Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit deplorably infringed on parental rights in Fields v. Palmdale School District.

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

Madam Speaker, I am strongly opposed to H. Res. 547. I consider it simply a politically inspired continuation of court-bashing featuring a hypocritical change in thinking that all of a sudden wants to read into the Constitution rights that no court and no student of the Constitution has ever before found.

But I also believe that the conduct that was the subject of this case was offensive, foolish, inappropriate and perhaps even injurious and harmful to the students.

What is going on in the Palmdale Unified School District? What allows a group of educators to allow a survey that asks questions like this to people as young as in the first grade? But none of that speaks to the merits of this particular resolution. It was introduced only last week. The case only came down 2 weeks ago or so. Its merits have never been considered in the committee process. This resolution simply serves as an attack on ``the nature of the Ninth Circuit.'' It is consistent with the agenda of the majority. I am surprised they did not put the resolution into the reconciliation bill. It should not be supported by this House.

The resolution expresses the sense of the House that parents have a fundamental right to direct their children's education. No argument there. And the Ninth Circuit decision has done precisely that. The Ninth Circuit decision cites the Supreme Court decisions that the gentleman, the chairman of the committee, cited that have held it is a fundamental right protected by the due process clause that parents have the right to make decisions concerning the care, custody and control of their children. The Ninth Circuit decision refers to the limitations placed on that right imposed by the First and Sixth Circuits, the circuits which first posed the supposed threat to parental control.

It was, after all, the First Circuit that held that ``this freedom,'' that is the right, the freedom to control decisions concerning the care, custody and control of their children, ``this freedom does not encompass,'' does not encompass, the First Circuit, not Ninth Circuit, ``a fundamental right to dictate the curriculum at the public schools to which they have chosen to send their children.'' Furthermore, the First Circuit says, ``we cannot see that the Constitution imposes such a burden on State educational systems and, accordingly, find that rights of parents do not encompass a broadbased right to restrict the flow of information in the public schools.

And it was the Sixth Circuit's opinion that the Ninth Circuit adopted here which stated, ``while parents may have a fundamental right to decide whether they send their child to public school, they do not have the fundamental right generally to direct how a public school teaches their child.''

But there is no resolution criticizing the First and Sixth Circuit Court decisions which the author of the resolution should be directing his disapproval towards. The resolution instructs the Court to rehear this case en banc and reverse its decision. This skirts the already available processes for addressing a questionable decision, an en banc petition or an appeal to the Supreme Court. If those in this body want to ensure a broad right for parent-influenced education, opportunities exist for them to legislate this right.

The difference between a foolish, unwise and perhaps harmful decision by a local school district and arguing that that creates and violates some fundamental constitutional right is an incredible leap of faith. This is a school district in California. Why are the parents not at the School Board asking the principal of the school that allowed this graduate student to conduct this survey to be fired? Why are the parents not urging that, if the superintendent does not do that, the School Board fire the superintendent? Why are the parents not organizing the recall of the school board members if the school board members are allowing this kind of a thing to go on? Why are the parents not going to Sacramento and asking the State legislature to prohibit these kinds of surveys of first, third and fifth grade students which get into personal questions that are not appropriately asked in that point of view?

There are so many appropriate avenues open for parents to redress the damage here. And that is all this is. It is a court case after the fact seeking to create, out of whole cloth, a refinement of a constitutional right that no court has ever applied.

It is a small irony that the proponents of this resolution are requesting that the courts engage in a level of judicial activism in order to support their political views. The law should be ideologically neutral, and therefore, the sponsor should be pleased that the Court specifically refused to express a view on the wisdom of posing some of these questions asked or of condoning an inquiry into some of the particular areas surveyed by the school district. The Court did not affirm. It specifically refused to affirm the wisdom and judgment of the people who distributed and prepared and implemented this particular survey.

The ultimate paradox for the cosponsors, though, is the lack of consistency in bringing this resolution forward. When requesting that the right of privacy protects parents' decision making, they must rely on the same decisions which they abhor and claim to be the result of judicial activism, rights that are inferred in decisions such as Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas, the penumbra, the unstated, unenumerated rights in the Constitution that some courts have found. Any strict analysis of the text of the Constitution cannot lead you to the conclusion that a fundamental constitutional right was violated here for which these parents are entitled to constitutional redress.

Could the proponents of this resolution actually be requesting that the Court read into the Constitution a right not explicitly enumerated in it? Do the sponsors want the Ninth Circuit to legislate from the bench? That does not sound like strict constructionism to me. So I think the issue is a serious one. The Constitution is not the place to go for recourse to rectifying the decisions that were made. There are many, many other alternatives, even tort actions dealing with the harm that was caused to the students who were subject to the survey; but not creating a new refinement of the constitutional right that two circuit courts have already said does not exist and, instead, as part of the agenda for bashing the Ninth Circuit and seeking to use the reconciliation bill to split the Ninth Circuit, provide us with one more chance to engage in that kind of game playing.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, the other irony is, here we bash the court for not creating a new constitutional right, never before proclaimed in the context of this resolution, in order to overturn a local school decision and, at the same time, we whip bills through here left and right stripping the courts of jurisdiction to decide the cases.

Madam Speaker, I say, where is the Federalist Society when we need them? All of a sudden, everything flips around.

Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, that right is very specifically protected in the Constitution.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.

Madam Speaker, a few points. I think the gentleman from Pennsylvania made compelling points about the stupidity and the danger of this kind of a survey. I have no argument whatsoever about the right of parents to have an important say in the education of their children.

The most fascinating thing about this argument is my friend from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) and the chairman of the committee are making a wonderful case for why you need to evolve notions of constitutional protections rather than be stuck with what the Framers were thinking at that time, because this was not happening at that time and the Framers were not thinking of it at the time.

What I am challenging is this notion that the answer to this particular outrage is a constitutional case in the

Federal courts. I repeat again: Where was the principal? Where was the superintendent? Where was the school board?

There are all kinds of ways in which a citizenry can take those issues into their hands. They could pass a State law prohibiting these kinds of surveys getting into these kinds of questions from being asked of first, third, and fifth graders. In fact, given this Congress's proclivities, we could just preempt local education and, at a Federal level, prohibit any local school district from doing this. This would not be so inconsistent with what we are doing in a number of other areas.

There are many courses here. The only issue is here is a Ninth Circuit that carefully follows, affirms the fundamental right of parents, acknowledges the limitations on that right imposed by the First and Sixth Circuits, specifically refuses to affirm the wisdom of a conduct of the survey that is the subject of a litigation, and then says we cannot find that we can essentially articulate a constitutional right here that gives people that kind of constitutional relief. Pursue all your other avenues for this ridiculous conduct. Make the people accountable. But it does not have to come from the Bill of Rights and the 14th amendment to the Constitution.

We cannot solve all of society's problems and all of government's overstepping and improper conduct by virtue of constitutional law. I think the conservative position on this issue should be to oppose this kind of a resolution and oppose the logic that goes into thinking like this and tell people that there are many problems that have to be solved in ways other than simply trying to establish you had a constitutional right to be protected from this kind of wrong activity.

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

Madam Speaker, let me start off by saying that as a psychologist who primarily specializes in issues dealing with children and families, when I heard the conclusions on this case, what leapt out at me was how this decision by the Ninth Circuit

Court really went far beyond the actual issues in this case, and I had great concerns. Let me walk us through a couple of points here.

In 2002, when the first claim was filed in Fields v. Palmdale School District, it came from a parental consent letter that was sent to parents from the Palmdale School District asking parents to sign this informed consent letter. The informed consent letter did talk about there would be three, 20-minute self-report measures given to the children one day. They said it was confidential and did say that the questions may make my child feel uncomfortable, and if this occurs, the researcher in this case would help the parents locate a therapist for some psychological help if necessary.

What the parents were not told was that it would contain several questions having to do with sexuality, which were given to first, third and fifth graders. Questions such as touching my private parts too much, thinking about having sex, thinking about touching other people's private parts, thinking about sex when I do not want to, washing myself because I feel dirty inside, and the list goes on.

The School District subsequently has claimed that they did not know those questions were going to be given to the children. In fact, they state that they saw a different questionnaire and something was swapped on them.

Here is what comes out of this case; that indeed, what may have occurred is this was not an informed consent letter given to parents, and even for parents who did not sign, for whatever reason, this lack of informed consent letter, their children were still administered this questionnaire.

This is not how psychological research is to be conducted, Madam Speaker. The standard of ethics for psychologists and for research is a letter of informed consent given to parents must clearly inform parents what is happening. The School District involved should have been clearly told what was happening in this case, too. And then what occurred here is neither.

But what is amazing here where this case in the courts could have reaffirmed parents' rights to informed consent before their children were used in psychological research; instead, the Ninth Circuit Court pulled out an overreaching conclusion out of the stratosphere that declared parenting is unconstitutional. They declared parents have no right to protect their children's privacy when they said, ``we hold that there is no freestanding fundamental right of parents to control the upbringing of their children by introducing them to matters of and relating to sex in accordance with their personal and religious values and beliefs.'' They go on to say that we do not quarrel with parents' rights to inform and advise their children about the subject of sex as they see fit.

But that is not what this case was about. It was a lack of informed consent. And parents were protesting this. And from the standpoint of psychologists, the question is whether or not issues like that were really appropriate to give to first, third and fifth graders. Certainly, when I have done psychological evaluations for children that we have concerns that they have been sexually abused, the psychologist involved is very careful; the law enforcement people are very careful what questions they ask the child because they are concerned whether the questions themselves cause problems for the children. And when that happens, one has to back off and not ask those questions anymore.

In a case like this, first, third and fifth graders overall were asked those questions when there was not even suspicion of some problems. But when the Court continues to say there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters for their children, either independent of their right to direct the upbringing and education of the children who are encompassed by it, I wonder where these conclusions come from. And I believe it is fully within the jurisdiction of Congress to raise questions and follow the procedures and ask the courts to review this again.

Certainly, as the distinguished gentleman from California was saying, I do not know why or if the parents asked for firing of the superintendent. I do not know what complaints they may have lodged with Sacramento or with school boards in these cases, and I cannot speak to those issues. What we are speaking to here is a case in which a court, I believe, far overreached the issues involved with the case and declared parenting unconstitutional.

I believe, and I hope Members will support this bill, because we are saying parents indeed do have a right to fully disclose informed consent when their children are asked to do anything. Certainly, parents may not be involved with every step of everything that is said at every level on every day on every moment of every part of a curriculum in school, and I do not think that is what the parents are asking in this case. But they are saying, when a psychological survey or questionnaire is administered to their children, they darn well ought to have the right to know what is in there, especially when the survey itself says it may cause trauma to children.

So I am asking my colleagues to support this resolution and ask the Ninth Circuit Court to review this case again.

Madam Speaker, the gentleman from California made a good point, that there are some dangers involved here. He said that they could have passed a State law in California. Indeed, they could have and should have. The school board could have also acted upon this, as I assume they may well have done so. And, indeed, much of this we would like to uphold is up to the States to take care of matters of education. I agree with him on those points.

Unfortunately, the Ninth Circuit Court did not agree. The Ninth Circuit Court instead decided to overstep, I believe, what are the boundaries of what a Federal court should be doing, and step in.

I believe it is incongruous that government enforces children's attendance in public school, but then the Federal courts say that parents have no right to complain about what children are exposed to while there.

Let me refer back to the conclusion made by the judge in this case. He said, ``We hold that parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determination of the public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students.''

Where did that come from? We are talking about children being asked questions of a sexual nature that, as a superintendent of the school has said, the school was not shown this questionnaire, it was not disclosed to the parents. Indeed, if the judge of the Ninth Circuit Court did what the gentleman from California said he ought to do, to simply say, this is not a Federal matter, this should go back to the States, they should deal with this in Sacramento, in the Palmdale School District, and they should make sure that they reaffirm the rights of parents to fully disclose information when they are signing consent forms.

This resolution also is not meant to be critical of legitimate psychological pursuits and research. Psychologists have a code of ethics they are to adhere to when they are undergoing research. Indeed, everyone in the mental health and medical fields have to have their research go in front of a human subjects committee to have their concept letters approved. This is not an attempt to bash the mental health community. In fact, what I am trying to do is uphold the standards of the mental health community, which I believe have been usurped in this case.

These were not children referred for legitimate psychological testing because there was suspicion of behavioral problems. These were everyday kids given a questionnaire, and everyday parents who were not told what was in that questionnaire. Indeed, what I say, as this resolution passed by the House declares, the fundamental right of parents to direct the education of their children is firmly grounded in the Nation's Constitution and traditions.

The Ninth Circuit Court undermines such a right, and the court should rehear the case and reverse the decision. I believe the Court's decision overreached the issues in the case; they overreached their conclusions, and it needs to be overturned.

When it comes to what schools are asking very young children about sex or about any matters of privacy, protecting the 14th amendment, the Ninth Circuit Court decided not only do parents not have the right to say no, they do not even have a right to know what is being asked.

On behalf of every parent in America, Congress calls upon the courts to correct this deplorable injustice. That is why, in this resolution, we are asking the courts to uphold the rights of parents, to uphold the rights of privacy, what the parents have about their children and certainly to overturn the decision that says parenting is unconstitutional.

I ask my colleagues to support this resolution, and I ask parents to also consider the conclusion that, if it stands, what impact this Ninth Circuit Court decision could have with regard to parents' rights to ever speak up again and challenge anything else within the school district.

Madam Speaker, here they go again. Once again, the Republican Party is demanding of the courts that they be more activist. Earlier this year, we passed a resolution denouncing the Supreme Court in the case of eminent domain for not overturning decisions of local and State elected officials in Connecticut. Today, we are asked to denounce the Ninth Circuit Court for not overturning the actions of a local School Board. And here is the nub of the Court's holding, quote, ``although we reached our conclusions with little difficulty and firmly endorse the school districts' authority to conduct a survey for the purposes involved here, we reiterate that we express no view on the wisdom of posing some of the particular questions asked or of conducting an inquiry into the particular areas surveyed by the school district.'' And here is what the majority is apparently upset about. That determination is properly left to the school authorities.

In other words, where is activism when you need it, Madam Speaker? Why do we not have a Supreme Court tell the people in Connecticut, elected officials, you may not do this economic development the way you want? We, the unelected Supreme Court, will overturn you. Here, without a specific textual phrase in the Constitution, even like taking of property, we say to the Ninth Circuit, how dare you say this is up to the school board?

The gentleman from Pennsylvania made some arguments that were very plausible to me about the lack of sense for some of these questions. He was critical. He said, you should not ask these of first, third and fifth graders. But it is not up to the courts to decide what is good or bad psychology. That is up to the school district.

And again, let us be very clear. This is the second time in a couple of months the majority has complained that the courts, the Federal courts, have not cancelled out the actions of local elected officials and State elected officials. Now, that is only a problem for this point.

What we ought to have is honesty in attacking the judiciary. Truth in demagoguery.

The point is that when you say you are opposed to the courts because they are activists and because lifetime-appointed judges are overturning elected officials, that ought to be what you mean. If you mean you do not like the particular outcome, say so. It is perfectly legitimate to be result-oriented, and lots of us are.

The problem here is the lack of intellectual honesty. Clearly, people are not opposed to judicial activism. In the case of eminent domain, in the case of this situation here, they are opposed to the lack of judicial activism.

Now, I also wonder how far that extends, because on Monday, the Supreme Court decided a far more important case, I believe, to the parents involved regarding their rights vis-a-vis their children. By a 6-2 vote, the Supreme Court said that the burden of proof is on the parents of a child with a disability. If the parents disagree

with what the school has proposed to educate a child with a disability, they, the individual parent, has the burden of proof in court in overturning what the school board has decided.

Now, I have to tell my colleagues this: I think if you are the parent of a disabled child, getting that child the proper educational structure is more important than whether or not she has to do a sex survey. You might dislike the sex survey, but I would think to most parents, getting the right education for your child is more important. But the Supreme Court said, no, the burden of proof is on you, the parent. You, the parent, have the burden of proof with regard to your child's education.

Where are the assertions of the absolute right of the parents? Why do the parents not have the kind of rights you are claiming? Was that making parenting unconstitutional? Did Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas who are in the majority make parenting unconstitutional when they said you, the parent, have the burden of proof if you want to improve the educational structure of your children?

In other words, what the majority says is when we do not like a decision, we will criticize the court. That is fine, that is free speech, as long as you do not get into PATRIOT Act situations. But why disguise what you are saying? If you really do not like the result, say you do not like the result. Why all these complaints about activism when what we have here is again a complaint about the absence of activism?

So I hope going forward, we will have honest debates about what the courts do and do not do, and we will stop pretending that we are upset about activism when what you are really upset about is judicial pacifism. You want the Ninth Circuit to overturn the Palmdale School Board. Well, why does a Member of Congress not do something about that with the school board of Palmdale? You are upset because the Supreme Court did not overturn the elected officials in Connecticut. Let us have some honesty in this regard.

Madam Speaker, let me ask the gentleman, because I know he has studied this well. I have read the opinion. I have not read the pleading. I do not know what specific phrase in the Constitution they pointed to, but I wonder from an originalist standpoint, did John Adams and James Madison want the Supreme Court to have the right, did they say that there was this absolute parental right? I would ask the gentleman, is this one of those nasty things we find lurking in that penumbra, which is such an unpleasant word?

Well, I cannot answer as to where the whole Federalist Society is, but I can tell the gentleman where at least one of the leaders of the Federalist Society who introduced my Governor the other day, I know where he was. He was busy making jokes about two Senators in the Ku Klux Klan, which he seemed to think, as did others, was riotously funny.

Absolutely. Let us just be very clear. I, from what I have read, would not have voted to issue that survey. I think it was a mistake. But I hope the majority is not telling us that it is the role of the circuit courts of appeals to second-guess the psychological judgments of the school boards.

Again, you may disagree even with what the court said in terms of the final decision, but let us be intellectually honest. It is a lack of activism. In the eminent domain case here, it is a lack of activism. It is a complaint by the majority that the courts have upheld decisions by local officials that the majority does not like. They have a right to that view; they just do not have a right to disguise it.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 553 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

(Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 553 is a fair rule. It provides for consideration of H.R. 1065, the United States Boxing Commission Act. The rule allows for consideration of the amendments, all the amendments that were submitted to the Rules Committee. We are making in order all the amendments that were submitted to the Rules Committee.

It also provides 1 hour of general debate, with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and 20

minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. The rule also provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

The underlying bill, Mr. Speaker, would establish a Federal boxing regulatory agency, the United States Boxing Commission. The commission would have the responsibility to protect the general interests of boxers, ensure uniformity, fairness, and integrity in professional boxing, and oversee all the professional boxing matches in the United States.

The boxing commission, in consultation with the Association of Boxing Commissions, will formulate uniform minimum standards for professional boxing. The commission would also ensure that Federal and State laws applicable to professional boxing are enforced and will assist State boxing commissions in meeting the minimum standards prescribed by the bill.

The bill requires that every boxer, promoter, or sanctioning organization connected with a boxing match must obtain a license from the boxing commission. The license could be suspended or revoked for violations of the standards adopted by the commission. This bill does not preempt any existing State boxing standards. As I stated before, Mr. Speaker, what it does is it establishes a national boxing commission really to oversee this sport, which is a sport of long tradition; but it is obviously one that is peculiar in terms of its degree of violence.

Mr. Speaker, when I was a child, I remember I was living in Spain. We had a friend, my family had a friend, who was in exile from Cuba. He was living in Madrid at the time. He had been welterweight champion of the world. He was a fine, gentle man. Really just an extraordinary human being. His name was Kid Tunero. He was very famous not only in Cuba but throughout the boxing world.

And I remember, and obviously this bill is not directly related to this that I am going to bring up now, but he impacted me in a number of ways. I remember his gentleness. It was impacting that a man who had made such a reputation as a champion boxer was perhaps one of the most gentle men that I have ever met. And he had two sons, and they were both artists. I do not know where they are today. At that time they were living in Paris.

And he told me, I would do anything in the world, anything in the world, so that my sons are not boxers because of what you go through when you are a boxer. Not only the actual physical torture, the physical pain, but having to deal with really much of an unfortunate set of circumstances. By the way, another aside, he was such a great boxer, Kid Tunero, in Madrid I remember, when I was a child, he was training a young man who became the flyweight champion of the world, and I met him. That was the only time I have ever been to a boxing fight, but I remember he got us really good seats. Imagine he was training Legra, and Legra got to be the flyweight champion of the world.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell the Members I remember I was 9 years old and to this day I can tell the Members I was up ringside being shocked, and I can remember the shock that I felt at the violence, the violence of that sport, the physical pain that those two boxers were feeling. I have never gone back to a match. I respect it. There are millions, millions of fans.

What we want to do with this legislation is set minimum standards for the protection of those people who make a living out of that tough sport. So even though Kid Tunero is no longer around, no longer with us, I think of him today and the lessons that I learned from him, how to be an ultimate gentleman. What a great man he was.

Anyway, that is what we are doing with the underlying legislation, Mr. Speaker. The will of the House will be manifested today, and people can either establish or not establish the boxing commission, but we are bringing forth that legislation with this rule.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my friend has advocated for the importance of States' rights. I think that is something that is to be commended. We certainly do believe in the American system of federalism. We do believe as well in regular order, and this bill came up. There were hearings before Chairman Barton. Mr. Stearns was telling us in the Rules Committee about how impacted he was at the hearing when he listened to Mrs. Ali because Muhammad Ali could not speak, but he was insisting on supporting, through Mrs. Ali, urging the committee to support and pass out this legislation because of corruption that exists in the boxing world and the need to regulate the sport and eliminate that corruption.

We believe in regular order in addition to federalism, and this bill had hearings. It came up through regular order, and we believe in letting the House express its will. Every single amendment, every single amendment that was brought to the Rules Committee for consideration was made in order for debate. I am going to vote for the bill, and obviously the Members can make up their minds whether they support it or not. I urge all Members to support this rule. The rule is fair and made in order every amendment submitted to the Rules Committee.

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

The previous question was ordered.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), my good friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes; and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise with great disappointment that the House is being asked again to consider legislation under a restrictive rule. My good friend from Florida said that the will of the House will be expressed here today. I query him as to how that will occur under a restrictive rule.

Under this rule, only a limited number of amendments will be offered by a select few. There are many who will argue that this legislation, when considered, is noncontroversial. If that is the case, then why not make this an open rule?

Or perhaps the question ought to be, Why are we considering this bill at a time when the House should be considering legislation that increases veterans benefits, invests in affordable housing, and ensures that our country's neediest have access to affordable health care under Medicare and Medicaid? The truth of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, none of these issues are being debated on this floor today because my colleagues in the majority are too busy cutting backroom deals that will cut Federal funding in each of these critically important areas as well as other areas of import. I just spoke with a group of foreign service officers who were pointing out to me some of the cuts that will take place in places where they are scheduled to go.

The majority knows that they are wrong on all of these issues, and that is why they do not want to debate us on them. So, Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves at this moment on the floor of the House debating a bill that I would think my friends on the other side of the aisle would say reeks of hypocrisy and overarching Federal Government interference. Are not Republicans the ones who claim that they are the party of States' rights? Are not Republicans the ones who claim that States are more effective in regulating what happens within their own State? Are not Republicans the ones who claim that another Federal commission trumping State commissions already in existence is nothing more than unnecessary bureaucracy? Are not Republicans federalists?

But Republicans are not saying these things. Instead, some are trying to divert attention away from the things on a much larger scale that actually matter.

Mr. Speaker, I am not trying to say that a problem does not exist in the sport of boxing. My friend mentioned one Kid. Mention to him another, Kid Gavilan, who died in our area and of my good friend, Representative Diaz-Balart, a shoeshine man after fighting some of the better fights in two divisions with some of the better fighters in the world at some point. So there are a lot of things to be said from people receiving too many blows upside their heads. In the last decade, amateur and professional boxing has grown into a multibillion dollar business. Promoters, cable companies, and the sporting industry as a whole reap big ticket sales from the sweat and toil of young athletes.

Yet those who actually step into the ring often find an entirely different opponent outside the ring, as Kid Gavilan did. Many boxers find those who claim to be in their corner have made dirty deals and shortcuts that undermine a boxer's earnings and in some cases their health. Contracts are often broken or exploited. Injuries and adequate medical care are sometimes overlooked. These are important issues that should be dealt with, but not by this body and not in this manner.

The solution would seem to be a crackdown on State commissions that woefully fail to enforce their own rules and regulations. Better yet, maybe we need a national sports commission to regulate all sports that Congress all of a sudden wants to regulate.

First it was baseball; and we really did clean up baseball and steroids. That is gone. We do not have that as an issue any more. And now it is boxing. What next? The National Hockey League or the National Football League?

All of these sports in some ways are violent, and we hear stories every year about athletes being injured, paralyzed and even killed. What about the Ultimate Fighting Championships, where

they put people in cages and then knock each other's brains out? Or World Wrestling Entertainment business where a lot of people wind up after careers in that field with broken bodies because they missed the trick at a given point? Or even our own United States Olympic Committee? If we are doing this about corruption, I can think of few sports committees in history as corrupt as the Olympic Committees. However, that is not what we are doing today.

In the grand scheme of things, we have more important issues to deal with: a failing war in Iraq, skyrocketing prescription drug prices, our own citizens displaced by a recent torrent of natural disasters in my good friend from Florida's district and my district alone, and continuing unethical behavior from executive and legislative branches of our government, including national security leaks.

All of these issues and so many more need to be higher priorities in our work today, but this body is silent on all of them. On behalf of the American people, I say, speak up. The silence is deafening. It is time that my friends in the majority stop wasting our time with bills that neglect those in need and divert attention from the failures of this body over the last decade. I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and the underlying legislation that does little, if anything, to promote the general welfare of our great Nation.

One of the arguments that was made is if we do not regulate this from a national level, what is going to happen is boxing will go on venue shopping. I pointed out yesterday that Ali fought the Thriller in Manila and in addition to that fought the Rumble in the Jungle, so if we regulate it from the Federal level, what is going to stop them from going abroad to rope-a-dope?

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