Section 133, Mr. Speaker, of the Legislative Appropriations Act of 2002, which became law on November 12, 2001, prohibits the Architect of the Capitol from employing temporary workers for long periods without providing eligibility for employee benefits.

Notwithstanding that, this is not happening much to my dismay and the dismay of the subcommittee and the chairman and the ranking member. The Architect has refused to implement section 133, despite the clearest of Congressional intention and the fact that the General Accounting Office has determined that section 133 provides the Architect with the authority to treat temporary workers fairly.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that today's conference report includes language that strengthens section 133. I thank the chairman and the ranking member and particularly Liz Dawson for that objective. I strongly support this language.

My expectation with this language is simple: That Mr. Hantman will finally appreciate that Congress meant what it said 2 years ago, when it instructed his office to fairly treat temporary workers.

I thank the committee for its work and thank the ranking member for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today to appropriately draw attention to the contributions of our nation's prestigious Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and their proud tradition of educating and preparing African-Americans for the past 166 years.

This year, we celebrate these universities the week of September 14 to September 20, and I feel honored to participate in such a noble cause.

Over 100 Historically Black Colleges and Universities have been established in the United States. These institutions comprise only 3 percent of all centers for higher education in the United States, but account for 30 percent of bachelor's degrees awarded to African Americans each year.

I am very proud that Bowie State University, the oldest of Maryland's four HBCUs is located in my district and I am privileged to represent the students, faculty and staff members who make great things happen on this campus. (There are three other HBCUs in MD--Morgan State in Baltimore City, Coppin State in Baltimore and the University of Maryland--Eastern Shore). Bowie State is the descendant of the first school opened by the Baltimore Association for the Moral and Educational Improvement of Colored People in 1865. BSU rightfully boasts a number of significant and praiseworthy statistics:

First nationally in graduating African Americans with master's degrees in computer science and information sciences;

Second nationally in graduating African Americans with master's degrees in psychology;

Third nationally in graduating African Americans with master's degrees in communications; Eighth, nationally in graduating minorities with master's degrees in psychology;

Fourth among HBCUs in granting master's degrees of all disciplines;

Fourth in extramural funding in the University System of Maryland (USM) with the highest percentage of increase in the System (48.1 percent) for the 2000-2001 fiscal year.

Ninth nationally in graduating all minorities with master's degrees in communications;

Thirteenth nationally in graduating African Americans with master's degrees;

Additionally, in 1995 BSU won an 11-year, $27 million award from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration/National Science Foundation to become one of the six national Model Institutions of excellence in science, engineering, and mathematics.

HBCUs provide a vital role in educating the next generation of our nation's leaders by extending to our students access to the best opportunities for personal and professional success. Most important, these schools champion the cause of equal access to education, access that is critically important during a time when fiscal constraints have burdened our state and ultimately our families, making affording higher education even more difficult for many Americans.

In fact, the Maryland Higher Education Commission recently announced that the number of Maryland college students on a waiting list for state-sponsored financial aid increased almost 50 percent this fall--at the same time, tuition and the number of college applicants has increased. Last school year 133,692 Marylanders filed the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), the nationwide form that determines aid eligibility. That was up from 118,537 applications from Maryland in the 2001-2002 school year, a 12 percent increase.

Many historically black institutions are facing similar financial challenges, and regrettably, for some, closing has become a reality. The federal government must realize that Historically Black Colleges do not simply provide educational opportunities and benefits to African Americans, but educating our nation's young people, regardless of race, improves the aptitude of all of our people. The entire country has gained from these fine institutions of education, and with the help of the federal government, the youth of our nation will continue to be well educated for generations to come.

Congress and the President can acknowledge this by adequately funding the programs that support the efforts of these important institutions. The House of Representatives included $224 million in funding for the Strengthening Historically Black Colleges program and the Strengthening HBCU Graduate Institutions for fiscal year 2004. This is a $10 million increase in funding from last year, and as a member of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations. Subcommittee, I will continue to support these programs and will fight for increased funding to help them continue their mission and tradition of educating African-Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me this week in saluting the contributions of America's Historically Black Colleges and Universities, which have been educating students for more than 100 years. I am grateful to the nation's HBCUs for their commitment to academic excellence for all students, including low-income and educationally disadvantaged students, and am especially proud of the four HBCUs in the state of Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority leader, for the purposes of informing the House for the following week and perhaps thereafter.

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

If I might, I would like to start with the general and then go to the specific for next week. I know that there are some of our colleagues who are trying to plan schedules for not only next week but weeks out and I know there has been a lot of discussion going on.

Can the leader tell me what he anticipates the schedule will be generally speaking in the month of October? My presumption is that we are going to be here through the end of October, as the Senate has not passed some of the bills and sent them to us. Our anticipation is that we will be here at least that long.

Can the gentleman tell us what he anticipates to be the schedule for the weeks of October? We know that the Senate is taking off one of those weeks. I think the first full week of October they will be taking off. I think Members would find it very useful if the gentleman could give us his thoughts on what our schedule would be.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the leader's comments, and I understand when we get down towards the end of the session you are not sure exactly how the business will flow and you have got to make decisions as that occurs.

I understand the week of October 6, which is I guess a week and a half from today, I hate to try to pin the gentleman down, but Members obviously are trying to figure out when they get requests in their districts to do things, whether or not that October 6 date, again because the Senate's going to be off, is a probable time that they may be able to work in the District or whether it is too problematic for them to make any kinds of plans. I yield to my friend.

I understand. I thank the gentleman. Would it be fair for Members to presume, absent further notice, that we will be meeting, as we have been meeting, on the Tuesday evening, Thursday night schedule? I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for his comments. Now, if I could go to the specifics.

I am glad to yield.

Reclaiming my time, I understand what the leader is saying.

On the appropriations conference reports, the gentleman mentioned a number of conference reports, Homeland Security and DOD and the DOD authorization. Is there a possibility that the legislative branch appropriation conference report could come to the floor next week as well or any other conference reports?

I thank the gentleman. The other conference report, there are many others, but one that we are very interested in is the labor- health-education conference report. Does the leader have any insight as to when that might be considered on the floor?

Reclaiming my time, is that on the issue of overtime pay for working Americans?

Mr. Speaker, I understand. Reclaiming my time, there is another conference report that we have been talking about now for a couple of weeks, and that is the FAA conference report, the reauthorization, which the authorization I think expires on September 30, if I am correct. Can the gentleman tell the body and the Members the status of that conference report?

Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his observation on that, and we want to try to help him find a way, but as the gentleman knows, one of the provisions in that, which suggests privatizing the air traffic controllers, is a very controversial item I think on both sides of the aisle very frankly, but giving my colleague the information I think it is appropriate for him to have, I think beyond that and perhaps the training of the attendants, which we think is also very important for our homeland security and air traffic security purposes, but for those two I think we are pretty much in agreement.

So if we can facilitate perhaps on that which we are in agreement, moving the bill, we would be glad to try to help on that effort.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

There is another bill, as we all know, that the authorization of which is expiring the end of this month, and that is the Transportation Efficiency Act 21. TEA-21, as we refer to it, is expiring. That has been in consideration. I know there is a lot of controversy about how much investment ought to be authorized in that bill. Can the gentleman tell us the status of that particular piece of legislation, which is so critical to the welfare of our country? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, so the gentleman thinks that may be on the floor next week?

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, next to last issue I would bring up, I think I heard the gentleman say this, but I want to make sure the Members understand, is it the gentleman's understanding, and is it his intention, that if we adopt a CR, is it next week that he thinks we may do that, that the date set in that CR for continuing funding would be until the 31st of October? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, last question, and I know it would disappoint my colleague if I did not pursue this issue, but Senator Grassley in the other body was quoted as saying he expects the Democrats to keep the heat on on this issue, so we do not want to disappoint him either.

I say that facetiously, but we really do care about the child tax credit. It appears that the conference is meeting. It appears that there is significant disagreement between the House and the Senate, but there appears that there is, in this limited area, that is, extending the child tax credit to those families who are making between $10- and $26,000, of which there are some 6\1/2\ million families, 12 million children affected by this and 200,000 military families, there appears to be agreement on this issue.

One of the disagreements is apparently that there are some of us who are willing to make it permanent, but want to at least see it active this year, but one of the problems apparently that the gentleman expressed last week was if we cannot make it permanent, we apparently cannot do it. I would hope, because I think we could do it very quickly on this floor and would not take much time of the body, that the gentleman would bring to the floor the Senate bill, which has the child tax credit, and that we might pass that or, alternatively, simply do a limited bill, send it to the Senate, and they could take it off the desk and pass it, but in either event, it would facilitate getting to those 6\1/2\ million families the same kind of assistance that we have already given to others who have received a refund of the child tax credit. I know the gentleman anticipated that question. I know he has an answer.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I understand what the gentleman said, but when one really addresses this issue in a way that reflects I think an honest analysis of it, there is disagreement between the two bodies on the proposal we made in the House and the proposal that has been made in the Senate. There is, however, no disagreement, not a scintilla of difference, between the two houses on whether or not assistance ought to be given to these 6\1/2\ million people, families and 12 million children, 200,000 military families this year. The only issue is do we want to do it further and keep it. Very frankly, I would want to do it at least this year, and then I will fight to do it next year and the year after, and our side of the aisle will fight side by side with the gentleman trying to make that permanent, but because there is no disagreement on that issue but there is disagreement, as the gentleman points out, between our body and the other body on other issues included in the bill to which the gentleman refers, these 6\1/2\ million families are paying the price.

What I am saying respectfully to the leader is that on the issue that I have brought up, there is no disagreement, as I understand it, with Republicans, with Democrats in the House or with Republicans or Democrats in the Senate, and because we have agreement on that, we ought to act, and I would urge the majority leader to seriously consider requesting that the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, and we ought to protect our jurisdiction, we ought to initiate that bill but because we have agreement, I would hope we would do so. I would yield.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time if that, as the gentleman posits, is the disagreement, then I would say to the leader that I think I can in the next 96 hours get my side of the aisle to agree with his side of the aisle to pass that as a permanent extension. The problem we have is not between our bodies on that issue as I said. I think my party would join. These are folks who make between $10- and $26,000 who are trying to support their children, put them into school, get them through and make them good citizens. We want to help that, my colleague wants to help that, but we are not doing it. We are not doing it because there is a disagreement between the two bodies.

I think it is incorrect to characterize our side of the aisle as wanting this to expire. What we want to do is pass, and if there is disagreement between the bodies, we at least want to take one step, even if we cannot take five steps, because that one step will help those families. I would be glad to yield to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I want the gentleman to know as the representative of the original adopters of that extraordinary document who were then later pleased to welcome to our ranks those who serve under that Constitution our distinguished citizens from Texas and distinguished citizens that California. And I had the opportunity of hearing the majority leader speak today at a ceremony at the National Archives at

which we unveiled the newly ensconced and protected charters of freedom, the Constitution of the United States preceded by the Declaration of Independence and followed closely by the Bill of Rights, those three extraordinary documents which stand as probably the most powerful statements of a free people and of liberty and justice and a government of laws and not of men. They will be preserved from the elements as they have been preserved from those who would undermine their principles and their reality.

I want to congratulate the leader for his comments today at that ceremony.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois, and I thank the other gentleman from Indiana for bringing this resolution so quickly to the floor. I join my Indiana colleagues.

I knew Frank O'Bannon pretty well. I was asked by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) in 1995 to serve in the capacity of the liaison to the National Governors' Association and to the Democratic Governors' Association, and I, therefore, know firsthand the loss that the Hoosier State has sustained and the loss of this extraordinarily popular Governor, who presided over great change and progress in his State. Our Nation, as I think the last speaker indicated so well, has lost a model public servant and citizen.

A few years ago when I served as the House liaison, I had the pleasure of working with Governor O'Bannon, both on issues that were in front of the Congress and on politics, and I can confirm what so many have written and said about him. He was a wonderful, intelligent, kind, and humble gentleman who, along with Judy, worked tirelessly for all Hoosiers and who cared deeply about his country and his State.

It is noteworthy, I think, that Governor O'Bannon never lost a political election. Democracy is an extraordinary process, and the people's wisdom is what makes it so great because they choose well. They choose different types of people, and we contend politically, but I am always impressed with how well, ultimately, they do choose. But it is telling what his last opponent David McIntosh, a former Member of this body said about him. This is somebody who ran against him, ran a hard campaign, an extraordinarily able young man. He said this: ``Everywhere I'd go, people would say to me: `How are you going to run against someone who is everyone's grandfather?' And it was the truth,'' David McIntosh said. ``He was a congenial guy that everyone liked.''

After serving 18 years in the Indiana Senate including 8 as Democratic floor leader and 8 as Lieutenant Governor and more than 6 years as Governor, Frank O'Bannon pulled off a rare feat in politics: He was both effective and well-liked. However, his gentle nature is not his only legacy. His many accomplishments, as the colleagues from Indiana know better than I do or others, include creating a community college system, adopting of academic standards that are among the best in the Nation, extending health insurance to nearly half a million children, and engineering an overhaul of the State tax system to entice business to Indiana and to relieve property tax owners.

There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that Frank O'Bannon lived life to the fullest, graduating from Indiana U, where he played basketball, serving in the Air Force, practicing law, and working as a newspaper publisher in his native Corydon. And there is no doubt that we are fortunate for his service. I am pleased to join my colleagues in lamenting for ourselves, for Indiana, and for our country the loss of this extraordinary individual and being joyous in the fact that, as a man of faith, he is better off, and joyous in the fact that we had the opportunity to know him and to work with him and to know that his State and country were better for his life.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) is my counterpart in this House. It is his responsibility to organize his party to vote on issues of importance to this country and to express their views. And on my side of the aisle, it is my responsibility to organize my party to express our views. At times, that is extraordinarily contentious and we demonstrate to the American public, and indeed to the world, sometimes deep differences.

But the gentleman from Missouri is my friend, he is my fellow citizen of this greatest of democracies and nations. And on September 11, 2 years ago, he and I and our colleagues were on this hill, and we heard that there was a plane coming towards this city. It was in the context of one plane hitting the north tower and one plain hitting the south tower of the World Trade Center in New York. On that day, there were no Republicans, there were no Democrats, there were no liberals, there were no conservatives. There were Americans. There were representatives of 280 million people elected to serve this great Nation.

Today, we are as one with our President and with our people in remembering, remembering those whom we lost from this Nation, and indeed from nations around the world. We remember the heroism of those brave citizens on that plane over Pennsylvania, determined that the information they had received about terrorists taking down buildings would not be allowed by them to happen as a result of the plane that they were on being crashed into what we ultimately conclude was either this building, the center of democracy, or the White House, the House of the leader of the free world.

And so, Mr. Speaker, as we remember, as we reflect, we renew our resolve that we will confront terrorism; that in

John Kennedy's words, we will pay any price, bear any burden to defend freedom here and around the world. God blesses America, God blesses America through the resolve and the courage of its people and its commitment to freedom.

Mr. Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation--the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions of 2003--which provides a national uniform standard on how consumer reporting agencies and other financial services entities may access and use consumer financial and medical data.

But before I discuss the substance of the underlying bill, I want to compliment the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Financial Services Committee (Mr. Oxley and Mr. Frank), who worked together in crafting this bipartisan legislation, which I believe will be passed by an overwhelming margin today.

This, Mr. Chairman, is how our legislative process should work. The Chairman and Ranking Member identified a need. They held hearings. And they crafted the bipartisan solution on the Floor today that is, nonetheless, open to amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the advent of the Internet and the Information Revolution has been a terrific boon for the American consumer. Millions have received quick credit decisions on financing a new car, on obtaining a credit card, and on taking out or refinancing a mortgage. This has clearly facilitated many of the most important financial decisions consumer make, and strengthened our economy.

However, it also illustrates the need for national uniform standards for financial information. And that is what this bill addresses.

Under this legislation, consumers can receive a free annual credit report that will disclose their credit score. In addition, the Act gives consumers new options for disputing and correcting inaccuracies in their credit reports, encourages prompt investigations of such disputes, and establishes new requirements to prevent corrected errors from being reintroduced into a credit report.

The Act also includes provisions to combat identify theft. A recent Federal Trade Commission survey indicated that more than 27 million Americans have been victims of identity theft in the last five years, including nearly 10 million people in the last year alone.

H.R. 2622 permits consumers to more easily place ``fraud alerts'' on their consumer reports; to require credit reporting agencies to block (or omit) information that is confirmed to have resulted from an identity theft, as long as the consumer has filed a police report concerning the ID theft; and to prohibit retailers from printing the expiration date and more than the last five digits of a consumer's credit or debit card number on electronic receipts.

Finally, the Act greatly expands the protections in the Fair Credit Reporting Act that govern the sharing and use of sensitive medical records and information, as well as information pertaining to medical- related payments and debts. These provisions will prohibit consumer reporting agencies from including medical information in a consumer's credit report unless the medical information is directly relevant to the consumer's attempts to obtain employment or credit and the consumer has explicitly consented to the release of the information.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation is not only substantively important, it is timely. As my colleagues may know, Congress must reauthorize the Fair Credit Reporting Act before the preemptions expire on December 31, 2003.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Is the gentleman saying that there is no reason to oppose this motion which says do not privatize Medicare if, in fact, their plan does not do that?

Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker, of course, will have at least 35 to 37 or 39 years to worry about this problem. So for him it is not an immediate problem. For some of us, however, there is a heightened concern. And I will tell my friend from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), my young friend from Wisconsin, and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), who protest over and over and over again that we are not privatizing Social Security, of course, their party was led until just last year by a gentleman who said that we ought not to have Medicare in a free society and formerly led by a speaker who said it was going to fade away. And millions, I tell my gentlewoman friend and my young friend, million of seniors, forget about what we here in the House say, millions of seniors and their experts who have studied your program very carefully believe it is going to privatize Medicare, notwithstanding your legerdemain about our definition of it currently being privatized.

Nobody believes that. The fact of the matter is millions of seniors have reported back to my colleagues, hey, this program is not good for us.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Reclaiming my time, that is the legerdemain I was referring to exactly.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this motion to instruct. It recognizes what the ideologues on the other side of the aisle refuse to admit. Turning Medicare into a voucher program will only encourage private insurers to skim the healthiest seniors, leaving Medicare to cover the sickest, most disabled beneficiaries.

Vouchers are nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to end Medicare, our Nation's bedrock commitment to America's seniors for the last 38 years.

This motion instructs conferees to reject the provision in the House bill that would turn Medicare into a voucher program in 2010. In addition, it instructs conferees to accept the Senate-passed provisions requiring a Federal fallback prescription drug benefit if the private sector in any given area refuses to offer an alternative plan.

I have not heard any protestations that there is such a fallback in the House bill, because there is not. Under the Senate bill, if at least two private plans are not available to seniors, the Federal Government would offer beneficiaries a prescription drug benefit. Let us not turn a blind eye to reality. Insurers are not lining up to provide prescription drug-only policies. In fact, as I think the gentlewoman knows, because the former chairman of the subcommittee, I think he is now the Chair of, Mr. Gradison, had some comments to make when he was president of the Health Industry Association of America, said that private sector would not offer such plans that are contemplated under my colleague's bill.

They are in business to make money, as they ought to be; and they will not hesitate to drop customers who file too many claims or cost them too much. That has been our experience with the Medicare+Choice plan in which more than 2 million seniors have been abandoned by HMOs seeking higher profits, including in my own area. I do not criticize the HMO. They are in business, but this is a service that we want to guarantee to all of our citizens to have available to them at affordable prices; and as any homeowner can tell my colleagues, that is the experience in that line of insurance as well. One might think that they are in good hands, but if they file a claim, they might just find that those hands have said bye, bye. They might think that their private insurer is a good neighbor; but if they file a claim, they might just find that their good neighbor has moved away without leaving a forwarding address.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say, on Saturday, July 19, more than 70 of my colleagues, my Democratic colleagues in this House, held town hall meetings in their districts on the issue of prescription drugs. The turnout at those meetings was terrific, and virtually every Member that I have talked to said that their constituents want a guaranteed, affordable, universal prescription drug benefit under Medicare now. That is not included, and their experts and the seniors who sat around their table with their pencils and papers said your bill does not give them what they need, not necessarily what they want, but what they need.

They were deeply disappointed when they learned the details of the House GOP bill; and I might say to my friends, so that I do not just viciously attack my House friends, they are not too hot about the Senate bill either.

This motion does not address all the deficiencies of the GOP bill, but it does focus on two of the most important ones. I urge my colleagues to support this motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, under regular order, we were told at the beginning of this session that the leadership of the House and the message from the Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, was that we were going to allot 15 minutes for votes with only 2 minutes, and that at 17 minutes, the voting tally would close, and we were all urged to be on time so that the work of the House could be done efficiently and effectively.

Mr. Speaker, my inquiry is, is that regular order still in place? Is that still the policy of the leadership of this House?

Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, was that the rule that the distinguished Robert Walker of Pennsylvania raised such cane about and was so angry about and felt that Jim Wright was so out of order about when he held the vote open? Is that the rule, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, listening to the Chair's recitation of the rule, would that mean that the Chair now has the authority to close this vote and express the will of the House of Representatives as reflected on the board?

Mr. Speaker, it is more than appropriate on this Friday afternoon of Labor Day Week that we recognize the enduring relevance and enormous contributions of the Teamsters Union, which tomorrow-- September 6, 2003--celebrates its 100th Anniversary. It is an historical imperative that every American committed to justice and fairness must acknowledge.

Allow me to congratulate General President James Hoffa and all the men and women of the Teamsters on this important occasion. For through their hard work, all of us have benefited.

The 40-hour work week that we take for granted far too often in this nation was not a gift bestowed on us by corporate chieftains. It was a hard-won victory secured by the men and women in the organized labor movement, including the Teamsters Union, who literally built this nation through their blood, sweat and tears.

Paid holidays, including the three-day Labor Day Weekend. Health and safety regulations. Employer-sponsored health care. And employer- sponsored pensions. These are just a few of the monumental benefits brought to you by the Teamsters and organized labor movement.

Ever since its founding, the Teamsters have been at the forefront of the labor movement to improve the lives of working men and women and their families. The Teamsters fought for equal rights for all workers, regardless of race, creed or gender. The Teamsters fought for African- Americans who sought jobs traditionally held by white men at the beginning of World War One. The Teamsters fought for a woman's right to equal pay before suffrage was popular.

Today, the Teamsters Union--with 1.4 million members--continues to fight for working families, who simply want and deserve justice, dignity and opportunity. Only the uninformed would fail to recognize that many of the gains secured by the Teamsters over the past 100 years are at grave risk today--from the assault on the right of workers to collectively bargain, to attacks on overtime regulations, to the effort to gut compensatory time, to the failure to ensure that the minimum wage is fairly adjusted for inflation, and many more.

It's clear that, despite the Teamsters' great achievements over the last century, and all the advances that this great union is responsible for, its efforts on behalf of working American families must go on. And I know that is precisely what the Teamsters--under the tremendous leadership of General President Hoffa--intend.

Again, I congratulate President Hoffa and all Teamsters on this 100th Anniversary. Your efforts not only make us proud, they make us a better nation.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to my friend, the distinguished majority leader, for the purposes of inquiring about the schedule for next week and the remainder of the day, if there is any schedule for the remainder of the day.

So that Members who are gathered here will know, have we had the last vote of the day, Mr. Leader?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader for his information. I want him to know on this side of the aisle we are going to be joining the majority side of the aisle as we reflect upon the tragic loss of some of our fellow citizens and the tragic loss of all of us and our country on that September 11.

Mr. Leader, can you tell me what time on Tuesday Members need to be here to assure themselves that they will be able to offer the amendments on the Transportation-Treasury bill?

We had a number of questions, one of which I will ask now because it is in my mind.

Apparently, there is a delegation leaving for Doha Wednesday night. Can the gentleman reflect upon what might be on the schedule for Thursday that they might miss?

Commemorate.

I thank the leader for that information.

Also, Mr. Leader, I know you did not anticipate this, but when do you expect to attempt to conclude with the D.C. appropriations bill? Will that be done next week?

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Leader, we have had a lot of concern and discussions about the child tax credit. It has been 85 days since the President urged us to pass it. Does the gentleman have any expectations that that might be on the agenda, either next week or in the near term?

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's position. Of course, as the leader knows, the problem that we have on this side of the aisle with that position and your concern about having the tax credit expire shortly after the election next year, we have not given relief to the 200,000 service personnel who are covered and the 12 million children and 6.5 million families that would have been covered by the Senate amendment that was dropped in conference. So I understand your concern, and I share that concern. On this side of the aisle we do not want the tax credit to expire either.

Having said that, however, we would hope that the 6.5 million families and 12 million children and 200,000 Armed Forces personnel would not be held hostage to our concern about making sure that it does not expire in an untimely way.

Reclaiming my time, respectfully the leader and I have a different perspective, as you know. We could move within a nanosecond to include those children today with unanimous consent. Frankly, as the leader well knows, we had a vote of 422 to 0 on much of the military tax relief in terms of moving expenses, capital gains expenses from selling homes and other expenses, the death benefit exclusion from taxes. So all of those items, there is agreement on my side, unanimously, as there was on your side. So the only issue is are we going to hold those two items hostage, the child tax credit and the military, for other items which are much more controversial, both within this body, Mr. Leader, as

you well know, and between the two bodies.

I think probably there is not much purpose in discussing this further, but we would hope that perhaps we could try to move those items on which we have agreement and continue to work on those that we do not forge agreement on. But we ought not to, in light of our disagreement on some things, damage those folks.

Lastly, let me make an observation. I agree with you, Mr. Leader, that those families, those 6.5 million families, would not want to see a tax increase next year after the election; but if you ask them whether they wanted a $300 to $600 credit between now and the next election or simply stay at the same rate ad infinitum, I have a feeling there is little doubt they would say, well, we will take the help for a year, even if you do not give it to us permanently.

Let us go on perhaps to the energy bill, Mr. Leader. You did not have that on your schedule. Obviously there was, as you know, a motion to instruct yesterday so that we could try to address the problem that all of us saw dramatically in the blackout that occurred on the 11th of August. Would the leader tell me what his perspective is on the energy bill?

I thank the leader for his observations on that.

Two additional questions. The next one would be the Medicare prescription drug bill. Obviously this is a very contentious piece of legislation, with different perspectives on how we can provide seniors in particular with relief on the prescription drug costs.

Can the gentleman tell us what you believe the status of that to be and when we might expect that bill, the conference report, on the floor of the House?

I thank the gentleman for the information and the observation.

Let me close. We talked about Thursday, September 11, when we will come together, controversies that we have discussed. The significant differences we have discussed with respect to how to solve the problems that confront this country will I think be put aside by all of us on September 11 as we come together, as we did on that September 11 evening when we stood together, you and I, shoulder to shoulder, and we sang God Bless America. At a time of tragedy we came together with resolve and without partisanship, resolve to confront the terrorists that afflict this world, this global community, and to make our country safer and more secure.

Mr. Leader, on Thursday at what point in time do you expect us to end our session on Thursday and to participate in such both collective remembrances as we may have and individually to participate in remembrances?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the leader for his comments and I know that the gentlewoman from California's (Ms. Pelosi) office will cooperate fully in that objective, as will mine and others, and we look forward to participating in a very positive way but a very solemn and prayerful way as we remember that loss and the challenge that lies ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Friends of Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum. This organization received a 2003 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network Grant for a project designed to enhance opportunities for visitors to explore the lands and stories of Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum.

The Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network, which includes more than 120 museums, state parks, wildlife refugees and other sites in five states and the District of Columbia, was created to enhance the experience of visitors to

the Chesapeake Bay and its many roads, rivers and trails. Authorized by the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998, the Gateways Network is coordinated by the National Park Service in partnership with the Chesapeake Bay Program.

During the past four years, Gateways Network Grants have funded new maps, improved signs, and expanded trails that have made visits to parks, wildlife refuges and water trails even more exciting and enjoyable than they had previously been. These grants help enhance the public's ability to learn and enjoy the Chesapeake's stories and significance, explore its natural and cultural resources, and become involved in helping conserve and restore the Bay and its watershed. Through these projects and other Gateways Network efforts more and more people recognize the Chesapeake as a true national treasure.

In 2003, the National Park Service is awarding $1,387,309 in grant funding, matched by over $2 million in partner contributions. Thirty- two grants are being made to Gateways throughout the Bay watershed in Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia. The Friends of Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum is receiving a grant of $41,400 and $62,563 in partner contributions.

The project proposed by the Friends of Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum will extend the Shoreline Loop Trail to 3.75 miles, adding to 50 percent to its length, and resulting in the longest publicly accessible shoreline in Calvert County, Maryland. Greater public access to the Patuxent River will help people enjoy this scenic Chesapeake Bay tributary. A trail map and guide will be prepared and a series of wayside exhibit panels will also be added along the trail to interpret the environment and the diverse cultures that have influenced this site over time. The park will also develop an overall interpretive plan for the park to guide both this project and all future interpretive efforts.

Mr. Speaker, it is with the assistance and vision of organizations such as the Friends of Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum that the Chesapeake Bay and the entire region has become the treasure that we know it to be today. Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating the Friends of Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum on receiving this grant and wishing them the best of luck in completing their project.