Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to deliver a short message both to the American people and to my good friends in Sweden and, indeed, to all the people of Sweden.

Mr. Speaker, last week, the foreign minister of Sweden was brazenly assassinated. I hope the people of Sweden will accept Congress' heartfelt sympathy for the passing of their Foreign Minister, Anna Lindh. I had the greatest respect for this very talented woman. I certainly agree with British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw's comment that ``she represented everything that was wonderful about Sweden and about Europe.''

Anna Lindh's devotion to all of the citizens of Sweden and to the betterment of our world was very laudable. That she was considered a possible future prime minister is not surprising. Her reputation as one of Sweden's most popular government officials was recognition by you of her unimpeachable integrity and great vision. Anna Lindh saw all that was good about a nation already held in high regard around the world and strove to polish its image even more.

Everyone who considers government service a noble calling had an excellent role model in this wonderful woman. Far from putting an end to the goals she had set for herself and her people, her death will encourage others with similarly high ideals to continue and expand on her work, taking it to new heights. That would be the best way to honor her memory, and Sweden deserves nothing less.

We are all much poorer for this terrible tragedy. Sweden has lost a great leader, and the world has lost one of its finest citizens. After our period of grief, all of us, government leaders and common citizens alike, must rededicate ourselves to the work of making our nations and our world the kind of places Anna Lindh wanted for us. As we go forward, her spirit will be guiding us.

Mr. Speaker, 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, first, let me thank my friend from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I support the underlying bill before us today, the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, and while the rule is not actually open and the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) each had amendments denied by the Committee on rules, it does allow Members to offer amendments that have been preprinted in the Congressional Record and that do not violate the rules of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is not perfect, but it is a bipartisan product, and the Democrats on the Committee on Financial Services, led by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), our ranking member, made significant improvements in it during the committee process. The resulting legislation includes new consumer protections against identity theft, a $50 billion problem that claimed 10 million victims in 2002.

It requires credit bureaus to block adverse credit information that has resulted from identity theft and allows consumers to add fraud alerts to their credit information. Moreover, the bill strengthens consumers' rights to review their credit scores, allowing them to request a free credit report annually from each of the three major national credit bureaus.

It has provisions for medical privacy. It prevents in that regard disclosure of certain health information and prohibits credit bureaus from using medical information to determine credit eligibility.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge Members, as does the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) who was to handle this rule but had other matters that called him away, but I am encouraged to say that he joins in supporting this bipartisan bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley). She too is one of the bipartisan cosponsors of this measure

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

Mr. Speaker, I compliment the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the ranking member for their efforts in this regard. As was said earlier, while the bill is not perfect, it does make significant improvements, and these came about during the bipartisan committee process.

With that in mind, I would hope that we would understand that strengthening consumers' rights is always a part of our responsibility. The one regret that we have is that the amendment of the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) that was offered that was not made in order which would allow for criminal penalties for identity theft does seem to be a make-sense proposition, and hopefully at some point in the future, it will be undertaken in a positive way, which I believe will assist consumers.

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday during the consideration of H.R. 2989, I inadvertently voted ``yes'' on rollcall number 482. My vote should have been ``no.''

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that, if adopted, will ensure Federal employees are given an opportunity to compete on a level playing field during the Office of Management and Budget's continued efforts to privatize the Federal workforce.

In early 2001, the Office of Management and Budget directed all agencies, regardless of their needs or missions, to review for privatization at least 425,000 Federal employee jobs. More than 32,000 Federal employees, I should note, reside and work in south Florida.

On May 29, 2003, OMB finalized its controversial rewrite of the privatization process. It is referred to and has been talked about here as OMB circular A-76. Unlike previous revisions, this latest effort has generated an enormous amount of bipartisan criticism because of the significant changes that have been wrought which put Federal employees at a competitive disadvantage.

Mr. Chairman, taking jobs away from Federal employees without giving them the chance to compete is wrong, period. Yet circular A-76 does just that. In fact, contractors have said in writing that they believe as a result of OMB's revisions to circular A-76, the number of competitions won by Federal employees will dramatically decrease from 60 percent to perhaps 10 percent.

The amendment that I am offering today ensures that Federal employees receive a fair shake in any public private competition. It is fair, balanced and is supported by the American Federation of Government Employees, the AFL-CIO and other major labor groups throughout the country.

Specifically, the amendment prohibits the use of funds appropriated by the Act to be used by OMB to require agencies to establish an inventory of inherently governmental activities performed by Federal employees or establish or implement any streamlined competition of less than 6 months.

The amendment also prohibits the use of funds to be used by OMB to conduct follow-up competitions for public-private competitions won by Federal employees, something not required in instances where services are contracted out, and the amendment still allows Federal agencies to experiment with outsourcing of information technology activities.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment does not impose a suspension on contracting out.

Instead, it is a fair compromise between the new OMB Circular A-76 and a complete prohibition against its use. I certainly hope that my colleagues will agree with me and vote ``yes'' on my amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, my colleague from Oklahoma, the chairman of this committee, is most sincere, as have been other persons. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), for example, was here when the Van Hollen amendment was on the floor, which I might add I support very vigorously. That is the Van Hollen amendment. Both of them, and others, and I see the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) rise again, are likely to speak of wasteful government spending. I agree with them; this government has its fair share of wasteful spending. What I do disagree with, what the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) just said is that if this measure is to pass that it will not become law because the President and his administration have indicated that they will veto the measure.

Mr. Chairman, I remind the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) that we have a constitutional responsibility here, as does the President. The President can veto anything he wants to; and if we are of a mind, with two-thirds of the vote, we can override a Presidential veto. So it can be overridden and can become law, and there is a substantial number of people who feel it ought to become law.

Now then, I also would ask the chairman to take into consideration when he and I came to the United States Congress in 1992. Shortly thereafter, in 1994, the majority won the right to control the House of Representatives. And among the things that they said that were going to cost less by privatizing were such things as the printing that is done here at the House of Representatives, or at least was at that time, and the folding offices and other offices that have now been outsourced.

In addition to the inherent danger that exists by not having an in- house family, I defy anybody in the House of Representatives to tell me that the printing of their newsletters and other matters does not cost more now that it has been privatized. And there are other examples of that. One of the worst would be the Federal Aviation Authority. I am here to tell my colleagues that all of us that fly do not want to get on airplanes knowing that the people on the ground controlling that airplane's direction went to the lowest bidder.

Somewhere along the line, we have to come to our senses. Auctioning off 425,000 Federal employee jobs to the lowest bidder is not the way to produce savings. If we are to say that public-private competitions will produce savings, then that is fine. But Federal employees have the right to compete for their jobs in a nonpredetermined way, where real savings win out over cutthroat politics.

Federal employees do not want a free ride. They want a fair shot. My amendment does not halt the administration's efforts to reduce wasteful government spending. And every one of us uses that rhetoric ought to be about the business of trying to reduce wasteful government spending, including that done by the House of Representatives. In fact, it allows agencies to move forward with the implementation of Circular A-76.

What my amendment does do is ensure that Federal employees are given equal footing to the contractors they are bidding against in public- private competitions. It is time for open hunting season on Federal employees to end. Only then will we fully recognize what best value and cost savings really are.

I challenge the subcommittee Chair, my good friend, and he is my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), to tell me how it is that we here in the House of Representatives know more about what is good for Federal employees than the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, the Communication Workers of America, the International Association of Firefighters, the International Association of Machinists, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, the Service Employees Union of America, the National Association of Government Employees, National Treasury Employees Union, Professional Airways Systems Specialists, Service Employees Union, and the United Auto Workers.

Somewhere along the line, some of us need to recognize that these people who are Federal employees probably know at least as much as those of us who are Federal employees by election know. I suggest among other things that not only does the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) represent contractors, but so do I and 433 other Members of the House of Representatives. And not only he represent Federal employees, but so do I and 433 other House of Representatives Members. We all represent the constituency in America that should have a fair shot at low-cost and less wasteful spending, which their A-76 does not guarantee. And so, Mr. Chairman, I ask support of my amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, this is the second resolution concerning post-war Iraq that I have introduced this month. My Resolution is similar to an amendment that passed unanimously in the Senate on July 16, 2003. It calls on the President to reach out to our allies in NATO, the United Nations, and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) for help in postwar Iraq.

First, it calls on the President to request assistance from NATO to raise a force for postwar Iraq similar to Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Kosovo. Even though some NATO members, Great Britain, Spain, Italy and Poland, are already contributing troops to our effort in Iraq,

American troops make up 90% of coalition forces.

And second, it calls on the President to seek military and civilian police assistance from members of the United Nations to aid in promoting stability and security in post-war Iraq.

The U.S. and coalition forces currently occupying Iraq are being met with constant resistance and are being attacked on an average of twelve times a day. Increasing the number of troops and police from other countries will reduce the risks to U.S. and coalition forces currently in Iraq. International armed forces and police must assume some of the responsibilities for maintaining law and order in Iraq while a domestic police force and reformed military is trained and established. Pentagon officials estimate that it will take a year to train one division of 12,000 Iraqi troops.

My Resolution also calls on the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, along with other international and nongovernmental organizations, to provide assistance to the coalition partnership in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, it's time to move past any negative feelings concerning countries that opposed our attempts to secure a U.N. endorsement for the war. A report published by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, funded by the Department of Defense, reported that ``the window of opportunity for achieving postwar success is closing and requires immediate and dramatic action.''

Our ultimate goal for the Iraqi people is a multi-ethnic, multi- religious Arab state that is capable of self-rule. This goal can only be achieved with the help and support of the vast global community.

Mr. Speaker, United States and coalition forces managed to liberate Iraq in a mere three weeks, and I would certainly be remiss if I did not take the opportunity to commend those brave men and women for their efforts to date. However, the goals we have set, from restoring critical infrastructure, to establishing an interim government, to maintaining law and order in Iraq, simply cannot be achieved alone. We've won the war, now we have to win the peace.

Mr. Speaker, I have good news also.

I rise to offer the East Boynton Beach, Florida Little League team, our new American National Little League champion, for the congratulations and admiration of this body. These fine young men spent months practicing and playing hard, while never losing sight of the principles of honesty and fair play.

Their skill and determination paid off when they triumphed over all other American teams to represent our country in the Little League World Series.

Although they did not win the world title, they captured the attention and affection of Americans young and old. People across the country followed them through their games in Williamsport, Pennsylvania and cheered each victory. Their achievements this year will be remembered for a long time.

While I fully expect this team of very talented players to contend for the world title again next year, it is important to laud them now for the heights they attained.

I am sure we all have the greatest respect for these fine young men. They are excellent role models for children and for all of us. As their Representative in Congress, I am proud of the role they have played as ambassadors to other young people across the country and around the world.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 2989. This amendment increases the amount of funding provided in this bill for election reform.

When the 107th Congress overwhelmingly passed the Help America Vote Act, it made a commitment to the American public that we would restore reliability to America's elections system. Last year, Congress grossly underfunded its authorized commitment. Again, today, we are considering a bill that provides less than 50 percent of the amount authorized. The Help America Vote Act authorized more than $1 billion in funding for fiscal year 2004. Yet this bill appropriates only $500 million.

In less than 6 months, Mr. Chairman, Americans will begin traveling to the polls to vote in the Presidential primaries. The unfortunate reality is that they will be returning, in many respects, to the same system that failed them in many respects 3 years ago, simply because Congress has not followed through with its financial commitment to States, counties, and local governments.

The amendment I am offering today increases funding in the bill for the implementation of the Help America Vote Act by $232 million. This extra money for election reform funding today will improve local election systems while offsetting the increase with funds that might not be used for well over 2 years. This body has an opportunity to say to Americans across the country that we are committed to election reform. My amendment makes this commitment clear and takes us one step closer to a day when Americans will walk away from the polls knowing that their vote will not only be counted but will actually count. I would urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment.

I would also like to take a point of personal privilege to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and the many Members who have supported the Help America Vote Act in its present form, and assuredly all of us should bring ourselves to want to do what is right by all of our constituents as it pertains to voting.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Hastings of Florida

Amendment No. 4: Page 5, line 21, after ``$45,000,000''

insert ``(decreased by $45,000,000)''.

Page 68, line 11, after ``$1,628,739,000'' insert

``(decreased by $165,000,000)''.

Page 91, line 1, after ``$495,000,000'' insert

``(increased by $232,000,000)''.

Page 108, line 23, after ``$35,914,000'' insert

``(decreased by $22,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Hastings of Florida

Amendment No. 5: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Sec.__. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act may

be used by the Office of Management and Budget, under OMB

Circular A-76 or any other administrative regulation,

directive, or policy, to require agencies--

(1) to establish an inventory of inherently governmental

activities performed by Federal employees;

(2) to establish or implement any streamlined competition

procedures;

(3) to require any follow-on competition; or

(4) to implement the tradeoff source selection process for

any activities other than information technology activities.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my good friend from Montana, Mr. Rehberg, to introduce the National Drought Preparedness Act. The companion to our bill is also being introduced today in the other body by Senators Pete Domenici and Max Baucus.

In 1998, Congress passed legislation creating the National Drought Policy Commission. The Commission was tasked with the responsibility to examine current U.S. policy on drought. To summarize the Commission's fifty-page report in a few short words, ``The U.S. does not have a policy on drought.''

I wish I had just made a joke. The fact that we don't have a drought policy, however, is a joke--and not a good one at that.

Drought is not just an agriculture issue, nor is it only a water management issue. When droughts occur, forest fires erupt, small businesses close, crop yields decrease, and in many instances, people die.

Here in Washington, it's been raining all month, so people aren't talking about drought. However, just because we aren't talking about it, doesn't mean that we shouldn't be doing something about it.

In my home State of Florida, we are always taking steps to mitigate the effects of hurricanes and floods--regardless of what season it is. In the Midwest, similar efforts are made to plan for tornadoes, and in the West, the same could be said for wildfire prevention and earthquakes.

It is time for America to move away from the costly, ad-hoc, and response-oriented approach to drought, and toward a more pro-active approach that focuses on preparation and planning. Coordination between Federal, State, and local governments, in addition to watershed groups, farmers and ranchers, and resource dependent businesses, is the only way we will successfully curb the effects of drought before we find ourselves in one. The bill we are introducing today provides a new focus on an otherwise often ignored natural disaster.

Our bill accomplishes four major goals:

First, the bill begins to move the country away from the costly, ad- hoc, and response-oriented approach to drought, and toward a more pro- active approach focused on preparation and planning. The new national policy will provide the tools and focus for Federal, State, tribal and local governments to address the diverse impacts and costs caused by drought.

Second, the bill will improve the delivery of Federal drought programs. To ensure improved program delivery, integration and leadership, the National Drought Preparedness Act establishes the National Drought Council under the direction of the Secretary of Agriculture. The Council will provide the coordinating and integrating function for the more than 80 Federal drought programs currently in existence.

Third, the bill establishes new tools for drought preparedness planning. Building on current water policy, the Drought Council will assist states, local governments, tribes, and other entities in the development and implementation of drought preparedness plans. The bill does not mandate state and local planning, but is intended to facilitate the development and implementation of drought plans through the establishment of a Drought Assistance Fund. Importantly, the bill also preserves State authority over water allocation.

Fourth, the bill improves our forecasting and monitoring abilities. Under our legislation, the Drought Council will facilitate the development of the National Integrated Drought System in order to improve the characterization of current drought conditions and the forecasting of future droughts, as well as provide a better basis to trigger Federal drought assistance.

Mr. Speaker, the creation of a coordinated and comprehensive National Drought Council will provide efficient and time sensitive coordination between Federal agencies in preparing for and responding to droughts, as well as assisting Congress in identifying our immediate and long term needs in providing drought relief.

I am looking forward to working with my colleagues and moving this bill forward. Americans are hurting throughout this country today because of water shortages and prolonged droughts. Congress must act immediately, and time is of the essence.

I ask my colleagues to support this bill, and I urge the House leadership to bring this bill to the floor for its swift consideration.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, 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. Chairman, I will not take that amount of time. My understanding is that the chairman and the ranking member have cleared this matter, and if that is the case and either the Chair or both would speak to it, then I will include my statement in the Record at this point.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that increases funding in the Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Programs and Management account by $550,000.

While the rules of the House preclude me from specifying in the text of the amendment what the increase is to be used for, it is my intention that this $550,000 be utilized as additional funding for the EPA's environmental justice programs. My amendment is straight-forward, germane, and more than fair.

Since the creation of an Office of Environmental Justice in the EPA, the agency has worked to ensure the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income. Further, it seeks to include all communities--white, black, brown, or green--in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.

However, despite increases in the number of environmental justice complaints to the EPA, as well as a growing awareness about this issue, Congress has not increased funding to meet the agency's growing demands. This bill's allocation for EPA environmental justice programs of $5.5 million is the same as last year's even though the strains on the programs, as well as the immediate need for the programs, have increased.

My amendment provides a 10 percent increase in funding to the EPA's environmental justice programs, a modest increase I should add. It is long overdue, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

(Ms. LOFGREN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).

(Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).

(Ms. KILPATRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

(Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

(Mrs. CAPPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

(Ms. SOLIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).

(Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

(Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

(Ms. WATSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Majette).

(Ms. MAJETTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).

(Ms. BALDWIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

(Mrs. DAVIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

(Ms. ESHOO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

(Ms. KAPTUR asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

(Ms. NORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).

(Mrs. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

(Ms. DeLAURO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).

(Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Ohio for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, what we have just seen is a powerful demonstration of women and two men that represent nearly 13 million people in the United States of America.

One would think that this highly contentious Head Start reauthorization bill would be the kind of thing that would allow us to not have this kind of undertaking. One would think that this would be a simple four-step process involving the systematic introduction of a bill that increases funding and expands Head Start services; followed by committee markups to ensure the bill includes bipartisan interests; next, it is placed on the calendar; and, finally, a 15-minute vote with the passing of Head Start reauthorization. But since the Republicans are in control of the House, it is never that simple. Instead, I wind up opposing the rule and the underlying bill on Head Start.

Head Start is America's best known Federal program. Of the more than 20 million children and families that are enrolled in Head Start nationwide, there are 2,574 Head Start children in my congressional district alone, including 41 Head Start centers with a total of 127 classrooms. Of those Head Start children in my district, 98 percent of them live in families that receive public assistance or have incomes that are below the Federal poverty line.

These kids receive a gamut of services which include medical and dental care, mental health services, disability assessment and treatment and family assistance.

In fact, studies have shown that Head Start narrows the gap between disadvantaged children and other children, narrows that gap in vocabulary, writing skills, and social behavior. Head Start children are less likely to repeat a grade, require special education or be convicted of a crime. And I underscore, 80 percent of all of the children who start and end Head Start do not wind up in prison. These children show IQ gains compared to low-income children who are not in the program and are more likely to graduate from high school and college.

Mr. Speaker, I cite these statistics to simply say it seems to me that, as one of the gentlewomen said, If it ain't broke, don't fix it. This seems to be a solution in search of a problem.

Although Head Start has a well-documented record of improving the education and health of participating children, Republicans seek to begin its evisceration. The current proposal by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is completely without reason.

While H.R. 2210 does seek to reauthorize Head Start funding, it also seeks to undermine and erode the foundation of Head Start programs through its proposed change. We need legislation that will build upon and ensure Head Start's continued success.

We would not be building upon its success if we passed a bill that begins the state-by-state dismantling of Head Start programs by establishing block grants in eight States, Florida included.

We would not be building upon its success if we passed a bill that promotes discrimination in hiring by ignoring civil rights laws and lowers Federal standards.

We would not be building upon its success if we passed a bill that literally and figuratively shortchanges teachers by not mandating an increase in pay and denies services to eligible children through an insignificant increase in funding.

Mr. Speaker, I might also add that of the 25 amendments that we heard in the Committee on Rules that were offered by Democrats, only two were allowed, and the one Republican amendment by arguably the most qualified Member of the House on this particular matter, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy), a child psychologist, was also rejected.

This is shameful, and, frankly, sinister. You Republicans really know how to kick a kid when he is down. First the child tax credit, now this. What is next? Maybe there is a Republican bill out there that outlaws kickball or stickball.

Mr. Speaker, this body owes the American people a reauthorization that significantly increases funding and allows for the expansion of Head Start and Early Head Start. We will be doing a disservice to lower-income families and the future of America to pass the bill on the floor today. I urge rejection of this Draconian rule and of the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), my good friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I would most respectfully ask that the gentleman's words with reference to idiocrasy be stricken, but without asking a ruling from the Chair, I would ask the gentleman to give consideration to undertaking to do that before making such a demand. He said idiocrasy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

To the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), I went to school in Alta Mont Springs. There were no certified teachers. Every one of them loved me. My mama and daddy and grandmama never went to school and somehow or another I managed to get three degrees.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), my very good friend and a leader in this field; and I invite the House to listen for 2 minutes to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent to the gentlewoman from Kansas City, Missouri (Ms. McCarthy).

(Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), my very good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), my very good friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the Chair tell me how much time we have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), my good friend.

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), a new Member, but a distinguished person that has dynamics with reference to this matter as a part of his portfolio.

Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), my good friend.

(Ms. SCHAKOWSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez) who is distinguishing herself in our body as new Member, my friend.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have at this time?

Three, and we are at that time prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I am very privileged and pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), who is not only my good friend, but is a person that ran a Head Start program in the United States of America while the rest of us are running our mouths about Head Start.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), who was the superintendent of education in North Carolina and speaks very clearly with reference to these issues based on his experience.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

(Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), who should be able to vote on whether or not there are vouchers in her city.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Delaware

knows that I have great respect for him. That will continue regardless of our different views on this subject.

What he did was read from today's Roll Call by that paragon of education, Morton Kondracke, who is probably a friend of his and certainly a friend of mine. But the gentleman left out another thing that Mr. Kondracke said. He said, ``Democrats did help Bush pass his No Child Left Behind standards and testing initiative in 2001 and now have every right to blast his and the GOP Congress' failure to fund it.''

So, you see, context has a lot to do with things. When the gentleman was before the Committee on Rules, I asked him, in a respectful manner, was there one teacher organization or one parent organization or one student organization that supported the bill that he put forward. He looked to his staff and indicated that there was an education trust group, which the Democrats support as well because it deals with the quality of teachers and teacher pay. There are no teacher organizations, no parent organizations, no student organizations that support this proposition.

The fact of the matter is, one of my distinguished colleagues from Florida came down here and all of these ladies who represent nearly 13 million people, along with the two men that stood with them and asked unanimous consent, he referred to them as a line of mediocrity. If he wants mediocrity, all he has to do is suggest that if this bill rose to the level of mediocrity, it would be fine. Look to Florida for mediocrity when they say they leave no children behind. In Florida we not only leave them behind, we lose them and cannot find them.

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

Offered By: Mr. Hastings of Florida

Amendment No. 5: In title III, in the item relating to

``Environmental Protection Agency--environmental programs and

management'', after the aggregate dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(increased by $550,000)''.

In title III, in the item relating to ``Environmental

Protection Agency--buildings and facilities'', after the

aggregate dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by

$550,000)''.

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

Mr. Speaker, of course, let me thank my very good friend, the distinguished and able chairman of the House Committee on Rules, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) for yielding me time.

As the chairman well knows, he and I both share a passion for the types of issues which will be debated today, and while we do not always end up at the same place at the end of the day, I deeply appreciate his commitment to these issues.

Mr. Speaker, as the chairman has already pointed out, this rule would allow for consideration of both the U.S.-Chile and U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreements. What the chairman did not point out, however, was that this rule in a very real sense is unnecessary. The Trade Promotion Authority bill, or Fast Track, that was passed last year by Congress very strictly limits the way trade bills can come to the House floor. By law the agreements cannot be amended. They must be debated and moved expeditiously and in numerous other ways restrict the normal rights that Members of this Chamber are normally able to exercise.

Despite the restrictions imposed by Fast Track, the majority has decided to impose even more restrictive debate on these important bills today. In fact, few previous trade agreements have been given as little time to be debated as the House will have for these two measures today.

Let me repeat for the House what I said to the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier) last night. We should not be setting a precedent for future trade deals by limiting debate to a couple of hours. In the future there will be other trade agreements that will come to this floor with more acrimony than today's do. These should, indeed must be considered for more than a cursory amount of time.

While I do not oppose today's rule, I will in the future if the majority again attempts to limit debate, more so than that which is required by law.

Substantively, as a member of the Congressional Oversight Group on Trade, I want to commend Trade Representative Robert Zoellick and his staff for the yeoman's work they have put forward over the past 2-plus years putting these agreements together. I have an acute appreciation for the very delicate negotiations that are needed to achieve the success that has brought us to this point. So, again, I congratulate Ambassador Zoellick and his staff.

Let me also say that as we move forward with our new Congressional Oversight Group on Trade, I would like Ambassador Zoellick to continue to keep

the Members engaged and involved in the process as much as possible.

Specifically, it would be helpful if the ambassador and his staff would provide to the oversight group negotiating text several weeks before they are brought to the House of Representatives for tabling. Any less does not provide Members of Congress and our staff the appropriate amount of time to thoroughly review the agreements and offer our substantive insight.

Additionally, when members of the Congressional Oversight Group on Trade do offer constructive proposals, if the Trade Representative ultimately rebuffs those suggestions, it would be helpful to know for what reasons congressional insight was rejected; and I might add, counter to that I raised with Ambassador Zoellick, the fact that in Singapore and in the trade agreement that there was a defense component; and I think the government of Singapore is to be complimented by all of us for the extraordinary undertakings that they put forward on behalf of our United States military who make a substantial number of ports of call in Singapore. So I saw and pointed out to the ambassador the defense component; and I might add, I think that it was taken to heart by the ambassador and his staff in their negotiations.

Finally, text of proposed trade agreements must be made public as soon as the notice of intent to sign is made, if not sooner. Failing that, it is difficult, if not impossible, for the American people to have meaningful input.

Again, though, Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to be nitpicky. These agreements were reached in an admirable fashion by the Trade Representative and those working with him; and I salute him for that, as well as his interlocutors, in what were 2 years of difficult and dynamic negotiations that will affect globally the trade and will affect the United States in substantial ways.

I look forward to the spirited debate which I am certain will follow.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).

May I inquire of the Speaker the time remaining on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, only to add to the debate that the distinguished chairman was having with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).

There are other things that happened. I voted for NAFTA, Mr. Chairman, and I thought when I did that it would help in many ways. I pointed out to the gentleman last night, and I guess we could cite a lot of things, but the tomato industry in Florida was destroyed ultimately by NAFTA, accounting for the fact that there was a freeze that took place roughly around

the same time. But the dumping is what was the death knell.

In addition, I genuinely thought in the maquilladoras that there was going to be environmental improvement. I have been down there, and there has not been substantial environmental improvement. And I have talked with a significant number of people from Mexico regarding wages, and I do find that there are still problems with reference to their hourly rate.

But I will make the point that the one good thing NAFTA did was get rid of one-party rule in Mexico. But one-party rule or two-party rule does not account for the fact that the workers are not improving.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Most respectfully, Mr. Speaker, I would reclaim my time. I understand what the gentleman is saying, but I labored through that with agricultural interests in Florida; and I think that we could point significantly to the North American Free Trade Agreement as causative of our concern. I suggest to him that when CAFTA ultimately comes that he and I will have a very similar, but even more vigorous, debate.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), a leader in this arena as well as of our caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

Mr. Speaker, it will be interesting to see what the California wine growers think about this measure. Maybe the chairman will describe that on his time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez), a new Member of Congress and a leader in this field.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), a new Member of Congress and a leader in this arena.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge the Chair, since the gentleman from California has more time, if he is inclined to yield time on his side.

Mr. Speaker, to close the debate on our side, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), whose district I had the good fortune of visiting and could see firsthand some of the pain of previous free trade agreements.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

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.