Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 132, a resolution that expresses Congress's disapproval of the recent 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that held that a public school's policy of opening each school day with the voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance impermissibly coerced a religious act.

A State sponsored religion is unconstitutional, but there is nothing in our founding documents that requires the removal of every reference to God from the public square. Most Americans can make this distinction, which explains the public outcry to the 9th Circuit's misguided decisions.

The faith of our founding fathers was central to the establishment of our Nation and there are references to God in countless public forums. The Declaration of Independence declares that ``all men are Created equal, endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.'' The Supreme Court begins each session with the blessing ``God save the United States and this honorable court.'' Congress opens each day with a prayer, through which we seek divine guidance for the tasks before us. Our currency bears the slogan ``In God We Trust.''

The Pledge of Allegiance is an important affirmation of both our country's faith and patriotism. With our Nation on the brink of war, we must be vigilant in guarding against efforts to strip away the tradition and powerful public expressions of these key values. Instead, we should emphasize our shared heritage, our commitment to freedom, and our rich tradition of national humility before the ultimate author of our liberty. I urge each of my colleagues to vote in favor of H. Res. 132.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 975, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act. This legislation promotes personal responsibility and helps prevent bankruptcy abuse.

Bankruptcy filings are at an all-time high. During the 12-month period ending on March 31, 2002, there were 1.5 million bankruptcy filings. When bankruptcy filings increase, every American must pay more for credit, goods and services through higher rates and charges. It is high time that we provide relief to consumers burdened by paying for the debts of others.

A key aspect of H.R. 975 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 who can afford to repay some of their debts are steered toward filing Chapter 13 bankruptcies.

In addition, H.R. 975 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 is these debts do not disappear. They are passed along in higher charges and rates to hard-working folks who pay their bills on time. H.R. 975 ends this fraudulent practice by requiring bankruptcy filers to pay back nondischargeable debts made in the period immediately preceding their filing.

H.R. 975 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, H.R. 975 protects consumers from bankruptcy mills that encourage folks to file for bankruptcy without fully informing them of their rights and the potential harms that bankruptcy can cause.

Furthermore, H.R. 975 ensures the fair treatment of those that administer our bankruptcy laws. I strongly support the provisions of H.R. 975 that restore fairness and equity to the relationship between the U.S. trustee and private-standing bankruptcy trustees. Specifically, the bill provides 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 expenses and trustee removal. This compromise worked out between the U.S. Trustees 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. trustees is subject to the same checks and balances as other government agencies.

Mr. Chairman, bankruptcy should remain available to folks who truly need it, but those who can afford to repay their debts should repay their debts. H.R. 975 provides bankruptcy relief for those who truly cannot pay, but also clearly demonstrates to those who would abuse our system that the free ride is over. I believe that H.R. 975 strikes the appropriate balance between these two important goals.

I want to commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for his tremendous work on this legislation, and, I might add, for his long-suffering perseverance with this legislation. I urge Members to support this fair and reasonable overhaul of the U.S. bankruptcy system.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today, along with my good friends from Virginia, Mr. Boucher and Mr. Moran, and the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Sensenbrenner, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2003.

This much-needed bipartisan legislation corrects a serious flaw in our federal jurisdiction statutes. At present, those statutes forbid our federal courts from hearing most interstate class actions--the lawsuits that involve more money and touch more Americans than virtually any other type of litigation in our legal system.

The class action device is a necessary and important part of our legal system. It promotes efficiency by allowing plaintiffs with similar claims to adjudicate their cases in one proceeding. It also allows claims to be heard in cases where there are small harms to a large number of people, which would otherwise go unaddressed because the cost to the individuals suing could far exceed the benefit to the individual. However, class actions are increasingly being used in ways that do not promote the interests they were intended to serve.

In recent years, state courts have been flooded with class actions. As a result of the adoption of different class action certification standards in the various states, the same class might be certifiable in one state and not another, or certifiable in state court but not in federal court. This creates the potential for abuse of the class action device, particularly when the case involves parties from multiple states or requires the application of the laws of many states.

For example, some state courts routinely certify classes before the defendant is even served with a complaint and given a chance to defend itself Other state courts employ very lax class certification criteria, rendering virtually any controversy subject to class action treatment. There are instances where a state court, in order to certify a class, has determined that the law of that state applies to all claims, including those of purported class members who live in other jurisdictions. This has the effect of making the law of that state applicable nationwide.

The existence of state courts that broadly apply class certification rules encourages plaintiffs to forum shop for the court that is most likely to certify a purported class. In addition to forum shopping, parties frequently exploit major loopholes in federal jurisdiction statutes to block the removal of class actions that belong in federal court. For example, plaintiffs' counsel may name parties that are not really relevant to the class claims in an effort to destroy diversity. In other cases, counsel may waive federal law claims or shave the amount of damages claimed to ensure that the action will remain in state court.

Another problem created by the ability of state courts to certify class actions which adjudicate the rights of citizens of many states is that often times more than one case involving the same class is certified at the same time. In the federal court system, those cases involving common questions of fact may be transferred to one district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

When these class actions are pending in state courts, however, there is no corresponding mechanism for consolidating the competing suits. Instead, a settlement or judgment in any of the cases makes the other class actions moot. This creates an incentive for each class counsel to obtain a quick settlement of the case, and an opportunity for the defendant to play the various class counsels against each other and drive the settlement value down. The loser in this system is the class member whose claim is extinguished by the settlement, at the expense of counsel seeking to be the one entitled to recovery of fees.

Our bill is designed to prevent these abuses by allowing large interstate class action cases to be heard in federal court. It would expand the statutory diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts to allow class action cases involving minimal diversity--that is, when any plaintiff and any defendant are citizens of different states--to be brought in or removed to federal court.

Article III of the Constitution empowers Congress to establish federal jurisdiction over diversity cases--cases ``between citizens of different States.'' The grant of federal diversity jurisdiction was premised on concerns that state courts might discriminate against out of state defendants. In a class action, only the citizenship of the named plaintiffs is considered for determining diversity, which means that federal diversity jurisdiction will not exist if the named plaintiff is a citizen of the same state as the defendant, regardless of the citizenship of the rest of the class. Congress also imposes a monetary threshold--now $75,000--for federal diversity claims. However, the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied in a class action only if all of the class members are seeking damages in excess of the statutory minimum.

These jurisdictional statutes were originally enacted years ago, well before the modern class action arose, and they now lead to perverse results. For example, under current law, a citizen of one state may bring in federal court a simple $75,001 slip-and-fall claim against a party from another state. But if a class of 25 million product owners living in all 50 states brings claims collectively worth $15 billion against the manufacturer, the lawsuit usually must be heard in state court.

This result is certainly not what the framers had in mind when they established federal diversity jurisdiction. Our bill offers a solution by making it easier for plaintiff class members and defendants to remove class actions to federal court, where cases involving multiple state laws are more appropriately heard. Under our bill, if a removed class action is found not to meet the requirements for proceeding on a class basis, the federal court would dismiss the action without prejudice and the action could be refiled in state court.

In addition, the bill provides a number of new protections for plaintiff class members including a requirement that notices sent to class members be written in ``plain English'' and provide essential information that is easily understood. Furthermore, the bill provides judicial scrutiny for settlements that provide class members only coupons as relief for their injuries, and bars approval of settlements in which class members suffer a net loss. The bill also includes provisions that protect consumers from being disadvantaged by living far away from the courthouse. These additional consumer protections will ensure that class action lawsuits benefit the consumers they are intended to compensate.

This legislation does not limit the ability of anyone to file a class action lawsuit. It does not change anybody's rights to recovery. Our bill specifically provides that it will not alter the substantive law governing any claims as to which jurisdiction is conferred. Our legislation merely closes the loophole, allowing federal courts to hear big lawsuits involving truly interstate issues, while ensuring that purely local controversies remain in state courts. This is exactly what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they established federal diversity jurisdiction.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important legislation and am pleased to join the other members of the Virginia Delegation in supporting The American 5-Cent Coin Design Continuity Act of 2003.

The strong support this bill has received from the Virginia Delegation is evidence of how important this bill is to preserving important symbols of American History.

As you all know, the Nickel currently displays a likeness of Thomas Jefferson on its face in addition to view of Monticello, Jefferson's home, on the reverse.

Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and the Fourth President of the United States, is one of eight great men who rose to become President from Virginia, and is a source of great pride for not only Virginians, but for all Americans.

H.R. 258 was introduced to commemorate the 200th Anniversary of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, commissioned by President Thomas Jefferson to explore the new territory acquired through the Louisiana Purchase.

Earlier this year I was honored to attend the Commencement Ceremony of the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial at Monticello, the home of Thomas Jefferson outside of Charlottesville, Virginia, where the expedition began in 1803.

From 2003 through 2006 our nation will observe the bicentennial of this incredible journey, this will also serve as the 200-year anniversary as the complete nation Jefferson envisioned.

H.R. 258 would authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to redesign the Nickel over a four-year period to commemorate the Louisiana Purchase and the Lewis and Clark Expedition. At the end of this period the nickel would revert to being a permanent tribute to Thomas Jefferson and Monticello, which are of invaluable historical importance to our great nation.

A similar bill was passed in the 107th Congress by the House on July 22, 2002. The bill was referred to the Senate where unfortunately no action was taken during the 107th Congress.

I urge all members to support this important piece of legislation that not only commemorates two brave explorers, but also ensures that a great symbol of American history is preserved.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to submit for printing in the Congressional Record, pursuant to Rule XI, clause 2(a) of the Rules of the House, a copy of the Rules of the Committee on Agriculture, which were adopted at the organizational meeting of the Committee on February 12, 2003, and modified on this date, February 26, 2003.

Appendix A of the Committee Rules will include excerpts from the Rules of the House relevant to the operation of the Committee. Appendix B will include relevant excerpts from the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. In the interests of minimizing printing costs, Appendices A and B are omitted from this submission.

Rules of the Committee on Agriculture--108th Congress

rule i.--general provisions

(a) Applicability of House Rules.--(1) The Rules of the

House shall govern the procedure of the Committee and its

subcommittees, and the rules of the Committee on Agriculture

so far as applicable shall be interpreted in accordance with

the Rules of the House, except that a motion to recess from

day to day, and a motion to dispense with the first reading

(in full) of a bill or resolution, if printed copies are

available, are non-debatable privileged motions in the

Committee and its subcommittees. (See Appendix A for the

applicable Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives.)

(2) As provided in clause 1(a)(2) of House Rule XI, each

subcommittee is part of the Committee and is subject to the

authority and direction of the Committee and its rules so far

as applicable. (See also Committee rules III, IV, V, VI, VII

and X, infra.)

(b) Authority to Conduct Investigations.--The Committee and

its subcommittees, after consultation with the Chairman of

the Committee, may conduct such investigations and studies as

they may consider necessary or appropriate in the exercise of

their responsibilities under Rule X of the Rules of the House

and in accordance with clause 2(m) of House Rule XI.

(c) Authority to Print.--The Committee is authorized by the

Rules of the House to have printed and bound testimony and

other data presented at hearings held by the Committee

and its subcommittees. All costs of stenographic services and

transcripts in connection with any meeting or hearing of the

Committee and its subcommittees shall be paid from applicable

accounts of the House described in clause 1(i)(1) of House

Rule X in accordance with clause 1(c) of House Rule XI. (See

also paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) of Committee rule VIII.)

(d) Vice Chairman.--The Member of the majority party on the

Committee or subcommittee designated by the Chairman of the

full Committee shall be the vice chairman of the Committee or

subcommittee in accordance with clause 2(d) of House Rule XI.

(e) Presiding Member.--If the Chairman of the Committee or

subcommittee is not present at any Committee or subcommittee

meeting or hearing, the vice chairman shall preside. If the

Chairman and vice chairman of the Committee or subcommittee

are not present at a Committee or subcommittee meeting or

hearing the ranking Member of the majority party who is

present shall preside in accordance with clause 2(d), House

Rule XI.

(f) Activities Report.--(1) The Committee shall submit to

the House, not later than January 2 of each odd-numbered

year, a report on the activities of the Committee under Rules

X and XI of the Rules of the House during the Congress ending

on January 3 of such year. (See also Committee rule VIII

(h)(2).)

(2) Such report shall include separate sections summarizing

the legislative and oversight activities of the Committee

during that Congress.

(3) The oversight section of such report shall include a

summary of the oversight plans submitted by the Committee

pursuant to clause 2(d) of House Rule X, a summary of the

actions taken and recommendations made with respect to each

such plan, and a summary of any additional oversight

activities undertaken by the Committee, and any

recommendations made or actions taken with respect thereto.

(g) Publication of Rules.--The Committee's rules shall be

published in the Congressional Record not later than thirty

days after the Committee is elected in each odd-numbered year

as provided in clause 2(a) of House Rule XI.

(h) Joint Committee Reports of Investigation or Study.--A

report of an investigation or study conducted jointly by more

than one committee may be filed jointly, provided that each

of the committees complies independently with all

requirements for approval and filing of the report.

rule ii.--committee business meetings--regular, additional and special

(a) Regular Meetings.--(1) Regular meetings of the

Committee, in accordance with clause 2(b) of House Rule XI,

shall be held on the first Wednesday of every month to

transact its business unless such day is a holiday, or

Congress is in recess or is adjourned, in which case the

Chairman shall determine the regular meeting day of the

Committee, if any, for that month. The Chairman shall provide

each member of the Committee, as far in advance of the day of

the regular meeting as practicable, a written agenda of such

meeting. Items may be placed on the agenda by the Chairman or

a majority of the Committee. If the Chairman believes that

there will not be any bill, resolution or other matter

considered before the full Committee and there is no other

business to be transacted at a regular meeting, the meeting

may be cancelled or it may be deferred until such time as, in

the judgment of the Chairman, there may be matters which

require the Committee's consideration. This paragraph shall

not apply to meetings of any subcommittee. (See paragraph (f)

of Committee rule X for provisions that apply to meetings of

subcommittees.)

(b) Additional Meetings.--The Chairman may call and

convene, as he or she considers necessary, after consultation

with the Ranking Minority Member of the Committee,

additional meetings of the Committee for the consideration

of any bill or resolution pending before the Committee or

for the conduct of other Committee business. The Committee

shall meet for such additional meetings pursuant to a

notice from the Chairman.

(c) Special Meetings.--If at least three members of the

Committee desire that a special meeting of the Committee be

called by the Chairman, those members may file in the offices

of the Committee their written request to the Chairman for

such special meeting. Such request shall specify the measure

or matters to be considered. Immediately upon the filing of

the request, the Majority Staff Director (serving as the

clerk of the Committee for such purpose) shall notify the

Chairman of the filing of the request. If, within three

calendar days after the filing of the request, the Chairman

does not call the requested special meeting to be held within

7 calendar days after the filing of the request, a majority

of the members of the Committee may file in the offices of

the Committee their written notice that a special meeting of

the Committee will be held, specifying the date and hour

thereof, and the measures or matter to be considered at that

special meeting in accordance with clause 2(c)(2) of House

Rule XI. The Committee shall meet on that date and hour.

Immediately upon the filing of the notice, the Majority Staff

Director (serving as the clerk) of the Committee shall notify

all members of the Committee that such meeting will be held

and inform them of its date and hour and the measure or

matter to be considered, and only the measure or matter

specified in that notice may be considered at that special

meeting.

rule iii.--open meetings and hearings; broadcasting

(a) Open Meetings and Hearings.--Each meeting for the

transaction of business, including the markup of legislation,

and each hearing by the Committee or a subcommittee shall be

open to the public unless closed in accordance with clause

2(g) of House Rule XI. (See Appendix A.)

(b) Broadcasting and Photography.--Whenever a Committee or

subcommittee meeting for the transaction of business,

including the markup of legislation, or a hearing is open to

the public, that meeting or hearing shall be open to coverage

by television, radio, and still photography in accordance

with clause 4 of House Rule XI (See Appendix A). When such

radio coverage is conducted in the Committee or subcommittee,

written notice to that effect shall be placed on the desk of

each Member. The Chairman of the Committee or subcommittee,

shall not limit the number of television or still cameras

permitted in a hearing or meeting room to fewer than two

representatives from each medium (except for legitimate space

or safety considerations, in which case pool coverage shall

be authorized).

(c) Closed Meetings--Attendees.--No person other than

Members of the Committee or subcommittee and such

congressional staff and departmental representatives as the

Committee or subcommittee may authorize shall be present at

any business or markup session that has been closed to the

public as provided in clause 2(g)(1) of House Rule XI.

(d) Addressing the Committee.--A Committee member may

address the Committee or a subcommittee on any bill, motion,

or other matter under consideration (See Committee rule VII

(e) relating to questioning a witness at a hearing). The time

a member may address the Committee or subcommittee for any

such purpose shall be limited to five minutes, except that

this time limit may be waived by unanimous consent. A member

shall also be limited in his or her remarks to the subject

matter under consideration, unless the Member receives

unanimous consent to extend his or her remarks beyond such

subject.

(e) Meetings to Begin Promptly.--Subject to the presence of

a quorum, each meeting or hearing of the Committee and its

subcommittees shall begin promptly at the time so

stipulated in the public announcement of the meeting or

hearing.

(f) Prohibition on Proxy Voting.--No vote by any Member of

the Committee or subcommittee with respect to any measure or

matter may be cast by proxy.

(g) Location of Persons at Meetings.--No person other than

the Committee or subcommittee Members and Committee or

subcommittee staff may be seated in the rostrum area during a

meeting of the Committee or subcommittee unless by unanimous

consent of Committee or subcommittee.

(h) Consideration of Amendments and Motions.--A Member,

upon request, shall be recognized by the Chairman to address

the Committee or subcommittee at a meeting for a period

limited to five minutes on behalf of an amendment or motion

offered by the Member or another Member, or upon any other

matter under consideration, unless the Member receives

unanimous consent to extend the time limit. Every amendment

or motion made in Committee or subcommittee shall, upon the

demand of any Member present, be reduced to writing, and a

copy thereof shall be made available to all Members present.

Such amendment or motion shall not be pending before the

Committee or subcommittee or voted on until the requirements

of this paragraph have been met.

(i) Demanding Record Vote.--

(1) A record vote of the Committee or subcommittee on a

question or action shall be ordered on a demand by one-fifth

of the Members present.

(2) The Chairman of the Committee or Subcommittee may

postpone further proceedings when a record vote is ordered on

the question of approving a measure or matter or on adopting

an amendment. If the Chairman postpones further proceedings:

(A) the Chairman may resume such postponed proceedings,

after giving Members adequate notice, at a time chosen in

consultation with the Ranking Minority Member; and

(B) notwithstanding any intervening order for the previous

question, the underlying proposition on which proceedings

were postponed shall remain subject to further debate or

amendment to the same extent as when the question was

postponed.

(j) Submission of Motions or Amendments In Advance of

Business Meetings.--The Committee and subcommittee-Chairman

may request and Committee and subcommittee Members should,

insofar as practicable, cooperate in providing copies of

proposed amendments or motions to the Chairman and the

Ranking Minority Member of the Committee or the subcommittee

twenty-four hours before a Committee or subcommittee business

meeting.

(k) Points of Order.--No point of order against the hearing

or meeting procedures of the Committee or subcommittee shall

be entertained unless it is made in a timely fashion.

(l) Limitation on Committee Sittings.--The Committee or

subcommittees may not sit

during a joint session of the House and Senate or during a

recess when a joint meeting of the House and Senate is in

progress.

(m) Prohibition of Wireless Telephones.--Use of wireless

phones during a committee or subcommittee hearing or meeting

is prohibited.

Mr. Chairman, included in this legislation is $1.1 million for the Roanoke River Upper Basin Project. Is it the gentleman from Ohio's intention and expectation that the contract for construction will be awarded only on an open and competitive bidding process?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today the Security and Fairness Enhancement, or SAFE, for America Act of 2003. This much-needed bipartisan legislation eliminates the controversial immigration program, the visa lottery program, which threatens national security, resulting in the unfair administration of our Nation's immigration laws, and encouraging a cottage industry for fraudulent opportunists.

Each year, approximately 50,000 aliens are chosen at random to come and live permanently in the United States via the visa lottery program. This program presents a serious national security threat. Under the program, each successful applicant is chosen at random and given the status of permanent resident based on pure luck. A perfect example of the system gone awry is the case of Hesham Mohammed Ali Hedayet, the Egyptian national who killed two and wounded three during a shooting spree at Los Angeles International Airport in July of last year. He was allowed to apply for lawful permanent resident status in 1997 because of his wife's status as a visa lottery winner.

Usually, immigrant visas are issued to foreign nationals that have existing connection 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 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- or employer-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 recent report released by the Center for Immigration Studies states that it is commonplace for foreign nationals to apply for the visa lottery program multiple times using different aliases and other false personal information. 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 United States.

The visa lottery program represents what is wrong with our country's current immigration system. The SAFE for America Act eliminates the visa lottery program from the Immigration and Nationality Act. 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.

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