Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I felt compelled to come to the floor because I wanted to thank the gentlemen for the very kind comments that they had to say about my working on the Committee on House Administration. I know the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), the former President of the Connecticut Senate, and I both had that honor having been selected by our colleagues to head our State Senates. He is more than a worthy successor and I am very proud of the work that he is doing on this committee and I want to congratulate him.

The Committee on House Administration is uniquely an institutional committee that tries to provide the resources to Members, to staff so that we can serve our constituents better and so that staff will have an environment and the ability to serve well. I congratulate the gentleman from Connecticut for his work.

I know that the gentleman from Connecticut, like myself, has found the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), the chairman of the Committee on House Administration, to be an extraordinarily positive leader in this House and one who wants to do things and do things right and does not care about the politics, does not care about partisanship, is extraordinarily easy to work with, and I want to again say how much I enjoyed working with him.

If there is one downside to my ``promotion'' to the position of Democratic whip, it was that I left the Committee on House Administration on which I had served for I think approximately 14 years. And serving with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), when I look back on the congressional career, whenever it ends, I want the gentleman to know when I look back on my career, one of the highlights will be the opportunity to serve with the gentleman from Ohio, to serve this institution and, indeed, in the cosponsorship of the Help America Vote Act, to serve our country as well.

I thank the gentleman for his kind words but, more than that, I want to thank him for his service to this institution and to this country. He does a great job. I know that the gentleman will enjoy and is enjoying working with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), who is also, like the gentleman from Ohio and like me, committed to making sure that we operate in a way that will bring credit not to Republicans, not to Democrats, but to the House of Representatives and facilitate the work on behalf of the American people. I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his kind words and I thank the gentleman from Connecticut as well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Delegate Joanne C. Benson--a woman of integrity, principle, love and passion for helping others. As a Member of the Maryland State House of Delegates since 1991 and an educator in the Prince George's County School System for forty years, Joanne Benson has touched the lives of thousands in her service to people. On this very special occasion of celebrating her retirement we must all give great thanks for the difference she has made in carrying out her life's work.

Having known this extraordinary woman for all my years of public service, I have seen first hand her compassion and unfailing love for children, family and community. Her motto, ``If not now, when? If not us, who?'' exemplifies her tireless efforts in being a voice for the voiceless, a power for the powerless and a fighter for those who have given up the fight.

Born in Roanoke, Virginia, the daughter of Reverend and Mrs. William Claybon, she is one of six children. After graduating from South Hagerstown High School, she received her Bachelor of Science Degree from Bowie State University and later achieved a Master of Arts Degree from Catholic University. Her career in education began as a teacher in Calvert County and soon thereafter she began to work for the Prince George's County School System, where over the years she has served in a number of capacities including teacher/facilitator, master teacher, instructional support specialist, human relations specialist, Principal and parent involvement specialist. And throughout this long tenure there is one thing she has always been--one of the strongest and most ardent activists for improving the quality of life and the quality of education for our children.

Joanne is a caring individual. Story after story can be told of her purchasing shoes and coats for children in need; bringing food to a hungry family; accessing free health and dental care for children; and finding shelter for the homeless. It was her work while she was Principal of John H. Bayne Elementary School that started the first after-school program in which teachers, parents and community leaders volunteered to work. She began a clothes closet and food pantry and started adult education classes for parents. And she was an early advocate of school uniforms, recognizing that if a child looks good, they feel good.

From an early age, Joanne learned that the rewards we receive are from the work we do. She has carried her concern and compassion for children to her work at the Maryland General Assembly where she is one of the most vocal and respected legislators and where she has been able to implement policies to better life for youngsters. She was an original sponsor of the Primary Seat Belt Law which serves as a national model for children's car seats and seat belt laws. She has gained the reputation as always being there for her constituents, whether it is help to get more funding for public education or safer streets in their community, and always takes positive action.

One of her proudest achievements has been the establishment of the not-for-profit organization known as SAFE STREETS 2000. This program, designed to educate and strengthen our communities and organizations, has helped many become more knowledgeable of available resources in the prevention, intervention and rehabilitation of senseless violence. For this work, Delegate Benson was profiled on the front page of the Washington Post and the Prince George's Journal and was featured on Nightline with Ted Koppel and Night Watch with Charles Rose.

Her endless commitment to children has earned her many other awards: For the Love of Children Award from the Kiwanis Club of the Capitol Area; Outstanding Educator from Prince George's County Schools, Who's Who Among Notable Educators in Maryland, Woman of the Year from Metropolitan Business and Professional Women, Humanitarian Award from Zeta Phi Beta and Outstanding Community Service Award from Las Amigas.

There are so many accomplishments and so many awards, but anyone who knows Joanne knows the things which make her the happiest and the proudest are the small unnoticed acts of kindness. Joanne, you are blessed with an irresistible spirit which is transmitted to all you touch. And we are all so grateful for all you have done. We thank you for your friendship, your leadership and your commitment to improving the lives of children and all the citizens of Prince George's County and the State of Maryland. We salute your 40 years of outstanding and dedicated service to the Prince George's County School System.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me this time.

I join the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) in congratulating the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), ranking member, as well as the extraordinary work that has been done by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) as a Member of Congress and before she got to Congress.

Mr. Chairman, the great Dr. Martin Luther King, one of the world's great humanitarians, once said, ``We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly.''

Today, through this truly historic, bipartisan legislation authorizing $15 billion over the next 5 years for overseas care, treatment and prevention of AIDS, we recognize that our Nation has a moral obligation and a national security interest in combating the HIV/ AIDS pandemic, as well as malaria and tuberculosis.

We ignore the world's increasing interdependence at our own peril, Mr. Chairman. And, frankly, while many of my colleagues have fought for many years to bring needed resources to bear on this problem, their call to arms has not, until now, been fully embraced.

The source scourge of AIDS knows no borders. It does not discriminate. It targets every one of us, infecting some 42 million people around the world, two-thirds of them from Africa.

As my good friend the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), who has worked with the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) to bring this legislation to the floor today, stated in the markup of this bill, this health care crisis ruins families, communities and whole nations, fueling violence and bloodshed across borders. It cannot be contained in one region or in one population. And, thus, it is a global challenge that demands a global, humanitarian response with the United States in the lead.

The ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), and certainly the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), deserve our congratulations, our thanks and admiration for their leadership in crafting this bill's balanced approach to treatment and prevention. It is a real commitment to addressing the HIV/AIDS crisis.

I would hope that amendments to be offered later today that would upset this carefully crafted, balanced piece of legislation, that those amendments would be rejected. In particular, the Pitts amendment would upset the balanced HIV/AIDS prevention approach called for in the bill by requiring that one-third of the prevention funds be used solely for abstinence-only programs. Certainly we are supportive of abstinence, but not to wall it off for sole use resources.

This historic legislation reflects our values, protects our interests, and extends, Mr. Chairman, a handle of hope to millions of vulnerable people across the world.

We need not ask for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for us. This legislation is a response by us to reach out to save lives, to heal, and to make our Nation and our global community more secure.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time, and I rise on behalf of those on my side of the aisle, and I join the majority leader in urging all our Members to vote for this piece of legislation. I stand with him also in congratulating our chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

There are no two more faithful Members to this institution than the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). They have worked together, they have overcome disagreements to bring to this floor a piece of legislation that deserves bipartisan support.

There are differences, deep differences, in this body, deep convictions held by Members on both sides of the aisle with respect to the war and the rectitude of our action, but that is not what this bill is about. This bill is about ensuring the support for the troops that we have sent abroad to carry out objectives of the United States of America and, indeed, of a large number of the international community.

We will be united in that support of our troops and united in support of the success of that effort. We see countless Iraqis waving and welcoming American troops to their land, and we have seen the fact that there is also distress in that land and we want to assist, assist quickly, the humanitarian relief and assist quickly in the rebuilding.

So on behalf of my side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate you, as well, for your leadership. Today is a day of bipartisanship. Today is a day when we will reflect to America that we are united in our commitment to support our troops.

There will be, Mr. Speaker, I am sure, after we pass this legislation, a number of Members who will want to make some comments, and we expect them to do so. It is right and proper that they do so in this Democratic institution. But I urge all our Members, as the majority leader has urged his Members, to support this legislation which supports our troops, supports our effort and does so in a way, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has pointed out so eloquently, that is consistent with the Constitution of the United States.

Our Founding Fathers did not draft that document by mistake. It was their considered judgment that the collective wisdom in a democracy is what preserved freedom, is what preserved a Nation, a free people, as opposed to a people who would be overseen by one individual or one small group of individuals in the executive department.

In closing, let me say that there is a picture in the Rotunda of the Capitol of the United States. It is of particular significance to me, as the former President of the Maryland Senate. It depicts the old Senate Chamber in Annapolis. In that picture, George Washington on December 23, 1783, is resigning his commission as commander in chief of the Continental Army. My colleagues will note, when they look at that picture, that the members of the legislature of the Continental Congress are seated. They are seated at the request of General Washington, so that they would indicate their superior stature to General Washington.

Of course, at that point in time, there was no superior person to General Washington, perhaps in the history of our country, but certainly at that time. But it was his conviction that it was the Representatives of the people who ought to rule. And it has been stated over and over in this House, the people rule.

This bill preserves that principle, an important principle for democracy.

I thank the chairman and the ranking member, I thank the Speaker on behalf of all the Members for bringing us to this point where we can together, as Americans, not as Democrats, not as Republicans, support our troops, support our country.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am extraordinarily pleased that I found the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).

Mr. Leader, I would appreciate and I know all Members would: We were here late last night. We have been working hard. I know the conference committee has been working very hard.

If the gentleman would bring us up to date for what he sees as the balance of the day and the balance of the week.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Leader, it is my understanding there has not been an agreement yet, but if there were an agreement and, from our perspective, if the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and our conferees believe that the conference report was something that they could sign off on, it is my understanding that it is possible, if there were agreement, that we would not have to have a vote tomorrow on that piece of legislation; is that correct?

Reclaiming my time, I would reiterate and share the view of the majority leader, but at this point in time, we do not know and cannot guarantee Members that there will not be a vote tomorrow.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Reclaiming my time, I want to echo the comments of the majority leader. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) have worked diligently not only on the substance of what is in the supplemental, but also in upholding the position of the House as it relates to the balance of power between the executive department and the legislative department as set forth in the Constitution of the United States.

As a matter of fact, when we started our consideration of the supplemental, the first thing the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) did was to read article I and appropriate provisions of the Constitution. I think all of us in this body can be appreciative of the fact that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) have taken the position that I think is appropriate for our institution, as well as for our country, and I share the majority leader's view.

We appreciate their efforts.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Leader, am I correct it would be our hope collectively, both sides of the aisle, to be able to give definitive information to the Members at least by 5 p.m. as to what they might expect for tomorrow?

Mr. Leader, in the event there is a vote tomorrow, would I be correct in assuming we would give to Members a minimum of an hour's notice and no vote will be held before noon tomorrow? Is that your thought at this point in time?

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what I am being told, but the gentleman indicated that he may give us, and may be contemplating, more notice than 1 hour. I am not sure what that has to do with the committee, but in any event Members will have a minimum of 1 hour's notice before they would be called back to vote on any legislation tomorrow?

I thank the gentleman for that. Let me ask the gentleman another question that I was asked by another Member. Am I correct that the only votes, if we have votes tomorrow, would be on the supplemental?

So there may be two votes tomorrow if they were required?

Reclaiming my time, in other words, Members should understand that, although we are saying there may be votes tomorrow or there may not be, but there may be multiple votes tomorrow; so it would be more than one vote required. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, our brave men and women in uniform continue to risk their lives at this hour in Iraq, and let there be no mistake: there cause is noble.

They are disarming and deposing a ruthless tyrant who has brutalized the Iraqi people for more than 20 years, and who has threatened the security of the Middle East region and the world.

As the result of the courage, sacrifice, patriotism and professionalism of our American Armed Forces--as well as our Coalition allies--the Iraqi people have broken free of Hussein's stranglehold.

Who could not be moved by the scenes broadcast from Baghdad, where thousands of newly liberated Iraqi citizens celebrated Hussein's defeat?

However, danger still lurks around every corner. Thus, we pray for a successful conclusion to this war and our troops' safe return.

We also pray for the loved ones and families of the American servicemen and servicewomen who will not be returning safely to our shores; those who have given their lives for their Nation and the cause of freedom.

And we say a special prayer for the seven Americans who are listed as prisoners of war and eight who are listed as missing.

As we come to this House floor to commemorate national former POW Recognition Day, which was observed this past Wednesday, April 9, let us join together and offer this solemn pledge: the United States of America shall never--never--rest until every single American who is believed to be in enemy hands is freed, and every single American who is missing is fully accounted for.

Freedom's defenders must never be forgotten, and thus our mission in Iraq is far from accomplished.

Our former prisoners of war are national heroes who deserve our gratitude and respect.

Their service placed them in dangerous circumstances, causing their capture and imprisonment, often in atrocious conditions.

We also owe a debt of gratitude to their families for weathering agonizing uncertainty while demonstrating support for their loved ones' service to our country.

Although former POWs returned home, too often they carried the extra burden of physical and emotional scares.

They are a testament to history's eternal truth--freedom is not free--as well as its unforgiving lesson: the price of freedom is always great.

We remember these courageous heroes in the shadow of the dramatic rescue of Pfc Jessica Lynch on April 2.

She owes her life to the American commandos who stormed the hospital where she was being held and rescued her, as well as the brave Iraqi man who risked certain death by providing our troops with accurate information regarding her whereabouts.

We recognize the tremendous sacrifice of former prisoners of war like Jessica, and we pledge that our Nation will keep its promises to all former POWs and veterans.

Let me close, however, by saying that even as our servicemen and women are overseas defending our values, freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law, there are schemes afoot in this very Capitol to give them short shrift once they return home.

While President Bush has extended his appreciation to members of veterans service organizations for ``the lifetime of service you have given to our Nation,'' some have proposed cutting veterans' benefits and health care by more than $28 billion to help pay for a tax cut.

This is not only bad policy, it is, in my view, immoral.

This Nation, as far as I am concerned, has an irrevocable contract with America's veterans. And it is one that we must always honor.

Our veterans and former POWs deserve more than medals and a thank you for their service and sacrifice.

At a time when we are sending thousands of America's sons and daughters into harm's way, we should be investing in the programs and services our veterans and former prisoners of war deserve, not pulling back on our promises.

We must stand behind our words of gratitude by honoring the commitment we made to them for answering freedom's call.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of my special order.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation is a comprehensive energy bill, but it is an incomplete energy policy. We need an energy policy that is balanced; balanced regionally; balanced in terms of promoting energy development and protecting the environment; balanced in terms of production and delivery, in terms of streamlining regulations, while protecting consumer interests; and certainly, Mr. Chairman, balanced in terms of addressing short-term problems while creating long-term stability, and investing for the energy needs of future generations.

Yet, there is no real commitment in this legislation, I think, to promote new alternative resources or conservation. We are missing a major opportunity to invest in the technologies of efficiency, to do more with less. To help us manage our consumption and create thousands of jobs at home.

Democrats have amendments to address these deficiencies, but most, unfortunately, if not all, will be rejected, even though they are good policies that many of my friends on the other side of the aisle would want to support, but will not because the majority has made many parts of this rule partisan.

I am especially concerned, Mr. Chairman, about the new issues in this debate, first, electricity restructuring. This bill ignores the lessons that should have been learned from Enron and from California. A poorly structured market is more susceptible to manipulation and fraud than a market that is properly designed. This legislation actually weakens the oversight and tools that our regulatory agencies need to provide the necessary checks and balances, therefore making matters worse.

I urge my colleagues to support the thoughtful and reasonable provisions in the Dingell substitute to address these deficiencies.

Secondly, the fuel provisions include mandates that ignore regional disparities in supply and distribution that will lead to increased prices at the pump for consumers on both the East and West Coasts.

Mr. Chairman, we need a comprehensive energy policy that is balanced, competitively neutral, and that maximizes our resources. This bill, unfortunately, misses that opportunity. Thus, I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me the time to close.

I talked about, in the first 3 minutes, a comprehensive energy policy. I want to tell my friend, the chairman of the committee, I know he and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) worked closely together on this bill. I think it is very unfortunate on a matter of such great importance to our country, to our national security, and to our people that we do not have a bill on the floor that both the gentleman from Louisiana and the gentleman from Michigan could have supported.

Some amendments have been made in order. I would hope that perhaps the gentleman from Louisiana would support some of those amendments. I think they will improve the bill.

I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me say honestly that I think this issue is of such magnitude that we really ought to work together. We have missed an opportunity to do that. I hope in the future we will be able to do so.

I think the gentleman's experience, matched with the experience of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the Members on both sides of the aisle can come up with an energy policy of which we can all be proud. I feel we have not done that this day, and I think we have lost an opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct, there is no honor in this. Think about what you are doing tonight. Your majority leader said, and I will read quickly, Between now and the next Presidential election, through the end of the fiscal year 1996, the public debt will increase by almost $1.3 trillion. During President Reagan's first term, the debt ceiling was increased from $935 billion to $1.8 trillion. That is an increase of $889 billion. It took us over 200 years to get to $1 trillion in debt, over 200 years, and in the last 10 years we have gone to over $4 trillion of debt.

All of that so-called stimulus package is deficit spending. None of that spending, none of it is paid for. All of it borrows money to pay for it. That is part of why we are raising the debt ceiling.

He was speaking in opposition to the kind of action you are taking tonight and then the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) said this, ``We need to do other things to balance the budget. Let us do it. But first and foremost, we have to shoot straight with the American people, and hiding things like this debt ceiling increase is not the way to do that.''

How many of you campaigned and said you were against raising the debt limit? How many of you campaigned on the fact that you were going to balance the budget? I voted for the balanced budget amendment. I believe in balancing the budget; and very frankly, under the Clinton administration, we took the Reagan-Bush deficits into surplus for the first time for 4 years in a row, the first time in 80 years.

Do you have no honor? Are you not ashamed of the hypocrisy that this budget resolution that you bring before us represents? Is there no honor in this House? Is there no fiscal integrity? Is there no concern for generations yet unborn who, as the gentleman from Tennessee says, will have to pay this bill and the young men and women we have in Iraq today will have to return here to pay the bill? Can we not stand up as Americans, proud of our country, proud of our objectives and say to them, we will pay as you fight, and together, we will win this battle for a better America?

Mr. Speaker, no poor Republican member of the Committee on Rules who was given this assignment has risen to defend this rule. Certainly the chairman of the Committee on the Budget has not.

This started out as a House joint concurrent resolution. ``Concurrent'' meant that it would be agreed upon by both sides. They have dropped the ``current'' and it is now just a ``con,'' a con on the American people, a con on this institution.

Tonight, they sound the death knell for the policy of fiscal discipline, and are poised to drive our Nation into spiralling and historic debt. They put us on the path to increased debt by more than $5.5 trillion, and then to $12 trillion.

Here is the real kicker: There will be no debate on this stealth action and there will be no vote; there will only be a swelling sea of debt that promises to drown our future prosperity.

Yes, it is a con job. Let us remember the unequivocal words of the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), which still reverberate throughout this Chamber. Ten years and 12 days ago, here is what he said: ``Here we are being asked to raise the debt ceiling so this government can go on borrowing money to take care of its spending habits. I think that is outrageous,'' said the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay). ``I hope the Members of this House will vote against raising the debt ceiling,'' said the gentleman from Texas, ``and I hope the American people will contact the Members of this House, Mr. Speaker, and urge them to vote against raising the debt ceiling.''

Where is the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay)? Where is he when we raise the debt by $860 billion this year and $5 trillion over the next 10? Where is the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay)?

They claim this is an economic growth package. They claimed it in 2001. We lost 2.6 million private-sector jobs, 4 million more Americans without health care, real business investment has fallen by 5.7 percent, and 2 million Americans have moved from middle class to poverty. Where is the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay)?

Have the integrity to stand up and vote for America's children and America's future. Vote down this rule. Vote down this budget.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, this is the dirty secret that Republicans do not want to admit. We did not control spending. That is Chairman Nussle, some 15 days ago. The Committee on the Budget says Republicans believe repaying the debt is the right thing to do. It says, in its report dated March 13, 2001, it is wrong for this generation to saddle future generations with debt.

It has taken them some less than 2 years to change that view and proceed to create gargantuan debt. And my colleagues, we considered this budget some days ago, and the sun did not set for six times until they came to this floor and for 40 minutes railed against the gentleman's motion to instruct, the motion of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). For 40 minutes the Republicans railed against it, and then they voted for it.

They voted for it because they knew the cuts that were proposed in that budget were not sustainable, were not supportable. Yet they all voted for it and they flip-flopped 6 days later. How short a memory my colleagues have.

My Republican colleagues say they are against debt. The chairman of the Committee on the Budget has gotten up on this floor time after time and said, we need to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse. Let me just say that the waste is the time and the paper we have used to consider this resolution, which sadly simply reflects a deep division within the Republican Party reflected by this fiscal irresponsibility.

This budget will not be followed. Hear me. My colleagues will not follow it any more than they followed the budget that the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) offered last year and for which my colleagues voted last year. It was never adopted. Eleven appropriation bills sat in our committee. Why? Because Republicans could not get the votes on their side of the floor to pass them, consistent with their budget, because they were not real.

The fraud is on the American people. The fraud is on the young people of America. The fraud is on the veterans, I say to my friend from New Jersey. The fraud is in the rhetoric that Republicans have used seeking support from their constituents seeking fiscal responsibility.

And the abuse, my friends, of the fraud, waste and abuse, the abuse is the abuse of process which the consideration tonight of this budget with just hours' notice reflects. Yes, there is fraud, waste and abuse, and it is within this budget. Reject it. We can do better. We should do better. We must do better.

Mr. Speaker, our Republican friends are desperate. House and Senate Republicans are so far apart on their tax proposals that GOP leaders are actually considering writing two reconciliation tax numbers into the budget resolution. That is an outrage. It is unprecedented, and it is a farce; and GOP leaders have no one to blame but themselves.

Senator Grassley, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance, is quoted as saying: ``It's a pipe dream to think you can get above 350 (billion dollars) without dramatic changes of position.'' In response, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), majority leader, warns that House Republicans may reject the budget resolution that fails to include the President's tax proposal, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) added: ``It probably would not be the worst thing in the world to not have a budget resolution.'' Imagine that. One year after hammering, hammering Senate Democrats for failing to pass a budget, congressional Republicans say that is not such a bad idea after all. Situational ethics. My, oh, my, how Republicans have changed their tune.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct.

Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this Democratic motion to instruct House conferees on the supplemental appropriations bill.

It's just. It's fair. And it enjoys bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate, even if the Bush administration has labeled it ``objectionable.''

In short, this motion would instruct House conferees to recede to the Senate provision providing an additional 26 weeks of unemployment compensation to workers in the air transportation industry.

This industry and its workers have borne the brunt of the continuing war on terrorism and have been wracked by our sluggish economy.

In fact, the industry is expected to lose $6.7 billion this year.

Approximately 200,000 airline workers have lost their jobs since September 11, 2001, and another 70,000 workers are expected to be laid off.

Last week, the world's largest carrier, AMR Corporation's American Airlines, averted Chapter 11 bankruptcy by negotiating $1.8 billion in labor concessions.

And U.S. Airways only recently emerged from bankruptcy after winning approval for $900 million federal loan guarantee.

Last week, I also had the opportunity to meet with representatives of the industry and airline workers.

And they know that their fate is inextricably linked; that one cannot survive without the other.

Today, through this motion, we recognize that and say: What's fair for the industry is fair for workers.

In fact, members on both sides of the aisle want to help.

This motion would instruct conferees to agree to a provision that is very similar to bipartisan legislation introduced last week by our colleagues, Mr. English of Pennsylvania and Mr. Oberstar of Minnesota [H.R. 1553, the ``Air Transportation Employees Assistance Act''].

The Senate has already passed a plan to extend unemployment insurance benefits in its version of this legislation.

The Members of this body should do the same thing to aid this struggling industry, and its workers and their families.

That's precisely what this motion to instruct seeks.

I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding time to me, and I rise in opposition to this rule.

Mr. Speaker, there is a pattern in this rule. That pattern is to gag approximately 140 million Americans, to not allow their Representatives to offer amendments which the majority has made in order for themselves, but not for the 140 million Americans represented by the minority.

There appears to be no shame in that. It appears to be the arrogant exercise of pure political power. They can laugh if they will; but the American public will, over time, recognize that half of America is being shut out.

The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) seeks to offer an amendment. That amendment is to invest in homeland security, the safety of our cities, the safety of our ports, the safety of our railroads, the continuing safety of our airlines, and the safety of our neighborhoods.

What this rule says is, we will have points of order. That is esoteric. What does that mean? The American public does not know. Essentially, what it means is we will allow ourselves, we Republicans who are in charge, the ability to offer an amendment like the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey).

Now, somebody on the Committee on Rules is shaking their heads. It is their bill that I refer to. It is their bill that is not consistent with the rules. In the rule, they say it does not matter for them, they can exercise the power to jam it; but we will not give to Democrats the ability to offer an amendment to adequately fund the security of New York City; of Baltimore, Maryland; of each and every community in our country.

I regret that. It is a bad rule, and I join the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) in urging Members to vote against the previous question so that we can provide a rule which will allow for fair and full consideration, and let that proposal, if it is deemed by those in the majority not to be consistent with the security of the American public, vote against it; but at least have the courage, have the courage and good sense and consideration for the 140 million people represented by this side of the aisle to allow them to be heard. Allow them to have an amendment to be considered on this floor. That is democracy. That is what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) seeks.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

I understand the gentlewoman's argument. It may be a good argument. Why does your rule not allow us to debate that on the floor?

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman's bill is not within the rules. The gentlewoman waived the rules.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly support Mr. DeFazio's amendment to provide an additional 26 weeks of unemployment compensation to workers in the air transportation industry.

This industry and its workers have borne the brunt of the continuing war on terrorism and have been wracked by our sluggish economy.

In fact, the industry is expected to lose $6.7 billion this year.

In addition, approximately 200,000 airline workers have lost their jobs since September 11, 2001, and another 70,000 workers are expected to be laid off.

This week, the world's largest carrier, AMR corporation's American Airlines, averted Chapter 11 bankruptcy by negotiating $1.8 billion in labor concessions.

And U.S. Airways only recently emerged from bankruptcy after winning approval for a $900 billion Federal loan guarantee.

Last week, I had the opportunity to meet with representatives of the industry and just hours ago I met in my office with airline workers' representatives.

The industry and workers know that their fate is inextricably linked; that one cannot survive without the other.

Members on both sides of the aisle understand this and want to help.

The fact is, this amendment would incorporate into this supplemental appropriations bill bipartisan legislation that was introduced yesterday by Mr. English and Mr. Oberstar--H.R. 1553, the ``Air Transportation Employees Assistance Act''.

The Senate Appropriations Committee has already passed a similar plan to extend unemployment insurance benefits in its version of this legislation.

The members of this body should do the same thing to aid this struggling industry, and its workers and their families.

Let's help this vital industry and its workers navigate unprecedented turbulence.

That's precisely what this amendment extending unemployment insurance benefits would do.

I urge my colleagues to support it.

Point of Order

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) for the purposes of informing the body as to the schedule for the coming week.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his information. First, if I might, Mr. Leader, you indicate that we may also consider a motion to go to conference on the Armed Services Tax Fairness Act on Monday. Do you know whether that is more definite now? The reason I ask that is we may want to have a motion to instruct on this side.

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for that information, and I would appreciate as soon as you know how you are going to handle this if you would let us know.

Thank you, Mr. Leader. Will there definitely be votes next Friday?

The gentleman certainly has outlined some very significant pieces of legislation that may be on the floor.

Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his comment and I hear him talking about the supplemental. Does the leader believe that the budget conference report is a necessary piece of legislation for us to pass before we leave? I know you mentioned that you might want to try to do that, but does your side believe that is necessary before we leave next week?

I thank the gentleman for that comment.

Related to the budget conference, Mr. Leader, do you expect that we will have a debt limit vote on the floor either as a part of the conference report or as a freestanding bill of some type or other in the week to come?

I thank the gentleman for reminding me. Is that the same Gephardt rule that the minority, when the Democrats were in control, thought was undemocratic, masked the desire of Democrats to raise the debt limit and spend more money; is that the same rule you are talking about reinstituting and you have reinstituted and are going to apply? I just want to clarify and make sure that is the same awful rule that you attacked so vigorously when you were in the minority.

A rule by any other name, my friend.

The energy bill, Mr. Leader, do you have a pretty good estimate as to which day of the week that bill might come to the floor?

I thank the gentleman for that information.

May I also ask him, and I see the chairman of the Committee on Rules on the floor, you correctly observed, Mr. Leader, this is a complicated bill, a lot of different subjects, very important subjects, very consequential subjects. What, if you know, perhaps the chairman of the Committee on Rules knows, do you contemplate an open rule such as the rule we had on the floor today?

Reclaiming my time, we share the leader's hope.

I yield to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Reclaiming my time, I would say again in all sincerity to my friend, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, and the leader, this is the kind of legislation, which you are absolutely correct, which is very serious, very complicated, and ought to have the fullest airing on the floor of this House. Obviously, it has had a full airing in a number of committees.

We would urge and very strongly hope that the goal that the gentleman has expressed as his will, in fact, be followed so that alternatives can be offered by committee or individual Members on this side of the aisle as well as that side of the aisle when this bill comes to the floor.

I yield to the gentleman from California.