Floor Statements

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

Madam Speaker, I see the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce is in the Chamber. I want to give him initially a compliment. That committee has had a number of hearings. I believe the gentleman has wrestled with this issue, and I believe he has come up with a deeply flawed solution, but I give him credit for an initial effort.

Now on the other hand the chairman deserves much rebuke for tolerating the process that is unfolding here.

Madam Speaker, getting pension funding fixed, getting this done correctly is a technically exacting proposition with enormous risks because if we miss the mark, pension plans are going to terminate. Pension plans are going to freeze. Millions of workers will lose their pension coverage. This is not a Republican thing, it is not a Democrat thing. Trying to get this right ought to be a shared purpose, and so how dare you participate in a process that does not give us a substitute? Your way is not the only reasonable way. Reasonable minds differ here. There are issues that we put forward in our substitute that were important for consideration by this body.

The legislative process ought to be run with a fundamental fairness that allows the consideration of various issues. There are a lot of important constituencies watching this debate, and I want them to know that the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce complicit with the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee complicit with the majority leadership of this body worked to shut down the process, to shut out the consideration of other views, to present only their way or the highway as an ultimate resolution of this issue.

I firmly believe that healthy pension plans today will terminate or freeze their benefits for other workers going forward, because I believe this is a deeply flawed proposal, and I know there has been an effort to pick a group here and pick a group there and make a compromise here and make a compromise there, but the core of the bill is rotten and we could have had a much better result. Shame on you for depriving us of our alternative. Defeat this rule.

Mr. Speaker, there are two major problems with this bill. The first is that it costs $70 billion and the costs are not paid for, not offset anywhere. It drives the deficit deeper.

Last week, this Chamber voted to deal with the AMT 1-year fix, $31 billion. The majority voted to pass a budget reconciliation that added another $56 billion in deficit. This adds an additional $70 billion in deficit. $177 billion in deeper deficits.

You know, it is Christmastime. People are thinking what to give their children. Well, the majority seems intent on giving them quite a present indeed, $177 billion deeper deficit going on top of $8 trillion of debt.

The second aspect of this bill that I want to point out is that it is deeply flawed pension policy, and it will cause the cancellation, freezing of thousands of plans affecting millions of workers.

Do not take my word for it. This is the estimate of the chief investment officers in an organization known as CIVA. They estimate that if this bill passes, 60 percent of the plans will freeze. Frozen plans mean frozen benefits. And we do not know, the rest may freeze as well. They conclude: ``These proposals would have long-term consequences for current and future workers with the potential to damage the retirement security of millions of Americans.'' Potential to damage the retirement security of millions of Americans.

We have seen this story before. This is a group that worked for months to privatize Social Security, take away that monthly dependable income our seniors enjoy. Well, they failed on that one. Now they are after pensions, and without question this will dismantle pensions in the very same way they tried to dismantle Social Security.

Now, several groups are for this bill. Why? Well, airlines are so desperate for a fix they are arguing for this bill even though it has no provisions for airlines. I was stunned when the chairman announced in a colloquy his lines of communication are open. Well, Mr. Chairman, people have been calling. Airlines have been calling. Hello. Advocates for airlines, worrying about their workers have been calling. Hello, Northwest Airlines has been calling. Hello. Delta Airlines, calling. Hello. No answer. No answer from the majority. And so someone that supports an airline urged to vote for this bill when the provision is utterly left out, it makes no sense. You do not help airlines with this proposal. The Democrats had an alternative that had airline relief in it. It was not even allowed for consideration.

You think you are going to be treated fairly in conference committee. The administration opposes airline relief. The chairman has spoken out against airline relief. There is nothing in the bill for airline relief. They are hoping against hope that something will be done. They deserve so much more than that.

I believe that this bill is deeply flawed pension policy. It will hurt workers. Vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be able to participate in this discussion. I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I also thank the gentlewoman for struggling with the Hidatsa pronunciation of Sakakawea, when most across the Nation learned the Shoshone pronunciation Sacajawea. I think the sensitivity you showed to our feelings that it is the Hidatsa pronunciation that ought to be applicable is really representative of the kind of sensitivity you have shown to our concerns throughout this entire matter.

As far as that goes, I want to really commend my colleague from Delaware, Mike Castle. I commend also the ranking member, Barney Frank, for taking what was clearly set up to be a win-lose proposition, with the losers being those who really are proud of the Sakakawea coin, a coin representing the first Native American woman ever to grace a United States coin, a coin that we think also reflects honor and celebration of the bicentennial of the Lewis & Clark Expedition which opened up the north and west, and so we felt very strongly that the Mint had made the right decision moving the dollar coin forward with Sakakawea, and we were concerned about this coming to an end.

As we worked this through, this win-lose proposition became something that I now view much more favorably as a win-win proposition. I think the gentleman from Delaware has it right when he says that the introduction of the Presidents may spark a whole new interest in the dollar coin itself; and working together, we have been able to ensure that Sakakawea will continue to be on part of those coins.

As to in the end what is a right percentage or should there be a directed percentage, all I would say is we have worked in the end well on this matter, and I will pledge my commitment to continuing to work to make sure that this achieves the ends we all want: a dollar coin more popularly accepted; recognition of our Presidents; a popular collector's item for school children; and continued prominence of the Sakakawea coin in circulation in this country.

I think that in the end this has been for me a very satisfying legislative experience, and I commend the principals for making it so. Certainly, I think that you could have pursued this another way; and really, gosh, if we could do this more often around here on other issues, I think we would get a lot more done.

I also want to take the opportunity at the podium just to recognize Chairman Oxley. As someone with a former background as an insurance commissioner, I have a deep interest in the matters of the Financial Services Committee, and the chairman's serving as the first chairman of this new committee with its broader reach of jurisdiction than the old banking committee, I think you have set a very high bar of leadership and integrity and fair-mindedness, and we have enjoyed your service in that regard. I look forward to working with you next year as you continue to serve out your chairmanship.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to add my voice to the praise of a remarkable man--one of the most effective legislators ever to grace the Halls of Congress--the gentleman from Michigan, John Dingell.

Today we celebrate his 50 years in the U.S. Congress. I feel extremely fortunate to have had the chance to observe John Dingell as one of the most powerful Chairmen of the House and for the last decade a canny Ranking Member, influential by any measure.

If there would ever be a Hall of Fame for Members of Congress, John Dingell would be admitted on the first ballot.

I consider it a great privilege to have had the chance to learn from a person of such enormous talent, dedication and perservance.

John Dingell has been steadfast in fighting for the rights and interests of ordinary Americans. He has been unrelenting in his willingness to take on any interest--no matter how powerful--as he has stood up for all who needed such a gifted and forceful champion.

I hope John Dingell will celebrate many more anniversaries of distinguished service in the House as his tenure continues.

He is a national treasure and we need him now more than ever.

Best wishes John Dingell. I am proud to be your colleague--prouder yet to be your friend. God bless you.

Mr. Speaker, much of the rhetoric coming from the majority in defense of this sinful package is pure fiction. So let us discuss it in those terms. You know, Charles Dickens has written perhaps one of the most famous pieces of fiction discussed at this time of year, the holiday season, A Christmas Carol. The lesson of Christmas Carol, Scrooge, this miserly man, very, very well fixed financially that chose not to give to others. And we know that in the course of this beautiful story the ghosts of Christmas past help him reflect upon the paucity of his life, and in the end he has a new spirit of community, helping others, including the Cratchett family, with the crippled son, Tiny Tim.

Well, I think that what the majority wants to do is rewrite the Christmas Carol. It is probably going to be titled ``A Christmas Carol II, Revenge of the Scrooge.'' And in this Christmas Carol, Scrooge, sitting in his mansion, contemplating his wealth, wants more. And rather than be challenged as to the paucity of his inclination, we have a Republican majority, bought and paid for, that is all too eager to placate the most selfish whim of Mr. Scrooge.

And so, as the story unfolds, there is more and more for Scrooge, and taking, from the very beginning, a low base, less and less for Mr. Cratchett who loses his job when it is outsourced overseas, tries to find something at minimum wage which has not been raised since 1997, and Tiny Tim, Tiny Tim is left out all together.

Let us ask ourselves some basic questions about this. After passing a $31 billion tax reduction yesterday out of this House, do we really want to add an additional $56 billion without having it paid for?

Look at this. This shows that we are north of $8 trillion in accumulated debt, that the average share is $27,000 of debt per American.

You know, another Christmas story talks about naughty children getting a lump of coal in their stocking. Well, this majority gives every child $27,000 of debt, debt that will fall on their shoulders when the baby boomers retire with this debt woefully unpaid.

The second question, do we need it? You know about half of this package today, for all the talk about how desperately it is needed, does not take effect until 2009 and 2010. Existing Tax Code makes the very provision that they are talking about in 2006, in 2007 and in 2008. It is there for the next 3 years. They are talking about driving us deeper in debt today, cutting programs that help people today so that we can deal with something that happens in 2009 and 2010.

Next question. Is it fair? Well, in looking at who gets what under this bill, you know, most of the people in this country, 55 percent, earn less than $40,000. They will come out on average $7, $7 per under this dividend and tax cut provision. One out of 500, one out of 500 taxpayers, the most affluent of the 500, one out of 500 get nearly half of this bill. And they will average, per taxpayer, more than $30,000 back. So in this Christmas season, we are hammering on programs that help those who need help.

We are passing a tax package that gives nothing, virtually, to most under this capital gains dividend tax cut provision, and we are absolutely loading it up for the wealthiest few in this country. This is Christmas Carol II. This is Revenge of the Scrooge. This is totally bad policy, and it must be stopped.

I urge a no vote on this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The preceding speaker on the Republican side said we have got to pass this, we have got to continue the pro-growth policies. She was talking specifically as she referenced capital gains and dividends. Well, the fact is the very tax cuts that she is talking about remain in place. They are in existing law for 2006, for 2007, for 2008. Doing nothing keeps the very provisions she was hyperventilating about just a moment ago.

But what is the matter then? If we got them and we got them through 2008, why not kick them out through 2009 and 2010? This is the reason. This is the national debt. This fall it went north of $8 trillion.

I brought this chart to illustrate what a huge burden we are racking up for our children. This averages out to $27,000 of debt per person. And in this environment, the majority in bringing this bill to the floor today after yesterday's vote will be passing $87 billion in additional tax cuts that are not paid for.

Alan Greenspan has got some words of caution on this. He was quoted in November saying, We should not be cutting taxes by borrowing. Well, when they do not pay for their tax cuts, they are basically borrowing, leaving the debt to our children to offset the funding of these tax cuts, just what Greenspan warns against.

Earlier in the month of December, just last week, he says, An expected deficit casts an ever larger shadow over the growth of living standards. In the end, the consequences for the U.S. economy could be severe.

The dirty little secret in this budget reconciliation plan is that it increases borrowing authority for this country nearly $1 trillion, from 750 to $780 billion of additional debt they will be authorizing to fund the tax cuts that they want to commence.

As they talk about growth, don't believe it. They would not have to increase the borrowing limit to this country if this all worked. They are adding to the debt to pass tax cuts disproportionately for the wealthiest.

Mr. Speaker, today's House debate on Iraq was sharply partisan and not what our soldiers deserve. Our future course in Iraq must be determined thoughtfully and strategically. The partisan shouting match that broke out was unnecessarily launched by House leaders who rushed to the floor a flawed resolution which was more of a political stunt than a serious reflection of views in the Congress.

Our brave soldiers have put their lives on the line in serving in Iraq. Each of them deserves so much more from Congress by way of effective leadership than the shrill squabbling that broke out on the House floor today. We need to come together on an exit strategy for our soldiers based upon the transition of security to the Iraqis themselves in order to give the new democratic government of the people of Iraq a fair chance of success.

It is my hope the partisan screamers holding forth on the House floor today would lower their voices, travel to the area, learn as much as possible and then participate constructively in the difficult decisions we face on Iraq.

This chart says it all. CBO estimates lower spending on child support program leads to lower collections to the tune of $21 billion. It is truly stunning to me that Republicans in this House would line up together to cut the funds used to collect child support. I just never expected to see them give deadbeat dads a pass, those deadbeat dads who refuse to pay what they owe for the upbringing of their own children.

The majority Members of this body are quick to boast of their support for family values. Well, I ask you this, what kind of family value is it that cuts back on the efforts to make deadbeat dads pay what they owe, when deadbeat dads walk away from their obligations? It won't be you smug in your own comfortable life who will feel the pain. It will be young mothers who can't pay rent. It will be little children whose lives are upended by financial abandonment. For every dollar we spend collecting on child support, we collect more than $4. In North Dakota, that means for every dollar collected, the Federal Government gets $2.78 back in recoveries and costs forgone.

State governments also gain, which is precisely why the Congressional Budget Office has found this to be an unfunded mandate. When Republicans cut child support collections, deadbeat dads win. State governments lose. That is why tonight's proposal is an unfunded mandate and must be stopped.

CBO has estimated by cutting collections $4.9 billion as you do, we lose more than $24 billion in support not collected. That hits children. That hits families. And that hits States which is what makes this an unfunded mandate. Support the effort to stop this unfunded mandate. Support the effort to block this cut in child support enforcement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to recognize the remarkable career of one of the all-time leaders in North Dakota healthcare.

Dick Tschider, CEO of the St Alexius Medical Center in Bismarck, North Dakota, for the past 29 years, is retiring from this position. He has devoted his entire career to this outstanding facility, joining it right out of college, 45 years ago.

We all know about the revolution in health care that has occurred during the last four and a half decades. Under Dick Tschider's leadership, St. Alexius has grown dramatically during this period, and is now recognized throughout the region as one of the premier multi- specialty hospitals in the area.

In fact, when ranked in terms of quality of care and patient safety, it is one of the top 100 hospitals in the entire country. Several aspects of St. Alexius care--notably cardiac care--are exceptional, as determined by the competitive analysis of external reviewers.

It has been my personal and professional privilege to know Dick and work closely with him during the last 20 years as I served as North Dakota's Insurance Commissioner and Congressman. Dick was an exceptional football player and he would throw himself into healthcare reimbursement issues with the zeal and intensity he formerly used against gridiron opponents.

During the years of our working relationship, sometimes we agreed, sometimes we didn't, but we maintained a constructive and productive association throughout all of these years. This relationship led to a very significant achievement for North Dakota in the Medicare Modernization Act passed 2 years ago. Dick and other leading members of the medical community convincingly documented the threat discounted Medicare reimbursements held for healthcare--especially in North Dakota. Senator Conrad, Senator Dorgan and I fought to get an equitable reimbursement adjustment in the Medicare Modernization Act and then worked feverishly to pass the bill which made it by the slimmest margins.

Dick Tschider is an energetic and compassionate man of considerable abilities. Western North Dakota has been fortunate to have someone of his talent and commitment advancing healthcare in our region. I have been fortunate to have him as a friend.

The career of Dick Tschider is an example of leadership and achievement in service to others. I wish him the best in retirement.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize the remarkable service of a remarkable man, Stephen Moseley, on the occasion of his 35th anniversary with the Academy for Educational Development.

In 1987, AED promoted Steve Moseley to be their President and CEO. Since assuming these responsibilities, he continues to provide dynamic, forward-thinking direction to AED, an organization whose global impact has grown beyond measure under Steve Moseley's leadership.

The reach of AED's mission is incredible. They are operating more than 250 programs in more than 150 countries in Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America, the Near East and North America.

Their programs address development of human capacity and opportunity, focused on expanding and improving education, health care, and economic growth.

Indeed, education has always been Mr. Moseley's passion. He has devoted himself to increasing access to education for the world's poorest children, strongly supporting Education for All initiatives to get all children into school and serving as the founding chairman of the Basic Education Coalition.

I will never forget the chance I had to accompany Steve Moseley into the countries of Mali and Ghana to observe the girls' basic education program that AED ran in those countries.

Even as I learned of the substance and success of the programs, I closely watched how Steve interacted with the children whose lives were being uplifted and changed at the chance for schooling AED was providing. The gleam in his eye and the beaming smile on his face conveyed the true personal depth and commitment Steve has brought to this mission.

One village elder described the importance of the AED girls' education program as ``bringing light into a dark room.'' The same could be said for the life work of Steve Moseley. He has brought the light of hope and opportunity to thousands of deserving souls in every corner of this world.

Here in the United States, Mr. Moseley has been dedicated to improving educational quality from preschool through college. He has nurtured efforts to improve Migrant Head Start programs, middle-grade education through the Middle Start project, high schools through the Schools for a New Society project, and teacher training through the Teachers for a New Era initiative.

He is very active in the development community, serving on the boards of InterAction, the U.S. Global Leadership Campaign, the Coalition for American Leadership Abroad, and is a member of the steering committee of the International Educational Training Coalition.

A past president of the Washington Chapter of the Society for International Development, Mr. Moseley now sits on the organization's International Governing Council and serves as its treasurer.

Mr. Moseley graduated with a B.A. in English from the University of Hartford in 1967. In 1989 he was awarded a Doctor of Humane Letters, Honorary Degree, by his alma mater, and in 1997 he was elected to the University of Hartford's Board of Regents.

I am pleased to be able to recognize Steve on this milestone and to honor him for a truly remarkable career with the Academy for Educational Development.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the gentleman's special order and participate in the discussion with my colleagues.

We are watching something extremely unserious unfold with respect to the Nation's balance sheet. We have to understand, as we deal with the budget of this country, we are dealing not just with the matters that are presently before us and will affect the upcoming year, we are literally talking about the future of this country. To the extent we do not pay our way, our kids pick up the difference.

Many of us were terribly concerned when we saw the pre-Hurricane Katrina budget forced through the House, forced through the Senate, yet to be reconciled and passed finally, but it proposed to drive the deficit deeper and in fact that was from a position where the deficit position was the third worst in our Nation's history.

Now the difference in the deficit, and we talk deficit around here, deficit is our annual shortfall. The national debt is what it all amounts to. When we run deficits, we add to the debt. And while we are third worst in the Nation's history in terms of annual deficit, we are absolutely on unchartered ground with the kind of debt we now have, debt approaching $8 trillion.

This would be I believe very alarming by any measure, but a further look shows who owns the debt. The debt held by the public is increasingly owned by central banks of Asian nations. I have heard some Members, some friends of mine from the other side of the aisle say look, I know that is a scary deficit number, but we have had, relative to the size of our economy which is now bigger, we have been worse than this before. I do not think we ought to have the very worst in our country's history as the benchmark against which we compare, but how about the very best in our Nation's history. They try to excuse the scary state we are in by saying it has been worse in terms of real dollar terms compared to GDP.

It has never been this bad. We have never had so much debt owned by foreigners. I am not just talking about Ole and Sven and whomever else across the world, I am talking about central banks controlled by central governments, especially Asia, Japan, and even more by China.

This morning I visited with a former member of the Office of Management and Budget and asked her whether or not we were losing control potentially in the future of our monetary policy as a country, giving up essentially sovereignty of our ability to set interest rates in light of the level of debt owned by foreign governments. She indicated we are heading down that path.

So anything that we talk about in this Chamber that adds to the deficit,

increases the holdings of foreign governments of our national debt and diminishes the sovereignty we have over our own country, this is an extremely alarming situation and that is why I was so adamant against the budget reconciliation proposal being advanced in Congress.

Recently we have had a new chapter in the debate. Majority Members have said my gosh, that Hurricane Katrina was expensive, we have to offset every dollar of relief we are spending on that hurricane. Look, I welcome very much some concerns about spending and deficits and the notion that we might offset some of this stuff, but if we are going to offset, let us look at the total picture. There is nothing about a Nation's balance sheet that treats hurricane debt different from other debt. So if we are going to offset for Hurricane Katrina, let us offset for the war in Iraq, let us offset for tax cuts which deprive the government of revenue and throws us further out of balance. That is not what they are talking about.

In other words, this is window dressing on a scheme that ultimately drives us further into debt. Look at this chart. This chart shows the small bar which is the amount of spending they want to cut while the tall bar shows the depth to which the tax cuts they are including in this package would drive us further into deficit, further into the hands of more Chinese bonds residing in the Chinese government.

We need to do something about this, and it does not start with basically this window dressing on cutting many of the programs so vital to those displaced by the hurricane as an excuse to offset hurricane relief. We need to get serious about getting back to a balanced budget. There are a couple of ideas that I would advance in the concluding part of my remarks.

First, we need to reinstate a requirement given the deficits that we are in that we pay as we go from here. If we are going to take a step that adds further to the deficit, we have to find a way to offset that payment. If we spend more, we have to find a way to offset so we do not drive that deficit deeper. If we pass some tax cuts, we lose some revenue, we have to cut spending so we hold that deficit in balance.

Mr. Speaker, we have had these pay-as-we-go requirements, known as PAYGO, throughout the entire 1990s, and I will tell Members what brought it about. What brought it about was divided government. President Bush won, and the Democratic controlled Congress arrived at pay-as-you-go requirements to bring the budget into balance. President Clinton, dealing with a Republican controlled Congress, had pay-as-you-go requirements to get us to a balanced budget.

Something very, very problematic has happened under united Republican control of the White House, the House and the Senate: They blew away the PAYGO requirements and have added to the deficit like there is no tomorrow, giving us such deep debt problems with the Chinese.

What happens is you get yourself into the deepest deficits you have ever had in the history of the country, which is precisely the problem. What the gentleman means is you do not have to pay for it in this year's budget because your children are going to pay for it down the road as they retire the national debt.

I would just cite a couple of other spending areas that might be cut, and it relates right back to the administration's handling of the hurricane. Just listen to this. You want to cut food stamps, Medicaid, programs that are going to be so vitally important to getting displaced people from the hurricane back on their feet again, but before we go there let us take a look at some of the ways the Republican administration has spent money for hurricane disaster relief: $1,275 per person for a cruise ship that costs only $599 for an actual cruise. What kind of deal is that? Or $15,000 paid for a load of ice that was worth $5,000; $88,000 for mobile classrooms that normally cause $42,000; $59 per hotel room per night for months on end.

And that is not all. The Federal Government paid full retail for trucks, laptop computers, clothing and sleeping bags. Firms have been awarded contracts for millions without competition. Contracts have gone to construction companies that do not even have building licenses.

If we look at how this administration has administered the relief of the hurricane to date, we are going to find all kinds of places to cut spending before starting after programs which are so vitally needed like food stamps, helping displaced families get the groceries they need to feed their children.

The thought that the other side of the aisle would cut these programs while trying to ram through a budget reconciliation package that drives up the national debt because it funds those tax cuts to the most affluent, even while you leave this shameful, wasteful spending totally untouched, this is a package of shame.

I have just learned in the course of our hour that the budget reconciliation amendment will not be brought to the floor tomorrow. Apparently the disarray on the majority side found them short of votes to bring it up tonight. If something fundamentally does not add up, I would hope, and it is high time, there is a debate within the majority conference about it. We need to get serious about controlling the spending. We need to get serious about controlling the deficits. We need to get back on a path that brings us to fiscal sanity.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to say that I will be voting against H.R. 2123. Since its creation in 1965, Head Start has served more than 18.5 million low-income children and has focused and redefined its approach to assisting disadvantaged children in their social, physical and educational growth. While I wholeheartedly support Head Start programs, the legislation under consideration today contains several provisions that would negatively affect these programs.

The bill as amended contains two major flaws. First, the bill contains increased education requirements for Head Start teachers, but does not provide funds to assist teachers with the costs associated with these new requirements. Second, organizations receiving Federal dollars should not be able to discriminate on the basis of religion for employment purposes. The underlying Head Start Act specifically stated that hiring and firing decisions could not be made on the basis of religion, but this provision has been eliminated in this bill.

The bill does include some positive aspects, such as maintaining the Federal to local funding structure, expanding set-asides to migrant and American Indian populations, and increasing outreach to homeless families and foster children. I hope these provisions are retained and the bill is further improved during consideration in the Senate and by a subsequent conference committee before the legislation is enacted.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.

My heart and the hearts of those I represent are with all who have been devastated by Hurricane Katrina. We know a bit about what it is like to have devastating loss in a flood. The City of Grand Forks flooded in 1997. Fifty-seven thousand people were evacuated, but the Federal response was immediate and lives were saved. Here, the Federal response failed and lives were lost. We need to know why.

This is about learning what happened so it never happens again; and no Republican controlled, no congressional, partisan hearing process could ever get to the bottom of it. We need an independent commission. It literally is a matter of life and death, no partisan whitewash. We need an independent commission so we learn what happened so it never happens again. Lives are at stake.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Children's Safety Act of 2005. I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for this legislation and appreciate very much the bipartisan way in which he has worked with me in developing this legislation and in listening to the concerns that I have brought from experiences in our region.

Deviant sexual predators have clearly shown us that sex offenders do not stop at State lines, and neither should our sex offender laws. The Children's Safety Act is a comprehensive, bipartisan child safety bill that brings uniformity to our current sex offender registry system and increases penalties for those who prey upon our children.

The urgent need for a national system is clearly and tragically demonstrated by the case of Dru Sjodin. Dru Sjodin was a lovely young woman, a senior at the University of North Dakota, where she was holding down two jobs. She was an exceptional student, a leader in our community. She was abducted from a shopping center parking lot in broad daylight on a Saturday afternoon nearly 2 years ago.

This type of disappearance never happens in our part of the country, and it traumatized the whole community. Thousands spent weeks trudging through snow banks in the worst weather we ever saw searching for Dru.

Well, 5 months later, her dead body was found in a ravine just outside of Crookston, Minnesota.

It just so happens the investigation has revealed that a recently released Level III sex offender from Minnesota named Alfonso Rodriguez, Jr., was charged with Dru's kidnapping and murder. He was living in Minnesota. We did not know of his existence in North Dakota. He was registered as a sex offender only in the State of Minnesota.

This tragic example illustrates why we have to have a comprehensive response here, a nationwide Internet available, a registry system that families can access. It provides the kind of information in terms of where these high-risk offenders are living, where they are working, going to school, what kind of vehicle they are driving. People need this information to keep their children safe, and that is why I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill and pleased that the chairman has designated in the legislation this registry in memory of Dru Sjodin, the Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender Registry.

The bill also has tough requirements for complying with keeping the registration information current so that the information on there is of value to families. It also has tough sanctions for those who would harm our children and, finally, Federal dollars to assist local police departments in making certain that people are complying with their registry requirements.

I believe that this legislation is a comprehensive response to a significant public policy need, and I urge the adoption of this. Families need this protection.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say that I will be voting against H.R. 3283.

While I too am concerned about China's compliance with its trade commitments and the surge of Chinese imports into the United States, the legislation being considered today is unfortunately a false promise to address those concerns instead of real action that will become law and bring China to the table to correct these problems. In particular, the bill does nothing to address currency manipulation.

I remain strongly supportive of strengthening our trade laws and enforcing the laws we currently have on the books. In particular, I have been supportive of taking action to require cash deposits from new shippers of goods in anti-dumping cases to avoid defaults. This provision affects several domestic industries, and it is certainly important to honey producers in North Dakota and the nation. I hope this provision is passed as a stand-alone bill or included in legislation in the near future that addresses the compliance issues with our trading partners in a meaningful way.

Mr. Speaker, I represent the family farmers of the Red River Valley. They are descendants of the families that broke the prairie of the northern plains and are now raising sugar beets as part of an industry that they have grown with their own sweat and tears. This industry from the farmers to the workers in the processing plants today amounts to an economic impact of $2 billion to $3 billion and nearly 30,000 jobs in our rural region alone.

The CAFTA deal places all of this at risk. It allows sugar to pour in from the CAFTA countries whose wages have no relation to ours, and whose environmental protections in their plants are all but nonexistent. That is just the start, because this will serve as a precedent for any number of trade deals with sugar-producing countries to follow.

Some supporters argue we should not even have a domestic sugar industry anymore, that these farms and these jobs should be sacrificed at the altar of free trade just like so many jobs that have been lost in the flawed trade deals that have gone on before. We are now at the deepest trade deficit in the history of our country. My colleagues, this year we are on track to import more food than we sell. The United States of America. A net food importer.

This has to end. When will it end? When will we decide U.S. jobs are worth fighting for and that the economic hopes and dreams of our families are what we ought to be representing? It should end tonight. Tonight we stand for our constituents, their jobs, their lives, their hopes and dreams of a better life. Tonight we need to defeat this bad trade deal. Let us win one for the American people. Vote ``no'' on