Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. Speaker, there is not anybody in here who is not against waste, fraud and abuse. Ronald Reagan ran in 1980, and he said he was going to save a lot of money by eliminating waste, fraud and abuse. The Republicans were in charge of the Senate. Ronald Reagan was President of the United States. Not once, not ever did Ronald Reagan have a veto of any appropriation bill overridden, not once that asked to spend more money.

He was in charge of the executive department. George Bush was in charge of the executive department for the 4 years following, for 12 years in a row. And, Mr. Nussle, you know what happened to waste, fraud and abuse? You quadrupled the national debt, I say to my friend who is trying to ignore me. You quadrupled the national debt from $985 billion to $4 trillion. Why did Mr. Reagan and Mr. Bush not eliminate waste, fraud and abuse?

And then what happened? Bill Clinton came to town, elected President of

the United States, and what happened in those 8 years? For 8 years in a row the deficit came down, for 4 years; and then the surplus started going up until 2001. We had 4 years of surpluses for the first time in 80 years. And then what happened? President Bush came to office. Mr. Nussle became the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, and we have reescalated the debt.

This budget proposes the largest debt in the history of this country. This budget is an April fool, a cruel hoax and joke on the American public. And what does the chairman of the Committee on the Budget do? He brings these little blue books. They are important books. The question I wanted to ask you, Mr. Nussle, and just an answer, is I am sure your committee staff has added up how would the savings if every piece of waste in those blue books was effected would it provide us. How much, Mr. Nussle?

Would it provide the 18 billion you want to take away from farmers who are attacked by drought? Would it take away the money that you are going to reduce school lunches by? Student loans by? Would it provide for the Medicaid that you want the Committee on Energy and Commerce to cut? Would it provide for the Medicare that your own committee has jurisdiction over?

Now, Mr. Nussle, it is April Fool's Day but do not take us for fools, because with all due respect, you offered a budget last year. Now you complained it did not pass, but in years past we have deemed adopted the House-passed budget and passed bills.

Again, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget ignores me. It is a shame because, my friends, 11 of the appropriations bills did not pass this House last year. Why? Because they could not get them within the budget. The budget that Mr. Nussle offered is not a real document. It is an April fool's joke. It will never be adopted. Never. And, Mr. Nussle, I believe you know it. I believe you know that the document that you have provided is unsustainable politically because the American public will reject it out of hand because they do not believe that that railroad retirement and people who work hard for their retirement should be cut. They do not believe that Social Security should be cut. They do not believe that Medicaid should be cut. They do not believe that Medicare should be cut.

The motion to instruct will make it a real budget and turn an April fool's joke into a real document for America.

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed fitting that on this, April Fool's Day, we're voting on this motion to instruct on the House GOP's phony and foolhardy budget.

Why?

Because the fact of the matter is: This GOP budget is a dishonest document designed solely to fool the American people.

To fool them into believing that this Republican Party really does care about balancing the budget, controlling deficits and reducing debt.

To fool them into believing that our nation--which is now prosecuting a war of unknown duration and undetermined costs--really can afford the President's $1.4 trillion tax plan.

And, to fool them into believing that the Members who sit on the Republican side of the aisle really have the courage of their convictions.

Let me ask you: will you really vote to cut Medicaid funding and the Children's Health Insurance Program by $94 billion?

Will you really vote to cut school lunches for poor children and student loans by $9.4 billion?

Will you really vote to cut railroad retirees' pensions and Agriculture programs such as Food Stamps and Farm Support Payments?

And, with our brave armed forces now on the field of battle risking their lives to defend freedom and combat tyranny, will you really vote to cut veterans' benefits by $14.6 billion?

Some of you actually might.

But we all know that most of you have absolutely no intention of walking the plank and voting for legislation that would implement these draconian funding cuts.

Thus, today, we're engaged in nothing more than a cynical charade.

You get to pretend that you're for balanced budgets and enormous tax cuts, too.

That's not leadership. That's a conscious evasion of the responsibility to level with the American people--to tell them that we cannot afford everything--and a deliberate decision to pass the costs of this reckless tax plan onto the next generation.

I urge all of my colleagues--including those on the Republican side of the aisle who are still nursing sore arms after the vote on the budget resolution two weeks ago--to vote for the Spratt motion to instruct.

That motion--which instructs conferees to reject these proposed and clearly unpassable and untenable funding cuts--is an honest one and based in reality.

Everyone of us knows that this GOP budget is not.

Mr. Speaker, I take this time for the purpose of inquiring of the schedule of the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), and I yield to the majority leader.

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

Following up on what he said at the end of his statement, am I to understand that if the supplemental is passed on Thursday, it is the gentleman's expectation we will not be in next Friday?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments.

I would say to the distinguished majority leader, having talked to the ranking member and former chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), I think if we can reach a bipartisan agreement, we too want to make sure that we provide the appropriate resources for our men and women in harm's way to assure them that there is going to be no reluctance on our part to accomplish that effort. But I emphasize that my belief is that if we can reach a bipartisan agreement, and I am hopeful, I know the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) can accomplish that; and if the leadership would help in accomplishing that objective, I think that would be a worthy objective for our country and for this House.

The budget conference and conferees, does the gentleman know when they will be appointed? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Leader, the reason I was looking to staff, obviously, as the gentleman well knows, if we are not going to go in until 6:30 and we will probably do suspension bills that night, clearly, if we go to conference, a motion to instruct would be in order; and I think it would be our intention to offer such a motion.

Therefore, having notice at this juncture, or I understand the gentleman's not having specific knowledge of when the papers are going to come over, but I might say to the gentleman that if we can have some specificity, and apparently Tuesday we will have the papers, the gentleman is reasonably confident, perhaps we could agree that it would be then Tuesday so that on our side we could plan to have the motion to which we would be entitled ready and available at that time.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's view. I share that view. We want to try to get this done. I am going to ask him about the week following.

I understand floor time is at a premium, but we are not going to meet, apparently, on Friday if we get the supplemental done in a timely fashion, so we are not going to be using that time.

My only point is that if we do not know until Monday at noontime or Monday at 10 o'clock, it makes it more difficult for us. Frankly, I think it would be appropriate if the gentleman could perhaps agree that this will be on Tuesday, because he is not sure it is going to get over on Monday. I think that puts us in a little better shape.

I thank the gentleman, Mr. Speaker.

Reclaiming my time again, Mr. Speaker, and I do not want to beat this dead horse too badly, but on Monday my presumption is that the only votes at 6:30 are suspension votes; is that correct?

Would we do that subsequent to the vote on the suspensions, or in the afternoon? Obviously, the problem with the afternoon is most Members, as the gentleman knows, come back in time for the vote, Members flying from the West Coast. So there are those complications.

Would the gentleman inform me as to what the intent would be, either before the 6:30 suspension votes or after?

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. We will discuss this with the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member. I am sure the gentleman will want to discuss it with the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) as well. Hopefully, we can reach an agreement so all Members can be accommodated to participate in that important debate.

Mr. Leader, the partial birth abortion bill, I understand that was marked up yesterday. Does the gentleman know when that will be coming to the floor? Is it going to be next week or the week after?

I thank the gentleman for that response.

The smallpox vaccination compensation bill, I know there are ongoing discussions. It is my understanding, from what I have heard the gentleman say, that the expectation is that is not going to be on the calendar next week.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the leader, and we have had this discussion before, we are all hopeful, I think, that the discussions between the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), who is on the floor, who has been such a leader in this legislation, and others on the gentleman's side of the aisle could come and reach agreement.

However, if an agreement could not be reached, the problem is with the Suspension Calendar that it allows no amendments and therefore allows of no alternative possibilities to be considered by the whole House.

We would hope that if this matter cannot be resolved, and we are hopeful that it can, and I know I speak for the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), she is hopeful that it can, and I think I speak for the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) as well, that they would like to reach agreement; but if agreement cannot be reached, I would urge the majority leader to bring this bill to the floor with the procedure that allows for alternative proposals to be considered by the whole House.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. We all agree that this bill is needed. We also all know that the President's expectation of the number of people who would have gotten the smallpox vaccination at this point in time, particularly as it relates to first responders, nurses, police, emergency medical technicians, would have been far higher than it has been to date, so we are trying to facilitate that.

Clearly, the passage of this bill would be facilitated by having a bipartisan agreement that will not be contentious. But of course, as the gentleman knows, at the nub of this issue is how substantively we can accomplish the objective of getting as many of our nurses and police and emergency response personnel to voluntarily participate in this vaccination process.

So, again, I would urge the gentleman, if we cannot reach agreement, let the floor consider alternatives and let them decide, the floor, the Members of this House, as to what procedures and process and compensation will best facilitate that end. I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the leader, regarding the tax bill, I know the gentleman mentioned it, but when does he anticipate that coming to the floor?

I thank the gentleman for his comments, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on March 26, 2003, Ms. Deborah A. Yow, who is currently serving in her ninth year as director of athletics at the University of Maryland, will be inducted into the Maryland Women's Hall of Fame.

The Maryland Women's Hall of Fame was established to honor Maryland women who

have made unique and lasting contributions to the economic, political, cultural and social life of the State and to provide visible models of achievement for tomorrow's female leaders. Ms. Yow's contribution to Maryland and her role as a prominent female leader in an area traditionally dominated by males more than qualifies her for this honor.

Throughout her distinguished career in collegiate athletics, Ms. Yow has been known for her unrivalled energy and dedication. She has demonstrated a long-standing commitment not only to athletic success but also to the academic excellence of the students. A focused manager, fund-raiser, and promoter, she is known as a ``coach's AD'' with an impressive sense of management and knowledge of fiscal operations. Over the course of her career she has emerged as a leader in all facets of collegiate athletics.

After playing basketball herself at Elon College in North Carolina, Ms. Yow excelled for nearly a decade in coaching women's basketball. She began coaching at the University of Kentucky in 1976, and in 1980, Ms. Yow moved to Oral Roberts University in Oklahoma, posting an impressive 26-1 record in 1983. She then served as the women's basketball coach at the University of Florida from 1983 to 1987. Ms. Yow retired from coaching after her tenure at the University of Florida with a winning percentage of .700 and a career average of 20 victories per season.

Ms. Yow moved her career into the administrative field by serving as an associate athletic director at the University of North Carolina- Greensboro from 1987 to 1990, where she increased alumni support by more than 128 percent. In 1990, Ms. Yow assumed the position of athletic director at St. Louis University, becoming the fourth female athletic director of an NCAA Division I program and the only one active at the time. She was credited with revitalizing the men's basketball program and achieved an impressive 92 percent graduate rate for its athletes, ranking I0th among the 300 Division I schools.

In 1994, Ms. Yow began her new role as athletic director at the University of Maryland, the first woman to hold such a position in Atlantic Coast Conference history. She was faced with the challenge of a program ranked last competitively and last in fund-raising in the ACC, and a staggering operating deficit of $6.7 million. She took this position with a pledge to pay off the debt and improve both the athletic and academic standards in the Maryland athletic program. Under her leadership, every budget in the department has been balanced, and the debts she inherited from past administrations have been paid off. The Maryland Terrapins have streaked up the all-sports ranking to be in the top 15 percent of all NCAA Division I institutions. The graduation rate of athletes has risen to an impressive 85 percent, and improvements have been made in a variety of areas such as management, facilities and customer care.

Last year, 2002, demonstrated unprecedented successes for Ms. Yow's efforts in Maryland athletics. U.S. News and World Report selected the University of Maryland as one of the top 20 athletic programs in the Nation for overall quality and competitive excellence. The football team won the ACC championship and played in the Orange Bowl. The men's basketball team won the ACC regular season and topped that off with the NCAA national championship. These successes made Maryland one of a handful of schools to have achieved such high-level successes in both football and men's basketball in the same year. And success was not limited to just these two sports; the women's lacrosse team won their 7th consecutive national championship, the field hockey team played for the national championship, and a total of 10 teams competed in post- season play.

Ms. Yow's success has been honored by a variety of awards and leadership positions in college athletics. In 1998, she was elected the second vice president of the National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics, the second woman to serve as an officer of the NACDA. By 2000, she was the president of that organization. Also in 2000, Street and Smith's Sports Business Journal, a leading industry publication, named her female sport executive of the year. More recently, she has been an important voice on the Commission on Opportunity in Athletics, a group assembled by U.S. Education Secretary Rod Paige to review Title IX.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to extend congratulations to Ms. Yow for her well-deserved inauguration into the Maryland Women's Hall of Fame. Mr. Speaker, I know the Members of the House join me in thanking Ms. Yow for her contribution to the University of Maryland, its fans and the citizens of the great State of Maryland, as well as for her wider contribution to collegiate athletics.

Mr. Chairman, we have had two responsible alternatives offered. Mr. Chairman, this substitute should pass, and it should pass with an overwhelming number of votes from both sides of the aisle. Why? Because it is the fiscally responsible alternative that remains on this floor.

The Republican budget is an appalling betrayal of America's values and fails to meet our Nation's priorities. We really have to wonder, how does this Republican Party define compassion? By taking hot lunches out of the mouths of poor schoolchildren? By forcing the elderly out of nursing homes as the result of Medicaid cuts? By skimping on a prescription drug benefit for seniors? By slashing veterans health care on the very day, on the very day that our brave Armed Forces have begun the battle to disarm Saddam Hussein?

It is clear that the President's irresponsible $1.4 trillion tax plan and the GOP's blind allegiance to it would be an albatross around the necks of the American people, as well as future generations.

To pay for it, the House GOP proposes to cut funding for Medicaid, student loans, scientific research, food stamps, education, and veterans benefits. Too often, those of us privileged to serve here speak in terms of billions or trillions. Well, tonight, Mr. Chairman, let us put a human face on these proposed budget cuts.

More than 90 students at the Eva Turner Elementary School in Waldorf, Maryland, who receive hot meals under the lunch program could have those meals eliminated.

Ervin Coleman of Prince George's County, who recently was forced to rely on Medicaid to cover the cost of his medical care, may not have that option under the Republican budget.

Rubin Hairston of Calvert County receives $654 a month in Social Security benefits, but his prescription drug cost is $519. He simply cannot afford all his medication. The meager funding set aside for a drug benefit in this budget offers him little hope of relief.

I ask Members, is that a budget that reflects America's values? Is that a budget that meets America's priorities? Mr. Chairman, the American people want and deserve better. That is precisely what this Democratic budget alternative gives them.

First and foremost, our budget includes our entire stimulus plan, which would jumpstart the economy, provide tax relief, and create 1 million new jobs. Our budget provides more funding for homeland security, $34 billion for safety here at home; more funding for education; and more funding for the environment, veterans, and other priorities. We also provide at least 35 percent more for prescription drugs.

Finally, our budget matches the President's defense request, protects Social Security, and achieves balance by 2010. Democrats urge all Americans to examine our budget and ask themselves which budget reflects America's values and meets our needs. The answer is clear.

The Republican budget is nothing more than a cynical, calculated political document designed solely to provide huge tax cuts to the most affluent. It will continue the deficit spiral and pass the debt along to the brave young men and women who are now in harm's way. That is not moral, it is not fiscally responsible, and it is pitiful policy.

I urge all of my colleagues to support the Democratic budget for America and for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I had this and I was not going to use it. I am on the same side as the gentleman. I am in the minority of my party on this issue. But I want to tell Members that they cannot have it both ways. On December 13, 1995, our troops were deployed. Our troops were deployed in Bosnia. They were deployed for the purposes of keeping the peace. They were successful. Thousands of people were being killed. The gentleman remembers that, and our troops were deployed for the purpose of keeping the peace pursuant to an agreement by President Clinton and others in the NATO alliance.

There was a resolution on the floor. That resolution was a very brief resolution and it had one resolved clause, just one and it said this: That the House of Representatives unequivocally supports the men and women of the United States Armed Forces who are carrying out their mission in support of peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina with professional excellence, dedicated patriotism, and exemplary bravery.

The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) voted ``no'' on that resolution. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) voted ``no'' on that resolution. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), who spoke earlier, voted ``no'' on that resolution. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), who talked about the troops, voted ``no'' on that resolution.

I am with my friend on the substance, but when the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) gets up and makes her statement and she is criticized, remember December 13, 1995.

Mr. Speaker, Robert Kennedy once remarked, ``All of us, from the wealthiest and most powerful men, to the weakest and hungriest children, share one precious possession, the name American.''

So tonight as our brave men and women in uniform fight for freedom and our security half a world away, we come here not as Democrats or Republicans, but as Americans, Americans united as one in support of our Armed Forces, and for the success of the cause for which they willingly risk their lives.

That cause, liberty and freedom from fear, inspired our Founding Fathers 227 years ago, and guides our action today. It is a measure of our Nation's greatness that when freedom's call came at

this hour, the finest, best-trained, most skilled and best-equipped military in the history of the world answered the call as previous generations have done.

Our thoughts and prayers are with our troops and with the troops of our allies, four of whom also lost their lives this night, and our thoughts as well are with the families who wait. We are with you. We honor you; we honor your sacrifice. We hail your courage, and we pray for your safe return.

We are confident that the Iraqi people who have been terrorized for so long under Saddam Hussein's brutal reign will soon throw off the shackles of tyranny and see that your mission has always been one of liberation and not of aggression. There should be no doubt we shall win this war, and we must win the peace that will follow. We are committed to a liberated and free Iraq where individual Iraqis can decide their own fate, where basic human rights and the rule of law are respected, and where that nation's tremendous resources are the property of a proud Iraqi people, and not plundered by an international criminal who has killed his own people and who continues to threaten the security of the region and the world.

Saddam Hussein believed, like other dictators and despots who pockmark history, that our democratic debate was evidence of disunity and weakness. He was wrong.

In fact, as all of us who are privileged to serve here know, that ability to debate, that ability to disagree, that ability to want options is what makes America so strong, so envied.

Tonight we stand as one behind our brave Armed Forces. No matter the votes, we stand as one and pray for a quick end to this conflict and to the safe return of our brave men and women and the brave men and women of every nation who will fight in those sands.

May God protect our men and women. May God give wisdom to our Commander in Chief, and may God continue to bless America.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inquire of the majority leader the schedule for the balance of the week and next week.

I would be glad to yield to the distinguished majority leader who worked just a little too hard tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished leader for that information.

First, Mr. Leader, I presume we have concluded all of our work this week; is that correct?

I know all the Members thank the gentleman for that information.

I will ask the gentleman, next Friday, does the gentleman expect to be in session next Friday, or could the Members expect not to be in session next Friday?

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

Does the gentleman anticipate that the tax bill will be marked up by the Committee on Ways and Means next week, and then can we anticipate it on the floor the following week?

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman talked about the committees, but the energy bill, when can we expect the full committee to take action on that bill, and when does the gentleman expect it to come to the floor?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and, Mr. Speaker, I have no further questions of the leader, and I appreciate his giving us the schedule.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on that point?

We yielded on our side.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I want to say to my friend from Kentucky, who says that we rise to focus on process, I tell my friend from Kentucky there is a reason for that, because your Committee on Rules does not have the courage to allow us to debate substance. It does not have the courage to allow us to offer a substitute and amendments to your bill so that we could discuss substance. Have courage on your side, that substance is what ought to be at risk here. We are prepared to debate it. Allow us to do so.

Mr. Speaker, once again today the Republican leadership is employing outrageous tactics that trample the rights of the minority and rig the rules of this debate.

As long as the gentleman yielded to me.

Mr. Speaker, these tactics demean the People's House. Hear me. Hear me. These tactics demean the People's House, demean democracy, demean freedom, and they fly in the face of commitments by Republicans when they regained the majority to run an open and deliberative process.

These comments are on the record. Here is how Gerald Solomon, the former Republican Chair of the Committee on Rules, explained it in November of 1994 when you were just about to take power. This is a quote, on the record:

``The guiding principles will be openness and fairness. The Rules Committee will no longer rig the procedure to contrive a predetermined outcome. From now on,'' the Republicans said, ``the Rules Committee will clear the stage for debate and let the House work its will.''

The year before, Congressman Solomon remarked, ``Every time we deny an open amendment process on an important piece of legislation, we are disenfranchising the people and their representatives from the legislative process.''

Mr. Speaker, this side of the aisle represents at least 140 million people. This side of the aisle represents 140 million Americans, and you have shut them up today, and you shut them up last week, and you may be considering shutting us up next week. Not 204 or 205 Democrats, but 140 million Americans.

I submit that this is precisely what we are doing today under this closed rule, which is what Mr. Solomon said you would not do. But you do it this day, and you demean this House.

I would say to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher), yes, that is why we talk about process, because we want to show why we are not serving doctors this day; why in State after State after State that have capped recovery premiums have not gone down. Doctors will not be served by this legislation you offer, and you will not allow us an amendment to do something that will protect doctors, that will protect patients, that will protect injured people.

This is a travesty of democracy, and it is a travesty for people who are injured severely by the negligence of others.

Vote against the previous question, vote against this bill, vote for fairness and equity in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inquire of the distinguished majority leader the schedule for the coming week.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for the information he has provided us, and I will have a number of questions.

I yield to the gentleman from Utah who would like to address the Amber Alert System and events that have occurred in his district.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his comments.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas, the ranking member of the Committee on Rules.

I will be glad to yield to the majority leader.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, and before the majority leader answers that question, I would

say to him that I have had consultation with the Democratic minority leader; and the Democratic leader and myself, I would say on behalf of our side of the aisle, we would agree to a unanimous consent request today to bring the Senate bill, which as I understand is Senate Bill 121, which essentially is the base bill.

I, frankly, do not interpose objections to that which the gentleman has outlined in his statement will be added to the bill. I do not necessarily find any one of those individual items objectionable; and as I understand, in the committee they were not particularly controversial. But we obviously could accelerate that.

The gentleman is correct. We do want to go by regular order. Regular order is obviously seeking from both sides a unanimous consent to take some action, and I say to the gentleman that consistent with what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has said, this side of the aisle would be prepared to give a unanimous consent agreement to passing that bill before we go home today.

I yield to the gentleman for that purpose.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments.

At some point in time perhaps we can discuss further the regular order. I observe only that it is my understanding there is a bill coming over from the Senate that will not be referred to committee, will not be subject to amendment, will be taken up and passed as the Senate passed it, and it is my understanding that will be done because of the view of the majority how important it is to pass that bill immediately. That is the partial birth abortion bill.

Am I correct that is the procedure which the majority intends to follow?

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

It has not passed the House yet. It is coming from the Senate, and obviously there may be amendments on it. It is our understanding that will be taken in effect from the desk as the Senate bill, voted on, and sent to the President.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for that comment.

The gentleman indicated that next week we will be taking up the budget. Can the gentleman tell me whether or not all substitutes that are requested from the Congressional Black Caucus, from the Progressive Caucus, from the Blue Dogs and from the Democrats on the Committee on the Budget will be made in order? I see the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules is standing.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully inform the majority leader, we were very concerned about the fact that we were shut down today in terms of offering amendments or substitutes. I will respectfully advise the majority that if that continues to occur, there will be actions on our side of the aisle to try to express our deep concern about that.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman and express the fervent hope that the committee will be able to reach its goals. They are commendable goals to achieve, and I hope they are achieved.

Mr. Speaker, we have been talking about the Amber bill and adding things to it. We had a bill a week and a half ago on the floor. That was to aid our men and women in the armed forces whom we are sending in harm's way. We were not able to pass it the week before. We have not passed it this week. Can the gentleman advise us as to the status of that bill.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I advise the distinguished majority leader that I am authorized on behalf of the minority to tell the gentleman that if that bill were reported out without any additional items attached to it, we would be prepared to give unanimous consent so it could be passed either next Tuesday night or Wednesday.

Mr. Speaker, lastly, it is my understanding that we obviously want to accommodate those who want to go to that dinner, but am I correct in observing that the normal practice on Tuesdays will continue to be 6:30?

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Mr. Speaker, I want to join the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) in his comments about Mr. Djindjic, the Prime Minister of Serbia. Serbia in the 1990s, like Iraq has gone through, was under the heel of a despot who was vicious and who in my opinion was a war criminal. When the United States acted to displace the Milosevic regime and ultimately Milosevic was voted out of office because we went into Kosovo, it was Mr. Djindjic who showed the courage and the moral commitment to ensure that Mr. Milosevic would be transferred to The Hague to answer for his crimes. That trial currently is going on. It is going on because Mr. Djindjic had the courage to facilitate the transfer out of Serbia to The Hague of the alleged war criminal Slobodan Milosevic.

He has now been assassinated. We do not know yet who the perpetrator of that assassination is. Suffice it to say, we have lost someone whose courage and commitment to freedom and human rights was an important aspect for his country and for the international community. We are a lesser international community for his loss.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give recognition to the Bowie State University men's basketball team. On March 1, 2003, the Bowie State Bulldogs defeated Virginia Union to earn their first central intercollegiate athletic association men's title.

In their first appearance in the CIAA tournament in 30 years of play, the Bulldogs were down 41-32 at half-time against a 14-time league champion. Nevertheless, the team rallied back for a neck-and-neck second half. The winning basket was a heartstopper and came with less than a minute to go, giving the Bulldogs a 72-71 victory.

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in recognizing the great accomplishment of the Bowie State University men's basketball team and wish them the best of luck in their upcoming NCAA Division II tournament.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority leader for purposes of inquiring about the calendar.

I would be glad to yield to my friend.

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

I want to tell the gentleman I am of two minds on the fact that we have removed from floor consideration the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act. Of two minds because I think all of us agree that the underlying bill was a bill that we should have passed today, indeed yesterday or the day before yesterday. It is an Act that tells our service people that we are sending into harm's way that we want to make sure that we can limit the financial consequences of that service to country, as much as we possibly can.

So I lament the fact that we have had that removed from the schedule. However, I say I am of two minds because I am pleased that it was removed because we added to that bill extraneous pieces of legislation, which in and of themselves individually may have been subject to worthy debate. There was some in there that I thought were not, but having said that, I would hope that when this bill is reported back that it can be presented in a form that all 435 of us can vote for, because 435 of us, in my opinion, are for it.

So, as I say, I am of two minds. I am sorry that it is delayed, but I am sure that it will come back, hopefully soon, and that we can pass it in the form that all of us support it, and I would ask the gentleman, in that vein, does the gentleman know if this bill will be coming back next week?

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

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

To press the point, I understand that my colleagues need to work on that and try to work out whatever problems existed, but in light of that, it is the gentleman's expectation he will be able to work out those problems next week so we can pass this bill in a form that will allow us to pass it with the overwhelming support that I think it has on this floor if it is the base bill? I yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time, and in an effort again to be helpful, I think that the majority leader is correct. Everybody wants this bill to pass, and the shame of it not passing today is, I am sure the gentleman shares, is that we somehow sent a message to our Armed Forces personnel arrayed across this globe, and particularly in the Middle East, at risk and they look to this capital and know full well that this bill is passed with over 400 votes and must be concluding to themselves that it was politics and political division that undermined the passage this day.

So I know my colleague is working towards this objective. This is not a criticism of the gentleman, and it was an open session in the Committee on Ways and Means, and as my colleague recalls, I am sure, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, a Republican, raised the issue that this was a real problem, in open session, in committee.

So it was obviously on both sides of the aisle that we are concerned about the fact that we politicized an otherwise bipartisan, nonpartisan objective that we wanted to achieve, and I look forward to that coming back hopefully in the posture that it was in when we, 400 of us plus, came together to pass that legislation. So I would hope that can happen.

I would be glad to yield to my friend.

I suppose whether it was a bipartisan bill or not is in the eye of the definer, I suppose, and notwithstanding that, I would hope, again, it would come back in a form that all of us could vote for it and it would not be extraneous matters.

Those extraneous matters may well have merit, but why argue them on their merit or demerit, and we ought not to hold hostage our men and women in the Armed Forces, in harm's way, families disrupted by being called to service. We ought not to say to them anything but that we are prepared to act together, we are prepared to act quickly and we are prepared to make sure that, to the extent we can, we will diminish the financial burden that their service to our country requires.

On the medical malpractice bill that the gentleman indicates will be on the floor next week, on today's major piece of legislation which we have been discussing, the Committee on Rules denied two of our ranking members' ability to offer key amendments, and we are very concerned about that. Can the leader inform me if he knows what kind of rule there will be for the medical malpractice bill, what he anticipates will be in order?

I will be glad to yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader for his comments. I am aware of the fact that the Committee on Rules has been extraordinarily advantaged by the addition of a new chief staffer on that committee who will, I think, add greatly to the consideration of that committee of alternatives.

Mr. Pitts is a man that I have found to be fair and knowledgeable with respect to this House. He is as well an individual who was involved when the Republicans were in the minority of lamenting the fact that we did not give fair and full opportunity of loyal opposition to offer alternative proposals, and I would hope that we would reverse, frankly, the practice that has gone from 1995 to date where increasingly we have reduced the opportunity of the minority party to offer alternatives, either in the nature of substitutes or in amendments to the base bill.

I say that very seriously because I think that my colleagues were frankly correct when they were in the minority, making the proposition that that would improve legislation, and we ought to vote it up or down. If it was good when the gentleman was in the minority, presumably that same principle is good when they are in the majority.

We are tested somewhat when the shoe shifts from foot to foot to see where we want to put that foot I suppose, but I would hope that on this bill, which is a controversial bill, a bill, that is, we believe has great consequence for patients, for doctors, for hospitals, we want to make sure that our people have the best medical service available to them and that our doctors and that our hospitals and that our patients have the ability to work with one another to effect that. We have some ideas on that. We have some ideas how that can be effected, and we are hopeful, respectfully, and we would urge that the Committee on Rules give us a full and fair opportunity to present our alternative ideas if we have them. If we do not have them when we support your proposals, then fine, but if we have alternative ideas, we would urge on legislation of such great consequence to the American public that we fully debate options and ways and means of solving the problems that we are addressing.

I would be glad to yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I do not want to prolong this too much.

I want to say with all sincerity, I share the gentleman's view of Mr. Pitts. I have worked with him over a long period of time. I have extraordinary respect and affection and regard for Bob Michel, for whom he worked effectively and for a long time.

I want to tell the gentleman, as sincerely as I can say on this floor, caring about this institution, frankly, if Billy Pitts is making the determination of what he thinks is fair or not fair, from his perspective from a long time in the minority, as to what the minority's rights ought to be in terms of offering alternatives on this floor, of having time to debate on this floor, of having individual amendments considered, I will tell the gentleman that I am confident that it will be done fairly.

But I will also tell the gentleman with equal sincerity that I have had my staff do an analysis from 1995 to date; and there has been, from 1995 to 2002, an almost straight-line reduction in the alternatives in bills allowed to the minority as we consider major pieces of legislation. I do not think that is good for our country, I do not think it is good for this institution, and it is not good for the comity between our two parties.

The gentleman from Texas and I have had an opportunity to work closely together on many items of great concern to this institution. We have worked well together. The gentleman and I have very serious disagreements on issues, but we do not have disagreements on the fact that this institution ought to operate as effectively as possible on behalf of our country. We share that in common, and I know we will continue to share that in common. But I really sincerely urge the gentleman, as the leader of his party on this floor and working with the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and Mr. Pitts, to say to the American public and to this institution that we are prepared to debate these matters, we are prepared to debate these matters fully and fairly and give options to the minority party.

I will say to my friend there was some discussion in our party. We had one motion, as the gentleman knows, to adjourn, and there was some discussion that we ought to make many more motions and have disruption. We did not do that. But I will tell my friend that there is great concern on this side of the aisle that if we do not have a fair and open system to consider legislation that we will not be as cooperative as we otherwise would like to be, and so that the American public can be best served.

On the budget, Mr. Leader, if I can, when do we expect the budget to be on the floor?

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman. One additional question, which this is sort of a follow-up on what I have just discussed. In the past, as the gentleman knows, we have had a number of substitutes which have been offered. Our Congressional Black Caucus has offered substitutes, our Blue Dog Caucus has offered substitutes, and I know the gentleman will be happy to hear that it is fully my expectation that the minority on the Committee on the Budget will have a Democratic alternative. I noted that the gentleman urges us to do that; and he and I share that view, and we are going to do that. But will we be allowed, Mr. Leader, to offer those substitutes as we have in the past as well as offer amendments that are requested?

I realize the gentleman cannot answer to all the amendments, because I do not know what amendments will be asked for; but will there be consideration of valid amendments that have broad-based support?

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman very much for those comments.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader, for the purposes of asking the majority leader the schedule for the coming week.

I thank the gentleman for his comments. Reclaiming my time, the first question I have, Mr. Leader, am I correct that the two tax bills that you refer to as Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections and Social Security Protection Act are essentially technical in nature?

Mr. Majority Leader, could you advise the House of when your expectation is that the medical malpractice legislation would be coming to the floor?

Reclaiming my time, would I be correct that the soonest that would be done would be the week after next?

I thank the gentleman.

Secondly, could the majority leader tell me when he expects the budget resolution to be scheduled for the floor? I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for that answer; and reclaiming my time, I would ask the gentleman if he expects the President's tax proposal, or the majority's tax proposal, to be included within the budget document. I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman. One additional question, Mr. Leader, with reference to the budget. Has the majority made a determination yet as to whether or not it will be a 5-year or a 10-year budget projection?

I thank the leader for that observation, and unfortunately I think I agree with him. But very frankly, Mr. Leader, if we could get maybe a little advice prior to the mark being laid on the table, it would be helpful for us to fairly consider the chairman's mark.

I thank the gentleman. And if he thinks the press will be dispositive of that issue, I will take that to heart.

Mr. Leader, could you also tell me the status of the Partial Birth Abortion Bill that we had understood would be considered early, perhaps as early as next week? And there was some discussion about it this week, but now we hear there may be an intent to wait on the other body's acting on this and sending it to the House. Can you bring us up to date on what the plans are on this?

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the leader for the information.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize John Porter who bravely served as a private in the Maryland Militia during the War of 1812 and was killed in the line of duty.

The War of 1812 should be remembered and revered for its final and permanent confirmation of American Independence.

Mr. Porter served in the Maryland Militia as a member of the 33rd Regiment and served under Captain Benjamin Massey in the Battle of Bladensburg, also known as ``the battle to protect the heart of America.'' The Maryland Militia served at a moment's notice with great enthusiasm, demonstrating the honor and dignity with which they believed came from defending their country and serving this patriotic duty.

The British had three reasons for attacking the Chesapeake Region during the Battle of Bladensburg: to burn Washington, D.C. in order to avenge America's burning of York in Canada; to destroy Baltimore to prevent future naval attacks; and to draw American troops away from the Canadian front. Despite these interests, the Maryland Militia was able to aid their country by defending both Washington and Baltimore and allowed troops to remain on the Canadian front.

John Porter fought valiantly during this battle, and was one of many members of the Maryland Militia who gave their lives in defense of their country.

Mr. Speaker, and colleagues, please join me in recognizing the sacrifice and service of Mr. Porter to both the state of Maryland and to our great nation.

Mr. Speaker, risk and danger are constant companions of progress. And last Saturday morning, we were reminded again that progress at times inflicts a painful price.

Fate has called the brave crew members of the Space Shuttle Columbia home, and, here on Earth, we maintain our faith that they have now begun a far better journey--one of our Creator's design.

Words are small comfort today to those closest to this tragedy, the families and friends of Rick Husband, William McCool, Michael Anderson, Kalpana Chawla, David Brown, Laurel Clark and Illan Ramon. A grateful Nation mourns their loss and honors their courage and sacrifice.

We also offer heartfelt condolences to those left behind, especially the twelve children who have lost a mother or father. We pray that time, and a recognition of this great mission, provide some comfort and help to heal this wound.

The history of America is marked not only by sacrifice in the service of others, but by a yearning to explore, to discover, to progress . . . from the first permanent settlers in the new world at Jamestown . . . to the expedition of Meriwether Lewis and William Clark . . . to the Wright Brothers' first flight at Kitty Hawk . . . to Neil Armstrong's first step on the moon a mere 66 years later.

The crew of the Columbia now joins that pantheon of American heroes who had the courage to dream, as well as the willingness to turn their vision into reality.

Although they traveled millions of miles in space, they sought answers to the questions that lie closest to the human heart.

The most fitting tribute that we can pay to their legacy is to fulfill this solemn pledge: We will continue the work that you have advanced.

And we will do so with the realization that it is our responsibility to determine the cause of this tragedy and to minimize the risk to those engaged in the exploration of space and the unknown.

Our Nation has always risen to a challenge and overcome adversity through perseverance.

That is a measure of our greatness. And, today, that is the calling that our national character commands us to undertake and continue.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I thank him for his leadership.

Mr. Chairman, today the self-proclaimed compassionate conservatives dropped their guard and a little bit of a charade, in my opinion.

This hard-hearted welfare reform bill literally mocks the increasing number of Americans who are struggling to make ends meet, and it forces cash-strapped States to swallow a huge unfunded mandate. This bill barks, Get a job, but it turns a blind eye to the most obvious question facing any job seeker today: Where?

When Democrats and Republicans came together in 1996 and pursuant to President Clinton's campaign in 1992 when he said he wanted to see welfare end as we knew it, we came together in a bipartisan fashion; and he signed that bill, ending welfare as we knew it. This Nation was enjoying the longest peacetime expansion of our economy in 50 years. Twenty-two million new jobs were created during the '90s.

I voted for the welfare reform 7 years ago because I strongly support the principle that a person has to earn what they receive, and if they receive assistance, they have a responsibility to pursue the ability to work and support themselves and their children; but oh, how circumstances have changed, Mr. Chairman.

Today our economy is stagnating. It is in the worst hiring slump in nearly 20 years. More than 8 million jobless Americans are looking for work, and more than 2 million jobs have been lost since President Bush took office. Yet this GOP bill blithely ignores reality.

It would impose unrealistic work requirements on recipients, even forcing mothers with children under the age of 6 to double the number of hours they are required to work each week to 40. At the same time, it utterly fails to provide the funding that is needed to back up these new work requirements. Where was the passion to get away from unfunded mandates that I heard so much about in the early '90s before the Republicans took control?

The bill passes the buck to the States, which will be forced to spend an estimated $11 billion over the next 5 years to implement the new rules. How do we expect the States to pay for this unfunded mandate? They were forced to address a $49 billion budget shortfall in fiscal 2003, and according to the National Conference of State Legislatures face a minimum $68.5 billion shortfall in 2004.

Mr. Chairman, on its own merits this bill is bad enough; but when considered in the context of the failed economic policies of this administration, it is oblivious to the realities confronting our people and our States. The Republican proposal cracks down on the single mom who the gentleman from Florida, my good friend, referred to as a hero. This bill cracks down on that single mom who is trying her best to work and still take care of her kids. At the same time it supports a plan that would give the top 1 percent of America's taxpayers over a $25,000 tax cut. Where is the compassion in that? Where is the commitment to leave no child behind in that?

I urge my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, to vote for the Democratic substitute which increases work expectations but also assists the States in accomplishing that objective. It would impose tough, but fair, work requirements. It would increase mandatory funding for child care by $11 billion over 5 years. It speaks to the bipartisan agreement that we had, expecting work but also expecting us to help those who cannot find work, who cannot work.