Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation that will significantly alter the ways in which we conduct elections. The Voter Outreach and Turnout Expansion Act of 2005, expands upon the Help America Vote Act, HAVA, of 2002 to incorporate several necessary measures.

In the aftermath of the 2000 election, Members of Congress united in an unparalleled bipartisan effort to pass election reform legislation. HAVA was one of the most far-reaching electoral measures since the Voter's Rights Act of 1965. This one accomplishment does not, however, signify the dissolution of political disenfranchisement within our current system.

In the 2004 Presidential election, we saw numerous problems resurface. Again, voters waited for hours to cast their ballots. Across the country, newly registered voters were denied access to polls and thousands of names were wrongfully removed from voter rolls. These egregious acts of disenfranchisement affected those most vulnerable, young students, minority communities and the elderly.

Such problems will continue to persist until further action is taken to implement election reform. We must not be afraid to be innovative in our solutions. Our greatest political legacies have often been born in times of unrest and implemented under the acquiescence of skeptics.

The VOTE Act takes aim at combating voter apathy through same day voter registration, early voting, no excuse absentee voting, improved registration by mail procedures, the establishment of an Election Day holiday, and guaranteed leave on election day to allow employees to vote. Specifically, the legislation does the following:

The VOTE Act requires states to establish same-day voter registration procedures. Under the legislation, voters who have not previously registered to vote will be permitted to register on Election Day at the appropriate polling location and vote in that election. To address concerns over voter fraud that in the past so many of my colleagues have suggested occurs, voters are required to present proof of residence and written confirmation pursuant to the Help America Vote Act. Title I of the bill is linked to the enforcement provisions of the Help America Vote Act to ensure states' compliance.

Further, the VOTE Act requires local elections supervisors to establish early voting polling locations within the jurisdiction where registered voters will be able to vote prior to election day. Early voting must commence no less than 22 days, or three weeks, prior to election day and shall be made available to voters during normal business hours each weekday. Additionally, elections supervisors must make early voting available to voters on no less than two weekend days during the three weeks.

The bill also prohibits states and local supervisors from requiring voters to provide a reason for voting absentee. All too often, voters become discouraged from voting absentee, or just voting at all, because they are required to provide a reason. Voting should not be a test where excuses are not permitted. On the contrary, absentee voting should be an option--and an easy one to take advantage of at that.

The VOTE Act also amends the Help America Vote Act to require that election supervisors provide voters with adequate time and opportunity to complete their mail-in voter registration form. In instances where the state registration deadline has already passed, supervisors are required to inform the voter of same-day voter registration opportunities that exist.

Further, my legislation requires that federal employees be given the day off on Election Day and encourages states to make Election Day a legal holiday and provide paid leave for state government employees.

Finally, the VOTE Act requires private companies with 25 or more employees to allow their staff to take up to 2 hours of paid or unpaid leave time to vote. Employees who live more than 25 miles away from their workplace are allowed to take up to three hours of leave. Enforcement of these provisions is tied into the Family Medical Leave Act. By and large, Americans who do not vote cite employment as the top reason for not voting. The VOTE Act allows them to work and vote without the fear of losing their jobs in the process.

Throughout these halls, Mr. Speaker, there have been numerous discussions of elections, yet the focus has been on who is spending what and how. We have become immersed in a discourse that is out of touch with the true needs of those we represent. As Members of Congress, it is our duty to pro actively address any and all institutional restrictions on political participation and civic engagement.

Mr. Speaker, how can we condemn the prevailing apathy among our youth if we ourselves personify that same approach? The VOTE Act will both engage new generations of voters and empower Americans in every city and State, nationwide. Our electoral concerns will not be abated unless such far-reaching legislative action is pursued. I urge my colleagues to not stand idly and watch our systems continue to weaken, lend your support to the Voter Outreach and Turnout Expansion Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a resolution supporting the goal of the United States establishing a responsible energy policy toward the Gulf of Guinea region in Western Africa that encourages local content development and greater governmental transparency.

The United States buys approximately 15 percent of its oil from the Gulf of Guinea region in Western Africa. Research indicates that in 10 years the United States will import 25 percent of its oil from the Gulf of Guinea region. The Gulf of Guinea region comprises the countries of Nigeria, Cameroon, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, Angola, Congo-Brazzaville, Sao Tome and Principe, and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

With record-breaking prices for oil and gasoline products, reliance on a narrow range of the world to supply most of our oil has proven to be short-sighted as well as costly. We must now consider a broader range of fueling sources. By working as an active partner with the Gulf of Guinea region in Western Africa, the U.S. can positively guide changes that help develop West Africa's oil economy while securing economic growth, finding additional oil resources, and honoring human needs.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. As Members of Congress, it is our moral responsibility to ensure that we establish a responsible energy policy toward the Gulf of Guinea region that is mutually beneficial and responsible. I look forward to working with my colleagues and moving this promising resolution forward.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) for yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As my colleague from the majority mentioned, the rule is typical to that for all conference reports, and I will not oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today not in opposition to the Interior and Environmental Appropriations conference report, but, rather, in disappointment that we have not done enough. Indeed, we live in trying times with enormous fiscal constraints, many of which we have brought upon ourselves. As the chairman and ranking Democrat of the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies will probably note today, they did the best that they could with what they were given. Indeed, they did, Mr. Speaker.

I commend the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for their hard and, perhaps most important, their bipartisan work on this legislation. I do believe that they did the best with what the majority gave them.

The Interior conference report includes $84 million for Everglades restoration in my district and throughout

south Florida. It increases funding for the National Endowment of the Arts and Humanities, as well as operations at our national parks and Indian health care.

The underlying report also includes a provision that I offered during floor consideration prohibiting funds in the bill from being used to work in contravention of a 1994 executive order requiring that Federal agencies take the necessary steps to achieve health and environmental equity across all community lines.

The inclusion of this provision in the conference report sends a clear message to the Environmental Protection Agency that it must change the way it goes about doing business. On behalf of every community in the country which will benefit from this provision, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for their commitment to working with me on this issue of critical importance.

The conference report also includes a provision championed by my good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis), that stops EPA from intentionally exposing pregnant women and children to pesticides and requires the agency to establish standards which will come down on the side of public health.

While I am pleased that the aforementioned is included in the conference report, I am greatly concerned about the report's major cuts in clean drinking water and conservation programs. These programs are essential to protecting our environment and the health of our citizens. It is offensive that this Congress has found the money for tax cuts for the best-off of us in our society, but not enough for these critical programs.

Finally, this legislation includes $1.5 billion in emergency funding for veterans health care. Frankly, this money should have been appropriated before the July 4 recess. Instead, the majority played politics with the Senate, and our veterans were told no.

More than 1 year ago, Democrats came to this floor with the former Republican chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), arguing that the majority was shortchanging veterans health care by more than $1 billion. What did the majority do about our concerns? Absolutely nothing. Democrats got stonewalled, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) lost his job, and America's veterans got shafted.

This spring, Mr. Speaker, our Democratic prophesy came true. The Bush administration finally admitted that it had pushed a budget which shortchanged veterans health care by some $1 billion. Democrats countered that $1 billion still was not enough, and the administration waffled. Eventually and embarrassingly, the Bush administration finally admitted that the actual shortfall was closer to $1.5 billion, the amount appropriated in this conference report.

How is it that this body can willingly authorize sending our troops into harm's way, yet refuse to provide them with the health care benefits they were promised? I am pleased that the other body has the backbone to fix what is wrong, but I am not pleased by the efforts of the administration and House Republicans to cover up these shortfalls. Shame on all of us for letting this happen.

Mr. Speaker, individuals on their own are not going to conduct major environmental restoration, force power companies to reduce toxic emissions from their smokestacks, or clean up our Nation's drinking water. But collectively, collectively, we can all make this happen.

Enforcement is not free, and neither is environmental restoration. Is there anybody in this body who is unwilling to pay just a little more to ensure that every American has clean air to breath and safe drinking water? If given the chance, who would not be willing to pool his or her resources with others in their neighborhood to collectively ensure that everyone has safe drinking water, or that no child would be forced to grow up playing in backyards polluted by dangerous levels of mercury and other toxins?

I will most likely support the underlying conference report, but I say to my colleagues, we had an opportunity to do more in this conference report. Our willingness to do so, however, was the missing ingredient.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my good friend that I serve with on the Committee on Rules.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to praise improved relations and partnerships between the United States and the Republic of India. The United States and India have never been as committed to each other as they are today. Our two countries are two democratic nations that hold many of the same goals and ideals in common, such as supporting democratic institutions and eradicating global terrorism. The transformation of U.S.-India relations over the past four years has indeed strengthened economic and diplomatic cooperation between our two countries.

In the past year, United States and Indian officials have met countless times to address our economic and political agendas. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns, Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and current Secretary of State Condoleezaa Rice have all recently visited India to engage in constructive dialogue on improving U.S.-India relations. Additionally, Indian Defense Minister Pranab Mukherjee and External Affairs Minister Shri Natwar Singh have met with President Bush in Washington, D.C. The visit by the Honorable Prime Minister of India Manmohan Singh to the United States, including last week's bicameral address in the confines of this great Chamber also marks a commitment to the growth of our bilateral relationship.

The current acts of friendship on the part of the United States and India have demonstrated the improvement in relations and should be commended. The signing of the Next Steps in the Strategic Partnership (NSSP) initiative was an important contributor to the improved relationship between the United States and India. It addresses civilian space cooperation, civilian nuclear activities, high-technological trade and missile defense issues. Last month, both defense secretaries of the United States and India signed a ten-year military agreement. Additionally, U.S. commercial military sales to India have risen from $5.6 million in 2003 to $17.7 million in 2004, and are projected to surge to $64 million in 2005. This increase in sales demonstrates the trust and promise of our partnership.

Mr. Speaker, the United States and India have made significant strides in improving our relationship. Because of that, U.S.-India relations have never been stronger. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and join me in commending the continuing improvements in relations between the United States and the Republic of India. May our partnership with India be everlasting.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 59, a resolution commemorating the women suffragists who fought, and won the right for women to vote in the United States.

This legislation applauds women's rights activists whose commitment to changing an unjust system led to the eventual passage of the 19th Amendment in 1920. As we all know, the 19th Amendment granted women in the United States the right to vote.

The women's suffrage movement began in the mid nineteenth century when Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton held the first women's rights convention in Seneca Falls, New York, on July 19, 1848. Established in 1869, the National American Woman Suffrage Association fought tirelessly against discrimination and oppression, often times receiving severe punishment in response to their protests.

After only several decades, due to the progress of women's rights activists, women in the U.S. experienced advancement in property rights, employment and educational opportunities, divorce and child custody laws, and increased social freedoms. As new generations of women continued to bolster the strength of the movement, they initiated a social revolution that would touch every aspect of life.

The time has come for Congress to recognize these brave individuals who struggled for equality in the face of adversity, and ultimately amended our constitution to allow for equality among both genders. The suffragists' accomplishments are a credit to American democracy. Their unfettered commitment to equality for women should serve as an example to nations in which this struggle is still being fought today.

Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by again expressing my support for this legislation and encourage my colleagues' support. It should be a precedence of this Congress to acknowledge the significance of the women's rights movement and honor its leaders with a day of commemoration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 358, commemorating the 50th anniversary of the desegregation of Little Rock Central High School, in Little Rock, AK. At a time when racial intolerance and ignorance were openly embraced as a way of life, nine courageous African-American youth took a stand, and in doing so, ushered in the civil rights era.

On September 23, 1957, this brave group of students entered the halls of Little Rock Central High School with one goal in mind: to obtain an education. This objective, universal to all parents and children worldwide, was far from easily accomplished. Central High School, a product of the Jim Crowe sentiment, had never seen an African-American student in any of its classrooms. These nine individuals would be the first.

The students stood face-to-face with mobs of irate citizens, all staunchly opposed to integration, and armed National Guardsmen who were ordered by the governor to prevent their entrance. The student body too was unwelcoming, spiteful of the racial invasion into their school. Despite such unconcealed prejudice and cruelty, these nine students persevered and served as an inspiration to us all. One member of this group would later become the first African-American graduate of Little Rock Central High School.

The story of the students who would later be referred to as the ``Little Rock Nine,'' gave Americans hope that we could overcome the racial oppression, struggle and strife that had become endemic in our culture.

All around the Nation, organizations such as the Southern Christian Leadership Conference led by Dr. Martin Luther King, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee led by student activists, and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, worked together to create large-scale changes through seemingly small proactive actions.

It would be a disservice for this body to not take a moment to individually recognize each member of this remarkable group. Ernest Green, Elizabeth Eckford, Jefferson Thomas, Dr. Terrence Roberts, Carlotta Walls Lanier, Minnijean Brown Trickey, Gloria Ray Karlmark, Thelma Mothershed-Wair and Melba Pattillo Beals have each equally contributed to the movement that has helped us all be where we are today.

Mr. Speaker, the story of the Little Rock Nine remains one of the most powerful illustrations of triumph over adversity within our modem history. It is our duty as leaders to ensure that the past is not only remembered but also distinguished and honored as it so rightly deserves. On the 50th anniversary of this milestone in the battle to gain equality both under law and in life, we are given the opportunity to bring national recognition to these modem day heroes. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 289, a resolution supporting the goals and ideals of National Health Center Week. From August 7-13, numerous organizations will collectively promote quality and preventative medical care through local health centers.

It has become increasingly apparent that our healthcare system is not only lacking, but also failing those it is meant to serve. There are currently an estimated 45 million uninsured individuals living in America. This group not only includes 8.4 million children, but also homeless and migrant populations across the country. Of those that do have health coverage, studies have estimated that as many as 65 million individuals remain underinsured. Countless others lack easy and affordable access to quality care providers.

Health centers are an indispensable component of the continuing effort to secure medical care for underserved individuals. These community-based, non-profit organizations bring health services to impoverished areas, which are disproportionately affected by these ever-present health care disparities. Through partnerships with churches, businesses and other community initiatives, health centers are able to touch those that are typically unreachable or marginalized by existing healthcare conglomerates.

Health centers have become American institutions and fundamental elements our daily lives. These organizations, operating with minimal resources and small, committed staffs are able to serve hundreds within their communities. In the state of Florida alone, approximately 500,000 residents are annually served through local health centers.

Mr. Speaker, this weeklong celebration of health centers brings recognition to the unsung heroes of the healthcare industry. By raising awareness we are not only showing our appreciation to those that contribute to these efforts, but we are also bringing attention to the healthcare alternatives that are available to our communities. I urge my colleagues to lend their support to this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, on the vote on H.R. 3283, I was in the Intelligence Committee when the vote was cast. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

(Mr. MORAN of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), my friend, for yielding me the time. I should say Doctor Gingrey and that I want him to call me Attorney Hastings so we get it clear as to who we are around here.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this closed rule. Like a broken record, my friends on the other side on the aisle are yet again blocking every single Member of this body, Republican and Democrat, from offering an amendment to this ill-conceived legislation. I might add, no hearings were held regarding same.

Under this closed rule the majority is committing the greatest form of political malpractice. The Republican medical malpractice bill does nothing to lower the cost of health care for low- and middle-income families. Instead, insurance companies make out like bandits while the 45 million uninsured Americans continue to live without access to quality health care.

This is the third time in as many years that Republicans are bringing this incredulous bill to the floor under a closed rule. In the last 3 years, 67 amendments have been offered to the underlying bill in the Committee on Rules. Republicans have blocked all 67 of them from being considered by the House.

The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking Democrats of the two committees of jurisdiction, offered a fair and balanced substitute to this legislation last night. Their substitute takes steps to weed out frivolous lawsuits, requires insurance companies to pass their savings on to health care providers, and provides targeted assistance to physicians and communities that need it most. The House, however, will never have a chance to debate their proposal. As they have done so often in the past, what Republicans cannot defeat, they simply do not allow.

The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) were also prohibited under the rule from offering their common-sense amendment. Their amendment would have taken out language from the underlying legislation that protects manufacturers of medical products, including pharmaceutical

companies, from being sued even when they knowingly place a faulty product on the market.

For example, when Merck did an internal test on the side effects of Vioxx, it reported that only \1/2\ of 1 percent of those tested had incurred some type of cardiovascular event. A further investigation showed that Merck had actually doctored the study when, in fact, 14.6 percent of Vioxx patients were negatively affected by the medication.

Under the Republican medical malpractice bill, those who have died or been injured when taking Vioxx will have no legal ground on which to seek compensation for Merck's outright negligence. Many at home may be asking themselves, How could Congress knowingly protect a manufacturer from being sued if it continues producing a product that it knows is faulty and can cause real harm or even death to someone? What about corporate responsibility? What about protecting the lives of innocent Americans?

To them I say, if the underlying legislation becomes law, what I just described will become the norm. The majority have made it crystal clear that they do not believe irresponsible companies and manufacturers should be held responsible for their actions no matter the harm they inflict. As my colleague and good friend on the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) said last night, welcome to the Committee on Rules, where democracy goes to die.

Mr. Speaker, President Bush and the Republican Party have unfairly singled out trial lawyers as the root cause of skyrocketing medical malpractice insurance rates across the Nation. They suggest that the prevalence of ``pain and suffering'' awards in malpractice suits have forced insurance companies to raise their liability insurance rates and force doctors out of business. This suggestion is both superficial and wrong.

H.R. 5 does nothing to help doctors with high malpractice insurance premiums. Study after study have confirmed that while the insurance company is raising premiums for doctors at a record pace, the amount they pay out for lawsuits has remained stable. The insurance industry is price-gouging physicians and lying to the public all to justify limiting the rights of victims so that the industry can add to its already record-setting bottom line.

This bill is a distraction from the real problems that exist in America's failing health care system. Physicians and lawyers are pointing fingers at each other while insurance companies are quietly and quickly running to the bank.

Solutions to our Nation's health care woes do exist, Mr. Speaker, but they go beyond blaming one group of Americans and involve more than one easy-to-fix resolution. I urge my colleagues to oppose this closed rule and reject the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my good friend who serves on the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes and 20 seconds to the very distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), who is a farmer and a pharmacist.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

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

I went to school and almost became a physician. I do not know what there is about some of the damages that the gentleman from Georgia calls so-called damages. I do not know how brain damage, losing my legs, double mastectomies, those kinds of things, are so-called punitive damages. If doctors commit those kinds of errors, they ought to be held accountable, and juries are the best place for that to occur.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/ 2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), a new Member, the son of a former Member of the United States Congress, our former colleague Bill Lipinski.

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

One of the previous speakers, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), said that some victims have won, quote, the malpractice lottery. Tell that to, for example, Ms. Linda McDougal, who had a double mastectomy because a doctor misdiagnosed her condition and recommended this radical procedure. Does the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) really think that Ms. McDougal has won some sort of lottery? I just cannot believe that.

Key findings from ``The Growth of Physician Medical Malpractice Payments: Evidence From The National Practitioner Data Bank'' show that the average annual malpractice claim pay-out rose only 4 percent a year from 1991 to 2003, in line with the average overall increase in the cost of health care.

Time will not permit me to go into a litany of statistics and supporters, but I do want to point out that the thought seems to be that people do not want to practice medicine. Well, the number of doctors increased throughout the Nation from 1985 to 2001, even in States with no malpractice award caps. The study showed that there were 497,140 professionally active doctors in 1985 and 709,168 in 2001. The report found little evidence that doctors are leaving one State for another State with malpractice award caps.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so I can amend the rule to make in order the Emanuel-Berry amendment. This amendment would strike from the bill a provision granting immunity to manufacturers of medical products from being sued when it is discovered that those manufacturers withheld potentially damaging information from the FDA and the public. The amendment was offered in the Rules Committee yesterday, but, like all the rest, was defeated on a straight party-line vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to print the text of the amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, what is a provision protecting the drug companies doing in a bill that is supposed to be about doctors' malpractice premiums? How does this provision ever get into this bill in the first place? My guess is that many of my colleagues who support this bill have been asking the same question and would vote to strike it from the bill if they were given the opportunity. But because of this closed rule, the House will not have the opportunity to strike this embarrassing sop to the pharmaceutical industry from this legislation. Defeating the previous question will give Members a chance to vote on what has now been dubbed the ``Merck loophole.''

This section is not just bad policy, Mr. Speaker, it is almost criminal. Every day we read about more evidence that the pharmaceutical company Merck concealed information about the risks of its FDA-approved drug Vioxx. I do not think any of my colleagues want to find themselves in the position of defending people who hid information about this drug that could have saved someone's life.

Vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can debate this important amendment. I want to make it very clear that a ``no'' vote will not stop us from considering this legislation. We will still be able to consider the medical malpractice legislation on the floor today. However, a ``yes'' vote will prevent us from considering the Emanuel amendment to strike this ill-conceived language.

Again, vote ``no'' on the previous question.

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

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I thank him also for his articulate leadership on this issue and the others which affect working people throughout this country.

Let my say at the outset, I opposed this closed rule and the limited amount of time to debate the underlying legislation. Like the owner of the restaurant in Casablanca who feigned surprise at the illegal gambling in his club, let me just say that I am shocked, shocked that the majority would bring a bill of such importance to the House floor and only permit 2 hours of debate to be split by the 440 Members of the House of Representatives.

This is not about trade. Trade is a two-way economic street. And the simple fact of the matter is, no one can demonstrate to me what Guatemala and Nicaragua are going to be buying from Florida and elsewhere in the United States. It is a one-way agreement.

Look, NAFTA was bad for your district like it was for the State of Florida. This deal is going to make things worse. If CAFTA is like NAFTA, too many Americans will get the shafta. Ten years of NAFTA have shown just how devastating these agreements can be for working families and the environment.

Florida has lost more than 35,000 jobs because of NAFTA. Industries that once were thriving and successful in the State of Florida and elsewhere in this Nation employing tens of thousands of hard-working Americans have been shipped south of the border where labor is cheap and environmental protections are but a figment of our imagination

Mr. Speaker, I voted for NAFTA and the administration was unable to uphold the things that they said they were going to do with reference to the environment and labor standards. And I doubt very seriously if this administration can do any better than the previous one. My distinguished friend, and he is my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), began his remarks this evening by saying national security and border security.

I invite the chairman to tell me how it is our border security is better on Mexico because of NAFTA, or that our national security is better. In western Palm Beach County, a region which I am proud to represent, and is our country's second most sugar cane-intensive area, unemployment is already above 15 percent.

Under CAFTA, the future of this industry, which provides more than 20,000 jobs to this area alone, will undoubtedly be in jeopardy.

Considering who wins and who loses with CAFTA, it is clear that only the most selfish of fat cats would favor this terrible agreement. I challenge any of my colleagues to raise a family on a minimum wage in America, and indeed to find a job in America when CAFTA has sucked yet more of our factories and other businesses out of our country.

But a bigger challenge would be to survive as a campesino in any Central American nation, where wages are even lower, where environmental controls are weak or non-existent, where there is little or no access to health care, and where openly complaining about working conditions could mean death or disappearance. This is what the majority claims they want to approve today. We should be ashamed of ourselves.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with disappointment that the House is again considering a rule that blocks all but a select few from offering amendments. Let me make it clear I do not oppose the underlying bill, and I intend to vote for it, but the closed manner by which the majority is bringing the underlying bill to the floor is just plain wrong.

Yesterday in the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) offered an amendment that would permit military personnel on Active Duty in the Department of Defense-designated combat zones to receive packages on a postage-free basis. Under this rule, however, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) is not permitted to offer his amendment. I am disappointed and displeased that the majority has once again failed to provide the House with an opportunity to extend the most meager of benefits to those men and women who risk their lives so that all of us can be free. We really should be ashamed of ourselves.

As the gentleman from Texas has noted, Mr. Speaker, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act represents the first major restructuring of the United States Postal Service in over 30 years. This bill provides the Postal Service with greater flexibility to set its rates and manage its costs. It also creates a new regulatory system for overseeing the Postal Service's operations and levels the playing field for the Postal Service to finally compete against the megacommercial delivery services of the world.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is long overdue. On July 26, 1775, Benjamin Franklin was named our country's first Postmaster General. It took the Continental Congress just 1 day to name Benjamin Franklin to that prestigious post. As many of my colleagues and students of American history are well aware, the Congress of 1775 had many great issues to deal with at that particular time, such as the Revolutionary War, disputes over taxes, and the issue of private landownership, just to name a few. Yet with all the great events that were taking place at the time, the Continental Congress still managed to name a Postmaster General in just 1 day. Ironically, it took President Bush 5 years to finally support the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act.

Benjamin Franklin once said: ``You may delay, but time will not.''

Mr. Speaker, I applaud my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for refusing to delay this bill any further and for demonstrating the intuition to present such a sensible and necessary piece of legislation. The success of the legislative process by which the underlying bill comes to the floor today should serve as an example of what Congress can accomplish when bipartisanship and openness overwhelm political partisanship.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to my friend, the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), my good friend. A lot has been made of those who crafted this legislation. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) was extremely instrumental in providing that bipartisan flavor to bring us to this moment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

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

Mr. Speaker, we come to the close offering praise to those who brought us this far. I add my congratulations to the distinguished leadership of this committee on both sides of the aisle for fashioning a piece of legislation that I believe will pass the House overwhelmingly and that I certainly intend to support, and I ask all of our colleagues to do likewise.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 328, a resolution recognizing the 25th anniversary of the workers' strikes in Poland in 1980 that led to the establishment of the Solidarity Trade Union.

This legislation praises Polish workers in the shipyards of Gdansk and Szczecin for rising up against the repressive Soviet controlled communist regime in demand of greater political freedom. The actions of these courageous and peaceful individuals were directly responsible for the establishment of the Solidarity Trade Union, a profound social movement that ultimately ended communism in Poland without bloodshed.

This resolution rightly expresses the sense of Congress that our government should recognize and honor the struggle and sacrifice of the citizens of Poland, whose tireless efforts succeeded in restoring democracy to their country while simultaneously highlighting the correlation between organized labor and strong democratic institutions.

Now, more than ever, it is important that Congress pay tribute to, and support, those nations that willingly and actively allow the unimpeded formation of labor unions. For it is those countries that exhibit the most free and fair democratic policies. No such phenomenon is better exemplified than in the case of the Solidarity Trade Union. The formation of this important group ultimately led to the election of Poland's first post World War II non-communist Prime Minister, Mr. Tadeusz Mazawiecki.

Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by again expressing my support for this legislation and encourage my colleagues' support. It should be a priority of this Congress to pay homage to members of the Solidarity Trade Union on the 25th anniversary of its inception and acknowledge the ensuing bond of friendship that has flourished between our two nations on account of workers' rights.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this closed rule and H.R. 3199, the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005.

The manner in which the amendment process of this bill was handled is shameful. Both the Judiciary and the Intelligence Committee had jurisdiction over this legislation, yet somehow, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee

has managed to twist this bill into one that only he finds acceptable.

As a Senior Member of the Intelligence Committee, I offered an amendment that would have extended the sunset for Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 until 2010. Section 6001, also known as the ``lone wolf' provision, allows the government to define any individual non-US person as a terrorism suspect, even if that person has no clear ties to a foreign government. This new authority has been in place for a mere seven months and has yet to be subjected to meaningful review. Extending the sunset would give Congress a significant period of time in which to assess the impact of this considerable new authority. Members of the Intelligence Committee agreed; and my amendment had the support of almost every single Member of the Committee, both Republican and Democrat. Inexplicably, the amendment was later removed by the Judiciary Committee.

I asked Chairman Sensenbrenner point blank in the Rules Committee hearing yesterday why my amendment was removed from the bill. His response--``I don't know.'' He doesn't know, then who does? I guess somewhere between the fourth floor of the Capitol and the Judiciary Committee, my amendment must have been lost.

I believe the partisanship and incivility of the Judiciary Committee has unfortunately, infected the bipartisan manner in which the Intelligence Committee has always approached its work. Regardless, I am still committed to pursuing my amendment and working with the conference committee in a bipartisan fashion to reinsert my amendment into this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing that, once again, I find myself protesting the manner in which legislation has been brought to the floor. Over sixty amendments were offered in the Rules Committee yesterday yet only twenty have been made in order. Forty amendments, including my own, will not be debated today. Even Representative Harman, the ranking Member on the Intelligence Committee, offered four amendments that the Rules Committee refused to make in order. In fact, none of the amendments offered by any Intelligence Committee Democrat is made in order under this rule. This is absolutely inexcusable.

America's national security is of paramount importance, but our security needs will not be met by limiting debate on the issue. The American people deserve a Congress that has fulfilled its Constitutional role by considering each and every idea put forth by its Members to improve this and all pieces of legislation.

Without a doubt the underlying bill could be improved. For example, this bill amends Section 213 of the Patriot Act to require the government to notify the subject of a search warrant within 180 days of the search but does not sunset the provision. Statistics provided to Congress show that only eleven percent of the searches conducted using this power were related to terrorism--eleven percent! Given that this overbroad search and seizure power is abused almost ninety percent of the time, isn't Section 213 the very model of a section in need of a sunset? Again, amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee addressing these issues but they were not made in order.

While no one in this body, Democrat or Republican, objects to this country's need to fight terrorism, the sweeping, un-checked powers provided to our government through the provisions of the Patriot Act and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 are beyond worrisome. The inclusion of sunsetting provisions allows us to examine the practical effects, both positive and negative, before permanently allowing such a broad expansion of government power.

As a freedom loving society, we must diligently monitor any infringement on our civil liberties to ensure it is justified. But this bill, allowing the virtually unchecked monitoring of the average citizen on the flimsiest of justifications, is too broadly tailored to defend. After careful consideration and examination, I cannot support a bill that takes away so much while offering so little. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this closed rule and no on H.R. 3199.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Sexual Predator Effective Monitoring Act of 2005. I am pleased to introduce this bill with Florida's senior Senator Bill Nelson, and I pledge my full commitment to helping communities throughout the country take the necessary steps to protect the vulnerable from sexual predators.

A recent report done by my hometown newspaper, The South Florida Sun- Sentinel, discovered that more registered sex offenders live in a zip code located completely in my district than any other zip code in Florida. The fact that no one living in the area knew the magnitude of the problem until the story was written is beyond troubling; it's absolutely scary.

In 2003, the Justice Department completed a report on recidivism rates of sex offenders. The report provided some very disturbing statistics. The Department of Justice tracked 9,691 male sex offenders released from 15 state prisons, including Florida. They tracked them for a 3-year period and found that 40 percent of the sex offenders who re-offended did so within the first year, and within 3 years of their release from prison, 5.3 percent of those sex offenders were rearrested for another sex crime. Even more, half of the sex offenders tracked in this study included men who molested children, and within the first 3 years of their release from prison, 3.3 percent of these convicts were rearrested for another sex crime against a child.

Even more, there are more than 30,000 registered sex offenders in the state of Florida alone. Nationwide, there are more than 300,000 registered sex offenders, of which the victims of some 70 percent of all the men in prison for sex crimes were children.

It is these statistical realities combined with The Sun-Sentinel's report that led me to co-host a community forum with the Broward County Urban League. At that meeting, our community had an opportunity to discuss how to best protect our children from those who prey on the vulnerable. The forum provided law enforcement, civic leaders, elected officials, and community residents the opportunity to voice their concerns and chart a path toward making our neighborhoods safe from sex offenders.

The legislation which I am introducing today expresses Congressional support for the tracking of sex offenders on probation through the use of Global Positioning Systems. The Sexual Predator Effective Monitoring Act also establishes a grant program that will allow states to improve their ability to track and monitor the movement and activities of sexual predators. The bill authorizes a total of $30 million over 2 years to assist states in accomplishing this critical task.

Mr. Speaker, I can think of no greater mechanism by which Congress can assist states in protecting children from sexual predators than to provide them with the financial assistance to develop and implement effective tracking tools to monitor these sick individuals. I ask for my colleagues' support for this legislation, and I urge its swift passage.