Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules may meet the week of July 14 to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 1950, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for fiscal years 2004 and 2005.

The Committee on International Relations ordered the bill reported on May 8 and filed its report in the House on May 16. The Committee on Armed Services ordered the bill reported on June 26 and filed its report in the House on June 30. The Committee on Energy and Commerce ordered the bill reported today.

Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment to the Committee on Rules in room H-312 of the Capitol by noon, Monday, July 14.

Members should draft their amendments to the combined text of the bill as reported by the Committee on International Relations, the Committee on Armed Services, and the Committee on Energy and Commerce, which will be available for their review on the Web site of the Committee on Rules.

Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate format. Members are also advised to check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 299 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 299 is a multi-part rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 1, the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003, and H.R. 2596, the Health Savings and Affordability Act of 2003.

This rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1 under a modified closed rule, an appropriate rule for such a delicate, complex, and historic piece of legislation. The rule provides for 3 hours of general debate equally divided between the chairmen and ranking minority members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of H.R. 1.

After general debate it will be in order to consider an amendment printed in the report accompanying this resolution, if offered, by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) or his designee and debatable for 1 hour. All points of order are waived against the amendment. Finally, the rule permits the minority to offer a motion to recommit to H.R. 1 with or without instructions.

Section 2 of this rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 2596, the Health Savings and Affordability Act of 2003, either today, the legislative day of June 26, or tomorrow, June 27, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. All points of order against the consideration of H.R. 2596 are waived. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

I would like to take a moment to clarify for my colleagues that upon passage of both pieces of legislation, the text of H.R. 2596 shall be added as a new matter at the end of H.R. 1. In simple terms, these two bills will become one. However, this bill does not preclude either bill from moving forward independently.

Finally, the remaining sections of this rule provide for some housekeeping provisions and provisions which will allow this body to move forward in the appropriations process.

Mr. Speaker, today is a historic day. For years now, seniors across this country have consistently voiced to Congress the same major concerns: the skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs. Their concerns are not perceived; they are very, very real. Each year, a typical senior pays approximately $1,300 on prescription drugs, filling about 22 prescriptions on average. Today, the House will consider a plan to give all seniors a prescription drug benefit through Medicare.

In passing this bill, as I believe we will do before this day is over, we will renew America's promise to our seniors, reduce the cost of prescription drugs, and revolutionize medicine in the 21st century.

I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin) for their exemplary cooperation, their remarkable leadership, and inspiring vision they have provided on this complex, yet very much-needed legislation. I would like to take a moment just to give special thanks to them for working so closely with me on a couple of provisions that will greatly benefit cancer patients and hospitals across the country. Included in this legislation is immediate Medicare coverage for oral anticancer drugs through a demonstration project that will offer extraordinary support to seniors who are fighting cancer. It will enable them to afford the newest lifesaving medicines in the comfort of their own homes, rather than be hooked up to chemotherapies by infusions in a hospital or clinical setting.

I also commend the chairmen's interest and support in assisting hospitals who serve a disproportionate number of uninsured and indigent populations. Hospitals across this country, including many of our Nation's children's hospitals, will be better able to serve their patients with over $3 billion in additional funding. Finally, rural hospitals are finally getting their fair share: $27.2 billion.

Since 1965, Medicare has provided a guarantee of health care coverage for more than 40 million seniors. Today, our seniors are counting on the stability, longevity, and integrity of this program for their secure retirement. But if we do not act and pass this bill before us today, the future of Medicare will be certain: certain bankruptcy. Our inaction will have sealed the fate

for one of our Nation's most trusted programs.

So today, we will do two long-overdue things. First, we will modernize Medicare to save it for future seniors; and, second, we will provide the much-needed prescription drug coverage.

The prescription drug package the House is considering here today will provide the same universal guaranteed Medicare health services as those that currently exist. If you are 65 or older, you qualify for Medicare, and you qualify for this benefit. It is that simple. And we provide significant and immediate savings for seniors on their medicines. Specifically, this plan provides Medicare beneficiaries with a prescription drug discount card offering over 25 percent in savings, catastrophic protections, giving seniors 100 percent coverage for out- of-control drug costs beyond $3,500 year, and full assistance for our neediest citizens.

Equally important, this rule makes in order a provision establishing health savings accounts, a revolutionary tool, so that every American, not just seniors, can set aside savings now for their medical expenses, tax-free. With over 40 million uninsured, this is so important, and the plan provides for a catch-up provision so that seniors can take advantage and set aside more money more quickly.

Mr. Speaker, this is a remedy for what ails America's uninsured. Our plan is designed for those people who might be shut out of work-based coverage and offers all Americans, regardless of their income or age, access to health coverage with no bureaucracy or costly mandates.

Finally, this package includes chronic care management for all Medicare beneficiaries.

Mr. Speaker, one-third of Medicare beneficiaries have one or more chronic illnesses. This provision will help better manage diseases, reduce health care costs, and enhance health and quality of life.

So here we are at a major crossroad. Seniors continue to tell us that adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare is not some pie-in-the- sky policy that they would merely prefer become law. No. The majority of seniors are telling us that they cannot go another year without help, without any assistance, without any help with their drug costs, and without access to higher-quality health care.

Therefore, some questions need to be asked for those who will come forward in the next few hours and oppose this package. Ask them: How is this package not an improvement for our seniors who have no coverage and are struggling to pay for their medications? And ask them: How is the huge prescription drug savings that will result from this plan not useful to seniors? Ask them: How is bringing Medicare into the 21st century and saving it for future generations not wise for our children, our grandchildren, and our great grandchildren?

Now, some of my colleagues will no doubt put forth $1 trillion, pie- in-the-sky plans. These packages would bust any budget, Republican, Democrat, or otherwise. As a matter of fact, the Democrat substitute actually is larger than the sum of two budgets. The Democrat Spratt budget had $528 billion for Medicare, and the Democrat Blue Dog budget had $400 billion dedicated to Medicare. That is a total of $920 billion. But the Democrat substitute that they are offering today is over $1 trillion, more than the combination of those two Democrat budgets. Mr. Speaker, that is unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, the lack of prescription drug coverage under Medicare is exactly what age discrimination looks like in 2003. Seniors are the last group of people who are forced to pay retail costs for their medications and, Mr. Speaker, that should be enough of a violation of civil rights to get even the ACLU involved.

I said just a moment ago that today is a historic day, and it is. Today we apply a little common sense by recognizing that health care is simply not what it was 30 years ago, and that Medicare is not what it was 30 years ago. It must change to keep up. Today, we will take the first steps in creating the next generation of quality health care, a new era where prescription drugs make regular doctor visits less frequent, where cutting-edge treatments make hospital stays nearly obsolete in the future, and where lifesaving medications reduce formerly deadly diseases to mere manageable symptoms within longer and healthier lives.

Today I urge my colleagues to be bold, to be courageous, to show leadership, and to take America's health care system into a new frontier, a place where it has needed to go for far too long now. Time is precious and so are our seniors. I urge this Congress to pass the underlying rule and approve H.R. 1, the Medicare Improvement and Prescription Drug Act of 2003.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher) for some substantive remarks. Dr. Fletcher is a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and also a member of the medical profession, and we look forward to what he has to add to this debate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), my distinguished colleague.

(Mr. ISSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. DREIER), my distinguished colleague, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, who led us through our hearing on this last night to the historic conclusion today on the floor.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

In response to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), who we both share an abiding concern about cancer patients and their treatment, I would just like to set the record straight in that the bill on the floor today increases oncology practice expenses by $190 million. That is 83 percent over their current payment, and it is 50 percent higher than any other specialty. It also includes an average sales price plus 12 percent for 2 years. Now, that is $240 to $250 million on top of a $190 million increase in practice expenses.

In addition to that, we have provided for oral cancer therapies, the new, upcoming way to treat cancer, so that chemotherapies are not the only treatment that seniors can get. They can stay home and take a pill in their own surroundings rather than go be hooked up to some infusion device.

These are wonderful steps forward for the cancer community.

I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Reclaiming my time, I disagree with the gentlewoman's analysis of how it works. There is a provision that will allow physicians to stockpile, if they prefer.

But on to another issue, Mr. Speaker. There were statements made earlier that there were no cost savings in this bill, by a former speaker. There are cost savings. There is group purchasing and insurance benefits, a 25 to 30 percent savings. There is a discount card, 15 to 20 percent savings. There is a Medicare best price, $18 billion in savings. Average wholesale price reform, $15 billion in savings. There is Hatch-Waxman reforms and reimportation reforms, all generating savings. And that is how we are able to expand and generate better treatment for seniors through the upcoming years.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), another physician in our conference.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

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

Mr. Speaker, passing this plan is the right thing to do. It makes the kind of commonsense changes to the health care system in this country that the American public needs. Adding this Medicare benefit will renew our promise to our seniors. It will reduce the cost of prescription drugs, and it will revolutionize medicine for the 21st century. Seniors deserve this assistance now. They deserved it yesterday. They deserved it last week; and actually, they deserved it last year. It is time for this body to act. I urge my colleagues to support this fair rule and pass the needed reform today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 269 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the

gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the ranking member of our committee, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of the resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 269 is a structured rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 1115, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2003.

The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. It provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment.

The rule makes in order only those amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution. Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be debatable for the time specified equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment or demand for a division of the question.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill and waives all points of order against such amendment.

Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to my colleagues that while this is a structured rule, it is a balanced rule. This rule makes in order four amendments, three Democrat amendments and one bipartisan amendment. In fact, only eight amendments were originally submitted to the Committee on Rules, and two of those amendments were withdrawn from consideration. In a world often frequented with sports analogies, we would say that four for six is pretty good at the plate.

Mr. Speaker, the history of our judicial process was purposely and deliberately constructed by our forefathers to be a system that employs fairness and balance in the rendering of justice. One of the many tools of this judicial system is the class action lawsuit. In its ideal form, the class action suit is meant to give many individuals who hold the same claim of wrongdoing against the same defendant an efficient and effective way to have their grievances heard as a unified voice. Essentially, it acts as a pedestal and a megaphone using the collective nature of the many to increase the profile and the potency of the group's accusations of injustice.

As used by public interest organizations and truly injured groups of individuals, class action lawsuits have proven effective in restoring justice and righting wrongs. By correcting egregious negligence, curbing dangerous misconduct, or even convincing people in organizations to merely abide by the law, class action suits are an integral part of the American system of justice.

However, and very sadly, these suits are also one of the most grossly abused parts of the American system of justice.

We have seen a deluge of frivolous lawsuits designed to coerce quick and often unwarranted settlements only to enrich a few. This abuse of the system stunts economic growth and job creation, and it clogs the courtroom and our system, making it more difficult to receive justice in valid lawsuits. In fact, class action filings in State courts have increased 1,000 percent in just 10 years; 1,000 percent in just 10 years. Somebody is catching onto something around here.

One wonders how effective local courts and judges can even start to get through their workload when it is increasing so rapidly. Perhaps worst of all is the abusive way in which class action suits enrich a small group of trial attorneys and a very small fraction of plaintiffs while leaving most of the rest of the entire class with little or next to nothing.

In one instance, and there are thousands and thousands of these types of stories, but in one instance a State court approved a class action settlement in a case brought by account holders against a bank. The result, the plaintiffs' attorneys received over $8 million in fees and the 700,000 members of the class only received $10 each. Eight million dollars to the trial lawyers, $10 to the plaintiffs. In addition, each class member was stuck holding the remainder of the bank's legal bills, approximately $100 each. These class members had to pay the bank's liabilities, a net loss at the end of the day of $90. How thick the irony, and we want people to respect our system of justice when they see this type of result? This may seem extreme, but it is becoming the norm very, very rapidly.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will dispute these facts. They will allege that the system is fine as it is, and that by passing this plan and working to restore justice to our system, we are robbing consumers of their legal rights. Let me be clear, no one is eliminating or diminishing anybody's rights to sue. No one is taking a wrecking ball to the court system that our forefathers so carefully established, and no one is ignoring legitimate claims of negligence or advocating bad guys being left off the hook. We are not doing that.

This bill simply curbs the abuse of class action suits. It curbs the abuses while preserving the rights of the truly injured to bring meritorious claims to court. In addition, this plan would remove large interstate class action lawsuits to Federal court where appropriate. This provision would enable more efficient and effective consolidation of claims. It would also provide greater uniformity in consideration of these cases by requiring the decisions that affect individuals from all across the country be decided by courts that represent the Nation as a whole and not just one State which might have a particular bias for particular parties.

As this plan cracks down on the abuses of class action suits, it also protects the legal rights of individuals through a consumer class action bill of rights. This bill of rights requires that the notices sent to class members be simple and intelligible, ensures that victorious plaintiffs do not suffer a net loss because the attorneys took all of the money, it prevents geographic discrimination against certain class members, and it prohibits disproportionate awards from going to some class members at the expense of others.

The bottom line is that this plan provides greater judicial scrutiny to make our court system more efficient and effective, while restoring fairness to ensure that truly wronged victims receive their fair share of settlements.

Mr. Speaker, as a former judge, I have to say, our court system and the judges and attorneys that serve within it serve nobly by administering and executing true justice when they can. But it is the job of this Congress to make sure that our judicial system is not misused or abused to the point where it cannot perform its very purpose, or it provides the very opposite of justice.

The Class Action Fairness Act creates important reforms that will reduce lawsuit abuse and protect individuals. It is as simple as that. I urge support for this legislation and for the fair and balanced rule before us.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to set the record straight. Many of the objections that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) just iterated about the Committee on Rules being unfair about are contained in the Democratic substitute which was allowed by our committee. Retroactivity is specifically addressed there, so there is a chance to debate and vote on that. And it will be a lively debate, I am sure.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend and very distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), a member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), my very distinguished colleague and the whip of the Republican majority.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 8 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), chairman of the Committee on Agriculture; but more importantly, today, the author of this important reform legislation and a very valued member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan), my very distinguished colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I have one remaining speaker. Does the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) have anyone further?

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), my distinguished colleague and a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

(Mr. KING of Iowa asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing let me just remind my colleagues that the critics had it backwards. This bill restores, rather than undermines, the principled balance of Federalism. It is the other 49 States' rights that are being protected when one State's judge is precluded from making law and determining the law and the outcome for the other 49. This is truly an example of a principle of federalism.

This legislation provides important and needed reform. It will help plaintiffs that are part of a class receive more than just a coupon for a box of cereal, a coupon that goes back to the very company that was sued in the first place.

It is laughable, Mr. Speaker. It will give needed accountability while preserving the rights of the truly injured. But more importantly for me as a former member of the bench, it will bring back the public's faith in our justice system, because really it has become a joke. As you listen to the debate this afternoon, it is so sad that it is almost funny. This country is only as strong as the faith our citizens have in its laws and how they are applied to them. When it becomes a joke, it weakens us.

H.R. 1115 has the strong support of the administration. It is an important step forward in commonsense reform. I urge my colleagues to put the plaintiffs first. Let us get justice back in our system. Support this fair and balanced rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 7 o'clock and 48 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, June 12, 2003, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Luana Lamkin from Hilliard, Ohio, a former member of the Oncology Nursing Society's Board of Directors, and to celebrate May as the ninth annual Oncology Nursing Month. Oncology Nursing Month recognizes oncology nurses, educates the public about oncology nursing, provides an opportunity for special educational events for oncology nurses, and celebrates the accomplishments of oncology nurses.

The Oncology Nursing Society (ONS), the largest professional oncology group in the United States composed of more than 30,000 nurses and other health professionals, exists to promote excellence in oncology nursing and the provision of quality care to those individuals affected by cancer. As part of its mission, the Society honors and maintains nursing's historical and essential commitment to advocacy for the public good. ONS was founded in 1975, and held its first Annual Congress in 1976. Since the Society was established, 218 local chapters have been formed to provide a network for education and peer support at the community level.

In my State of Ohio there are more than 1,226 oncology nurses and health professionals that care for individuals with cancer and their families. In addition, Ohio has 9 local Oncology Nursing Society chapters located in the areas of Columbus, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Mansfield, Cuyahoga Falls, Lima, Zanesville, Whitehouse, and Dayton.

Luana Lamkin has been helping cancer patients and their families for the last thirty years. Luana is currently the Administrator of Cancer Services at the Grant/ Riverside Methodist Hospitals in Columbus, Ohio. Luana has been active in the Oncology Nursing Society since 1976 and recently served as National Treasurer for the ONS' Board of Directors. She has received numerous awards for her work on behalf of individuals with cancer including the ``Excellence in Nursing Administration'' from the Oncology Nursing Society and the ``Lane Adams Award'' from the American Cancer Society for Outstanding Nursing Leadership.

Luana has also worked with the National Dialogue on Cancer on nursing workforce issues. A number of studies and articles that Luana has written on the impact of the nursing shortage on cancer care have been published in distinguished publications such as the Oncology Nursing Forum, Cancer Nursing: Practices and Principles, Seminars in Oncology Nursing, and the Journal of Nursing Research. Since 1982, Luana has presented thirty papers to national and international audiences on a host of cancer care issues such as staff support systems, role development, community resources, patient and caregiver perspectives, strategic planning, issues and trends in cancer nursing, epidemiology, screening, detection, negotiating professional rewards and nursing shortage issues.

Over the last ten years, the setting where treatment for cancer is provided has changed dramatically. An estimated 80 percent of all Americans receive cancer care in community settings including cancer centers, physicians' offices, and hospital outpatient departments. Treatment regimens are as complex, if not more so, than regimens given in the inpatient setting a few short years ago. Oncology nurses are on the front-lines of the provision of quality cancer care for individuals with cancer. Nurses are involved in the care of a cancer patient from the beginning through the end of treatment. Oncology nurses are the front-line providers of care by administering chemotherapy, managing patient therapies and side-effects, working with insurance companies to ensure that patients receive the appropriate treatment, provide counseling to patients and family members, in addition to many other daily acts on behalf of cancer patients.

With an increasing number of people with cancer needing high quality health care coupled with an inadequate nursing workforce, our nation could quickly face a cancer care crises of serious proportion with limited access to quality cancer care, particularly in traditionally underserved areas. Without an adequate supply of nurses there will not be enough qualified oncology nurses to provide the quality cancer care to a growing population of people in need. I was proud to support the passage of the ``Nurse Reinvestment Act'' in the 107th Congress. This important piece of legislation, signed into law by President Bush, expanded and implemented programs at HRSA to address the multiple problems contributing to the nationwide nursing shortage, including the decline in nursing student enrollments, shortage of faculty, and dissatisfaction with nurse workplace environments.

I commend Luana Lamkin and the Oncology Nursing Society for all of their hard work to prevent and reduce suffering from cancer and to improve the lives of those 1.3 million Americans who will be diagnosed with cancer in 2003. I wish Luana and the Oncology Nursing Society the best of luck in all of their endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in utter astonishment at my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Here we are today with a plan before us that has the potential to create 1.2 million jobs by the end of next year, a plan that would raise the total value of the stock market by at least $550 billion, a plan that has the ability to help small businesses invest in more equipment and expand operations, a plan that would guarantee working families more of what they earn through increases in the child tax credit and further reductions in their overall income tax rates.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are trying to block it.

I wonder if the small business owners in their home towns would disagree with them if they knew they did not want them to be able to buy that extra piece of equipment or keep a little more of their profit so that they could hire an extra person. I wonder if the single mother of two from their community who is working two jobs just to make ends meet would ask them to support this package so that they could provide her with a little extra spending money for food and clothes and rent. And I wonder if their neighbors, who are trying to save for their children's education and their retirement, would want them to support this pro-growth package that would increase the value of their 401(k)s.

Their questions are the same as mine: Why do they oppose job creation? Why do they want to stop businesses from becoming productive and growing their operations? And why do they think they can spend working families' money better than the families themselves?

Mr. Speaker, it is a clear choice before us today. We can complain, we can bury our heads in the sand and do nothing, pretending that we do not need to inject some lifeblood into this economy, or we can look to the future and understand that right now we have the opportunity and the obligation to create jobs and grow this economy.

Let us get on with it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in his first year in office, President Bush has put his MBA to the test and he has passed with very high marks. Through a recession, a terrorist attack and a war, the President has amply demonstrated leadership, helping businesses and their workers pull through some pretty tough times. The President and House Republicans understand a simple concept: When America works, America prospers. And the best way to foster that prosperity is by giving businesses the tools they need to create jobs and to grow the economy. Government does not tax things. Government taxes people. When workers and business owners are not allowed to keep the money they earn, productivity suffers, wages decline and research and development gets postponed. That is why the President's jobs and growth plan is so vital, because one American out of work is too many. When America works, America grows. When America works, America prospers. And when America works, America is proud.

Let us get to work along with the President, exert some leadership and get this country back to work.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 221 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 221 is a structured but fair rule providing for

the consideration of H.R. 1261, the Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act of 2003. This rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. After general debate, it will be in order to consider only the amendments printed in the report accompanying this resolution, by the Member designated and debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent.

In total, this rule makes eight amendments in order, three offered by Republican Members and five offered by Democrat Members.

Finally, the rule permits the minority a motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

The rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report.

Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest experiences for a Member of Congress is when we can acknowledge that a particular policy or plan that we have passed has been successful. Today is one of those times as we reauthorize the landmark 1998 Workforce Investment Act. In 1998, Congress passed the Workforce Investment Act to reform the Nation's job training system. At that time it was fragmented, duplicative and ineffective to both job seekers and employers. The path from unemployment to a job was long and winding and treacherous and often led to a dead end. There were many areas for improvement and we found them. What followed was a plan that consolidated and integrated employment and training services at the local level in a more unified work force development system. Today we can clearly see the positive results.

For example, if we take a snapshot view of the program from 2000 to 2001 we see 1.1 million individuals receiving intensive training from programs and services offered and millions more accessing self-service job listings and placement assistance through the one-stop centers and 82 percent of unemployed workers finding a job, up from 76 percent the previous year, increased employment rates for low-income adults rising from 69 percent to 76 percent, and higher diploma attainment rate for youth jumping from 35 percent to 54 percent. What a wonderful accomplishment. Few can dispute this evidence of success. Few can discount the millions of lives that have been changed with greater independence and greater self-worth.

So today we will build upon these achievements and pass the Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act of 2003.

First, in this plan Congress goes even further in streamlining bureaucracy. Finding a new or better job is no small task, and workers will welcome few barriers allowing them to take full advantage of the employment assistance.

Second, the package strengthens essential components such as adult education with vital reading and math skills. An adult education system should focus on improving results for those most in need of help, those who have already been left behind who have not attained the core skills that they need. By improving adults' basic reading and math skills and providing limited English proficiency lessons, this plan goes even further in equipping workers with tools and training necessary to enter the 21st century workforce.

This bill also enhances the landmark flexibility and local involvement that Congress provided to States and communities in the 1998 law. More duplicative programs and services have been identified and consolidated, saving money and precious resources. State and local officials receive even more flexibility to target Federal resources toward the unique needs of their own communities.

Finally, reauthorizing this plan helps strengthen America's economy by helping more workers find better jobs. The One-Stop Career Center system that provides job training and career information gives workers a necessary bridge to rejoin the workforce or retraining for better jobs. Such services are immeasurable and an investment into America's workforce.

Tomorrow this body will consider a jobs and growth package aimed at stimulating businesses and better jobs. Tomorrow we consider how to create new jobs. But today we consider how to strengthen the worker, how to equip the worker with the knowledge and the skills needed to succeed in those new jobs. An unlimited supply of jobs would not do America's economy any good without a qualified worker for each and every one of them. Strengthening America's economy requires both good jobs and good workers, and today I ask my colleagues to remember that when considering this bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), a member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

(Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness and the man who has earned the nickname of the Father of One-Stop Career Centers.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from the great State of Ohio (Mr. Boehner), chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

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

Mr. Speaker, we do not have any other speakers on the floor. There may be more coming; but if the gentleman is prepared, we can close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

(Mr. SHADEGG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, we are reserving our time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.

In conclusion, this is a fair rule which allows us to move on to the task at hand, strengthening the workforce and equipping the worker with the knowledge and skills needed to succeed.

As I said earlier, an unlimited supply of jobs would not do our economy much good without workers to fill those positions. Strengthening America's economy requires both good jobs and good workers; and today, we are focused on the worker.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle would pick this apart and stand in the way of progress for America's workers. Nothing new. We see it today, we will see it tomorrow, but I ask my colleagues to put America's workers first, support this rule, and pass the Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to get right to the point, we have an economy today that is flat on its back. The national unemployment rate has hit an 8-year low at 6 percent. Manufacturing has dipped to historic lows, causing inventories to decline. While worker productivity may be on the rise, more and more employees are logging in 3 hours less every day. In the past 2 years, the Nasdaq has fallen over 60 percent.

Americans are out of work, and those with jobs are seeing their 401(k)s and retirement savings dwindle by the day. What this economy needs, Mr. Speaker, is what we would call in Ohio a Buckeye boost.

We know what the problem is, an investor-led sluggishness, that is stifling growth, new capital demand, and job creation. And we have the right solution.

That formula for success begins with the understanding that government does not earn a profit. Government just does not earn a profit. Government does not create the jobs in this economy. Government can only stand in the way of progress and prosperity.

So House Republicans have developed a common sense plan that targets the twin pillars of economic growth, consumers and small businesses. Let us talk about consumers first. It might surprise the average American to know that he or she comprises three-fourths of economic activity in this country. That is right. Consumer spending on goods and services represents 75 percent of the entire economy.

Think about that for a minute. That is why Republicans place such emphasis on returning power and income back to the hands of the individual taxpayer. Because when they have the money, they spend it on their needs and their family's needs, and that grows the economy.

So our plan accelerates income tax relief for every American who pays taxes. We give a little extra help for married couples struggling to make ends meet by eliminating the extra taxes they pay just for saying ``I do.'' I do not know about others, but I have never seen the tax man leave a wedding gift when he confiscates the extra taxes from married couples every April 15.

Additionally, our plan expands the child tax credit for families, giving parents an extra $1,000 to help raise their child and pay the bills. Finally, the onerous AMT continues to push more and more families into higher tax brackets. Our plan will save nearly 10 million Americans from paying more. That is real relief.

Let us talk about small businesses for a moment. Now the second and perhaps the most important part of this package is small businesses. Nine out of 10 jobs in your neighborhoods and communities were created by small businesses. That local entrepreneur who wanted to take a risk and open their own business is the reason jobs are created and this economy grows.

Republicans feel it is important to help that small business owner whenever we can. Our business expensing

provisions are just what the doctor ordered. Every business owner I talked to in Columbus, Ohio, tells me how important these expensing deductions are because when we lower costs, we free up income. That lets us businesses make investments elsewhere.

How often do we forget that over 23 million small business owners pay taxes at the personal rates, not the lower corporate tax rates. Did you ever wonder where the Democrats come up with these bogus numbers for the ``super rich'' and then they wage class warfare with these numbers? The dirty little secret they hope Americans do not realize is that most of these super wealthy people are actually small business owners.

Finally, the capital gains and dividends relief provisions in this package are an economist's dream come true. History is on our side. Every time this Congress has reduced the capital gains rate in this country, the economy has grown and revenues into Washington have increased. Conversely, every time we have raised the rate in order to tax businesses more and reduce the deficit, the opposite has happened. It is a simple economic truism. If you want more of something, tax it less.

So the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the Committee on Ways and Means have developed a revolutionary idea to tax both dividends and capital gains less. This provision alone is projected to produce 400,000 new jobs and boost the stock market by as much as $550 billion. That is what I call a return on investment.

Mr. Speaker, we have failed the American taxpayer and the American worker if we do not first commit in this body to do our level best to create more and better-paying jobs, and that is what we have done. Taken together, this package will produce 1.2 million new jobs in a little more than a year.

In contrast, our opponents' plan pledges more spending and more unemployment checks, but no new jobs. There is not one guarantee for any new job under their plan because they raise taxes on individuals and businesses 1 year after they lower them.

So the next time Members hear of soaking the rich or reverse Robin Hood, just ask our opponents if their constituents would prefer 1.2 million new jobs or none with an unemployment check. The choice is clear.

This economy has one obstacle standing between historic levels of growth and a jobless recovery. That is meaningful tax relief. As Members, we can choose to do something about it, to make bold decisions for a bold recovery. Or we can sit on the sidelines, wring our hands, and hope, like the Democrats, that things get better on their own.

Mr. Speaker, the American people did not send us here to be potted plants. We came to change the course of history, to make this country a better place to live, work and raise a family, and that is what I intend to do.

Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows:

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio: Committee on Rules. House Resolution

221. Resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R.

1261) to enhance the workforce investment system of the

Nation by strengthening one-stop career centers, providing

for more effective governance arrangements, promoting access

to a more comprehensive array of employment, training, and

related services, establishing a targeted approach to serving

youth, and improving performance accountability, and for

other purposes (Rept. 108-92). Referred to the House

Calendar.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, my home State of Ohio is one of a dozen States that is facing a real crisis in health care. Simply put, doctors are leaving and patients are suffering. One by one, facilities are closing their doors, retiring early, and not performing various procedures because, simply put, they cannot afford the insurance. The result is a pending perfect storm, where all of the converging factors meet to create utter and total chaos.

Among Ohio physicians surveyed last year, 96 percent expressed serious concerns about the impact of rising liability insurance. Seventy-two percent in high-risk specialties said insurance premiums have affected their willingness to perform procedures, and 34 percent have admitted that they have to order more tests, perform more procedures, and practice defensive medicine just to protect themselves. But as a result, health care costs soar. In Ohio alone, there is story upon story of doctors retiring early or leaving the State just because of liability premiums.

Take Brian Bachelder, who had to stop practicing obstetrics this year because he simply could not afford it. As a result, his patients, many of whom had trouble just paying for the gas to get to their appointment with him, will now have to travel 50 or 65 miles further for prenatal care. Or take Dr. Romeo Diaz, whose patients had to actually chip in and raise $40,000 to cover his increased premiums. All of this scrimping and saving for a doctor who had not had a malpractice claim filed in over 10 years.

America's health care system is quickly approaching the eye of a perfect storm, a world without doctors. They are becoming increasingly hard to find in so many places; and even worse, when you find one, they often cannot help. Their hands are tied.

Far too many Americans are unable to find a doctor to deliver a baby, to perform a surgery, or to provide trauma care necessary to save a loved one's life.

Mr. Speaker, Congress needs to act today and pass a medical liability reform plan that keeps our doctors practicing, alleviates patients' suffering, and restores medical justice to this system.

Madam Speaker, as we celebrate 200th birthday of the great State of Ohio, I am proud to stand up here today to share with the American people why my home state of Ohio deserves a grand celebration and widespread recognition.

The name ``Ohio'' can be traced to the Native American word meaning ``great'' that was first used to describe the powerful river that marks our southern border. It was known as the Old Northwest at a time when Americans had no understanding of how vast our land truly was. This area drew independent and daring people of all walks of life who were in search of a new beginning. These pioneers picked up their life and settled on the beautiful river, fertile soil, rolling hills, and the lakes that felt like oceans.

There they founded a new state built on principles much unlike those in the other 16 states back in 1803. The State of Ohio would go on to lead the nation in public education by being the first to open its doors to women and African Americans. It would nurture some of the best American inventors, including the Wright Brothers, and boost eight of its citizens to the Presidency. Ohioans aspire to do great things and know no limits--just ask two of the world's most famous astronauts, Ohioans Neil Armstrong and Senator John Glenn.

Ohio has traditionally been a vanguard in the fight for opportunities and rights for women, and it recognized nationally for its leadership role in several major reform movements such as temperance, anti- slavery, and women's rights. Ohio played an important role in freeing the slaves, using the underground railroad to bring them to safety in the North. In fact, Ohio contributed more of its population to the Union Army than any other state.

Ohio Governor Bob Taft recently kicked off an eight month celebration of Ohio's 200th anniversary. These festivities allow all Ohioans to take part in understanding our state's history and marking it in their own special way.

I, along with my fellow Ohioans, am proud to salute our great state that has made an immeasurable contribution to the lives of all who know it as home, as well as our nation. Please join me in celebrating Ohio's Bicentennial to reflect on our state's proud heritage and abundant history. Happy Birthday, Ohio!

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 69 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 69 is an appropriate and fair rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2003.

This rule provides for a total of 2 hours of general debate in the House with 50 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means, 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and finally, 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

After general debate, the rule makes in order two substitute amendments: the substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos); and the substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), both of which are printed in the report of the Committee on Rules and debatable for 40 minutes each, equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, as well as against the amendments printed in the report. Finally, the rule permits the minority to offer a motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, 7 years ago many of us stood in this very Chamber surrounded by skeptical glares and wary eyes as we began debate on the historic welfare reform package. The day was August 1, 1996. It was also payday for many Americans. And on that day, 14 million welfare recipients cashed a paycheck for which they had not worked.

Mr. Speaker, 14 million people received money from the American taxpayers in exchange for no work, no questions asked, no strings, no requirements, no obligation to produce or demonstrate the slightest bit of productivity to our communities and to our society. Such was the nature of our welfare system 7 years ago.

Now, this may have seemed unfair to the taxpayers; but it was doubly unfair to the welfare recipients trapped in generational cycles of poverty and hopelessness. But on that day in 1996, Congress passed one of the most historic reform bills ever, one that truly made the American dream a reality for millions of Americans previously without hope. But these reforms were not passed without a fight.

There were claims that the landmark plan would drive poor families into the streets. And there were shouts that children would be left starving, and cries that single mothers would be forced to neglect their families. But now, 7 years later, we see a very different picture of what welfare reform has done. The predictions of doom and gloom have not been realized. Quite to the contrary, welfare caseloads have fallen from 14 million to 5 million. Over 3 million children have been lifted out of poverty.

Black child poverty rates have hit a record low, and the poverty rate among Hispanics has seen its largest decrease in history. In addition to these tremendous statistics, perhaps the biggest achievement of welfare reform is the way in which these reforms have promoted self- sufficiency and empowered so many men and women.

Welfare reform has given Americans a chance to work and the means to do it by placing a high value on the contributions of each and every person in society. It assumes that every person has some talent, some knowledge, some skill, some individual uniqueness to contribute. It assumes that each man and woman who is physically and mentally capable can and should be, even in the slightest discernible way, a productive part of our communities.

The benefits are twofold. Not only are our communities strengthened by the additional contributions, but these men and women, who were formerly trapped in a cycle of dependency, have now established a real sense of accomplishment and independence. Today we have a tremendous opportunity to build on these successes.

As I proceed to describe this legislation, I expect it will sound very familiar. That is because less than a year ago in this very Chamber this Congress approved the same plan, updated simply for time.

While I have the honor and distinction of introducing this legislation on behalf of the House, it is really the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas), the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin), the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner), the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), and many others who have worked long hours to craft a bill that empowers individuals, protects children, and strengthens families.

Their committees have vetted this language over and over in dozens of hearings and markups. After already exhausting the committee process last year, we have brought this plan straight to the floor at the commencement of the new Congress, as the first major piece of legislation out of the hopper. That is how strongly we believe in this plan. The reforms of 1996 have expired. They expired September last year. We cannot afford to wait.

First of all, this package provides $16.6 billion for the Temporary Assistance of Needy Families, commonly known as TANF, as a block grant, which was created in the 1996 reform. Funding this block grant goes directly to State-designed programs to help move more welfare recipients into productive jobs. Yet 58 percent of welfare recipients are not participating in work activities yet, and that is not acceptable.

It continues to cost taxpayers money, but worse still, it stifles the recipients' ability to achieve true self-sufficiency. Therefore, this package calls for increasing the work-related activity requirements from the current 50 percent to 70 percent by fiscal year 2008.

Next, this plan offers parents and families the tools and resources they need to secure a job, achieve independence and strengthen families. By providing access to reliable, high-quality child care, recipients will have peace of mind knowing that their child is safe as they train for, find, and keep a stable job.

Children are our future, and we cannot settle for second-rate care. So in addition to the $4.8 billion funding already in place, this package provides an extra $2 billion. With these dollars comes greater flexibility for States, which will now be able to transfer 50 percent of their share of TANF to child care instead of the current 30 percent.

We all know that training and education are the backbone of advancing

one's professional opportunities. So while 24 of the 40 hours must be spent in actual work, the remaining 16 hours may be defined by States and can include training and education. And up to 4 months during a 24- month period can be counted towards State work requirements if the individual is engaged in education or training that will lead to work.

Finally, the plan gives unprecedented flexibility to States by establishing broad, new State flex authority that is enthusiastically supported by our Nation's governors, and it will really give them the tools they need.

Mr. Speaker, welfare recipients do not want a handout. They do not want a life-style of dependence. They do not want a system that offers only a one-way ticket to poverty. American families want to live the American dream. They want the chance to build strong and prosperous lives and they want to offer brighter futures to their loved ones. Therefore, it is my hope that we can silence the grumbles that echoed through this Chamber back in 1996 and build on the successes we have had thus far.

Fostering independence through work, empowering families and lifting more Americans out of poverty are at the core of this reform package, just as they were in 1996. The empirical evidence of the past 7 years quite adequately demonstrates the success so far.

So let us tune out the protests. The shouts, cries and pleas of the naysayers in 1996 were myths then and they are myths now.

To my colleagues who may hesitate to support this rule for partisan reasons, I invite you to take a good look at where we were 7 years ago and where we have come today. You will find hundreds of children and families in each of your districts that are better off now than they were 7 years ago. They are working. They are proud. They are teaching their children about the dignity of having a job and the honor of providing for a family.

Mr. Speaker, a check in the mail every month will not teach responsibility, it will not build confidence, and it will not break the cycle of dependency and poverty. But it will if they have a job. It will provide a sense of accomplishment, a sense of accomplishment for a job well done. And it will provide the means to achieve the American dream. A check in the mail for a hard month's work will open up the doors of opportunity and offer all Americans an endless supply of pride and self-worth for generations to come.

I urge this body to adopt this rule and approve H.R. 4.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to respond briefly, because child care is very important to me too. I think it is probably one of the most important pieces of this legislation.

This bill gives the governors in every State the ability to shift more of the TANF funding into child care. We not only put an additional $2 billion more into child care, we allow the governors to take the TANF funds and spend from 30 percent, which is the maximum allowed now, to now 50 percent of the TANF funds can shift into child care.

So it is very important that this body understands the funds are there, and it is within the purview of the governors to allow it to be spent for child care. I think that that extra flexibility is very important, and we are happy to have provided that.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the governors will be allowed to use the funds that the Federal Government is giving them to provide for child care, and that is a good thing.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, in response, the fact that this bill did not go through the committee process is totally unfounded. This bill was vetted and there were hearings held and there were committee markups, both in the House and the Senate. There were task forces. There was so much work done on this bill, and it took so long; we passed it with bipartisan, very wide bipartisan support, and we sent it to the other body. There was no action at that time.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford to waste that amount of time again. We have to get this done. It has already expired. We need to reauthorize the welfare reform provisions and improve upon them. So much success has happened, we need to continue the momentum and allow the families, the children, the men and women, to rise out of poverty, give them the tools that they need; and that is exactly what this bill does.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I ask my colleagues just to look back at the welfare reforms of 1996 and to remind them how far we have come, how far the poverty-stricken people in this Nation have come.

Today, we will find children and families in every one of our districts better off now than they were 7 years ago. We have reduced the welfare rolls. They continue to drop even in these tough times. Our welfare rolls are continuing to drop, even as unemployment may rise.

H.R. 4 builds on these efforts to further protect our children, to strengthen our families, to increase States' flexibility, and to continue the decline in poverty.

Mr. Speaker, it has often been said that the best social program is a job. This legislation provides the needed tools for them to move from welfare to work. There is no reason to stall any longer. This bill has expired. We cannot let it go any longer. We need to pass this rule today, we need to pass this bill today. Stall tactics are over.

Today is the day. We have a very important thing to do for this country, and we should get on with it. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Republican Conference, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 33) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, it is with tremendous pride that I offer this resolution, which congratulates the Ohio State Buckeyes on their historic win against the Miami Hurricanes in claiming the 2002 Division 1-A national collegiate football championship.

Mr. Speaker, the Buckeyes steadily rose through the national rankings this year under

the unwavering leadership of their second year head coach, Jim Tressel. Starting the season ranked an unlucky 13th, the Buckeyes kept winning and winning, ending up the regular season by beating archrival Michigan 14-9, remaining undefeated and ranked 2nd in the country.

Their record earned Ohio State a trip to Tempe, Arizona to play in the Bowl Championship Series national championship game against the Miami Hurricanes, a game in which the Buckeyes entered as an 11 point underdog.

In that national championship game, ultimately decided in double overtime Ohio State emerged victorious with their offense scoring 31 points and their defense holding Miami for four downs on the two yard line as time expired to win the game. Critics and sportswriters have already called this game arguably the greatest college football game ever played.

The Buckeyes found a breathtaking way to end an equally dramatic season.

From their fourth-down play successes to their 8 come-from-behind victories, Ohio State showed their hearts on the field and won a record setting 14 victories.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take a moment to recognize Coach Tressel, who is in his second year as the Head Coach of the Ohio State Buckeyes. Coach Tressel's stoic, disciplinarian, and consistent style of leadership has restored the Buckeye team to its rightful place among the nation's elite college programs. And, in the process, Coach Tressel has instantly joined coaches Woody Hayes and Paul Brown in the annals of Ohio State's proud athletic history. In two short seasons, Coach Tressel has demonstrated that winning is innate--whether at Division 1- AA (Division 1 double A) Youngstown State or the Ohio State University.

However, the 2002 Buckeye team was perhaps best personified by junior quarterback Craig Krenzel. The consistently under-rated Krenzel, a molecular genetics major carrying a 3.7 GPA, displayed a grit and toughness equal to his intellect by scoring two dramatic touchdowns, leading both teams in rushing yards, and earning the Fiesta Bowl's MVP honor.

Ohio State football history and tradition are the bedrock of Columbus, Ohio--from The Best Damn Band in the Land, the Dotting of the I in Script Ohio to the Horseshoe, Skull Sessions and Hineygate, Ohio State fans are ever mindful of the University's storied past.

Both with and without tickets, some 60,000 adoring OSU faithful traveled to Tempe to cheer on their Buckeyes, coloring Sun Devil Stadium in a sea of scarlet and gray, and giving the Buckeyes a home field advantage some 2000 miles away from Columbus.

As a graduate of The Ohio State University, I take enormous pride in the Ohio State football team's sportsmanship and courage. The Buckeyes showed the world the definition of champions. Their preparation, fortitude, and desire will go down in the history of athletic competition as an example of triumph in the face of adversity. I could not be more pleased to be a fan, alumna, and Representative of The Ohio State University and their championship football team.