Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 258 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday the Committee on Rules met and reported a rule for consideration of the conference report on H.R. 1268, the Emergency Supplemental Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief Act, 2005. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and provides that the report shall be considered as read. Additionally, it authorizes the chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary to file a supplemental report to accompany

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

For the purpose of clarification, I want to quickly address the matter involving the supplemental report on H.R. 748, the Child Interstate Abortion

Notification Act. The purpose of this supplemental report is to change the description of certain amendments considered during the committee markup and process. It is my understanding that the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary has already prepared the supplemental report and shared its contents with the committee's ranking minority member.

I further understand that the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary is prepared to file a supplemental report immediately after the adoption of this resolution and also to place it in the Congressional Record. This supplemental report will be part of the official legislative history of the bill and will amend the descriptions contained in the original report.

This supplemental report responds directly to the questions of privilege raised by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), both of which call for the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary ``to report to the House a supplement to House Report 109-51 that corrects the record by describing the five amendments with nonargumentative, objective captions.'' The text of the proposed supplemental report also includes additional dissenting views from the committee's ranking minority describing his disagreements with the interpretation of the amendments by the majority.

The filing of the supplemental report represents the regular order for correcting problems in earlier committee reports filed with the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to quickly respond to a couple of points that my good friend made. First, I would remind him that we did not pay for World War II or Korea or Vietnam out of current revenue. It is not unusual to finance wars in this particular fashion.

Second, as to the point on the embassy, I have been to Iraq four times and have met with our folks there and, frankly, I think they deserve the very best protection they can get as quick as we can get it. They are every bit as much at risk as people that wear the uniform of the United States. They are all volunteers. They have done a wonderful job representing our country. They deserve and need a safe place to operate out of. I am very glad that that particular measure was put back in during conference.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to respond to some of the points my good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) made.

Not helping our soldiers? A blank check? This bill is anything but a blank check. Let me read a couple of things in here. Just running down operations and maintenance, Navy, $3.4 billion; operations and maintenance, Marine Corps. There is line after line of great specificity my good friend, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations was very careful in crafting a bill that will meet the needs of our personnel.

The immoral thing to do would be to commit 170,000 people to combat and not resupply them and not reequip them and not give them the things they need on a daily basis to not only be successful, but to provide for their own safety and security.

It is very legitimate to debate the war. Although I remind my good friend on the other side of the aisle, this body and the other body vote on a bipartisan basis to make the commitment in Iraq. I could read off name after name, including the distinguished nominee from the other body, of my friends on the other side of the aisle, a candidate for President last time, who voted in favor of this particular contest.

Having made that decision, once we place people on the line under fire and in danger, we owe it to them to provide them what they need. We can continue to debate policy. That is a very legitimate point, but I think it would it be the height of folly and irresponsibility to not fund people when they are in the field in action. Frankly, it would send the wrong signal to our adversaries, and more importantly, the wrong signal to our own men and women and their families. And not to support the rule, and certainly not to support the supplemental appropriations, I believe, would be a grave and terrible mistake for this country.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I certainly am prepared.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In closing, I would like to say that I believe we have had a good debate on the rule today. I believe the importance and timeliness of this legislation could not be more self-evident. This bill has been carefully crafted and worked in a way to ensure that our service men and women receive the best supplies and equipment when they go to war and that those supplies and equipment are replenished and replaced in a timely fashion.

Finally, I would ask Members to recall that this is a vote about our willingness to support our service men and women, not about other policy issues. The men and women serving our cause in Iraq ask for nothing more. In good conscience, we should give them nothing less.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this resolution because I am convinced that it is the right and proper way to address a tough partisan division that exists at this time. I thank the Speaker and the gentleman from Washington (Chairman Hastings) for their work in resolving this difficult issue.

As we move forward, Mr. Speaker, I think we would be well advised to operate according to the spirit of a statement once made by John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist Church. He said: ``Differences that begin in points of opinion seldom terminate there. How unwilling men are to grant anything good in those who do not in all things agree with themselves.''

Mr. Speaker, people of both sides in this dispute have acted honorably; however, many have questioned the integrity of those who disagreed with them on the substance of the questions at hand. It is my sincere hope that we do not question the motives and the intentions of the members of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct as we go about our work. There has been far too much division and imputation of motives with respect to questions surrounding the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and the rules by which it operates. That hurts the Committee, it reflects poorly on the House, and undermines public confidence in the institution.

Mr. Speaker, with that said, I commend the Speaker and the chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for setting us on the path to providing this House with a functioning ethics committee and, therefore, I request all Members support this important rule.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me time, and I certainly want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) for offering this thoughtful and gracious and heartfelt resolution.

I want my remarks on the floor today to be spontaneous, just as the response to the bombing in Oklahoma City was by thousands of Oklahomans and millions of Americans.

There are some dates that one remembers in their life. If one is from my generation, they remember the day that President Kennedy was assassinated, with crystal clarity; and I think all Americans remember where they were and what they were doing when the awful tragedy of 9/11 unfolded; and certainly all Oklahomans, and I think many Americans, remember where they were on April 19, 1995.

I certainly remember where I was. I was walking into the West entrance of the State capitol through a tunnel just at 9 o'clock, and I felt the tremble, and I wondered what it was, walked on down the hall into my office. My secretary immediately came and said something awful has happened in downtown Oklahoma City; we do not know what, but something terrible has happened.

That was followed immediately by a call from my wife who at the time was three blocks away from the blast site, working in a law office in downtown Oklahoma City, fortunately on the 14th floor and fortunately out of harm's way. But she called to say, something terrible is occurring. She said, I can see through my windows there is smoke billowing up out of downtown, and there are hundreds of people in the streets, streaming away; something awful has happened.

I immediately left my office and walked upstairs to the governor's office. As I walked through the door, I looked to my right, which was where the press room was located in that suite of offices, and I saw Governor Keating and his chief of staff, Clinton Key, and they were watching on television, only 9 minutes into the disaster at that point, but already helicopters from local televisions stations were there and giving us an aerial view. There was a great deal of speculation on the television about what had occurred, people attributing this to a natural gas explosion.

Governor Keating, who was a former FBI agent and had investigated incidents of terrorism in the 1960s on the West Coast, knew immediately what it was. He said that is no natural gas explosion. That is a car bomb. That is some sort of explosive device that has been set off deliberately.

From that moment forward, I watched an extraordinary response from one of the great public leaders that I have ever been privileged to associate with, Governor Frank Keating, as he marshaled the State and moved it forward to deal with the tragedy in front of him.

I saw a marvelous response from his wife, to skip ahead just a moment, Cathy Keating, who organized the memorial service that moved most Americans. That was her idea on the second day of the tragedy.

We were meeting that night, still not knowing, frankly, how many people had died, whether or not survivors were there, still dealing with all the tragedy associated with the event. She came into the meeting we were having in the governor's mansion and said, We need to have a memorial service; people need to grieve.

I remember honestly thinking at the time, how in the world can we pull off something like this; we have more than we can handle in front of us. I made that sentiment known, and the first lady, to her enduring credit, said, You leave it to me. People want to be involved.

I watched that extraordinary thing come forward as volunteers pitched in, as thousands of people who could not help immediately wanted to do something to respond and to help and to assist the victims of the tragedy. She made that happen, and without her, frankly, it would have never occurred.

I remember many other people. There were so many heroes in those days, so many people. Ron Norick, the mayor of Oklahoma City, again I think one of the great public leaders in history, certainly in my State, the fire chiefs, the police officers, the responders, but most important, just average people, we could not ask for something and not get it. Frankly, we had more help pouring in than we could easily coordinate on the first few days.

I will tell my colleagues this, too. I am a very strong and very good Republican, and I certainly never voted for Bill Clinton, but I have got to tell my colleagues, he was a great President of the United States in that particular tragedy. I will always be grateful for what he did.

I remember the first day, again, of the incident, and President Clinton had called at 1 o'clock in the afternoon. By that point, the governor and his team had moved to the Civil Emergency Management Center, an underground location at the capitol complex in Oklahoma City, and President Clinton and Frank Keating were old friends. Frank Keating had been the student body president at Georgetown when President Clinton was the sophomore class president at Georgetown. So there was a familiarity and an ease of communication that was wonderful to have in a crisis like that.

I remember the President immediately offering all the aid at the disposal of the United States of America; and let me tell my colleagues, my fellow Americans, you do not know how lucky you are when you are in a crisis to be an American until that happens to you, because the response was overwhelming, and the President was generous and gracious and amazingly helpful.

As we moved forward in that discussion, President Clinton asked Governor Keating the obvious and most important question in some ways: Do you have any idea who is responsible for this terrible event? I remember there was lots of speculation about who might be responsible. There is still some speculation today, I suppose, but Governor Keating was nothing if not cautious and careful as a law enforcement official; and he said, We have no earthly idea and we need to be very careful here that blame not be placed on communities or things that did not happen.

The President very thoughtfully said, Well, I certainly hope it was not a foreign national, because if it was, we will be at war someplace in the world in 6 months. I thought about that a lot after 9/11 and what unfolded there and how prophetic he was, indeed, in that particular vision.

The day went on and it was a remarkable day, it was an intense day, but I suppose my most enduring memory of the day is leaving the capitol at 3:00 in the morning and driving down Lincoln Boulevard to get home and looking out the window and seeing this incredible line of people standing outside of a blood center at 3:00 in the morning, still wanting to do something to help. Amazing.

My role in that particular crisis, as it unfolded, was to do what Governor Keating told me to do; and that was to work with the Federal Government on the rebuilding process, and I focused my energy on that. We got a study and figured out how much damage there had been, and we began to understand how many lives and how terrifically awful it would be. And then I turned to the person that I knew would be the most helpful in that crisis at the Federal level and that was my good friend, Congressman Lucas. He represented that area of Oklahoma City at that point. And let me tell you, he was a tyrant, a Trojan in working on behalf of Oklahoma City and the victims. He did everything you could ask him to do and more, just simply a magnificent response on the part of my dear and good friend.

In that crisis, there was a lot of praise, and I think justifiably for Oklahomans, but I also think a vein of speculation, Well, only Oklahomans would respond this way. It is kind of a frontier community, it is relatively homogeneous, it is very conservative, it is very family oriented, has a strong basis of faith, and only in a place like that would a response like that occur.

I did not think that was true, but I have to tell you, on 9/11, when I watched a very diverse and very secular and very different New York City respond in exactly the same way as Oklahomans had responded, I had confirmed in an awful moment what I knew then, that the Oklahoman response was fundamentally an American response. That is the way Americans behave toward one another when things do not go well. So I will always remember this particular day.

Obviously, it is seared in my memory very, very deeply, and I remember the tragedies that unfolded afterwards and, frankly, remember the response to those tragedies even more profoundly.

But in closing, I would like to say, in reflecting on Oklahoma City, and I think it is clearly the lessons of 9/11 as well, that out of evil, grace comes; and I saw enormous grace on April 19, 1995, in Oklahoma City. And out of terror, courage comes; and I saw great courage, from the first responders to the average person that went in.

I remember Rebecca Anderson, who was the one first responder and nurse whom we lost, because she went back into a dangerous building. And I remember my good friend Tim Giblet, who was working downtown at the time, who saved a number of people, again going into a building, doing what he had no training to do. He was not an emergency worker, he just knew people needed help. So the courage was there.

And out of despair, hope, because there is a great deal of hope that comes when you see how your country and your fellow human beings respond in a

crisis. And, finally, out of adversity, as my good friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) mentioned, triumph. Because if you went to Oklahoma City today and you went to that exact spot, you would find a magnificent memorial. You would find, more importantly, a museum that not only tells the story, but puts the awful nature of terrorism in a broader context; and you would find a city that believes in itself and its future, probably more profoundly today than it did on April 18 of 1995.

That is a lesson I think all of us as Americans ought to remember. We all believe in our country, but when you have a particular crisis, that is when America is at its very best. Certainly, on this particular day that is when Oklahoma was at its very best. And I will always be grateful to Governor Keating, the First Lady, Cathy Keating; to my good friend Frank Lucas, who was there when we needed him; to the other members of our delegation, Senator Nickles, Senator Inhofe, who were also magnificent; but first and foremost to the people of Oklahoma City, who showed when you are challenged what you can do; and then to our fellow Americans, who at every level, at every moment, responded in the most helpful, the most thoughtful, and in the most supportive of ways.

It is a day to remember not only in terms of what is worst in humanity but what is best about America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 184, a resolution recognizing a National Week of Hope in commemoration of the 10-year anniversary of the terrorist bombing in Oklahoma City. I also would like to commend my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Istook, for his efforts in bringing such a meaningful bill before the House for consideration.

April 19, 1995, will always be seared in my memory as a day on which I see the worst and the best of human nature. As the then acting Secretary of State for Oklahoma, it was not just the facts of that fateful day alone that cut quick to my heart. It was the realization that what happened in Oklahoma City would impact all of Oklahoma, all of America, and all of the world in the weeks ahead.

But, Mr. Speaker, as the world witnessed this tragedy, and as Americans sought answers to untold numbers of questions--the most compelling being why--there came an unexpected response: it was clear that Americans did not need an answer in order to move forward. Mr. Speaker, Oklahomans responded immediately, and that response began at the exact same place of the tragedy the base of the Murrah Federal Building itself, only moments after 9:02 AM. Amazingly, this reply sent a shockwave that was not only felt for just a few miles radius, but one that resonated all over the world.

On April 19, 1995 terrorism struck the heartland of America. But, if 168 lives taken, 850 individuals injured, families ripped forever of loved ones, and lives changed forever represented America's loss, then 12,384 volunteers and rescue workers, 190,000 estimated Oklahomans attending funerals for bombing victims, and an unprecedented outpouring of love, aid, and hope from across the country represented America's spirit. And Americans response America's heart may have suffered a terrible blow, but America's spirit only grew stronger.

This bill commemorates the 10 year anniversary of a terrible tragedy and I am proud as an Oklahoman to stand in this chamber to offer my full support of its passage. This anniversary is not only an opportunity to remember, but an opportunity to celebrate the American spirit that unifies and buoys her citizens in their most challenging times of need.

Mr. Speaker, I again praise the gentleman from Oklahoma for this timely legislation and urge support for the passage of H. Res. 184.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. It is very gracious of him.

Mr. Speaker, I come from a part of the country, Oklahoma, where disasters are not uncommon. Sometimes they are the awful man-made disasters of the Oklahoma City Bombing, something we will talk about next week, but more frequently they are the disasters associated with tornados.

In my home community in 1999 we had an F-5 tornado that destroyed in my community and the adjacent community 6,000 homes and killed 40 people. Four years later, another tornado, traveling almost in the identical path, destroyed another 500 homes and injured many people.

Each time we got superb help from the Federal Government and from FEMA, both in the immediate disaster and in the aftermath, to mitigate the consequences of future events of this type; and we were very, very grateful for that help as Americans.

It came then as an enormous surprise to the constituents that I represent years later that this help turned into potentially a taxable event. That is, there was talk at the Internal Revenue Service of going back, taking the grant and actually levying a tax on them years after they have been given.

I want to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), who has had similar circumstances dealing with hurricanes in his home State, for working with our delegation in Oklahoma on a bipartisan basis, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan), the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren) and myself and for working across the aisle with our good friends who have this problem in common.

On this floor we sometimes do have partisan disagreements, but when the good of the country is at stake, it is amazing how often we do come together. And certainly we come together regardless of party to help people that have been hurt through no fault of their own in the course of disaster and to help them prepare so that those disasters never threaten their well-being again.

So I want to thank again my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), for his outstanding work. I commend our colleagues in the Senate for working with him in getting this bill done just in time. Literally, I had a couple of town meetings last week when we were on break where I had constituents come and ask who had

benefited from these mitigation grants, would the taxation problem be taken care of? And at that time I could not actually assure that it would be.

A number of them filed extensions rather than turn their taxes in. They were not sure what their liability was going to be. If it were not for the action of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), if it were not for the action of the people on both sides of the aisle, if it were not for the action of the other body, they would potentially be facing a tax bill that they never anticipated.

Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) for his extraordinary work in this regard. I want to tell him if he wants to run for office next time, come to Oklahoma. We remember our friends. And we appreciate very much his remarkable efforts.

I thank so much my good friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

Mr. Speaker, I would be in trouble if I did not say Chickasaw Tribe.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 797, the Native American Housing Enhancement Act of 2005. I commend the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi) for bringing such an important piece of legislation before the House for consideration.

This bill allows tribes to maximize funding resources provided through the Native American Housing and Self-Determination Act of 1996. It also reinforces tribal sovereignty by allowing tribes to focus certain Federal housing funding solely on tribal members. Finally, it will reinstate tribal access to Federal funding for youth programs.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi), has been a tireless champion for the Native American community, whether reinforcing tribal sovereignty, encouraging economic diversification, increasing educational opportunities, or improving the quality of life for Native Americans. I commend the gentleman from Arizona for his leadership in advancing the causes of the Native American community and urge support for the passage of the Native American Housing Enhancement Act of 2005.

Mr. Speaker, when I came here tonight, I had no intention to speak on this issue for, frankly, the most personal of reasons: a year ago my brother and I were involved in making precisely this same kind of decision where my mother was concerned. We were fortunate. We had been empowered by her to make that decision, we were in agreement on the decision, and the medical professionals and her minister agreed with us about that decision. So we got to make that decision in the privacy and with the dignity that one would want for every family in that situation.

As I listen to the debate tonight, I think the opponents of this measure have made many good and interesting points. They have talked about States' rights, they have talked about precedent, they have discussed separation of powers, and they discussed the importance of the legislative process. All of those are important and legitimate points, and they merit discussion.

But while we discuss them, a life is in the balance, and that is really the only immediate and compelling issue before us tonight.

What do we know about that life and about the conditions of that life? We know that the family disagrees about the condition, about the fate, and about the appropriate course of action where Terri Schiavo is concerned. We know that she is not on artificial life support, only receiving hydration and nutrition. We know that there is split medical testimony about her condition and her quality of life. We know that there are issues of conflict of interest and motivation about those making the final decision. And we know that if we do not act, Terri Schiavo will die.

Great questions often are raised by individual cases, inconvenient cases, cases that break precedent, cases that confront us when we prefer not to be confronted.

Mr. Speaker, life and individual rights trump all else. Where there is doubt, we should err, if err we do, on the side of protecting the rights of any individual, especially when it is the right to life. We should make sure that Terri Schiavo has her day in Federal court. It is the right thing to do, it is the decent thing to do, it is the only thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 151 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 151.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, on March 14, the Committee on Rules met and granted an open rule on House Resolution 151, with 1 hour of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. This rule accords priority of recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record and provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Additionally, this rule attaches the text of H.R. 418, as passed, to the base text of the bill. H.R. 418 previously passed the House by a bipartisan vote of 261 to 161 on February 10 of this year.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to be able to manage this rule. This rule provides for an emergency supplemental funding package to sustain our troops in the ongoing war on terror. Most of these funds are directed towards operations in Iraq. Just last week, I returned from Iraq where I personally received numerous briefings regarding our readiness and our operational capabilities. I heard from our commanders, military personnel, and diplomats on the ground in Iraq. My colleagues and I also had the opportunity to meet with senior and provincial Iraqi political leaders.

Their collective message was clear, compelling, and optimistic. First, things are getting better. Second, our soldiers, Marines, sailors, and airmen believe in their mission. Third, continued congressional support, both moral and financial, is absolutely essential to bring our operations to a successful conclusion. The bulk of H.R. 1268 moves us closer to that objective.

This supplemental appropriations package is the fifth supplemental since September 11 that focuses on meeting the challenges imposed on us by the ongoing global war on terrorism.

Specifically, this supplemental provides for the replenishing of those accounts that the military has exhausted during sustained operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other areas of the world. Additionally, it provides important funding to assist in our efforts to address the disastrous results of the recent tsunami in South Asia and the Indian Ocean. Finally, there are important measures dedicated to improving the benefits due to our soldiers and meeting the diplomatic costs that our efforts have necessitated.

Important obligations are met in this legislation. Specifically, this bill provides saving $76.8 billion for total defense expenditures, a full $1.8 billion over the President's request, funding other important military shortfalls identified by committees of the Congress. The vast majority of these dollars will directly support our servicemen in the area of operations. These include purchases such as an additional 47,000 sets of body armor, 1,700 new armored Humvees and $408 million to harden the facilities that protect our servicemen from indirect fire.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Appropriations also addressed several other issues inside the supplemental that are essential to successfully prosecuting our global war on terror. Among them are the inclusion of Army modularity reform and the construction of a new American embassy in Baghdad.

Specifically, with respect to Army modularity, the committee took some important steps to ensure that our troops who will deploy in the near future are able to leverage more combat power from their current formations by adding a brigade at the division level. This ultimately supports the Army's attempt to transform the service to make it lighter, faster, more efficient and to reorient itself to its core competencies. Put simply, Army modularity, the movement to new brigade formations, will put more soldiers in the fight and allow us to use our combat personnel much more efficiently.

With respect to the embassy in Baghdad, the committee took a close look at the State Department's request and reduced it by 10 percent. Mr. Speaker, with respect to the embassy, I am aware that many Members have concerns about its high cost. However, let me be clear about the need for this extraordinary expenditure.

Having visited the Baghdad embassy twice before, it is clear to me that a new facility is required. This is not an optional item. The United States should not occupy one of Saddam Hussein's palaces indefinitely, for to do so only reinforces the impression in parts of the Arab world that the United States is an occupying power.

More importantly, Iraq is a very dangerous diplomatic post. Indeed, it is so dangerous that essentially every State Department employee based in Baghdad is a volunteer. Like our soldiers, these brave career civil servants need and deserve the best security we can provide them while they perform their vital functions. A new, secure embassy is indispensable to achieving this objective.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1268 takes a number of important steps forward in addressing the needs of our military. Today, we are likely to debate several amendments that would have a gutting effect on this underlying legislation. I would strongly urge Members to closely examine such amendments and reject them.

Our debate today is not over the war. The President and the Congress have already made that decision. Our focus should be to give our forces the resources they need to successfully complete their dangerous and challenging mission.

The bill we have before us today is an excellent and timely piece of legislation with strong bipartisan input and support. Therefore, I urge the support for the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, just for an informational point, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) makes an excellent point about sections 1113 and 1114. I want to inform the gentlewoman that at the conclusion I will be offering an amendment to protect those sections from points of order.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me just make a couple of quick points. I was not in Congress when the decision, on a bipartisan basis, was made to give the President the authority to commence hostilities in Iraq, but I do think it was the right decision, and I do think that it has been vindicated frankly by things that have happened recently not only in Iraq but throughout the Middle East.

Regardless of that, I think my friend makes a good point, and I appreciate his support for this particular piece of legislation. I know it is very difficult. But the real question here is not the

war, as I tried to mention in my opening comments. That is a decision that has already been made by Congress. The real question on this particular piece of legislation on this rule is are we going to provide people the resources they need to get the job done that we asked them to do. I think it is very important that we do that on a bipartisan basis. I think that will be a very powerful message in Iraq and a very powerful message around the Middle East.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments just to go through some of the specific provisions of this particular legislation because I think the vote that we are getting ready to cast is so exceptionally important.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the defense portion of this particular appropriation, it includes a total of $76.8 billion for total defense expenditures. That is again $1.8 billion over what the administration requested. The additions over the request are in support of deployed and soon to be deployed or returning troops and to assist in force protection and to increase the survivability of troops in the field.

Within the total Defense fund, $3.1 billion is provided for activities under the jurisdiction of the Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee. The following table summarizes, which I will submit for the Record, the committee's addition to the request within the Defense Subcommittee.

So we have an extensive addition that I think actually improves the administration's original request. In addition to the Defense expenditures, we have included other moneys for foreign operations. The committee has added $1.7 billion in net foreign assistance funds within the Foreign Operations,

Export Financing and Related Programs Subcommittee. Within these funds, the committee has identified $1.7 billion in urgent or critical items funded in the bill as an emergency that are directly related to the War on Terror or aiding recovery to the tsunami victims. The committee also provides $1 billion of important items that further U.S. global interests but has offset this spending with a corresponding rescission of $1 billion in previously appropriated assistance to Turkey. These funds were provided in the first Iraq supplemental of 2 years ago and require a positive vote of the Turkish Parliament to be expended. There is widespread agreement that this will not take place anytime soon.

Within the $1.7 billion of emergency assistance, there is $594 million to the counternarcotics effort and for police training in Afghanistan; $400 million is requested to train Afghan police, and $194 million and $66 million below the request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment intends to protect sections 1113 and 1114 against points of order. The Committee on Rules last night exposed these provisions at the request of the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, who has since asked the Committee on Rules to protect the provisions.

The amendment is necessary to protect the important Military Death Gratuity Benefits contained in the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this particular amendment to the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to say that I believe we have had an excellent debate on the rule. What is clear to me is the importance and timeliness of this legislation. With that said, I would again encourage Members to listen carefully to the following debate and to support the underlying legislation.

Additionally, I would encourage Members to be cautious when it comes to considering the amendments. This bill has been carefully crafted and worked out in a way to ensure that our servicemen receive the best equipment when they go forward into war.

Finally, I would ask the Members to remember that this is not a vote about the wisdom of the war in Iraq. The President and the Congress made that decision years ago. This vote is about giving those we have asked to execute our policy in Iraq the tools they need to do their job. The men and women serving our cause in Iraq ask for nothing more. In good conscience we should give them nothing less.

To close, I would urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1134. This important legislation prevents the IRS from taxing disaster mitigation grants provided by FEMA.

This legislation is necessary and urgent due to the IRS's recent decision that Federal grant money used to build tornado shelters is taxable. Oklahomans who received the grants were not given any prior notice that money received would be taxable. Nor did Congress ever express the intent that such grants were to be taxable. The IRS simply conjured up this decision out of thin air.

It makes no sense for the government to tax Federal money given to mitigate disasters. Disaster relief saves lives, limits damages and makes sense. Taxing the very grants that make this possible is not wise, and it is especially unfair given that this IRS decision will cost the taxpayers of Oklahoma $29 million over 5 years. These FEMA grants were given to thousands of Oklahomans with the average grant in the amount of $2,000. And, as I said earlier, the recipients were never advised that these grants would be taxable.

No revenue has ever been collected from taxing FEMA grants. The IRS's decision is without precedent and reflects poorly on the career bureaucrats who devised this action. H.R. 1134 reverses this senseless bureaucratic decision and prohibits these grants from being taxed.

I want to thank the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Foley, the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Jindal, the Oklahoma delegation and the Ways and Means Committee for making consideration of this legislation possible. I would urge Members to support passage of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, on March 10, 2005, I was unavoidably detained due to a prior obligation.

I request that the Congressional Record reflect that had I been present and voting, I would have voted as follows: Roll No. 61: ``Yea'' (on approving the Journal agreed to by the yeas and nays).

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 125 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, on March 1, the Committee on Rules met and granted a structured rule for H.R. 841, the Continuity in Representation Act of 2005. I believe this is a fair rule that allows for a full discussion of the relevant points pertaining to the legislation before us.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 841 is an important step forward in addressing what are critical shortcomings in America's plan for the continuity of this House in the event of an unexpected disaster or attack.

While I was not a Member of Congress on September 11, 2001, I was in an office directly across LaFayette Park from the White House. Like all Americans, I remember that day in detail. One of the most significant memories I have is the bipartisan response to the tragedy where Members stood on the steps of the Capitol and let it be known to the world that our government would continue to operate.

Mr. Speaker, the response of Congress to 9/11 should never be forgotten. It was a sign to the world that America was strong, that it would persevere and that we would go forward as a Nation. The underlying legislation today does the exact same thing. It takes an important step to ensure the preservation of our Republic and the continuity of our government under the most trying of circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, very simply, this legislation ensures a continuity of operations for the House of Representatives. In the event that more than 100 Members of Congress are killed, the Speaker may announce that ``exceptional circumstances'' exist and thereby trigger expedited special elections that must occur within 7 full weeks, thus ensuring the continuity of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation should not be very divisive based on the fact that a similar measure passed the House by a substantial bipartisan margin of 365 to 97 in the last session of Congress. This legislation ensures the continuity of the people's House. It ensures that the House will still be an elected body chosen by the American public just as the Founders intended.

With that said, let us talk about what the bill is not. It is not an election law bill. It is a continuity bill.

Mr. Speaker, you may well hear many Members describe various provisions today in the context of Federal election law. These measures may have genuine merit. However, they are not relevant to this legislation. Personally, I firmly believe that most Members would agree with me when I suggest that election law should remain essentially a local issue. This is where it resides historically, and this is where it should continue to reside.

Mr. Speaker, we have a clear decision before us today. We can either be responsible in preparing for what we all hope never occurs, or we can engage in pointless bickering over election laws that are historically controlled by the localities. Just a few years ago almost all Members would have viewed a tragedy like September 11 as an unthinkable event, and that is precisely the point. We cannot predict tomorrow. What we do know, however, is that we are engaged in a real, genuine, and taxing global war on terror. This is a generational war and one that will not disappear over night.

Mr. Speaker, simply put, this legislation is about the security and continuity of America's governing institutions. It is an issue of critical importance in establishing an orderly response should the unthinkable occur again.

The legislative history of this bill is clear. This bill originated in direct response to the events of September 11. It is a continuity- in-government bill, not an election reform measure. To confuse the former with the latter by encumbering this bill with extraneous issues would be to lose sight of the fundamental purpose of the legislation. Our job here is to ensure the continuity of the House of Representatives, not reform a state-based electoral process with Federal legislation.

During my time as Secretary of State in Oklahoma, the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building occurred. At that time such an event was considered unthinkable in the United States. That incident and the larger tragedy of 9/11 are a sober warning that we should prepare for the unexpected before it occurs. H.R. 841 is an important part of that preparation, and it also is a tangible sign to terrorists that they will never intimidate this country, change the nature of this House as the elected representatives of the American people, or keep our government from facing any challenges it may face in the future.

Mr. Speaker, let us wait no longer. Let us move forward. And to that end, I would urge all Members to support this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his kind words and I look forward to working with him as we move ahead and I learn from him as I already have in the context of the deliberations of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

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

In closing, I would like to say I believe the debate has been an excellent discussion underlining many of the substantive concerns of both sides of a complex issue. But let us make one thing clear, this bill is about America's security and the way that Congress will deal with a catastrophe of unprecedented proportions. To ignore this basic fact is to ignore the warnings of history and the tragedy of September 11.

Mr. Speaker, today others have placed this debate in the context of election laws and constitutional issues. I appreciate their concerns, but this is not what this legislation is about. It is about establishing an orderly procedure to ensure the continuity of the House in the aftermath of a catastrophic event. The potential for this was underlined by what occurred on September 11. We cannot ignore those facts or ignore the realities and dangers of a changed international and geopolitical environment. To do so would be irresponsible.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Cole of Oklahoma

Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to briefly describe this amendment before going further.

This amendment makes in order another amendment to take one more step toward satisfying the concerns of the minority and the Senate by extending the time limits by which States can hold elections. It is a short extension, but useful in that it allows States to phase their election plans over 7 even weeks. To that end I would urge my colleagues to support this fair rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and move the previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule for H.R. 301, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005. I believe this is a fair rule and one that accords both sides of the aisle a good opportunity to explore the issues surrounding this legislation.

Just last year, the House took a strong step forward on this issue when it passed H.R. 3717 by a vote of 391 to 22. Unfortunately, the other body was unable to schedule this legislation for consideration before the close of the 108th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, we have a real opportunity today. As a father and a husband, over the years I have had genuine concerns about the suitability of some of the programming that is now aired on television. As my colleagues know, the law holds that indecent material is not appropriate for television. Unfortunately, over the last several years, some in the media have concluded that they are willing to pay fines for the privilege of airing the very material that they know millions of Americans will find offensive.

Mr. Speaker, it is time that we as the people's elected Representatives address the issues surrounding the airing of indecent material. This legislation is a good first step. It will restore some teeth to the law and begin to better protect America's children immediately.

I know that my colleagues agree with me, Mr. Speaker, when I say that no family should be exposed to some of the content that is now regularly aired on television. This legislation does not address just the infamous incident such as the supposed wardrobe malfunction at last year's Super Bowl. While it does not discriminate, it will help to restore a measure of decency to the airwaves.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule. It is a fair rule, one that will allow us to fully explore the issues surrounding the Broadcast Decency Act of 2005.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me this time and, frankly, for making that important point, that this matter is proceeding to this floor under a bipartisan unanimous vote by the Committee on Rules; and the suggestion that the process was unfair or defective is not borne out by both the nature of the debate in the Committee on Rules and by the unanimous vote that sent this rule to the floor.

Let me move now, Mr. Speaker, to my prepared remarks. I rise today in support of the rule for S. 5, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. I believe it to be a fair rule and one that allows us to fully explore the issues surrounding this legislation. Furthermore, it makes in order a substantive amendment in the nature of a substitute that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has worked hard to produce. I believe that this will allow a spirited debate and one that will fully explore the many complex issues surrounding class-action reform while still enabling the House to act in an expeditious fashion.

Mr. Speaker, while I fully agree that class-action lawsuits are a legitimate tool in civil procedure, these lawsuits are a tool that has been frequently abused over the past years. There exist a certain small subset of attorneys who do not represent the best traditions of their colleagues in the legal profession and primarily are concerned with lining their pockets by abusing the class-action process. Often, this is done through the popular so-called coupon settlement process, where the class of plaintiffs only receive coupons to use from the very same companies they are suing, while the attorneys walk away from the table with millions in cash.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a necessary step to better ensure and protect our citizens' rights. The ongoing flood of meritless labor and employment litigation has often destroyed reputable companies and has resulted in thousands of layoffs and business restructurings that hurt innocent workers and shareholders alike.

This legislation would incentivize only those who have legitimate class-action claims to move forward in the legal process and, at the same time, it would disincentivize lawyers from filing meritless claims by increasing sanctions against those who do so.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a necessary first step and the rule that accompanies it is one that I believe all Members should support. Those who support another approach have the full opportunity to explore it in the minority's amendment in the nature of a substitute. Therefore, I urge all Members to support the rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, February 16, 2005, I was unavoidably detained due to a prior obligation.

Had I been present and voting, I would have voted as follows: (1) Rollcall No. 35: ``Yes'' (Final Passage of H.R. 310).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished Majority Leader and the original sponsor of this important resolution.