Floor Statements

Madam Chairman, I raise a point of order.

Madam Chairman, I make a point of order to the provision in title V Public Law 480 title I Direct Credit and Food for Progress Program Account, that begins with the colon on page 54, line 4 through ``overseas'' on line 9 of H.R. 2744, the Agricultural, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.

I make a point of order against the provision that begins with the colon on page 54, line 4 through ``overseas'' on line 9 in that it violates House rule XXI, clause 2 by changing existing law and inserting legislative language in an appropriations bill.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 749 that begins on page 77, line 1, and ends on page 77, line 16, in that it violates House rule XXI, clause 2, by changing existing law and inserting legislative language in an appropriation bill.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 760 that begins on page 81, line 1 through 7 and beginning with ``and'' on page 81, line 11 through ``programs'' on line 17 in that it violates House rule XXI, clause 2, by changing existing law and inserting legislative language in an appropriation bill.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time, and I join him in rising in strong opposition to this amendment. This amendment is foolhardy just like the underlying provision that was placed in the farm bill at the last minute. We debated this thoroughly in the House Agriculture Committee prior to the writing of that farm bill and the committee members, 51 members, all from agricultural districts, overwhelmingly rejected this amendment as not in the best interest of America's farmers and ranchers. The Senate held no hearings, insisted on this provision, and it was put into law.

What we found after it was put into law was that it does harm. It does exactly the opposite of what farmers and ranchers intended. It increases the cost an estimated $10 per head for cattle, $1.50 for hogs, a similar amount for sheep; and it has the effect, the opposite of what was intended. It will make our products less competitive with foreign meat products, not more competitive. That is wrongheaded.

Secondly, it imposes unbelievably stringent liability on the retailers, and every one of them is writing their own separate set of regulations, so that if this law is allowed to take effect, and I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) for postponing that because we need to have a voluntary system, if it goes into effect, we are going to have a separate set of regulations for each retailer that farmers and ranchers will have to comply with in order to get their products sold. Once again they will say no liability risk if we buy the foreign product, no problem complying with additional regulations, they are going to buy more foreign product, not less.

Finally, last year I offered in the Committee on Agriculture legislation to do this the right way, to make it voluntary. When we did so, again the committee members overwhelmingly voted not to do this mandatory system, but to make it voluntary. That is what we should continue to work toward today. The way to do that is to keep the provision of the gentleman from Texas in this bill and delay the implementation of this very bad legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. This amendment is a piece of legislation that has been introduced by Members of the House that would ban horse slaughter in the country.

And, quite frankly, this legislation has been opposed by me and many others, but it is also a fact that this particular amendment is far worse than the legislation that the gentleman has offered for this reason: the principal concern stated by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) is that the manner of the transport and the actual slaughter of these horses is inhumane.

But this amendment would simply limit the inspection of the horses for the purpose of slaughter; does not in any way stop what his other legislation at least attempts to do, that is, the transport of the horses to Canada, Mexico or anywhere else for the purpose of slaughter. The effect of that then is that the inhumane transport and the slaughter itself continue, but the horses are transported far greater distances.

Now, the gentleman makes reference to the fact that this is only 1 percent of the horses that die each year. And he cites 65,000 as a figure. But I would suggest to the gentleman that he is way, way, way off on his numbers, because there are not 65,000 times 100 or 6\1/2\ million horses dying each year in this country.

With the average life expectancy of a horse of more than 25 years, that would mean that we have more than 150 million horses in the United States. We do not have anywhere near that number. So this percentage is a far higher percentage.

That gives rise to the concern raised by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) and many others that you are going to have hundreds of thousands of unwanted horses, perhaps at the rate of as many as 50,000 a year according to the American Veterinary Medical Association. At a cost of $2,000 per horse to take care of them, that is a hundred million dollars times the average life expectancy that would remain in the lives of these horses if they were not sent to slaughter.

If that average is 10 years, you are talking about a billion dollars after you get 10 years out from now in terms of having to support and take care of these horses.

Now, the gentleman says no problem with that, but the evidence is pretty sparse that there will not be any problem with that because no country anywhere ever, ever has banned the slaughter of horses. That is what his amendment would accomplish.

So I suggest that that is a very, very bad idea with far-reaching complications.

I am not by any means alone in this concern. More than 60 reputable horse organizations, animal health organizations, and agricultural organizations have banded together to oppose this amendment, and they are some of the most respected people who own horses and take care of horses in the United States. The American Quarter Horse Association, the largest association of horse owners in the world, strongly opposes this amendment. The American Painted Horse Association, the second largest association of horse owners, opposes this amendment. More than a dozen State horse councils, including the New York State Horse Council and the Virginia State Horse Council, oppose the gentleman's legislation.

It is also opposed by those who take care of the health of our horses, very respected organizations like the American Veterinarian Medical Association, the American Association of Equine Practitioners. More than 7,000 horse doctors, the people who take care of horses themselves, are concerned about the implications of what this amendment will have if it is allowed to go into effect and ban the slaughter of horses.

Now, I do not believe anybody in this room eats horses. What this is about is what is the best approach for the humane treatment of horses, and the American Veterinarian Medical Association and the American Association of Equine Practitioners recognize the method by which horses are slaughtered in the United States as a humane method of euthanasia of disposing of horses.

So the bill does not prohibit other means of deposition of horses. If people still want to put down their horse by some other means, it does not stop them from doing that. It will simply stop the proper inspection of these horses, which, as the gentleman from Texas correctly notes, will deprive us of a lot of useful information that will be gathered by those veterinarians about diseases and so on that will confront these horses if indeed they do not get properly inspected and they have serious diseases.

Other organizations that oppose this: The American Farm Bureau opposes this legislation. The American Meat Institute opposes this legislation. The Equine Nutrition and Physiology Society opposes this legislation. The Animal Welfare Council opposes this legislation. The National Horse Show Commission opposes this legislation. Organizations that represent literally millions of horse owners in this country and elsewhere around the world oppose this legislation because of their concern, not about whether somebody is eating horses or not but whether or not these horses will be treated humanely if they are not allowed to go through the process they go through today.

So I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. It is not in the best interest of America's horses, it is not in the best interest of America's horse owners, and it is not in the best interest of the fiscal concerns that we must have if we are confronted down the road with the possibility of having to take care of these many, many horses.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for the time.

I want to respond to a few of the remarks made by the gentleman from Kentucky and the gentleman from New York.

First of all, he talked about an inconsistent policy because we do not allow horses to be shipped overseas for slaughter purposes by boat. We do nothing to stop that from being done with regard to transport to Canada or Mexico. The fact of the matter is this amendment does not stop it.

So when my colleagues talk about the humane treatment of horses, this amendment is going to result in more inhumane treatment of horses if that is their guide, because they are going to be shipped greater distances to Canada and Mexico because they cannot be sent to slaughter facilities in the U.S.

Second, the gentleman from New York makes reference to the great racehorse Ferdinand, like this amendment would have stopped Ferdinand from having gone to slaughter. It absolutely would not have. I did not like seeing Ferdinand go to slaughter, but Ferdinand was sold to a Japanese owner and exported not for slaughter purposes but for breeding purposes; and later on in Japan, he was slaughtered. This amendment will do absolutely nothing to stop that same situation from happening to any other racehorse in the world.

Thirdly, the gentleman makes references to just three slaughter facilities. That is not true either. There are other slaughter facilities for horses. For example, there is a slaughterhouse in Nebraska which solely slaughters horses for zoos and sanctuaries for big cats which would be essentially shut down by this amendment because horses provide the proper type of high protein diet for those animals, when they are not out racing across the savannahs, because beef simply is not good for cats, these large cats.

The gentleman from New York says it is budget neutral, but the fact of the matter is all he is talking about there is budget neutral in terms of this particular amendment not costing any money; but consequences of the amendment will cost a lot of money because this amendment does absolutely nothing to stop the many practices that occur in this country that create unwanted horses, everything from nurse mares in the thoroughbred racing industry, to Premarin mares to produce the drug Premarin, to the foals of those mares, to the fact that for every Smarty Jones that is created, there are hundreds and hundreds of unwanted racehorses who do not make the grade and other horses that are unsuitable for riding and other pleasure purposes or showing. Those horses, as well, will fall into that category of unwanted horses.

Nor does the amendment do anything to take care of all those unwanted horses as they start to accumulate in our society. We have already talked about the massive estimated costs that will take place as a result of that.

Finally, the gentleman from Kentucky talks about the facilities that exist that would take care of horses, and we have some of those facilities in the country today. This amendment does not establish standards of care that horse rescue facilities must meet.

The humane society of the United States, which supports the amendment, admits that equine shelters are less well-established than cat and dog shelters. Citing extreme costs and staff time needed to shelter horses, the humane society warned of needing to be aware of distinctions between sheltering horses and sheltering other companion animals. Current horse-rescue facilities are overwhelmed with the amount of horses they already care for without this amendment being in effect and are in desperate search of additional funding.

The American Association of Equine Practitioners estimated that in the first year alone of a slaughter ban 2,700 additional equine facilities would be needed to keep up with unwanted horses displaced by the ban, compounding the problem by adding additional facilities that will also be searching for additional funding.

This is a bad, bad idea. I know there is a lot of emotion that says this is a great thing to do. It is not and it is not in the best interests of the horses of this country to pass this amendment. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Blumenauer- Flake amendment which calls for reductions of the loan rates established in the 2002 farm bill for both sugar beets and sugarcane.

Farmers have crafted their business plans based on the assurances of the 2002 farm bill. Much of the crop of sugar that will be placed under loan in fiscal year 2006 is already in the ground. Farmers have invested time and money in that crop, often with capital borrowed from the bank. It is unfair now to reduce the returns that farmers counted on when planning, financing and planting that crop.

This debate concerning the sugar program is an important one. However, it is a debate we should conduct at the appropriate time: during authorization of a new farm bill.

As chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, I have announced my intention to hold hearings, and the committee will begin work on a new farm bill this fall. During that process and not when we are on the House floor debating an appropriations bill is the correct time for discussing and possibly making important changes to U.S. sugar policy.

Mr. Chairman, in my capacity as chairman, it is my responsibility to look at all of agriculture and consider what is best for the United States and our farmers and ranchers. However, I must note that the U.S. sugar industry does not take the same view when it comes to CAFTA. That free trade agreement is good for U.S. agriculture, but U.S. sugar is the only major agriculture group opposing it. I am disappointed that we do not have total agricultural support for that FTA. I hope that sugar interests will look to help us with that legislation and find a way to close the gap and see that it is passed.

But regardless, the policy that was put in place by the 2002 farm bill must remain intact. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I also rise in opposition to the amendment. This is not the time for unilateral disarmament when you are talking about the trade competition that we face in the world.

The gentleman mentions it is a $140 million program. The European Union alone spends $2 billion each year on export subsidies. So the opportunity for us to promote exports by giving companies an incentive to buy American agricultural products when they then provide sales and services overseas is well worth it, if indeed you are facing that kind of competition.

The European Union has a trade surplus in agriculture with the United States. One of the reasons they do is because they provide far more of this type of support than we do. So to take away what little we have while we are in the midst of intense negotiations with the World Trade Organization is, to me, unilateral disarmament.

What this program does is promote the export of American agricultural products. It is estimated that for every $1 billion of U.S. agricultural exports, we create 15,000 jobs in this country. Last year we exported over $60 billion worth of agricultural products, creating nearly 1 million jobs. Taking away this program is going to take away some of those jobs. It is not a good idea. I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 32) to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide criminal penalties for trafficking in counterfeit marks, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of the time to the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and bringing this legislation to the floor, and I especially want to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) for his persistence in this matter.

Several years ago I had an opportunity to bring forward legislation which passed the House and was signed into law by President Clinton which significantly increased the authority of the U.S. Customs Service to deal with this problem of counterfeit goods. Up until that time, when counterfeit goods were discovered by Customs inspectors, all they could do was refuse to allow them into the country.

What happened was they would simply bring them around to another port and try again. Eventually, they would succeed, or they would send them to another market in the world and wreak the havoc that these counterfeit goods do in terms of health and safety concerns and cost to businesses elsewhere in the world. That was changed so that now the Customs Service can seize and destroy these goods.

This is the next logical step to handling that. When the criminals bring these goods into the country and do not have the labels on them and escape liability because they have separated the labels from the counterfeit goods, that is obviously a loophole that needed to be plugged.

I commend the gentleman and the committee for offering this legislation. I urge my colleagues to adopt it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Internet Spyware I-SPY Prevention Act and thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, the chairman of the committee, for moving this legislation to the floor. This bipartisan legislation which I was pleased to introduce with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) will impose tough criminal penalties on the truly bad actors without imposing a broad regulatory regime on legitimate online businesses. I believe that this targeted approach is the best way to combat spyware.

Specifically, this legislation would impose up to a 5-year prison sentence on anyone who uses software to intentionally break into a computer and uses that software in furtherance of another Federal crime. In addition, it would impose up to a 2-year prison sentence on anyone who uses spyware to intentionally break into a computer and either alter the computer's security settings or obtain personal information with the intent to defraud or injure a person or with the intent to damage a computer.

In addition to strong penalties, enforcement is crucial in combating spyware. The I-SPY Prevention Act authorizes $10 million for fiscal years 2006

through 2009 to be devoted to prosecutions and expresses the sense of Congress that the Department of Justice should vigorously enforce the law against spyware violations as well as against online phishing scams in which criminals send fake e-mail messages to consumers on behalf of well-known companies and request account information that is later used to conduct criminal activities.

The bill also directs resources to the Department of Justice to combat pharming scams in which hackers intercept Internet traffic and redirect unknowing Internet users to fake Web sites where they often trick consumers into giving their account information and passwords.

I believe that four overarching principles should guide the consideration of any spyware legislation: first, we must punish the bad actors while protecting legitimate online companies; second, we must not overregulate but, rather, encourage innovative new services and the growth of the Internet; third, we must not stifle the free market; and, fourth, we must target the behavior, not the technology.

The targeted approach of the I-SPY Prevention Act will protect consumers by punishing the bad actors without imposing liability on those that act legitimately online. In addition, this legislation will avoid excessive regulation such as one-size-fits-all notice and consent requirements prescribed by the Federal Government. A targeted approach will avoid red tape that hampers the creation of new and exciting technologies and services on the Internet.

By encouraging innovation, the I-SPY Prevention Act will help ensure that consumers have access to cutting-edge products and services at lower prices. Increasingly, consumers want a seamless interaction with the Internet, and we must be careful to not interfere with businesses' ability to respond to this consumer demand with innovative services. The I-SPY Prevention Act will help ensure that consumers, not the Federal Government, define what their interaction with the Internet looks like.

As we move forward, I look forward to continuing to work with all stakeholders to further ensure that bad actors are punished while legitimate businesses are protected including working with the Department of Justice which has expressed an interest in working with our office on this issue. In addition, technological solutions are crucial in winning the fight against spyware. As the spyware debate continues, I look forward to working to ensure that antispyware technologies are fostered and that they are not subjected to frivolous lawsuits from spyware providers.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. Chairman, this is one of those issues where our opponents are trying to use emotion to overwhelm good policy. As is usually the case in such debates, the results are exactly the opposite of what is being advocated.

So it is with the proposal to revoke the Secretary of Interior's authority to sell excess wild horses and burros. Ironically, rather than saving wild horses, the amendment will have the perverse effect of ensuring their numbers will stay at unsustainable levels, adoption efforts will be hampered, and thousands of old unadoptable horses will stay stuck in limbo in long-term holding facilities, or as the gentleman from Kentucky suggested, euthanized. Oh, that makes a lot of sense.

But this is what you get. This is what you get with this kind of policy, horses that are starving to death on the range. The BLM has conducted an analysis of their wild horse and burro program and determined that if they had not removed many of the wild horses from the range, prolonged drought, reduced forage production, and poor health would have resulted in large losses during the winter of 2005.

In Cedar City, Utah, for example, over 100 horses had to be removed from the range to prevent their suffering and potential starvation.

It is ironic that the authority that was used to save nearly 2,000 horses

this past year is the very authority the sponsors of this amendment are trying to repeal.

If this amendment prevails, the only method to remove these horses will be adoption, which historically has failed to keep up with the explosion of the population. Inadequacy of the adoption program has resulted in many of these horses being sentenced to spend the rest of their lives in long-term facilities unsuitable for wild horses. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is one of those issues where our opponents are trying to use emotion to overwhelm good policy. As is usually the case in such debates, the results are exactly the opposite of what is being advocated.

So it is with the proposal to revoke the Secretary of the Interior's authority to sell excess wild horses and burros. Ironically, rather than saving wild horses, the amendment will have the perverse effect of ensuring that their numbers will stay at unsustainable levels, adoption efforts will be hampered, and thousands of old, unadoptable horses will stay stuck in limbo in long-term holding facilities. Horses on the range will, most likely, starve to death.

BLM has conducted an analysis of their wild horse and burro program and determined that if they had not removed many of the wild horses from the range, prolonged drought, reduced forage production and poor health would have resulted in large losses during the winter of 2005. In Cedar city, Utah, for example, over 100 horses had to be removed from the range to prevent their suffering and potential starvation. It is ironic that the authority that was used to save nearly 2000 horses this past year is the very authority the sponsors of this amendment are trying to repeal.

If this amendment prevails, the only method to remove these horses will be adoption, which historically has failed to keep up with the explosion of the population. Inadequacy of the adoption program has resulted in many of these horses being sentenced to spend the rest of their life in long term unsuitable for wild holding facilities.

Because of the overwhelming cost of these facilities at the expense of the federal government, the number of horses on the range is still well above the appropriate management levels called for in law. furthermore, one-half of the entire wild horse and burro operating budget is used to take care of ``unadoptable'' horses held in these facilities. This amendment would only cause those costs to skyrocket at the expense of the adoption program.

Last year, Congress enacted a law that allowed BLM to sell unadoptable horses that are over 10 years old or have been offered unsuccessfully for adoption three times, until the appropriate management level is reached. These proceeds are then used by BLM to help promote and finance their adoption program.

Currently there are 8400 horses in these long term facilities that need to be moved on through the program in order to prevent malnutrition and starvation that is associated with the overpopulation of the range land herds. By denying the funds to implement the sale program for wild horses and burros, this irresponsible amendment would eliminate a far more efficient tool in the management of the program. By not allowing BLM to keep the herd in manageable numbers, this amendment endangers the welfare of the wild horses by exacerbating the deplorable conditions these animals must try to survive in where their only escape is death by starvation.

Vote for the welfare of the wild horses. Vote ``no'' on the Rahall- Whitfield Amendment.

Madam Chairman, I rise this afternoon to support H.R. 1279, the Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act.

I was pleased to work with the Committee on the Judiciary, and especially the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), my good friend, to support the legislation on the floor today.

According to the Justice Department, there are currently over 25,000 gangs and over 750,000 gang members who are active across the United States. Gang activity has been directly linked to the proliferation of illegal drugs, human trafficking, and many other violent crimes.

The Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act will authorize funds for joint Federal, State, and local gang investigation prosecution; create a statute to prosecute criminal gang enterprises similar to the existing RICO statute used to prosecute Federal racketeering; create mandatory minimum sentencing for gang and violent crimes; and fund gang investigation technology to allow law enforcement to act more efficiently.

Madam Chairman, many headlines of late have reflected on growing gang problems in heavily populated areas. Unfortunately, gang violence is also on the rise in rural areas, including my congressional district. The disturbing news that it is spreading through the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia is indeed disturbing. In fact, the FBI has recognized the existence of at least six separate gangs in the valley, some of which are responsible for at least two gang-related murders in the past 2 years.

Madam Chairman, acknowledging the reality that gangs are no longer limited solely to urban areas, I am pleased to join my colleagues to support this gangbusters legislation. This legislation will allow us to meet the increase in gang activity with resources sufficient to combat this scourge in our communities, and I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

I rise to offer an amendment to crack down on gangs comprised of illegal aliens, such as MS-13, which Newsweek recently called ``the most dangerous gang in America.''

In my congressional district alone, we have recently witnessed a disturbing rise in the level of gang activity as well as the number of illegal aliens participating in this gang activity. The FBI has recognized the existence of at least six separate gangs in the Shenandoah Valley, with the largest being the notorious Salvadoran gang Mara Salvatrucha, or MS-13. MS-13 is known for such heinous crimes as shootings, rapes and machete attacks, among others, and is estimated to have over 1,500 members in northern and northwestern Virginia alone.

The number of gang members and violent criminals who are illegal aliens and who have been previously deported is staggering. Recently, at the Immigration, Border Security, and Claims Subcommittee, Commonwealth's Attorney Marsha Garst of Rockingham County, Virginia, testified that illegal aliens make up 50 percent of the membership of MS-13 and 75 percent of the membership of another gang in that area, Surenos 13.

According to the FBI, MS-13 is a highly sophisticated gang of illegal and previously deported aliens that is committed to national expansion in the United States and is built on a infrastructure which transports new members or previously deported members across our borders with the intention and plan to expand their activities into new communities and enrich themselves all at the expense of our communities and our law- abiding neighbors. Make no mistake about it: MS-13 is committed to a war by invading and taking over our communities, and deportation means nothing to them because they simply return to our country with yet another new identity, crossing our borders without any reservation and resuming their illegal activities, terrorizing our communities without fear of harsh punishment.

It is now time for us to disable MS-13 and its vicious cycle of violence. My amendment does just that. It gives law enforcement the ability to tack on more severe punishments rather than simply returning MS-13 members to El Salvador or other countries where they will turn around and sneak right across our borders once again. If faced with a choice of putting these gang members in jail or deporting them and having them return, the choice is clear: We must incarcerate them and bring freedom back to our neighborhoods.

The growth in illegal alien participation gangs is not limited to Virginia or just to MS-13. Across the Nation, the number of illegal aliens joining gangs and the number of gang members who have re-entered the country after deportation is alarming. According to the testimony of Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute, a confidential California Department of Justice study reported in 1995 that 60 percent of the 20,000-strong ``18th Street gang'' in Southern California was illegal. Immigration and Customs Enforcement conservatively puts the number of illegal aliens in MS-13 as a majority. Sixty percent of the leadership of the ``Colombia Lil' Cycos'' gang, which uses murder and racketeering to control the drug market around Los Angeles' MacArthur Park, consisted of illegal aliens in 2002. And according to the Los Angeles Times, the Los Angeles Department arrests about 2,500 criminally convicted deportees annually. Let me make that clear: Annually, the Los Angeles Police Department estimates that 2,500 of the people that they arrest each year have already previously committed a crime and already previously been deported, and they have come back into the country, and 2,500 of them are arrested yet again.

My amendment would help to stop the entry and re-entry of gang members into the country by imposing strict penalties on illegal aliens who participate in gang activities and who have already shown they will commit violent crimes and drug-trafficking offenses. With stiff new penalties, we can deter these gang members from re-entering the United States with the intention of joining or resuming violent gang activities.

Specifically, my amendment would add 5 years of prison time to any sentence for violent crimes or drug-trafficking offenses when the violator is an illegal alien. It will also add 15 years of prison time to any such sentence if the illegal alien had been previously deported on the grounds of a criminal offense and had re-entered the country. In addition, the amendment would require the Department of Homeland Security to send all the names of individuals who are subject to deportation orders or who have signed voluntary deportation orders to the National Crime Information Center, the NCIC, so that information on illegal alien gang members can be more easily accessed.

We must shut down this revolving door of criminal illegal aliens. It is time to say to them, if they come here illegally and commit a gang crime, they will do the time. Our children and our communities deserve nothing less.

This amendment will give law enforcement additional tools in the fight against some of the most vicious gangs in America and will help deter violent criminals from entering the country to join gangs.

I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, this is something that has been discussed since the committee acted and passed the legislation out, but we felt very strongly that this would be a good addition to the legislation because of the fact that so many of these gang members are illegal aliens who have re-entered the country after already having been deported and having committed crimes earlier. Something needs to be done more than simple deportation when they come right back in and commit more crimes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is that this has a great deterrent effect. When the word gets out that they come back into this country and they get arrested after they have been deported and they are going to do serious time in the slammer, they are not as likely to come back. And with the efforts that are ongoing with the REAL ID Act, we are going to keep a lot of these people out of the country with that method, and we are going to find them when they come into the country and try to get driver's licenses. But when they do, they need to know that they are going to face serious time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), a real leader in the war against gangs in America.

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.

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

The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) is exactly right, as is the chairman. Here we have a Los Angeles Times story: ``Four presidents seek help in gang battle. Central American leaders say the groups pose a hemispheric threat augmented by U.S. deportation of criminals.''

You cannot keep sending them back down there where they have no ability to handle them and they come right back up here and commit more crimes on our citizens. This is an important amendment that will give teeth to the message: do not come back in the United States. If you do, we are going to keep you in the slammer.

There are many, many examples of what illegal aliens have done. In Virginia, recent gang victims have been hacked by machetes and had fingers cut off. In May 2004, a 16-year-old boy in Fairfax County had several fingers chopped off in an attack by a machete-wielding assailant. A week later, a 17-year-old youth was shot dead in Herndon by an assailant on a bicycle. In July 17, 2003, in Shenandoah County, Virginia, MS-13 gang members violently murdered a 17-year-old pregnant Federal witness, Brenda Paz, before she could testify in a pending Federal trial in the Eastern District of Virginia against MS-13.

Send these guys to jail when they come back into this country after being deported. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 1185, the Clerk be authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, and cross-references and to make such other technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to reflect the actions of the House.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to join the House Republican Conference chairman, the whip, and shortly the chief deputy whip and the vice chairman of our conference in congratulating Kathryn Lehman on an outstanding career here in the Congress and to wish her Godspeed as she leaves this great institution and goes out into the wide world to seek other challenges and opportunities.

Kathryn has served the House of Representatives longer than the vast majority of the Members who serve here today. She has an incisive legal mind, and I came to know that many years ago when I was first elected to serve here and had the privilege of being appointed to serve on the House Committee on the Judiciary, where Kathryn was serving as a counsel for the then senior member of the committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and shortly thereafter became chairman of the committee.

Kathryn was the staff director and chief counsel for the Subcommittee on the Constitution. She advised the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and subsequently Speaker Gingrich, with regard to the procedures that the House needed to follow with regard to the very somber process of impeachment of a President of the United States. Since then, she has gone on to serve in our leadership. A number of Members who we can see here today recognize that she has not only the great sense of humor that has been recognized already, but a great ability to step back and see the big picture at a time when many of us get tied up in the heat of the moment. That is something that is a valuable, valuable asset for this Congress and this Republican Conference.

Kathryn, we thank you, and we wish you the very best.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today, along with my good friend Mr. Boucher, the Business Activity Tax Simplification Act of 2005. This important legislation provides a ``bright line'' that clarifies state and local authority to collect business activity taxes from out-of-state entities.

Many states and some local governments levy corporate income, franchise and other taxes on out-of-state companies that conduct business activities within their jurisdictions. While providing revenue for states, these taxes also serve to pay for the privilege of doing business in a state.

However, with the growth of the Internet, companies are increasingly able to conduct transactions without the constraint of geopolitical boundaries. The growth of interstate business-to-business and business- to-consumer transactions raises questions over where multi-state companies should be required to pay corporate income and other business activity taxes.

Over the past several years, a growing number of jurisdictions have sought to collect business activity taxes from businesses located in other states, even though those businesses receive no appreciable benefits from the taxing jurisdiction and even though the Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution prohibits a state from imposing taxes on businesses that lack substantial connections to the state. This has led to unfairness and uncertainty, generated contentious, widespread litigation, and hindered business expansion, as businesses shy away from expanding their presence in other states for fear of exposure to unfair tax burdens.

In order for businesses to continue to become more efficient and expand the scope of their goods and services, it is imperative that clear and easily navigable rules be set forth regarding when an out-of- state business is obliged to pay business activity taxes to a state. Otherwise, the confusion surrounding these taxes will have a chilling effect on e-commerce, interstate commerce generally, and the entire economy as tax burdens, compliance costs, litigation, and uncertainty escalate.

Previous actions by the Supreme Court and Congress have laid the groundwork for a clear, concise and modern ``bright line'' rule in this area. In the landmark case of Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, the Supreme Court declared that a state cannot impose a tax on an out-of-state business unless that business has a ``substantial nexus'' with the taxing state. However, the Court did not define what constituted a ``substantial nexus'' for purposes of imposing business activity taxes.

In addition, over forty years ago, Congress passed legislation to prohibit jurisdictions from taxing the income of out-of-state corporations whose in-state presence was nominal. Public Law 86-272 set clear, uniform standards for when states could and could not impose such taxes on out-of-state businesses when the businesses' activities involved the solicitation

of orders for sales. However, like the economy of its time, the scope of Public Law 86-272 was limited to tangible personal property. Our Nation's economy has changed dramatically over the past forty years, and this outdated statute needs to be modernized.

That is why we are introducing this important legislation today. The Business Activity Tax Simplification Act both modernizes and provides clarity in an outdated and ambiguous tax environment. First, the legislation updates the protections in PL 86-272. Our legislation reflects the changing nature of our economy by expanding the scope of the protections in PL 86-272 from just tangible personal property to include intangible property and all types of services.

In addition, our legislation sets forth clear, specific standards to govern when businesses should be obliged to pay business activity taxes to a state. Specifically, the legislation establishes a ``physical presence'' test such that an out-of-state company must have a physical presence in a state before the state can impose franchise taxes, business license taxes, and other business activity taxes.

The clarity that the Business Activity Tax Simplification Act will bring will ensure fairness, minimize litigation, and create the kind of legally certain and stable business climate that encourages businesses to make investments, expand interstate commerce, grow the economy and create new jobs. At the same time, this legislation will ensure that states and localities are fairly compensated when they provide services to businesses with a physical presence in the state.

I urge each of my colleagues to support this very important bipartisan legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer the Flexibility for Champion Schools Act (H.R. 1821).

Mr. Speaker, on January 8, 2002, the President signed the No Child Left Behind Act, commonly referred to as N-C-L-B. I was fortunate enough to have served on the House Education and the Workforce Committee, which considered the details of this domestic policy proposal put forth by the President.

The goals of N-C-L-B were and are laudable. According to the Department of Education, the No Child Left Behind Act gives our schools historic education reform based on stronger accountability for results, more freedom for states and communities, encourages proven educational methods, and creates more choices for parents.

However, one of the major tenants of N-C-L-B, its FLEXIBILITY to treat different states fairly while maintaining the goals of the underlying legislation; has not been a priority for the Department. A law that was originally intended to react like a rubber-band, to bend but not break, has unfortunately been implemented rigidly and is intolerant of states like Virginia, who had previously administered high testing and accountability standards.

Mr. Speaker, with any new law, especially one as sweeping as N-C-L-B, some hurdles will have to be overcome. To jump through these hurdles, my colleagues and I have attempted to work with the Department to resolve some of these problems. After meeting with some superintendents in my district, we began a dialogue to work through issues that were specific to states like Virginia, which already had high standards in place.

We recently learned of the Secretary's intent to ``take into account each state's unique situation'' to implement the law. Earlier this year, the Virginia Department of Education proposed a series of waivers that would allow N-C-L-B's goals to mesh with the state's already high standards. Unfortunately, not less than a week after the Secretary's promises of flexibility, the Department rejected the first request for flexibility--one to waive certain assessments of limited English proficiency students in grades K-1 in reading and writing. Mr. Speaker, these are non-English speakers who are 5 years old. I do not believe this demonstrates the flexibility intended by members who supported N-

Mr. Chairman, I rise to congratulate my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for his leadership in forging a comprehensive, cohesive energy policy for our Nation. I also applaud the chairman for his attempts to ensure a reliable, efficient, and affordable energy supply. We all can agree that a transparent energy market is essential to achieving the overall goals of this bill.

I am concerned, however, Mr. Chairman, that the current language in title 12, specifically section 1281, weakens the protections afforded the sensitive and proprietary information used to determine energy prices.

Mr. Chairman, I seek the assurance of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) that he will work with me and concerned others on language that clarifies the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's exclusive jurisdiction with respect to accounts, agreements, and transactions involving commodity futures and options.

The CFTC has a long history of sharing futures and options trading data with other Federal and State regulators that agree to abide by the public disclosure restrictions found in section 8 of the Commodity Exchange Act.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, bankruptcy filings are at an all-time high. When bankruptcy filings increase, every American must pay more for credit, goods, and services through higher rates and charges. It is time that we relieve consumers from the burden of paying for the debts of others.

Since the 105th Congress, the House has passed bankruptcy reform legislation eighty times. S. 256, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, is the culmination of years of work and bicameral as well as bipartisan negotiations.

A key aspect of S. 256 is retention of the income-based means test. The means test applies clear and well-defined standards to determine whether a debtor has the financial capability to pay his or her debts. The application of such objective standards will help ensure that the fresh start provisions of Chapter VII will be granted to those who need them, while debtors that can afford to repay some of their debts are steered toward filing chapter 13 bankruptcies.

S. 256 is good for America's family farmers. As Chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, I am pleased that we are finally making the chapter 12 provisions of the Bankruptcy Code permanent. Bankruptcy relief for family farmers will be made easier for those to obtain a discharge of their indebtedness. In addition, the bill allows more family farmers to qualify for chapter 12 relief by doubling the debt limit and lowering the percentage of income that must be derived from farming operations.

In addition, S. 256 prevents fraud. Under the current system, irresponsible people filing for bankruptcy could run up their credit card debt immediately prior to filing knowing that their debts will soon be wind away. What these people may not realize or care about is that these debts do not just disappear. They are passed along in higher charges and rates to hard working people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the ``Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005.''

Bankruptcy filings are at an all time high. When Bankruptcy filings increase every American must pay more for credit, goods, and services through higher rates and charges. It is time that we relieve consumers from the burden of paying for the debts of others.

Since the 105th Congress, the House has passed bankruptcy reform legislation eight times. S. 256, the ``Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005'' is the culmination of years of work and bi-camerla, as well as bi-partisan negotiations.

A key aspect of S. 256 is the retention of the income-based means test. The means test applies clear and well-defined standards to determine whether a debtor has the financial capability to pay his or her debts. The application of such objective standards will help ensure that the fresh start provisions of Chapter 7 will be granted to those who need them, while debtors that can afford to repay some of their debts are steered toward filing Chapter 13 bankruptcies.

S. 256 is good for America's family farmers, who are the backbone of our agriculture industry. The bill permanently extends Chapter 12 bankruptcy relief for family farmers and makes it easier for family farmers to obtain discharges of their indebtedness. In addition, the bill allows more family farmers to qualify for Chapter 12 relief by doubling the debt limit and lowering the percentage of income that must be derived from farming operations.

In addition, S. 256 prevents fraud. Under the current system, irresponsible people filing for bankruptcy could run up their credit card debt immediately prior to filing, knowing that their debts will soon be wiped away. What these people may not realize or care about is that these debts do not just disappear--they are passed along in higher chargers and rates to hard-working folks who pay their bills on time. S. 256 ends this fraudulent practice by requiring bankruptcy filers to pay back nondischargable debts made in the period immediately preceding their filing.

S. 256 also helps consumers. For example, this legislation helps children by strengthening the protections in the law that prioritize child support and alimony payments. In addition, it protects consumers from ``bankruptcy mills'' that encourage people to file for bankruptcy without fully informing them of their rights and the potential harms that bankruptcy can cause.

S. 256 also ensures the fair treatment of those that administer our bankruptcy laws. Specifically, this legislation restores fairness and equity to the relationship between the U.S. trustee and private standing bankruptcy

trustees by providing that in certain circumstances, after an administrative hearing on the record, private trustees may seek judicial review of U.S. trustee actions related to trustee removal. This compromise, worked out between the U.S. trustee's office and representatives of the private bankruptcy trustees, will ensure fairness for those who dedicate themselves to their duties as private trustees while ensuring that the U.S. trustee is subject to the same checks and balances as other government agencies.

Bankruptcy should remain available to people who truly need it, but those who can afford to repay their debts should repay their debts. S. 256 provides bankruptcy relief for those who truly cannot pay their debts, but also clearly demonstrates to those who would abuse our system that the free ride is over. I believe that S. 256 strikes the appropriate balance between these two important goals. I want to commend Chairmen Sensenbrenner and Cannon for their tremendous work on this legislation, and I urge each of my colleagues to support this fair and reasonable overhaul of the U.S. bankruptcy system.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Security and Fairness Enhancement (SAFE) for America Act.'' This much-needed legislation eliminates the controversial visa lottery program, through which 50,000 aliens are chosen at random to come and live permanently in the United States based on pure luck. The visa lottery program threatens national security, results in the unfair administration of our nation's immigration laws, and encourages a cottage industry for fraudulent opportunists.

Because winners of the visa lottery are chosen at random, the visa lottery program presents a serious national security threat. A perfect example of the system gone awry is the case of Hesham Mohamed Ali Hedayet, the Egyptian national who killed two and wounded three during a shooting spree at Los Angeles International Airport in July of 2002. He was allowed to apply for lawful permanent resident status in 1997 because of his wife's status as a visa lottery winner.

The State Department's Inspector General has even weighed in on the national security threat posed by the visa lottery program. In a report issued in September of 2003, the Office of Inspector General stated that the visa lottery program contains ``significant threats to national security from entry of hostile intelligence officers, criminals, and terrorists into the United States as permanent residents.'' Even if improvements were made to the visa lottery program, nothing would prevent terrorist organizations or foreign intelligence agencies from having members apply for the program who do not have criminal backgrounds. These types of organized efforts would never be detected, even if significant background checks and counter- fraud measures were enacted within the program.

Usually, immigrant visas are issued to foreign nationals that have existing connections with family members lawfully residing in the United States or with U.S. employers. These types of relationships help ensure that immigrants entering our country have a stake in continuing America's success and have needed skills to contribute to our nation's economy. However, under the visa lottery program, visas are awarded to immigrants at random without meeting such criteria.

In addition, the visa lottery program is unfair to immigrants who comply with the United States' immigration laws. The visa lottery program does not expressly prohibit illegal aliens from applying to receive visas through the program. Thus, the program treats foreign nationals that comply with our laws the same as those that blatantly violate our laws. In addition, most family-sponsored immigrants currently face a wait of years to obtain visas, yet the lottery program pushes 50,000 random immigrants with no particular family ties, job skills or education ahead of these family and employer-sponsored immigrants each year with relatively no wait. This sends the wrong

message to those who wish to enter our great country and to the international community as a whole.

Furthermore, the visa lottery program is wrought with fraud. A report released by the Center for Immigration Studies states that it is commonplace for foreign nationals to apply for the lottery program multiple times using many different aliases. In addition, the visa lottery program has spawned a cottage industry featuring sponsors in the U.S. who falsely promise success to applicants in exchange for large sums of money. Ill-informed foreign nationals are willing to pay top dollar for the ``guarantee'' of lawful permanent resident status in the U.S.

The State Department's Office of Inspector General confirms these allegations of widespread fraud in its September report. Specifically, the report states that the visa lottery program is ``subject to widespread abuse'' and that ``identity fraud is endemic, and fraudulent documents are commonplace.'' Furthermore, the report also reveals that the State Department found that 364,000 duplicate applications were detected in the 2003 visa lottery alone.

In addition, the visa lottery program is also by its very nature discriminatory. The complex formula for assigning visas under the program arbitrarily disqualifies natives from countries that send more than 50,000 immigrants to the U.S. within a five-year period, which excludes nationals from countries such as Mexico, Canada, China and others.

The visa lottery program represents what is wrong with our country's immigration system. My legislation would eliminate the visa lottery program. The removal of this controversial program will help ensure our nation's security, make the administration of our immigration laws more consistent and fair, and help reduce immigration fraud and opportunism.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Jacksonville for leading this session in memory of our dear friend Tillie Fowler. I had the opportunity to first meet Tillie after I was elected to the House in 1992, the same year that she was. I found her to be a wonderful woman with a kind heart, but also a firm conviction who stood up strongly for her beliefs.

We found that we had many things in common. It turned out that we had a number of friends that we shared that we did not know anything about until we found each other here. My niece and her husband were dorm parents at Choate School in Connecticut where Tillie's children attended, and we shared many a story about that. She had friends in my congressional district in Lynchburg, Virginia, who were very dear to her and I found that I had friends in Florida that she knew as well.

One day I was driving through a car wash in my hometown of Roanoke, Virginia, and the car in front of me had a Tillie Fowler for Congress bumper sticker. This was right after the election in 1992. I had to stop the lady and tell her that I had just met Tillie and knew her. It turned out this was a very, very close friend of Tillie's who had moved to my district.

So it is with much sadness that I join my colleagues this evening in paying tribute to former Congresswoman Fowler, a devoted mother and wife, a public servant, a dear friend, and a woman of impeccable virtue and integrity, a truly remarkable woman. It seems as though Tillie succeeded in everything she attempted. She attended and graduated from Emory University and then Emory University Law School. After graduation she came to work as a congressional aide and then went on to serve as general counsel in the White House Office of Consumer Affairs from 1970 to 1971, after which she returned home to focus on her new family and volunteer activities. She was elected to the Jacksonville City Council in 1985 and served until 1992 when she successfully ran for Congress and served for 8 years.

In Congress, Tillie was the fifth-ranking Republican in the House of Representatives and served 6 years as the deputy conference chair. She also served on the House Committee on Armed Services where she was a strong advocate of the Navy. After serving in Congress, she continued her service to the country and served as a leader in Washington as an attorney with the Washington office of Holland & Knight.

Tillie and I both came to Congress in 1993, and we shared many stories all through the years that we served together. My sincerest sympathies are extended to Tillie's family. I hope that it comforts you to know that Tillie lived her life to the fullest and she did so with graciousness and integrity. She had, as I said, a kind heart and a firm conviction. She represented her constituents with dedication, tenacity, and fairness. For that reason, she earned the respect of her colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and she will be sincerely missed. It is my prayer that her family and the deep loss that they are suffering now will overcome that and have many, many, many fond memories of a wonderful and delightful woman who blessed all who ever knew her.

Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman very much for yielding.

Madam Speaker, the general principles behind S. 5 and many of the provisions in the legislation are similar to those in H.R. 1115, which the House passed in 2003, and S. 274, which was voted out of committee in the Senate in 2003 but did not ultimately pass.

To the extent these provisions are the same, the House Committee on the Judiciary's report on H.R. 1115 and the Senate Committee on the Judiciary's report on S. 274 reflect the intent and understanding of the committee and the sponsors as to the import of these provisions. However, there are several new provisions in S. 5 regarding Federal jurisdiction over class actions that were not included in prior versions of the legislation.

I would like to ask my colleague, the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, to provide an overview of the jurisdictional provisions in the legislation, and I would like to discuss the various exceptions included in the legislation and the intent of the sponsors with regard to these exceptions.

Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Speaker, I would also like to discuss the home State exception in the legislation.

New subsections 1332(d)(3) and (d)(4)(B) address the jurisdictional principles that will apply to class actions filed against the defendant in its home State, dividing such cases into three categories.

First, for cases in which two-thirds or more of the members of the plaintiff class and the primary defendants are citizens of the State in which the suit was filed, section 1332(d)(4)(B) states that Federal jurisdiction will not be extended by S. 5. Such cases will remain in State courts.

Second, cases in which more than two-thirds of the members of the plaintiff class are not citizens of the State in which the action was filed will be subject to Federal jurisdiction. Federal courts should be able to hear such lawsuits because they have a predominantly interstate component. They affect people in many jurisdictions, and the laws of many States will be at issue.

Finally, there is a middle category of class actions in which more than one-third, but fewer than two-thirds, of the members of the plaintiff class and the primary defendants are all citizens of the State in which the action was filed. In such cases, the numbers alone may not always confirm that the litigation is more fairly characterized as predominantly interstate in character. New subsection 1332(d)(3), therefore, gives Federal courts discretion in the interests of justice to decline to exercise jurisdiction over such cases based on the consideration of five factors.

Madam Speaker, I would ask the chairman to explain these factors.

Madam Speaker, if the chairman would continue to yield.

I thank the chairman for yielding to me. I think those examples really reflect the intent of the legislation.

Madam Speaker, the legislation also includes a local controversy exception which is intended to ensure that truly local class actions can remain in State court under the legislation. Under this provision, Federal courts are instructed not to exercise jurisdiction over cases that meet all of the following four criteria:

First, more than two-thirds of the class members must be the citizens of the State where the suit is brought; second, there must be at least one in-State defendant from whom significant relief is sought by members of the class and whose conduct forms a significant basis of plaintiffs' claims; third, the principal injuries resulting from the alleged conduct or related conduct of each defendant must have occurred in the State where the action was originally filed; and, fourth, no other class action has been filed during the preceding 3 years asserting the same or similar factual allegations against any of the defendants.

Madam Speaker, I would ask that the chairman elaborate on these criteria.

I thank the chairman for yielding once again.

Madam Speaker, in this regard I think it is important to note that the exceptions in this legislation are just that, exceptions, and they should not be interpreted in ways that turn them into loopholes. For example, the legislation excludes actions against States. Obviously, this does not mean that plaintiffs can simply name a State in every consumer class action and stay out of Federal court. To the contrary, Federal courts should proceed cautiously before declining Federal jurisdiction under the subsection 1332(d)(5)(a) ``state action'' case exception, and do so only when it is clear that the primary defendants are indeed States, State officials, or other governmental entities against whom the court may be foreclosed from ordering relief.

The sponsors intend that primary defendants be intended to reach those defendants who are the real targets of the lawsuit, i.e. the defendants who would be expected to incur most of the loss if liability is found. Thus, the term ``primary defendant'' should include any person who has substantial exposure to significant portions of the proposed class in the action, particularly any defendant that is allegedly liable to the vast majority of the members of the proposed classes, as opposed to simply a few individual class members.

It is the sponsors' intention with regard to each of these exceptions that the party opposing Federal jurisdiction shall have the burden of demonstrating the applicability of an exemption. Thus, if a plaintiff seeks to have a class action remanded on the ground that the primary defendants and two-thirds or more of the class members are citizens of the home State, that plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that these criteria are met.

Similarly, if a plaintiff seeks to have a purported class action remanded because a primary defendant is a State, that plaintiff should have the burden of demonstrating that the exception should apply.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, some critics have complained that the legislation removal provisions will result in delay. Can the gentleman explain why that is simply not the case?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership in moving this legislation forward and in working with the Senate to accomplish that as well.

I hope this colloquy will provide guidance on the very important jurisdictional provisions in S. 5 and the sponsor's intent.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time and for his leadership in bringing this legislation to the floor and for working with the Senate to achieve the compromise that we need.

The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader, called this an extreme Republican measure. Apparently, she has not spoken to her own fellow San Franciscan and senior Senator from her State, Dianne Feinstein, who negotiated the compromise that has brought this legislation to the floor of the House, or to Senator Chuck Schumer, also a member of the Committee on the Judiciary on the Democratic side in the Senate, or 16 other Democratic Senators who voted for this legislation.

She also apparently has not spoken to members of her own Democratic Caucus, many of whom have voted for this legislation in each of the last three Congresses that have passed the House of Representatives and many more of whom will vote for the legislation today.

A number of the folks who have spoken on the other side of the aisle criticizing the legislation have cited total inaccuracies about what the legislation will do.

The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) would not yield to me, but he said that the Amerada Hess case in New Hampshire, with gasoline leaking into groundwater, would not be heard in the State court; but if you live in New Hampshire and you have gasoline leaking in your groundwater and virtually all of the plaintiffs are New Hampshire residents, the case, under this bill, would be heard in the State courts.

Some have mentioned the Vioxx case against Merck would be affected by this, and they have argued that Senate 5 should be rejected because it will hurt consumers bringing Vioxx cases against Merck. The truth, however, is that this legislation will have absolutely no effect on Vioxx suits. Here is why: the majority of personal injury cases brought against Merck are individual cases that would not be affected by the bill in any manner whatsoever. These include more than 400 personal injury cases that are part of a coordinated proceeding in New Jersey State court. None of these cases will be affected by the bill because they are neither class actions nor mass actions.

Now, what kind of cases would be affected by this legislation? Well, let me show my colleagues how a select number of class action trial lawyers play the class action wheel of fortune.

How about the Kay Bee Toys case where the lawyers got $1 million in attorneys fees and the consumers got 30 percent off selected products of an advertised sale at Kay Bee Toys for one week.

Or the Poland Spring Water case where the lawyers got $1.35 million in the wheel of fortune and the consumers got coupons to buy more of the water that the lawyers were alleging was defective.

How about the Ameritech case. The price goes up, $16 million for those lawyers; the consumers, $5 phone cards.

How about the Premier Cruise line case. The lawyers got nearly $900,000. The consumers got $30 to $40 off of their next thousand dollar cruise, with a coupon to buy more of the product the lawyers were alleging was defective.

Or the computer monitor litigation, $6 million in attorneys fees in a case alleging that the size of the computer screen was slightly off, and therefore, they were entitled to something. What did the consumers get? A $13 rebate to purchase their next purchase.

How about the register.com case, $642,500 to the lawyers. The consumers, $5-off coupons.

My favorite case, the case against Chase Manhattan Bank, the lawyers got $4 million in attorneys fees, but the plaintiffs that allegedly the opponents of this bill are protecting, they got 33 cents. Here is one of the actual checks. The catch was that at the time, to accept this 33-cent magnanimous check, they had to use a 34-cent postage stamp to send in the acceptance to get their 33-cent fee.

How about the case that President Bush cited last week when he highlighted problems with this of the woman who had a defective television set against Thompson Electronics, found she had been made a member of a class action seeking redress of her grievances and many others against Thompson Electronics. What did the lawyers get? $22 million in attorneys fees. What did she get? A coupon for $25 to $50 off her next purchase of exactly what she did not want, another Thompson Electronics television set.

Now, the gentlewoman from California, the minority leader, also cited the Washington Post. Let me tell my colleagues, the Washington Post has repeatedly endorsed this legislation, along with over a hundred other major newspapers, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, Christian Science Monitor, on and on the list goes. And here is what the Washington Post said, and that is why we need to pass this legislation today. The clients get token payments while the lawyers get enormous fees. This is not justice. It is an extortion racket that only Congress can fix.

I urge my colleagues to pass the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding me this time, and I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) for raising the points on those cases on the class action wheel of fortune because he makes a good point. In not one of those cases was there any wrongdoing found on the part of any of those defendants because all of those were settlements. They were extortionate settlements because they are in the jurisdiction of a court where they know they are facing a hanging judge and a hanging jury.

The gentleman also raised another good point, and we should not leave plaintiffs in the situation where they get a 33-cent check or a coupon for a box of Cheerios, like in another case, and that is what this bill does. It requires extra-special scrutiny for coupon settlement cases so the courts will no longer let the manufacturers' attorneys and the defendants' attorneys come in with a settlement that simply gets out of the case, that gives the plaintiffs' attorney a huge sum of money and everyone else walks away and the plaintiffs get left holding the bag.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman ought to talk to his colleague, the senior Senator from New York, the predecessor of his seat, who supported this legislation.

In addition, when the gentleman talks about abuse of plaintiffs in these cases, take into consideration the nationwide class action lawsuit filed in Alabama against the Bank of Boston, headquartered in Massachusetts, over mortgage escrow accounts. The class members won the case but actually lost money. Amazing.

Under the settlement agreement, the 700,000 class members received small payments of just a couple of dollars or no money at all. About a year later, they found out that anywhere from $90 to $140 had been deducted from their escrow accounts. For what? To pay their lawyers' legal fees, of what? $8.5 million. And when some of those class members, some of those beleaguered plaintiffs, that I am glad the gentleman from New York is standing up for, sued their class action lawyers for malpractice, the lawyers countersued them for $25 million saying that their former clients were trying to harass them.

This is an extortionate practice. A small cartel of class action lawyers around the country are abusing the system and we need to change it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to commit.

Mr. Speaker, first let me thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for his leadership in bringing us to this historic point. He and I have been working on this for over 6 years. It has passed the House of Representatives three times before.

Due to his good work, it has now passed the Senate and we have the opportunity to send it to the President. He is waiting to sign it and we shouldn't waste any more time.

Now the truth about class action fairness and Vioxx. Critics have been arguing in the press that S. 5 should be rejected because it will hurt consumers bringing Vioxx cases against Merck. The truth is, however, that this legislation will have absolutely no effect on Vioxx suits, and here is why. The majority of personal injury cases brought against Merck are individual cases that would not be affected by the bill in any manner whatsoever. These include more than 400 personal injury cases that are part of a coordinated proceeding in New Jersey State Court. None of these cases will be affected by the bill because they are neither class actions nor mass actions.

Merck has been named in more than 75 statewide and nationwide class actions involving Vioxx, but only a small percentage are personal injury class actions. To the extent these cases do involve personal injury, most were already brought in or removed to Federal Court because each potential class member's claims exceeds $75,000. Thus, these cases are removable to Federal Court under the old rules.

There are a few cases which plaintiffs have joined together in mass action-type cases against Merck. However, not a single Vioxx case has been brought against Merck in State court by more than 100 plaintiffs, one of the requirements for removal to Federal Court under the class action legislation. Thus, there is no reason to believe that the mass action provision would affect any Vioxx-related cases whatsoever.

Most of the class actions have been brought against Merck. Since the legislation is not retroactive, it would absolutely have no effect on the 75 class actions already filed against Merck in the wake of the Vioxx withdrawal.

Mr. Speaker, I do not yield.

Mr. Speaker, given the large number of suits already filed and the fact that every former Vioxx taker in America is already a proposed class member in numerous class actions, it is unlikely there will be many more class actions after the legislation is enacted.

It is bad legislation to have something pass that covers all class actions in the country for all time and name one specific product or one specific company in the legislation. It is irrelevant anyway.

Now, let me tell you the kinds of cases that are affected by this legislation. Take a look at the ``Class Action Wheel of Fortune'' on this chart. It will tell you what we are doing here today.

You have got the case against Ameritech. Ameritech, the attorneys for the plaintiffs got $16 million in attorneys fees. What did the plaintiffs they represent get? Five-dollar phone cards.

The Premier Cruise Line case, the lawyers got almost $1 million; the consumers got a $30- to $40-off coupon for their next cruise.

The computer monitor litigation case, the lawyers, $6 million in fees; the consumers, a $13 rebate against your next future purchase of the alleged defective product.

Register.com, $650,000 for the lawyers; $5 for the consumers.

KB Toys, $1 million for the lawyers; 30 percent off your selected product in a unadvertised 1-week sale at KB Toys.

Poland Spring Water, $1.35 million for the lawyers; a coupon for more of the allegedly defective water for the consumers.

My favorite case, however, is this one, the Chase Manhattan Bank case, where the lawyers got $4 million in attorneys fees; the plaintiffs, a check, we have got one right here, for 33 cents. But there was a catch, because if you wanted to accept the 33 cents, you had to use a 34-cent postage stamp to send in your acceptance notice. How is that for a bargain for you?

And how about the $22 million case that President Bush cited last week against Thompson Electronics? The lawyers got $22 million in attorneys fees; the plaintiffs, one of whom was there, got a $25- to $50-off coupon to buy more of what? The very television set that she was complaining was defective in the first place.

It is a racket, it is extortionate. The people of the country know it. When they are asked the question, who benefits from our class action industry today, 47 percent say it is the plaintiffs' lawyers; 20 percent say it is the lawyers for the companies; 67 percent of our public recognizes it is the lawyers who benefit from this system.

It is time we change it. This bill does just that. It protects American consumers and makes sure that they get justice by examining these ridiculous coupon settlements.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, defeat the motion to commit, and send the bill to the President, and starting very soon, we will have justice for American consumers.

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

Parliamentary Inquiry