Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I would say to the 30-second speech by the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, Amen to what he just said.

Let me give a hypothetical example to the people on this side of the aisle who are predominately against this amendment. Let us say that it turned out that the Supreme Court wanted to take the words ``In God We Trust'' off the marble slab that stands on top of the flag in the Speaker's rostrum. At what point would you as a Member of

Congress get up and say enough is enough for the Supreme Court to do this? I mean, at what point does your side have to be so upset to get involved to really exercise what the Constitution allows?

It has been repeated many times under article III, section 2 of the Constitution, we in this body have the right, and some would say we have the duty, to limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts. I certainly would hope if they tried to strip ``In God We Trust'' off the Speaker's rostrum that they on that side of the aisle would stand up and say enough is enough and agree that we would allow Congress to exercise its prerogative under article III, section 2 of the Constitution.

Also, I brought this up before, all of those on this side of the aisle know that Tom Daschle, the minority leader, inserted a provision in legislation to prohibit the courts from hearing cases about brush clearings in South Dakota.

Point Of Order

Mr. Chairman, I did mention in my speech about a provision in legislation that was inserted; so I thought that was important.

In July we passed the Marriage Protection Act, removing the Federal courts' jurisdiction from questions arising under the Defense of Marriage Act. Frankly, is marriage not more important than the forests that I mentioned previously that was inserted in legislation?

So I am honored to support this bill and to protect the Pledge of Allegiance from further judicial interference.

I will include my entire statement in the Record.

Mr. Chairman, for decades, activist judges have been free to impose their own beliefs on the American people with impunity.

We have had to endure egregious decisions about abortion, obscenity, school prayer and homosexual ``marriage,'' to name but a few issues.

On each of these issues, the vast majority of the American people took the exact opposite position as the federal court.

This was especially true when the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals declared that the words ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance are unconstitutional.

But I am glad to note that Congress has recently been exercising its constitutional prerogative to limit the federal courts.

Under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, we have the right-- some would say the duty--to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

It is not like it hasn't been done before.

In the 1868 landmark case of Ex parte McCardle, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed that Congress had the constitutional right to remove jurisdiction from the court in a pending case.

More recently, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle inserted a provision in legislation to prohibit the courts from hearing cases about brush clearing in South Dakota.

And in July, we passed the ``Marriage Protection Act,'' removing the federal court's jurisdiction from questions arising under the Defense of Marriage Act.

Frankly, isn't marriage and the Pledge more important than forests?

I am honored to support this bill and to protect the Pledge of Allegiance from further judicial interference.

Mr. Chairman, for years the Federal Courts have been taking jurisdiction away from Congress. It is only proper that we exercise our constitutional right to limit their jurisdiction.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans have been in the majority here in the House of Representatives for 10 years now, and a lot has changed. We have helped to free working families from the heavy tax burden, but we need to make our work permanent. We need to make a child tax credit, elimination of the marriage penalty tax and the elimination of the death tax permanent. Only the Republicans are committed to doing this.

We have established a more optimistic welfare system that encourages self-sufficiency and has shortened the welfare lines. But there are still families on welfare who want to get off, so there is more work to be done. Only Republicans are committed to doing this.

Since 1994, unemployment rates are lower. Median household income is higher. A greater percentage of Americans are graduating from college. Home ownership rates are higher. And the violent crime rate has decreased.

Mr. Speaker, the numbers prove that American families are better off, much better off with Republicans making the laws.

Mr. Speaker, last night the House voted to strip language in the Treasury bill that would have made a small step towards restoring some sense of sanity to our national immigration policy. Even

though we are supposed to be reforming our immigration system in the aftermath of 9/11, Time Magazine has just reported that 3 million illegal aliens will enter this country, adding to the 10 million who are already here. This is the largest number since 2001, the year we were attacked. Is this progress? No.

And now we are allowing these matricula consular cards which are issued as a form of identification in Mexico. We are allowing this form of ID even though the FBI reports that there is no centralized database for issuing these cards, there are no uniform standards for its issuance, and in some cases all an applicant has to do is simply say, I am who I am. The FBI determined that these are not adequate standards and that they are fraught with fraud. I wholeheartedly agree.

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that we are allowing these ID cards to be used. I am deeply concerned that their use places our national security at risk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this amendment. This amendment would strip language in the bill that represents a small but absolutely necessary step toward restoring some sense of sanity to our national immigration policy.

Ever since September 11, we have endured proposals to reward those who come here illegally, while efforts to enact responsible immigration reform have been defeated.

It just doesn't make sense. It seems that we have made no progress whatsoever in controlling illegal immigration.

Time Magazine has just reported that 3 million illegals will enter our country this year, adding to the 10 million who are already here.

This is the largest number since 2001, the year we were attacked. Is this progress?

Instead of cracking down on illegal immigrants and enforcing law and order, our borders are more porous and chaotic than ever.

Not only does this huge amount of illegal immigrants endanger our national security, but our crime rates and taxes are also adversely affected.

I say enough is enough. No more enticing or rewarding illegal immigrants with promises of amnesty or benefits. No more putting our national security at risk.

This means ending the acceptance of Matricula Consular cards, which are issued as a form of identification in Mexico.

Unfortunately, these cards can be easily forged or counterfeited, and they often are.

The FBI reports that there is no centralized database for issuing these cards, there are no uniform standards for its issuance, and in some cases all an applicant has to do to receive a card is say that he is who he purports to be.

The FBI determined that these are not adequate standards, that they are fraught with fraud, and I wholeheartedly agree.

This means that those with criminal backgrounds can easily assume false identities, come here, and break our laws.

This means that even those who are not Mexican can abuse the process and obtain one of these cards.

And don't think that people from Middle Eastern countries aren't trying to enter America over the Mexican border, because they are.

The FBI has noted that an Iranian national was recently found in possession of one of these cards.

And just a few weeks ago, the Associated Press reported that suspected al Qaeda member Adnan El Shurkrijamah might try to cross into Arizona or Texas.

This suspected terrorist has been identified by the FBI as the apparent mastermind of an al Qaeda plot to ``launch a mass-casualty attack in the United States.''

Mr. Chairman, none of us want illegal aliens using these cards to cross our border or to escape detection once they get here.

None of us want illegal aliens using these cards as a way to obtain driver's licenses or other forms of state-issued ID. Thirteen states, by the way, allow these cards to be used as ID for obtaining a driver's license.

And nobody wants these cards to be used to threaten our national security.

If people are here legally, God bless them, they should be eager to get a state-issued ID, because it's a benefit of citizenship.

And as was mentioned earlier in this debate by opponents of this amendment, there are sufficient measures in place to fight terrorist financing.

Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support the Department of Homeland Security, to secure our banking system, and to oppose this amendment.

I would say to my colleague that the misery index, inflation and unemployment, when added together is the lowest it has been in the last series of Presidents, even going back to Jimmy Carter. So I think the Bush administration is doing a good job.

But this morning, Mr. Speaker, I am observing the third anniversary of 9/11. This is the third year since Islamic terrorists hijacked four passenger planes and killed 3,000 innocent Americans. We all know that. We will never forget those who perished on that day and our prayers are forever with them and their families. In the 3 years since September 11, we have overthrown terrorist-friendly regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, we have killed thousands of terrorists, frozen their assets, dismantled potential weapons of mass destruction and coordinated a worldwide war on terror. We will never forget the sacrifices made by our military men and women and their families in this war on terror.

Yet despite our successes, Mr. Speaker, we still face a mortal danger. The world was reminded of the threat posed by Islamic terrorists when 90 people were killed in two simultaneous plane crashes that are suspected to have been blown up by Chechen bombers. And just a week after these planes crashed, Chechen thugs took over a Russian school and killed over 300 Russians. Nearly half of the 340 dead were children. These terrorists kept hundreds of children, along with parents who were bringing them in for their first day of school, in a sweltering gymnasium where the heat was unbearable. To make matters worse, these terrorists refused to allow deliveries of food and water. For 3 days they did not let these innocent people use the bathroom. For 3 days they threatened them constantly with death. Mr. Speaker, they made good on their promise.

We must ask ourselves, what kind of depraved animal attacks innocent women and children, holds them hostage and treats them with complete contempt as human beings? We learned 3 years ago that these terrorists are perfectly willing to kill women and children.

A recent article in Atlantic Monthly revealed that certain Muslim clerics and al Qaeda justify the murder of defenseless women and children in their worldwide jihad. The same article also reported that al Qaeda wants to kill 4 million Americans. This is what we are dealing with, a ruthless, remorseless force that will stop at nothing to accomplish their final end, the death of the West. This is yet another example of these Muslim terrorists using bloodshed to influence elections.

A survivor of the Russian terror told a newspaper that she asked the militants why the captives were taken. They replied, ``Because you vote for your Putin.'' Another freed hostage said a terrorist told her, ``If Putin doesn't withdraw forces from Chechnya and doesn't free our arrested brothers, we'll blow everything up.''

A few months ago, al Qaeda bombed a Spanish train in the hopes of overthrowing the pro-American government. They accomplished their goal. Somehow I doubt the Russian people will react in the same way. They are in mourning, but all indications are that they will rise to fight this terror with resolve and determination. President Putin admitted to the Russian people that he has been weak against the threat of terror. Russia has been dealing with Chechen terrorism for nearly a decade. Yet the recent school murders may have finally served as a wakeup call.

President Bush extended his deepest sympathy to the Russian people and we do as well. Now we welcome the Russian government to our international fight against these terrorists.

Mr. Speaker, a couple of months ago, President Putin revealed that Russian intelligence services learned that Saddam Hussein while he was in power was planning attacks on American interests abroad and on America itself. This information still did not persuade the Russian leadership to fully support our international war on terror, but now President Putin and the Russian people understand what is finally at stake.

Some nations and politicians have been reluctant to join us in our war on terror, but no one is safe from these terrorists. Their faith is uncompromising and their violence is unreasoning. They proudly proclaim that they love death. Mr. Speaker, if we have learned anything from the lessons of September 11 and 3 years of our war on terror, it is this, we must kill them where they are before they reach our shores. And if they are so willing to die for their twisted cause, then we must be willing to accommodate them.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 667. H. Res. 667 comes to us today after an unprecedented turnout in Hong Kong's election, which were held on Sunday, September 12, 2004. Democracy-oriented candidates benefited from a record voter turnout in an election viewed widely as a symbolic clash between the differing value systems of communist China and Hong Kong. This turnout is an important next step for the citizens of Hong Kong and their ability to choose their leaders in future elections. H. Res. 667 seeks to continue toward the path of a democratic elected legislature and calls upon the People's Republic of China to honor their obligations to Hong Kong. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and support the people of Hong Kong in their quest toward freedom from the captivity of the People's Republic of China.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, May 10, 2004 Fort King of Ocala, Florida was designated as a national historic landmark in front of 200 guests at the downtown square in Ocala, Florida. Many speakers were present and told of the underlying significance of Fort King, where Osceola fought against the United States, as a key fort in a chapter of American history, the Second Seminole War from 1835-1842. Henry Sheldon, an engineer of Gainesville, Florida, who is a member of the Seminole Wars Historic Foundation, was one of the speakers that evening. Below is his brief account of the historical significance of Fort King:

The Historical Significance of Fort King; Fort King Ceremony, May 10,

2004

(By Henry A. Sheldon)

Imagine standing at this spot in Florida two hundred years

ago. Before you would be an immense forest, unbroken except

by rivers, prairies, and lakes. It was said that if a

squirrel could leap the rivers, it could walk on the tree

tops from St. Augustine to Texas.

The sounds were those of the forest--the wind in the pines,

the dying crash of a 500 year old mammoth oak, the cry of a

hawk in the clouds, or the scream of a panther at the edge of

the hammock.

For thousands of years native Americans passed by this spot

in pursuit of deer and buffalo. Maybe a hunter sat right

where you stand catching his breath as the pursuit continued.

Maybe a town stood here. Maybe there were cook fires and

children playing over there. The people were dressed in

deerskins.

Then one day a different sound was heard in the forest. It

was the sound of wagons, and horses and men shouting orders.

``Pull up, veer to the left of that big pine, keep the wagons

moving.'' They were soldiers, heading that way--East, toward

the giant Silver Spring. They were dressed in blue and white

and carried flintlock muskets similar to those used in the

French and Indian War, the American Revolution, and the War

of 1812. They had orders to build a fort.

They were looking for a hilltop, near water. They found

such a spot 3 miles east of here on the first high ground

west of the Silver Spring. Now the sound was of axes and the

great pines on the hill began to fall to be used for the

walls and blockhouses of the fort. The year was 1827.

The fort was similar to wilderness forts constructed by the

French and the English during the 1600's and 1700's. It was

the same type of picket fort constructed by George Washington

at Fort Necessity in 1754. It was similar to the British Fort

William Henry captured by the Marquis De Montcalm in the

siege of 1757 and memorialized in James Fennimore Cooper's

Last of the Mohicans.

Like Fort Leavenworth in Kansas, Fort Sill in Oklahoma, and

Fort Laramie, in Wyoming, Fort King advanced the frontier.

Many of these frontier forts became our cities. Fort

Pontchartrain, became Detroit, Fort Dearborn became Chicago,

Fort Pitt became Pittsburgh, Fort Brooke became Tampa, and

Fort King became Ocala.

For 15 years (1827-42) Fort King was to be a main stage in

the heroic and tragic saga of the advance of the American

Frontier in Florida. It was constructed to administrate the

Treaty of Moultrie Creek which relocated the Seminoles to

central Florida. Fort King was to promote law and order in

the wilderness by protecting the Seminoles from trespassing

settlers and adventurers.

Initially, Fort King and the Indian Agency were viewed

positively by the Seminoles. As Coahajo said to Gad

Humphreys, the Indian Agent in Jan 1829, ``This house was

built for us, so that when we had any difficulty, we might

come here and settle it.'' It represented the `Great

Father's' (i.e., the US President's) commitment to them for

their safety and well being. Chief John Hicks said to Gad

Humphreys ``We know that the Great Father's power is great,

and he can do with us as he chooses; but we hope that his

justice is as great as his power.'' They trusted the Great

Father and his Indian Agents. To the Seminoles, Fort King was

a symbol of hope.

But the Great Father could not stop the overwhelming

advance of the white settlers, the whisky peddlers, and the

slave hunters. Two years after being constructed, Fort King

was abandoned due to budget cuts from the recession of 1829.

The Seminoles were left without the soldiers to protect them

from marauding whites. Justice lapsed.

The government reduced their annuity. The Seminoles could

not buy corn. They began to starve. Captain John Sprague

wrote: ``The Indian, exasperated by repeated wrongs, was

reckless of the future--indeed, cared but little of results.

Revenge, ever sweet to him, whatever may be the consequences,

was all he sought.''

Fort King stood empty for 3 years (1829-32), but the

Seminoles did not disturb it. The Seminoles waited for the

return of the soldiers to protect them under the terms of the

Treaty of Moultrie Creek. However, in May 1832, the Great

Father (Andrew Jackson) made them sign a new treaty at Paynes

Landing on the Oklawaha River.

In June 1832, one month after the signing of the Treaty of

Paynes Landing, the soldiers returned. Fort King was re-

garrisoned. But now the Seminoles were told that they must

leave Florida entirely and forever. Instead of a symbol of

freedom, hope and justice, Fort King and its soldiers became

a symbol of hate and oppression.

On to the stage came a new Seminole--His name was Osceola.

His first appearance to the world was at Fort King in October

1834. Here, the defiant young war chief rejected the US

orders to leave Florida and threatened war unless the

Seminoles were left alone. There was no trust left.

Then came the fateful day of Dec 28, 1835. That morning 40

miles to the south along the Fort King Road, the Seminoles

ambushed and annihilated two companies of US Army regulars in

route to Fort King. That afternoon, Osceola shot and

killed the Indian Agent Wiley Thompson outside the walls

of Fort King. The Second Seminole War had begun.

During the seven year guerilla war that followed, every

major general and every regiment of the US Army was stationed

at or passed through Fort King. Here stood the Generals:

Gaines, Scott, Clinch, Jesup, Taylor, and Armistead. Here

stood the junior officers Worth, Johnson, Prince, Bragg,

Meade, and Pemberton--men who would gain fame in the Mexican

and Civil Wars. And here stood the enlisted men: Bemrose,

Clarke, and hundreds of others who served in the Florida War.

Following the initial series of engagements, most of which

the Seminoles won, US forces withdrew from the interior of

Florida abandoning Fort King in May 1836. The Seminoles stood

victorious. At this zenith of their success and hopes, the

Seminoles burned the hated Fort King to the ground.

But it would be a short lived victory. The Army returned a

year later and rebuilt Fort King. It would be garrisoned

throughout the remaining 5 years of the war and from here the

Army of the South would direct dragoon and infantry units in

unrelenting search and destroy missions against the

Seminoles.

When it ended in 1842, most of the Seminoles had been

killed or captured and relocated to Indian Territory in

Oklahoma. These native Americans constitute the Seminole

Nation of today. An unconquered and defiant few withdrew to

the vastness of the Florida Everglades and survived to the

present as the Seminole Tribe of Florida.

In March 1843, Fort King was abandoned by the US Army for

the last time and transferred to the people of Marion County.

The Fort was used as the County's first courthouse and public

building. In 1846, it was dismantled by the citizens of

Marion County for its lumber. The great pines had done

their job.

Hated and loved, Fort King was the stuff that dreams are

made of. To the pioneers, it represented America in the

wilderness. It was to these people--the Declaration of

Independence, the Constitution of the United States, The Bill

of Rights, and freedom and democracy as we knew it. To the

Seminoles--this fort was first a symbol of justice and

goodwill and then a symbol of arrogance, intolerance, and

persecution. Hated and loved--In the end, Fort King is us.

The historical significance of Fort King is that it links

us to our past and to our future. To stand on that hilltop

puts us in the footsteps of Osceola and the native Americans

who roamed and lived on this land for thousands of years

before the Spanish, French, English, and Americans ruled it.

It is a place in the modern city that links us to our

wilderness past. It reminds us of the difficulties faced by

our young republic in maintaining justice and peace on the

Frontier. It is how we got here. Here is our story on the

exact spot of land where it all happened.

The lesson learned from Fort King is our need to assimilate

and accept people of other cultures who in the final analysis

value being American as much as we. Can we become a better

people? The fact that we stand here as friends with the

Seminoles, the very people we oppressed at the start of our

State, is a testament that we can. Fort King is a place of

hope.

Mr. Speaker, I rise again to pay tribute and support to our troops, particularly in Afghanistan. We should be reminded that there is a lot of inordinate negative press and that Americans have been apprised of the situation in Iraq, and I think there is a lot of good things happening also in Afghanistan.

Just one of the accomplishments is they are continuing to attack the narcotics trade to prevent proceeds from being used to fund terrorists and insurgents. We are helping the Afghans provide for their own security and rebuilding provinces shattered by more than 20 years of war, tribal fighting, and Taliban oppression. Afghanistan's presidential and parliamentary elections are slated for October 2004 and 2005, respectively.

Those are just a few of the accomplishments of our troops engaged in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. But there is one other thing: one of the accomplishments, obviously, is that their actions overseas and in Iraq have prevented another terrorist attack here in the United States.

So I am proud of our courageous troops defending our Nation, and encourage my colleagues to join me in singing their praises also.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. Obviously the chairman has reserved a point of order. He might want to listen to my arguments. Perhaps persuasiveness of what I have to say will change his mind.

All of us know that on July 15, 2004, the Secretary of Health and Human Services announced that Medicare would allow for the coverage of antiobesity treatments and interventions by Medicare.

He said this would go on as long as scientific and medical evidence demonstrates their effectiveness in improving the health of beneficiaries on Medicare.

Now, the question I have, and part of my amendment here is, we do not know what this means. Does this mean that it is going to have an immediate impact on Medicare's coverage? Does this mean there are new benefits? We just do not know. Because the Secretary is saying, let us just take a look at this treatment or at that treatment, evaluate it on the basis of improving the health of individuals.

So my amendment is basically saying, okay, Mr. Secretary, if you want

to go ahead and look at the coverage of somebody who is overweight, give them treatments or intervention and use taxpayers' good, hard- earned dollars to do so and you want to do it on the basis of scientific and medical evidence, what is it going to cost?

So I would urge the chairman to put this in the mix, maybe perhaps in conference or something, because we all know that Medicare is increasing, in light of obesity contributions, which is in the billions of dollars to Medicare, the Nation's health care costs, this just may be the thing that increases it dramatically. Part B premiums are rising at 17 percent. We have heard Senator Kerry talk about that on the campaign trail. So what is the cost of this new benefit that we are speculating might occur after we prove the scientific and medical evidence to use it?

I think that, besides information about health outcomes, information about the possible consequences and obesity policy changes in future premiums would be useful and also should be part of this debate.

Now, all of us in this Chamber and throughout America believe in preventive health treatments, and for Medicare, we accept that. Medicare beneficiaries are now offered ``Welcome to Medicare'' physicals and screening for diabetes and heart disease. But, obviously, these new benefits are passed along in premiums to beneficiaries, and we should also talk about that.

Now, I remind my colleagues that on August 27, Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan was speaking about Social Security and Medicare entitlements, and he warned his audience at that point, he said, ``If we have promised more than our economy has the ability to deliver to retirees, as I fear we have, we must recalibrate our public programs so that pending retirees have time to adjust.''

Let us think about what we promise and what we decide as a Nation to cover and, more importantly, what is the price tag for these new benefits for the beneficiaries.

With 64 percent of the American population that is overweight, a substantial number of beneficiaries may likely qualify for this new coverage, and that will increase the cost. Moreover, with the declaration of obesity as a disease, we tread into public funding and issues involving sheer behavior. Now, science certainly points to biological contributions to obesity, for example, genetics or uncontrolled metabolism. But still, there are undoubtedly behavioral choices involving what we eat and whether we exercise. These are a matter of personal preference and choice, and I think it is dangerous to say that, just because Medicare is a public program, it can insert itself into private decisions.

Recently, in an article in Reason Magazine on ``The War on Fat,'' they write that the argument based on taxpayer-funded health insurance proves too much. It gives the government an open-ended license to tax, regulate, or ban any behavior that might lead to disease or injury. If diet is a political issue, what is not? The same logic suggests that government should take an interest in how much we sleep or whether we floss regularly.

So I submit, Mr. Chairman, that we should find the cost of this new benefit to Medicare and, obviously, trial lawyers also may use the policy change as another weapon in their arsenal.

So, Mr. Chairman, in light of your distinguished leadership here and you are saying that it is out of order, I am willing to withdraw this amendment. I recognize that this is perhaps not the appropriate place, but I urge the chairman and his colleagues on the conference committee to consider defining the cost before we allow this new benefit to continue.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his leadership and consideration on this; and I think perhaps that is a compromise, to ask the Secretary how much it will cost to implement this, based upon this sort of general understanding of what he is going to do. So I thank the chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Offered By: Mr. Stearns

Amendment No. 13: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, first of all, most of the folks on that side of the aisle keep talking about that we are mending and changing the Constitution. But I think the argument has been shown to be overwhelmingly wrong and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) will have to agree, and he would now say clearly, it does not violate the Constitution to pass this bill. And I think others will agree with that.

So the people that come down here and say it violates the Constitution are wrong, for your side of the aisle to say we are violating the Constitution, amending and changing it, clearly we are not.

The distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary has given you nine examples, recent examples, of where we have used almost the same clause or language to do the same thing we are doing today. Did you know that to expedite construction for the World War II Memorial we did this same thing. We did it for the Terrorist Risk Insurance Act, the Department of Justice Authorization Act, which I am sure the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) voted for. The Intelligence Act, the PATRIOT Act, even for campaign finance reform in which the majority of the people on that side of the aisle voted for.

But now let us talk about the Daschle Act. Now that is more recent and I think something we should mention. The distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary mentioned it, but I just want to read to you what Senator Daschle actually said on the Senate floor when he said, Due to extraordinary circumstances, timber activities will be exempt from the National Forest Management Act and National Environment Policy Act. And these exemptions are such that they are not subject to judicial review by any United States court. I'd say Senator Daschle blanketed it completely.

Let us get to the real issue. The real issue is not whether the language in this bill is exempting U.S. courts. The real issue is the Defense of Marriage Act. But the Defense of Marriage Act was voted for overwhelmingly by many folks, on that side of the aisle and of course ours, but now you are claiming a technicality by saying we are violating the Constitution. But we all know that we do not want a handful of judges overturning the will of individual States and millions of Americans.

DOMA relied on the principle of federalism, which is a defined concept in our Constitution, to defend States rights and to preserve the sanctity of marriage. It was a perfect match, at least we thought it was, until we found out several events later that the Supreme Court 1997 decision in Roemer v. Evans overturned a popular referendum in their ruling. Last year in Lawrence v. Texas the Supreme Court ignored a States right to determine its own public policy standard and overturned its previous court ruling, which in turn created a new right out of thin air. For years the Federal Courts have been taking jurisdiction away from Congress. It is only proper that we exercise our constitutional right to limit their jurisdiction.

So I would say to my colleagues, if you are against the Defense of Marriage Act, why do you not argue that and do not use the technicalities of saying we are violating the Constitution because you know that is not true. And I have given you at least nine examples here of where you on that side of the aisle have voted for the same, almost the same language.

Now the gentleman from Massachusetts indicated that in this bill there is unique language we have never seen before. Now Mr. Speaker all of us have heard songs before and lots of times those songs sound the same way. But they do not have the same language or exact words. Those songs may sound the same, but they do not have the same words. Likewise, this bill does the same thing as the other bills I mentioned, but the language may not be the same.

Mr. Speaker, today, along with Jan Schakowsky, I am introducing a revised International Consumer Protection Act of 2004.

This revision reflects changes agreed in negotiations among a number of Federal agencies including the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice to settle questions of inter-agency cooperation.

The changes from the Committee Reported bill are as follows:

List of Changes From H.R. 3143 as Introduced

S. 1234, Sec. 1: Includes statements of findings and

purpose.

S. 1234, Sec. 4(b) (adding FTC Act, 6(j)(3)): Requires FTC

to consider the U.S. public interest as a whole, not only

consumers' interest, in determining whether to provide

investigative assistance to a foreign agency.

S. 1234, Sec. 4(b) (adding FTC Act, Sec. 6(j)(4)):

Clarifies State Department oversight of the development of

international agreements.

S. 1234, Sec. 4(b) (adding FTC Act, Sec. 6(j)(6)); also

4(d): Excludes investigative assistance to a foreign law

enforcement agency in matters targeting a bank, savings and

loan institution, federal credit union, or common carriers.

S. 1234, Sec. 4(b) (adding FTC Act, Sec. 6(j)(7)); also

Sec. 6(a) (amending FTC Act, Sec. 21(b)(6)): Ensures no

support given to countries on Secretary of State's

``terrorism list.''

S. 1234, Sec. 5: Clarifies and simplifies provision on

FTC's cooperation with DOJ regarding foreign litigation.

S. 1234, Sec. 6(a) (amending FTC Act, Sec. 21(b)(6)):

Provides the appropriate Federal banking agency or NCUA with

a right of prior approval before FTC provides a foreign

agency with materials obtained under compulsory process for a

matter targeting a bank, savings and loan institution, or

Federal credit union.

S. 1234, Sec. 6(b) (amending FTC Act, Sec. 21(f)): Makes

the section more parallel to SEC provision and eliminates a

reference in existing FTC Act to ``exemption'' from FOIA;

does not alter the scope of the FTC's current ability to

protect domestic information from disclosure.

S. 1234, Sec. 7(a) (adding FTC Act, Sec. 21A(b)): Tracks

more closely the language of RFPA and ECPA for orders under

those laws delaying notice or prohibiting disclosure, for a

limited time, of an FTC request for information, because of

anticipated adverse results. Clarifies that a court has

discretion whether to issue such an order. Makes use of terms

consistent throughout the section.

S. 1234, Sec. 7(a) (adding FTC Act, Sec. 21A(c)): Clarifies

provision authorizing the FTC to seek a court order

prohibiting disclosure of an FTC request for information in

an appropriate case and for a limited time: applies only when

neither RFPA nor ECPA requires notice. Does not apply to

investigative targets or disclosures to Federal agencies.

S. 1234, Sec. 7(a) (adding FTC Act, Sec. 21A(d)): Clarifies

that protection from legal liability for not disclosing an

FTC request applies only if neither RFPA nor ECPA requires

notice of the request, and does not apply to an obligation to

notify a Federal agency of the request.

S. 1234, Sec. 7(a) (adding FTC Act, Sec. 21A(g)):

Restructures the list of adverse results, but retains the

same items.

S. 1234, Sec. 8 (adding FTC Act, Sec. Sec. 21B(a) and (c)):

Clarifies protection from liability for voluntary provision

of information to the FTC. Precludes protection for a failure

to meet any notice obligation to a Federal agency.

S. 1234, Sec. 8 (adding FTC Act, Sec. 21 B(b): Narrows

protection from liability for voluntary disclosures by

financial institutions to the FTC of possible law violations,

in accordance with existing law, 31 U.S. 5318(g)(3);

clarifies that the protection reaches disclosures related to

implicated assets and suspicious chargeback information.

S. 1234, Sec. 8 (adding FTC Act, Sec. 21B(d): Clarifies

that a domain name registrar or registry is eligible for the

protection only in its capacity as such, not in any other

business it may conduct.

S. 1234, Sec. 9 (adding FTC Act, Sec. 25A): States

expressly that foreign participants in staff exchanges become

employees of the FTC subject to the same ethics standards as

other employees. Corrects the citations to appointing

authorities.

S. 1234, Sec. 11: Provides an overall savings clause for

existing authority.

S. 1234, Sec. 13(9): Requires report to Congress on FTC

litigation brought in foreign courts.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House voted to block a rule that would require companies to count stock options against their profits. Now, Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan, a proponent of mandatory expensing and the Financial Accounting Standards Board proposal, told a Senate hearing yesterday that he would be most concerned if Congress intervened. Of the rule-making board, he said, I think they do a good job. It is a tough job. But the House yesterday intervened.

Advocates of mandatory expensing include Securities and Exchange Commissioner and Chairman William Donaldson, the billionaire investor, Warren Buffett and all four big accounting firms. The FASB proposal answered the call for accurate financial statements that came from a string of corporate scandals starting with Enron.

Mr. Speaker, who could be against that? Just allow stock options to be expensed. We could allow exceptions for start-up companies, especially in the high-tech area, but instead Congress, here in the House yesterday, blocked a rule to count stock options.

I hope the Senate will not pass this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Florida for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I had an amendment to the Committee on Rules that unfortunately did not get a part in this debate process. My amendment to the bill of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) would allow companies that voluntarily expense all employees' options to continue doing so. I contend, and I submit, that the original bill, H.R. 3574, would bar them from that practice.

At a recent hearing I held as chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection with jurisdiction over FASB, the Financial Accounting Standards Board, the chairman of FASB said that 576 companies are currently expensing options. Think of that, 576 are expensing options, and as it now stands, H.R. 3574 would prevent these companies from continuing to voluntarily expense stock options.

Now, my amendment would correct that, and I believe congressional interference into FASB rule-making sets a

dangerous standard and a precedent and that the process should be left to independent experts. And as the bill now stands, that is not true. We hope we can correct it, but my amendment was not included as part of this debate.

And I filed this amendment in the Committee on Rules to correct it, and subsequent to that, I think the proponents of this legislation realized the wisdom of my amendment. In fact, I think they have adopted it as their own in the manager's amendment, and I consider that high flattery that they would take what we offered and adopt it as a manager's amendment, but I still believe that this stand-alone amendment would make a better point in this case for why FASB should be left intact, and we should not, as Members of Congress, go about the process of instituting, by statute, written accounting rules.

In fact, I know of no occasion in history in which Congress, by statute, has written an accounting rule, and so I do not think Members are that confident that they can go ahead and disregard the unanimous advice of the President's leading economic advisers and the most famous investor in history.

When we think about it, the most famous investor in the country indicated that in a sense this bill H.R. 3574 sets an accounting rule that is in direct contradiction to the treatment of the same item in the Tax Code. So Warren Buffett has 62 years of investing experience. That seems to be a lot, a lot more, perhaps, than many of us here in the House, and I think if his recommendation is that we not institute a statute which changes the accounting rule, we should also abide by what he is talking about.

We saw what happened with Enron and WorldCom, and they paid themselves tens of billions of dollars in stock options. And they were never accounted for, and I do not think this bill is going to do it. And I think my amendment would have helped.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill.

And let me talk to my good friend from Louisiana. I heard him say in his statement that this bill is a flawed remedy. That is what I heard him say. And I agree with him. The bill is flawed.

He mentions the footnotes. During the oversight hearings on Enron, we had the dean of the Dartmouth School of Business spend 3 weeks looking at the footnotes of Enron. He could not, he could not understand them, and he said nobody in their right mind could understand the footnotes. We could go from Enron across any of these corporations and see the lack of clarity in their corporate footnotes. WorldCom is another one, where Bernie Ebbers paid himself tens of millions of dollars in stock options, and they were never accounted for. People are not going to find them in the footnotes.

This legislation is attacking accounting standards, and he is criticizing FASB. Certainly one could criticize the Securities and Exchange Commission. Where were they during all this corporate corruption?

Options are immensely valuable to those who receive them, and we all agree options are good. That is not the debate. The debate is what this bill is about. Options are fully deductible against corporate income tax. A congressional mandate to ignore economic reality does not change economic reality.

If my colleagues are thinking of voting for this legislation, they should ask themselves why Congress should forbid that stock options be deducted from corporate income when reporting to investors but fully deductible against income when paying corporate taxes. It is a distinction that makes no sense.

Listening to the debate today, we know that this legislation is opposed by Allen Greenspan; Treasury Secretary John Snow; SEC Chairman Bill Donaldson, the chairman of the SEC. Warren Buffet has ridiculed this legislation, saying it is absolutely flawed, it makes no sense.

I know of no occasion in history in which the United States Congress by statute has written an accounting rule, and that is what we are doing today. Are Members so confident in this body in their knowledge of accounting and financial markets that they will disregard the unanimous advice of the President's leading economic indicators, advisers, and the most famous investor in history? He has had 62 years of investing. How many of us have done that? He has ridiculed and said this bill is flawed.

Obviously, we should make some change to FASB. I agree with that, and I believe we are missing an opportunity today because there is another way to approach the problem of accounting for options that would be less heavy handed and might improve the quality of information investors receive so when they go to the footnotes, they will be there and they can actually understand what the stock options are all about.

U.S. GAAP is very detail oriented. It needs to be changed. On that I agree with my colleague from Louisiana. We learned from our investigation of Enron and WorldCom that the very complexity of GAAP itself can be exploited by those who obscure rather than enlighten. The legislation we are considering today mandates a dictatorial rule grafted on to the current GAAP regime that needs change, that simply forbids expensing except for the top five executives. Why is that so sacrosanct that we take just the top five? What about six? What about seven? What about eight? What about four? What about three? No. Just the top five. And then so long as those executives can significantly undervalue their options. If my colleagues stand for a rigorous accounting, oppose this bill.