Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify one point that is in this bill. I was going to ask unanimous consent to modify the bill, but the Democrats have not had an opportunity to make a final decision about that, and we are ready to

move to final passage. So I would just ask the gentleman from Tennessee if he would clarify this with me.

I rise to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) to clarify section 3090 of the bill today.

Included in this bill, H.R. 2557, is language regarding the Roanoke River Upper Basin Flood Control Project, a much-needed project located in the Sixth Congressional District of Virginia. This project has been in discussion for many years, and my community, along with the Corps of Engineers, stands ready to begin construction within the year. As written, section 3090 contains language stating that awards for contracts will be based on invitation for bids procedures.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you might clarify the intent of that language.

I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, as the chairman knows, it is my intention that anybody be able to bid on this contract. That is what the city of Roanoke desires and so on. However, if the understanding is with the other side that they will at least strike this language that does not clarify that, I would ask unanimous consent at this time to strike the language at page 121, lines 5 and 6, carrying to the end of that section.

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Is it correct that once we are out of the Committee of the Whole and into the House itself, that this unanimous consent request would be in order at that time?

Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Illinois (Costello) if that would be appropriate, to raise it in the House?

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 49, the Internet Tax and Nondiscrimination Act, and commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Utah (Chairman Cannon) for their leadership in moving this legislation forward, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), who has been leading this effort for many years, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for working together on this.

I would point out that this has absolutely nothing to do with the collection of sale taxes on the Internet, which is an issue to be dealt with on another day in another way.

As cochairman of the Congressional Internet Caucus and Chairman of the House Republican High Technology Working Group, I have long supported efforts to eliminate Internet access taxes and other discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce. During the 107th Congress, I introduced the Internet Tax Fairness Act, legislation that sought in part to permanently ban Internet access taxes and discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce.

In 2001, the ban on these taxes was temporarily continued until November of 2003. Now it is with great pleasure that I stand here today to urge support of this legislation to permanently ban these burdensome taxes.

Excessive taxation and regulation will hamper the Internet's tremendous growth and stifle investment in small businesses that utilize this tremendous medium. The last thing that consumers need is for the puzzling array of taxes on their phone bills to be repeated on their Internet service bills.

In addition, excessive taxation of Internet access will increase the costs of households going online and result in a greater disparity between those households that can afford to go online and those that cannot.

H.R. 49, the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act, will encourage continued investment in and utilization of the Internet by permanently banning all Internet access taxes and eliminating the grandfather clause in the current law that allows certain States to continue imposing these crippling taxes on the Internet. The bill also contains language that makes it clear that protections in the bill apply equally to all providers of Internet access, regardless of the technologies used to provide that access.

This bill is forward-looking and will provide the certainty that businesses need to make calculated decisions regarding the ways in which they will utilize and invest in Internet technologies. I urge each of my colleagues to support this important legislation to permanently ban all Internet access taxes and discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today the Pretrial Detention and Lifetime Supervision of Terrorists Act of 2003.

In a time when our country faces heightened security alerts and continues to battle against those that would harm our citizens, we cannot risk allowing terrorists to be set free while waiting for trial. Terrorists are unlikely to scale back their efforts to attack Americans anytime soon and, likewise, America should not scale back its efforts to fight and eliminate terrorism in all its forms.

This commonsense legislation cracks down on terrorists by creating a presumption to deny the pre-trial release of those that commit terrorist crimes. Terrorists, and those that fund terrorists, are often highly organized. Because of the highly organized nature of most terrorist groups, the pre-trial release of these criminals would create unnecessary and extremely dangerous opportunities for terrorist groups to help these suspects flee the country before they could be brought to justice. This bill adds terrorist offenses to the list of offenses that create a presumption that the terrorist suspect is a flight risk and would pose a danger to the community if released. This provision will help keep dangerous terrorists where they belong: in prison.

In addition, this legislation gives discretion to judges to impose lifetime supervision of terrorists once they are released from prison. Specifically, the bill would grant the judge this discretion for all terrorist offenses, not just those that result in death or serious injury. This provision will ensure that these who are convicted of terrorist crimes, including cyber terrorists and those that fund terrorist activities, will not be allowed to re-enter society and re- ignite their efforts against the United States. America simply cannot take the chance that terrorists will stop engaging in terrorist activities merely because they haves served their time in prison. Giving judges the discretion to supervise these heinous and dangerous criminals after they are released from prison will help ensure the safety of America and her citizens.

I believe that this is a good, commonsense bill that is necessary for the safety of our country. I urge each of my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, when Congress enacted the Telecommunications Act of 1996, it created three ways to spur telecommunications competition--the interconnection of competing networks, use of parts of competitors' networks, called unbundled network elements (UNEs), and the resale of the incumbents' retail services. Congress intended that UNEs and resale, or wholesale, prices be set to equal the retail cost, minus the avoided costs of not having to sell to the public, such as advertising.

However, when the Federal Communications Commission wrote the rules, it set rates for UNEs at a bizarre below-cost rate called TELRIC. Furthermore, the FCC allowed competitors to put all the UNEs together into a platform, called UNE-P. For all intents and purposes, UNE-P and resale are the same product. While the Congressionally mandated rate for this service amounts to about a 20% discount, the FCC-created UNE-P price can have a discount of up to 55%.

In February, the FCC reviewed its UNE rules and decided to keep the current UNE-P regime for the mass market. This was an unfortunate decision. Business plans built on regulatory arbitrage rarely last, they witness reciprocal compensation and are certainly not going to create new investment and new innovation. If the FCC wanted a truly competitive telecommunications market, based on sound economic principles, with strong companies and resulting jobs, it should have eliminated the UNE-P regime for the mass market in February.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time and his opposition to this amendment. As the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, I want to rise in strong opposition to this amendment as well.

I would say to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) that compromise is certainly needed and sound science is certainly needed, but the sound science has not been put forward today, and this is not the place to be doing it. This is barely inside not being struck for being authorized on an appropriations bill, because all you are doing is limiting expenditures for specific crops.

I would say that this is exactly the wrong place, and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) ought to withdraw his amendment and work with the appropriate authorizing committees that are involved and interested in this as well as with the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) to come up with a solution that works and not try to not compromise, which is exactly what you are doing here.

You are trying to stuff this issue down the throats of the citizens of Eastern Oregon, and I would strongly oppose the amendment. The amendment would sacrifice farming families in the Klamath Basin by restricting the acres planted and restricting the options of families farming under the false premise of providing water for wildlife. You cannot replace some of the crops that you want to replace them with the crops that are being planted now because they are not as profitable. The farmers cannot make a living by having the government dictate to them what they should be doing. This is the wrong place with the wrong solution.

In reality, the Blumenauer amendment would provide less food and water for the millions of waterfowl that use the Klamath National Wildlife Complex in California and Oregon each year.

Congress itself has recognized the dual benefits of the leased lands, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, which I do not think makes any sense. It provides, ``None of the funds made available by this act may be used to kill or otherwise assist in killing any bison in the Yellowstone National Park herd.'' The national park herd is not controlled by the Congress. Nature takes care of the size of that herd. If it grows too large, if we have a situation where bison are starving in the national park because there is not enough land to take care of this ever-increasing-size herd, leave aside the debate about brucellosis and human health which I will address in a second, you have a very serious limitation on doing anything.

Secondly, the State of Montana has indicated that they are going to gather

up these bison that get off of the park and slaughter them. So now you have created a situation where the people responsible for taking care of them cannot have any cooperation with those who want to slaughter them and you are going to break down the scientific ability to make a sensible decision about when they should be slaughtered and when they should not.

Brucellosis is a highly contagious reproductive disease that affects cattle, bison, and swine by causing abortions, infertility, and lowered milk production. The disease is also transmissible to humans. Brucellosis is not a natural disease for bison. The disease was introduced into the bison herd when infected cattle arrived into North America and then infected the bison. To conclude that it is not going to work going back the other way, I think, is not sound science. We are rapidly approaching eradication of brucellosis from the U.S. cattle herd. The Yellowstone bison herd represents the last significant reservoir of brucellosis in the U.S.

The Rahall amendment would interfere with the eradication of brucellosis in the Greater Yellowstone area. For the health of our cattle herds and our bison herds, oppose this amendment. An interagency bison management plan has been developed, approved and is being implemented to deal with this situation. It is imperative that the National Park Service employees be allowed to continue to play their integral role in eradicating brucellosis. The response to the problem that the gentleman has identified of wanting to protect bison wherever possible is not enhanced by this amendment. This amendment is not based upon sound science. It is not based upon a commonsense approach to both protecting the interests of the State and the interests of those who are very concerned about the bison in our national park.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

This amendment would prevent the Forest Service from completing a much-needed amendment to the current outdated National Forest Management Act planning regulations. The current planning regulations were written over 21 years ago, and they

need to be updated. The Forest Service is currently operating under the 1982 regulations. There have been significant developments in the science of active forest management, and revisions are needed to reflect these developments.

One would think that environmental organizations that are supporting the amendment of the gentleman from New Mexico would understand that. We are operating a generation ago in terms of the technology that is available and in terms of the planning protocols that are available. The Society of American Foresters, an organization founded by Gifford Pinchot, agrees with us. They oppose this amendment. They support the efforts to revise the existing NFMA.

The Forest Service is currently drowning in paperwork and red tape. They estimate that they spend more than 40 percent of their budget and personnel hours on planning and fighting court battles rather than in the forests. Let me repeat that. Of all the money that they have to spend, 40 percent of it does not go to helping our forests. It goes to paying for lawyers to fight lawsuits. It goes to paying for the bureaucracy to deal with the planning process.

The proposed 2002 regulations would allow land managers to get more accomplished on the ground; and that is especially critical right now, as our public lands are currently in a grave forest health crisis and are in need of active management to restore them. We are facing problems in our forests not just with forest fires, which clearly is the most serious problem, but with disease and insect infestation all across the country, and we need to give them the tools to act promptly to save our forests, to prevent them from being burned down, to prevent them from being devoured by gypsy moths and pine bark beetles and a whole host of other insects.

The proposed 2000 regulations protect wildlife and public involvement. The 2002 proposal offers two options to provide for biological diversity, which were presented and discussed at a national workshop involving wildlife experts and ecologists from across the country. The 2002 proposal provides opportunities for public input at every step in the planning process. Completing the 2002 regulations should be a top priority for everyone and anyone concerned about our national forests.

The Forest Service is in the midst of evaluating public comments on the 2002 proposed rule. Halting this process would significantly delay the efforts to implement improvements on the old regulations. It currently takes 5 to 10 years to complete a forest plan under the old planning regulations. That is outrageous, it is irresponsible, and it indicates the kind of morass that the Forest Service finds itself in. These proposed rules would help to make sure that we can more promptly get that input from the public, input from environmental organizations, input from industry, input from local communities, input from everybody affected in this process and then act on it in a more timely fashion than 10 years down the road.

If we were to identify a problem and say, well, 10 years from now we will get around to solving it, that would be an irresponsible way to handle things. The Forest Service's hands are tied. This amendment will keep them tied for a long time. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

The courts have already held that that language does not allow the intervention unless there is effectively a fire already taking place. If you want to actually prevent a fire from occurring, that language is not effective.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

To the gentleman from Florida, kindly let me just note that there are no commercial logging programs in our parks as you refer to them. We are talking about national forestland, Bureau of Land management land. And I will tell you 3 years ago President Clinton helicoptered to my district, got in a car, drove up a road into our national forests and at the top of Reddish Knob signed with one stroke of the pen a very irresponsible, environmentally irresponsible policy that wiped out billions of dollars and millions of hours of local input into the proper management of our forests lands. That is what this does.

Forests grow. Their character changes. There are places today that have roads that in the future may not need roads, but there are also places in the roadless areas that from time to time will need roads in order to prevent forest fires, to protect wildlife, to do all of the various things that are necessary. This one stroke of the pen is irresponsible public policy not only for the local communities that are devastated by it but also for the environmental soundness of our national forests because they change. The fuel density builds up, and you need to go in and thin out various parts of our forests.

Areas that are roadless now, many of them could stay roadless for a long time, but some are in need of having roads. There are places where there are roads where those roads will not be needed in the future. But to take with one stroke of the pen all of that local planning in all of our national forests and wipe it out makes no sense at all. It is shocking that anyone would consider consigning more than one-third of the national forest system to a passive, hope-for-the-best style of management only 1 year after one of the most devastating wildfire seasons of the last half century.

Two federal district courts have examined the roadless rule and found that it was adopted in flagrant violation of basic environmental law, the laws of this country.

The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) would like to have Congress intervene and force the administration to ignore these court findings. That will leave us with the old situation. Because this rule that President Clinton put forward is flawed, and the courts are going to find it so.

The Federal District Court in Idaho called the roadless rule an obvious violation of the National Environmental Policy Act.

The Federal District Court in Wyoming ruled just this work that the Forest Service's entire NEPA process was flawed and marred with arbitrary and capricious decisions and that the administrative record is replete with the Forest Service's own admission that its data was incomplete, outdated and simply inaccurate.

Even the Clinton administration admitted that the final roadless rule contained egregious errors. Over 3 million acres of roaded lands were counted as part of the roadless land base. Almost a third of the units of the National Forest System did not even bother mapping the non- Federal lands in their roadless areas.

Preventing the Forest Service from amending this rule is an attempt to circumvent the courts and freeze outdated policy in that is severely flawed in both conception and execution. I urge my colleagues to oppose strongly this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies for yielding me this time and for his leadership in making sure that we address the country of origin labeling issue correctly.

Many of my colleagues may not appreciate how hard the House Committee on Agriculture has worked on the country of origin labeling issue. Several years ago, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), then Subcommittee on Livestock and Horticulture chairman, and some of his colleagues began a process to explore this subject. They started out with the hope that it could be accomplished in a way to provide an effective tool for producers to earn more in the marketplace. The subcommittee proceeded to meet with interested parties and the administration to develop the idea.

Subsequently, the fiscal year 1999 Agriculture appropriations directed the Secretary to conduct a comprehensive study on the potential effects of the idea. During an April 28, 1999, Subcommittee on Livestock and Horticulture hearing, the Clinton administration testified about the ``variety of regulatory regimes'' for labeling that could be adopted and further asserted that they ``believe there would probably have to be some kind of paperwork traceback system.'' The GAO pointed out that ``there is going to be significant costs associated with compliance and enforcement.''

Concerned that the costs outweighed the benefits for producers, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) and others turned their attention to working with USDA to develop a credible voluntary program that allowed producers and processors to work together. Meanwhile, the GAO released its report in January of 2000 stating that mandatory labeling ``would necessitate change in the meat industry's current practices, create compliance costs across all sectors of the industry'' and asserting that ``U.S. packers, processors and grocers would, to the extent possible, pass their compliance costs back to suppliers, U.S. cattle and sheep ranchers, in the form of lower prices or forward to consumers in the form of higher retail prices.''

On September 8, 2000, interested parties submitted a petition to the USDA for a voluntary program and the Subcommittee on Livestock and Horticulture conducted another hearing on September 26, 2000, to review studies and the USDA's progress on the petition.

In early July, 2001, Under Secretary Hawks wrote industry to commit the Agriculture Marketing Service ``to begin action on the petition requesting a USDA voluntary, user-fee funded certification program that will enable a label for beef products.''

That same month, on July 26 and 27, the House Committee on Agriculture conducted its markup of the Farm Bill. The transcript of that markup has 12,463 lines of text, with 3,167 lines on amendments to create a mandatory country of origin labeling program. Fully 25 percent of the markup was devoted to this proposal, which was ultimately rejected because of concerns that the costs outweighed the benefits.

It has been mentioned by some that this has been passed on the floor of the House, and that is most certainly not correct. Mr. Chairman, an amendment was passed on the floor dealing with fruits and vegetables. The more complicated issue of beef and pork, which is the only subject covered by the provision in the Agriculture appropriations bill that delays implementation for a year, is the beef and pork provisions. The House has never taken a position on this, and this is far more complicated and costly for the producers than any of the other sectors, whether one likes the other ideas or not.

For those that attended the Farm Bill conference meetings, they know that labeling was a major topic of discussion there as well.

Despite a complete lack of any hearing record on the subject, the Senate insisted on its provision requiring labeling for beef, pork, lamb, fruits, vegetables, peanuts and fish.

Just weeks ago, on June 26, the Committee on Agriculture conducted an extensive hearing on the implementation of mandatory country of origin labeling. We learned a number of troubling things. We learned that most of the problems associated with implementation were a result of the law and not the administration's interpretation. We learned that while some groups still support mandatory country of origin labeling, the two largest livestock producer groups in America, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and the National Pork Producers Council, both oppose it.

We learned that this new law will open everyone up and down the food production system to third party lawsuits with the potential of creating havoc for producers, packers, processors and retailers. We learned that because of the way the law is drafted, no matter what the administration does in writing the implementing regulations, because the retailers have been made ultimately liable for this labeling system, that they will set up their own regime to protect themselves against mislabeled products, and that regime is going to be very costly to producers.

If you are a domestic producer of beef or pork, you are going to have to comply with an enormous amount of record keeping, a great deal of cost which you are going to have to bear yourself. Lower prices for your product are going to be passed down to you by the processors, by the distributors, by the wholesalers, by the retailers; and that foreign competition, whether it is fine Argentinian Black Angus beef or Australian beef, they are simply going to slap it on the label and say we are guilty. It will cost them little, if anything, to comply; it will cost the U.S. producers more. Therefore, this is going to be a major competitive disadvantage for American agriculture. I would urge Members to support the

original Bonilla language in the appropriations bill to delay implementation for 1 year and oppose the amendment which has just been offered to strike that language. We need time to sort out the problems with this legislation before Congress ends up doing a lot more harm than good.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee for yielding me this time in strong opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado.

I would say to the gentleman that I have supported his amendments from time to time, but I do not believe he has looked at the facts here. We are $872 million less than last year right now. That is far greater than the 1 percent cut the gentleman is asking for. So we have already done the work that he has asked for in this case.

Secondly, because of the fact we are already taking that huge a cut, I can only say that the gentleman's amendment constitutes an assault on rural America. This is something that we simply cannot tolerate.

The gentleman cited the few areas where there have been some significant increases, one of those being telemedicine. As the gentleman knows, the telemedicine program is designed to link rural America, people in clinics and small hospitals and other rural outposts, where they can get some health care treatment, with the major university hospitals that get all the health care money in the first place.

So if you cut out the money that allows them to tap into really good health care provisions by being able to access them, and we held a hearing on this subject in the committee just a couple of weeks ago on the demonstration of the technology that can now reach rural America, if we are able to get these thousands of sites in small communities across America, which does cost a lot of money, and that is why I am pleased the chairman of the subcommittee has put an increase in there for this, if you cut that out, you are doing a lot more than just cutting out that money. You are cutting out the ability of folks in the smallest communities in the country from being able to finally get access to the kind of quality health care that people in large urban areas have, because they will be getting it from the same doctors with the same expertise drawing those same big salaries at those universities hospitals, and now they will be able to reach the smaller communities.

So I would encourage the gentleman to look elsewhere for the kind of savings that he is talking about here. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from New Jersey, because I appreciated his comments about biotechnology and we certainly do want the public to be educated about this, if he would not take up the offer of the gentleman from Texas, the chairman of the subcommittee, to work with him. Withdraw the amendment, work with him, and see if there is not something that can be done as we move to conference, because not knowing exactly how this money would be spent is sort of like writing a blank check.

I think if we had a little more cooperation and a little more communication about what we intended, then the Congress could actually be the ones to specify that, and there might be some merit in the gentleman's position.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, let me say I was not the chairman at the time the farm bill was written, so I do not know the history of the intent in the language in the farm bill. But, again, this is something that has just been brought to my attention, and we would be happy to look into it and see what we can find in that regard and try to achieve some specificity in terms of how the dollars are going to be spent, if indeed we can do that. That, of course, is up to the chairman of the subcommittee, but I would certainly stand willing to work with the gentleman to try to find the right formula and the right dollars that he has to squeeze out of an already-tight process to do something in this area, because I think what the gentleman from New Jersey is proposing is worthwhile.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I will not use the 5 minutes. I just want to say to the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture that this amendment is pursuant to discussions that we had and we very much appreciate his offering it. We think that this will be very helpful in making sure that conservation dollars actually reach the people who need it: America's farmers and ranchers. This will also help to resolve some of the issues regarding the allocation of those funds.

So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a very bad idea from a public health safety standpoint. The way that we inspect animals to prevent animals with anything from BSE to a whole host of other diseases from getting into the food chain is through the process whereby the animals are slaughtered. When they show up at the slaughterhouses, that is where the veterinarians are on hand to inspect them and to make sure that animals that are not healthy do not get into the food chain. They are pulled off the line at that point in time and the public has that safety assurance.

If we require that downed animals are euthanized on the farm and never get to that point in the processing system, we are going to drive this whole process literally underground.

The problem that we have is that the animals will then be buried on the farm or disposed of in some other way, perhaps even put into the food chain illegitimately, because that farmer has absolutely no incentive to do anything otherwise. It is a cost to them, and there is no compensation to them whatsoever.

So if you have an animal that has BSE, and we certainly hope that that never occurs in this country, but if it does, we will never know it if this amendment passes because that animal will never get to the veterinarian to be inspected to determine whether or not it has that illness.

Therefore, this is a very, very bad idea. The humane thing to do for the animal, to have it euthanized at a place in the process where the veterinarians are on hand and can properly inspect it, is the way to go here. It is very important that when animals are downed we find out why they are downed. It might simply be a dislocated hip or something else that is no danger to human consumption, but if it is an animal that has a serious disease, we want to know if that animal has spread that disease to other animals in the area, whether other animals on that farm have the same problem.

If they never get to the veterinarian, we will never find that out; and, therefore, this will become a very serious human health problem if we adopt this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Reclaiming my time, the gentleman's point does not cure the problem. And the reason it does not is that there is still a lack of incentive for that farmer to ship that animal to the veterinarian if he knows before it ever gets on his truck that he will not be able to get any compensation for it, any certification for it no matter what is wrong with the animal.

As I indicated, if the animal simply has a dislocated hip or some other ailment that does not make the animal unsound for human consumption, then the farmer has absolutely no incentive whatsoever to ever get it to the slaughter house.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) because she is responding to exactly the same amendment that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) has informed us he has modified from provisions that he has offered earlier as well.

The gentlewoman wants to keep the animals from ever being shipped to the slaughter house. The slaughter house is where the inspection takes place to determine whether or not the animal has BSE. So if the gentlewoman accomplishes her goal, she is defeating that purpose.

The gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) has said he has modified his amendment so that only funds cannot be expended for the purpose of certifying the animal for processing. That has still the same problem. The farmer will have no incentive to get that animal to the place where the veterinarians are so that inspection can take place. If we had billions of dollars to have veterinarians go to every farm, maybe they could accomplish their goal; but we do not have that kind of money. The farmers do not have the money. They are not going to spend it. So they would be risking public health by refusing to have the process work the way it was designed. Have the animals go to the slaughter house, be inspected.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2474) to require that funds made available for fiscal years 2003 and 2004 for the Bill Emerson and Mickey Leland Hunger Fellowships be administered through the Congressional Hunger Center, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in support of H.R. 2474, a bill that provides for the continuation, for 2003 and 2004, of a fellowship program honoring our colleagues, the Honorable Bill Emerson and the Honorable Mickey Leland.

Last year, Congress authorized the Congressional Hunger Fellows Program

as a part of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. This provision was included in both the Committee on Agriculture bill and the law as a memorial to the Honorable Bill Emerson, a former member of the Committee on Agriculture, and the Honorable Mickey Leland. The purpose of the fellowships is to develop and train future leaders of the United States in humanitarian service.

The law establishes an independent agency in the legislative branch of the U.S. Government, creates a board of trustees to supervise and direct the program, establishes a Congressional Hunger Fellows trust fund in the Department of the Treasury that will provide funds from the interest to help run the program, and authorizes $18 million for the fund.

While the necessary process to establish a congressional Hunger Fellows Program has begun, the process is not complete. H.R. 2474 allows the current process to continue utilizing the Congressional Hunger Center just until the program authorized by the farm bill is completed. These fellowships provide a way to continue the legacy established by our former colleagues Bill Emerson and Mickey Leland and move towards achieving the valued goal of training future leaders of the United States in humanitarian service, goals I know Members share with me.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the wife of the late Congressman Bill Emerson, the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), and his successor, for introducing this legislation; and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2474.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to thank the gentleman from Texas for his support and leadership on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), who has carried on the fight against hunger here in the United States and around the world that her late husband, Bill Emerson, was so well noted for. I thank her for that work.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2474, the bill just considered, and on S. 858, the bill considered immediately previously.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 49) recognizing the important service to the Nation provided by the Foreign Agricultural Service of the Department of Agriculture on the occasion of its 50th anniversary.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 49. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and I introduced this resolution to recognize the important service of the Foreign Agricultural Service of the Department of Agriculture on the occasion of its 50th anniversary.

USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service was established to develop and expand markets for United States agricultural commodities and products. Our farmers and ranchers are the most productive in the world and produce much more than we in the United States can consume. Therefore, a vibrant export market is very important to the success of U.S. agriculture.

FAS has contributed to that success; and as of 2002, the United States agricultural exports exceed imports by more than $12 billion. Our exports have grown significantly over the history of the FAS and now exceed $50 billion per year.

The FAS fosters the public and private partnership that is needed to promote United States agricultural exports and to develop and expand markets around the world. At this important time when free trade negotiations are ongoing, both in the WTO and through bilateral negotiations, the FAS is essential to represent United States agriculture and ensure that the challenges facing our agricultural producers are thoroughly addressed.

Another responsibility of the FAS is to provide food aid to needy people in developing countries and to help those countries to eventually become trading partners of the United States and buy our agricultural products. The FAS and its employees provide a significant service to the farmers and ranchers here at home so they can compete in worldwide markets. I congratulate them on their achievements and look forward to working closely with the FAS as the committee continues its work to expand markets for United States agriculture.

I thank the members of the Committee on Agriculture for their support of this resolution. I also appreciate the support of the Committee on International Relations on this matter. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has been very cooperative in helping to expedite House Joint Resolution 49. I also thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). I urge Members to support this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no request for time; I reserve the balance of my time.

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

This recognition of the Foreign Agricultural Service is well deserved. The work that they conduct around the world in promoting American agriculture is vitally important. It is even more important following the passage of the Trade Promotion Authority in the last Congress.

I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members

may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.J. Res. 49, the joint resolution just considered.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, our excellent conference chairman, for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good and fair rule. I would urge my colleagues to adopt it. It makes in order important amendments that should be considered and debated carefully. It makes in order an amendment offered by the gentleman from the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), along with the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and myself, which will take into account some of the provisions that were considered in the Senate. We are pleased to do that because we are certainly interested in making the bill better.

I would urge my colleagues to defeat the other amendments that are going to be offered because they do not make this legislation better; they would gut it, they would harm it. I would urge Members' opposition to it.

In response to my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), this is not tort reform; this is court reform. As a result, we are not harming the ability of any of those cases that

the gentleman cited to be considered carefully and fairly.

In fact, because this legislation improves the court process, it is court reform, and it will make those cases heard better in courts more capable of hearing them. We will address some of those specific cases as the debate proceeds.

With regard to his comments about coupon settlement reform, let me point out that while the gentleman may laud coupon settlements, most of us think they are a considerable abuse. The reason is very simple: The plaintiffs' attorney sues a company and then settles the case for millions of dollars, not for the plaintiffs but in attorneys' fees. The plaintiffs, the people he is supposed to be protecting, supposed to be representing, get a coupon to buy more of the product that he alleged was defective in the first place.

Coupon settlements are a gross abuse, and what this bill does to correct the problem is to require greater scrutiny of those cases. It also cuts out the abuse of that plaintiffs' attorney going to his or her secretary or friend or neighbor and saying, hey, help me bring this case because you fit into this class, and I will give you $100,000 for doing that when we settle the case; but the rest of the plaintiffs will get a coupon. That is an abuse. It ought to be ended.

To the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), I would point out that while he may cite the newspaper of the gentlewoman from Ohio criticizing this legislation, that newspaper is by far in the minority in this country on this issue.

America's newspapers know that this is a class act when they see it, and that is what this legislation is. The Washington Post called it ``Making Justice Work.'' They said, ``This'', the current system, ``is not justice. It's an extortion racket that only Congress can fix.''

Newsday, not a newspaper that ordinarily endorses legislation from this side of the aisle, they said, ``Congress should stem abuses of class-action lawsuits. Class-action lawsuits are ripe for reform.''

The Christian Science Monitor: ``Reforming Class-Action Suits.'' ``Class-action suits have also become an ATM for unscrupulous lawyers . . . ''

USA Today: ``Class-action Plaintiffs Deserve More Than Coupons.'' `` . . . lawyers, who put their own welfare ahead of their client's needs,'' under the current system.

The Hartford Current: The Class-Action Racket.'' They described the current system. `` . . . the Class Action Fairness Act would help eliminate some of the worst abuses.''

It does not stop there. The Buffalo News, the Indianapolis Star, the Des Moines Register, the St. Louis Post Dispatch, the Omaha World Herald, the Wall Street Journal, the Providence Journal, the Financial Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Oregonian, Cedar Rapids Gazette, the Akron Beacon Journal, the Albany Times Union, the list goes on and on of newspapers endorsing what we are trying to do. Why? Because of the abuses.

Here is a great case: A settlement with Cheerios over food additives produced a $2 million settlement in attorneys' fees, while class members only received coupons for more Cheerios.

Here is another one: After being named in 23 class action lawsuits, Blockbuster agreed to provide class members with only $1-off coupons; buy one, get one free coupons; and free Blockbuster Favorites video rentals. And those are the old videos you come back and hope they will rent more of, not the latest ones. Attorneys for the plaintiff received $9.2 million in fees.

It gets better. A settlement of a suit against an airline gave class members $25 coupons off to use when they purchased an additional airline ticket of $250 or more from the same airline from which, I presume, there was some complaint regarding the service they were providing. You get a 10 percent discount if you buy another ticket for $250 or more. What did the plaintiff's attorneys get? Sixteen million dollars.

The Bank of Boston, a settlement over disputed accounting practices produced an $8.5 million attorneys' fee and actually cost the class members they were representing. Why? Because they had to pay an additional $80. Later, the plaintiffs' attorney came into the case and sued the class members, the people they were representing, for an additional $25 million. You did not pay them enough. Even though you had to pay $80 in the settlement of the case and you did not get a coupon, they had to get more.

Here is my favorite. This is the case where consumers were awarded a 33-cent check in a class action against Chase Manhattan Bank, 33 cents. Great. There was a catch, though. At that time, in order to accept your 33-cent check, you had to use a 34-cent stamp to send in the acceptance.

Sounds like a 1-cent net loss. The attorneys in the case, well, they came out all right, $4 million in attorney fees. Here is one of the checks: 33 cents.

Now, some have said that there is an issue of federalism here, that somehow we are taking away rights from the States. But under current law, a simple slip-and-fall lawsuit involving a Virginia defendant and a Maryland plaintiff can be brought in Federal district court today. Yet, a nationwide class action lawsuit worth $100 million, $1 billion, with plaintiffs in the hundreds of thousands from all 50 States, with multiple defendants from more than one State, that winds up in a State court in Illinois. It cannot be removed to Federal court because of the antiquated class action laws.

Now, do people understand this? You bet they do. Here is a USA Today poll. Opinions on class action lawsuits. Who benefits most from class action lawsuits? Is it the plaintiffs? Is it consumers? No, they know. Lawyers for the plaintiffs, 47 percent of the public says that. Who is second? Lawyers for the defendants. They come out all right, too. They are going to get paid.

How about the plaintiffs themselves? Nine percent. Sixty-seven percent say the lawyers benefit. Nine percent say the plaintiffs themselves are benefiting.

And, again, I remind you, there is broad bipartisan support for this legislation. The clients get token payments while the lawyers get enormous fees.

This is not justice. This is an extortion racket that only Congress can fix. Who said it? The Washington Post.

I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support the underlying legislation. This has great prospect for success this year. We are very close in the Senate to passage of this legislation as well. The President anxiously awaits it on his desk.

Let us support this bipartisan simple tort reform that will make it possible for class actions to be heard and dealt with fairly throughout this country.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, it is not a delay, it is an expedition. Quite frankly, they have no different treatment in Federal courts than State courts.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time and for his leadership in moving this legislation to the floor.

The reason why the interlocutory appeal allowed in the bill expedites the process and does not make it longer is that that issue is going to be heard on appeal anyway at the end of the trial, and, as you know, that takes years and years. Interlocutory appeals have historically been heard on average faster than appeals at the end of the trial, and, therefore, this will speed up the bringing of whatever allows the process to come to a conclusion.

Now, here is what we are talking about. Cheerios. What justice is done when the plaintiffs' attorney gets $2 million in attorney's fees and his clients get a box of Cheerios, the very product they allege was defective in the first place? What kind of justice for the plaintiffs is done there? I see the justice for the attorneys.

By the way, I say to the gentleman from Michigan, most trial lawyers are embarrassed by this abuse. Only a small cartel of very wealthy class action attorneys benefit from the current system. Most trial lawyers who represent most plaintiffs in America are embarrassed by this kind of abuse in the current system.

Abuses like $8.5 million in the Bank of Boston case for the plaintiffs' attorneys. The plaintiffs wound up having to pay money to their attorneys. Why did the attorneys get fees in a contingent fee case when their plaintiffs wound up having to pay them? They did not get anything.

Or the Blockbuster case that the gentleman from Wisconsin cited: $9.25 million to plaintiffs, $1 off on your movie ticket.

The great airline case, the frequent flier case. A 10 percent discount on your plane flight, if you buy another ticket on this so- called defective airline for $250 or more. The attorneys got $25 million.

The Coca-Cola case, the lawyers got $1.5 million, the plaintiffs got a 50-cent coupon.

Of course, my favorite case, the case of Chase Manhattan Bank, the attorneys got $4 million, the plaintiffs got 33 cents. Here is one of the checks, 33 cents. There is a little catch though, because you had to use a 34-cent stamp in order to send in the acceptance to get the 33 cents. That does not sound like a good deal for me either.

This restores federalism. It removes to our Federal courts the cases that involve the complexity and the diversity that our Founding Fathers created diversity jurisdiction for. A simple change in the law does not change the substance of class action, does not take away the right of anybody to bring a class action, but it does protect our system and the integrity of justice in America.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This is the ``if you cannot win the argument, try to change the subject'' amendment. This amendment would preclude companies opened by foreign or offshore companies from using the jurisdictional provisions in H.R. 1115. The amendment would make for bad policy, and I urge my colleagues to reject it.

Apparently the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) believes that the State class action abuse problem is so bad that companies forced to litigate in State court will move back onshore. Well, I think that belief tells us a lot about how unfair some of these select magnet State courts are around the country where these abuses occur to defendants and to consumers in this country.

Nonetheless, this bill is not the proper vehicle for debating tax policy. Our goal today is to curb class action abuse, to stop coupon settlements that rip off consumers, and to make sure that county courts do not dictate our Nation's economic policies. If this body wants to debate the problems regarding foreign ownership of companies, let us do that in the appropriate context.

Let me add that one of the important things that we need to understand and that the other side of the aisle keeps trying to target here is that somehow there are certain companies that are bad actors, and that we should write Federal policy based on that rather than having one fair, across-the-board treatment of one type of lawsuit. That is exactly what this legislation is attacking and why they are objecting to it.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the substitute bill. This substitute bill commissions studies, creates new advisory panels, and even allows State court judges to voluntarily consolidate class actions. However, the substitute bill fails to accomplish one thing: to prevent the current abuses in the class action system.

Welcome to Madison County, Illinois. It is hard to imagine why the bizarre system of delegations, panels and transfers in the substitute system is preferable to a system allowing parties to utilize the existing Federal removal procedure to have their cases heard in Federal Court through a process that has existed and served this country well for over 200 years.

The substitute bill authorizes a group of State court judges to think about the class action problem and to propose a solution, if they wish. The bill, however, H.R. 1115, offers real change. It moves large interstate class actions to Federal courts, which have a better track record of dealing with these cases and more resources to handle them efficiently, and it offers real consumer benefits that will apply to real cases and makes sure that lawyers do not sell their clients short and take home all the money.

Like the Blockbuster case, where the plaintiffs got $1 coupons and the plaintiffs' attorneys got $9.2 million in attorneys' fees.

Like the Bank of Boston case, where the lawyers got $8.5 million and the plaintiffs paid money. They did not get anything.

Like the frequent flier case, where the lawyers got $25 million, and the plaintiffs got coupons for discount air fares on the same airlines that the plaintiffs' attorneys alleged had performed some sort of wrongdoing.

Like the Coca-Cola sweetener case, the lawyers got $1.5 million. That was a real sweetener for them. The plaintiffs only got 50-cent coupons for their sweetener.

That is what is wrong. That is what the substitute does not cover.

The transfer provision in the substitute bill is meaningless. The substitute would also authorize State courts to develop a procedure for transferring certain cases to Federal courts. But, once again, State courts that do not want to participate do not have to. It is a safe bet that the courts, like the ones in Madison County, are not going to exercise that option. They are giving class actions a bad name, and they are not going to voluntarily send their class actions to Federal Court.

Thus, this provision is a sham, and I urge my colleagues to defeat the substitute and support the underlying bill.