Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding. More importantly, I want to thank her for her passion, her leadership, and her dedication to trying to make sure that America does in fact become the land that we often hear about but the land that we have not yet experienced.

Katrina has pulled the cover, in a real sense and in many ways, off the whole question of poverty, which is something that we do not talk about nearly enough. We often talk about other kinds of issues and other kinds of things, but very seldom do we get to the core of it in terms of saying that poverty continues to be a major problem for a large segment of the American population. As a matter of fact, we saw, and people have already indicated, individuals who did not have enough resources, could not put together enough money, did not have transportation money, who simply could not get away, who could not get out of the path of the oncoming hurricane because their purses were empty.

But they are not empty only in New Orleans. When we look across America, we see large population groups. I think of young men, for example, in my city, the City of Chicago, the city that we call the ``city of the big shoulders,'' a city where more than 50 percent of all of the young African American males between the ages of 16 and 22 do not have a job, do not go to school. How could there be anything other than poverty in a situation like that? I run into individuals in their early 30s who have never had a job in their entire lives, never had a job, who automatically then become a part of the underground economy in many of these areas where we see concentrations of poverty.

I was hoping that we would use this opportunity, but it is clear that that is not the direction in which we are headed. This provides us with a tremendous opportunity to develop massive training programs for individuals so that they can go back and rebuild their own communities, rebuild their own homes. They could develop the skills, and they could experience something that they have never done before in their lives: They could have a job. They would have the opportunity to work.

But even if they get the opportunity, are we saying that they can be paid less than minimum wage in some instances? Where they are almost put back into a slave-like condition, where they are working but at the end of the week have not earned enough for basic food, shelter, and clothing?

So I am afraid that not only is the mishandling something that happened immediately, but it looks as though we are going to mishandle the rebuilding and the reconstruction and the redevelopment of those affected areas.

So I join with my colleagues in suggesting and calling for a real effort on the part of the administration to make sure that those individuals get a chance not only to live, because a fellow named Thomas Wolf said something once: ``To every man his chance, his golden opportunity, to be and to become whatever his talent, manhood, ambition, and hard work will combine to make him.'' And, of course, if Wolf was around today, he would probably say ``him and her,'' or ``her and him.'' That is supposed to be the promise of America, and that is what we call upon the American people to make sure comes out of the tragedy of Katrina.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for yielding me time. I also want to commend the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal) for his introduction of this bill, which allows the Secretary of Education to waive grant and scholarships awarded under title IV of the Higher Education Act for students forced to withdraw from classes due to a natural disaster.

By applying to title IV, the bill grants relief to students in the greatest need of financial support in assessing higher education. It also covers students receiving Pell grants, TRIO scholarships, Supplemental Educational Opportunities grants, GEAR UP grants, Byrd scholarships and LEAP funds.

Without action, these students would face incredible financial hardship because they would be responsible for repaying funds at a time of incredible economic and personal difficulty. Without action, we would be erecting barriers in their pursuit of their education.

We need to promote education in every way that we can. And I also support this bill as a first step to helping students overcome the barriers to education imposed by the horrific storm.

In addition, I strongly encourage my colleagues to take additional steps to ease the educational burdens of Katrina. The Miller/Kildee Katrina College Relief Act also grants, and I think it gives us an opportunity to go even further, 6-month deferments to students, and directs the Secretary to recalculate the expected family income that they could contribute to college in light of the catastrophe. These are excellent provisions that would greatly assist the hundreds of thousands of students and families struggling after Katrina.

Again, I want to commend the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany) for his introduction of this legislation. I also want to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), for the expeditious manner in which the Committee on Education and the Workforce has addressed the educational needs of students who have been affected by Katrina.

It is a good bill. I support it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member from California for yielding me this time.

I rise in support of this legislation, and I want to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller) for his introduction of it.

I think all of us recognize the importance of formal education, higher education, training; and that if individuals for whatever the reason are not able to avail themselves of these opportunities, then obviously life for them will be far more difficult.

I think it is also important, though, that we go beyond just the individuals who are recipients of the Pell grant, and I support strongly the legislation that I understand is being introduced later on today by the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) that would allow us to provide for the recalculation to take another look at how we assess family income to try to make sure that we maximize the potential of each and every individual in our country to have the greatest possibility of receiving formal education that goes beyond the primary and secondary levels.

So there are many ways to respond to the impact of Katrina, and I think many people are doing so in many places throughout the country, everybody using what it is that they have got to give.

Again, I commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller) for his insight, for his intuition, for his introduction of this bill, and would urge that we support it and also urge support for the Miller- Kildee legislation that I understand is being introduced later on today.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order at this time.

Mr. Speaker, hurricanes may be natural disasters, but Hurricane Katrina has made it clear to anyone in the world with a television that who lives and who dies, who is left to suffer, who is left without the most basic necessities of life, who is left without medical care as a result of that disaster is very much related to who you are.

We have watched with horror and rapidly growing anger as Katrina came and went and left behind many, overwhelmingly poor, black, old, sick, to drown, to be stranded, to be herded into shelters under filthy, inhuman conditions, to be left in sweltering heat without water and food and to be cut off from health care. Why did it take aid and security so long to arrive?

We have received no answer.

Why were we so unprepared? We have received no answer.

What kind of shelters are planned without stockpiles of water and food as well as basic sanitation, medical personnel, and emergency power? We have received no answer.

Why did we not immediately press into service every able-bodied National Guard member? Why did we not immediately bring into service emergency teams from cities across the country? We have received no answer.

Why have we not moved to use unoccupied military barracks to house families left homeless by the storm? We have received no answer.

Where are the plans and the resources to stabilize the lives of hundreds of thousands with no homes, no jobs, no schools? We have received no answers.

Where are the plans and the resources to rebuild all that has been destroyed and to heal the families and communities left so devastated? We have received no answers.

When will we act to rein in the profiteering by big oil? We have received no answer.

How much can we do to lessen the impact of big storms by restoring natural buffers like wetlands, ending our disinvestment in infrastructure such as levees and acting to halt global warming? We have received no answer.

Ordinary Americans have responded without reservation. They have opened their hearts and their wallets. They have already given hundreds of millions of dollars. They have given of their time and their material possessions. Many have opened their homes.

We thank all of those who have contributed and we urge every household to find some way to join this great patriotic effort. Despite the sometimes heroic efforts of many frontline first responders, America's response to Katrina has been every bit as big a disaster as the storm itself.

It is government, especially the Federal Government, that has failed. ``Unacceptable'' is much too weak a term to describe that response to this disaster. It is time, it is past time, to put America's priorities straight and get them straight today.

I call upon the President to immediately mobilize adequate resources, medical supplies, personnel, security, transportation, and move those who are still in harm's way to safety. We call on the administration to present to Congress an emergency plan and a budget to address the needs of all those left homeless and jobless while their homes and communities are being rebuilt.

I call on the President to initiate an emergency public works program to rebuild America, to restore infrastructure, roads, bridges, water and sewers; and to mesh with private-sector insurance to rebuild every home, every small business.

We have a clear choice. We can use this as an opportunity to offer thousands, especially our young people, a chance to work to learn new skills from construction to nursing, or we can abandon tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands who have been uprooted and displaced, who have lost their material possessions, but each of whom is still a unique and irreplaceable person with untapped resources.

The President indicated that there is no limit to what we will spend in Iraq. I ask, how much will we spend in America?

I thank all of those in my immediate community, from the governor to the mayor to the president of our county board, all elected officials, churches, members of organizations and groups. I am proud to live in Chicago and in Illinois where we have opened our hearts and our wallets, and I simply ask that our Federal Government do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce my bill that calls for the observance of October as Movement Disorders Awareness Month. Movement disorders affect nearly 40 million Americans and often cause chronic or debilitating conditions. Some common movement disorders include: dystonia, Parkinson's disease, Rett Syndrome and Huntington's disease.

An author, Matt Marty, once said, ``Understanding is curing ignorance and curing ignorance is abolishing fear.'' Many people fear what they do not understand. We must establish a Movement Disorders Awareness Month to educate the public about the causes, characteristics and treatments of movement disorders. Awareness would guide the public consciousness toward understanding. Acceptance is the key. We must affirm our commitment to the individuals and families who are affected by these disorders. We must encourage further research on movement disorders. We must also raise public consciousness and understanding in regards to these conditions. This is a most worthy and necessary cause.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give honor to Rosa Parks, considered to be the pioneer of the Civil Rights Movement, who protested the discrimination of

Black bus riders by refusing to give her seat to a white man in 1955. Her subsequent arrest generated the Civil Rights Movement. She once said in regards to her protest, ``I knew someone had to take the first step and I made up my mind not to move.''

Her story is told to emphasize the power of one. One person can make a fleeting decision to impact the consciousness of society, by standing up for what they believe in. One person can cause the world to pay attention. One person can change the course of history.

Rosa Parks is one of many, and she is well deserving of this recognition.

Mr. Speaker, on this 40th anniversary of the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965, we must pause to recognize the importance of this legislation. A century before its passing, the 15th Amendment guaranteed the right for Black men to vote. In 1920, women were also granted that right. Despite these laws, minority men and women were still prevented from voting through discriminatory means common to Jim Crow, antebellum South including poll taxes, literacy tests, gerrymandering and language discrimination. Through the Voting Rights Act, considered one of the foremost pieces of Civil Rights legislation, Congress saw the discrimination and realized the critical need to protect the minority. We must continue to do so.

The most basic and fundamental principles of any democracy are equal opportunity, equal protection under the law and guarantee of the right to participate, to have that right protected and to have that participation count.

Unfortunately in the last two Presidential elections and in an increasing number of elections across the country are being marred with allegations of manipulation, chicanery, trickery, intimidation and outright illegal acts of fraud, thievery, and violence. All of these acts and actions have served to undermine confidence in our electoral system, disrupt the process of normalcy, and are beginning to shake the very foundation of our democracy. We must not waver in our commitment to our citizens and continue to ensure that their vote matters.

The face of America is changing every day. Diversity of race, ethnicity, language and other aspects of the American citizen are evident in our society. The need to protect the rights of the electorate despite these differences is a constant struggle. This 40- year-old legislation stood the test of time. It is our duty to continue to protect the right to vote, one of the most basic rights, for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to H.R. 5, the HEALTH Act of 2005. I rise to oppose this legislation, not because I do not recognize the crisis that is brewing in the area of medical malpractice insurance, but because this legislation tries to remedy this crisis with the wrong prescription.

Many of my distinguished colleagues on both sides of the aisle have expressed their concern regarding the access to healthcare that their constituents face. We all recognize this is a major problem in our country. In addition, physicians are constantly under increased pressure throughout the nation to deal with the increased burden that high malpractice premiums pose to their livelihood. In my home state of Illinois, only two neurosurgeons can be found south of Springfield because malpractice insurance rates are so out-of-control. Due to this shortage of neurosurgeons, patients with serious brain injuries are airlifted to St. Louis, many times costing them valuable minutes that can mean the difference between life and death. To remedy this situation as well as the overall problem of liability premium increases, my state imposed caps on non-economic damages to offer a quick fix to keep fleeing doctors. Currently, there are some 21 other states with similar caps.

While caps give the appearance of remedying this crisis in some states, they do nothing to stem the tide of ``frivolous lawsuits.'' Frivolous lawsuits by definition are lawsuits without merit. According to the Physicians Insurers Association of America, the trade group representing physician-owned insurance companies, 70% of malpractice lawsuits are dismissed and only 0.8% of cases actually go through a trial and reach a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

Advocates of caps argue that this 0.8% is what drives up the cost of malpractice insurance. They argue that out-of-control jury awards drive up malpractice premiums. Are we to assume that this 0.8% of cases which go through fair trial, find in favor of the plaintiff, are in fact ``frivolous''? I would argue that the 70% of cases which are dismissed are the ``frivolous cases,'' and this 0.8% represents many egregious cases of malpractice.

Without addressing this problem, this bill does nothing to stop ``frivolous lawsuits,'' it only limits the claims of a person who suffers a terrible and often extreme example of malpractice. Minor injuries or pain and suffering do not receive massive awards. I ask my colleagues, if you or one of your family members suffered a tremendously egregious example of malpractice, would you want to be limited in what you or your family member could be compensated? I am sure your response, much as mine is that you would not.

My colleagues, we can debate over and over again on legislation such as this, but all the debate in the world will not lead to solving this problem when we are headed in a direction such as this. As many of my colleagues have pointed out, a recent study of the 15 largest malpractice insurers in the country found that insurers substantially increased their net premiums by an average of 120% while both their payments and projected future claims payments were flat or decreasing over the past few years. This directly contradicts the insurance industry's claims that premiums are increasing due to increased jury awards. Many of these same insurers even admit that capping malpractice awards will not reverse the trend of rising premiums. The malpractice insurance industry is unjustifiably raising their premiums, gouging doctors, and pushing for legislation that only does one thing: pits doctors against their patients.

If Congress is really serious about fixing this problem it will develop a system which benefits patients most while sidelining the interests of big business. Physicians are in the business of caring for patients, and I appreciate the burden they face with increased malpractice premiums. I am fully aware that this burden affects their ability to practice the profession they love. I only hope that in this struggle to find a remedy to this problem, the few patients who are harmed as a result of malpractice will not be further harmed by a limit on a just compensation.

Mr. Speaker, I do not profess to know everything that CAFTA is going to do, but I do know that when I wake up in the morning, my congressional district has lost more than 150,000 good-paying manufacturing jobs. I know that we make candy. We make a lot of it. We used to be called the Candy Capital of the World. But my candy makers are leaving because the price of sugar is too high.

I was told and I was hoping that CAFTA would help reduce the price of sugar for my candy makers. It will not. Therefore, there is no reason for me to vote for CAFTA, and I shall not.

Vote no for CAFTA.

Mr. Speaker, Chicago used to be known as the Candy Capital of the World. Unfortunately, sugar makers, food processors, and other sugar users have been driven out of the city by high prices.

Despite all of my other misgivings, I had hoped that CAFTA would provide us with some relief. But, unfortunately, to let in only 151,000 metric tons of sugar from CAFTA countries over a 15-year period will not put a dent in sugar prices. It will not help the candy makers and food processors in Chicago. Therefore, I shall vote against CAFTA and urge all of my colleagues to vote likewise.

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

Madam Speaker, as a member of the House Committee on Government Reform, I am pleased to join my colleague in consideration of S. 904, a bill designating the postal facility in West Milford, New Jersey, after the late Brian P. Parrello. This measure, which was introduced by Senator Frank Lautenberg, a Democrat from New Jersey, on April 26, 2005, was unanimously passed by the Senate on June 29, 2005.

Lance Corporal Brian P. Parrello, 19, was killed Saturday, January 1, 2005, as a result of hostile action in Hadithah, a city along the Euphrates River. Brian Parrello is remembered by friends and family as being a ``good guy,'' a young person who had dreams of one day becoming a teacher.

Lance Corporal Brian P. Parrello had an avid interest in history. His high school principal, Michael McCormick, recalled that Brian ``took every elective history course that we have in our school.''

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague for seeking to honor the memory of the late Brian Parrello in this manner. Brian is to be remembered for his sacrifice and that he lost his life in furtherance of our freedom. We should not forget that he died in combat, and we would hope that we could end this conflict so that it would not be necessary that we take to the floor to honor young people whose lives are snuffed out far too quickly.

This is indeed a tribute to Brian, and I would urge passage of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me this time. I also want to thank him and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for the presentation of this rule.

I want to commend the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), for the tremendous leadership that they have displayed in shaping this bipartisan legislation.

I also want to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), who is known as ``Postal Reform'' in our committee, because he has worked on this issue for such a long period of time.

Many of us recognize that postal issues are not considered to be the most exotic business that will come before this House, but if you are waiting for an important document that does not come at the time you were hoping to receive it, or maybe it was a letter from a relative, from your mother or your father or from your child, and it is not there, or it was an admissions letter to college or university and you are anticipating its arrival, and it does not come, then you begin to realize how important the Postal Service is.

I want to commend the thousands of men and women who work every day to make sure that these channels of communication are still open. Imagine being able to get a letter from anyplace, first class, in the United States of America for 37 cents. That is no easy feat.

And so I commend all of those who have made sure that these channels of communication have been kept open. I commend all of those members of the committee who have labored, and all of the stakeholders. Shaping this legislation was not the easiest thing in the world to do, but I have been told that when men and women of goodwill come together with a basic recognition of the need to be in sync, that you can work out solutions to any problems that have existed.

That is what has taken place in the Committee on Government Reform. Again, I commend the tremendous leadership that we have gotten from the chairman and ranking member. I know that there are amendments that are desirable, but I am going to resist them, and urge that they be resisted, and urge passage of this landmark legislation that seeks to reform the postal system and postal operations.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I control the time of the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

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

Mr. Chairman, Members of the House have worked over a decade to reform this important part of our national culture and economy. I am truly pleased to serve in this Congress which is moving this historic reform forward.

I also want to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Davis), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and their dedicated staffs for their commitment to postal reform and for the bipartisan cooperation to work for its passage.

The gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) deserves particular recognition for his leadership and perseverance with regard to postal reform.

Postal reform is a significant issue for my congressional district as it is for much of America. I represent one of the primary postal hubs in the Midwest, the great city of Chicago. In addition to the 12,000 postal employees who deliver mail daily to 1.2 million homes and businesses in the Chicago area, we have many respected companies like R.R. Donnelley, the largest printing company in North America, that are clients of the Postal Service.

The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2005 modernizes the postal system, helping it remain healthy and affordable well into the 21st century. This bill is a delicate compromise that has gone through a series of processes of hearings, meetings and negotiations. We have worked extensively and effectively with administration representatives to address their concerns.

There is something in this bill for everyone. It may not be everything that interest groups desire; however, as the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis) has said, it is our best chance at solving the structural, legal and financial constraints that put the Postal Service at risk of catastrophe.

As the Comptroller General recognized this past January, comprehensive postal reform is urgently needed. The Postal Service historically has accumulated billions of dollars in debt and currently has massive unfunded liabilities.

Declining first class mail volumes, high infrastructure-related costs and rigid statutes necessitate reform. It has been 35 years since comprehensive postal reform occurred. It is our responsibility to protect our treasured national asset before it is in crisis. The time for reform is now.

H.R. 22 has many highlights for the Postal Service. It provides the rate-making flexibility and incentives needed to operate as an efficient business. For businesses it provides rate stability, fair competition rules, financial transparency, and procurement protections needed to predict costs and operate on a level playing field. For consumers it preserves universal service, maintains high-quality standards, and eliminates unfair mailing costs so that they have an affordable and reliable means of communication. For workers it protects collective bargaining and offers whistleblower protections that are needed to ensure safe employment. For taxpayers it ensures the viability of a national asset and removes the threat of a taxpayer bail-out of the Postal Service due to financial insolvency.

These are just some of the provisions that will go a long way to helping the Postal Service better serve its customers, compete fairly with the mailing industry and contribute to our Nation.

In addition, I am pleased that the bill requires a study of the number of contracts with women, minorities and small businesses, and that it protects our domestic airlines from outsourcing of jobs to foreign carriers. I represent many members from each of these groups, and it is important that our reforms treat them all fairly. I reiterate that this bill is the best option to protect our treasured national asset before it is in crisis.

I know that the issue of classifying single-piece parcels as competitive or market-dominant has caused a good deal of anxiety for many parties affected by postal reform. I look forward to addressing this issue in conference.

And at this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the Government Reform Committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).

Mr. Chairman, section 404 of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act alters paragraph 2 of section 401 of title 39 of the U.S. Code. This section pertains to the rulemaking authority of the United States Postal Service. Obviously the issue of fairness in rulemaking by the Postal Service affects a number of businesses in my district.

I would like to ask the distinguished chairman to clarify how rulemaking by the Postal Service should consider the circumstances within the postal sector.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Reclaiming my time, I would like to ask the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Government Reform to further clarify the meaning of the language related to the role of the Postal Regulatory Commission in entering complaints related to rule-making.

I yield to the chairman to find out his understanding.

Reclaiming my time, I would like to thank the distinguished chairman for his answers and for his cooperation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), a member of the Committee on Government Reform whose father preceded him, and his father preceded him not only in office but in having a great interest in postal matters.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that there is a big difference between vanity and pride, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) has every reason to be proud of this product, and we do not think it is vanity at all.

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) for a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's desire to see that the Postal Service takes into account the impact on local communities. I share his desire for a comprehensive evaluation of all issues regarding the realignment and consolidation of postal facilities, including individual impact on our local communities.

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

We have heard a great deal of discussion, all good, and again I think it is important that we realize that it took the coming together not only of dedicated Members of the House, but also tremendous staff work. I know that the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) is not here at the moment, but I want to take the time to commend not only him, but his staff, Phil Schiliro, Phil Barnett, Naomi Seiler, Althea Gregory, as well as the members of my staff, Richard Boykin, Jill Hunter- Williams, and, of course, Denise Wilson, who have worked tirelessly and tirelessly for months and some of them even into years of trying to make sure that we shaped a comprehensive bill, one that all of the stakeholders and shareholders could, in fact, agree with and be proud of, one that did, in fact, continue to protect universal service, everyday delivery, knowing that people can get their mail no matter where they live, whether it is on a remote countryside, up the mountain, across the way, across the river, knowing that the mail is going to come.

Again, I want to commend, as we have done so often, and not without reason, the hard work and continuous dedication of the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), who almost single-mindedly and sometimes people would say single-handedly has kept this train rolling, has kept this ship going, and has prevented it from veering off course. I am very pleased to have been a part of the process. I again commend all of those for making it happen.

Mr. Chairman, I urge strong support for the passage of this important piece of legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member.

Mr. Chairman, one of the great accomplishments of this legislation is the fact that it was able to bring labor and management together, to bring both sides to the table and have them agree. The gentleman from Indiana's amendment did not mention the fact that four of the slots were designated for management. So certainly, if management would have at least four slots pretty much designated, then certainly labor ought to have one.

The other point is that throughout the deliberations, very seldom did we hear much conversation about Democrats and Republicans. We really talked about moving a postal system and a postal service forward. So I would oppose the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, where I come from, there is an old saying: If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, quacks like a duck, talks like a duck, then it is a duck. And it seems to me that the bottom line is this is an attempt to privatize the Postal Service, which would decimate the concept of universal service. There could be no universal service if this amendment is passed.

Mr. Chairman, the argument for budget-neutral reform reminds me of the teaching of Frederick Douglass when he said that he understood one thing, if he did not understand anything else; and that is that in this world we may not get everything that we pay for, but we most

certainly will pay for everything that we get.

As the Comptroller General has pointed out, respected accounting principles indicate that the burden for payment for service belongs to the beneficiary. The U.S. Government benefited from military service, and it should cover the cost.

To ensure predictable rate increases, H.R. 22 employs strict rate caps at the subclass level, prohibiting rate increases at a rate greater than CPI. These restrictions, however, make it important that the Service have access to the one-third of its own money to help cover operational costs if need be. Otherwise there is no alternative but to accumulate debt.

Mr. Chairman, the Hensarling amendment would have us embedded in debt. I oppose it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleague in consideration of H.J. Res 59, expressing the sense of Congress with respect to the establishment of an appropriate day for the commemoration of the women suffragists who fought for and won the right of women to vote in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, the women's rights movement began in the mid-1800s when women such as Sarah Grimke, Angelina Grimke, Lucy Stone, Abby Kelly, Lucretia Mott, and Sojourner Truth found it necessary to speak out for women's rights because they were not allowed to participate equally with men in anti-slavery and temperance reform movements.

The right to vote was not their original focus. A convention held in Seneca Falls, New York in 1848 changed that. It was at that historic event that the women's suffrage movement formally began.

The movement culminated with the passage of the 19th amendment to the Constitution in 1920.

Suffragists employed a variety of arguments to press their case. Some argued from the basis of natural law, arguing equality for all. Some argued on the grounds that women were compelled to pay taxes on the property they owned and, therefore, should not be subject to the injustice of taxation without representation.

Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Lucretia Mott were among the most well-known suffragettes who pushed for a constitutional amendment. These women emerged as the leaders of the movement and helped to secure the right to vote for all women in America.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleagues, and specifically the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), for bringing this bill to the Floor today. We should never forget how our country has emerged to being a representative democracy, knowing full well that we have not totally achieved everything that we wants to achieve, but we are continuing to try and form a more perfect Union.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this bill.

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