Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I understand his assertion. His assertion essentially is that these provisions that will affect our Federal employees are positive provisions.

If that is the case, on our side we are very concerned that we are not being allowed to debate these fully. As the gentleman knows, 30 amendments are allowed with 10 minutes per amendment. The gentleman will admit, I think, that these are very substantial changes that we are making in the law; am I correct on that?

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I tell my friend, and he and I work very closely on issues dealing with Federal employees, there is a tendency to undervalue our Federal employees, as the gentleman knows. But the concern we have is if the other side is so concerned that the propositions it puts before us are correct, then it is a shame that we do not allow this body to fully debate them. I understand there were votes in committee. However, I am not on the Committee on Government Reform.

I did appreciate the opportunity to come and testify, notwithstanding the fact that the committee did not follow my advice. My point is that the majority of Members on both sides of the aisle are not on your committee or the Committee on Armed Services, and I think it would have been appropriate for us to debate these items. If the proposals are as good as the gentleman says they are, presumably they would have been supported by the majority of this House.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I want to make an observation to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Armed Services. The gentleman and I served in this body when this bill had 5 full days of debate, discussion and open amendments in which we had very extensive discussions on not only weapons systems but other proposals contained in the bill.

I am probably going to end up voting for this bill. As the gentleman knows, I have consistently supported authorization bills and appropriation bills. I believe this Nation needs a strong defense, and I respect the Secretary of Defense. But I would say to the gentleman that it would have been nice if the Secretary had respected the Members of the House on both sides of the aisle and presented this at the beginning of the year and not just a few weeks ago so we could have had more extensive discussions, as we have had on some of those weapons systems heretofore. None of them were offered just recently. They were offered early in the year or in years past; but I recognize what the gentleman said. Obviously, we do not have unlimited time for unlimited debate.

I would suggest in this instance this proposal, a very substantive one, came very late; and although the gentleman spent some time in committee on it, appropriately, and I thank the gentleman for that, it would have been nice if we would have had more extensive debate and substantive amendments on this floor.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I wish to ask the gentleman from Virginia if he is for the budget provision in the Republican budget for 4.1 percent parity for civil service employees?

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

I understand the maximum extent practical. Is the gentleman for the 4.1 percent parity for civil service employees?

Reclaiming my time, when this proposal was originally made, I said if it is a proposal in lieu of ensuring proper pay for Federal employees, then I would oppose it, and I would oppose it vigorously. I do not think the administration is yet for parity. They did not offer parity. This Congress has repeatedly said they are for parity. In fact, the President's pay advisory committee says that civilians are further behind comparable private sector jobs than the military. In light of that, certainly we must adopt the premise that 4.1 percent pay raise will be adopted; but I say to my friend that if this is solely for the purposes of supplementation, then I think that it is not objectionable. But my concern is that they fund this, but not the pay raise.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I think the gentleman is correct, it has been a bipartisan problem. We have been together. I look forward to succeeding this year, as we have in years past.

Mr. Speaker, over a hundred years ago Republicans and Democrats came together to prevent and preclude and to eliminate a politicized patronage system that was sucking down the quality of public service. What the amendment says is that we will not return to that kind of a system. I agree with the gentleman. If your bill does not do that, this motion to recommit does not harm it. If there is a chance that it does, it precludes it and protects it against a politicized civil service system. Vote for this motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman makes a good point, and he says work with us. The gentleman recalls that you would not allow us amendments to that bill so that many Democrats would have felt very comfortable voting for that bill. So you did not work with us.

I understand that. I did not mean the gentleman personally.

I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, there is no doubt, however, that George W. Bush has the worst job creation or, better put, the worst job loss record of any President. I would tell the gentleman from Oregon I do not recall his statement, but I recall the statements of many of his colleagues that stood on this floor in 2001 and said, if we vote for this $1 trillion package, we are going to create jobs, the economy is going to boom, and, guess what, we can do it within the framework of this $5.6 trillion surplus which is now, of course, as the gentleman knows well, a $2.7 trillion deficit, an $8 trillion turnaround which is going to dampen the economy of Oregon and our entire country.

Mr. Speaker, what a difference a week makes. I ask the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) to listen to this.

Last week, my colleagues may recall, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), House majority leader, last week said in on this floor in regard to the much-needed extension of unemployment insurance benefits, what they bring here under great pressure from Democrats, and that is the only reason it is here, and I am going to vote for it, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) said this:

``I think it is a stretch to say that we are at a crisis point, that we have to move quickly and not deliberatively on this issue.''

I am sure the people in eastern Oregon thought we had better move quickly, and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) agrees with that. Our Republicans friends finally have recognized that last week's noncrisis, which is what their leader said, is this week's emergency for millions of American families; and I share the gentleman from Oregon's (Mr. Walden) view on the need of those unemployed.

The Republicans have finally peeked out from under their tax-cut blinders just long enough to see the harsh reality on Main Street America today, that our Nation has the highest unemployment rate in 9 years, that there are nearly 9 million unemployed Americans, that our economy has lost 2.7 million private sector jobs since President Bush was inaugurated, and that 4 million jobless Americans will have their temporary unemployment benefits completely cut off on May 31 unless this Congress acts immediately.

We asked that they act last week. We asked that they act the week before that. They have not done so. But their political analysts have told them, do not go home without at least positively affecting some of these people. Even as they prepare to shower the most affluent citizens in America with enormous budget-busting, debt-exploding tax cuts, the self-proclaimed compassionate conservatives demonstrate again that they only have so much compassion in their hearts, two-thirds to be exact tonight, because 1 million people are going to be left on the cutting room floor.

This GOP bill is most notable for its half measures. It will provide only 13 weeks of additional benefits to workers who have exhausted their State benefits, rather than 26 weeks that we sought. And for the 1 million unemployed Americans who have already exhausted both their State and Federal unemployment benefits, this bill would provide zero; nada; nothing; sorry, we cannot help.

I challenge my Republican colleagues to go home and tell the jobless constituents in eastern Oregon or anyplace else who have exhausted their State and Federal benefits that they refuse to extend them when they have the opportunity tonight now. Do it. Do the right thing.

Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the committee has talked about us talking about class warfare. Warren Buffett talked about it just a couple of years ago, America's second richest person, and he said that his class was winning. It wins again tonight, not average Americans.

One of the Republicans came, as they so often do, to quote John Kennedy. I voted for John Kennedy for President, the first President I ever had the opportunity to vote for. Republicans almost to a person opposed him. He said, ``Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.''

That was a call to contribute to the welfare of our society. It was a call not to the greedy, but to the great. It was a call to those who understood the value as the President said of lifting up all people when he said if we cannot save the many who are poor, we will never save the few who are rich.

The gentleman spoke the truth. This is a trillion dollar bill. Some Members of the other body said they would not vote for a bill over $350 billion, and so the other side of the aisle has constructed a sham, a ruse, a trick.

As the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) said, the sadness is that our children will pay that bill because you will not cut spending, you will not cut spending to comply with this tax bill, and you know it. In 1981 I was on this floor, and Republicans claimed if they passed their economic program, we would balance the budget by October 1, 1983. And I was on this floor in 1990 when you railed against your own President, President Bush, who contributed to creating the surplus that was to come some 6 years later. And I was on this floor in 1993 when Dick Armey and John Kasich, the predecessor to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), claimed that if we enacted the 1993 bill, the economy would go to the Dumpster, unemployment would rise, and the deficit would go through the ceiling. He was wrong on every count.

And I was on this floor in 2001, just 2 years ago, when so many of you stood on this floor and said if we pass this bill, we will create jobs. And you have said it today, and you are wrong.

In 1981, in 1990, in 1993, and in 2001, not any one of those times were you correct in your predictions. And you cost my three daughters a lot of money and my five grandchildren a lot of money because the tax you are putting on them is the debt tax that they will have to pay and they will not get a nickel of defense, not a nickel of education, not a nickel of health care while they are paying the interest that you put upon their heads.

You do recall that he got more votes, however, than Mr. Nixon. Unlike Mr. Bush, who got less votes than Mr. Gore.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Once again, once again, this Republican majority shows no compunction about turning even the most bipartisan legislation into a vehicle of divisive and unnecessary partisanship.

The defense authorization traditionally unites Members on both sides of the aisle. I have always voted for it. The American people expect that. Our brave men and women in the service deserve no less. However, today the majority has purposefully loaded up this bill with extraneous and controversial provisions and forced the rule to deny our side of the aisle a fair opportunity to be heard.

Now, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the distinguished chairman of the committee, who is now speaking to the Committee on Rules chairman, just spent 10 minutes explaining how reasonable the provisions of the bill are. But they do not have the courage of that representation to allow us to debate fully on the floor and present an alternative.

My, my, my, how confident they must be of the reasonableness of their position. Again, the majority is trying to insulate sweeping policy changes from serious scrutiny by invoking the words ``national security,'' and casting anyone who raises questions as, at

best, an impediment to national security and, at worst, unpatriotic. The further down that road we go, the less democratic we will become.

Make no mistake, this bill contains many, many important provisions. It provides good pay, housing and training for our men and women in uniform, and funds important modernization priorities that will ensure that we have the most technologically advanced military in the world. I support that. Not only that, I have supported it for 23 years in this House.

However, the addition of controversial measures that will gut the civil service system and harm the environment only subvert the democratic process and demean this House. This bill would exempt the Defense Department from compliance with the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, even though both laws currently allow case-by-case exemptions. And here is the crucial point: the Pentagon has never before sought the exemptions that the majority would bestow today.

Fairness. Fairness. The American people expect fairness, and it dictates that the majority make the Rahall-Dingell amendment in order. It was not. The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), who is the dean of the House, the senior Member in this House of Representatives, yet the Committee on Rules refused to allow him to offer an amendment. That is unconscionable. Furthermore, the process by which the civil service reform measures have been rushed to this floor is nothing short of appalling. This proposal was conceived by a handful of the President's advisers.

Without doubt, there are some problems in the Federal personnel system, reforms that I would support, but our military's stunning success in Iraq shows there is not a crisis. Mr. Speaker, we ought to consider this thoughtfully, and we ought to allow amendments to be offered on this floor which would provide for full debate. We are not doing that.

Vote against this rule. Vote against the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, because I think this is an important procedural issue. And I have a quote of yours in my pocket, but I am not going to take it out.

I am not going to regurgitate it, in terms of fairness.

But what my colleague is saying is that the dean of the House comes to your committee and wants to offer an amendment, and your committee responds, no, Dean, you have served here 40-plus years, but we know better than you do.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman again yield?

Mr. Chairman, I have been working 23 years on civil service. I was very pleased to hear the observations of the gentleman, who has had 5 months experience here dealing with this issue.

I agree with the gentleman from Tennessee. The only reason to rush this to judgment is because they are unwilling to debate it fully and to have it open for amendment fully. If they had the courage of the gentleman from Ohio's assertions, they would not fear having this fully considered and debated. That is not the case though, I tell my friend.

Mr. Chairman, I hope we have an amendment. I hope we are able to discuss it fully, at which time we will be able to discuss his thoughts, as the gentleman indicated, which gives some rhetorical tip of the hat to those protections. But they ultimately will be in the discretion of the Secretary and the management at the Pentagon, not of the Congress or the President.

I would hope that the gentleman would review more closely his assertions and that perhaps we could discuss them at greater length at some time in the future.

Thank you very much.

Every time I walk by that, I think of John Rousselot. Remember how John used to come over to this and preach at us? He came over to this rostrum. Those of you who were here with John Rousselot, I tell that story only because John Rousselot, I came to the Congress having the most negative view of John Rousselot of any Member of the Congress. That was where I was coming from. I over time got to think he was one of my most delightful colleagues. I say that in starting because unfortunately, as I have said in years past, this Congress has become more partisan, I think, than when you were here, less collegial than when many of you were here, and in many respects less positive than when many of you were here. Not all of you, because some of you have left pretty recently and know of what I speak.

I am so proud to be here and refer to my Democratic Speaker, Mr. Speaker. It is so good to be here with Tom Foley. What a wonderful contribution he made to this institution through the years, and the person that I would have voted for for Speaker. We only had about 197, I think, at the point, but I pledged to Ray LaHood that if he could get 21 of his colleagues that I would try to line up 197 of my colleagues to vote for Bob Michel for Speaker. Bob, it is good to be here with you, Mr. Leader. What a great American you are and what respect everybody who served with you has for you. And for all of you who served here and made this institution what it is for the American people, the people's House, on behalf of Nancy Pelosi, myself and all of the folks on our side of the aisle; but I know that I speak, and Speaker Hastert was here, Speaker Hastert, I want to tell you, is a partisan Republican, a conservative Republican; but he is a collegial leader of this House in terms of reaching out to many of us on this side of the aisle. We are going to have disagreements, but he is a good and decent leader of this House. You would be proud of him serving here, I think. Maybe it is just, Mr. Leader, because he comes from Illinois. Maybe that is it. But in any event, you would be proud, I think, of his leadership of this House.

America is facing some very substantial challenges. We present Members need all the wisdom that we can garner from all of you who have served so well, selected by your neighbors and friends to serve in the people's House, how proud of us they are, the fact that the only way you get here is having your friends and neighbors repose in you trust and confidence to come here and to represent them in a way that will better their community, their States and their country.

We are challenged. We are challenged from abroad. We are challenged internally by our economy. Together I think we do better. We are struggling to get together in this House and in this Congress; but having said that, I think that you can be very helpful in that regard. I am always pleased to come here and to participate in welcoming you back to the Congress of the United States, to your House, the people's House. What a privilege and honor it is to have served here and what a privilege and honor it is to serve here and what a brotherhood and sisterhood we create.

Marjorie Holt and I served together and represented our State. We became very, very good friends and remain good friends to this day. Helen Bentley, another low-key, soft, unretiring Republican colleague of mine, is an extraordinarily good friend of mine. Senator Beall sits back there, another Member of the other side of the aisle. I think, as the partisanship fades as former Members, you become good friends. Connie Morella is here as well. Dan Miller is there with her. Connie, it is good to have you back here. Connie herself, as collegial a Member as we have had in this body, who is now thinking herself, yeah, what did you do about it? I understand. It is a tough partisan business, but she is a wonderful person.

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to welcome all of you back, to thank you for what you have done and what you are doing for our country. God bless you. Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for this time for the purposes 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 leader for his information with respect to our schedule for next week, and when we go in, and the fact that we expect certainly to meet on Friday or perhaps late on Friday.

With respect to the forest bill, Mr. Speaker, what type of rule does the gentleman anticipate? It is my understanding that an unlimited number of amendments were submitted to the Committee on Rules, and I would hope they would be made in order.

I see the chairman of the Committee on Rules on the floor. Obviously we are hopeful that we will have our opportunity to offer our alternatives to this bill. There are obviously some controversial items in it.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I am always pleased to hear that they are considering the options, but considering the options and approving the options appear to be two different things.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the chairman's appreciation of the vigorous debate and differences that are sometimes debated within the bosom of the Committee on Rules. I remember those same kinds of disputes when we were in the majority. I am aware of the fact, however, that sometimes those vigorous disputes as to what ought to be and ought not to be in the rule are sometimes resolved by leadership suggesting alternatives that then create consensus very quickly. It has been my experience in the past. So I am hopeful that the leadership will work its will on the creation of consensus to allow full consideration.

We are being lighthearted in this effort, but I do not want anybody confused by the lightheartedness, that we feel very, very strongly about having full consideration of the alternatives that we offer, just as the gentleman, the chairman of the committee, felt so strongly about in 1991, in 1992, in 1993, and 1994 when we were in charge. And I would hope that the gentleman would pursue those concerns on behalf of the minority in our party as vigorously as he pursued them on behalf of the minorities of his party.

To the majority leader, the DOD authorization bill will be on the floor, I understand, as the gentleman pointed out. Again, we have the same situation, as he knows. There are some extraordinarily controversial items included within this authorization bill. I might say to the leader some of these, as the gentleman knows, are issues which have been brought up within the last 30 days that make some of the most sweeping changes that have been made in the Civil Service System since its creation and exempt fully, when we include Homeland Security, one-half of the Federal employees from protections that they now enjoy under title 5, title 41 and other pieces of legislation passed by the House and the Senate.

In addition to that, as the gentleman knows, there are some very substantial questions with reference to environmental statutes that are on the book and possible exemptions from certain statutory requirements dealing with endangered species, dealing with clean air, dealing with other items.

Could the gentleman tell me the rule that is contemplated and whether or not amendments will be made in order, particularly those two items, and there may be multiple amendments, but whether or not there will be full consideration of those very controversial items?

I will tell the gentleman, as he knows, I have consistently, since 1981, supported authorization bills and am a strong supporter of defense, and I have always supported appropriations bills, but at the same time the fact that something is included in a bill, if no opportunity is given to debate those items which may be controversial as opposed to those items which are ensuring the strength of our country and the capability of our Armed Forces and the quality of life for our personnel, we do not want to have to vote against those, clearly, and probably will not. But we do want the opportunity to debate these very controversial items and to provide alternatives.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman, and yield to the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman of the Committee on Rules for that assurance, and again would reiterate that I am presuming that those assurances go to the two particular items, as well as other items that clearly are in this bill. I thank the gentleman for his assurance.

Mr. Leader, you mentioned the tax bill, the jobs opportunity bill, that passed this House and which Senate is now considering, as I understand it. Assuming the Senate passes that piece of legislation today or tomorrow--I see the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means on the floor--when is it your expectation that they will go to conference on this bill?

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for that comment. I understand that he cannot, with any preciseness, give us an answer. Is it, however, the intent that this bill will be conferenced, that there will be a full conference on this bill?

Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his comment. I would only observe that we certainly on this side, whatever happens in the Senate, would hope and expect that regular order would be followed and that a conference would occur in which the minority, both in the Senate and the House, for that matter, would have an opportunity to make its observations and opinions clear on either alternative, or portions of each.

I wanted time for that comment to resonate in the body, but I appreciate the observation, even though it stretches my credulity.

The debt limit, Mr. Leader, do you expect we will have an opportunity to have a full and open debate on this matter?

If the leader knows, is that debt limit extension still $894 billion? Does the gentlemen know?

The last item I would inquire about, Mr. Leader, is the unemployment compensation extension. As the gentleman knows by the efforts that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) have been making, this is of great concern to us.

Does the leader have any expectation that the unemployment compensation extension will be on the floor next week?

Reclaiming my time, I thank the leader for those comments. I will be more specific so the leader understands what I am talking about.

In October of last year, as the gentleman recalls, we were hopeful that we would extend unemployment insurance in our last day in session in October and take up a Senate bill which was passed in a bipartisan, overwhelming fashion. We did not do that, as the gentleman recalls, notwithstanding the fact we gave our unanimous consent to that action. As a result of not doing that, 800,000 Americans went off unemployment insurance on December 28 of last year.

The President, of course, observed that he thought that was unfortunate, and he was for us extending it. However, that was not done, as the gentleman recalls, either until the last week in January or to the first week in February, I think it was probably the last week in January, which meant from December 28 through late January people who were unable to find jobs were not included in an extended unemployment insurance position. Therefore, they had no income coming in to their families, at least from their perspective. That is what we are concerned about.

I would reiterate, Mr. Leader, it is our view that there are some 3 million people at risk. It was 800,000 last October. We believe it is 3 million people under State programs and Federal programs that are at risk if we do not extend unemployment insurance, as we did in the 1990 recession, as we did in 1982. In fact, we extended it in both those instances beyond that which we had already. It was those programs which I was referring to, Mr. Leader.

I yield for any comments the gentleman may wish to make.

Reclaiming my time, if I might, Mr. Leader, what happened, as I recall, was Mr. Nickles and Mrs. Clinton agreed on a bill that was then passed overwhelmingly by the Senate in response to our bill and sent here. In fact, some 2\1/2\ months later we adopted a very similar piece of legislation, but only after people had gone off for 4 weeks their extended benefits.

Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his observations. I certainly agree with him that in the long term the best solution is the creation of an economy that creates sufficient jobs for all Americans who are seeking jobs.

My friend knows that there are 6 million Americans who are unemployed at this point in time, the highest unemployment we have had in approximately a decade. It is nice to say that if we pass those bills, we will create new jobs, but the people who lose their unemployment at the end of this month and who will not have sufficient funds to pay their mortgages, to purchase groceries for their families, are going to have little solace because we are going to pass some bill that will create some jobs sometime down the road. But I appreciate the gentleman's observation.

Does the gentleman want to make an additional comment?

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I tell the leader, on this side of the aisle regular order is a concept which we support, but it will not be of help to people if we do not act, and by May 31, you indicate 6 million, I am saying 3 million. I am not sure whether it is Federal-State, about a million are at risk on the State program, or maybe 2 million on State and 1 million on Federal. There is a total of 3 million at risk.

I tell the leader that it is my understanding in each of the recessions in the early 1980s and in 1990, we extended the existing program's coverage for substantially more weeks than we have done in this recession.

With 6 million people unemployed, with jobs difficult to find for those 6 million people, and, as the gentleman knows, under the program you cannot receive benefits unless you are, in fact, looking for a job, I would say that it would be appropriate for us to do this in the regular order. Of course, a suspension bill is in the regular order. As a matter of fact, we are going to do a number of suspension bills next week.

The leader pointed out correctly that we passed unemployment extension through the House last year in the fall on a largely, not largely, but a large bipartisan vote, so I think that could be done. But I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his observation. We may differ on the nature of a crisis, but my belief is that every family that faces its unemployment extension benefits ending on May 31 for themselves believes that is a crisis.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Burch Oil Company, an excellent example of successful American entrepreneurship that has evolved to become a pillar of a local community. I am proud to recognize my good friends at Burch Oil Company who have been serving the citizens of Southern Maryland since 1928 and are celebrating their seventy-fifth anniversary this month. Whether it has been supplying the services of vital oil resources or helping to serve the community, the Burch Oil Company has built a solid reputation within the Southern Maryland community.

Founded in May of 1928, by cousins S. Bernard Burch, Thaddeus Burch, and Thaddeus' son Joe Burch, the company quickly began to service the community's gasoline, motor oil, and, most important to the area at the time, kerosene needs. With the onset of the Great Depression many businesses failed, but Burch Oil was able to steadily grow.

From the beginning of the company, the Burch family took an active role in the community. S. Bernard Burch served as the chairman for the Democratic State Central Committee and helped to establish the Mechanicsvllle

Volunteer Fire Department. Even during the worst of times, such as the Great Storm of 1933, the company delivered kerosene by skiff to hard hit St. George Island.

After S. Bernard Burch's death in May of 1944, a new era began with his son, F. Elliott Burch, Sr., who took over the reigns of the operation and guided the company through a period of steady growth for several decades until turning over the day-to-day duties to his two sons so he could devote more time to local politics. Serving as St. Mary's County Commissioner President from 1962 to 1970, F. Elliott, Sr. helped to steer St. Mary's County through a period of important community investments, during a time when local government was expanding to provide more services.

Outstanding service and high quality products have been the hallmarks of the Burch Oil Company since its founding by S. Bernard Burch in 1928; and on its 75th Anniversary, four generations of the Burch family, with a fifth soon to come of age, help to guide the hardworking and dedicated employees that have helped to make this company successful. In addition to their business success, they have been an integral component in helping to build St. Mary's County through their selfless commitment and belief in also performing public service to give back to the community in which they live. Today Burch Oil Company is led by F. Elliott (Sonny) Burch, Jr. and his brother Donald (Buddy) Burch, who have set their own high standard for community involvement, supported by 300 plus employees who carry on that proud tradition.

On behalf of the citizens of St. Mary's, Charles, and Calvert Counties, it is a great privilege to honor the Burch Oil Company for reaching the milestone of 75 years in serving the community of Southern Maryland. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting a great example of American enterprise at its best. This company has been successful by its community, but continues to plough back its dividends every day through its public service. Congratulations to members of the Burch family and their employees and we wish you another 75 years of quality and reliable service to our community.

Mr. Speaker, today this House will vote on the Republicans' wildly irresponsible tax bill which fails to stimulate our economy or create jobs, explodes the budget deficit and the national debt, and robs Social Security and other key priorities of crucial funding. Our Republican friends continue to make wild claims about this tax bill, but the American people need to ask one very simple question: Do I trust Tom DeLay and the Republican majority who said that we would balance the budget, create jobs, and get the economy moving 2 years ago? Or do we trust an individual like Mr. Buffett, the largest investor, perhaps, in America, who recently said that cutting taxes on corporate dividends, an idea incorporated in the GOP bill, unfairly favors the wealthy and doubted that it would stimulate the economy? That is Warren Buffett. That is not one of us. Democrats strongly agree with him, however.

We offered a plan that is fast-acting, fair and fiscally responsible, a plan that would create five times, over a million jobs, as this GOP bill does.

Reject this failed policy.

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

We just heard a representation of what their bill is going to do. We ought to judge the credibility of those representations. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), October 24, 2001: ``This tax plan is the right medicine for our economy. It is the best way to put people back to work and create jobs.''

After we adopted his policy, we have lost 2.7 million jobs in America.

The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) said, ``The Democrats bring to the floor today a tax package that will cost jobs.'' He said that May 27, 1993. That program resulted in the creation of 22 million jobs over the next 8 years and the reduction of the deficit and the creation of 4 years of surplus for the first time in 80 years.

President Bush said of his last tax bill in 2001: ``Tax relief is central to my plan to encourage economic growth and we can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits.'' We now have the largest budget deficit in the history of this country confronting us after the adoption of his plan; and we have just increased, through the House, it has not passed the Senate, $1 trillion in additional debt. That is a debt tax.

The gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) talks about the $45 that they are going to pay in taxes, but the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) does not talk about the additional thousands of dollars that they are going to have to pay on the debt that has been created and the interest that his kids will have to pay.

Mr. Speaker, today this Republican leadership slams the door of democracy in this House in a style befitting a third-rate dictatorship. It utterly ignores the 140 million Americans who are represented by Democrats. While we preach the value and power of democracy in Iraq and elsewhere, the Republican majority is denying it right here in this House right now.

The Republicans have not just refused to give the Democrats an opportunity to offer an alternative to this reckless, unaffordable, and unfair tax bill; they have breached their solemn obligation to let this House work its will, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) in 1993 said that was wrong. I heard the quote so many times: ``Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.''

The Republicans control the House, they control the Senate, and they control the presidency; and they have corrupted this House with this rule and other rules like it. A closed rule, a gag rule. It does not allow debates, it does not allow alternatives, and it promotes a program that will further decimate the economy of this country and be extraordinarily unfair to middle-income taxpayers while advantaging some wealthy people, not all; and it will be bad for America.

Reject this rule; reject this bill. Let us do fairness for our taxpayers and for America.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I respect the gentleman. He and I served on the Committee on House Administration. The gentleman knows, however, full well, and the American public ought to know, that a motion to recommit, as the gentleman so well knows, is very restricted. And the gentleman knows we cannot offer our substitute under the rules because the Committee on Rules would not give us a waiver.

So saying we have a motion to recommit, which we do, he knows full well that it restricts us in dealing with unemployment insurance, it restricts us in dealing with the sunsets that the Republicans have put on middle-class income workers. The gentleman knows that; am I correct?

Let us forget about the press releases.

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

I thank the majority leader for giving us that information. I know Members are pleased to hear about Friday, the 16th.

Mr. Leader, the pension bill to which you referred, will this bill that is brought to the floor be a product of the Committee on Education and the Workforce or will it be a joint product of the Committee on Ways and Means and that committee?

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Leader, as you know, there was great consternation and concern on our side of the aisle about how this massive tax bill was considered today, not only in terms of the fact that we did not get to offer a substitute but also in terms of the very abbreviated time that such a major piece, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) referred to it as the most important bill that we might consider during this session of the Congress, was given 1 hour of general debate.

Given that, can you give any assurances that when the pension bill comes to the floor that we will be given an opportunity to offer a substitute and that sufficient time to discuss such a major piece of legislation will be allotted?

I yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's observation that he would like to work with us in trying to get there.

What impediments would you see to us having a substitute to the pension bill that is offered?

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Leader, there has been a lot of discussion about the partial- birth abortion bill. It is not on the schedule for next week, as I understand it. Do you have any idea when this might come up? In particular, do you expect it to come up before the Memorial Day break? I yield to my friend.

With respect to Medicare prescription drugs, Mr. Leader, we are hearing that this bill may be coming to the floor very soon. Can you tell us when we might expect this bill on the floor and again will that be on the floor before the Memorial Day recess?

I thank the gentleman for that information.

There is another bill which I understand is pretty controversial but which is being worked on. I do not know whether the leader might inform us as to when we might expect to see this bill, and that is the forest management bill. Could you give us some information on where that bill stands at this point in time?

So in any event, your expectation would be we would pass, or consider it, by the Memorial Day break?

Mr. Leader, I take it there are no other items for next week other than those which we have referenced?

I thank the leader for the information.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question of the rule on this Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act of 2003. This legislation before us today and the consideration tomorrow of the Republicans' irresponsible tax bill tell the American people everything they ever wanted to know about where the majority's priorities lie. And lest anyone be mistaken, their priorities do not lie with the workers and families who are suffering through the anxiety and stress of joblessness, with more than 10 million American workers now unemployed, with the loss of 2.7 million private sector jobs since President Bush was inaugurated, and 500,000 in the last 3 months; and with the unemployment rate at 6 percent, its highest level since 1994, the majority would undercut local reemployment efforts and eliminate services for job-seeking veterans, dislocated workers, and the disabled.

This Act was authorized 4 years ago after a lengthy bipartisan process. But today, today the majority turns it into a partisan vise that will squeeze America's jobless. It gives governors unlimited authority to divert funds from adult education, disability, and veterans' services. And we will, like Pontius Pilate, wring our hands and say it was not our responsibility, it was the governors' responsibility. And it fails to restore the $440 million in cuts imposed on job-training programs or protect against 265 million more in proposed cuts for fiscal 2004.

Just imagine, just imagine, under Republican stewardship our economy has shed millions of jobs and at the same time the GOP is undermining job training programs. Republicans may call that compassion; Democrats call it indifference. Adding insult to injury, the big tent GOP seeks to change the original law to permit organizations that received Work Investment Act funds to discriminate on religious grounds in hiring, something that Dan Quayle said they should not do.

I commend my colleagues who fought to restore the current law. Their amendment should have been made in order. Was there a lack of conviction that the allowing of discrimination in this bill was an appropriate policy and they could not hold their Members on their side of the aisle for such discrimination?

Democrats believe this Congress must enact policies that jump-start our economy and create jobs, and redoubling our job-training efforts is a vital part of that.

This bill simply gives the cold shoulder to millions of jobless Americans. I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question, to vote against the rule, and to vote against this bad bill.