D	mr. chairman , i thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time .  my good colleague from california raised the exact and critical point .  the question is , what happens during those 45 days ?  we will need to support elections .  there is not a single member of this house who has not supported some form of general election , a special election , to replace the members at some point .  but during that 45 days , what happens ?  the chair of the constitution subcommittee says this is what happens : martial law .  we do not know who would fill the vacancy of the presidency , but we do know that the succession act most likely suggests it would be an unelected person .  the sponsors of the bill before us today insist , and i think rightfully so , on the importance of elections .  but to then say that during a 45-day period we would have none of the checks and balances so fundamental to our constitution , none of the separation of powers , and that the presidency would be filled by an unelected member of the cabinet who not a single member of this country , not a single citizen , voted to fill that position , and that that person would have no checks and balances from congress for a period of 45 days i find extraordinary .  i find it inconsistent .  i find it illogical , and , frankly , i find it dangerous .  the gentleman from wisconsin refused earlier to yield time , but i was going to ask him , if virginia has those elections in a shorter time period , they should be commended for that .  so now we have a situation in the congress where the virginia delegation has sent their members here , but many other states do not have members here .  do they at that point elect a speaker of the house in the absence of other members ?  and then three more states elect their representatives , temporary replacements , or full replacements at that point .  they come in .  do they elect a new speaker ?  and if that happens , who becomes the president under the succession act ?  this bill does not address that question .  this bill responds to real threats with fantasies .  it responds with the fantasy , first of all , that a lot of people will still survive ; but we have no guarantee of that .  it responds with the fantasy that those who do survive will do the right thing .  we are here having this debate , we have debates every day , because people differ on what the right thing is to do .  i have been in very traumatic situations with people in severe car wrecks and mountain climbing accidents .  my experience has not been that crisis imbues universal sagacity and fairness .  it has not been that .  people respond in extraordinary ways , and we must preserve an institution that has the deliberative body and the checks and balances to meet those challenges .  many of our states are going increasingly to mail-in ballots .  we in this body were effectively disabled by an anthrax attack not long after september 11 .  i would ask my dear friends , will you conduct this election in 45 days if there is anthrax in the mail and still preserve the franchise of the american people ?  how will you do that ?  you have no answer to that question .  i find it extraordinary , frankly , that while saying you do not want to amend the constitution , we began this very congress by amending the constitution through the rule , by undermining the principle that a quorum is 50 percent of the body and instead saying it is however many people survive .  and if that rule applies , who will designate it , who will implement it ?  the speaker , or the speaker 's designee ?  again , not an elected person , as you say is so critical and i believe is critical , but a temporary appointee , frankly , who not a single other member of this body knows who they are .  so we not only have an unelected person , we have an unknown person who will convene this body , and who , by the way , could conceivably convene it for their own election to then become the president of the united states under the succession act .  you have refused steadfastly to debate this real issue broadly .  you had a mock debate in the committee on the judiciary in which the distinguished chairman presented my bill without allowing me the courtesy or dignity to defend it myself .  and on that , you proudly say you defend democracy .  sir , i think you dissemble in that regard .  here is the fundamental question for us , my friends , and it is this : the american people are watching television and an announcement comes on and says the congress has been destroyed in a nuclear attack , the president and vice president are killed and the supreme court is dead and thousands of our citizens in this town are .  what happens next ?  under your bill , 45 days of chaos .  apparently , according to the committee on the judiciary subcommittee on the constitution chairman , 45 days of marshal law , rule of this country by an unelected president with no checks and balances .  or an alternative , an alternative which says quite simply that the people have entrusted the representatives they send here to make profound decisions , war , taxation , a host of other things , and those representatives would have the power under the bill of the gentleman from california ( mr. rohrabacher )  bill or mine to designate temporary successors , temporary , only until we can have a real election .  the american people , in one scenario , are told we do not know who is going to run the country , we have no representatives ; where in another you will have temporary representatives carrying your interests to this great body while we deliberate and have real elections .  that is the choice .  you are making the wrong choice today if you think you have solved this problem .  
D	mr. chairman , i rise to make two fundamental points before we proceed to vote on this .  the two points are these : this resolution does not solve the real problem and it may create more problems than it purports to solve , and we have to understand that .  it does not solve the problem for this reason : by leaving us without a congress for 45 days , we essentially impose the opportunity for the executive branch to exert marshal law , and that is not what the framers of this country had in mind .  this bill , if we do not provide some mechanism for prompt replacement other than this bill , will leave this country governed by an unelected executive , a cabinet member most likely who not a single american elected to that office .  furthermore , it has a host of problems .  it does not address the possibility that one delegation will elect its representatives more promptly than another .  they will come to this body , choose one of its members as speaker .  that person could move on to become the president .  then another delegation comes in , et cetera .  you are essentially leaving this country without a house of representatives , without checks and balances , without separation of powers , for at least 45 days , assuming an election can be held in 45 days and assuming that the terrorists through an anthrax attack , like they subjected this very capitol to , will not somehow undermine that ability .  this is reality .  we have seen the reality here .  we saw those airplanes hit the buildings , we saw the anthrax , and yet we are not truly acting to solve this .  
D	mr. chairman , reclaiming my time , let me make two final points : one , the majority party must understand this : if you are at a republican conference retreat and terrorists should strike you and kill the president and vice president and significant numbers of your side of the aisle , the democrats under your proposed law will obtain the majority , will elect a speaker of the house , and that person will then become the president of the united states of america .  you are leaving this country vulnerable to that .  you must not do it .  you must not .  this matter must be taken seriously .  it deserves full debate .  whether it is the proposal of the gentleman from california ( mr. rohrabacher )  and mine or others , we should commit to having this full house seriously consider this .  if we do not and we are not fortunate , history will not look kindly upon the jeopardy in which we have left this great nation .  vote no on this bill and insist on true debate on true continuity of congress in a responsible way that protects the balance of power , assures real succession to the presidency , and , most importantly , assures that your constituents will have representation at a time when our nation may well go to nuclear war , institute a draft , appropriate trillions of dollars , suspend habeas corpus and impose marshal law .  you do not want that .  but if you stop at this bill , you leave this nation vulnerable .  mr. chairman , if there is no one to speak in opposition , i ask unanimous consent to withdraw my preferential motion .  
D	mr. chairman , reclaiming my time , the fact is this congress took a number of very important actions , as the distinguished gentleman from illinois knows , during that same time period .  let me ask this : if what the gentleman is saying is that we are not going to do anything , the executive branch has all the control , then how do we not just define madison 's very definition of tyranny ?  and if that is the case , are we not with this bill promoting tyranny in this country ?  
D	mr. chairman , reclaiming my time , i would beg to differ , and the gentleman , i think , is inaccurate historically .  
D	mr. chairman , i do not have it on the top of my head , my friend ; but i can say that it is much faster than 7 weeks .  i would assert , furthermore , that if the gentleman 's assertion is that we do not need the united states congress post a catastrophic attack , i think you are making a mistake and doing a disservice .  if that is what you are voting for , then let us be honest with the american public , as apparently the chairman of the committee on the judiciary has been .  we are voting with this bill to allow martial law , and i think that is a grave mistake .  let me continue , if i may , and ask a few other questions .  how many millions of americans are you willing to leave without representation as article i , section 8 responsibility such as declarations of war , appropriations of funds , et cetera , are made ?  how many millions of americans is the gentleman willing to leave without representation ?  
D	okay .  so we do not have that answer .  let me ask this question : under the bill , the section that is proposed , i have yet to figure out what happens to this body .  
D	mr. chairman , i would suggest that with these questions remaining , we should not be passing this legislation in the manner in which we are .  we need a full and open and extensive debate on this .  
D	mr. chairman , i yield myself the balance of the time .  mr. chairman , it is a perverse reasoning that suggests that having no representation here at all somehow provides you better representation than to have someone appointed by the person you last elected .  you are trying to say that we do not have a democratic republic if the elected representatives from other states can have a vote equal to someone from your state .  i believe the best way to have a republic is to have representation from all of the constituents .  if that means temporary appointments , so be it .  finally , we have heard so many times one distinguished scholar quoted , and he is indeed a distinguished scholar .  but let me point out to the gentleman from california ( mr. dreier )  as he well knows , the bipartisan 9/11 commission , which included newt gingrich , tom foley , alan simpson , lloyd cutler , a host of other scholars , has rejected essentially the proposal by the distinguished gentleman from wisconsin ( mr. sensenbrenner )  , and has concluded with great reluctance that we do indeed need a mechanism to amend the constitution so that whatever mechanism is arrived at is constitutionally valid .  i would weigh the weight of their testimony and their objectivity and their bipartisanship against one single individual that you continually quote .  major votes in the u.s. house of representatives , september 11-october 26 , 2001 september 13 , 2001 .  h.r. 2884 , victims of terrorism relief act of 2001 .  the bill exempted individuals killed in the 9/11 terrorist attacks , or who die as a result of injuries suffered in those attacks , from paying federal income tax in the year of their death .  september 13 , 2001 .  h.r. 2882 , expedite public safety office benefits .  this bill directed the justice department to expedite the benefit payment process for the public safety officers ( and their families ) that were killed or suffered catastrophic injuries sustained in the line of duty in connection with the terrorist attacks of sept .  11 .  september 14 , 2001 .  h.r. 2888 , 2001 emergency supplemental appropriations act for recovery from and response to terrorist attacks on the united states .  the bill appropriated $ 40 billion in emergency funds to pay for the costs of recovery from the 9/11 terrorist attacks and to counter , investigate and prosecute terrorist activities .  september 14 , 2001 .  h. j. res. 64 , authorization of force .  the resolution authorized the president to use `` all necessary and appropriate force against those nations , organizations , or persons he determines planned , authorized , committed , or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on sept .  11 , 2001. '' september 21 , 2001 .  h.r. 2904 , military construction appropriations for fy 2002 .  the bill appropriates $ 10.5 billion for military construction programs in fy 2002 .  september 21 , 2001 .  h.r. 2926 , air transportation safety and system stabilization act .  this bill provided $ 15 billion in assistance to the u.s. airline industry to help stabilize the financial condition of the industry in the wake of the terrorist attacks on sept .  11 -- $ 5 billion in immediate cash assistance and $ 10 billion in loan guarantees .  september 24 , 2001 .  h. j. res. 65 , continuing appropriations for fy 2002 .  september 25 , 2001 .  h.r. 2586 , department of defense authorization for fiscal year 2002 .  september 25 , 2001 .  h.r. 2944 , district of columbia appropriations for fiscal year 2002 .  october 5 , 2001 .  h.r. 2646 , farm security act .  october 11 , 2001 .  h.r. 3061 , labor-hhs-education appropriations for fiscal year 2002 .  october 12 , 2001 .  h.r. 2975 , patriot act .  october 17 , 2001 .  h.r. 3004 , financial anti-terrorism act .  the bill gives the treasury department new powers to combat money laundering by imposing additional record-keeping requirements and by restricting or banning dealings with suspect foreign financial entities .  october 17 , 2001 .  h.r. 2904 , military construction appropriations for fy 2002 .  october 17 , 2001 .  h.r. 2217 , interior and related agencies appropriations for fy 2002 .  october 23 , 2001 .  h.r. 3160 , bioterrorism enforcement act of 2001 .  the bill established criminal penalties for the unsafe or illegal possession or transfer of certain biological agents and toxins -- including anthrax -- and it required the health and human services department ( hhs ) to develop new regulations governing the possession and use of those substances .  october 24 , 2001 .  h.r. 3090 , tax incentives for economic recovery .  the measure provided business and individual tax cuts totaling $ 99.5 billion in 2002 and $ 159.4 billion over 10 years .  october 24 , 2001 .  h.r. 3162 , usa patriot act conference report .  october 25 , 2001 .  h. j. res. 70 , continuing appropriations for fy 2002 .  
D	mr. chairman , i demand a recorded vote .  
D	mr. chairman , i appreciated the gentleman from illinois ' ( mr. lahood )  earlier comments about the fitness center for our employees .  when i first came here soon after the gentleman from illinois ( mr. lahood )  , i was struck that the showers that were available for our employees were kind of secret .  we , i think , cracked the code , found out where they were , and published a map .  and we were able to work with the gentleman from new york ( mr. walsh )  , the gentleman from virginia ( mr. kingston )  , the gentleman from virginia ( mr. moran )  , the former subcommittee chairs and ranking members in slowly moving some things forward .  there are now some new showers .  now the fitness center is under construction .  i congratulate the gentleman from illinois ( mr. lahood )  and the committee .  i think this is an important development for our employees .  it is important for their health , for their morale , for their efficiency , for their being able to bike and walk and run to work , i think it is an important signal for them that we value their work .  i also appreciated comments that he made about the gem , which is the library of congress .  i must confess i have some concerns in looking at this budget .  we basically flatlined the library of congress , and we have missing from this , and part of the reduction is , the money that has been set aside for facilities to deal with the massive amount of information that is compiled by the library .  the library of congress is the largest repository of information in the world .  we have an obligation in congress to support their efforts , and it is time sensitive .  not only are they running out of space , running out of room , there are issues of being able to protect the materials that they have .  and i am afraid that if we slip a year , then we slip another year , we end up putting a burden on the people who run the library of congress and we put part of that collection in jeopardy .  look at what happened to the library of congress jefferson building being neglected for decades and it took a major renovation for the library , that gem that we are all so proud of , to be fit for use in time for its centennial .  i know the committee has a difficult time because there are tight spending restraints , but i would urge the committee on appropriations and , indeed , each member of this body to take a careful look at our stewardship responsibilities for the library of congress .  we all direct our constituents there because we are proud of it .  we all take advantage of the material .  this is an important little detail that is going to make their job harder ; and i am afraid in the long run , if we are not careful , it is going to be the abrogation of our responsibility to maintain this largest collection of information in the history of the world .  
R	mr. speaker , by direction of the committee on rules , i call up house resolution 125 and ask for its immediate consideration .  
R	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 .  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 .  
R	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 can not 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 .  
R	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 .  
D	i am , mr. speaker , in its present form .  
D	mr. speaker , i yield myself the balance of my time .  the motion to recommit would fix the problem raised by the gentlewoman from california ( ms. waters )  , at least for special elections under this bill .  i urge the support of the motion to recommit .  
D	mr. speaker , i demand a recorded vote .  
R	mr. chairman , how much time do i have remaining ?  
R	mr. chairman , i demand a recorded vote .  
R	mr. chairman , i seek the time in opposition .  
R	mr. chairman , i demand a recorded vote .  
D	mr. chairman , do i have the right to close ?  
D	mr. chairman , i demand a recorded vote .  
D	mr. chairman , i rise today in support of h.r. 2985 the legislative branch appropriations for fiscal year 2006 .  however , i find it truly unfortunate that these appropriations were consistently under-funded because of the tight budget due to the massive tax cuts given to the richest americans .  these bush administration tax cuts have created gaps in so many programs and these legislative branch appropriations are no different .  the total funding for this legislation is $ 2.87 billion which is only 2 % more than current levels and $ 270 million ( 9 % ) less than requested by the various legislative offices and agencies .  this bill appropriates $ 1.1 billion for operations of the house of representatives which is only $ 13 million ( 1 % ) more than current funding and $ 35 million ( 3 % ) less than requested .  it is unfortunate that these appropriations are so tight , when the cost of operating the house of representatives is in fact getting higher .  these costs are becoming higher because the needs of our constituencies are becoming greater .  with these unfortunate budget cuts in place it will be our constituents who suffer .  regardless of these cuts , congress will continue to function properly and we will serve our constituents proudly , but these cuts in our funding undermine our efforts .  in addition to insufficient funding to the house of representatives , the greatest deficiencies can be found in the legislative branch agencies that directly or indirectly support congressional operations .  this funding is only $ 32.6 million ( 2 % ) more than current levels and a staggering $ 234.8 million ( 12 % ) less than requested .  funding for the capitol police , who are entrusted with protecting the capitol complex and all those who work and visit here actually received $ 2 million ( 1 % ) less than in fy 2005 , and $ 50.4 million ( 17 % ) less than requested in this appropriation .  the architect of the capitol who have worked so hard in the last year to make the capitol complex more accessible to visitors received only $ 317.3 million , $ 16.7 million ( 6 % ) more than current funding but a full $ 123.6 million ( 28 % ) less than requested .  the government printing office ( gpo ) which serves the demanding printing needs of hundreds of legislators every year received only $ 122.6 million which is $ 2.8 million ( 2 % ) more than current funding but $ 8.5 million ( 6 % ) less than requested .  indeed , even the library of congress , the resource for members and staff to conduct research and the institution meant to be our nation 's greatest repository of reading materials , even their funding was cut in this appropriation .  the library of congress received $ 543 million , about equal to the fy 2005 level but $ 47.8 million ( 8 % ) less than requested .  however , the issue that has me most concerned about this appropriation is the language of h.r. 841 , which would require states to hold special elections within 49 days of the speaker declaring that more than 100 vacancies exist in the house .  first of all , this language has no business being in this appropriations measure , it clearly legislates on what is supposed to be a spending bill .  truly , the other side of the aisle is trying to sneak in a piece of legislation within this appropriation in order to force its passage upon the senate .  furthermore , this language within this bill threatens to weaken the electoral process , to disenfranchise overseas , disabled , and lower-income voters and thereby reduce individual rights .  the more expedited the process of replacing despite my objections with certain provisions of this legislation i will vote in favor of this appropriation because it serves the needs of our congress .  however , i hope that soon our economic and budgeting practices would change so that we are not forced to make so many cuts in vital areas .  i also hope that in the future we do not use these appropriations bills as a way to further our legislative agendas .  it is my sincere hope that the institution of congress , which was made to serve the needs of the people , will continue to be effective no matter the obstacle .  
R	mr. chairman , first of all , i want to extend thanks to the chairman of the full committee on appropriations , the gentleman from california ( mr. lewis )  .  by this time next week , we will have completed all of the appropriation bills .  this is a history-making event in the house of representatives .  i have been here for 11 years ; and for the 11 years i have been here , i do not know of another time when we have completed all of our appropriation bills going right up to the july 4 recess break .  that is in large part due to the cooperation that the chairman received from the ranking member , the gentleman from wisconsin ( mr. obey )  , but in large part also from the leadership exhibited by the chairman of the full committee .  he set a very , very high bar , a high standard , and all of the subcommittee chairs comported with that ; and we will have sent to the senate all of our appropriation bills as of a week from today or a week from tomorrow .  that is an accomplishment that should not go unnoticed , and i compliment the gentleman from california ( mr. lewis )  and the gentleman from wisconsin ( mr. obey )  for their leadership and also the subcommittee chairmen for that kind of goal setting and then meeting those goals .  secondly , this is an important bill .  this is the legislative branch bill .  this is the bill where we say to all of the people , and i personally say to all of the people around the capitol campus , thank you for the good work you do .  the clerks , the people taking down our words here , the & lt ; /em & gt ; & lt ; em & gt ; congressional record that will be printed overnight , the parliamentarians who do such good work in directing the proceedings of the house , all of the capitol hill police who stand guard 24-7 and protect the capitol , the attending physician 's office who keep us all healthy , the people who work in the cloakrooms , the people who help us write bills , the people at crs who help us make sure that we get the words correct and get them done correctly in the bills that we prepare and take a lot of credit for .  the folks who work at the library of congress .  the most magnificent facility on the capitol campus is the library of congress .  i hate to say it , but it is even more magnificent than this building , but the library of congress is a magnificent facility .  members have an opportunity to take full advantage of many of the books there and research that can be done .  the botanical gardens is also a part of our campus .  this is the bill that funds all of that .  this is congress ' opportunity to say thank you to all of the people who work around here .  it includes the lawyers who make sure that we do things correctly , and all of the people who work hard day and night to keep this building open , keep members on the right track , and make sure that the things we do are done by the book .  so i pay my compliments to all of the people who make this magnificent facility that we call the united states capitol the great place that it is , where we make the laws and have the debates and have the opportunity to represent the people from all over the country .  we could not do it without this bill , without the funding in this bill , and we could not do it without the people who provide all of the services , and are very dedicated , many of whom work late hours to keep this place going .  i want to take my hat off to those folks .  i want to say a word about the visitors center .  i want to say this : it is a done deal .  the leadership decided several years we needed a visitors center .  has it been done all correctly ?  no .  and the points that the gentleman from wisconsin ( mr. obey )  makes are correct points .  a lot of the work that has been done has been done by direction of staff of the principals .  the principals really have not been that involved .  they said they wanted a visitors center , and then they allowed the staff over the last 4 or 5 years to give direction .  the architects have had many masters on this visitors center , unfortunately .  but it is going to be built , and it is going to be a magnificent opportunity for people to have good shelter and safety .  and after 9/11 , we do not want people standing outside , we do not want people standing in inclement weather , and there will be an opportunity for people to get a little bit of history before they enter the capitol .  to say we should throw the whole bill out because of the visitors center does not make sense .  i also want to say something about a subject i have felt very strongly about for the last few years , thank the architect and the chief operating officer and others for helping me with this , and that is the development of a staff health fitness center .  it is under way in the rayburn garage .  it is for the staff around here who work long hours .  there will be a health fitness center that they will be able to take advantage of , to stay healthy and be able to exercise , to have an opportunity to do the same thing that all of the members have the opportunity to do .  i am grateful that we are finally getting that kind of opportunity for our staff to be able to make this happen .  with respect to the provision that was put in the bill having to do with respect to what do we do around here if another disaster happens , if the members are injured or killed in some kind of an attack , there has to be something that guides the direction of the house in the event that something happens .  the speaker decided in order to get this moving and in order to get the senate to go along with something , it had to be included in a bill , and it was put in this bill .  it was put in , really , to get something done , to make something happen , to have some provision in the event that something happens .  it is probably not the best way to do it , but maybe it will end up to be the most efficient way to do it , to get the senate finally to come around and sit down and talk to us about what do we do if something happens around here and how do we account for succession .  the constitution calls for elections , not appointment .  when there is a vacancy , there has to be an election .  that is the way we get members to congregate in this house .  that is the way it should be .  my point is the idea that this was included and is some sort of nonessential thing , it is essential that we have a provision in the law that allows us to account for a situation in the event that members need to be replaced .  that is really the reason it was put in .  it is a part of the process here .  if we want to get things moving , this is one of the ways to do it .  it is not unprecedented .  we have included other provisions in bills before to try and get some compromise with the senate .  i congratulate the speaker for trying to get something done on this .  if it does not happen here , it probably will not happen .  we need to have this provision in the law .  i ask every member to consider the good work that goes on around here , the fact that this is the bill that funds all of this .  this is the bill that takes care of all of the work that we do around here .  it is a good bill .  my compliments go to the gentleman from california ( mr. lewis )  and the gentleman from wisconsin ( mr. obey )  and the work of the staff people that made it possible for this bill to come to the floor today .  
R	mr. chairman , i will address it in this way : i was here on 9/11 , as the gentleman was .  there is absolutely nothing for the members of congress to do .  that is the answer to the gentleman 's question .  the whole thing was taken over by the administration .  there is not going to be anything for any member of congress , any major decisions to be made during that period of time .  we do not need to be around here .  
R	mr. chairman , we were all meandering around here trying to figure out what to do , trying to figure out how to get our phones working .  all of the major legislation that was created was created long after the period of time that the gentleman is talking about .  
R	i was going to respond to the gentleman 's other questions .  
R	i appreciate very much the gentleman having this colloquy with me and raising this important issue .  as we have discussed , the smoking policy in the house office buildings is under the jurisdiction of the house office building commission .  that commission is made up of leaders on both sides of the aisle ; and , frankly , i am very hesitant to interfere with their responsibility or their work .  but i think it is very important that the gentleman is raising this issue today , and i am happy to have this discussion with him .  
R	i would be very happy to join with the gentleman in that discussion .  i think i probably will discuss it with my wife as well ; but in the meantime , you and i work together on the committee , and i am happy to work with you on almost any issue you might raise .  
R	mr. chairman , let me tell the gentleman that i am very appreciative of his interest in the institution 's history .  as he is aware , the speaker controls the placement of plaques on the house side of the capitol .  their placement is very restricted , and we attempt to achieve recognition of events and places normally through other means .  the capitol visitors center is being designed to provide our visitors with a much fuller understanding and history of the house and senate .  included in the cvc is a 16 , 000 square-foot exhibit hall .  in this exhibit hall , the architectural and legislative history of the institution are highlighted .  as part of the currently proposed cvc exhibits are detailed sections on the history of the capitol and included in this is the fact that when the capitol was originally built , it was used for more than legislative meetings .  it was commonly used as the community center for the citizens of washington , d.c .  during that time , there were few places for meetings or church services .  thus , it is correct that such religious services were held here .  all these facts are included in the cvc exhibits , and i would encourage that the education of citizens be pursued in this venue so that a more complete history beyond a plaque can be presented .  
R	there have been , and i very much appreciate the gentleman 's interest in this matter .  he and i will be pursuing it as we go forward in the months and , indeed , the years ahead .  
R	mr. chairman , i yield myself the balance of the time .  mr. chairman , it was not my intention to speak in these closing moments .  
R	mr. chairman , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  mr. chairman , i consider myself to be a horse person .  as a matter of fact , at one time in my life i thought i might be a veterinarian because i loved horses and ducks so much .  in the meantime , i watch them parade around the capitol , and i have wondered from time to time about their relative value .  the gao has cited that the capitol police have difficulty quantifying the benefit the unit provides .  gao was not able to substantiate the claim of one horse doing the work of 10 people .  i do not see how the elimination of five horses is going to impact the patrol .  we have scout cars , motorcycles , and mountain bikes all patrolling the same area .  the real point is here i was concerned about the horses myself , but when the staff came up with the thought that perhaps we could transfer them to the park service and make sure they are well taken care of and used for meaningful activity , i felt very comfortable with this change .  so , frankly , i think we ought to proceed with the language that is in the bill .  mr. chairman , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. chairman , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  i found one other reason to love the gentlewoman from virginia ( mrs. jo ann davis )  .  her caring for horses as much as i do is a thrill to me .  the problem is i have studied this material and can not find that this is the best way to use our funding , especially when these horses will have a new home where they might be used more effectively .  
R	and i do as well .  
R	reclaiming my time , the gentleman is always a gentleman .  mr. chairman , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. chairman , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. speaker , by way of suggesting that the leadership on both sides of the aisle made the decision about building our visitors center and that process has gone forward , and many a fit and start , but nonetheless it is going to be the largest expansion of the capitol in modern time .  it is going to be a fabulous visitors center when it is all completed .  the gentleman from wisconsin ( mr. obey )  and i have been on the other side of that issue in the past ; but , nonetheless , like the visitors center , the speaker has suggested we include the continuity of government item in this package .  that too is at a pay grade that is above mine , and i feel very strongly we should have some mechanism to make certain that in times of a real tragedy the house can get its work done .  
R	mr. chairman , i reserve the balance of my time .  ms. millender-mcdonald .  
R	mr. chairman , i continue to reserve my time .  ms. millender-mcdonald .  
R	mr. chairman , i continue to reserve my time .  
R	mr. chairman , i yield myself the balance of my time .  mr. chairman , the continuity in representation act provides a process to ensure that our democratic government remains stable and orderly during a possible time of great instability .  in addition , it preserves the unique status of the house of representatives by continuing the tradition and the constitutional mandate that every member of this body must be elected by his or her constituents .  in such a time of crisis , the people of this nation must have a voice in the critical decisions that are being made .  this legislation ensures that that will be the case .  the time limit of 49 days that this bill lays out is more than adequate , mr. chairman .  in fact , a survey of election officials confirmed that this is a realistic time frame , and i will tell you as a former elections official myself , i concur with those findings .  furthermore , several states already have laws in place that require special elections to be conducted in a shorter period of time than the 49-day limit that this legislation requires .  it is a short enough period that the house is reconstituted quickly and loses none of its authority , and , at the same time , it is a long enough period for fair elections to be conducted .  when this issue was before the 108th congress , mr. chairman , the house acted in an overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion and approved the continuity in representation act by a more than three-to-one margin .  in fact , h.r. 841 that we consider today has improved on the previous bill by addressing the following reservations that some members of the house and some of the states had regarding that bill .  first , the special election privilege is extended now to delegates and resident commissioners so that they could be replaced just as quickly as members .  second , the legislation explicitly gives states any method that they choose to selects the candidates for special elections .  certainly as an advocate of states ' rights , this provision was extremely important to both myself and many of us here in this chamber .  finally , the time limit for special elections to be completed has been extended to 49 days from the time of the speaker 's announcement that over 100 vacancies exist .  this gives local and state officials 7 full weeks to select candidates , to print ballots and to fully execute those special elections .  with these changes i am hopeful that the bipartisan support for this legislation will be even greater today than it has been in the past .  mr. speaker , this is not simply a bill about elections or the best way to replace members of congress .  mr. chairman , this bill is about the strength of our nation .  it is about our ability to secure the homeland , and it does that by ensuring that our democratically elected government is able to respond in the face of an urgent threat .  homeland security is not a republican issue .  it is not a democratic issue .  this is an issue that affects every single american , mr. chairman ; and the congress should act in the interest of america and of democracy .  i urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting h.r. 841 , and i look forward very much to supporting and passing this important and historic legislation .  
R	mr. speaker , i rise in opposition to the motion to recommit .  
D	mr. chairman , i thank the ranking member of the committee on appropriations for yielding me this time , but most particularly for his leadership .  the gentleman from wisconsin ( mr. obey )  made several points .  some of them were consistent with the comments of the gentleman from illinois ( mr. lahood )  that there are a lot of good things about this institution and the facilities that we fund .  but the gentleman from wisconsin ( mr. obey )  pointed out some of the concerns that many of us share over the capitol visitors center .  i share those concerns as well , having been the ranking member of the legislative branch subcommittee before it was incorporated in the full committee .  we raised these , the gentleman from georgia ( mr. kingston )  , and i. it is not meant to be argumentative , but we have created a situation where the capitol visitors center is going to create some substantial problems in the future .  we have a facility that is going to cost well over what was originally estimated .  the original estimate was $ 165 million .  we are now over half a billion dollars .  we were going to try to get private money .  it is all federal money now , of course .  we were going to have it ready for the january 2005 inauguration .  obviously , we are way behind schedule ; but that happens in a lot of construction projects .  we recognize this is going to be completed , and there will be a number of things that we will be proud to show .  but some of these situations are going to cause more problems than they are worth .  for example , we are creating an enormous capacity for visitors .  one would think that would be a good thing , but what is going to wind up happening , they are going to be given a virtual tour of the capitol .  the reason for that is we have the capacity for twice as many people to come into that capitol visitors center as can ever come into the capitol itself .  now , do you want to be the member who tells your constituents , after traveling from any place in the united states , and for many of them it takes a whole day to get here , they stay here , they are all excited and they get to the capitol visitors center and want to go to the capitol and you have to tell them well , actually , there is no room ?  half of the people coming into the capitol visitors center are probably going to have to be informed there is no room in the actual capitol for you to be able to make a visit today .  that is a substantial problem .  i think we should have figured that out .  i am glad we have capacity ; but , again , is it consistent with our real objective , which is to enable all our constituents to see the u.s. capitol itself ?  the taxpayer is paying for this .  a lot of the decisions have really not been made by the members as much as staff , i have to say .  it is not the staff of the appropriations subcommittee that has made those decisions , but we have got some major concerns .  i think they are well-founded concerns .  i want to raise one now , though , that is not a matter of legislation , but it is one that has been brought to my attention as cochair of the congressional prevention coalition .  we have tried to do some things to address public health concerns .  one of them is in regard to smoking .  we have a ban on smoking in all federal buildings but we exempt congressional office spaces .  i do not want to change that necessarily , i can understand why there is an exemption in place , but we have a particular problem with the rayburn cafeteria .  with that , i would like to enter into a colloquy with the chairman of the full committee on this because i do think we need to address it .  in the rayburn cafeteria , the main dining room is overflowing with patrons generally every tuesday , wednesday and thursday ; and so those patrons are forced to spill over into the designated smoking area .  the same thing happens when we close the main cafeteria for receptions and special events .  because that main designated area is the only place available on that floor for smoking , it gets pretty asphyxiating according to many of the staff who have contacted me .  i think we need to address it because some of these people have real serious health problems in terms of their breathing capabilities ; some have asthma and other related problems .  they just can not deal with all of that smoke and they do not have any choice to avoid it given the situation that frequently occurs .  
D	i thank the chairman and i thank the interest of ms. johnson , the lead staff for the committee on legislative branch issues .  would the chairman be willing to make sure that this gets raised to the appropriate people so we could address it in a constructive way ?  
D	i appreciate the gentleman 's suggestion .  i think we will pursue it in that manner rather than trying to find some legislative solution .  
D	mr. chairman , i thank the esteemed leader from wisconsin for yielding me this time .  mr. chairman , this is a trojan horse of a new and growing financial obligation that we really need to deal with now and to accept the committee 's recommendation that it be consolidated with the u.s. park police mounted unit .  that is what makes the most sense .  in may of 2004 we began with six horses .  we were told it would cost about $ 100 , 000 .  now it costs $ 145 , 000 .  they want another $ 10 , 000 for a replacement horse .  but , the salaries and the benefits of the capitol police officers that are involved in this come to approximately $ 600 , 000 .  so it is not $ 145 , 000 , it is three-quarters of a million dollars .  where they are housed is 20 miles away .  these police officers have to travel for at least an hour mile down the whole distance of route 1 to pick them up , another hour back .  we are going to move another 18 , 000 people down to fort belvoir , so it is going to be a lot longer than that .  and now , mr. chairman , really , we are now told that they had not figured this out , but they are going to need what is basically a giant pooper scooper to be able to clean the grassy area after the horses have gone by it .  now , i would suggest to the chairman and to this body that there is not much grass left to patrol .  i was out jogging today .  it was one little grassy area left , and they were putting up a chest-high fence to keep the public off that grassy area .  i do not know where these horses are going to be parading .  and the little spot , what is left now is about the size of somebody 's backyard , and i guess it makes it easier for the pooper scooper , but the problem is that we are paying a substantial amount of money , about three-quarters of a million dollars for very limited benefit .  i just can not imagine why the capitol police need a mounted police unit , particularly given all of our other priorities .  
D	i do not know the names .  
D	mr. chairman , number one , when is the best time to eliminate a program other than before it gets fully established ?  so i think it is important to follow the committee 's recommendation .  the second thing is that we know that the police have asked for stables .  once they establish stables , the costs goes up ; the program is more established .  we have got more investment .  now is the time to kill it .  consolidate it with the park police .  i fully agree with the committee 's recommendation .  
R	mr. chairman , at a time when nearly all federal agencies are facing the need for spending discipline , it is imperative that we apply restraint to ourselves as well -- to the operations of congress itself .  this bill -- the legislative branch appropriations act for fiscal year 2006 ( h.r. 2985 ) -- does that it holds congressional spending to a modest 1.7 percent increase , compared with 2005 .  i rise in support of this bill , which complies with the budget resolution for fiscal year 2006 .  most of the funding in this bill goes to non-political agencies , and non-elected people , who make it possible to do our work : the people who provide vital data and analysis to inform our policy decisions ; who keep our buildings and grounds functioning ; and -- of special importance -- providing security for all of the legislative branch .  h.r. 2985 provides $ 2.87 billion in new budget authority and $ 2.5 billion in new outlays for programs within the legislative branch .  this funding covers various legislative support agencies such as the architect of the capitol , library of congress , congressional research service , congressional budget office and the government accountability office , and the capitol police .  the funding level represents an increase of $ 42 million in ba and $ 241 million in outlays over last year , a 1.7 percent increase from fy 2005 levels .  consistent with a long-standing practice -- under which each chamber of congress determines its own housekeeping requirements , and the other concurs without change , appropriations for the senate are not included in the bill reported to the house .  this measure , in providing $ 2.865 billion in budget authority for the operations of the legislative branch excluding senate functions , is well below the overall suballocation of $ 3.719 billion .  however a level was set within this $ 3.719 billion for legislative operations excluding senate functions of $ 2.831 billion .  hence , though this measure complies with the relevant points of order under the budget act , it breaches the level internally set by the appropriations committee .  it is expected that , when this measure is reported from conference committee , the overall level of spending for all legislative operations , including house , senate and support agencies , will be at or below the level set pursuant to 302 ( b ) of the congressional budget act .  the bill contains a small recession in ba for the library of congress for the copyright reengineering project and no advance appropriations or emergency-designated spending .  the bill provides $ 311 million to the architect of the capitol ( aoc ) for various operational and maintenance activities under the jurisdiction of the aoc , including , $ 37 million to complete construction of the capitol visitor center .  this bill also recommends the establishment of a capitol visitors center governing board to address the issue of daily operations of the visitor center .  $ 543 million to the library of congress , a decrease of $ 2 million from fy 2005 , $ 122 million to the government printing office , an increase of $ 3 million from fy 2005 and $ 482 million for government accountability office , an increase of $ 15 million over fy 2005 .  the bill also provides $ 240 million for the capitol police .  as we all know , ever since 9-11 the demands on these officers have grown significantly .  finally , the bill provides $ 1.092 billion for operations of the house of representatives and a modest increase of $ 13 million or 1.2 percent , compared with 2005 .  i commend the committee on appropriations for bringing us a bill that funds the operations of this house at levels generally consistent with the levels authorized under the fiscal year 2006 budget resolution .  
R	mr. chairman , i am pleased to support h.r. 841 , the continuity in representation act , introduced by my distinguished colleague , house judiciary committee chairman james sensenbrenner .  h.r. 841 provides a practical and constitutional way to ensure that the house of representatives can continue to operate in the event that more than 100 members are killed , h.r. 841 thus protects the people 's right to choose their representatives at the time when such a right may be most important , while ensuring continuity of the legislative branch .  article i section 2 of the united states constitution grants state governors the authority to hold special elections to fill vacancies in the house of representatives .  article i , section 4 of the constitution gives congress the authority to designate the time , place and manner of such special elections if states should fail to act expeditiously following a national emergency .  alexander hamilton , who played a major role in the drafting and ratification of the united states constitution , characterized authority over federal elections as shared between the states and congress , with neither being able to control the process entirety .  h.r. 841 exercises congress 's power to regulate the time , place and manner of elections by requiring the holding of special elections within 45 days after the speaker or acting speaker declares 100 members of the house have been killed .  i have no doubt that the people of the states are quite competent to hold elections in a timely fashion .  after all , it is in each state 's interest to ensure it has adequate elected representation in washington .  the version of h.r. 841 before congress today was drafted with input from state elections commissioners to make sure it sets realistic goals and will not unduly burden state governments .  i am disappointed that some of my colleagues reject the sensible approach of h.r. 841 and instead support amending the constitution to allow appointed members to serve in this body .  allowing appointed members to serve in `` the people 's house '' will fundamentally alter the nature of this institution and sever the people 's most direct connection with their government .  even with the direct election of senators , the fact that members of the house are elected every 2 years while senators run for statewide office every 6 years means that members of the house of representatives are still more accountable to the people than members of any other part of the federal government .  appointed members of congress simply can not be truly representative .  james madison and alexander hamilton eloquently made this point in federalist 52 : as it is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people , so it is particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration should have an immediate dependence on , and an intimate sympathy with , the people .  frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectively secured .  mr. chairman , there are those who say that the power of appointment is necessary in order to preserve checks and balances and thus prevent an abuse of executive power during a time of crisis .  of course , i agree that it is very important to carefully guard our constitutional liberties in times of crisis and that an over-centralization of power in the executive branch is one of the most serious dangers to that liberty .  however , mr. chairman , during a time of crisis it is all the more important to have representatives accountable to the people .  otherwise , the citizenry has no check on the inevitable tendency of government to infringe on the people 's liberties at such a time .  i would remind my colleagues that the only reason we are considering reexamining provisions of the patriot act is because of public concerns that this act gives up excessive liberty for a phantom security .  appointed officials would not be as responsive to public concerns .  supporters of amending the constitution claim that the appointment power will be necessary in the event of an emergency and that the appointed representatives will only be temporary .  however , the laws passed by these `` temporary '' representatives will be permanent .  mr. chairman , this country has faced the possibility of threats to the continuity of this body several times in our history .  yet no one suggested removing the people 's right to vote for members of congress .  for example , the british in the war of 1812 attacked the city of washington , yet nobody suggested the states could not address the lack of a quorum in the house of representatives through elections .  during the civil war , the neighboring state of virginia , where today many capitol hill staffers reside and many members stay while congress is in session , was actively involved in hostilities against the united states government .  yet , abraham lincoln never suggested that non-elected persons serve in the house .  adopting any of the proposals to deny the people the ability to choose their own representatives as noted above , the framers gave congress all the tools it needs to address problems of mass vacancies in the house without compromising this institution 's primary function as a representative body .  in fact , as hamilton explains in federalist 59 , the `` time , place , and manner '' clause was specifically designed to address the kind of extraordinary circumstances imagined by those who support amending the constitution .  in conclusion , i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 841 , the continuity in representation act , which ensures an elected congress can continue to operate in the event of an emergency .  this is what the drafters of the constitution intended .  furthermore , passage of h.r. 841 sends a strong message to terrorists that they can not alter our republican government .  
R	i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time .  mr. chairman , i would like to commend chairman lewis , the committee and the staff for their fine work on this bill and the process .  we are coming down the home stretch , and we should all be proud of that .  this bill contains $ 10.5 million to pay our heating bill , natural gas .  that is a 25 percent increase over last year .  when we get that kind of an increase , the architect asks us for more money and we provide it .  if natural gas prices continue as they are , next year we will be looking at a 3 to $ 4 million increase to heat our capitol complex for the same amount of heat .  we can do that .  we will provide the money .  but when our folks back home heating their homes , running their businesses have these kind of natural gas increases , i think it is time for congress to act .  as we speak , the fertilizer industry , the petrochemical industry , and the polymers and plastic industry are all making plans to leave this country permanently , because they use natural gas as heat and they use it to make products as an ingredient .  forty to 55 percent of their costs are natural gas .  natural gas prices in this country are an island to themselves .  when we buy 58 or $ 60 oil , the whole world does .  our gas prices this week are $ 7.60 .  canada 's are $ 6 , europe 's are 5-something , china 's are $ 4 giving them a huge advantage , trinidad $ 1.60 , russia 90 cents and north africa 80 cents .  folks , we will be looking next year at a 3 to $ 4 million increase to heat this capitol .  by that time , we will have lost some of the industries that i have talked about , and we will have seniors leaving their homes because they can not afford to heat them .  i am challenging this congress to deal with the natural gas issue , the clean fuel , the fuel that does not have pollutants , the fuel we have an unlimited supply of for the next 50 to 100 years ; and i am challenging this congress to deal with natural gas .  
R	i claim the time for the opposition .  
R	mr. chairman , i thank the gentleman , and i appreciate so much his working with me on this and look forward to appropriately recognizing the fact that there have been religious activities in this capitol from the beginning of our nation through the first 70 or 80 years .  
D	mr. chairman , i move to appeal the ruling of the chair .  
R	mr. speaker , by direction of the committee on rules , i call up house resolution 287 and ask for its immediate consideration .  
R	mr. speaker , i object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present .  
R	mr. speaker , i would say everyone wants the modeling to be correct and for us to reestablish trust and confidence on our predictability of a budget number .  when we do that , we bring purity to the process and omb also brings trust and confidence .  i think there is lack of trust and confidence under the budget number , and omb has proven they are not as good of a caretaker here as they think they are .  we will work cooperatively with omb because they also are part of this process of the pain .  
R	mr. chairman , at the outset let me thank the gentleman from north carolina ( mr. taylor )  for bringing forward a bill that i believe addresses many of the critical issues for the department of the interior .  it is impossible not to note that this budget environment creates genuinely tough challenges for the department of the interior .  with that said , i believe the subcommittee has done an excellent job in crafting a bill that addresses those major problems .  several years ago this committee provided funds for a new visitors center at chickasaw national recreation area in my district .  the bids came in high due to the rising cost of materials .  before the project could be downsized the department of the interior had to reprogram these funds for emergency wildfire suppression .  mr. chairman , i am asking that you consider restoring this project in conference should funds become available .  
R	mr. chairman , i want to thank the gentleman from north carolina ( mr. taylor )  , our distinguished chairman , for offering to work with me and the committee to resolve this through the conference process .  i believe that this is an important and critical step toward addressing what has been a very real injustice .  i thank the gentleman from north carolina ( mr. taylor )  .  
R	mr. chairman , i raise a point of order against section 413 of h.r. 2361 , on the grounds that this provision changes existing law in violation of clause 2 ( b ) of house rule xxi , and therefore is legislation included in a general appropriation bill .  
D	mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time , and i want to compliment the gentleman from wisconsin ( mr. obey )  , the gentleman from texas ( mr. edwards )  , and all the members who deeply care about our veterans in this body .  i am always surprised that this issue takes on a partisan tone , because i really believe each member cares about veterans .  it is just that there seems to be an unwillingness on the part of this administration to face up to the reality of how much money is needed to take care of the veterans .  and with the war raging in iraq , and with the seriousness of the injuries , any of us who have been out to walter reed or to bethesda to see these heroic young men and women who have come back with these very severe wounds , i think all of us want to see the best care given to our veterans .  we have been reading about post-traumatic stress syndrome and the consequences and the effect on the lives of these soldiers and sailors and marines when they come home after having been involved in the kind of violent combat that is being seen in iraq .  i had a chance to visit the va hospital in seattle recently , and i was told by the people there that they still have a backlog , a waiting list of 2 , 500 people waiting to get their appointments at the seattle va .  now , that is just unacceptable .  i hope that that has been reduced .  mr. speaker , i want to say that i believe the other body was correct in adding this money , but this is not something that normally would be part of the interior appropriations bill .  this is not within our jurisdiction .  this is just something that happened -- we were the first bill moving through , and it became a convenient vehicle in the other body to put this $ 1.5 billion onto .  there was an effort here to put some money , i think it was , what , $ 975 million -- or thereabouts , which the house adopted , i believe , overwhelmingly , maybe unanimously , but it is simply not enough .  i think mr. nicholson has not been as forthright as he should have been in telling the various committees on the hill what was needed .  but in my mind there is absolutely no excuse for not approving this $ 1.5 billion .  i hope that it will be unanimous that every member of the house will vote for this because i think we should do as much as we can to take care of the legitimate needs of these people .  as i said , this should not be a partisan issue .  i just regret that the administration continues to underfund this important priority .  
D	mr. speaker , i appreciate the gentleman 's efforts and he is sincere in everything he says .  has the committee held any hearings on why they are having all of these financial difficulties ?  what is driving this increase ?  
D	mr. speaker , if the gentleman will continue to yield , are you able to get omb to cooperate , because sometimes the agencies try their best to do the right thing , but then they are told by omb they can not do that because we are trying to fight the deficit .  is omb being helpful here or not ?  
D	mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman for that explanation .  
D	mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman from wisconsin for yielding me this time and for his leadership on behalf of our nation 's veterans , leadership which has sorely been lacking in this house .  this administration and this congress has insulted our veterans community repeatedly in the last few months , insults which i hope we will remedy with today 's motion .  the head of the office of management and budget actually had the nerve to testify before the committee on the budget that over the last 3 years the veterans administration had received $ .5 billion more than it actually needed , more than it actually needed , when we have waiting lists which the gentleman outlined , when we have nursing and medical vacancies , when we have maintenance backlogs , when we have people waiting a year for an appointment for a dentist , and months and months for surgeries that are needed .  omb told the veterans that we have more than what was needed !  then the secretary of our veterans administration testified before committees of this congress that we got it wrong because we had a bad mathematical model .  we had a mathematical model that did not take into account the fact that there was a war going on and thousands of troops were coming back with significant injuries and with post-traumatic stress disorder .  we did not know a war was going on , so we underfunded the va .  that is an insult to our nation 's veterans , that we did not know a war was going on , and we did not provide the money .  many are suffering today as a result of that decision .  and , mr. speaker , when we had a chance to help the veterans before our last recess , the chairman of the committee on veterans ' affairs said , we can only give $ 975 million , that that was the right number , while the senate did $ 1.5 billion , which we are now instructing our house to accept today .  we could have had this money flowing to our veterans ' centers weeks ago .  this could have been signed by the president several weeks ago , yet in my hometown of san diego , we have 1 , 000 people on a waiting list just to have their first appointment .  we have maintenance backlogs and nursing shortages , and we can not get them the money because we did not have the right numbers , said the veterans chairman .  well , we had the right number all along , my colleagues .  the independent budget , a professional document prepared by our veterans ' service organizations , had the numbers exactly right .  the mathematical model could have been tested against this , and we could have had the proper support for our nation 's veterans .  so everybody who talked about our nation 's veterans when we had memorial day , when we had our july 4th celebrations , and we will hear it on november 11th as we have heard today , that we all support our veterans .  well , let us show it by the proper votes !  the democrats in this congress have tried at every level , on the committee on the budget , on the committee on appropriations , in the senate , in the house , and we tried on the floor of this house to give the independent budget numbers the force of law , but we were voted down on pure party-line votes .  so i hear that everybody supports our veterans , but when the votes come , the majority party is not supporting our nation 's veterans .  let us pass this instruction motion .  let us honor our veterans and give the veterans the support they need , especially when they come home from war .  
D	mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  mr. speaker , i am a bit confuzzled by the continuing argument of my colleague and friend on the committee on rules that his state is impacted by virtue of education formulas .  i do not disagree with what the gentleman says , but i find it interesting that the state of utah , while the gentleman from utah ( mr. bishop )  is arguing that they are not getting enough money for education , the state of utah legislature passed measures saying they do not want any federal money for education .  they need to make up their mind so we know what all they are doing out there .  
D	i urge my colleagues in the house to vote `` no '' on the previous question .  
D	mr. chairman , i regret that i was unavoidably detained .  had i been present , i would have voted `` no '' on rollcall no .  196 .  
D	mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time .  mr. speaker , i rise today in opposition to the rule and in strong opposition to what i consider a very bad bill .  this department of the interior appropriations bill as written is a direct assault against our nation 's environment , and it should be defeated .  i am particularly outraged that the bill completely zeros out the stateside grant program of the land and water conservation fund , a program that has been an enormous help to our local communities and the families who live in them .  the stateside land and water conservation fund has helped to preserve open space , slow urban sprawl , and give our children safe places to play .  it is a true partnership with federal grants requiring a full match from states and local communities .  it is a program that has worked , and it has worked well .  but this republican bill completely eliminates the program .  it zeros it out , walks away from our local communities .  the land and water conservation fund , lwcf , is based upon a simple concept : it takes revenues from offshore oil and gas drilling and invests them in our nation 's public land , letting states take the lead .  for 40 years this program has a proven track record and benefited from strong bipartisan support .  when congress decided to open the outercontinental shelf to oil drilling , we pledged to use some of its revenues for the public good .  with the goal of meeting the nation 's growing need for recreation sites , congress established the lwcf trust fund and agreed to reinvest an annual portion of ocs revenue into federal land acquisition and state-assistance development programs .  now even though lwcf takes in $ 900 million annually from oil and gas receipts , in recent years just a fraction of this funding has been used for its rightful purpose .  and today , the republican leadership has taken their pillaging a step further by completely eliminating the stateside program and using the money for something else .  this bill breaks our promise to the american people by not spending this funding the way we are supposed to .  in all , the stateside program has helped communities by funding 40 , 000 projects nationally , success stories that can be found in every state and in 98 percent of u.s. counties .  i urge my colleagues to ask their governors and their mayors and county commissioners if they want the stateside program to be eliminated .  if the answer is no , vote against this bill .  this cut is particularly harmful to our nation 's underserved areas .  in fact , in many low-income urban communities , the stateside grant program is responsible for virtually all parks .  this is about priorities , mr. speaker .  this bill demonstrates that for the republican leadership , tax breaks for the wealthy few are more precious than open space .  for this leadership , millionaires are more important than kids who need a safe place to play .  and for this leadership , lobbyists win and families lose .  we will hear the rhetoric from the other side claiming they did the best they could with what they had .  they will complain that the allocation given to the subcommittee just was not big enough .  they should save their crocodile tears because those same members voted for the budget that created those allocations .  they created this mess , and now the families of this country are paying the price .  i urge my colleagues to vote against this rule and reject this bad bill .  
R	i thank my good friend for yielding time .  mr. chairman , obviously we are here tonight to talk about just a commonsense issue in regards to this blending issue .  i , in fact , have been involved in the construction of and the management of wastewater treatment plants .  blending is used obviously in very high water times and i think that that is an issue that we have heard raised tonight .  we are not in any way trying to stop the issue of blending during the storm season , but the fact of the matter is , in 2003 there were more than 18 , 000 closings or advisories around the united states and that was 5 , 000 more than ever at any time before .  these closings were due to fecal coliform increases in bacterial levels outside of the norm .  the fact of the matter is it does not take a medical degree to understand that this is a health issue for our families and our children that are out there that are actually swimming sometimes in this waste .  in fact , we are looking at the blending of untreated solid free waste with treated sewage .  the clean water act already allows for that blending to take place .  as the gentleman from michigan says , we are not trying to change the last resort issue .  what we are trying to do is to set up an issue where we can not have these wastewater treatment plants continue to dump more less treated or smaller treated wastewater into our waterways .  
D	mr. chairman , on rollcall no .  196 , i was delayed in traffic .  had i been present , i would have voted `` aye. '' stated against : 
R	mr. speaker , on may 19 , 2005 , i was unable to be present for rollcall vote no .  190 , on ordering the previous question to provide for consideration of h.r. 2361 , making appropriations for the department of the interior , environment , and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 39 , 2006 and for other purposes .  had i been present i would have voted `` yea '' on rollcall vote no .  190 .  
D	mr. speaker , with that understanding , i withdraw my reservation of objection .  
D	yes , i am .  
D	mr. speaker , i will take only 1 minute .  the budget resolution passed earlier this year told the congress to find a way to meet the targets in that resolution , even if we had to gut the clean water program and to cut the stag grants .  what this motion says is that the committee ought to go back to the drawing board and find a way to meet these targets without cutting either the stag grants or the clean water revolving fund .  it would simply ask the committee to provide an additional $ 242 million to the clean water revolving fund and $ 110 million for state and tribal assistance grants , returning both programs to last year 's level .  
D	mr. speaker , i demand a recorded vote .  
D	mr. speaker , i offer a motion to instruct .  
D	mr. speaker , i yield myself 5 minutes .  mr. speaker , for the past 3 years , a number of us on this side of the aisle , including the gentleman from texas ( mr. edwards )  , myself and several others , have tried to bring the administration to the realization that we needed many more dollars in the veterans health care funds than , in fact , they requested each year .  and each year we have been able to drag them a little bit towards that goal , but we have not been able to drag them far enough .  as a result , we have heard many , many horror stories .  we have heard that thousands of patients have had to wait more than 3 months for appointments in california .  we have heard that in states like arkansas and oklahoma and mississippi and louisiana , the va has stopped scheduling appointments for many veterans who are eligible for care .  we have heard of 6-month delays in emergency surgery in oregon .  we have heard that facilities have had to erect scaffolding to protect patients and staff from falling bricks in maine .  we have heard that a medical center in vermont has major shortfalls in their prosthetics budget .  we have been told that doctors have had to pilfer supplies from neighboring hospitals to carry out routine procedures in illinois .  and we have been told that life safety improvements like replacing fire alarm systems have been postponed as the funds are used to cover operating expenses in states like california .  yet , in the face of stories like that , in april va secretary nicholson told the congress that no additional funds would be needed for fiscal year 2005 .  but by the end of june he had to admit that there was a big problem , and he then testified that an additional $ 975 million was needed .  two weeks later , the problem in their eyes got even bigger .  omb asked for yet another $ 300 million for fiscal year 2005 , so they are admitting a $ 1.3 billion shortfall right now ; and the numbers look worse for the coming fiscal year .  the va has already amended their $ 20 billion medical care budget request for an additional $ 1.7 billion , and that does not count the additional $ 500 million they are going to need , because i doubt that many members want to go along with the administration 's proposal to raise the veterans health care fees and co-op pays as has been suggested by the administration .  i would hope that by now every member realizes that we have a va health care crisis and we have to deal with it right now .  the other body did the right thing in the interior bill .  they provided $ 1.5 billion of emergency money for the va .  that would cover the immediate $ 975 million shortfall and provide an additional $ 525 million that could be distributed among the va regions to take care of the source of problems that each of us has been hearing about .  i would point out also that in my view some members of this house have paid a very high price for speaking out on behalf of our veterans .  we saw earlier this year news stories which reported the fact that the majority caucus not only removed from his chairmanship but removed from the committee itself the member on the other side of the aisle who chaired the committee in charge of veterans funding because he had been too insistent in agreeing with those of us on this side of the aisle who kept insisting that we needed more funding for veterans health care .  i would hope that it would be recognized that he was right , that we were right , not just about yesterday 's problems but about today 's and tomorrow 's with respect to this account .  so i would simply urge each and every member of this house to vote for this motion .  this money is going to be provided .  it is just a question of how many times we have to hit the house along side the head before , like a stubborn donkey , they finally recognize that something needs to be done .  reality is here .  it would be nice if we faced up to it .  i would hope this would receive the unanimous support of the members of the house .  mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
D	mr. speaker , how much time do we have remaining on each side ?  
D	mr. speaker , on that i demand the yeas and nays .  
D	mr. chairman , i reserve the balance of my time .  
D	mr. chairman , i demand a recorded vote , and pending that , i make the point of order that a quorum is not present .  
R	mr. speaker , on rollcall no .  190 i was traveling with the president in wisconsin .  had i been present , i would have voted `` yea . '' 
D	mr. chairman , no rollcall vote .  
R	yes , mr. speaker .  
R	mr. chairman , i move to strike the last word for the purposes of engaging in a colloquy with the gentleman from oklahoma ( mr. cole )  .  
R	mr. chairman , reclaiming my time , i understand the gentleman 's concerns and the unfortunate turn of events which caused this project to be delayed , and i will give the request of the gentleman from oklahoma ( mr. cole )  every possible consideration .  
R	mr. chairman , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  first i all i would like to read a letter from the assistant administrator of the environmental protection agency : `` dear chairman taylor : `` this is regarding the november 2003 draft blending policy which addresses the management of peak wet weather flows at municipal wastewater treatment facilities .  the draft policy received extensive public comment and has been the subject of considerable ongoing discussion and debate , including being the focus of a recent hearing before the house subcommittee on water resources and environment .  `` based on our review of all of the information received , we have no intention of finalizing the blending policy as proposed in november 2003 .  we continue to review policy and regulatory options to manage this issue. '' i think this letter is self-explanatory .  
R	mr. chairman , reclaiming my time , it is my understanding , but i would like to talk with the gentleman .  this is a new area , a new part of the committee , and i would like to work with him as we go on with the bill toward conference .  but that is my understanding .  
R	mr. chairman , reclaiming my time , i appreciate the gentleman 's activity .  we will work with him .  
R	mr. chairman , i raise a point of order .  we have an agreement .  i do not think we can strike the last word when we have a time agreement .  would the chairman rule on that and inform me ?  
R	mr. speaker , i rise in opposition to the motion to recommit , and i wish we did not have to have a rollcall vote .  this motion to recommit kills the bill by adding $ 352 million , and i oppose this motion .  
R	mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. speaker , i continue to reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. speaker , i thank the chairman of the subcommittee on interior , environment , and related agencies of the committee on appropriations for calling for this motion to instruct conferees , and i rise in support of that motion , and i thank him for his hard work and support on this issue .  mr. speaker , we have come to this point through a fairly long circuitous route this year .  there has been a number of different estimates as to what the actual needs of the veterans ' health administration are .  we conducted lengthy , extensive hearings , as did the authorizing committee , the committee on veterans ' affairs , and we have been receiving different information all the way along .  it is our best determination that the $ 1.5 billion figure will provide us the funds that we need to complete this fiscal year , the 2005 fiscal year , and the funds that are not utilized in 2005 will be available in 2006 .  we are also working with our senate counterparts to make sure that the 2006 figure is correct .  this has all been done with the very best intention of providing the veterans administration and our veterans with the resources they need to meet the demands of the patients of the hospitals of the veterans administration .  i think the secretary of veterans affairs , mr. nicholson , has an opportunity here as the new secretary .  and he did not develop the budget ; the budget was developed by his predecessor with the advice and counsel of the office of management and budget .  mr. nicholson now has an opportunity to make his impression on the veterans administration , and the key here is accountability .  making sure that the people who provide congress with the cost estimates to tell us how we can best serve our veterans and keep our promises , those individuals need to be accountable to the secretary of the veterans administration .  i know he is setting about doing that , and hopefully this difficult process that we have had this year will not be repeated .  i might add we have had estimates from the veterans service organizations in each of the 6 years that i have been chairman responsible for the appropriations for veterans affairs .  we have been right , and i think they have been wrong ; and this year their estimate was higher than ours .  who is closer , we will see at the end of the process .  but to cite the estimates this year , we need to reflect those against all of the preceding years , and i think by and large we have been on the money .  by the way , we have increased this veterans administration budget each year in the neighborhood of double digits .  no other budget within the federal government other than perhaps defense health has had those kinds of increases .  the house has the power of the purse .  we establish our priorities with that purse , and clearly the veterans administration is the priority of the house of representatives .  i stand on that record .  
R	mr. speaker , i just wanted to come to the floor and say the gentleman from washington is correct , all members of this body that i know , republicans and democrats , totally stand behind our veterans in giving them resources ; and that is the spirit with which we should approach this debate .  but i have to tell members , one thing we forget around here , money is one piece of it , and accountability is another .  i have to tell members that now that this is added to the interior bill , and that is where i serve , this is when i speak , that the va is still not accountable enough .  yes , we need this money ; but do not think for a minute that more money is the answer .  some of these needs are not being met because they are not accountable .  they are not efficient enough .  the va in my area is still not accountable enough , but we need this money .  to allege or assert in any way that the house republican leadership removed the gentleman from new jersey , let me tell members , i was there .  while i am not going to say what was said in the meeting of the steering committee , we hired the gentleman from indiana .  for all of the right reasons , we hired the gentleman from indiana as the chairman of the committee on veterans ' affairs because of what he is doing and we need to do in terms of reforms and accountability at the va .  it needs to be done .  on issues like homeland security and veterans , members can always say it is not enough money to try to appeal to people .  but we have to give them the money that they need when they need it for the purpose they need it and hold them accountable for better management .  this body does not exert enough oversight on how the money is being spent .  that is the truth , and it is especially true with the veterans affairs operation nationwide .  so , yes , let us give them the money ; but let us not just throw them the money and say , there , that is more money .  let us follow through with a much more scrutinized process of accountability at the va .  the va should have been moving money around 10 years ago to reform , to close the facilities they do not need , open new facilities , even contract so people can go to the best health care provider in their community to receive health care .  we have got to reform the va and give them more money , and i come to the floor today to say that the appropriations process can do that .  the chairman , the gentleman from new york ( mr. walsh )  , has done an outstanding job here , but surely the general public knows that members of congress support our veterans .  all members of congress that i know support our veterans with the necessary funds .  
D	mr. chairman , on rollcall no .  196 , had i been present , i would have voted `` aye . '' 
R	mr. speaker , on rollcall no .  190 i was inadvertently detained .  had i been present , i would have voted `` yea . '' 
D	madam speaker , i rise in opposition to h.r. 3283 , concerning trade with china .  i join with millions of american workers in saying no to this ill-conceived republican gift to the chinese government .  this bill does nothing to address the growing unfair trade gap between china and the united states -- an imbalance purchased with china 's exploitation of political prisoners , oppressive jail-like working conditions , child labor , and suppression of basic freedoms .  products made in china are cheap through the exploitation of the workforce .  every time we shop , we are driving the nail further into the coffin of american manufacturing jobs .  this bill does nothing to address artificially low prices .  it does nothing to stop manipulation of currency to drive the united states further into a trade imbalance .  it does nothing to save honest american workers from losing their jobs .  this bill weakens the ability of the united states to apply sanctions against china for unfair trade practices .  democrats have offered several much stronger proposals to deal with this issue , and the republicans have refused to let them come to the floor .  not a single one has been considered .  to help u.s. workers , farmers and businesses , and america 's long-term economic security , congress should take decisive action to bring about fair trade with china , instead of squandering this opportunity on a weak republican bill .  if congress wants to take real action , it should pass comprehensive legislation to end currency manipulation ; allow u.s. companies to challenge subsidized imports from china ; and fix china safeguard statute and other import remedies to protect u.s. manufacturers against surges and other unfair imports from china .  i support american workers in saying , let 's combat china 's unfair trade practices by providing us with the tools to save american jobs .  it is an insult to american workers that , in the same week that congress is considering cafta , it is bringing forth a weak china trade compromise bill .  this demonstrates the majority 's anti-worker agenda , that gives priority to chinese workers instead of american jobs .  
R	madam speaker , i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time .  i rise in strong support of h.r. 3283 , the united states trade rights enforcement act .  madam speaker , this bill goes to the heart of what we know is true in south carolina : china cheats .  i thank president bush and the administration for stepping up their trade enforcements this year , and i especially commend them for expediting the implementation of the chinese textile safeguards to combat recent surges in exports to our market , but when it comes to china , more must be done .  the united states trade rights enforcement act would provide the necessary tools to ensure china meets the trade obligations it has agreed to in order to become a member of the wto .  in addition , it holds in this legislation that china will be accountable .  it is common sense to say here is what they have agreed to , and if they do not follow through , there will be consequences .  how we deal with china today affects our future , our jobs and our livelihood .  that is why i urge all my colleagues to level the playing field for everybody and support h.r. 3283 .  
D	mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman from massachusetts for yielding me this time .  because the central american free trade agreement can not pass on its merits , its supporters are attempting a last-minute bid to win desperately needed votes later this evening , probably very late this evening , on the central american free trade agreement .  this bill before us purports to address the imbalanced trade relationship with china .  we all know it will not do that .  but what it is is just another cynical attempt to buy what is very well documented in this nation 's pro-free trade , pro-cafta media , very well documented in the media ; this is just another cynical attempt to buy votes on cafta , among other cynical attempts to buy votes on cafta .  this fails , as the gentleman from maryland ( mr. cardin )  said , as the gentleman from new jersey members of congress should be troubled that this bill has been introduced only in order to push through another trade priority .  we should not have to approve a job-killing trade deal with central america in order to get the chance to vote on a toothless china bill .  i will say that again : we should not have to approve a job-killing trade deal with central america in order to get a chance to vote on this toothless china bill .  there are no assurances even that the senate has plans to consider this half measure , and it is surely unlikely to ever become law .  aggressively counteracting china 's unfair trade practices should be a top trade priority .  the gentleman from michigan ( mr. levin )  and the gentleman from maryland ( mr. cardin )  , members of the committee on ways and means , they want it to be , but it should have nothing to do with cafta .  unfortunately , for the past 5 years , the administration has done nothing to curb china 's illegal trade activities .  it is always words over action .  in the past 5 years , our government has refused to enforce domestic trade laws with regard to china , failed to take advantage of wto mechanisms to challenge china 's violations of international trade rules , balked at taking any concrete action on china 's manipulation of its currency ; what i hear from my manufacturers in akron , in lorain , and in elyria almost every week .  our government has proposed eliminating funding for china enforcement activities and our government 's proposed congressional efforts to address china 's unfair trade practices through legislation .  this bill fails to resolve these problems .  instead of demanding action , it calls for more reports and more studies to tell us what we already know , that china is simply not playing fair .  congress may get only one chance , mr. speaker , to act on china trade this year .  wasting that opportunity on this ineffective bill is a betrayal of america 's working families , of our small manufacturers , and of our long-term economic security .  congress should not be fooled by this lose-lose proposition .  a toothless bill on china will not make cafta any better .  
D	mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman for yielding to me .  i just want to clarify the record .  the provision that we have in our legislation on china currency is to direct that a claim be brought within the wto , not inconsistent with the wto , so that we would use the dispute settlement resolution process within the wto , which is certainly within the rights that we have .  i just really wanted to clarify the record on currency manipulation .  
R	i thank the gentleman for yielding time .  madam speaker , before being elected to congress , i ran a manufacturing business that did a significant percentage of our sales outside the united states .  i have seen the opportunities of free trade and the global marketplace , and i have seen how those opportunities can lead to jobs right here at home .  we did business in over 100 countries , including countries like china .  i am convinced that china needs to be a strong trading partner with the united states long term .  but for china to successfully and fairly participate in the global marketplace , they must live up to their trade obligations .  they must respect and enforce intellectual property rights .  they must open market access for u.s. goods , services , and agriculture .  they must not manipulate their currency to distort trade .  the trade rights enforcement act offers a wide range of measures to ensure china abides by its international commitments .  madam speaker , with a level playing field , u.s. businesses can compete with anybody anywhere at any time .  with 96 percent of the world 's consumers outside the united states , the global marketplace holds great promise .  this bill is a strong tool to make sure china abides by the rules of free trade and puts u.s. businesses in a competitive position to take advantage of those opportunities .  i encourage all of my colleagues to support the trade rights enforcement act .  
R	mr. speaker , i yield myself 3 1/2 minutes .  mr. speaker , the argument from the other side of the aisle that this issue is somehow tied to cafta , i think , is particularly striking and particularly odd because the underlying bill that we are considering today should be on the consent calendar ; it should not be controversial with the bulk of people in this congress who care about the american economy .  mr. speaker , today the house has the opportunity to vote on a bill that will take the largest step toward strengthening our trade remedy laws in over 15 years .  this bill is a comprehensive approach towards eliminating many of the inequities that exist in our trading relationships , particularly our bilateral u.s.-china trade relationship .  it holds china and others accountable and creates tough mechanisms to ensure compliance with trade agreements and provides tools for us to gain compliance should our trading partners , particularly china , fail to do so .  voting for this bill today will send a strong signal to beijing that congress will not sit idly by while china 's mercantilist trade policy injures u.s. employers and costs us jobs .  voting for this bill today will send a strong signal to china and every country that this congress will do what it takes to ensure that our trading partners fully abide by the rules and are not rewarded with unfettered access to our market when they are not prepared to make the tough choices to follow the international rules .  it is clear that voting against this bill will send a very dangerous signal that this congress is willing to turn a blind eye to chinese complacency and we continue with the status quo of unfairness to our producers .  mr. speaker , this bill is a strong , responsible , and comprehensive initiative that would close an existing loophole that bars the use of the countervailing duty law against nonmarket economies such as china .  right now a major tool in our arsenal is unavailable in dealing with a nonmarket economy or communist countries .  it is ridiculous that when we find subsidies in france , japan , brazil , or taiwan , we can use countervailing duties to strip the benefits of those subsidies , but we can not do so if we find the same subsidies in china or vietnam .  this bill would establish a strong and external system to audit china 's compliance with trade obligations on intellectual property rights , market access , and transparency ; and it would place congress strongly on the record as opposing attempts to use the wto to water down domestic trade law protections .  it would require the treasury department to define currency manipulation and clarify legal protections against china and other countries that manipulate their currency .  it would increase funding for the united states trade representative to create more trade cops to improve enforcement of existing trade laws .  by replacing current bonds that are used by new shippers in antidumping cases with cash deposits , we are dealing with one of the biggest loopholes .  finally , it would authorize funding for the international trade commission .  mr. speaker , passage of this legislation is essential for the economic future of the next generation , for the future of good-paying jobs in places like northwestern pennsylvania where we make things for a living .  we need this legislation passed by a congress willing to come together , to put aside its political differences , and certainly not vote down this legislation merely for political positioning on another trade agreement .  mr. speaker , i urge passage of this key legislation .  this is the top trade vote of this year , and everyone will be counted on it .  mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	madam speaker , i yield myself 30 seconds .  first of all , the last speaker appears to have read the other party 's bill , not ours .  the democrats ' bill is actually weaker than our bill because it ignores a recommendation by the gao to authorize the commerce department to use third-country information in countervailing duty cases against china consistent with china 's wto accession commitment .  without this provision , the countervailing duty provision would be difficult to use and could be subject to endless court challenges .  they have simply misread this legislation and done it in an egregious way .  
R	madam speaker , is my understanding correct that the gentleman has only himself as the remaining speaker with 4 minutes ?  
R	madam speaker , i yield myself the balance of my time .  madam speaker , i would like , in this closing minute , to cut through the fog of process arguments and weird alice in wonderland illusions to linkage to other trade agreements .  this is important legislation , and it is important in itself , and it deals directly with key problems that we are having in our trade relations , particularly with china .  this legislation closes loopholes , not creates loopholes .  it allows us , for the first time , to apply countervailing duties to nonmarket economies .  that is a good thing .  i realize our friends on the other side of the aisle never engaged on the sos bill , the underlying core of this bill , nor cosponsored it .  i realize that they have been behind the curve on this .  we have to move today and put this on the calendar today so that we can move quickly to send a message to china that we are going to close the loopholes , that we are going to audit their compliance with their trade obligations , that we are going to oppose the wto watering down our domestic trade relations ; and we are determined to put more money into trade so that we can enforce these agreements .  if you care about china , if you care about trade , vote for this bill and avoid the petty partisan politics .  
R	mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time .  let me say i do not look particularly becoming in a fig leaf ; and the gentleman from new jersey , who is hanging his hat on the fig leaf that has been introduced by the other side , which is not taken seriously by anyone , does not look particularly becoming hanging back behind that either .  i would urge everyone who in this chamber is as concerned as i am about the problems of china trade to vote for this rule and to vote for this bill .  this bill should be allowed to move forward today .  it got 240 votes yesterday , and i thank all of those involved who have made it possible .  this , i believe , is the key trade vote of the year .  and contrary to the propaganda we have heard from elsewhere , it is not largely symbolic .  yet yesterday , over 270 of our colleagues from the other side of the aisle voted `` no. '' let me tell the members what the significance was of their vote .  they voted against extending countervailing duties to china and other nonmarket economies that we regularly apply to other market countries that we trade with .  they voted against closing the bond loophole under antidumping .  they voted against a comprehensive audit system for china , how they follow their trade obligations .  they voted against authorizing new funds for trade cops .  they also voted against clarifying congress 's opposition to efforts to water down our domestic trade law protections in the current wto rules negotiations .  and , finally , they voted against requiring the treasury to clarify its definition of currency manipulation in the context of the very modest change that the chinese have now put forward .  this is commonsense legislation .  it was intended as consensus legislation , and it certainly did not materialize out of nowhere because all of these components we have been familiar with for years .  it is just that the minority in the committee on ways and means never had much interest in issues like cvd before .  the rule underlying this debate is consistent with ways and means traditions , sought and supported by both parties when they were in the majority .  so this is not about stifling debate .  this is about moving a bill forward .  simply by offering silly process arguments like the other side did yesterday is not enough .  offering a fig leaf alternative , a bill dropped in the same day that we announced the consensus we had worked forward , is not enough .  the truth was blurted out , may i tell the members , mr. speaker , today in the hill magazine in which it quoted a spokesman for the committee on ways and means democrats as saying : `` the minority 's near unified opposition to the bill stemmed as much from its role in the cafta battle as from the strength of its content. '' this is all about cynicism .  this is all about politics being played by their side of the aisle .  they would rather stop a significant first step in dealing with china if it inconveniences their strategy on cafta .  in other words , they are more worried about dealing with another trade agreement , dealing with five countries whose combined economy is smaller than that of the czech republic , than dealing with the real problem and the real threat in beijing .  this is cynical .  this is outrageous .  and i urge all of my colleagues , including those intrepid democrats who supported us on this bill yesterday , to join with us to get it through today ; and if they want to vote `` no , '' let them do it .  that is democracy , but the voters will hold them accountable .  
D	madam speaker , i rise in opposition to h.r. 3283 on both process and policy grounds .  this legislation is on the floor this week simply to provide political cover for members who vote for the flawed central american free trade agreement .  the consideration of this bill is not a real attempt to react to chinese currency manipulation , trade barriers and state-sponsored subsidies .  it is merely an empty , rhetorical response to our valid concerns about china 's ability to utilize cafta to circumvent u.s. trade laws .  the bill 's title -- the u.s. trade rights enforcement act -- is , at best , a misnomer , because it actually prevents our country from enforcing its trade rights .  while the bill purports to apply u.s. countervailing duty law to china , it contains three glaring loopholes that strip us from any ability to enforce that law .  first , the bill limits our use of third-party data when investigating chinese subsidies in anti-dumping cases .  the effect of this provision is to force us to use china 's own data in these cases , even though we 've learned time and again that china does not play fair in the global trade market .  the bill also exempts chinese domestic subsidies when industries file both anti-dumping and countervailing duty cases .  this provision essentially applies a more lenient standard to non-market economies than to market economies under u.s. anti-dumping and cvd law .  let me remind my colleagues that our goal here is to get tough on china , not give them a free pass while holding our friends with market economies to a tougher standard .  the bill also imposes extra burdens on the u.s. that raises serious issues with regard to both sovereignty and separation of powers .  the bill would direct the commerce department to essentially pre-clear the application of u.s. law to ensure consistency with the wto .  while every other u.s. law is deemed wto-compliant unless and until the wto rules otherwise , this bill makes our actions toward china jump through extra international hoops before it can ever be applied .  even worse -- for the first time ever -- the bill would give the commerce department the power to align u.s. law with the wto , without action from congress .  article i , section 8 of the u.s. constitution gives the congress -- not the executive branch -- the sole responsibility for the regulation of foreign commerce .  this provision is a serious infringement on the power of the legislative branch and strips the congress of much , if not all , authority to deal with our country 's trade concerns with china .  i urge my colleagues not to fall for the majority 's empty rhetoric .  this bill will do nothing to help our trade problems with china and is a thinly-veiled diversionary tactic to shore up votes for the flawed cafta agreement .  look beyond the majority 's smoke and mirrors , and vote against this ill-timed and ill-conceived legislation .  
R	madam speaker , i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time .  i rise in support of this bill , and i am mystified by the opposition on the other side of the aisle .  it appears that partisan politics trumps good business .  it appears that partisan politics trumps their interest in american manufacturers .  foreign subsidies products exported to the united states continue to cause extreme financial hardship for these manufacturers .  while rules exist to provide countervailing duties on such products , rules do not take into account the advantages enjoyed by nonmarket economies like china .  because china is such a major global trader , china 's undervalued fixed-exchange rate has exacerbated significant imbalances between trading partners .  under china 's fixed-exchange rate , the u.s. annual bilateral trade deficit accelerated since 2001 , reaching $ 162 billion in 2004 .  while u.s. exports to china increase , its undervalued currency has burdened u.s. manufacturers , restricted market opportunities for exporting our products into china .  meeting with businesses in my district , the three main complaints i have heard from my district regarding china have been piracy of product , the dumping of products on our market , and the currency pegging issue .  i believe that we need to support this legislation , reject the democrat bill , which does not address these issues .  
R	madam speaker , perhaps it is the eternal lament of a minority within a legislative body to focus constantly on process and to share their frustrations with process .  but perhaps it is better to focus on policy and what this legislation , which i support , will do .  the 40th president of the united states , the late ronald wilson reagan , enshrined these three words as part of american policy : trust but verify .  the legislation on the floor today deals with verification .  i say as one who opposed a trading agreement with china that this legislation brings the monitoring capacity necessary to understand what happens in international trade .  simply stated , madam speaker , if you want to get in the game , play by the rules .  while we have seen all sorts of counterfeiting and theft of american intellectual property , this legislation takes steps to put that to a stop and to monitor the behavior .  trust but verify .  vote `` yes '' on this legislation .  
R	madam speaker , i believe it is critical that we seek out abuses in existing agreements , and reform such laws that are detrimental to u.s. producers .  such is currently the case with unfair honey imports from china .  in my northern california congressional district , honey and honeybees play a critical role in pollinating many of our important export crops , including almonds .  because chinese `` new shippers '' are allowed to circumvent antidumping orders by posting bonds , the honey industry in california and nationwide faces serious and continuing price declines , making it difficult for honey producers to provide bees for pollination .  this bill would suspend the bonding privilege for a three-year period .  madam speaker , i would like to thank my colleagues , representative english , chairman shaw and chairman thomas for their work on this matter .  
R	madam speaker , i rise in strong support of h.r. 3283 .  as one who advocated china 's entry into the wto , i am concerned and disappointed with china 's passage of a law on government procurement that incorporates strong preferences for domestic goods and services , fostering discrimination against , for example , software companies that have made a substantial commitment to the development of the chinese software industry .  the combined effect of rampant software piracy and the proposed discriminatory government procurement regulations will create a nearly impenetrable barrier to u.s. software .  this at a time when the trade deficit with china is at an all-time high .  madam speaker , i call on the chinese government to immediately enter into negotiations to accede to the agreement on government procurement of the wto as they committed to 3 years ago and to suspend the implementation of its law on government procurement .  i urge my colleagues to vote overwhelmingly for this bill to send a very strong message to china on all the fronts the bill covers , not the least of which is government procurement .  we have the chance to send a strong message and take strong action , and this bill will do it .  
D	i thank the gentleman from new york for yielding me this time .  madam speaker , we have been here before .  congress has often resorted to bills and memoranda of understanding concerning china .  but the u.s. trade deficit with china has continued to increase .  so i am not going to stand here and argue process .  we can look at the history and the fact of the whole architecture of agreements that we have had with china , memoranda of understanding , concerns that members of congress from both sides of the aisle brought to this floor in order to try to manage united states trade with china .  remember we were told that a memorandum of understanding on prison labor with china would remove their competitive advantage and restore balanced trade .  but the u.s. trade deficit with china worsened .  remember the agreement to reaffirm the 1992 market access memorandum of understanding .  we passed that , but the u.s. trade deficit with china grew worse .  remember china 's agreement to lower tariffs on imports .  they cut the tariffs from 42 percent to 23 percent , then to 17 percent , then to 12 percent .  but the u.s. trade deficit with china got worse .  remember china stopped arbitrary limits on maintaining agricultural imports .  that was supposed to be a boon for the united states .  but the u.s. trade deficit with china got worse .  that is exactly the story that we see with nafta and the wto and , this week , cafta .  why does the u.s. trade deficit with china keep getting worse no matter what we do ?  no matter what our best intentions are ?  the u.s. trade deficit with china keeps getting worse because labor costs in china are so much cheaper .  hello ?  wake up , america .  we are giving away our jobs here , and the central issue is the cheap labor in china .  you can pass all of these agreements you want .  they are not going to amount to a hill of beans , because the fact of the matter is that the u.s. trade deficit in china will continue to grow , it will approach $ 200 billion , as long as the labor costs are cheaper .  that is why we are losing jobs .  that is why the trade deficit is growing .  that is why we are losing market share .  with all due respect to my good friend from pennsylvania , i do not see this bill amounting to anything .  vote against it .  
D	mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman very much for his excellent statement .  
D	mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman very much for his eloquent statement .  mr. speaker , i have had the opportunity tonight to listen to an hour that was presided over by my colleague on the committee on ways and means on the majority side , the gentleman from ohio ( mr. turner )  , and his fellow republicans and the statements of my colleagues on the democratic side .  it has been refreshing in this sense , that we have talked about the issues .  i very much disagree with the statements of the gentleman from ohio ( mr. turner )  and others , and i will get to that ; but at least we have been talking about issues .  in the last few days , when it comes to cafta , that is not what the administration or the republican majority have been doing .  instead , we have learned about a number of deals that have been cut , one of them relating to dams and locks in return for a vote ; or if not in return , that being taken into account if the vote was cast .  we have heard the administration make statements regarding fabrics , regarding apparel and textiles .  they have made commitments that they can not on their own keep .  and if history is any judge , they are unlikely to do so .  they have made a commitment , for example , regarding pockets and linings , essentially reopening the agreement , saying that they are going to secure that change .  however , the truth of the matter is it would take action by this congress to do that , and not under fast track ; and also there would have to be agreement by the six dr-cafta countries .  regarding a provision of concern to nicaragua , the administration has made some statement that nicaragua will more or less back off .  however , it is only for nicaragua to make that statement .  and then there has been the same process regarding sugar in order to try to win some votes from people who object to the provisions on sugar .  there have been statements about some adjustments that will be made or some further actions that will be taken .  again , they are not in the agreement .  there is nothing that this administration can really say that it can be assured of producing .  oh , and then i guess it was today i read about discussions relating to agricultural shipments to cuba and some bargaining back and forth between some of the members of this congress and the administration regarding that .  so while i very much disagree with the statements in almost every case made by the majority regarding cafta , in a way they were talking about issues and they were not talking about bait being offered for people to cast their vote .  i want to talk about what is really , as i see it , and my colleagues in so many cases see it , as the overriding issue .  why are so many of us who have worked for expanded trade , who have helped to shape trade agreements opposed to this agreement ?  there are economic aspects , and one can argue them various ways .  i suggest that they be kept to the economic data in perspective .  one estimate is that in terms of gdp , the impact of cafta on the u.s. would be less than one-fifth of 1 percent .  as to central american countries , there is evidence on all sides of the issue , including dislocation , that would occur .  but , again , i want to talk about the larger issue , and that is where globalization is today and where it is going .  because here at cafta , globalization is at a crossroads , and that is why so many of us who have worked for expanded trade feel that we needed to take a hard look to judge whether this agreement was going to shape globalization so , as was put by president clinton some years ago , it would level up , not level down .  i think the basic assumption of many proponents of cafta is , well , that does not really matter because trade is win-win ; that there is no possible loss ; that trade inevitably works out for everybody 's benefit .  but for those of us who , i say , have worked and often worked very hard and successfully to shape expanded trade the right way , we believe this does it the wrong way ; that you need to shape trade agreements so it is not a race to the bottom .  and that is why the issues relating to worker rights are so important .  that is what this basic issue is really all about .  this is why central america , dominican republic and cafta , matter so much in terms of where trade is going .  regarding the cafta countries , we are now talking about countries in a region that has , latin america , the worst income distribution of any region in the world .  we are talking about within most of the countries immense maldistribution of income .  we are talking about immense poverty .  there is a weak middle class in most of the countries .  it was interesting to read a wall street journal article just a week ago .  the headline was : `` in latin america , rich-poor chasm stifles growth , '' and i quote : `` because of an abundance of natural resources and a large indigenous population , latin american nations group up relying on raw materials , cheap manual labor to exploit them , and low government taxation .  the system concentrated land ownership and wealth in a few hands , deprived governments of money to spend on education and other incentives , and essentially ordered the incentives for the elite to invest not in human capital or technology .  latin america has also historically relied on monopolies and franchises , leaving few opportunities for entrepreneurs to advance through hard work and innovation. '' if you look at the history of trade agreements , there has been an effort to begin to have them relate to workers , to take into account the capital of workers as well as financial capital .  and so in recent years , we had agreements , jordan , cambodia , which essentially said to countries : look , take steps to make sure that workers have their basic rights .  we are not talking about the laws of the united states ; we are talking about the five core internationally recognized rights : no child labor , also no forced labor , no discrimination in the workplace , and also , so importantly , the rights of workers to associate and to organize .  and what has happened is that this agreement is a step backwards from where we were going , a step backwards from jordan , a step backwards from the cambodia experiment , and also a step backwards from cbi and the second cbi , and what is called the `` generalized system of preferences. '' what this agreement says to a country when it comes to these basic rights of workers is , enforce your own laws , no matter what they are , no matter how bad they are .  that is the standard : enforce your own laws .  that standard is not used in any other part of the agreement , whether it is intellectual properties or investments or tariffs or subsidies .  here it is : enforce your own laws .  there has been an effort to obscure what the reality is on the ground in central america , but state department reports make it clear , the ilo reports make it also very clear .  there is a recent report of ustr itself that it was required to give to congress .  that report also makes it clear .  in reality , workers do not have the ability to exercise internationally recognized rights .  when they want to associate , essentially there can be action by the employer with impunity .  in some cases all they have to do , if they fire workers who want to form a union , all they have to do is pay severance pay .  that is the reality on the ground , and there are so many cases that prove it .  in a special order that i took on some weeks ago , i spelled out one example in el salvador .  why does this matter ?  why is it important that workers in central america have their basic internationally recognized rights ?  here is why it matters .  in these countries with immense poverty , in these countries with terrible maldistribution of income , in these countries with weak middle classes , if workers can not exercise their rights , they are going to remain poor .  their countries are going to remain without the middle classes that they so badly need .  our workers are going to have to compete with workers whose rights are suppressed , and our workers are saying , no , they do not want to do that .  and our companies and their workers are not going to have middles classes in central america that can buy their goods .  so i want to say a few more words about the implications of all this .  there has been talk about security and stability .  i want to say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle , what undermines stability and security is when people are impoverished , when people have no opportunity to climb up the ladder to the middle class .  this was also in the wall street journal , i read a letter to the editor by rutilio martinez , who is a professor in colorado , and he was responding to an article about chavez in venezuela , and he is very much opposed to the chavez regime .  he concluded , `` the rest of latin america , from mexico to argentina , should take notice what is happening in venezuela and do something to improve their horrible distribution of wealth , otherwise soon there will be very many venezuelas in this poverty-ridden but resource-rich region. '' a major threat to security in central american countries is terrible income distribution .  it is also the absence of strong middle classes and the presence of immense poverty .  there was talk about certain groups in central america opposing this agreement .  i just urge everybody to listen also to bishops who are there with their flock in central america .  i read from a recent joint statement concerning the central american free trade agreement by the bishops ' secretariat of central america and the chairman of the domestic and international policy committees of the u.s. conference of catholic bishops .  `` in light of a recent visit to washington , d.c. , 23-24 june , 2004 , by a delegation of six bishops representing the church in central america , the bishops ' secretariat of central america and the chairman of domestic and international policy committees of the united states conference of bishops wish to express with one voice our observations and concerns about the u.s.-central american free trade agreement. '' i quote from just one of their concerns .  this is in subsection 3. `` many have claimed that cafta will lead to a significant increase in jobs .  however , these jobs could principally be in assembly plants , maquilas , which mainly employ women , and which offer an unstable form of employment .  without proper worker protections , we know from our own experience that this type of employment will not foster authentic human development. '' it is said by some defenders of this agreement that the problem is not in the laws , it is enforcement .  first of all , that is not true about the laws .  no matter how much you put into enforcement , if the laws are inadequate , it will not work .  but also this administration is really not candid about its claims about money for enforcement .  it cut moneys for the entity within the department of labor that deals with capacity-building of labor departments of other countries .  it proposed cuts of 87 percent , and now it is being suggested that some of that money be put back .  the record of this administration in terms of trying to bolster enforcement is abysmal .  they are now coming forth and saying , well , we will reform , so support cafta .  the laws do not measure up to international standards .  as i saw a few years ago in central america in the maquilas in three of the countries , there are no rights of workers on the ground in reality .  they are working for 75 cents an hour , maybe a buck , mostly young women in the maquilas , many with children , sole supporter of their children .  as soon as they tried to have a voice in the workplace , a voice at work , that voice is kicked out , is snuffed out by their discharge .  let me make just a few comments .  someone said , well , there are 44 million people , and they can not buy high-end goods .  that is not the issue at all .  let me just read quickly from an article that is going to be published in the sister city news , `` dos pueblos : the new york-tipitapa nicaragua sister city project. '' dos pueblos is a nonprofit organization that began way back in 1987 .  they went to nicaragua just recently and reported back , `` the salaries they receive , however , are covering fewer and fewer of their families ' basic needs .  while the minimum salary in 2003 covered 49.2 percent of the basic food basket , 53 products identified as necessary to feed a family of four for a month , the minimum pay in 2005 is only covering 26 percent of these costs. '' so it is not a question of buying a cadillac , it is a question of buying food .  mr. speaker , it is tragic that this administration has handled trade and shattered the bipartisan foundation for trade that is so necessary , that is so vital that a number of us have wanted to help reestablish in this country .  they have shattered that foundation .  now they are going to come here on this floor in just a few days , and what they are apparently going to try to do once again , instead of getting 250 to 300 votes on a truly bipartisan basis , they are going to essentially , headstrong , i think head-in-the-sand in terms of good trade policy , see if they can squeeze out a victory by one or two votes .  that will not happen .  if it did , it would be a defeat for the bipartisan foundation so essential for trade policy .  it would be a defeat for the people of central america , the workers there , for their countries that so badly need the development of a middle class , people moving up the ladder .  it will be bad for our workers who refuse to compete against workers whose rights are so badly suppressed , and it will be bad for our companies who need middle classes to sell to .  in closing , the gentleman from ohio ( mr. turner )  said at the very end that people supported morocco , people supported jordan , i did , because in those countries the rights , the internationally recognized rights of workers were in place , so enforce your own laws , there were laws to implement .  there were conditions that were worthy of international respect .  that is not true in cafta .  it is not true in central america .  we need to renegotiate .  i am in favor of a cafta .  so are others of my colleagues who have worked with me and who are leading this effort to make sure that cafta is defeated and we go back to the table and address these basic issues .  globalization is here to stay .  the question is whether globalization is going to have its benefits spread , or essentially they are going to be distributed only to a minority .  if that continues to happen in latin america , we are going to see more people voting with their feet , or voting at the ballot box as they have been doing .  people want a share of globalization .  they want a stake in globalization .  in order to have that , they have to have a voice in the workplace .  so that is what this is all about .  there are other issues , but there is this larger issue .  there is a test here , a test presented by the cafta agreement .  this administration flunked the test , and now they are just charging ahead hoping to capture a narrow victory .  it will not happen .  it will be a defeat .  i urge we defeat cafta as negotiated and return to the table , which we can do , and refinish this agreement in about a month .  in that way we can proudly say we met the challenges of globalization in this case in the year 2005 .  
D	mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  the gentleman from florida just commended the gentleman from pennsylvania for being the author of the bill .  this is the bill that the gentleman from pennsylvania introduced , and then , mysteriously , this is the bill that came out of nowhere out of the committee on ways and means , no hearings , no markup , nothing .  so we are talking about two different pieces of legislation .  this bill that mysteriously has appeared before us weakens the countervailing duty section .  it makes this bill that the gentleman from pennsylvania introduced originally worse .  so that is what we are concerned about here .  
D	mr. speaker , on that i demand the yeas and nays .  
D	mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman for yielding to me .  mr. speaker , earlier this evening we heard an hour debate of why congress and the american people should support cafta .  and to the gentleman from michigan ( mr. levin )  i would like to say , as paul harvey would say , now the rest of the story .  i want to thank my good friend , the gentleman from michigan ( mr. levin )  , a distinguished member of the committee on ways and means .  he has been a remarkable advocate for issues affecting working families .  this week the house is expected to vote on a trade agreement that only promises job losses and devastation .  mr. speaker , i rise tonight in strong opposition to cafta .  i rise tonight for all mainers who have lost their jobs .  i rise for all working americans and their families , many who are still working at this late hour to help make ends meet .  and i know what it is like myself .  for almost 30 years i worked at great northern paper company in east millinocket , maine , where my father worked for 43 years , my grandfather before him for 40 years .  and that is the way it is in a lot of mill towns in maine and all across the country .  two days after i was sworn in as a member of congress in january of 2003 , i learned that the mill where i worked filed bankruptcy and was shutting its doors .  the mill was closed largely due to the pressure created by unfair trade agreements , years of poorly thought-out trade deals that placed manufacturing industries at a huge disadvantage .  and one would only have to look at the huge trade deficits that are continuing to grow ever since nafta went into effect .  i know firsthand , as many mainers do , that with these layoffs and closures , when these businesses go under because of unfair trade deals , so does the heart and souls of these communities .  in maine alone , since 1998 and to late 2004 , the federal government had documented 11 , 724 workers who lost their job due to trade .  although the real undocumented number is much higher , it has been estimated that 24 , 000 mainers have lost their jobs due to nafta alone .  the number serves to demonstrate yet again what people in maine already know through our own tough experience .  the economy continues to struggle and our workers see fewer good prospects .  maine has lost 23 percent of our manufacturing base over the last 3 years alone .  now , i heard my colleague who supported cafta earlier talk about the unemployment going down .  well , i can say my first year in congress we had labor market areas in maine whose unemployment rate was over 35 percent .  and the reason why the number is lower today is not because they have found jobs , it is because this congress , the previous congress , has failed to extend the unemployment benefits , so they are no longer counted as being unemployed .  they just drop off the list .  we are sick of watching our jobs get shipped overseas as our workers stand waving good-bye to them .  it is time to get off the fast track of lost jobs and shattered dreams and on to the right track for fair trade agreements .  when it comes to cafta , the benefit is pretty hard to find .  despite having 44 million inhabitants , the cafta nations ' total purchasing power is the same as new haven , connecticut .  more than 40 percent of the central american workers work for less than $ 2 a day .  cafta outsources our jobs to cheap labor markets with almost nonexisting environmental or labor standards .  how could such a bad deal for our workers pass ?  in recent days , the administration authorized house leadership to secure votes with whatever is at hand , from extra funding , as you heard earlier , for individual members ' districts in the highway projects and energy bill , to the still incomplete appropriations bills .  members are being asked to trade away their votes for agreements that trade american jobs away .  this is just unbelievable .  tomorrow , the house is expected to vote on h.r. 3283 , the so-called united states trade rights enforcement act .  this bill does nothing to effectively address china 's unfair trade practices and their adverse impact on u.s. workers and manufacturers and the nation 's economy .  in fact , it makes it harder to stop unfair chinese trade practices .  but it has a good-sounding title .  this bill is an effort to sway votes for cafta , giving members a fig leaf to hide behind so they can say they are standing up against unfair trade agreements .  it is nothing but smoke and mirrors .  smoke and mirrors .  two years ago , these tactics worked to pass the deeply flawed medicare bill by one vote .  leadership held open a 15-minute vote for 3 hours while they twisted arms in order to ensure passage .  it is expected the same will happen with the cafta vote .  is this the way the people of the house should be acting ?  is this in the best interest of our nation ?  what message does this send the american people and our workforce and our businesses ?  and why must these votes always happen in the dark of night ?  it is because while working americans sleep , their jobs are being traded away .  mr. speaker , all americans who are watching tonight should check for themselves .  they should pay close attention to what time the cafta vote happens .  they should ask themselves why under such cover of darkness should we be voting .  it is said that midnight is the witching hour .  americans should wonder what kind of witchcraft is being passed on the house floor as we consider cafta in the dead of night .  the administration may want this deal to pass as quickly as possible before more opposition mounts , but the people who have suffered the most under our trade policies , including many of my neighbors , my coworkers and my family , and many of the good people in maine have earned the right to ask a simple question about what a new trade deal will mean to their families and get some real answers before we move forward .  one of the things i hear a lot of people say is that large stable companies , like great northern was , where i worked for over 30 years , will never move overseas because it is too costly .  i can tell my colleagues firsthand that the mill i worked at had six paper machines .  they uplifted four of them and shipped them overseas .  the mill in millinocket , the great northern paper company 's other mill , did the same thing .  it is nothing for large corporations to unbolt their machines and ship them overseas so they can get that cheap labor .  we heard earlier that in some of these cafta countries labor is less than $ 2 a day .  that is exploiting workers .  it is not to benefit the cafta nations .  it definitely will not benefit the united states of america .  so i hope members on both sides of the aisle will take a good hard look at this trade policy because we can not sell-out the american workers .  we can not sell out the american dream that we have .  we must reverse these trade policies to once again put the united states of america on the path of growth .  the only way we are going to be a secure country , the only way we are going to be able to be respected among other nations , like we have in the past , is to make sure that we have a strong economy .  when we look at what happened during world war ii , what made this country the greatest country in the world , with our greatest generation , was the ability for americans back home to work in our manufacturing industry , to work hand in hand .  but what are we going to do if we continue to ship these jobs overseas ?  it is going to weaken the united states ' ability to be the number one leader as far as our national defense .  we must vote this cafta deal down , regardless of what time in the morning it comes up and regardless of how long the leadership holds the vote open .  we must do what is right , and what is right is fair trade agreements .  
R	madam speaker , this is one of many bills we need to pass that deal with china and its continued policy of government support , pegging of its currency , not complying with trade laws .  they have significantly lower wages , sometimes slave wages , in their plants .  over 90 percent of their steel production comes from government-owned steel mills .  their steel enjoys millions of dollars in government subsidies .  china limits foreign participation in the wireless market by imposing severe regulatory requirements on telecommunications imports .  the lack of intellectual property rights enforcement has resulted in epidemic levels of counterfeiting and piracy , causing serious harm to u.s. businesses .  the implementation of questionable health standards affects what they will import from our agriculture .  their policies mandate the purchase of chinese-owned software .  they have a value-added tax on all non-chinese semiconductors , which also hampers american manufacturers ' ability to export to them .  these unfair chinese policies are hurting all american businesses , not just a few , and impact workers here .  only a strong american commitment to hold china accountable will bring about the changes necessary .  consideration of this bill is an important part of what we need to be doing in an extensive selection of things to hit back on china .  
D	madam speaker , let me thank the gentleman from new york for yielding me this time .  madam speaker , this legislation in front of us today as it relates to china is about one thing and one thing only : providing political cover for those who are reluctant to embrace cafta .  that is all this is about .  it is about outing cafta .  the majority realizes if they simply put cafta on the floor , they do not have even the muscle in this instance to put this legislation through .  so what are we doing instead ?  we are offering a veneer to the american people , a ruse , as it relates to the problems we are having with our trade practices in china .  is there anybody who believes that this is about to alter our trading practices with china ?  we all know it is badly out of balance .  and this legislation makes the problem worse .  currency manipulation in this legislation , no action .  dealing with chinese trade barriers in this legislation , no action .  we are going to monitor and study .  i think that if they put a study in front of this house , we all ought to take a test on it in 2 years .  sit down and we will all pay attention to the test that they offer .  imagine in a serious issue like this , we are going to ask for studies .  safeguards , no action .  subsidies , they create more loopholes than they address .  on customs duties , they have a 3-year , but listen to this , temporary measure to deal with the issue .  this is a sloppy bill .  it is going to do more harm than good .  when it is over , the professors will have their jobs , the trade lawyers will have their jobs , the editorial writers across the country will have their jobs ; but the men and women of organized labor who call this for what it is , they know that their jobs are at risk and they are opposed to this legislation .  it guts trade laws , and it gives more power to wto .  it purports to help solve problems with customs enforcement .  it makes them worse .  it does not require china to make meaningful changes to its policy of currency manipulation .  how much more emphasis can we put on that issue in this institution ?  we need to recalibrate our trading relationship with china .  this will not do it , and everybody knows it .  an emphasis on that term , recalibrate our trading relationship with china .  when we get done with this legislation today , and there is some question as to whether or not they can pass it , i am just going to close on this note .  we have a highly regarded regular order in this institution of the responsibilities of the committee on ways and means , the committee that many members of this institution desire to be on .  you do not go around the committee the way this is being done .  you go through the committee .  you have hearings with a respected tradition in this house of representatives for the committee on ways and means .  you do not do this through the back door .  
D	mr. speaker , the gig is up .  on both sides of the aisle , regardless of how trade bills , and this is trade day , i guess , on the floor of the house , regardless of how these bills go up or down , the american public knows who is exposing and who is extending and who is sending jobs overseas .  both parties .  we have had two administrations now that have given the store away , one democrat and one republican administration , and you come on this floor and want us to believe that you are going to pass this legislation and teach china a lesson .  i rise , and i rise to oppose this fig leaf , which is pathetic .  the majority is using this fig leaf to cover the growing crisis of our trade relationship with china years after the horse is out of the barn .  china is obviously not playing by the rules .  you tell me whether they are or they are not .  the american people want to know where you stand .  they want to know in your district where they stand .  it has nothing to do with democrat and republican .  the resulting imbalance is destroying family wage production jobs here in this united states .  this bill does not contain the answers .  it should be defeated again .  that it is even being considered on this floor to buy a few votes is an embarrassment to the house of representatives .  let us look at the facts .  let us look at the data .  our trade deficit with china is rapidly growing .  it reached $ 162 billion last year .  it was $ 16 billion in the month of may alone .  china is buying huge chunks of our nation 's growing debt .  do you know how much debt china owns of ours ?  is that not embarrassing enough ?  human rights abuses continue to be a problem in china .  people from both sides of the aisle have stated on the record what those abuses are .  they are not hidden .  they are exposed .  yet god knows what we do not know .  china continues its piracy of u.s. goods and products unabated .  unabated .  many factories in china still utilize child and prison labor .  we can not even get in to see what is going on in those factories .  china has only made a minor change in disconnecting its currency from the dollar .  another fig leaf .  it is on the front page of the financial times and the wall street journal and the new york times .  who are those trade people kidding ?  they are not kidding the american people at all .  our nation 's manufacturing sector and the manufacturing capability throughout the world is being decimated by china 's use of these low-wage , no-regulation , nonmarket conditions .  this free trade gig is up .  it is exposed .  just today , 9 : 30 this morning , i can report to the congress of the united states in new jersey where the u.s. chamber of commerce has said , we are going to gain all of these jobs from this trade , we are going to gain all of these jobs from cafta .  we did a survey of 180 small new jersey manufacturers .  one hundred four small manufacturing business owners told us they did not think cafta would have any impact on their business .  one-quarter of the entire sample told us that cafta would have a negative impact and lead to job losses , and they were willing to document it .  we will bring that up for another debate .  i ask you , taking such minor action today like this bill and the resolution condemning the unocal bid , ho-ho-ho .  and the majority thinks it can show american manufacturers and american workers that it is concerned about china at this stage ?  you are not fooling anybody .  this is a fig leaf , mr. speaker .  
D	mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time .  mr. speaker , i am very disturbed that the gentleman from pennsylvania , the last speaker , has introduced partisanship in this .  i chastised both administrations , democrat and republican , as giving away the kitchen sink .  we gave it away .  we gave it away in the free china deal .  we gave up article i , section 8 of the constitution , what we learn in the eighth grade : commerce belongs in the house of representatives , not on the president 's desk .  and , second of all , the jobs that we have gained and the jobs that we have lost in our dealings with china make very interesting reading because we have lost high-wage jobs , and we have gained those jobs that pay far less .  look at the data .  
R	madam speaker , i rise in strong opposition to this legislation .  is n't it ironic that the proponents of `` free trade agreements '' like cafta are lining up squarely behind a bill like this that threatens a trade war with china , and at the least calls for the united states to initiate protectionist measures such as punitive tariffs against `` subsidized '' sectors of the chinese economy ?  in reality , this bill , which appeared out of the blue on the house floor as a suspension bill , is part of a deal made with several members in return for a few votes on cafta .  that is why it is ironic : to get to `` free trade '' with central america we first need to pass protectionist legislation regarding china .  madam speaker , in addition to the irony of the protectionist flavor of this bill , let me say that we should be careful what we demand of the chinese government .  take the demand that the government `` revalue '' its currency , for example .  first , there is sufficient precedent to suggest that doing this would have very little effect on china 's trade surplus with the united states .  as barron 's magazine pointed out recently , `` the japanese yen 's value has more than tripled since the breakdown of the bretton woods system , yet japan 's trade surplus remains huge .  why should the unpegging of the chinese yuan have any greater impact ?  `` as was pointed out in the wall street journal recently , with the yuan tied to several foreign currencies and the value of the dollar dropping , china could be less inclined to purchase dollars as a way of keeping the yuan down .  fewer treasury bond purchases by china , in turn , would drive bond prices down and boost yields -- which , subsequently , would cause borrowing costs for residential and some corporate customers to increase .  does anyone want to guess what a sudden burst of the real estate bubble might mean for the shaky u.s. economy ?  this is not an argument for the status quo , however , but rather an observation that there are often unforeseen consequences when we demand that foreign governments manipulate their currency to u.s. `` advantage. '' at the very least , american consumers will feel the strengthening of the yuan in the form of higher u.s. retail prices .  this will disproportionately affect americans of lower incomes and , as a consequence , slow the economy and increase the hardship of those struggling to get by .  is this why our constituents have sent us here ?  in conclusion , i strongly oppose this ill-considered and potentially destructive bill , and i hope my colleagues will join me in rejecting it .  
D	mr. speaker , i commend my colleagues who have just completed their hour discussing on the house floor tonight why we should enact cafta .  clearly , they were sincere , yet the arguments discussed essentially have been the same arguments advanced for why these negotiations even began now 2 years , 18 months ago , certainly being concluded well over a year ago .  it is an enormous privilege to serve on the ways and means committee , the committee of jurisdiction on trade matters .  and during the period of time , the extended period of time this has been before the congress , it has given us a chance to look at this agreement pretty closely .  i could spend my time tonight going into the whats , and the whereases and the what-fors , but i think it might be more fruitful to discuss this in the broader perspective , perspective first of all involving the track we are on relative to our trade agreements and our nation 's economy .  then , secondly , a particular for instance in terms of where this is just more of the same , in terms of our loss of jobs , loss of economic opportunity here at home , and then finally to discuss the process , a process that i think raises serious questions about this trade agreement .  well , let us start with the broad pattern .  we have been on a track of these trade deals , part of our participation in the global economy , for some years now .  a recent commentator contrasted the approach taken by the united states with that of most other nations .  it would just seem natural that as you stroll to the table and negotiate on behalf of the country you represent , that you advocate the nation 's interests , the nation 's jobs , the nation 's opportunity to sell more under these agreements .  and most nations do precisely that .  but this commentator contrasted the united states , where it is not just local interests that are represented by the big multinational corporations based in this country , it may be a u.s. corporation , but may be jobs all across the world .  whether or not the interests of the multinational corporations have been advanced , the record is clear .  the interest of the american worker and american opportunities have not been advanced .  just look at the trade numbers .  could you possibly have a clearer indicator as to whether this is working or not than the trade numbers ?  and what do they tell us ?  they tell us that our trade deficit , the amount we buy more than we sell , has never been greater in the history of our country .  now , we have been at this awhile , these trade deals .  a friend of mine says there is not a trade deal ever negotiated that our silk-shirted ivy league-educated negotiators could not lose in half an hour .  you certainly seem to think there might be truth in that when you look at the job loss that has just wrecked the economies of important parts of our country and led us to a net position , again , where we are buying more than we are selling to a dimension never before seen in the history of the united states .  i represent an agriculture state , north dakota .  we had , growing up when i was a kid in school , we thought of ourselves as north dakota , bread basket to the world .  we were very proud of the role we played in feeding the world .  so let us just break out this agriculture component of our economy , take a look at that one .  this year , 2005 , we are on the brink of importing more food than we export .  the united states of america as a net food importer .  can you imagine something more screwed up than that ?  clearly , this trade path that we are on is not working , and quite clearly cafta is more of the same .  you know , my friends that just took the preceding hour , they took about the 44 million new customers , the 44 million new customers .  you know , we did not just learn of these places down there ; heck , we have been dealing with them for years and years and years .  we have got about 94 percent of their wheat market , just to reference a commodity important in north dakota .  how much more are we going to get ?  they are not 44 million new customers .  these are long-established trading partners of the united states .  but what is at issue is what we are going to do relative to opening the flood gates to their production , to the further displacement of our workers and our opportunities .  and let me give you a for instance , because it is an industry i represent , the sugar industry .  of all of the commodities of agriculture , sugar is one of the higher value opportunities for the american farmer .  and i represent people , third generation , fourth generation on the land , families that broke the prairie under the homestead act to begin their family 's farming experience and now making a go of it because they raise sugar beets in the red river valley .  this is an industry that they have grown by blood , sweat and toil and risks , enormous financial risk .  they had farmers not just raising the sugar beets , but when they had an opportunity , they acquired the processing neck of the business .  so as a cooperative , farmers joining together , they actually bought the sugar refinery .  that is the place that makes the refined sugar .  they put it into the market .  now they control the marketing of it as well .  this entire sugar industry from the red river valley sugar beet growers , from the workers in the plants today , to the sugar cane growers down in the south central and southeastern part of country , to the sugar beet growers out in the northwestern united states , significant areas of the country broadly affected by the threat to sugar .  because what is at stake in cafta is opening up the border for yet an additional allotment for sugar to come pouring in from the cafta countries , countries whose labor wages have no relation to ours , whose environmental protections in their plants are no relation to ours , whose costs are often subsidized to get them down to global dump price .  and i have seen the context of the cafta debate argument that what the united states needs is to resort to the global dump price at the end of domestic production of sugar in this country .  when will it end ?  when we decide are u.s. jobs worth fighting for , and the economic hopes and dreams of our families are what we ought to be representing ?  if it is not good for us , why are we doing it ?  and when it comes to sugar , believe you me , just look right across the opinion of the united sugar industry in this country .  they do not believe this is good for us .  they believe it is the beginning of an end to domestic production of sugar in this country .  what that means in the red river valley , we are talking fargo , grand forks , north dakota , not large places , is a direct and indirect economic impact of up to 2- to $ 3 billion , direct jobs 2 , 500 , indirect jobs maybe 30 , 000 in the area i represent .  just another chapter in this global trade path we are on that has cost us so much and brought us the deepest deficit in the history of the country .  now , you might say , well , those are interesting arguments , but these other guys say something quite different .  and so who do we believe ?  i would just say look at how this bill cafta is being handled .  it was negotiated in the spring of 2004 and concluded in late spring , early summer .  if this was such a point of pride for our trade negotiators who brought this agreement home , why in the world did president bush not , as an achievement of his administration , put it front and center in the election campaign and run it up to congress for a vote ?  they ran the australia trade agreement for a vote .  that was negotiated after cafta .  why did they keep cafta like a dark family secret in the back room , out of the way , out of public view after the election ?  i believe it is because they knew that the american people knew this was another raw deal , another trade deal that was a raw deal ; and , therefore , out of sight , out of mind .  let us get the votes .  let us win the election .  we will bring it up and run it through later .  that is a pretty callous way , i think , to deal with something so important to the people of this country , but that is what they have done .  now , here we are 7 months into the new year , and just now they are running up for a vote .  what has delayed them now that the election is so long past ?  very simple .  they do not have the votes .  why do they not have the votes ?  because the american people understand that we have the deepest trade deficit in the history of the country .  they understand that their jobs are not safe .  they understand that their friends have lost jobs .  they understand that industries are being dislocated .  and as a result they do not have much time or attention for this cafta .  the house of representatives is a very imperfect place , but there is one thing that this place captures , and that is what the american people are thinking .  and that is why , beginning this last week before the august recess , the majority , the majority who have dictated so much in terms of vote outcomes , did not know whether they have the votes to pass cafta .  and i believe they do not or we would have had it up for a vote this afternoon .  the members of this body know that cafta is a loser for the american people .  and so what are we hearing in these final hours before the cafta vote ?  i want the american people to understand what is at stake just as i discuss it with my colleagues .  they have directly linked china to cafta .  there is no linkage to china and cafta .  we are upset about china .  we are worried about the trade imbalance with china .  cafta gives us a deeper trade imbalance , in my view , with cafta countries .  it has nothing to do with china .  they are trying cross-linkages , anything to try and get votes .  even more insidious .  there is a highway bill in conference committee .  one of the things each and every member represents is thousands and thousands of miles of roads back in their home districts .  it is very important for each of us , republican and democrat alike , from every corner of the country , that we get our local needs attended to in the highway bill .  now , do you think the highway bill is being held up because there is a problem with the highway bill ?  absolutely not .  the highway bill is being held up to leverage votes for cafta .  this trade deal , so important for american jobs , is being bartered for highway projects in far-flung congressional districts .  this is no way for us to look at the future of u.s. trade .  we can do better than that .  it is just wrong to link federal highway appropriations to preferred votes on trade deals .  it is absolutely wrong .  now we are hearing that it is going to be brought up for a vote late at night , in the early morning hours of the last minutes before we break for august recess .  i fully expect that you might see this up for a vote between 2 and 3 in the morning maybe , or 4 and 5 in the morning if they have not corralled the votes before we leave town .  can you imagine this body acting any more disgracefully than to hold the debate , run it when people are not watching , try and break the arms required to pass the deal , and then leave town under cloak of darkness for a month to hope the heat cools down because we have passed another bad deal for the american people ?  i would hope and i would urge those who really determine the outcome of this fight , those who tonight find themselves caught between standing for their constituents and what their constituents want and what their leadership tells them they have to do , i would urge them to do the thing that you could never lose by doing : stand with your constituents .  they are the ones that sent you here .  they are the ones we pledged to support .  they are the ones who are counting on you tonight .  i was as a freshman in a democrat majority .  we have been in the minority for more than 10 years .  and i believe we are in the minority in part because our leaders thought there were times when we had to vote for the majority instead of voting for those who sent us here .  i urge my republican colleagues who are on the fence on this trade deal , getting tremendous pressure from the leadership , i urge you to stand your ground , stand with your constituents .  they need you .  they need you badly on this vote .  to the democrat and republican members who have already signaled that we are opposed to this deal , we are opposed to another sell-out of our economy , we are opposed to another rolling over of the concerns about american workers , i urge you to dig down and work harder than we have ever worked before .  we are on the brink of winning this important vote .  what happens if we do ?  it is not like relations end , for heaven 's sake , with our near neighbors .  we go back to the table and we get a deal we can all be proud of , one that has some fundamental protections for our country .  that is all that happens if we defeat this deal .  so let us stand together and win one , by golly .  the american economy and the american workers deserve no less .  
R	mr. speaker , by direction of the committee on rules , i call up house resolution 387 and ask for its immediate consideration .  
R	mr. speaker , for purposes of debate only , i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts ( mr. mcgovern )  , pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume .  
R	mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  one of the items that the gentleman from massachusetts ( mr. mcgovern )  mentioned that i agree wholeheartedly with is the rise of china is one of the most significant developments of the 21st century , and that is why it is so critically important that we make sure that the trade agreements that exist between our country and theirs are enforced and are monitored .  that is what this bill does .  
R	mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  mr. speaker , let me just take one moment to correct something that was said by my friend from massachusetts about this week being filled with renaming of post offices .  we have also managed to find time this week to pass the first comprehensive postal reform in years .  there is the strong likelihood of at least a couple of appropriations conference reports ; the central american free trade agreement ; a highway conference report ; an energy conference report ; and a bill to get strict with china about enforcing our trade agreements .  the gentlewoman from new york is correct .  this bill was up for a vote yesterday on the suspension calendar .  under house rules it requires a two-thirds vote to be passed .  it garnered 240 votes , shy of two-thirds , but a clear majority , with 19 democrats also believing that it was important to enforce trade agreements with china .  it was our mistake , apparently , to believe that there would be even broader bipartisan support , to believe that there would be more than 19 democrats who would want to enforce our trade agreements with china .  so it is back today where it requires a majority vote to pass .  
R	mr. speaker , before i respond to the figs and the gigs , may i inquire as to the time remaining ?  
R	mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  the gentleman on the other side of the aisle , for whom i have a great deal of respect , from new jersey represents a major industrial state , lots of manufacturers .  i would just say that this is clearly a bill that is more than a fig leaf .  application of u.s. countervailing duty law to exports from nonmarket economies is more than an empty gesture : $ 6 million per year in additional money to ustr beyond the president 's request , up to $ 45 million and earmarked for the general counsel , office of monitoring and compliance ; the suspension for 3 years of bonding authority ; increased teeth , increased enforcement , increased compliance to make the chinese follow the law and agreements that we have already signed and agreed to .  
R	mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  as the gentleman is aware , house rules allow for the motion to recommit and sets aside time for debate on the democratic alternative to the legislation that we are considering here .  mr. speaker , i yield 3 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from ft .  lauderdale , florida ( mr. shaw )  , the chairman of the trade subcommittee of the committee on ways and means .  
R	mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. speaker , i continue to reserve my time .  
D	mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  mr. speaker , we object to the suspension calendar being used for political purposes .  as most of us know , this calendar is supposed to be used to expedite legislation that is not controversial and has no substantial opposition .  one would hardly believe that this bill is on the calendar today for purposes of improving our trade relationship with the people 's republic of china .  clearly , for those who are following the central american free trade agreement with the dominican republic , they know that this is another effort to elicit votes for a bill that has not got bipartisan support and should have bipartisan support .  i think it is bad policy and bad politics for our foreign policy and certainly our trade policy to be used in an effort to solicit votes or to be done in a partisan way to see who won and who lost .  the chairman of the committee is right that the democrat side as well as working with the gentlewoman from connecticut ( mrs. johnson )  is very anxious to clear up the complexities that put the united states at a disadvantage as relates to dealing with the chinese government .  but at the same time , we truly believe that these bills should not be the rangel bill with democrats or the english bill with republicans , but rather a bill that we can say as members of the committee on ways and means and as member of congress that we have taken it to the committees , we have had hearings , and we have come out with a position that you do not have to check the party to know whether it is right or whether it is wrong .  there is a substantial difference between the bills that the democrats put in , which certainly deals with the provisions that are in the bill before us today , but also it prevents the loopholes that are in that bill and provides for other considerations that would make this a better bill and improve our relationship with china .  again , mr. speaker , this bill has nothing to do with china and has everything to do with an attempt to get votes for dr-cafta .  we hope that a vote against this bill will send a message to democrats and republicans not to use the procedures of the house for political purposes ; to not put controversial bills on the suspension calendar , and to take them to the committee of jurisdiction where they belong so that they can be discussed , debated , and then brought to the floor in a bipartisan way so that we can look at it .  mr. speaker , i hope this bill is pulled so that we do not have to take a vote on it .  mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
D	madam speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  i think this discussion , especially the opposition to the rangel bill by the gentleman from pennsylvania ( mr. english )  , just shows the complexity as well as sincerity of those people that would like to put some checks on the conduct of the chinese trade people and i think emphasizes why this bill should not be on the suspension calendar .  
D	madam speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
D	the gentleman from pennsylvania is correct .  
D	madam speaker , on that i demand the yeas and nays .  
R	madam speaker , i recently hosted roundtables with manufacturers in my district .  whether it is currency manipulation or unfair subsidies , it is clear that our local employers have long had enough of the way china cheats on trade .  as john hoskins of curtis screw in buffalo told me , they have `` never been afraid to compete globally. '' but this century-old manufacturer can only compete globally if they can compete fairly , and they note that some of their chinese competitors have much of the cost subsidized by the government .  `` to put this in perspective , '' he said , `` the only way ... ..  u.s. manufacturers can compete ... ..  is if the united states government begins to pay for our building , our labor , and employee benefits and ... ..  other costs of doing business. '' that is exactly what the chinese are doing today .  the united states trade rights enforcement act will help combat illegal subsidies , provide additional funding for enforcement of trade laws , and make certain that our products and services have fair access to chinese markets , all critical aspects of our fight to ensure fair trade .  i commend the gentleman from pennsylvania ( mr. english )  and the gentleman from california ( chairman thomas ) for their hard work on this issue , and i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation .  as a long-time champion of fair trade and a lead cosponsor of this legislation , i rise in strong support of the u.s. trade rights enforcement act .  when china was permitted to join the world trade organization in 2001 , there was an implicit promise made to american businesses , workers , and consumers -- that we would get a fair deal in our trade relations with the chinese .  yet , in so many areas -- intellectual property rights , currency valuation , subsidies , trade barriers , you name it -- we see china failing to uphold its end of the bargain by ignoring international trade norms .  the bill includes a variety of measures that will help bring an end to unfair trade practices abroad , and level the playing field for american companies and workers .  the countervailing duties provision is especially important for local manufacturers .  it 's an important instrument for u.s. businesses trying to successfully combat illegal subsidies ; and it is a big reason why the national association of manufacturers ( nam ) has expressed its strong support for this measure .  i recently hosted roundtables with manufacturers in my district ; and whether it 's currency manipulation or unfair subsidies , it 's clear that our local employers have long had enough of the way china cheats on trade .  as john hoskins of curtis screw in buffalo told me , they 've `` never been afraid to compete globally. '' but this century-old manufacturer can only compete globally if they can compete fairly , and they note their chinese competitors have much of their costs subsidized by the government .  i have always maintained that our products and our workers can compete anywhere , with anyone in the world , as long as that competition is fair .  this bill will help combat illegal subsidies , provide additional funding for enforcement of trade laws , and make certain that our products and services have fair access to chinese markets -- all critical aspects of our fight to ensure fair trade .  i commend congressman english and chairman thomas for their hard work on this issue ; and i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill .  
R	madam speaker , i thank the gentleman from pennsylvania ( mr. english )  for yielding me this time , and i thank the chairman for working on this bill .  quickly , one of the things that my mother used to tell me is self-pity never solved one problem .  we know how to fix this bill .  i should not feel sorry for them ; they should not feel sorry for me .  we should vote on the bill that will make a difference .  these are counterfeit parts made in china .  they are robbing and stealing from the american economy .  we have the chance today for the first time to put a law enforcement trade officer in charge so that when they get up in the morning , the first thing they do is work on how to stop china from doing exactly this and stealing jobs from our economy .  there is a town in china , 80 percent of the parts , over 30 outlets , were counterfeit .  if we do not step up to the plate with this bill , we are going to lose and continue to lose $ 12 billion a year just in automobile part counterfeiting .  this is our chance .  i plead with those on the other side , if they truly care about labor , if they care about the individual that gets up in the morning , plays by the rules , and is trying to compete in a world market , they will vote for this bill .  they will send a message to china that american jobs are worth fighting for .  give us a fair , level playing field , and we will compete ; we will win .  
R	mr. speaker , george washington in his farewell address warned of some of the problems that would be created with two strong party systems , and today i see it .  it is unfortunate that my colleagues would spend so much of their time both yesterday and today debating about how they did not have time to debate the issue that is so important .  this bill for the first time will change trade policy toward somebody like china , who is cheating our economy and stealing our jobs .  we have the ability today to make a statement , to stand up for every worker in america who gets up , plays by the rules , goes to work and tries to build the best products in the world , and they do .  given a level playing field , we will compete with any nation on the face of the earth .  our workers are that good .  you should have the faith and confidence in them to stand up today and say , we are going to help you by leveling the playing field .  trade is important .  it is the engine of prosperity .  commerce is our best diplomat , and today we send that very clear message to places like china that are cheating .  it is amazing , and i want to talk just a minute about counterfeit goods , because in this bill for the first time we say you have to have a trade enforcement officer who gets up in the morning , and her whole job for the whole day is going to make sure that countries like china are living up to their wto and the world trade arrangements and agreements and the rule of law , the protection of intellectual property .  mr. speaker , 750 , 000 jobs are lost every year to counterfeit products , mainly from china .  this product right here , you can not tell the difference in these two products except what is on the inside .  this product steals one job .  it steals the opportunity for a company here to compete .  it takes tax revenues away from us .  this is our chance to give our workers the ability to do this .  but is not just about an oil filter .  this puts our jobs at risk , cheats our economy and puts americans at risk .  the faa estimates that 2 percent of all airline parts are counterfeit .  this is the day that we stand up for america and say , we will not take it anymore .  windshields in china , a group of auto companies went together and said you can not counterfeit these things , it puts americans at risk .  there are no safety factors in your glass .  after three convictions in china , that company is still producing automobile glass .  brake pads , there was a woman killed in saudi arabia because they put formed grass in brake pads and sold them as a counterfeit part ; and , unfortunately , took her life .  this is awfully important stuff .  mr. speaker , i urge my colleagues to get over the partisanship and get over the debate about debating , and for the first time send a very clear message that we will stand up for american workers , we will stand behind their products , stand for the future of trade and prosperity , and we will not allow countries like china to cheat our economy and steal our jobs .  
D	madam speaker , i thank the gentleman from new york for yielding me this time .  as always , the devil is in the details .  ladies and gentlemen , this law guts the countervailing duties provisions that we have been living by .  check this out : traditionally , the data that we use to determine whether or not a subsidy takes place is used by basing that data on comparable market economies .  so we want to trust , but we want to verify .  this bill requires the administration to use data from china .  we are going to be basing our decisions on data that is gathered by the people 's republic of china .  if china 's data says there is no subsidy , well , then , there is no subsidy , regardless of what the other comparable economies might say .  we are going to trust an administration that has brought one wto case since 2001 , and we want to try to compete with the chinese ?  last week in the education committee , we cut $ 11 billion from pell grants .  no child left behind is underfunded .  we have millions of kids living in poverty .  meanwhile , the chinese graduated 700 , 000 engineers last year .  we graduated 35 , 000 .  healthy , educated children and enforce international law , that is how you compete with the chinese .  
R	mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman from pennsylvania ( mr. english )  for yielding me this time .  i rise today in strong support of this legislation .  i first want to recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania ( mr. english )  , a member of the committee on ways and means subcommittee on trade , for his persistence in bringing this bill to the house floor .  today , china continues its emergence as a major global market .  as a member of the world trade organization , china has developed competitive domestic industries .  however , as a world trade organization member , china must comply with international standards which promote fairness and respect for the rule of law .  many in this chamber , including myself , feel that beijing can do a much better job in demonstrating to the world that its markets are transparent and fair both to consumers and exporters to china .  at the same time , we have to be focused and pragmatic in determining how we can be most effective in establishing checks .  this is not and should not continue to be an opportunity for political rhetoric that i have heard here this morning .  the legislation before us allows for a number of these checks .  in this bill we create an extensive monitoring of the chinese market and its compliance on a range of issues , such as intellectual property enforcement , whether the currency mechanism is being implemented properly , market access to the united states goods , and its accountability of chinese subsidies .  i am pleased to hear the news out of beijing and the chinese government that the chinese government has decided to float its currency against a basket of currencies and has appreciated the currency to a certain degree after 10 years .  this first step is a positive one , but it must not be met without oversight .  we must continue engaging the chinese government on the importance of a complete movement toward a managed float of its currency .  
R	mr. speaker , reclaiming my time , i would say to the gentleman that we do not waive any of those rights in the bill that is before the house today .  
R	madam speaker , i thank the gentleman from pennsylvania for his leadership .  it has been alleged here on the house floor that this is a trade for cafta , to get some of our votes .  let me be real blunt .  it was for me .  i took it to the president , the vice president , our trade ambassador , the secretary of state , because we have had no action on china .  whether it was a democratic president or a republican president , we have had no action on china .  whether it was a democratic congress or a republican congress , we had no action on china .  every single time we come up for a vote , we get rolled .  we have to hold china accountable .  this is not perfect , but a vote against this bill is a vote for china , not for the united states .  it is a small step , but a critical step .  without the data , if they do not let their currency float , how in the world do we measure how much they are manipulating the currency ?  and those critics of those of us who have been putting pressure on china in the last few weeks said we could never get them to reevaluate their currency .  it was a little , piddly step , but 2 percent is 2 percent .  it is a big admission that they have been manipulating their currency .  so rather than declare victory and rather than saying we finally , it looks like , are going to pass a bill on china , the other side wants to take it down , or at least a few members .  we had better pass this bill , or this is yet another victory for china , and we will never get anything done except at critical moments when they need our votes .  i rise in support of h.r. 3283 , the united states trade rights enforcement act .  the outcry from american manufacturers has never been louder .  china is destroying many american businesses .  for too long , warnings of these businesses have been ignored .  the american governm ent has negotiated with china , talked to china , cajoled china , but has declined to act decisively and with concrete measures to combat china 's policies and help american manufacturers .  i applaud those at the united state trade representative office who have the daunting task of dealing with the chinese government , but unless talk is backed-up with action , it really does n't matter .  congress has also been reluctant to help where china is concerned .  although we have passed several resolutions condemning chinese trade practices , they are meaningless , and do nothing to actually help businesses .  often it seems that the piracy of music and movies is worth administration and congressional action but the piracy of manufactured goods or china 's deliberate undercutting of manufacturing through suspect trade policies does not warrant action .  the hollowing out of american manufacturing does warrant action .  although china 's economy is moving toward the free market , china remains an avowed communist country .  the communist government and the army own countless businesses , including the chinese national overseas oil company , which recently made a bid for unocal .  they prop up many businesses with free or reduced-cost energy , low cost or no-cost loans and financing , and sometimes forced labor .  because of chinese government intervention in the economy , chinese businesses are not subject to the same market forces as american businesses .  american businesses have also been enticed to set-up shop in china .  in addition to cheaper labor costs , businesses in china do not have to worry about clean air , clean water , osha , or compliance with a crushing regulatory burden .  although these things put american businesses , particularly manufacturers , at a disadvantage , the biggest distortion of the market is china 's currency manipulation .  until last week , china pegged its currency at 8.28 yuan to the dollar .  despite huge growth in the chinese economy and explosive international trading , the chinese gove rnment refused to revalue its currency .  estimates of china 's currency manipulation were anywhere from 20-80 percent .  this meant that chinese goods entering the united states were 20-80 percent cheaper than they should have been .  and american goods were 20-80 percent more expensive .  last week , the chinese government revalued the yuan by slightly over 2 percent .  while i applaud this movement on the part of the chinese , there is much more that needs to be done .  i realize that the chinese can not adjust their currency overnight but i expect this latest devaluation to be the first of many .  i also expect the bush administration and future administrations to keep pressuring china to restructure their financial sectors and currency schemes so that they better match th ose of the market-oriented world .  their currency needs to flock and let markets determine the value , not the government .  as american manufacturers have been severely damaged by unfair chinese policies , the necessary tools to fight this unfair competition have not been available to them .  one important tool is the countervailing duty , cvd .  countervailing duties are taxes assessed to counter the effects of subsidies provided by foreign governments to goods exported to the united states .  subsidies cause the price of such merchandise to become artificially low , which may cause economic `` injury '' to u.s. manufacturers .  one thing is sure , the artificially low price of chinese merchandise has caused injury to american manufacturers .  unfortunately , the most recent interpretation of american trade laws does not allow cvds to be applied to non-market economies .  h.r. 3283 will explicitly allow them to impose cvds on non-market economies .  it will allow investigators to compare china with comparable market economies , most likely india , in order to see just how much the chinese government is unfairly aiding its businesses .  this will not save american manufacturing overnight but it will help to level the playing field , and allow fair competition in the global marketplace .  this legislation comes to the floor at the same time as legislation to implement the central american free trade agreement , cafta .  i am one of many members that withheld support for cafta in exchange for concrete action on china .  some have criticized the efforts to link china and cafta .  they argue that they are two different issues .  i disagree .  cafta has been sold with the promise that it will open up new and bigger markets for american manufacturers .  that may be , but if manufacturers in my district are put out of business because of unfair competition from china , whether or not they have access to markets in central america will be irrelevant because they will be out business .  i urge all of my colleagues in the house and the senate to vote for this necessary tool against unfair trade practices .  
R	mr. speaker , i would like to address a few questions on process and some on policy .  there is a big difference between talk and actually getting something done .  this is not an ideal bill .  i would have liked to have had a lot more in this bill .  i wish we could have had more .  i hope we can get some additional provisions in as it moves through the senate .  but the fact is , with all due respect , the most powerful lobby , or at least one of the most powerful lobbies , in this congress is the china lobby , with quotes around that , those people who believe that trade with china and expanding trade with china is absolutely essential .  they rolled us on vote after vote , and we can not get their attention .  some people have alleged that the only reason this bill is coming up is because of cafta .  well , big shock .  it is hard to get different bills up unless you can use your leverage at different times when the majority of congress , of the leadership , president clinton when he was president , president bush when he was president , the leadership of both political parties , has not been willing to aggressively confront china .  they view it as a paper dragon .  this bill is not perfect .  if i can move into policy for a few minutes , because it is very difficult to figure out how to deal with a country that is cheating in their currency manipulation .  if they do not float the manipulation , is it 20 , 40 , 80 percent ?  we do not know .  it is not floating .  so how do you peg it ?  if you do not have any data like this bill is asking us to collect , when i went in and worked with the gentleman from pennsylvania ( mr. english )  and others to try to put this bill together in the beginning , the main problem is that most of the proposals on the table are not workable .  they are not workable under wto because we do not have the functional data with which to match it up to try to prove that there is currency manipulation .  we know there is currency manipulation because they are propping it up , but that is very difficult to prove in a world court .  furthermore , as i worked with ambassador zoellick and with now ambassador portman and josette shiner and others who are working and lobbying china is that as you confront them on these issues , it was questionable whether they had the power to invoke countervailing duties .  this bill incorporates the english bill that i was an original cosponsor of and helped in drafting with the modifications of the ways and means committee , with the numbers collection , so that we can have the first steps to be able to not just be a paper dragon .  now , for all the rhetoric that comes through , and we come down here on the floor and we pound on china and lose another vote , and pound on china and lose another vote , the fact is they have reevaluated their currency this past week .  sure , 2.1 percent .  if they are cheating by 80 percent , 2.1 percent is not much .  but it is a step .  all the rhetoric of congress got nothing , but when we leveraged on cafta , which , quite frankly , is a little tiny peanut compared to a great big elephant when we are talking about china , very important in central america , very important to those democracies , important to a few people in our country and certain trading agreements , but just a little tiny trade thing , and china is a huge trade thing , but they will not talk to me or others about china , either party , unless you leverage your vote when it becomes a critical time .  china , as i talked to the dcm a few weeks ago , says , we are not going to reevaluate .  the pressure was so great out of congress on the markets and manipulation that they made a small concession .  they need to make more .  the plain truth is that for all my criticism of china , they have been helping to prop up our currency .  as arab countries back out of our currency and move to the euro because of our support for israel and other elements in the middle east , china has helped prop it up .  if they suddenly float it , it is uncertain what would happen to our economy from interest rates and inflation , but they need to reevaluate .  american industry can not compete with environmental standards , clean air , clean water , parental leave , the minimum wage , ada and all this type of stuff , then add to that a currency manipulation of 20 to 80 percent .  we can not compete .  it is not a matter of putting tariffs up and us asking for trade advantages .  we can not compete when other people cheat .  now , we appreciate the chinese government moving 2 percent .  they need to move faster .  this bill gives us a tool .  it was shocking to me last night when this bill went down .  it should have been a unanimous vote .  yes , there was not normal participation .  normal participation going through the ways and means committee means it would have been buried so deep , we would not have even seen the letters with the h.r. on it .  it would not have ever come out to the house floor .  it took leverage to come out .  it is not a perfect bill , but we had a bill .  quite frankly , when i first saw that bill go down last night , i thought the china lobby won again , the china lobby on our side that wanted to bury it and the china lobby on the other side that wanted to bury it .  i am thankful to our leadership that they agreed to come back today with a rule so we could pass it with a clear bipartisan majority .  i appreciate them moving forth .  i believe this incrementally , and 
D	madam speaker , when china joined the wto , the u.s. and china entered into an `` accession protocol. '' among other things , that protocol anticipates that the united states may find that china is subsidizing exports , and in that case , the united states may seek to impose countervailing duties , to level the playing field .  the department of commerce is required to use chinese data to measure the size of the subsidy , `` where practicable , '' but use of chinese cost and pricing data is not always practicable , so similar data must be drawn from a comparable country .  as originally drawn , this bill dropped the key phrase , `` where practicable. '' it restricted the ability of the commerce department to measure subsidies in china and other non-market economies .  due to a barrage of complaints from u.s. industry , that phrase was added back at the last moment , before this bill was brought to the floor .  but two other problems , to which u.s. industry objects , were not corrected .  first of all , this bill requires the department of commerce to ensure that there is no `` double-counting '' of countervailing duties and anti-dumping duties .  current law only requires that there be no double-counting of export subsidies , but makes no provision with respect to antidumping duties .  commerce has called this change `` wholly inappropriate. '' these are the words of the commerce department : `` the proposed change would put china into a special category distinct from all other countries when subject to concurrent anti-dumping and countervailing duty investigations. '' according to the department of commerce , this restriction `` would raise complex methodological questions , the costs of which may far outweigh any purported equity gains of any such adjustment. '' secondly , this bill gives the wto dispute settlement body special influence over u.s. law .  wto decisions are not self-executing .  the congress decides how , when , and whether to implement a wto decision .  this bill would require the commerce department to ensure that our application of countervailing duty law to non-market economies is consistent with our international obligations .  there is no guarantee how the wto would rule if this aspect of this law were brought before it .  this provision could place wto dispute settlement tribunals on a special footing when dealing with u.s. laws .  if this bill were brought up as a regular bill , it would be amendable , and these troubling provisions could be changed or deleted .  
D	madam speaker , i rise today in opposition to h.r. 3283 , the so-called united states trade rights enforcement act .  this bill purports to address china 's lax enforcement of its international trade obligations .  in fact , this bill does little to address serious trade issues with china , and it is on the house floor for only one reason : to garner votes for cafta later this week .  there is no question that congress should do everything in its power to enforce trade rights worldwide .  however , giving lip service to an issue that deserves our careful consideration and strong action is a grave disservice to the american people .  what we should be talking about today is the bush administration 's continued failure to decrease our trade deficits and promote labor rights , environmental standards and public health protections with our trading partners .  let 's look at the facts : in 2004 , the u.s. trade deficit with china grew to a record $ 162 billion .  this despite the fact that china joined the world trade organization , wto , in 2001 and should be well on its way to reducing trade barriers and opening up their markets to u.s. goods and services .  even the united states trade representative has said that china 's wto compliance efforts are `` far from complete and have not always been satisfactory. '' given these facts , i support strong trade enforcement against china .  i am a cosponsor of h.r. 1498 , the chinese currency act , which would allow the administration to impose countervailing duties due to china 's continued currency manipulation .  the bill has 110 bipartisan cosponsors and provides real enforcement mechanisms , instead of the studies and redefinitions offered by h.r. 3283 .  if the leadership were serious about china we would be voting on this meaningful legislation today .  but , that is not the case .  madam speaker , we have known about trade enforcement issues in china for years .  but china legislation magically appears only now that cafta is in trouble .  i urge my colleagues to vote against this sham bill .  
R	mr. speaker , i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill ( h.r. 3283 ) to enhance resources to enforce united states trade rights , as amended .  
R	mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  the united states trade rights enforcement act , as amended , is a compendium of a number of positions that have been expressed in a bipartisan way by members of this house in regard to some of our trading partners .  this bill has been identified as an `` anti-china '' bill .  that simply is not the case .  the provisions to assist us in determining how you examine a nonmarket economy and determine whether or not it is carrying out practices that are in violation of the wto is applied to any country with a nonmarket economy .  it is true that there are monitoring provisions dealing with agreements that china has voluntarily laid on the table ; for example , moving away from the government of china using counterfeit software and , therefore , protecting intellectual property rights , and china assigned itself the date of the end of calendar year 2005 .  this merely creates a monitoring process to determine how it can be achieved .  the bill is very timely because it includes another monitoring process just recently announced by the government of china dealing with its currency , its desire to unpeg its currency to the u.s. dollar and have it move modestly against a basket of world currencies .  that also , in this legislation , would be monitored .  i am pleased to say that the gentleman from new york ( mr. rangel )  and the gentlewoman from connecticut ( mrs. johnson )  have examined and offered a resolution on the government procurement agreement of the world trade organization urging china to fully participate .  that is included as well .  this bill is designed to meet a number of members ' particular concerns focused on world trade , not just china .  for example , additional money is being provided to the united states trade representative for enforcement purposes .  yes , it includes the office of china affairs , but i do want members to know it also includes the office of japan , korea , and asian pacific affairs because there are several provisions in here monitoring , frankly , the government of japan based upon its unfair trade practices , most focused on the use of so-called sanitary and phytosanitary measures as , in fact , nontariff trade barriers .  so this is a compendium of concerns presented at a time that the trade issues will be in front of us this week , and leadership felt , and i agree as well , that this measure allows us to focus beyond this hemisphere , in fact , at major trading partners and behavior that we have seen not just in terms of providing tools to enforce u.s. trade rights , but to monitor personal individual and voluntary commitments made by governments as well .  mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  mr. speaker , i find it ironic that the gentleman from new york ( mr. rangel )  would call this bill controversial .  perhaps there may be some envy as opposed to who gets credit , and i apologize for mentioning his name if that is his concern .  what we do not want to do is engage is unnecessary bashing , as it has been said .  this is a responsible bill .  some of the other measures , and we saw that in the hearings that the committee on ways and means has had over china and other trade concerns , this bill is backed by hearings notwithstanding what the gentleman from new york ( mr. rangel )  said .  but most of the other pieces of legislation in fact violate the very wto rules that we desire china and other nations to follow .  this bill does not do that .  it is a responsible bill responding in ways that are appropriate .  inappropriate responses that actually violate the wto rules when trying to make the point that other nations should follow them is , in fact , irresponsible .  
D	madam speaker , i rise in opposition to h.r. 3283 , the united states trade rights enforcement act .  i do have real concerns about the spiraling trade deficit with china and china 's unfair trade practices , and i think congress should consider possible legislative responses .  however , the bill offered today does little to provide assistance to u.s. workers , farmers , and businesses .  in fact , it could create additional problems for them .  in particular , i am concerned that the legislation could make it more difficult to apply countervailing duties to china and other nonmarket economies while making it easier for them to hide subsidies .  further , by placing this legislation on the suspension calendar , which is reserved for non-controversial legislation , the republican leadership has refused to offer a full debate to members to consider alternative plans to strengthen enforcement of our trade policies and hold countries accountable for their trade practices .  this procedure makes it clear that real intent here is not so much to address our trade problems -- it is more about politics and winning extra votes for passage of cafta later this week .  it is unfortunate that the republican leadership has taken this opportunity to bring about stronger trade policies and instead used it to consider a bill that is largely symbolic at best , and could even be harmful .  it is for these reasons i will vote against this bill .  
R	mr. speaker , by direction of the committee on rules , i call up house resolution 455 and ask for its immediate consideration .  
R	mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. chairman , i want to thank the gentleman from florida ( mr. putnam )  , my friend and colleague , for his efforts .  his contributions and commitment to head start and the financial accountability that needs to exist within the program are so important .  many of the accountability principles that were outlined in the gentleman 's bill , h.r. 778 , have been included in the school readiness act , and these reforms i think are critical if we are going to ensure grantees are effectively managing taxpayer dollars and also to ensure that funding is targeted most effectively for purposes that support the program 's goal of preparing kids for school .  so , with that , i want to thank the gentleman for his contributions .  
R	mr. chairman , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. chairman , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  mr. chairman , when our forefathers in the 1960s wrote the 1964 civil rights act landmark legislation , they provided a specific exemption in hiring for religious organizations , understanding that religious organizations would probably want to hire someone of their own faith .  now , if you disagree with that , go to the committee on the judiciary and rewrite the 1964 civil rights act .  nowhere in this exemption does it say that , well , you have the exemption if you use your own money , but if you participate in federal programs , you lose the exemption .  it does not say that anywhere in the 1964 civil rights act .  the fact is , that i understand there are deeply held beliefs here , but i do not think a religious organization should have to give up their rights under the 1964 civil rights act just to participate in providing services to poor children who desperately need them .  mr. chairman , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. chairman , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. chairman , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. chairman , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. chairman , i think the point we are trying to make here is there is a lot of innovation that is underway in terms of bringing technology and other innovation to the whole idea of learning .  when it comes to early childhood programs , the chance at a profit , i believe , could bring innovation technology to this entire sector .  nobody has asked me for it , i am not suggesting there is going to be a rush to come in with innovation , but without some opportunity at getting a return on your investment , will the innovation ever come ?  that is where i am willing to take the chance that new ideas , new innovations in terms of developing these children , could be very beneficial to the program .  
R	mr. chairman , reclaiming my time , the point is , president bill clinton signed these laws into law , knowing that the language that we are offering today was included .  what we have been trying to do in the work force investment act , the community services block grant act , today in the head start act , is bring some consistency to the federal rules and regulations in terms of allowing faith-based providers to offer services without having to give up their protections under the civil rights act .  now , if you want to change the 1964 civil rights act and say to religious organizations , you can have your exemption on hiring , unless you take a federal dollar , fine .  go have that debate in the judiciary committee , bring it out here , and we will vote on it .  but this is not the forum to deny those organizations their own rights .  
R	mr. chairman , i yield myself 30 seconds .  what we are trying to do here is preserve the rights given to religious organizations under the 1964 civil rights act .  and for the members who have been paying some attention to this , we know that members on different sides of the aisle , and frankly it is on a bipartisan basis , have deeply held convictions about this .  clearly , we are not in real agreement .  but this is an issue that the house really should decide and the house should vote on .  i am glad that we are having this debate once again , because the longer we have the debate , clearly , the evidence is coming down that the winning side continues to prevail .  
R	mr. chairman , i did not run a program in head start like the gentlewoman from california ( ms. waters )  , but i visited one , and then i visited another one because when i first came to congress , and the gentleman from maryland ( mr. hoyer )  was here , i did not support head start or wic .  i thought they were a waste of time .  but i will tell the members that head start and wic and school lunch and those programs are only as good as the local district will let them be and work .  they can make a difference .  if a program that is working , if members go down to those districts and see those children , they will tell them , help us to help other kids that do not have a chance .  support this bill .  i would say that a friend of mine said that when we are talking about the religious aspect of this , he said , when you come to congress and somebody will say , you wear the lord on your shoulder , he said , you tell them that is wrong ; you wear them on your whole body .  i have never seen anybody turned away any religion , whether in an emergency or health or wic .  so vote for head start .  
D	mr. speaker , i respect the gentlewoman 's views , but let me ask her this question : what is right about letting a group take her or my tax dollars and put out a sign that says `` jews nor catholics need not apply here for this head start job '' ?  what is right about that ?  
D	mr. chairman , as somebody who worked for president clinton as his senior advisor , president clinton did not support , nor did he introduce in his welfare bill , anything that you are saying , and i will say he never promulgated those rules or enforced that .  mr. chairman , as the gentleman knows , that is not correct .  
D	mr. chairman , in the original welfare reform bill by president clinton , this provision was never in it .  second , it was unconstitutional , and it was never promulgated by president clinton in the rulemaking .  he does not support that provision .  if you want to support something that president clinton believed in , then try fiscal responsibility and start balancing the budget .  this is not what he believes , and the gentleman from ohio knows that , mr. chairman .  
D	mr. chairman , i thank the chairman both for his support and for his commitment to head start .  i also have fond remembrance of being a graduate student at the university of delaware , which the gentleman knows very well , and appreciate the education in his state of delaware .  
D	the gentlewoman from california ( ms. waters )  , the ranking member of the subcommittee on housing , has said giving assurance to the people of new orleans , the poorer people in particular of new orleans , and , frankly , a lot of african american people , that we will be committed to rebuilding the city so they can come back home is very important .  the longer we delay on this bill , the longer we delay giving people what is very important reassurance at a critical time .  
D	mr. chairman , first , the first half of the gentleman 's remarks previously are irrelevant .  we are not disputing the importance of including faith-based groups as providers .  when this question came up years ago , i was ardently for it .  no one is trying to prevent faith-based groups from providing the service .  no one is saying that a faith-based using its own money , using private money , using private donations has to pay any attention to the question of hiring if they choose to have only their religious co-workers .  the question is if a faith-based group wants to take federal money paid for by every taxpayer in this country , is it a violation of their religious character to say , with that federal money , they must not discriminate in hiring ?  the religious character being imputed to these groups makes me think that we are talking about the constitution of the iraq .  what is this ?  the sunnis should not have to hire the shias ?  the shias should not have to deal with the kurds ?  what is the principle here ?  are we not trying to promote the notion of people living together ?  what religious group taking federal money says , `` you know what , i want to help these poor people , but not with a jew , '' `` i can not have a baptist working for me , '' `` no mormon need apply '' ?  we are not talking about administering religious services .  we are not talking about performing religious rites .  we are talking about taking federal money to perform what has to be , remember , a secular service .  we all agree to that .  if it were not a wholly secular service , no one would expect us to be funding it with federal money .  and this is the question i have to ask my friends .  of course we want religious groups there .  why is it so terrible to tell jews that they must associate with baptists if federal money is being spent to provide child care services ?  what violation of the religious right of a catholic is to say you have to hire a methodist ?  how are episcopalians being deprived of their religious integrity if they are told that , you know what , when you have federal money in this program , if you hire a presbyterian , that is okay .  i mean , this is fundamental , we thought , in america .  again , we are talking about federal money , and we are talking about not imputing to religious groups an insistence on bigotry and discrimination in the spending of federal funds .  
R	mr. speaker , reclaiming my time , the gentleman , again , is trying to inflame what i think is really an unreasonable discussion in this conversation .  the point of faith-based providers is that they are mostly obviously church people who have a mission .  they want to provide a service .  they are not discriminating against others .  they are encouraging service within their church , and we should allow them to provide that service because we know that they have the best track record of success .  
D	mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  mr. speaker , i can not impress enough to the chairman that title vii of the civil rights act of 1964 applies to the use of religious organizations ' own resources , not federal taxpayer dollars .  
D	mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
D	mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
D	mr. speaker , i yield myself the balance of my time .  when i was a child , my grandmomma took me to churches .  she played piano for all of the churches in town , four in altamonte springs .  sometimes i did not know whether i was going to be sprinkled and be baptized here or repent and be baptized .  it was very difficult , but all of the children in that town went to all of the churches .  for 41 years head start has existed , and it is the most empirically collected database organization supporting the children of the united states of america .  and for all of those 41 years , all of these faith-based organizations have been involved in receiving contracts to do business .  what we are saying is they can not do it with federal dollars .  they have to do it with their own money .  
D	mr. speaker , i object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present .  
D	mr. speaker , i thank the majority leader for that information .  first of all , on the general proposition for the month of october , we had had discussions last week ; and it is clear that the second week of october , it will not be practical to meet because of the various important dates on that week .  the first week was somewhat in flux at that point in time .  could the majority leader bring us up to date on where currently the thinking of the leader 's office is on where we will be on the first week of october ?  
D	mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman .  i realize the problems of doing that ; but many of our members , particularly those who come from far away , are concerned about traveling on that wednesday , as the gentleman knows , which makes it problematic because we will have to be very late thursday .  we will obviously accommodate what the majority believes it is going to do .  in that regard , last week , we had thought we probably , or might , be in tomorrow .  we are not going to be in tomorrow .  can the majority leader give us a view on what might be the status of next friday ?  
D	mr. speaker , reclaiming my time , i am presuming , and there was some discussion about this last week , that at some point in time in the next couple of weeks , we are going to have to do some sort of continuing resolution .  is that the gentleman 's belief as well ?  
D	mr. speaker , does the gentleman have any thoughts at this point in time regarding the length of time of the initial cr that we would consider ?  
D	i thank the gentleman .  the gse , the gse bill was initially , our thought was that would be on the floor this coming week .  the gentleman from massachusetts ( mr. frank )  , the ranking democrat on the committee on financial services , is on the floor and has been very involved in this bill .  i am not sure you even know this , but the gentleman from massachusetts ( mr. frank )  informs me that there are very significant sums that would be available to the gulf area for housing in the gse bill , which will be regular order , and the benefit would be that this money would be available , and we know we are going to have to spend money in that area .  can you tell me why the gse bill is not on the floor ?  this deals , as you know , with fannie mae and freddie mac .  
D	mr. speaker , if the gentlemen from texas ( mr. delay )  does not object , let me yield to the gentleman from massachusetts ( mr. frank )  , the ranking member , because i know he has worked very hard with the gentleman from ohio ( mr. oxley )  , as you well know , in a very bipartisan way .  you mentioned 63 to 5 , 65 to 5 ; and so we did not perceive there to be much opposition to the bill .  
D	reclaiming my time , i know the leader understands those were largely rhetorical questions .  the gentleman from massachusetts ( mr. frank )  , however , does express a view that a bill that can be very helpful to us that came out 65 to 5 , overwhelming agreement , came out months ago .  we do hope that this bill can be brought to the floor , certainly before , hopefully if not the end of next week , the week following .  because we believe it is the kind of legislation that people would be proud of .  democrats and republicans came together , worked on it , came out with a bill , and it is a very good bill .  
D	mr. speaker , reclaiming my time .  i appreciate the majority leader 's response .  there obviously is a difference of view of how soon that those dollars could flow from the ranking member of the subcommittee and the ranking member of the full committee .  you mentioned days .  i would certainly hope it could be days .  because i think we would all be advantaged in a bill , particularly if we could pass it with the overwhelming majority that was received both in the subcommittee and in the full committee .  moving on , mr. leader , in addition to the bills you have listed for next week , do you anticipate any hurricane katrina-related legislation will come to floor ?  and if so , will those bills go through the committee of jurisdiction and be considered under rules on the floor that allow full debate ?  you mentioned , as a preface to that , obviously almost all of us voted for the $ 52 billion .  but i think everybody on the floor was concerned about the level of information we had about what had been spent of the $ 10 billion , how much was going to be spent , on what , of the $ 52 billion .  in that context i ask that question .  
D	i thank the gentleman .  i would simply add again that as the gentleman indicated , trying to go regular order , obviously , both sides understand that these are things we need to move with great dispatch so we can help the people that need help and get it to them when they need the help .  we are all for that .  on the supplemental , the president has indicated there is going to be a need for another supplemental .  do you know when we might consider such a supplemental ; how much that supplemental might be for ?  and if we start considering it early , while the $ 52 billion is still available to be expended to assist those , it will give us a little bit of time to go through the process that the gentleman indicates is the best process .  
D	i thank the gentleman for that information .  now , there is some speculation about an energy bill being considered .  obviously , gasoline prices are extraordinarily high .  the american public is very concerned about their energy costs , about the policies of this country .  do you anticipate an energy bill coming to the floor any time within the next 2 weeks or 3 weeks ?  
D	i thank the gentleman .  do you have any idea what `` as soon as possible '' is , the time frame ?  next 3 weeks , next month , late october , november ?  do you have any idea on that ?  
D	reclaiming my time , and i agree with you that is not a problem .  please convey the democratic congratulations to the chairman and more importantly his wife , the mother .  two last bills i will ask you about , mr. leader , and i appreciate the time we are taking on this .  reconciliation : there was a discussion about putting off reconciliation .  we have put off reconciliation at least until the end of the month , as i understand it probably until october .  can you tell me whether or not we still anticipate reconciliation moving forward and , if so , are there going to be two bills ?  one the $ 35 billion in mandatory spending cuts among which is $ 10 billion in medicaid cuts , and/or the $ 70 billion in tax cuts that was included in the budget reconciliation instructions .  
D	reclaiming my time , the last bill i would ask you about is the subject matter that has been one of the biggest subjects that we have been considering this year .  the president put it on the agenda , the social security privatization , private accounts act .  can you tell me whether or not we anticipate a social security bill coming to create private accounts or privatize in some way social security coming to the floor this year .  
D	i thank the gentleman .  let me say on behalf of the minority , the democrat side of the aisle shares your concern and commitment to assuring retirement security for our people .  as you know , we strongly disagree with the suggestion that has been made by the administration with reference to the creation of private accounts and what we perceive as privatizing parts of social security .  but i want you to be assured that we share your view that we want to make sure that retirement accounts are secure and that americans have opportunities to participate in the creation of retirement accounts .  i thank the gentleman for his observation .  
R	mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman for yielding me time .  mr. speaker , i rise today in support of the rule and of the underlying head start bill .  since i was elected to congress in 2000 , we have increased head start funding by 28 percent , from $ 5.8 billion in 2000 to $ 6.8 billion today .  head start is a crucial program for over 900 , 000 of our nation 's most needy students .  it provides child development , educational , health , nutritional , social and other activities to help prepare young children for kindergarten .  a good head start program will make sure that low-income 4-year-old children will know their abcs , be able to count to 20 , have the building blocks they need to hit the ground running on their first day of kindergarten .  we know today how important early childhood education is to a child 's long-term success .  head start makes sure that children from low-income families have the educational foundation they need to succeed .  as a father of two , i know firsthand how precious our children 's first years are and how important they are to our children 's future .  i am proud of congress ' increased support for low-income children through the head start program , and i urge my colleagues to vote `` yes '' on the rule and `` yes '' on the head start reauthorization bill .  
R	mr. chairman , i rise in strong support of h.r. 2123 , the school readiness act , which will strengthen the head start program by closing the readiness gap that exists between low and upper income children .  i want to thank my good friends , chairman boehner and congressman castle , for their hard work on this important piece of legislation .  created in 1965 and located in every community in the country , head start has been a valuable part of our nation in preparing lower-income children for elementary school .  however , in spite of the good efforts of the program , there are still shortcomings that need to be addressed .  we can do more to ensure that the disadvantaged children in this country are better prepared for school .  a readiness gap still exists between children in head start and their more affluent peers .  the bill before us today will improve the head start program to help close the readiness gap by strengthening academic standards .  the bill emphasizes cognitive development and the use of scientifically-based research in topics critical to a child 's school readiness .  this bill also seeks to protect parents and taxpayers from financial mismanagement in the head start program .  the federal government invests nearly $ 7 billion in the program , but sadly , dozens of media stories and an independent investigation by the government accountability office revealed problems in the financial management of some head start grantees .  we should do all that we can to ensure that head start dollars are going to meet the needs of the students and are not wasted due to a few bad grantees .  the school readiness act strengthens safeguards to protect against financial abuse .  mr. chairman , this bill received unanimous support in committee , and i hope that it will also receive the full support of the whole house .  h.r. 2123 is a good bill that will improve the lives and educational needs of our nation 's most vulnerable children .  i urge my colleagues to support the bill .  
D	mr. chairman , i appreciate the gentlewoman yielding me this time .  at a time when our country is grasping with how to deal with ongoing gaps in wealth , poverty , and education , we must recognize that head start is a critical component to helping those children at a disadvantage get on a more equal ground .  as we know all too well , the achievement gap that continues to plague our country has early roots , and the sooner we can help young people gain valuable skills , get good nutrition , and provide them with a comprehensive early education , the better chance we have of improving their future .  while this bill does strengthen the program for the over-900 children served , there are still far too many children starting kindergarten at great disadvantage .  in my state alone , nearly 20 , 000 students benefit from head start ; but we know that over half a million children in new jersey are eligible and never get a chance to get on that equal footing .  it is those children we must think of as we seek to improve this bill .  i am relieved we are debating a bill that does not produce devastating effects on this program , but instead keeps it intact and provides a number of improvements .  but i hope the end product will reflect those efforts and will not end up poisoning the bill by repealing civil rights and discrimination protections .  if for over 30 years religious institutions have not had a problem providing head start services , why would the congress of the united states now sanction and permit discrimination and violate civil liberties ?  it is simply not in the national interest , and it is the wrong action and the wrong lesson to teach our children .  in this bill we are asking more from our early childhood educators , yet we are not providing them with more .  we must be realistic about the challenges this creates .  the estimated cost for half of all head start teachers to earn a bachelor 's degree by 2008 , as the bill calls for , is an estimated $ 2 billion over 5 years .  we need to work to attract talented individuals to continue to enter the field , not make it harder for them to stay in it .  
R	mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time .  these arguments are well rehearsed .  we seem to go through these on a regular basis , and i certainly admire the tenacity with which the gentleman from virginia ( mr. scott )  and others defend their position .  however , as has already been stated , the civil rights act of 1964 , i believe , does explicitly protect the rights of faith-based organizations to exercise their civil liberties and take religion into account in their hiring practices , and i do not know why we seem to continually have trouble assimilating that into our collective body of knowledge here .  when faith-based groups hire employees on a religious basis , they are exercising their civil liberties .  the civil rights act made clear when faith-based groups hire employees on a religious basis , it is an exercise of the groups ' civil liberties .  it does not constitute discrimination under federal law .  i believe one of the major issues here is that faith-based organizations are allowed to maintain and sustain their mission .  it does not mean that the people that they hire are discriminated against on the basis of what religion they have , what their ethnicity might be ; but rather simply the ability to hire people who share their common beliefs , who share their sense of mission .  we certainly saw this in the recent rescue mission and aid issues down with hurricane katrina , where a great number of faith-based groups were the most efficient groups that we saw on the ground there .  and , certainly , they should have the right to bring those people in who share their beliefs , even though they may have been receiving in some ways federal dollars .  the same thing is true with head start .  people must be hired in a way that they do share a common sense of mission , a common sense of purpose .  otherwise , these organizations would be totally disrupted in what they are trying to get done .  
R	mr. chairman , i do not know how much clearer this can be made .  we keep having this circular debate on so many issues .  i will just go back to the law one more time .  we have mentioned over and over , title vii , civil rights act , 1964 , states specifically , and this is the verbiage , `` this subchapter shall not apply to an employer with respect to the employment of aliens outside any state , or to a religious corporation , association , educational institution , or society , with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation , association , educational institution , or society of its activities. '' there is no way we can change this .  this is the verbiage .  this is the language .  what we are saying here is that a faith-based organization can not be expected to sustain their religious mission if we do not uphold this statute .  it is very plain .  if a choir director or a youth director also serves as a head start employee , you certainly should not have to hire somebody that does not sustain the mission of the church .  
R	mr. chairman , i appreciate the gentleman for yielding me time .  i thank the chairman for agreeing to this colloquy in order to shine a light on an unfortunate recurring situation in some head start agencies .  stories of corrupt agencies have been surfacing recently all over the nation , complete with allegations of administrators ' misconduct with federal funds and financial conflicts of interest between board members and vendors .  accountability is a critical component of this reauthorization , and i thank the chairman for his commitment for addressing it .  on february 10 of this year , i introduced h.r. 778 , the head start accountability act of 2005 , to address the misuse and abuse of federal funds occurring in an agency in my district as well as others .  the polk county opportunity council has had a decade-long history in fundamental flaws in both operations and management .  pcoc has displayed an obvious lack of internal controls and , worse , a blatant disregard for its fiduciary responsibilities associated with proper stewardship of federal grant funds .  there is documented evidence that this organization has misused federal dollars and made several excessive and unnecessary expenditures , including the approval of $ 150 , 000 for repairs to a parking lot , repairs that had a quoted cost of just $ 20 , 000 .  they also obtained $ 90 , 000 in federal funds to repair some head start facilities reportedly damaged in last summer 's hurricanes that tore through florida .  however , their insurance inspection determined that the facilities had no damage .  i could go on and on listing examples of financial mismanagement at this agency .  i introduced the head start accountability act to immediately address the seemingly unending pattern that was developing in that agency and similar organizations .  h.r. 778 's major provisions would address the most glaring improprieties .  among the provisions in h.r. 778 , the bill calls for automatic recompetition of all federal head start federal grants every 5 years , establishes new board requirements , adds tighter fiscal control requirements at the local level .  mr. chairman , i thank the gentleman for recognizing the importance of these provisions and including the key principles in this reauthorization .  under his leadership , we are finally moving toward financial accountability .  i look forward to working with my colleague in the future toward further refinement of these accountability measures .  
R	mr. chairman , i thank the chairman for his dedication to improving the head start program .  
R	mr. chairman , i rise in strong support of the school readiness act .  let me first begin by recognizing the tremendous efforts of my colleagues , the gentleman from ohio ( mr. boehner )  and the gentleman from delaware ( mr. castle )  in crafting a good bill .  as a former teacher and elementary principal , i am aware of the necessity of a first-rate education and need to ensure that children have adequate skills before entering kindergarten .  as chairman of the labor-hhs-education subcommittee of the committee on appropriations , funding head start in the amount of $ 6 billion , this bill will achieve a better use of those moneys .  for over four decades the head start program has provided comprehensive early childhood development services to low-income children .  by providing educational , health , nutritional , social and other services to the most needy in our society , this program prepares children to enter kindergarten and to improve the conditions necessary for their success in later school and life .  head start strongly emphasizes the involvement of families in the local community to ensure that the programs are responsive to the unique needs of each community .  as you know , in the aftermath of hurricane katrina , the head start bureau has urged all of its grantees to provide head start services to any displaced children and families now in their communities .  very important , so they do not fall behind .  as successful as head start has been , i believe that the program can be even more successful by maintaining the comprehensive services already provided and enhancing the academic component .  consistent with the goal of strengthening this program , h.r. 2123 will help to eliminate financial mismanagement by increasing the competitive nature of the current program .  the competition requirements are intended to help drive program improvement across the board and to ensure that the $ 6 billion we spend is spent constructively and wisely .  mr. chairman , i would like to emphasize that a good education is the cornerstone for success in life and that it is critical to have the basic skills to build the foundation before entering kindergarten .  we have found a large dropout problem in our inner-city schools , in some cases exceeding 50 percent .  in fact , the national average is 32 percent .  and this is a terrible waste of human resources .  in many cases , the students dropping out can not read at beyond the elementary school level , and see no reason to stay in school when they can not keep up with the school work .  the problems of dropouts and illiteracy do not begin in high school .  they manifest themselves in high school , but they begin in elementary and pre-elementary .  these problems begin in the school when the students fall behind their classmates in the early years , because they did not start with the same skill sets .  we need to ensure that these students have an equal start , and h.r. 2123 will help us in the mission .  
D	mr. chairman , for almost 40 years , head start has assisted low-income preschool children and their families .  it has been an invaluable resource to many children and families across our country .  i am pleased to rise to join with my colleagues about the future of head start .  as congressman and a former county executive , education is one of my top priorities .  in particular , head start programs are essential to so many children 's futures , for research shows that early learning is a fundamental piece of a child 's education .  i have long held a firm belief in the importance of education and have often spoke of our nation 's need to ensure that , even at the earliest stages our children have access to programs and services that will enrich their education and lives .  last year , head start helped 912 , 000 three , four , and five year olds build a solid foundation so they are ready to tackle reading and math in kindergarten .  head start allows children to be ready to succeed in school and in life .  giving them that extra boost that they need will allow them to be productive citizens .  head start also provides the youngsters and their families with a comprehensive list of support services -- from health screenings to nutritional advice to parent counseling .  i stand behind this program because i have seen first hand how head start helps the entire family grow and succeed together .  head start is a good start for america 's future .  
D	mr. chairman , i just want to make clear the supreme court cases made it clear that you could discriminate with your personal church money , but not with federal money .  all of the cases are consistent .  in fact , if my colleagues read the cases , they point out that if you are using federal money , you can not discriminate .  
R	mr. chairman , i yield myself 1 minute .  mr. chairman , there was no testimony at any hearings about this subject .  the only reference in the hearings , i believe , was actually on the senate side from the deputy mayor of memphis who complained that he did not have decision-making powers to make some changes that he wanted to make , but it was not financial abuse or financial waste .  i have asked the committee staff , as well as the chairman , to come up with an example .  there is not an example .  there are problems in the whole system ; but mostly it is the grantees and the board that have been the problems .  the board is not as engaged like the parents .  in this case , it is not a question of whether the parents have veto power .  the parents have the power , the board has shared power , and the parents have the primary power , the board has the veto power .  the parent council is 51 percent parents , 49 percent community leaders who are actively engaged .  the board tends to be leading citizens of the community who come in and review that .  we are gutting , for a pat on the head , saying we like your opinion , but not your vote .  you are not good enough to vote , but you are good enough to give your opinion .  this is an empowerment program by the people who are running it , it has worked well , and we should not change it .  
R	mr. chairman , i yield myself the balance of the time .  let us make this absolutely clear .  advice is nice .  we just went through this in high-intensity drug trafficking areas where we tried to take the voting power away and we resisted that in congress .  power comes from voting , not advise .  this strips the parents of their power and lets them give their opinions .  this is a tremendous reversal for either side of the aisle to make of the number one parent advisory program in america .  there are not financial problems with the parent councils .  the financial problems were with the agencies that were granted to and the boards .  for fraud , they need to be held accountable .  this bill does that .  do not take the power away from the parents .  i have also received these letters which help explain my concerns .  dear mr .  mark souder : my name is chris wallace sr .  and i am a parent of 3 children .  two of which have been enrolled and ongoing participants in cani 's headstart program , my third child is going into her 2nd grade year with adams elementary , fort wayne community schools .  i am currently the policy council president , and the vice-president of milc ( males involved leading children ) , and my wife and i are repeatedly volunteering for cani ( in-kind ) .  i have received the volunteer of the year award from cani , and i have also received a certificate of recognition from the city of fort wayne , for my ongoing commitments with cani .  currently i am looking forward to another successful year with my involvement with cani , milc , and introducing milc along with all pro dads into the fort wayne community school system .  which brings me to my disappointment with the news that some of these programs , most importantly the parent involvement initiative may be withdrawn from cani 's headstart programs .  i would like for you and those involved with this decision to understand the importance of parent involvement .  it has not only allowed for me to be more involved in the decisions that affect my children , it has also allowed me to be involved in some of the decisions that affect my community .  these programs allow parents to understand more how important education , family and social development is to their family , and the community around them .  i believe that these programs empower parents , and give them leadership skills that they may never learn elsewhere .  i can attest to this , for i have learned many leadership , mentoring , and role model skills .  i also have learned how important i am to the community and the development of my children , and my peers children .  i believe it would be an injustice to take this away from so many who are currently involved and those in the future that have yet to benefit .  please pass on our plea , meaning the parents , employees , and even more important our children , that you work for keeping the current programs well established within cani 's headstart program .  this will continue to allow us to provide a good start to our future leaders .  on behalf of parents of cani headstart .  sincerely , chris wallace , sr. , september 18 , 2005 .  dear congressman souder : i am writing to urge you to support the restoration of full authority to parent policy councils in head start reauthorization legislation .  it is my observation that parents provided with a meaningful governing role in their children 's head start education gain valuable skills that will help them to proactively support their children 's education in elementary , middle , high school and beyond .  the personal growth of parents involved in the head start program is a natural consequence of their participation in head start governance .  weakening or eliminating this role will eliminate a valuable training resource for parents and will make them less effective in supporting their children 's future education .  i have been a community representative on the cani head start policy council in fort wayne for two years .  one of the most rewarding benefits of my participation on the policy council has been to watch the growth and development of the male involvement committee .  this group provides many opportunities for fathers , grandfathers , uncles and other adult males to interact significantly with their children in positive ways .  this is particularly significant in low-income communities where children need positive adult male role models .  thank you for your consideration of these issues .  i hope that my views will be addressed in your vote for the reauthorization of head start .  sincerely , indiana pta , hammond , in , july 11 , 2005 .  to whom it may concern : i am writing about the head start program and its importance to families .  the head start program is a vital part of the education process .  the program offers opportunities early in the lives of children to build skills that will be needed in school and in life .  research shows that the sooner children are in a structured educational environment ; the better their performance is throughout their formal education .  i became involved in head start in 1995 when my son entered the program and have continued to volunteer/work with head start though the years .  i have served as a site chairperson , a member of the policy committee and currently serve as a community representative .  it is because of the parent involvement component of the head start program that parent involvement became so important in my life .  it is because of these beginnings that i continue to advocate for children on all levels .  for many families , access to head start is the only way for their children to have any type of educational experience prior to elementary school .  many of these children continue on to kindergarten because they have a head start in education and their parents realize how important early intervention is .  since kindergarten is not mandated in indiana , many children come to school for the first time when entering the 1st grade .  these children are not ready to work at their grade level and come to school at all developmental levels .  as president of the indiana pta , i know how important the head start program is to children and families .  it is critical that services like this continue and be adequately funded for our children .  it is important that monies be made available for early intervention efforts across the board .  if we do n't take care of our chi1dren today ... ..  our children wo n't take care of us tomorrow .  some of the issues that indiana pta will be focusing on are : early intervention , literacy ; parent involvement , advocacy and drug use .  respectfully , dee jones , 
R	mr. chairman , i demand a recorded vote .  
R	mr. chairman , i demand a recorded vote .  
R	mr. chairman , i rise in support of this bill .  what we have to remember is this is about the children , children whose families are trapped in poverty trying to get a head start on education , which is the surest way out of poverty .  it is disappointing to me there are some in here , because we provide some level of flexibility , and perhaps in some community it is a faith-based operation that can deliver the services best to a poor child in need of these services , that there are some willing to kill head start because of that level of flexibility .  in my hometown , thankfully , it is the public school systems that have taken over the head start program because we suffered through the difficulties of financial problems .  the previous head start organization managed the program so poorly that they could not pay the teachers and continue head start .  it had to be taken over by the federal government through an entity .  fortunately , omaha public schools have taken over head start in omaha , nebraska , providing over a thousand children an opportunity to have a coordinated head start educational program , a better education program , with assurances to the parents that it is going to be there next year .  in fact , they have even got a very progressive system for head start children based on educare , an outstanding private preschool program that involves a holistic approach of the entire family .  i want to end by thanking the gentleman from ohio ( mr. boehner )  because he also recognizes there was a glitch , a glitch that eliminated some of the lower-level rank-and-file service men and women from having their children in head start programs because of privatization of military housing .  the gentleman from ohio ( mr. boehner )  recognized that problem , corrected that problem , and i want to thank him for standing up for our service men and women with children that would be eligible for head start .  
D	mr. speaker , one of the things i have been terribly worried about is the inability of congress to move quickly to do something about the victims of katrina .  i am very , very worried that we are going to be seen as a body that can not get its act together when we are confronted with this terrible disaster .  we have an opportunity to utilize resources that will not be taken from our budget .  we have an opportunity to use substantial resources that could be applied toward the rebuilding of homes , to getting people started again ; and if we keep fumbling and if we keep fiddling , then we are going to come under great criticism because we are not doing what we can do .  so i would just simply urge all of my colleagues , do not play with this .  there are people who are suffering and people who are depending on us .  we have got a great way by which to provide real assistance .  let us get it done .  
D	mr. chairman , i yield myself such time as i may consume to respond to the chairman of the committee .  the rights for faith-based organizations are already protected when they use their own funds .  we are talking about using federal funds , taxpayers ' dollars , or they are talking about it , in order to enhance religious discrimination .  that is what we oppose .  
D	mr. chairman , in response to the chairman , we are talking about taxpayers ' money to support religious discrimination .  that is what we can not forget .  
D	mr. chairman , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  mr. chairman , kill head start ?  supporting religious discrimination which was added by the majority to this otherwise very good bill is exactly what would kill head start .  shame on the gentleman for thinking that it is any other way .  
D	mr. chairman , i demand a recorded vote .  
D	mr. chairman , i demand a recorded vote .  
D	mr. speaker , i demand a recorded vote .  
R	mr. chairman , i thank the chairman for yielding me this time and allowing me to participate in this discussion .  we know that children who begin kindergarten and first grade prepared both socially and mentally to learn have a much greater opportunity of success , not just in school but in life .  improving the quality of head start should be a priority for all of us .  one of the greatest challenges of any federal program is to ensure that hard-earned taxpayer money is used only for the purpose intended , and the current head start program does not live up to that principle .  the need for safeguards and accountability are needed now more than ever .  the school readiness act addresses financial management weaknesses found in the current head start system and publicly documented in various news accounts .  there is disturbing evidence that a sizable share of head start funding never reaches its target : disadvantaged children .  instead , the money is being lost to waste , financial abuse , and mismanagement ; and there are collective media accounts that suggest that the problem is not isolated .  the director of a head start program in gardenville , maryland , was indicted on charges that she stole more than $ 350 , 000 from the organization over a 4-year period .  imagine if this money were spent on students rather than stolen from head start .  a former director of a head start program in charleston , west virginia , was sentenced up to 5 months in federal prison after admitting he used an agency credit card for a personal trip to the kentucky derby and preparing a false invoice for computer repairs .  rather than investing money in student nutrition , this director took this money from school cafeterias and went to the horse races .  the executive director of the kansas city , missouri , head start operation earned a salary in excess of $ 300 , 000 annually and drove a luxury suv , leased in part with federal head start funds .  the gentleman has since resigned .  head start was never intended to provide for six-figure salaries and luxury cars .  the department of justice gained a guilty plea from an executive director of a lubbock , texas , head start program after he embezzled more than $ 800 , 000 over 2 years and diverted part of the money to a local restaurant .  mr. chairman , it is a priority of this republican congress to ensure that the necessary financial controls are in place to safeguard against these abuses and to protect the public 's confidence in this important school readiness program .  safeguards against financial abuse in this bill include an independent financial audit annually , an annual report detailing how their money is spent and the sources of their funding , oversight by a local governance board , and a requirement that administrative costs may not exceed more than 15 percent of the total program cost .  congress must not ignore the evidence that much money invested in the head start program currently never reaches the disadvantaged children it is intended to serve .  i commend the chairman for his leadership and the leadership of the subcommittee chairman , the gentleman from delaware ( mr. castle )  , for this bill ; and i urge all members of the house to support h.r. 2123 .  
D	mr. chairman , i want to focus on the extra provisions dealing with the migrant and seasonal head start programs .  these programs are among the most essential , providing comprehensive education , health care , child care services to the families who often have literally nowhere else to go .  i am familiar with this , working with the texas migrant council in my district , laredo , texas .  this year we are breaking new ground by mandating at least 5 percent of the head start budget to go to migrant and seasonal programs .  i want to thank the chairman and the members of the committee for this .  this increase even by 1 percent means a lot , going from 4 to 5 percent .  it would permit migrant and seasonal head start to serve as many as 10 , 000 additional children .  this is a case where a small increase in funding can make a big difference to a lot of children , changing the path they are on .  i want to emphasize that this program is extremely important .  i know that for the migrant farm worker population facing a unique set of challenges , working on a seasonal basis , migrant families often have to move from state to state during the year , making it extremely difficult for the children to get in and remain in high-quality educational programs .  when they are in the fields , parents often work 12 hours a day or more , making it very difficult for child care .  this is why this provision is extremely important .  this program is important , and i know because i am also the son of migrant workers .  i want to thank the chairman and the ranking member ( ms. woolsey )  for the work , and the committee members for this new additional funding for the seasonal migrant workers .  
R	mr. chairman , i want to first of all commend the gentleman from texas for his leadership in this area .  this is a very important piece of legislation .  i think he does us all proud by pushing for this and ultimately , i believe , being successful in its passage .  i am pleased to be a cosponsor of h.r. 420 , legislation that will help curtail frivolous lawsuits .  it is reassuring to once again see that the congress is taking measures to help rid our court system of lawsuits that are costly and hurt both consumers and businesses in our country .  the legislation is aimed at enforcing the laws that govern attorneys in relation to filing frivolous lawsuits .  the actual standard of what constitutes a frivolous lawsuit will not change .  but consequences for such actions will .  in 1993 , the civil rules advisory committee , an unelected body , decided that sanctions against attorneys who file frivolous lawsuits should be optional .  justice david brewer once wrote : `` america is the paradise of lawyers. '' in my opinion , this `` paradise '' has resulted in increased prices for consumer goods and higher insurance premiums and a decrease in domestic manufacturing , which has been one of the things that we have heard more and more discussion about in this country , the loss of manufacturing jobs .  h.r. 420 seeks to rein in lawsuit-happy litigators by restoring mandatory sanctions for filing frivolous lawsuits , a violation of rule 11 of the federal rules of civil procedure .  this bill also prevents forum shopping by requiring that personal injury cases be brought only where the plaintiff resides , where the plaintiff was allegedly injured , or where the defendant 's principal place of business is located .  finally , the bill would apply a three-strikes-and-you-are-out rule , as we have heard , to attorneys who commit three or more rule 11 violations in federal district court .  as a member of the house judiciary committee , as well as a member of the small business committee , i have heard endless accounts of family-owned small businesses being led to financial ruin by the exorbitant cost of frivolous lawsuits .  according to the nfib , the national federation of independent businesses , small business owners ranked the cost and availability of liability insurance as the second most important problem facing small business owners today .  small business owners know that if they are sued , they are likely to have to choose between a long and costly trial or an expensive settlement .  either choice significantly impacts the operations of a business and the livelihood of its employees .  this hurts the little guy because of these lawsuits .  most business decisions today are made with this new reality in mind .  this bill will help make american small businesses more competitive by lowering their unnecessary legal expenses , allowing business owners to focus on hiring new employees and expanding available products .  this bill will help make american businesses more competitive .  it will allow business owners to focus on hiring new employees , which is really critical in this economy that we are faced with , and expanding the availability of products and services and improving the american economy .  mr. chairman , i again want to thank the gentleman from texas for his leadership in introducing this important piece of legislation .  it is time that we put an end to these frivolous lawsuits that are impacting the economy , that are hurting , especially , small businesses and are resulting in the loss of jobs of many , many americans in this country .  
R	madam speaker , by direction of the committee on rules , i call up h. res. 508 and ask for its immediate consideration .  
R	madam speaker , in response to some of the comments that were made , i just want to hold up this document that lists over 300 groups in support of lara , the lawsuit abuse reduction act of 2005 , and i will include them in the record .  i would like to also point out that the federal judicial center was in opposition to class action reform , which we passed in the previous congress and in the 108th by a vote in this body of 279 to 149 .  groups supporting h.r. 420 -- the lawsuit abuse reduction act of 2005 advanced medical technology association .  air conditioning contractors of america .  alabama civil justice reform committee .  alabama restaurant association .  alabama trucking association , inc .  alaska cabaret , hotel , restaurant and retailers association .  alliance of automotive service providers of minnesota .  alliance of automotive service providers of pennsylvania .  america chamber of commerce ( nv ) .  american apparel and footwear association .  american automotive leasing association .  american bakers association .  american boiler manufacturers association .  american business conference .  american chemistry council .  american council of engineering companies .  american health care association .  american home furnishing alliance .  american insurance association .  american international automobile dealers association .  american legislative exchange council .  american machine tool distributors association .  american petroleum institute .  american rental association .  american road & amp ; transportation builders association .  american supply association .  american trucking associations .  american tort reform association .  american veterinary distributors association .  american wholesale marketers association .  antelope valley chamber of commerce ( ca ) .  ardmore chamber of commerce ( ok ) .  arkansas chapter , national electrical contractors association .  arkansas hospitality association .  arizona chapter , national electrical contractors association .  arizona restaurant & amp ; hospitality association .  associated builders & amp ; contractors .  associated general contractors of america .  associated equipment distributors .  asfe -- associated soil & amp ; foundation engineers .  associated wire rope fabricators .  association for high technology distribution .  association of equipment manufacturers .  association of pool & amp ; spa professionals .  amt -- the association for manufacturing technology .  automotive aftermarket industry association .  automotive parts remanufacturers association .  automotive parts & amp ; service association of illinois .  aviation distributors & amp ; manufacturers association .  bay area citizens against lawsuit abuse .  bearing specialists association .  brunswick-golden isles chamber of commerce ( ga ) .  business council of new york state , inc .  business roundtable .  california central coast chapter , national electrical contractors association .  california restaurant association .  california/nevada automotive wholesalers association .  central california citizens against lawsuit abuse .  central illinois , national electrical contractors association .  chamber of business and industry of centre county ( pa ) .  chamber of commerce for anderson & amp ; madison county ( in ) .  chamber of commerce of the mid-ohio valley ( wv ) .  citizens against lawsuit abuse of central texas .  citizens for civil justice reform .  city of chicago , national electrical contractors association .  civil justice association of california .  cleaning equipment trade association .  cleveland chapter , national electrical contractors association .  coalition for uniform product liability law .  colorado civil justice league .  colorado motor carriers association .  colorado restaurant association .  connecticut restaurant association .  construction industry round table .  copper & amp ; brass service center association .  council of insurance agents and brokers .  crawfordsville/montgomery chamber of commerce ( in ) .  dayton area chamber of commerce ( oh ) .  delaware motor transport association .  delaware restaurant association .  east texans against lawsuit abuse .  the employers association .  electrical manpower development trust .  equipment leasing association .  florida chamber of commerce .  florida restaurant association .  food industry suppliers association .  gas appliance manufacturers association .  gases and welding distributors association .  general aviation manufacturers association .  georgia association of petroleum retailers , inc .  georgia industry association .  georgia restaurant association .  great lakes petroleum retailers & amp ; allied trades association .  georgia motor trucking association .  hawaii restaurant association .  hawaii transportation association .  health industry distributors association .  healthcare distribution management association .  heating , air conditioning & amp ; refrigeration distributors international association .  hobbs chamber of commerce ( nm ) .  hospitality association of south carolina .  hospitality minnesota -- minnesota 's restaurant , hotel & amp ; lodging and resort & amp ; campground associations .  hudson valley chapter , national electrical contractors association ( ny ) .  humble area chamber of commerce ( tx ) .  idaho lodging and restaurant association .  illinois chapter , national electrical contractors association .  illinois civil justice league .  illinois lawsuit abuse watch .  illinois quad city chamber .  illinois restaurant association .  independent electrical contractors .  independent insurance agents & amp ; brokers of america , inc .  independent sealing distributors .  industrial compressor distributor association .  industrial supply association .  international association of plastics distributors .  international foodservice distributors association .  international franchise association .  international furniture suppliers association .  international housewares association .  international safety equipment association .  international sanitary supply association .  international sign association .  international sleep products association .  international truck parts association .  iowa hospitality association .  iowa motor truck association .  jackson area manufacturers association .  kansas chamber of commerce .  kansas city chapter , national electrical contractors association .  kansas restaurant and hospitality association .  kentucky motor transport association .  kentucky restaurant association .  kern county chapter , national electrical contractors association ( ca ) .  kingman area chamber of commerce ( az ) .  lakewood chamber of commerce ( wa ) .  latrobe area chamber of commerce ( pa ) .  lawn and garden marketing and distribution association .  lebanon valley chamber of commerce ( pa ) .  los angeles citizens against lawsuit abuse .  los angeles fastener association .  louisiana motor transport association .  louisiana restaurant association .  maine liability crisis alliance .  maine restaurant association .  manufactured housing institute .  manufacturers ' association of northwest pennsylvania .  marion area chamber of commerce ( il ) .  maryland business for responsive government .  maryland chapter , national electrical contractors association .  massachusetts restaurant association .  material handling equipment distributors association .  mechanical contractors association of america .  memphis chapter , national electrical contractors association .  metals service center institute .  mason contractors association of america .  michigan chamber of commerce .  michigan lawsuit abuse watch .  michigan restaurant association .  minnesota trucking association .  mississippi hospitality and restaurant association .  mississippi manufacturers association .  mississippi trucking association .  mississippians for economic progress .  missouri motor carriers association .  missouri restaurant association .  montana chamber of commerce/montana liability coalition .  montana motor carriers association .  montana restaurant association .  motor & amp ; equipment manufacturers association .  motorcycle industry council .  national association of chemical distributors .  national association of convenience stores .  national association of electrical distributors .  national association of home builders .  national association of manufacturers .  national association of mutual insurance companies .  national association of sign supply distributors .  national association of wholesaler-distributors .  national concrete masonry association .  national council of chain restaurants of the national retail federation .  national electrical contractors association .  national federation of independent business .  national lumber & amp ; building materials dealers association .  national marine distributors association .  national paint & amp ; coatings association .  national pest management association .  national propane gas association .  national restaurant association .  nrf -- the national retail federation .  national roofing contractors association .  national school supply & amp ; equipment association .  national shooting sports foundation .  nahad -- the association for hose & amp ; accessories distributors npes -- the association for suppliers of printing , publishing and converting technologies .  national small business association .  nebraska restaurant association .  nebraska trucking association .  nevada state medical association .  new hampshire lodging and restaurant association .  new jersey automobile wholesalers association .  new jersey business & amp ; industry .  new jersey motor truck association .  new jersey restaurant association .  new mexico alliance for legal reform .  new mexico chapter , national electrical contractors association .  new mexico restaurant association .  nevada restaurant association .  new york state automotive aftermarket association .  new york state motor truck association .  new york state restaurant association .  north american horticultural supply association .  north carolina citizens for business and industry .  north carolina restaurant association .  north carolina trucking association .  north dakota state hospitality association .  north florida chapter , national electrical contractors association .  north louisiana chapter , national electrical contractors association .  north texas chapter , national electrical contractors association .  northeastern illinois chapter , national electrical contractors association .  northern california citizens against lawsuit abuse .  northern illinois chapter , national electrical contractors association .  northern new york chapter , national electrical contractors association .  northern rhode island chamber of commerce .  office products wholesalers association .  ohio association of wholesaler-distributors .  ohio manufacturers association .  ohio restaurant association .  ohio trucking association .  oklahoma restaurant association .  orange chamber of commerce ( ca ) .  orange county citizens against lawsuit abuse .  oregon restaurant association .  outdoor power equipment & amp ; engine service association .  outdoor power equipment institute .  outdoor power equipment aftermarket association .  pacific printing & amp ; imaging association ( ak , hi , id , mt , or , wa ) .  packaging machinery manufacturers institute .  painting & amp ; decorating contractors of america .  penn-ohio chapter , national electrical contractors association .  pennsylvania health care association .  pennsylvania restaurant association .  paris area chamber of commerce & amp ; tourism ( il ) .  pennsylvania automotive wholesalers association .  pet industry distributors association .  petroleum equipment institute .  petroleum marketers association of america .  petroleum retailers & amp ; auto repair association .  plumbing-heating-cooling contractors association .  post card and souvenir distributors association .  power transmission distributors association .  printing & amp ; graphic communications association .  printing & amp ; imaging association of mid-america ( ks , mo , ok , tx ) .  printing & amp ; imaging association , mountain states .  printing association of florida .  printing industries association of san diego .  printing industries of michigan .  printing industry association of the south ( al , ar , ky , la , ms , tn , wv ) .  printing industries of america .  printing industries of illinois/indiana association .  printing industries of new england ( me , nh , vt , ma , ri ) .  production engine remanufacturers association .  property casualty insurers association of america .  red river valley chapter , national electrical contractors association ( tx ) .  retail industry leaders association .  restaurant and hospitality association of indiana .  restaurant association of maryland , inc .  restaurant association of metro washington , inc .  rhode island hospitality and tourism association .  richmond/spring grave chamber ( il ) .  rio grande valley partnership .  rubber manufacturers association .  safety equipment distributors association , inc .  saguaro chapter , national electrical contractors association ( az ) .  st .  paul chapter , national electrical contractors association ( mn ) .  san diego chapter , national electrical contractors association .  san diego county citizens against lawsuit abuse .  san diego employers association .  scaffold industry association .  security hardware distributors association .  ssda-at -- service station dealers of america/ national coalition petroleum retailers and allied trades .  silicon valley citizens against lawsuit abuse .  sbe council -- small business and entrepreneurship council .  small business legislative council .  smc business councils .  snack food association .  south carolina trucking association .  south carolina civil justice coalition .  south dakota retailers association .  southern nevada chapter , national electrical contractors association .  specialty equipment market association .  society of american florists .  the state chamber of oklahoma .  steel tank institute .  tarpon springs chamber of commerce ( fl ) .  tennessee chamber of commerce & amp ; industry .  tennessee restaurant association .  texas association of business .  texas civil justice league .  texas restaurant association .  textile care allied trades association .  tire industry association .  truck renting and leasing association .  u.s. chamber of commerce .  u.s. chamber institute for legal reform .  utah restaurant association .  valve manufacturers association .  vermont lodging and restaurant association .  virginia hospitality and travel association .  virginia trucking association .  washington state liability reform coalition .  washington restaurant association .  waste equipment technology association .  west virginia chamber of commerce .  west virginia hospitality and travel association .  west virginia motor truck association .  western association of fastener distributors .  western new york chapter , national electrical contractors association .  western pennsylvania chapter , national electrical contractors association .  weston area chamber of commerce ( fl ) .  wisconsin manufacturers & amp ; commerce .  wisconsin motor carriers association .  wisconsin restaurant association .  wood machinery manufacturers of america .  woodworking machinery industry association .  wyoming lodging & amp ; restaurant association .  wyoming trucking association , inc .  madam speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	to the gentleman from massachusetts , we do not actually have any additional speakers at this time , so right now i am reserving the balance of my time for the purpose of closing , unless another speaker comes .  
R	madam speaker , i might point out that the people that oppose this legislation , as the gentleman from massachusetts mentioned earlier , are the very ones that support his party .  so i think that there is a little balance there , if that be true in either instance .  madam speaker , i would first like to close this debate by thanking my colleagues for a very productive discussion of both the rule and h.r. 420 .  the opportunity before this house today is another example of how this congress has improved our legal system and preventing frivolous lawsuits from closing the doors of justice for those who have truly been harmed .  contrary to what the opponents of legal reform might say , the underlying bill , as well as other recent bills , do not demonstrate contempt for our legal system or the esteemed profession of attorneys , but rather demonstrate respect for the important and historic role of our judicial system in defending the rights and ensuring the constitutional application of the laws .  frivolous lawsuits have not only driven up costs and destroyed economic opportunity for the american people , but they have also damaged the image of the courts .  when the american people stop respecting the decisions of the judiciary , the courts begin to lose their effectiveness , and they cease to perform their constitutionally mandated role .  for the sake of the courts and for the sake of the american people , we in this house need to push forward with this additional meaningful and genuine reform .  therefore , i would like to urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the center aisle to support this rule and the underlying bill .  
R	madam speaker , i yield back the balance of my time , and i move the previous question on the resolution .  the previous question was ordered .  the resolution was agreed to .  a motion to reconsider was laid on the table .  
D	mr. chairman , i thank my colleague from california for yielding me time .  i rise in opposition of h.r. 420 and in support of the substitute .  this bill would not do anything to reduce frivolous lawsuits .  in fact , my concern about it is it is unnecessary , and it will infringe on states being able to manage their own court systems .  rule 11 of the federal rules of civil procedure was amended in 1993 to its current state because it was being abused by defendants in civil rights cases who filed a series of rule 11 motions to harass the men and women who challenged discrimination .  until now there has been no demonstrated problems with the current version of the rule .  usually this type of change in civil procedure goes through a process of the rules enabling act .  but in this instance we have decided to circumvent the united states judicial conference and the united states supreme court .  we have taken it upon ourselves to decide what is best for the judicial system .  the lawsuit reduction act would amend rule 11 of the federal rules of civil procedure and revert back to that pre-1993 status .  by doing this , again , we take away states ' discretion to impose sanctions on improper and frivolous pleadings .  this would eliminate the current safe harbor provision , permitting the attorneys to withdraw improper frivolous motions within 21 days after they have been challenged by an opposing counsel .  additionally , this bill dictates where plaintiffs can file a personal injury lawsuit against a corporation in a state court .  do we really want to get into the jurisdictional battles in our states ?  reverting back to the previous rule 11 would make people less likely to challenge unjust laws because they are putting themselves at risk for being harassed .  at the time some people thought brown v. board of education was a frivolous lawsuit , but it did not look like it had a chance until the supreme court recognized that separate was not equal .  if we had this strict version of rule 11 back then , maybe brown v. board of education would have never made it to the supreme court .  this bill is another example of congress intruding on states ' rights .  our system of government is designed to keep our judicial system separate , particularly our state judicial system .  we simply do not have the right to tell state and county courthouses across the nation how to enforce sanctions in their courtrooms or where the plaintiff may file a lawsuit in the state courts .  
D	mr. chairman , i rise in opposition to h.r. 420 , a measure that purports to reduce frivolous lawsuits .  while no one likes to see unnecessary , merit-less lawsuits clogging our court system , this bill only serves as an unneeded intrusion of federal authority into state matters .  h.r. 420 substantially changes state court procedure by forcing state judges , within 30 days of a case being filed , to conduct an extensive and lengthy pre-trial hearing to determine whether federal sanctions must be imposed in a state proceeding .  this would require a judge to examine evidence in detail and even to make a pre-trial judgment as to what the outcome of a case might be .  these requirements will only serve to add time and expense to the proceedings .  federal judges overwhelmingly agree that the federal court rules operate more efficiently and fairly when they are discretionary rather than mandatory .  mr. chairman , states already have some version of the rule that is exactly or substantially similar to the federally available sanction .  state courts should not be forced to spend scarce taxpayer money to conduct an expensive hearing in order to apply a federal rule that mirrors a mechanism they already have in place .  
D	mr. chairman , i was listening to the gentleman framing the question , and the gentleman framed the question i think in the way that we should ask our colleagues for them to give us an answer .  i think what the gentleman has suggested in his very detailed and eloquent presentation , there is a judicial system in place that is functioning and functional .  we should take the boy scouts ' oath , make your camp better than you found it .  therefore , if there are issues that we can improve in the judiciary , let us do it .  but i am just looking at some information here that tells me that federal litigation is , in fact , decreasing .  a 2005 report issued by the u.s. department of justice says that the u.s. district courts in some areas , of course , fell 79 percent , fell 79 percent , the cases , the tort cases , between 1985 and 2003 .  according to the administrative office of the u.s. courts , tort actions in the u.s. district courts went down from 29 percent from 2002 to 2003 , so it fell 28 percent .  in addition , over the last 5 years , federal civil filings have not only decreased 8 percent , but the prefilings that are personal injury cases has also declined .  state litigation is decreasing .  the numbers show they are decreasing .  lawsuit filings are decreasing .  as i said , tort filings have declined 5 percent since 1993 .  contract filings have declined .  i do not particularly consider that a good omen .  i would like people to legitimately feel they can go into the courts for their remedies .  but the question is , it is not broken , and here we are putting heavier burdens on the court system that literally shuts the door closed to a number of individuals , and i think that is completely unacceptable for the responsibility of this congress .  
D	mr. chairman , i thank my good friend from new york for yielding me the time .  mr. chairman , i rise in opposition to h.r. 420 , legislation that would have a chilling effect on a plaintiff 's ability to seek recourse in court .  as i have listened to my colleagues on the floor talk about three-strikes-and-you-are-out with regard to a counsel , you would think this was a criminal situation .  they took discretion away from judges with mandatory sentencing .  they said , judge , no matter what the facts are of the case , if this is the penalty , then you impose such penalty .  what is very interesting is , even though my colleague cited john kerry , john edwards , president bush , and the judiciary committee , not one of them have sat as a judge in a case , making decisions about rule 11 cases .  i am proud to say that i served as a judge for 10 years in the trial court in the state of ohio and have had the ability to review complaints , review discovery decisions , review pleadings .  and judges should be vested with the same discretion they are vested with in other situations and not be subjected to this rule 11 sanctions piece that is being proposed by this legislation .  it is unconscionable that the claim that businesses get on with more business or they can hire more employees , to use that to play against the ability of a plaintiff to bring a lawsuit .  what is going to make business do better in the united states of america is this country having a policy that encourages business .  what is going to make people work better in the united states of america is having greater opportunity for business , and you can not blame business not doing well on lawsuits , just as you can not blame doctors running all over creation because of medical malpractice .  i encourage all of my colleagues to take a close look at what this legislation will do , to take a close look and listen to the arguments that are being made by my colleagues with regard to this legislation , and vote in opposition to h.r. 420 .  
R	mr. chairman , i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time .  mr. chairman , i rise today as a cosponsor and strong supporter of the lawsuit abuse reduction act .  i am going to tell the members why i support this legislation and what the key components of this legislation is .  first , why do we need this legislation ?  we need tough mandatory sanctions to crack down on frivolous lawsuits .  we need to care about each other more and sue each other less .  we need to get back to the old-fashioned principles of personal responsibility and get away from this new culture where people play the victim and blame others for their problems .  most importantly , we need to protect those small business people who are out there creating 70 percent of all new jobs in america .  these small business people work hard and play by the rules , but they can not afford to defend themselves from meritless litigation .  for example , if they have a suit brought against them , to take it to trial to successfully win the suit , they often have to pay over $ 100 , 000 to a defense attorney .  so what do they do ?  they have to pay about 10 grand to settle the case to get rid of it for strictly business reasons even though they did nothing wrong .  this bill will help crack down on these frivolous suits by doing three key things .  first , it provides tough mandatory sanctions , not discretionary sanctions , if a judge finds that we have a violation of rule 11 , which may include the payment of the other side 's attorneys ' fees .  second , this bill has teeth in it by having a three-strikes-and-you're-out penalty .  three strikes and you 're out means if a judge finds that they have violated rule 11 bringing a frivolous claim on three separate occasions , they will be suspended from practicing law in that particular federal court for 1 year and will have to reapply for practice there .  that is a tough sanction .  i happen to be the author of it .  but it is key for members to know that there is a bipartisan idea , three strikes and you 're out .  to my left here , you see a quote from senator john edwards , himself a lifelong well-known personal injury lawyer , a former senator from north carolina and former vice presidential candidate .  he said in newsweek magazine , december 15 , 2003 , `` frivolous lawsuits waste good people 's time and hurt the real victims .  lawyers who bring frivolous cases should face tough mandatory sanctions with a three-strikes penalty. '' senator edwards is not the only one who holds that view .  you will see that senator edwards ' running mate , senator john kerry , told the associated press on october 10 , 2004 , `` lawyers who file frivolous cases would face tough mandatory sanctions , including a three-strikes-and-you're-out provision that forbids lawyers who file frivolous cases from bringing another suit for the next 10 years. '' president george w. bush , back when he was a candidate , february 9 , 2000 said , `` as president , i will bring common sense to our courts and curb frivolous lawsuits .  if a lawyer files three junk lawsuits , he will lose the right to appear in federal court for 3 years .  three strikes and you 're out. '' the austin american statesman summarized president bush 's plan as saying , `` bush 's plan includes stiffer penalties for lawsuits determined by judges to be frivolous , including a three-strikes-and-you're-out rule for lawyers who repeatedly file such claims. '' on the day before we marked up this bill in the judiciary committee , may 24 , 2005 , i visited with president bush in his personal residence and asked him , mr. president , do you still stand by this policy that we need three strikes and you 're out to crack down on frivolous lawsuits ?  he said , i absolutely do .  that is the policy of the white house .  so we have the democrat presidential candidate , mr. kerry ; the democrat vice presidential candidate , mr. edwards ; the president of the united states ; and the judiciary committee on a voice vote adopted this three-strikes-and-you're-out provision .  the third key element of this lawsuit abuse reduction act is language to avoid forum shopping .  it is the same language that we had in the class action legislation , which was approved on a bipartisan basis by both the house and the senate and signed into law .  essentially , if there is an accident , the claim will be brought where the accident is or where the plaintiff resides or where the defendant resides .  for example , if you lived in orlando , florida , like i do , and you went to your local mcdonald 's and you slipped on a puddle of water , you could bring your suit in orlando , where it should be .  what you could not do is say , well , i know that madison county , illinois is a judicial hellhole , and there are lots of plaintiff-friendly judges , and mcdonald 's does business up in madison county , illinois .  we are going to go file our suit there and do a little forum shopping .  that is the kind of thing that is not going to be allowed here .  in short , this is a commonsense bill that provides tough mandatory sanctions to crack down on frivolous suits and includes provisions that enjoy bipartisan support .  this bill has already passed the house .  i urge my colleagues to vote `` yes '' on this important legislation .  
D	mr. chairman , i thank the gentleman from california for yielding me this time and for the leadership that he has shown on the issue .  i also commend the gentleman from new york ( mr. nadler )  for the important issues that he has raised in regards to this important legislation .  mr. chairman , i think we can all concede or stipulate that no one is in favor of frivolous lawsuits in this country .  as a former special prosecutor , state prosecutor in wisconsin , and as a young lawyer who used to handle corporate litigation in a large law firm , i saw firsthand some of the abuses that take place in the judicial process .  but i believe that there is a right and a wrong way of moving forward in dealing with the frivolous lawsuit situation in the country .  unfortunately , the majority base bill today , i think , is the wrong approach , whereas the substitute that we are offering here cures a lot of defects that the majority is offering and would put some substance behind cracking down on the filing of frivolous lawsuits .  but first let us correct some of the facts .  there has been a lot of rhetoric from some of our colleagues here claiming that the real bane of the judicial system today are a bunch of trial attorneys running around chasing ambulances , filing needless personal injury cases , clogging the court system , driving up litigation costs , increasing the expenses of corporations , and that is what is to be blamed in regards to dealing with frivolous lawsuits , when , in fact , the facts indicate just the opposite .  a recent comprehensive study by public citizen has shown that the explosion in the filing of lawsuits has really rested with the corporations of this country , who have been filing four to five times more claims and lawsuits than individual plaintiffs in this country .  furthermore , when rule 11 sanctions have been applied , they have been applied in 69 percent of the cases against corporations that are abusing the discovery process or filing needless lawsuits .  so it is not these money-grubbing trial attorneys that so many want to believe that exist out there that are causing a lot of the problem in the judicial system ; it is rather corporations that are increasing it .  it is those who are most eager to support the majority base bill who are most likely to take advantages of the opportunities of filing lawsuits in our country .  i find that a bit ironic .  but we are also today , and both of us , the majority and the substitute , is really usurping the rules enabling act .  when congress passed that , it was a recognition that we here really do not have a lot of good expertise , and we are not in the trenches dealing with these rules every day .  that is why the judicial conference looks at rules changes .  they submit it to the supreme court for approval , who then finally submits it to congress for our consideration to adopt or to revise at the end of the day .  that whole process is being usurped .  finally , and as the gentleman from california indicated , we have a short-term memory problem in this congress .  this has been tried between 1983 and 1993 , and the rules were changed because it was not working , because we were taking away too much discretion from the judges in the application of rule 11 .  it had a disproportionate impact on the filing of civil rights actions in this country .  our substitute bill cures that by exempting the filing of civil rights under this legislation .  this is significant , because as the gentleman from california pointed out that when there were attempts to stifle meritorious claims from going forward or increasing the litigation costs in lawsuits , it was usually in the civil rights actions that were taken during this period which led to the change and the reform of mandatory sanctions back to a discretionary system , allowing the judges to decide the application of the appropriate penalties based on the facts and circumstances of the case .  what is this debate about today ?  i would commend a recently released movie called `` north country '' to all of my colleagues before they consider the final passage of this legislation .  it is about a young mother of two who took a job in the taconite mining company in northern minnesota and entered an atmosphere and environment of pervasive sexual harassment that not only applied to her , but all the women that were working in that company .  she was the first to file a class action suit on behalf of herself and the other women in the country and the nation .  because she was meritorious , she prevailed in that lawsuit that lead to incredible changes in regards to the treatment of women in the modern workplace .  that is what is at stake in allowing the civil rights actions to at least go through .  we allow that in the substitute , and i ask adoption of the substitute .  
D	madam speaker , here we go again .  whenever the republican leadership appears to be floundering or simply needs some legislative filler , they turn to the judiciary committee for some kind of anti-lawyer , anti-lawsuit bill .  we recently considered a bill to ban lawsuits against people who want to sue fast food companies , even though these cases are nonexistent .  now we are here considering another bill that will pass the house and go nowhere in the senate .  the fact is that the republican leadership has run out of meaningful legislation to consider .  they have run out of ideas .  so here we are once again considering another bill that attacks america 's judicial system and takes away rights from our fellow citizens .  time after time , the republican leadership refuses to bring necessary legislation to the floor .  where , madam speaker , is the legislation combating poverty or ending hunger or increasing access to affordable and comprehensive health care ?  where are their priorities ?  there are 45 million americans who have no health insurance in this country .  where is the increase in the minimum wage ?  where is the legislation to lower gas and oil prices ?  it was comical to see the republican leadership gather at a press conference the other day in reaction to the news that oil companies are making record profits .  and what was their response ?  they very nicely asked the oil companies to do more .  why should the oil companies do more when they have passed legislation to give oil companies more tax breaks and more oil subsidies ?  where , madam speaker , is the oversight into the iraq war ?  over 2 , 000 americans have lost their lives in iraq , and all we get from this leadership and all we get from this white house is `` stay the course. '' well , stay the course is not a policy ; it is a sound bite .  we owe our young men and women more than just a sound bite .  where is the genuinely independent 9/11-style commission to investigate the botched response to hurricane katrina and to make recommendations on how to prevent such another tragedy in the future ?  where is the fully constituted , functioning ethics committee to look into the numerous ethics charges that are mounting in this body ?  no , here we are dealing with legislation that we dealt with last year that is going nowhere .  the fact is , the republican leadership does not care much about these issues , and i know they are out of step with the american people on these issues .  so , instead , they bring us the lawsuit abuse reduction act once again .  this is like watching a bad tv rerun .  it was not good the first time ; it is even worse the second time .  remember , we considered this bill last year , and just like last year , it will pass this republican-controlled congress .  they will do their press releases , they will send it over to the senate , and it will go nowhere .  later today we will hear from members of the house judiciary committee who have particular subject expertise on the specifics of this legislation .  i will leave it to these members to explain the intricacies of the federal code and the rules of civil procedure and how rule 11 fits in .  i would like for a few minutes , however , to talk about the continued abuse of power that the republican majority takes to a new level today .  under this rule and under this bill , republican fund-raisers are rewarded , while the majority party continues its unabashed assault on the judicial branch of this nation .  do not just take my word for it , madam speaker .  one of the broadest arrays of groups that i have ever seen has come together to oppose this misguided , short-sighted , mean-spirited legislation .  these groups include , but are certainly not limited to , the naacp , the legal defense fund , the american bar association , the national conference of state legislatures , the national women 's law center , and the consumers union .  the one that stands out the most , however , is the opposition from the judicial conference of the united states .  now , what is that ?  what is this conference that opposes what my republican friends will describe as a critically important piece of legislation ?  the judicial conference was created by this very congress in 1922 .  their congressionally mandated mission is to be the principal policymaking body concerned with the administration of the united states courts .  the presiding officer of this organization is none other than the chief justice of the supreme court .  you know what the judicial conference has to say about this legislation ?  in a three-page letter to chairman sensenbrenner , in short , they say it is unnecessary and it is harmful .  if they were less judicious in their choice of words , they would say what i say : it stinks .  but what they say , madam speaker , this group representing the federal judges of this country , is that this legislation is fatally flawed .  they say that rule 11 of the federal rules of civil procedure , what the underlying legislation aims to fix , is working better today than ever before .  in fact , in their letter to the judiciary committee chairman , they say that federal district judges are united in their opposition to any legislation which seeks to amend rule 11 .  they specifically urge congress to reject this legislation .  now , madam speaker , let us think this through for just a second , shall we ?  the organization representing president-appointed , senate-confirmed judges thinks this legislation is unwise .  why do we think we know better than our federal judges how to operate the federal judiciary ?  frankly , i would laugh if i did not think that the majority was so sincere in their attempts to undermine the constitutional rights of every single american .  shame on you .  shame on all of you for trying to eviscerate the constitution , all for a few extra campaign dollars , because that is what this is about .  the underlying legislation is not sound public policy , plain and simple .  on the contrary , it is outright political grandstanding .  so let us be honest and let us call this bill and this debate what they really are : legislative abuse and a political charade .  the majority 's reckless disregard for judicial integrity mocks our constitution 's separation of powers doctrine , and i implore my colleagues to reject this rule and the underlying legislation .  madam speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
D	madam speaker , if i could inquire from the gentleman how many more speakers he has , because i am the last speaker on my side .  
D	mr. chairman , i rise in reluctant opposition to the lawsuit abuse reduction act .  as an advocate for reasoned and balanced reform to our american judicial system , i am afraid that today 's bill overreaches and sets a dangerous precedent for future legislation .  h.r. 420 treads unnecessarily on judicial independence and makes litigation overly burdensome for legitimate cases to have their fair day in court .  primarily , this legislation encroaches on the judicial rulemaking process by changing the federal rules of civil procedure , over which congress has no rightful jurisdiction .  this rulemaking process is the responsibility of the judicial conference and the supreme court .  furthermore , the requirement that state courts apply these new federal rules is an intrusion on state judicial authority .  i strongly believe that the integrity of the judiciary is in question if we impose our own set of rules on this independent body , particularly as congress continues to limit judicial discretion .  this action is wrong , and one of the reason that judges from across the nation overwhelmingly oppose this legislation .  furthermore , i believe this bill inhibits legitimate cases from having their day in court .  plaintiffs that have just cause for action , particularly in cases dealing with civil rights , may reconsider because of the threat of mandated sanctions and the elimination of the 21-day `` safe harbor '' rule .  this chilling effect on meritorious legal claims does not offer honest americans justice .  i also have concern that this bill will not deter frivolous lawsuits .  despite the anecdotes my colleagues have offered , there is no empirical evidence that rule 11 , which this bill seeks to change , is not working .  in fact , recent studies indicate that frivolous litigation is declining .  mr. chairman , i will continue to approach tort reform with the objective of ensuring that any legitimate cases have their day in court .  i do n't believe the bill before us today meets this standard .  
D	mr. chairman , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  mr. chairman , i oppose this bill because it will not reduce frivolous lawsuits , but will instead increase the cost of litigation at the state and federal level , set back the fairness of civil rights litigation , and favor foreign corporate defendants at the expense of their domestic competitors .  as a result of this misguided legislation , satellite litigation , costs and delays will result , and litigation abuses will not be reduced .  h.r. 420 makes significant changes to rule 11 sanctions without following the statutory rulemaking process .  the association of chief justices of the states and the federal judicial council have both criticized skipping the statutory rulemaking process .  this bill would revert rule 11 back to the 1983 version and unduly affects plaintiffs in civil rights cases .  the current rule 11 was adopted in 1993 specifically to correct abuses by defendants in civil rights cases .  by rolling back this rule and requiring a mandatory sanctions system to civil rights cases , h.r. 420 will chill many legitimate and important civil rights actions .  although the bill states that the proposed rule 11 changes shall not be construed to `` bar or impede the assertion or development of new claims or remedies under federal , state , or local civil rights law , '' the language does not clearly and simply exempt civil rights and discrimination cases , as it should .  determining what a new claim or remedy is will be a daunting and complex issue for most courts and clearly does not cover all civil rights cases .  the honorable robert carter , united states district court judge for the southern district of new york , who was one of the pioneers in civil rights legislation and worked on the brown v. board of education case , stated , `` i have no doubt that the supreme court 's opportunity to pronounce separate schools inherently unequal in brown v. board of education would have been delayed for a decade had my colleagues and i been required , upon pain of potential sanctions , to plead our legal theory explicitly from the start. '' this is a good example of the dreadfully detrimental effect of this rule on civil rights cases .  furthermore , this bill will operate to benefit foreign corporate defendants at the expense of their domestic counterparts .  section 4 , the `` forum shopping '' provision , would operate to provide a litigation and financial windfall to foreign corporations at the expense of their domestic competitors .  this is because instead of permitting claims to be filed wherever a corporation does business or has minimum contacts , as most state long-arm statutes provide , the bill permits the suit to be brought only where the defendant 's principal place of business is located .  in the case of a foreign corporation , that does not exist in the united states .  if a u.s. citizen is harmed by a product manufactured by a foreign competitor , under this bill the injured u.s. citizen would have no recourse against a foreign corporation , whereas he or she would have recourse against the comparable u.s. mr. chairman , this bill has another deleterious effect .  because it provides for reasonable attorneys ' fees in the case of a sanction , because many rule 11 sanctions are minor , and in any complex case there are almost invariably going to be some , the current law , first of all , permits the judge discretion whether to impose sanctions or not .  this makes it mandatory for even the most picayune infractions .  second of all , the current law says that if it is pointed out to an attorney that he has done something that would fall under rule 11 , he has 21 days to correct it .  if he does not correct it , he is subject to sanctions .  this would say they have no time to correct it .  they get automatic sanctions .  that is unfair .  thirdly , because under those circumstances this bill provides for attorneys ' fees , they had better have their head examined if they want to sue a large corporation , because if they are the little guy , and they have one attorney , and he is paid a reasonable fee , and they can afford the litigation , they hope ; but if they are suing the big company , and general motors has 32 attorneys lined up over there , and they are all charging $ 800 an hour , then reasonable attorneys ' fees are going to be a lot of money , and they have to anticipate , if they file that suit , that because of the mandatory nature of the rule 11 sanctions that this bill would impose , because of the lack of an ability to correct it , because of the automatic sanctions and mandatory sanctions , they have to assume that they are going to have to pay those sanctions , and they are going to have to pay the mandatory attorneys ' fees , so they had better not sue the big boys .  what this bill is really saying is big corporations shall be exempt from lawsuits by people who can not afford to pay huge attorneys ' fees of the big corporations , because we have to assume that will happen , and because this bill leaves no discretion to the judge .  it is no surprise that the united states judicial conference , the national association for the advancement of colored people , the alliance for justice , public citizen , people for the american way , the american association of people with disabilities , the lawyers committee for civil rights in law , the american bar association , the national conference of state legislatures , national partnership for women , national women 's law center , the center for justice and democracy , consumers union , the national association of consumer advocates , and the naacp legal defense fund all oppose the bill .  in other words , if members care about civil rights , if they care about the ability of the consumer to have justice with a large corporation , if they care about civil liberties , if they care about people being able to use the federal or state courts , they must vote against this bill .  i urge my colleagues to vote against this poorly drafted and unfair legislation .  mr. chairman , i reserve the balance of my time .  
D	mr. chairman , i observe the gentleman tells us that president bush assures us of the problem of frivolous lawsuits .  president bush assured us there were weapons of mass destruction in iraq and a lot of other nonsense .  so i do not give that too much credence .  
D	mr. chairman , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  i will summarize in a few words what we are really talking about .  there are frivolous lawsuits .  there are also novel legal claims which some may consider frivolous , but which , in the fullness of time , yield legal progress .  the claims against plessy v. ferguson were considered frivolous at first , but eventually the courts accepted them , and so with many other arguments .  the courts have rule 11 sanctions available at their discretion .  any judge who thinks an attorney is being frivolous , is wasting the court 's time , is wasting his adversary 's time , can impose the sanctions today .  the courts have not asked for further power .  the courts have certainly not asked us to tie their hands and to mandate that they impose sanctions whenever they are requested and a technicality may have been violated .  that is not justice , to enforce technicalities against the discretion of the judge .  the association of state chief justices are not in favor of this .  the judicial council of the united states is not in favor of this .  to mandate that attorneys be sanctioned on any technicality , to say that an attorney may not correct his own mistake , you must sanction him ; to say that three sanctions on three technicalities means he can not practice anymore is to tell attorneys , do not try novel legal arguments , do not argue new claims .  to say that attorneys ' fees , reasonable attorneys ' fees , will be assessed mandatorily , whatever the judge thinks , whether he thinks or she thinks it is reasonable or not , is to say that you better not sue the big boys , that you better not sue general motors , and a small business , a supplier can not sue wal-mart lest the attorney violate some technicality and the attorneys ' fees of wal-mart , with their 45 attorneys sitting there , be assessed against the small supplier .  this is not justice .  what this bill is , mr. chairman , is another attempt , another in a series of attempts , the class action bills , the various other bills we have had here , to close the courts , to close the courts to anyone who would try to hold giant corporations accountable .  that is what this is .  this is a bill that says , do not try to use the courts for civil rights , do not try to use the courts to sue large corporations .  we are going to make sure you do not .  we are going to punish you if you do , and we are going to make sure you can not find an attorney who will take the case because they are worried about draconian imposition of draconian attorneys ' fees .  so i urge my colleagues to reject this bill .  it should be rejected , because the courts ought to be opened to all people who need to use them .  otherwise there is no justice .  
D	mr. chairman , reclaiming my time , i thank the gentlewoman .  i think the gentlewoman has established not only that the system is not broken , but that any claim of an avalanche of frivolous litigation is absurd for these kinds of statistics of declining use of the courts , of declining caseloads , of declining filings .  again , the courts have not requested this , they have not said that there is any problem , there is any problem existing .  this is an attempt again to shut the courthouse doors to people who need access to the courts , and on the most fundamental grounds of justice , this bill ought to be soundly rejected .  
D	mr. chairman , i thank the gentleman for yielding me time , and i congratulate him and the gentleman from wisconsin ( mr. kind )  for their leadership in proposing this good democratic substitute .  mr. chairman , here we go again .  the madness continues .  once again , the republicans must prove that they are the handmaidens of the special interests by putting this bill on the floor today .  just when we should be talking about creating good jobs for the american people , expanding access to quality health care , broadening opportunity in education , having a strong national defense and doing it all in a fiscally sound way , the republicans are wasting the time of this congress and testing the patience of the american people with legislation that is frivolous .  it is something that is , again , another reflection of the culture of cronyism that exists under the republican leadership in washington , dc .  this legislation before us again seeks to protect their friends .  the outrageous venue provisions in the republican bill give defendant corporations special advantages by overriding state minimum-contact provisions and limiting the locations in which a suit can be brought and could render foreign corporations out of reach of the american justice system .  today , we will take the opportunity to address the republican culture of cronyism .  the gentleman from georgia ( mr. barrow )  will be offering a motion to recommit to make sure that politically connected cronies and no-bid contractors that defraud and cheat the government in providing goods and service after a natural disaster will never again be able to use these special bids .  they should never be used by government contractors that specifically intend to profit excessively from the disaster .  mr. chairman , i really want to congratulate the gentleman from wisconsin ( mr. kind )  and the gentleman from california ( mr. schiff )  for putting together a really excellent substitute to get rid of loopholes in the republican bill that favors big corporate interests and foreign corporations and to protect civil rights claims .  we all agree that if there are frivolous lawsuits , those who bring them should pay a price .  that we will have three-strikes-you-are-out for doing that is a very important provision in the substitute .  the substitute seeks to stop the madness that exists on the floor of this house when it is used as a venue to promote the special interests in our country .  we must stand up for the american people , not for the politically connected cronies who are getting a no-bid contract .  let us take a stand to end this culture of cronyism and corruption .  let us get back to the real issues that are affecting the american people .  we must vote for this substitute and send this bill back to ensure that no one who defrauds the american people during natural disasters is ever permitted to take undue advantage of our legal system .  we must , again , stop the madness by voting for the substitute that the gentleman from wisconsin ( mr. kind )  and the gentleman from california ( mr. schiff )  have proposed .  it has very excellent provisions and is worthy of the support of our colleagues .  
D	mr. chairman , before i recognize my colleague from texas , i want to respond to a couple of points made by my other colleague from texas ; that is , comparing the strength of the three strikes and you 're out provisions in the substitute and base bill .  the three strikes language in the democratic substitute would apply to frivolous proceedings that are filed in any court .  the base bill , on the other hand , would apply the three strikes provision only to the specific court in which the violation occurred .  that is a narrower provision of the base bill .  similarly , my substitute provides for the referral to the appropriate state bars for disciplinary proceedings , including disbarment after the third strike .  with the first violation there is the required payment of costs and attorneys ' fees .  with the second , the attorney is held in contempt with a monetary fine .  and then the third provision of referral to the state bar for possible disbarment , compared to the base bill which calls for a 1-year suspension only in the specific court where the three violations occurred .  the violations have to occur in the same court .  if you move from one court where you are sanctioned to another to another , the base bill seems to have far less strength and applicability than the substitute .  second , i wanted to rebut the claim that the substitute will somehow promote litigation more than the base bill .  in fact , when you ask the judges who have operated under both systems , the one that is proposed by the base bill and the one that is proposed by the substitute , the courts were quite clear that the earlier form of rule 11 , which we would go back to in the base bill , spawned a cottage industry where someone would file a rule 11 motion , the opposing counsel would file a rule 11 motion on the rule 11 motion , and then you would have litigation over whose rule 11 motion should succeed .  in fact , in 1993 , the judicial conference remarked that the experience with the amended rule since 1993 , since we got away from what the base bill would take us back to , has demonstrated a marked decline to rule 11 satellite litigation without any noticeable increase in the number of frivolous filings .  
D	mr. chairman , i have no further speakers , and i reserve the balance of my time .  
D	mr. chairman , i know my colleague will close very well .  how much time do i have remaining ?  
D	mr. chairman , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  in my concluding comments i want to reiterate some of the points that have been made with respect to the civil rights provisions and quote from the testimony of professor theodore eisenberg , who testified before the house committee on the judiciary in the 108th congress and said : `` a congress considering reinstating the fee-shifting aspect of rule 11 in the name of tort reform should understand what it will be doing .  it will be discouraging the civil rights cases disproportionately affected by the old rule 11 in the name of addressing purported abuse in an area of law , personal injury tort , found to have less abuse than other areas. '' i would also like to cite the testimony of the honorable robert l. carter , u.s. district judge for the southern district of new york when he stated : `` i have no doubt that the supreme court 's opportunity to pronounce separate schools inherently unequal in brown v. board of education would have been delayed for a decade had my colleagues and i been required , upon pain of potential sanctions , to plead our legal theory explicitly from the start. '' we do not want to put off a brown v. board of education civil rights case like that for a decade because of a rule 11 that has been rejected by the federal courts already .  the language in the substitute makes it clear that neither the sanctions approach we have taken in the substitute nor the sanctions approach taken in the base bill would apply in civil rights cases ; and while there is some language of suggestion in the base bill , it is not definitive .  in fact , the naacp wrote in respect to the language in the base bill : `` while language nominally intended to mitigate the damage that this bill will cause to civil rights cases has been added , it is vague and simply insufficient in addressing our concerns. '' so on the basis of a need not to chill civil rights legislation , which i think we have only seen the greater importance with , as katrina ripped off the veneer of poverty and inequality in the country once again for all to see , as we consider that the base bill would implement a change that the courts themselves have rejected and found spawned a cottage industry in meritless rule 11 litigation , and as the base bill has a stronger and i think more sensible three-strikes-and-you-are-out provision , i would urge my colleagues to support the democratic substitute in preference to the flawed base bill .  
D	mr. chairman , i demand a recorded vote .  
R	mr. chairman , i rise in support of h.r. 420 , the lawsuit abuse reduction act .  the simple fact is , we have too many junk lawsuits being filed .  it is imperative we reform our tort system , and it seems to me this legislation is an important step in this direction .  the house has passed several common sense bills that will help make our court system less prone to abuse and more fair for victims , such as medical malpractice reform and class action reform .  today 's legislation would restore mandatory sanctions on lawyers and law firms filing frivolous lawsuits and eliminate the current safe harbor provision that allows lawyers to avoid sanctions by quickly withdrawing meritless claims .  the legislation also prevents forum shopping by requiring suits to be filed where a plaintiff resides , where an injury occurred , or where the defendant 's principal place of business is located .  tort reform will make american businesses more competitive and lower costs to consumers while ensuring true victims ' rights to sue for damages .  frivolous lawsuits have discouraged product development , stifled innovative research and cost millions in insurance and legal fees -- costs that often get passed on to consumers .  making the system less costly will increase job creation , benefiting businesses and consumers alike .  i support this legislation and encourage my colleagues to do so as well .  
R	mr. chairman , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  mr. chairman , i support h.r. 420 , the lawsuit abuse reduction act of 2005 .  frivolous lawsuits bankrupt individuals , ruin reputations , drive up insurance premiums , increase health care costs , and put a drag on the economy .  frivolous lawsuits are brought , for example , when there is no evidence that shows negligence on the part of the defendant .  these nuisance lawsuits make a mockery of our legal system .  of course , many americans have legitimate legal grievances , from someone wrongly disfigured during an operation to a company responsible for contaminating a community 's water supply .  no one who deserves justice should be denied justice ; however , gaming of the system by a few lawyers drives up the cost of doing business and drives down the integrity of the judicial system .  let me give some examples .  the chief executive officer of san antonio 's methodist children 's hospital was sued after he stepped into a plaintiff 's hospital room and asked how the patient was doing .  of course , a jury cleared him of any wrongdoing .  a pennsylvania man sued the frito-lay company claiming that doritos chips were `` inherently dangerous '' after one stuck in his throat .  after 8 years of costly litigation , the pennsylvania supreme court threw out the case , writing that there is `` a commonsense notion that it is necessary to properly chew hard foodstuffs prior to swallowing. '' but , of course , the defendants had to absorb hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees .  in a new jersey little league game , a player lost sight of a fly ball hit because of the sun .  he was injured when the ball struck him in the eye .  the coach , who was forced to hire a lawyer after the boy 's parents sued , had to settle the case for $ 25 , 000 .  today almost any party can bring any suit in almost any jurisdiction .  that is because plaintiffs and their attorneys have nothing to lose .  all they want is for the defendant to settle .  this is legalized extortion .  it is lawsuit lottery .  defendants , on the other hand , can unfairly lose their lifetime savings , their careers , their businesses , and their reputations .  this is simply not justice .  there is a remedy : the lawsuit abuse reduction act .  it passed the house last year by a margin of almost 60 votes .  the bill applies to both plaintiffs who file frivolous lawsuits to extort financial settlements and to defendants who unnecessarily prolong the legal process .  if a judge determines that a claim is frivolous , they can order the plaintiff to pay the attorneys ' fees of the defendant who was victim of their frivolous claim .  this will make a lawyer think twice before filing a frivolous lawsuit .  it is a problem that even the american trial lawyers association has tried to address in its own code of conduct by declaring , `` no american trial lawyers association member shall file or maintain a frivolous suit , issue , or position. '' however , atla has not disciplined a single attorney for violation of this code of conduct in the last 2 years .  this legislation also prevents forum shopping .  it requires that personal injury claims be filed only where the plaintiff resides , where the injury occurred , or the defendant 's principal place of business is located .  this provision addresses the growing problem of attorneys who shop around the country for judges who routinely award excessive amounts .  one of the nation 's wealthiest trial lawyers , dickie scruggs , has told us exactly how this abuse occurs .  here is what he says about forum shopping : `` what i call the magic jurisdiction ... ..  is where the judiciary is elected with verdict money .  the trial lawyers have established relationships with the judges that are elected ; they 're state court judges ; they 're populists .  they 've got large populations of voters who are in on the deal .  they 're getting their piece in many cases .  and so it 's a political force in their jurisdiction , and it 's almost impossible to get a fair trial if you 're a defendant in some of these places .  the plaintiff lawyer walks in there and writes the number on the blackboard , and the first juror meets the last one coming out the door with that amount of money ... ..  any lawyer fresh out of law school can walk in there and win the case , so it does n't matter what the evidence or law is. '' forum shopping is a part of lawsuit abuse , and we must pass legislation to stop it from occurring .  even several largely recognized democrats have acknowledged the need to end frivolous lawsuits .  for instance , the john kerry for president campaign endorsed national legislation in which `` lawyers who file frivolous cases would face tough mandatory sanctions. '' and former vice presidential candidate senator edwards stated , `` lawyers who bring frivolous cases should face tough , mandatory sanctions. '' the lawsuit abuse reduction act is sensible reform that will help restore confidence to america 's justice system .  mr. chairman , the following organizations support h.r. 420 : american tort reform association , national association of home builders , national association of manufacturers , national restaurant association , american insurance association , and the united states chamber of commerce .  and this legislation is the top legislative priority of the national federation of independent businesses .  mr. chairman , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. chairman , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. chairman , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  mr. chairman , the scourge of frivolous litigation mars the fabric of our legal system and undermines the vitality of our economy .  as president bush has stated , `` we have a responsibility to confront frivolous litigation head on. '' h.r. 420 would do exactly that .  frivolous lawsuits have become a form of legalized extortion .  without the serious threat of certain punishment for filing frivolous claims , innocent people and small businesses will continue to confront the stark economic reality that simply paying off frivolous claims through monetary settlements is always cheaper than litigating the case until no fault is found .  frivolous lawsuits subvert the proper role of the tort system and affront fundamental notions of fairness that are central to our system of justice .  the effects of frivolous litigation are both clear and widespread .  churches are discouraging counseling by ministers .  children have learned to threaten teachers with lawsuits .  youth sports are shutting down in the face of lawsuits for injuries and even hurt feelings .  common playground equipment is now an endangered species .  the girl scouts in the metro detroit area alone have to sell 36 , 000 boxes of cookies each year just to pay for their liability insurance .  good samaritans are discouraged .  when one man routinely cleared a trail after snowstorms , the county had to ask him to stop .  the supervisor of district operations wrote , `` if a person falls , you are more liable than if you had never plowed at all. '' unfortunately , the times we are in allow for a much more litigious environment than common sense would dictate .  a federal lawsuit has even been filed against u.s. weather forecasters after the south asian tsunami disaster .  today results of frivolous lawsuits are written on all manner of product warnings that aim to prevent obvious misuse .  a warning label on a baby stroller cautions , `` remove child before folding. '' a five-inch brass fishing lure with three hooks is labeled , `` harmful if swallowed. '' and household irons warn , `` never iron clothes while they are being worn. '' small businesses and workers suffer the most .  the nation 's oldest ladder manufacturer , family-owned john s. tilley ladders company near albany , new york , recently filed for bankruptcy protection and sold off most of its assets due to litigation costs .  founded in 1855 , the tilley firm could not handle the cost of liability insurance , which had risen from 6 percent of sales a decade ago to 29 percent , while never losing an actual court judgment .  the workers of john s. tilley ladders never faced a competitor they could not beat in the marketplace , but they were no match for frivolous lawsuits .  when business week published an extensive article on what the most effective legal reforms would be , it stated that what is needed are `` penalties that sting. '' as business week recommends , `` give judges stronger tools to punish renegade lawyers. '' before 1993 , it was mandatory for judges to impose sanctions such as public censures , fines , or orders to pay for the other side 's legal expenses .  then the civil rules advisory committee , an obscure branch of the courts , made penalties optional .  this needs to be reversed by congress .  today , h.r. 420 would do exactly that .  rule 11 of the federal rules of civil procedure presently does not require sanctions against parties who bring frivolous lawsuits .  without certain punishment for those who bring these suits and the threat of serious monetary penalties to compensate the victims of frivolous lawsuits , there is little incentive for lawsuit victims to spend time and money seeking sanctions for lawsuit abuse .  in fact , as currently written , rule 11 allows lawyers to entirely avoid sanctions for filing frivolous claims by withdrawing them within 3 weeks .  such a rule actually encourages frivolous claims because personal injury attorneys can file harassing pleadings secure in the knowledge that they have nothing to lose .  if someone objects , they can always retreat without penalty .  h.r. 420 would restore mandatory sanctions and monetary penalties under federal rule 11 for filing frivolous lawsuits and abusing the litigation process .  it would also extend these same protections to cover state cases that a state judge determines have interstate implications and close the loopholes of a tort system that often resembles a tort lottery .  the legislation applies to frivolous lawsuits brought by businesses as well as individuals , and it expressly precludes application of the bill to civil rights cases if applying the bill to such cases would bar or impede the assertion or development of new claims or remedies under federal , state , or local civil rights law .  the class action fairness act , which was recently signed into law after receiving broad support in both houses , prohibits the unfair practice of forum shopping for favorable courts when the case is styled as a class action .  the same policy should apply to individual lawsuits as well .  one of the nation 's wealthiest personal injury attorneys , richard `` dickie '' scruggs , and i quoted him at length a while ago , but i will quote him a little bit shorter right now , described what he calls `` magic jurisdictions '' as `` what i call the `magic jurisdictions ' is where it is almost impossible to get a fair trial if you are a defendant .  any lawyer fresh out of law school can walk in there and win the case , so it does not matter what the evidence or the law is. '' america 's system of justice deserves better , much better .  h.r. 420 prevents the unfair practice of forum shopping by requiring that personal injury cases be brought only where there is some reasonable connection to the case ; namely , where the plaintiff lives or was allegedly injured , where the defendant 's principal place of business is located , or where the defendant resides .  the time for congressional action to close the loopholes that create incentives for frivolous lawsuits is now .  too many jobs have been lost and more will not be created if this legislation is not enacted into law .  i urge my colleagues to return a measure of fairness to america 's legal system by passing the lawsuit abuse reduction act .  
R	mr. chairman , i yield myself 30 seconds .  mr. chairman , i want to point out to the gentleman from wisconsin who just spoke that i could have saved him a lot of time .  and i would like to remind him that he might want to take a look at the language of h.r. 420 , that it applies just as much to businesses as it does individuals , despite statements to the contrary .  
R	mr. chairman , i believe i have the right to close , and i am the remaining speaker on this side , so i will reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. speaker , i rise in opposition to the motion to recommit .  
R	mr. speaker , i oppose this completely irrelevant motion to recommit .  first , nothing in h.r. 420 , the lawsuit abuse reduction act , prohibits anyone from being sued for fraud to the full extent of federal law .  second , the motion to recommit relates to contract claims when the section of the bill that it modifies relates only to personal injury claims .  there is no flaw in the bill that needs to be corrected , but even if there were , the motion to recommit fails to correct it because it relates to contract claims rather than personal injury claims .  mr. speaker , i just received a statement of administration policy from the executive office of the president which i would like to read , because it provides a good summary of h.r. 420 , the lawsuit abuse reduction act of 2005 .  this statement reads as follows : `` the administration supports house passage of h.r. 420 in order to address the growing problem of frivolous litigation .  h.r. 420 would rein in the negative impact of frivolous lawsuits on the nation 's economy by establishing a strong disincentive to file such suits in federal and state courts .  junk lawsuits are expensive to fight and often force innocent small businesses to pay exorbitant costs to make these claims go away .  these costs hurt the economy , clog our courts , and are burdening the american businesses of america .  the administration believes the bill is a step in the right direction toward the goal of ending lawsuit abuse. '' mr. speaker , i urge my colleagues to oppose this absolutely irrelevant motion to recommit and support the underlying bill .  
R	mr. speaker , i demand a recorded vote .  
D	mr. chairman , i rise in opposition to the so-called lawsuit abuse reduction act because it would hurt all americans by exposing them and their attorneys to motions intended to harass them and slow down the legal process , a tactic often used by wealthy defendants in civil rights trials .  prior to 1993 , defendants in civil rights cases would file a crushing number of motions alleging frivolous actions on the part of the plaintiff in a blatant attempt to delay the case .  in 1993 , the rules were changed and judges were empowered to determine sanctions for frivolous lawsuits on a case-by-case basis , removing this delay tactic from wealthy defendants .  however , since the republican party does n't think judges have any business deciding how to run their courts , they want to repeal this change and revert back to the days of delayed justice .  this is one of many reasons why the u.s. judicial conference , headed by chief justice john roberts , opposes this bill .  further , h.r. 420 is unconstitutional because it forces every state court to implement new court rules and procedures , even though congress has no jurisdiction over state courts .  justice delayed is justice denied and i am proud to stand up for our constitution , judicial system , and all americans by voting no on this bill .  if that makes me a friend of the trial lawyers , then i proudly stand with the brilliant litigators thurgood marshall and abraham lincoln in opposition to political hacks like karl rove and george w. bush .  
R	mr. chairman , i rise in opposition of h.r. 420 , the lawsuit abuse reduction act of 2005 .  this legislation runs roughshod over states ' rights , forcing state courts to enact onerous procedures and stripping states ' jurisdiction in certain cases .  this bill would also force restrictive venue provisions on all state courts , which essentially tells state courts they do not have jurisdiction over certain claims brought by its own citizens .  let state legislatures and state judiciaries set their own rules .  and , by the way , a frivolous , meritless lawsuit is damaging to the system and the offending parties should be punished .  this bill also protects foreign corporations at the expense of consumers in that it unfairly dictates to states where their citizens can enforce legal right against a corporation based outside of the united states .  while h.r. 420 allows a victim to file a claim in a court in his or her home state , because of existing jurisdictional rules that state may be unable to exercise power over the foreign corporation .  for example , a corporation in mexico sells cribs in the united states and those cribs are shipped to kansas and sold in nebraska .  the cribs turn out to be defective and one collapses on a baby in nebraska , killing it .  it may be impossible , under this proposed bill , for that nebraska family to file a lawsuit in nebraska .  the family may have to file the suit in kansas but would have to take the case to mexico under h.r. 420 .  i can not in good conscience support a bill preventing a family in this situation from filing a lawsuit in its own state .  
D	yes , mr. speaker , in its present form .  
D	mr. speaker , if bills in this chamber required names that accurately describe their consequences , this bill would best be called the frivolous litigation proliferation act and not the lawsuit abuse reduction act .  many of us who oppose the underlying bill do so because it will actually increase the volume of frivolous litigation .  for example , some sort of rule 11 procedure exists in virtually every state in the country .  to impose a new federal law in every state court action will make state courts conduct a minilawsuit on federal validity before conducting a minilawsuit on state law validity , before they ever get to the merits of the case .  a lawsuit within a lawsuit within a lawsuit .  mr. speaker , that is as absurd as it sounds .  if members think that there are too many frivolous lawsuits against good , honest corporations , and the only way to fix this is to make it harder for everyone to sue anyone , and that this bill is the only way to do it , then vote for the bill .  but if there is one area where we do not have a problem with too many frivolous lawsuits , it is with lawsuits against price gougers .  and if there is any area where we want to make it easier to get to the merits of the underlying claim , not harder , it is an area of lawsuits against federal contractors who are engaged in defrauding the public .  right now the government is awash in government contracts awarded on a no-bid basis .  whether it is disaster relief or the war on terror , we have never done so much of the public 's business on a no-bid basis .  there has never been more opportunity for waste , fraud , and abuse in the conduct of the public 's business than right now .  this motion to recommit gives us one opportunity to protect our constituents from price gougers .  the motion to recommit is simple .  it says that federal contractors , engaged in price gouging in disaster relief work can still be sued anyplace where they can be sued now , in any state where both the laws of the state and the u.s. constitution says it is okay to sue them .  the underlying bill gives price gougers extra protections , the same benefits that we are extending to honest corporations .  one such protection , the only one addressed by this motion to recommit , is the right to avoid lawsuits in states where the constitution says it is okay to seek justice .  since price gougers do not deserve this protection , and since they do not need this protection , they should not get this protection .  this house has voted time and again to protect companies that are gouging consumers in the wake of natural disasters and national tragedies .  if members vote against this motion to recommit , they are voting to give the same special protections that we give to honest corporations to federal contractors who are engaged in price gouging in public relief work .  mr. speaker , the folks i represent back home in georgia want relief from price gougers , not relief for price gougers .  for that reason i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense and limited motion to recommit .  
D	mr. speaker , i demand a recorded vote .