Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the exploitation of children online is a grave and growing threat, both here in the United States and worldwide. By 2005, more than 77 million of our children and teenagers will use the Internet, entering chat rooms and other public online areas, at times instant messaging with strangers ready to prey on our Nation's young people.

Simply put, millions of children and teens are now at risk of abduction or worse. Here's more startling data:

55 percent of children have given their personal information (name, sex, age, etc) over the Internet.

One in ten children has met someone face to face they previously met online.

37 percent of children say their parents would disapprove if they knew what they did, where they went, or with whom they chatted on the Internet.

40 percent of children do not discuss Internet safety with their parents.

In short, the borderless nature of the Internet has allowed sexual predators to stalk innocent children and traffic in child pornography with near impunity.

Fortunately, new technology may provide powerful new weapons in law enforcement's arsenal to combat child exploitation: The Child Exploitation Tracking System, also known as ``CETS.'' CETS is a computer application developed by Microsoft in partnership with Canadian and international law enforcement agencies to help law enforcement tackle the growing problem of online exploitation of children. This application, which will be provided free of charge to law enforcement agencies, can help efforts to collaboratively investigate these crimes and bring criminals to justice.

CETS has been deployed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Canada and can be used by all major law enforcement agencies in Canada involved in child exploitation policing. Discussions between Canadian law enforcement and US law enforcement agencies have already taken place, with the hope of deploying CETS in the United States. This new technology is also supported by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

This technology, combined with our efforts to educate children about risks online, can help reduce the incidence of online child exploitation.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and a ``no'' vote on the rule. The minority has an issue we want to discuss in the course of this budget. That issue is whether or not we should stand by and allow the continued diversion of revenue assessed taxpayers for the specific purpose of Social Security.

Social Security means a lot to me. I have received a Social Security check. I have received that survivors benefit when my dad died. It meant so incredibly much to our family. One in six North Dakotans that I represent, 114,000, get a Social Security check every month. Well over half of North Dakotans pay into Social Security. They say what we have heard all across the country, and that is, ``My Social Security taxes are for Social Security. Don't raid those Social Security dollars.''

Now, of course, given the discussion on this radical overhaul of Social Security, we have the other prospect that these dollars will be taken away from Social Security and placed into private accounts, resulting in either massive additional borrowing to continue Social Security benefits or very draconian budget cuts. Massive additional borrowing or budget cuts if the revenue coming into Social Security is diverted into private accounts.

We think right now is the time to have this discussion. I support so much the amendment brought up by my friend from Colorado (Mr. Salazar), a new Member.

He wants to have this body move immediately to a debate on his amendment which would prohibit the diversion of Social Security money upon our completion of the budget. I think this is a good idea. I would like to hear one reason why we ought not move to discussing this diversion of Social Security money away from the Social Security trust fund, why we should not discuss today the prospects of massive additional Federal borrowing if we divert the Social Security money, why we should not discuss today the Draconian budget cuts that would reduce benefits potentially to people who desperately need them if we divert money that is coming in to pay benefits into private accounts.

There is a lot of explaining to do, in my opinion, for those who are advancing this privatization scheme on Social Security; and I know the Nation would feel an awful lot better, certainly those I represent, if we conduct this debate having first adopted the preservation of Social Security. Let us move to the discussion on how we shore up and maintain and strengthen Social Security, but not in ways that would cause massive additional borrowing, massive benefit cuts.

Vote ``no'' on the previous question. Support this opportunity to debate the Salazar amendment.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding to me and very much appreciate the constructive tone of his debate.

We actually have advanced provisions for the safeguarding of Social Security. This Democratic Party which stood so strongly in preserving surplus dollars saved Social Security first, walling them off, the lockbox. We saved Social Security revenues for Social Security. And it is the Democrat Members of this body who are prepared to enter discussions when going-in principles are agreed to. Those principles: there shall be no insecurity added into Social Security and that there should be no additional Federal borrowing, no vast amounts of Federal borrowing.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to say that I will be voting against H.R. 418. We have made significant progress in implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and I support additional reforms that make real progress in addressing problems plaguing our immigration system. However, H.R. 418 does not go far enough in improving this immigration system in ways that will enhance our national security.

Instead of comprehensively reforming our immigration system, this proposal seeks to overturn key provisions adopted in the Intelligence Reform bill last year requiring strict new standards for driver's licenses. The Department of Homeland Security is already collaborating with states to devise sensible standards that work. This bill rolls back this approach in favor of Congressionally-mandated rules which did not have the benefit of committee hearings.

Additionally, this bill creates additional, next-to-impossible hurdles for legitimate asylum seekers. Many of these asylum-seekers have been the victims of terrorism themselves and have fled to this country seeking freedom and democracy. About a month ago, I learned the heart-breaking story an Iraqi informant who saved North Dakota lives and lost his own in advancing the cause of freedom and democracy in Iraq. Though his family escaped with their lives, the continued risk to these friends of America now prompts our urgent attention. I fear that passage of this legislation today would mean that we would not be able to allow this family, who sacrificed so much, to enter the United States and remain here while their lives are threatened.

Mr. Chairman, I will vote against H.R. 418, and I encourage my colleagues to seek real reform that addresses the problems in our broken immigration system.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan). He has worked very diligently on this issue. I know he personally is an avid sportsman and takes, therefore, more than passing interest in these matters. He also does very well representing the constituents involved in the domestic manufacture of arrows.

This has been a hard one to get right. We first passed it in 1997, trying to address this issue. The language in the FST bill that passed just a few weeks ago we thought took care of it. We had the joint tax and Treasury Department involved in getting that language correct, and only now we are finding that it is going to be a new tax to be collected by about 10,000 sports retailers.

Mr. Speaker, we want to fix this, and we want to fix this one right, quick. So I am going to ask for support on this motion today.

I would like to, in the course of my remarks, however, address an issue raised by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, and his statement will be made a part of the Record.

He had offered for the chairman a deal to bundle in a unanimous consent package the bow and arrow fix, plus a provision to address the circumstances of the Virgin Islands and other territories under the corporate tax reform bill, the FST bill mentioned earlier, as well as something to address the devastation in Haiti, and so I would just read a couple of paragraphs from his statement because I think it is appropriately before the body.

The ``Ways and Means Committee Chairman Thomas knows that the bows and arrows correction could have been handled by unanimous consent.'' There had been a request that a correcting provision from the FST/ETI bill also be included to assist the Virgin Islands and some attention provided to the devastation affecting the people of Haiti.

``The recently enacted FST/ETI legislation contains a provision that will adversely affect the economic development programs of the Virgin Islands and other possessions.

``The provision denies the Virgin Islands the ability to provide economic incentives to companies doing business in the Virgin Islands if they have some U.S. source income.''

It is also clear that House leadership is unwilling to provide assistance to poverty-stricken Haiti. ``Obviously, our neighbor in this hemisphere is not viewed as so urgent that it cannot wait. I am talking about a country that is so poor they bake clay and pretend it is bread.

``It is unclear to me why'' the Haiti trade preferences bill could not have been brought up by year end.

I agree that, to summarize the ranking member's feelings, it is fine to address this bow and arrows provision, absolutely fine. We have some issues we also wanted addressed, circumstances about possession under FST/ETI and something to be done to address the pathetic circumstance of Haiti, and that would have been our preference also at year end.

Having now stated what our preferences would have been, let me again summarize the minority position on this bill. It needs to be corrected. We want it corrected. We do not think it should have taken three times to get right, but here we are. We are willing to get it right this time.

I again salute the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Ryan), my colleague, efforts who have been untiring and in the end will today prevail in getting this right.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time.

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

I am very pleased to join the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) in the sponsoring of this bill. I want to also express my gratitude to the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) for allowing the bill to come forward and to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), ranking member, for his interest and support of this legislation.

The YMCA puts Christian principles into the communities by programs that advance healthy minds and strong bodies. They serve 18 million Americans every year and operate throughout its 90-year existence a pension plan for the modestly paid individuals that make these facilities what they are to those enjoying their services.

The YMCA retirement plan requires each and every employee to participate, provides retirees with annuities that guarantee monthly income for life. In fact, 98 percent of retirees choose a lifetime income over that lump sum payment option.

As we look at this whole retirement savings, retirement income conundrum, and we are certainly going to be deeply involved in that this coming congressional session, I hope we can agree that we are going to try to keep in the marketplace what works. And certainly when it comes to the YMCAs pension program, this is a plan that works.

It has been placed in some question because of the IRS's evaluating whether or not it appropriately qualifies under the church-sponsored plan, as was mentioned by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English). It is important to legislatively take that, shed that cloud off of this pension program. I appreciate the IRS for forbearing while Congress has been allowed through this legislation to straighten out and clarify that we do not want any changes to the YMCA pension plan. This is a plan that is working and serving its people well. We want it to continue as it has done, and that is the effect of this legislation.

In North Dakota we have 820 YMCA employees and retirees whose fate is linked in some respect to this legislation. Nationally 88,000 have a stake in this legislation.

I hope that as we pass this legislation today, we can take this as a precedent. These pension issues deserve bipartisan approach, like the bill before us, and we need to build on the concept, keep what works, move to address the other areas as these solutions present themselves.

So I am very pleased to advance H.R. 5365 and urge its adoption.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I believe each and every one of us in this Chamber appreciates the work of the YMCA and recognizes that the YMCA is more than wonderful facilities. It is the people there. It is the people there that make these such a special part of our communities. If we want to do something that shows our appreciation to these dear people in the YMCA, let us move this legislation. This removes any shadow of a doubt that their pension plan can continue to function as it has functioned for virtually the entire life of the YMCA associations. This is a good thing to do.

I am pleased to work with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), my friend, in moving this legislation forward. Let this be a place where the true spirit of bipartisanship can break out on a worthy goal. Let us support this legislation.

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

I thank my colleague for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, this bill corrects a long overdue problem. When the Missouri River was dammed in North Dakota as part of the Pick-Sloan water project, the resulting flood created a lake about the size of Rhode Island. The lake is still with us. A number of communities were flooded out in the course of creating the reservoir. One of them, Elbowoods, was a community that was part of the Three Affiliated Tribes Reservation in western North Dakota. Elbowoods had a hospital, a 28- bed, 35,000 square foot hospital, a most significant medical facility in that rural part of North Dakota, certainly the most significant medical facility serving the reservation.

In order to persuade the Three Affiliated Tribes, Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikare nations, to vote in favor of the dam and give up 156,000 acres under this reservoir, the Federal Government made a commitment to replace the hospital. The tribes in western North Dakota are still waiting. This authorization will authorize up to $20 million for the construction of this medical facility.

My colleagues, I am very familiar with this area. I have been there many, many times. I am acquainted with their medical facilities. They are grossly inadequate. This is an area where there are significant health needs and grossly inadequate facilities in which to meet them and a 50-year promise unmet by the Federal Government.

I certainly want to thank those that have made it possible for this bill to come to the floor, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) and, of course, as was mentioned by the preceding speaker, the very aggressive, ongoing efforts by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) to get this matter considered.

As I told the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), this matter is deeply important to me as a representative of North Dakota because I feel so strongly about the injustice of what was done with the flooding out of this hospital, promising another one and then never getting it done; so I am really deeply grateful that this has been allowed for consideration under the suspension calendar. I urge the unanimous adoption of it in the course of our deliberations.

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

I am pleased to associate myself with the ranking member on the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), as well as my former co-chairman with the Rural Health Care Coalition, the gentleman from western Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Truly, we have a growing problem relative to the delivery of rural health care, and that is we do not have enough professionals to deliver the care required. As we look at the pipeline, those coming along compared to those nearing the end of their practice years, we realize that we are working ourselves into a pretty serious problem here and that is especially so when you consider the aging of the population. So I agree with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers). We need to look at this systemically, why this is happening, and address it. But in the near term, we need to take the step that offers a Band-Aid solution but an important Band-Aid at that, and that is the legislation before us.

North Dakota receives about a dozen doctors a year through this important visa waiver provision. Twenty-six cities in the State I represent have participated in this program. We would have a situation where failure to authorize this would create immediate problems in six or seven small towns. They would face the departure of critical medical personnel under the loss of this visa waiver.

With the passage of it, conversely, we will have opportunities to continue to build capacity. I have one city that has been going through an incredibly expensive proposition of hiring an anesthesiologist on a Locum Tenens basis. This is a temporary hire coming in from other parts of the country, and it costs a fortune. We hope to move through a resident hire through the application of this visa waiver provision.

So, bottom line, while this is an immigration bill, it is all about making sure health care services for peoples' needs in rural areas and underserved communities are available, and I urge its adoption.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

I thank the gentleman very much.

Senator Conrad has done very good work on this, as has the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran) in the House and others. I am very pleased, as the gentleman mentioned earlier, a bipartisan moment on health care. This is a good bill. Let us pass it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I have such high regard for my preceding speaker, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne). He has done a great deal to advance the cause of disaster response from this Congress. But I believe he is incorrect in concluding that, what is before us in the so-called Neugebauer amendment or nothing.

If rural Republicans would hang with the Democratic Members of this chamber, we would, in bipartisan fashion, reject any other approach that did not have the Senate-type approach upon giving disaster relief without cannibalizing the farm bill. We could do it. We could do it. We do not need that many. If rural Members would stand up for their farmers and reject this cockeyed notion we ought to cannibalize the farm bill to get help to farmers now, we could, in bipartisan fashion, pass exactly what the Senate passed.

That is why the Committee on Rules did not make it in order. They know we would win. It would sure be nice to have a democracy actually have a chance in the House once in a while. This Senate passed a disaster response. Why are we not at least allowed a vote as to whether this might be the will of what the House would work? Instead, they have advanced a very different proposal. While it does offer desperately- needed disaster relief to farmers, it takes the wrong approach.

We would not even be here without the work of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), ranking member on the Committee on Agriculture. By introducing his legislation, by getting 40-some other sponsors of both parties behind it, he forced an issue that has created the need of the majority to put forward this response, but the shape of their response is most regrettable. It requires dollar-for-dollar reduction out of the farm bill, taking down that conservation program.

And if my colleagues do not think that the smell of politics is not swirling around this chamber right now, after virtually being nowhere to be seen on this disaster issue, they drum up the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer), the opponent of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), and have him sponsor this ill-advised alternative.

I am kind of surprised the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) took them up on their little offer. It is opposed by virtually every agriculture

coalition: American Corn Growers, American Farm Bureau, National Cotton Council. You see, they understand that it is just wrong for farmers to have to give up their farm bill, give up the protection that the farm bill offers in order to get the disaster response they need.

I thought the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) offered an interesting rhetorical question: Why not use the farm bill to help farmers? Well, why should we have to reduce the farm bill's ability to help farmers in order to have it as an offset for this disaster bill? In the farm bill, we are coming in so far under what was projected; there is plenty of budget savings there. It was projected to have cost us $50 billion by now.

But because of the price-support nature of the thing, it has only cost us $35 billion.

There is savings in the farm bill without cannibalizing the farm bill. Reject this bill. Let us vote on the Senate approach.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to assume the responsibility of floor management on this and subsequent pieces of legislation for the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). He, at this moment, is appearing before the House Committee on Rules in support of an amendment to be considered tomorrow advancing disaster relief for America's farmers.

The amendment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), which I have cosponsored and strongly support, would represent a commitment by this House similar to that made by the Senate, a roughly $3 billion commitment in support of farmers who have had disastrous results this growing season in light of weather circumstances not anticipated and not normal and truly of a disastrous magnitude.

We stand prepared and will help those victims of the Florida hurricanes. We also have to recognize that, when it comes to production of agriculture, there are a lot of other types of disasters that have wreaked havoc right across this country, and that is the reason that the legislation that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) is moving forward, supported by both Republican and Democratic Members of this body representing agriculture production areas, is so critically important.

I certainly hope that the ranking member is successful in his efforts to have an amendment made in order that will allow consideration of the disaster relief. We believe and we believe strongly that the disaster relief that passed the Senate is the disaster relief that our farmers need and deserve. We believe anything short of that would be an abdication by this House in meeting the needs of farmers. That is why we feel so strongly about it that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) actually left the floor management to go

to rules and make the case for this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time on the legislation before us, and, on behalf of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I again stand in support of the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), as he testifies before the Committee on Rules on behalf of his amendment that would allow disaster assistance similar to that passed by the Senate to be considered by the House tomorrow.

I think it is very important for people to know that this bill is of critical importance to the district the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) has represented so well for so long. They have had catastrophic losses from drought in 2003. And while there are some discussions percolating about a disaster bill for 2004, we know there was no disaster response for the losses suffered by farmers in 2003.

The Senate saw fit to take care of that, and in their bill, 2003 is provided for. That amendment by the Senate sits in conference committee on the homeland security bill right now. That is why I was so pleased to see the Stenholm proposal come forward today, the proposal that would allow a farmer to choose whether the 2003 or 2004 losses would be covered under the bill, and in all other respects mirrors the $3 billion package that the Senate advanced.

I am pleased that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) is up in the Committee on Rules right now, and I am also pleased on his behalf to then read the statement that he would have been prepared to give on behalf of this legislation: ``Mr. Speaker, I rise in full support of H. Res. 261. This resolution

expresses congressional support for the vitally important work carried out by organizations such as America's Second Harvest in ensuring that needy Americans do not suffer from the pangs of hunger.

``In addition, it also encourages all Americans to provide volunteer services and other support for local anti-hunger advocacy efforts and hunger relief charities, including food banks, food rescue organizations, food pantries, soup kitchens and emergency shelters.

``I have long been associated with the work of America's Second Harvest and, in particular, with the efforts of its member food banks, the South Plains Food Bank in Lubbock and the Food Bank of Abilene.''

Remember, these are the words the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) was prepared to deliver as he represents his district. I am more familiar with the food banks in Fargo and Bismarck.

Resuming the statement of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), ``It is crucial that Congress take time to acknowledge the hard work of more than 1 million volunteers who strive to feed over 23 million needy Americans each year. These volunteers provide this necessary assistance in every community, large and small, rural and urban, across the United States. I wholeheartedly encourage my colleagues to support this resolution.''

That concludes the statement that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) was prepared to make. I would add my own comments.

What we are seeing is an unprecedented demand on food shelters, not just in Abilene, not just in Lubbock, but all across this country. There is something happening in this economy. Regardless of what the macrostatistics may tell you, there is a growing demand on our food banks.

Now, I think that there are any number of economic indicators in this country, but one that deeply alarms me is this draw on the food banks.

This is truly the last stop for people who cannot feed their families.

When we have this draw on our food banks, we know that something terrible is going wrong in terms of the middle-income folks slipping into ever-greater problems in making ends meet; and the lower incomes below that, falling short of such critical necessities as being able to buy their groceries. That is why they are showing up at these food shelters.

So I appreciate this resolution and I appreciate the support of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), I appreciate the support of the chairman; and I urge adoption of this resolution.

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

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

I am here once again representing my ranking member on the Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) as he testifies before the Committee on Rules, attempting to secure placement of the legislation he has offered in support of disaster assistance to farmers.

To reveal the state of play here, the Senate has passed a $3 billion disaster bill to help farmers in light of the disastrous losses that they have suffered, not just from hurricanes, but we have seen it all, a big swath of losses due to drought. In North Dakota, we have even had disaster losses of a significant magnitude due to early frost, frost coming on August 19.

There are some in the House discussing a nod to disaster assistance to the tune of $500 million, maybe up to close to $1 billion. This does not come close to addressing the needs of farmers across this country.

Mr. Speaker, a $3 billion bill passed by the Senate is a much more realistic and substantive response, and I hope that the House is given the opportunity by the Committee on Rules, pursuant to the testimony of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) right now, to consider the full disaster package, the $3 billion disaster package.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to production agriculture, we have macro statistics and we have micro circumstances. The macro statistics may reveal that this is just another year in production agriculture, but we know from the hurricanes in the State of Florida that it has been anything but a normal year in terms of production agriculture.

If we take you over to the Great Plains States, we will show you a drought that is beginning to rival what they saw in the Great Depression, the ``Dirty 30s,'' reservoirs drying up, year after year of failed production. Up in North Dakota, and I will tell my colleagues that I am a farm retailer's kid, I have been close to farming and agriculture all of my life, I have never seen a frost on August 19 do such harm to the production that we were experiencing.

This is why this disaster bill is so critically important, and that is why I wish the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) well in his testimony before the House Committee on Rules.

I will say of his statement on behalf of this bill, wholehearted support, I appreciate very much the chairman's efforts in moving this bill forward, and I will go on to read the statement of the gentleman from Texas (Ranking Member Stenholm) on behalf of H. Res. 481.

``Mr. Speaker, I express my wholehearted support for H. Res. 481 which recognizes the establishment of the Hunters for the Hungry programs across the United States and the vital contributions these programs make in the ongoing effort to decrease hunger and help feed those in need.

``Hunters for the Hungry programs are volunteer and cooperative efforts among hunters, sportsmen's associations, meat processors, State meat inspectors, and hunger relief organizations to help feed those in need.

``These programs are not only simple, but also practical. The hunters provide the game meat, which is taken to processors who cut, wrap, and freeze it. The meat is then distributed through agencies such as food banks and other nonprofit organizations which feed the needy.

``In my home State of Texas,'' again speaking on behalf of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), ``the Texas Association of Community Action Agencies, Inc., with funding from the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, has worked with the hunters' program for over 10 years. Since 1991, the Hunters for the Hungry program in Texas has distributed over 480,000 pounds of venison to the needy in Texas.

``Hunters for the Hungry programs provide an excellent example of community service in action. The intention of this resolution is more than just to congratulate those who participate in these programs for a job well done. The resolution also serves to bring attention, encourage participation, and promote additional constructive ideas for addressing the problem of hunger in the United States.''

Mr. Speaker, seeing no further requests for time, I yield back the balance of our time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want the record once again to reflect that I am standing in for the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) as he appears in the Committee on Rules arguing for consideration of an amendment that would allow the House to express its support for disaster relief for farmers similar to what was passed earlier by the Senate; $3 billion for disaster relief for farmers was an amount established in the Senate consideration on this matter. Certainly, it was not all that some wanted, but it was viewed as a substantive response to the disaster need to our farmers.

It troubles me that some in the House are talking about no response, talking about doing whatever is necessary for Florida, by the way, I stand in strong support for a response of Florida, but leaving behind the losses faced in other agriculture production areas.

We all have to stand together, and the production loss of my farmers is just as devastating, albeit from other causes than hurricane losses, as the hurricane losses have been to the farmers in southern Florida.

Therefore, I wish the ranking member well in his testimony to the Committee on Rules. We will fully engage this debate tomorrow, but I want the record to reflect that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) in my opinion is clearly advancing the interest of farmers tonight as he testifies to the Committee on Rules in favor of his disaster legislation, legislation supported by both Republicans and Democrats representing hard-hit areas of production agriculture.

That said, I will now read from the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm's) statements on behalf of H.R. 5042: ``Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5042, and I thank the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Acevedo-Vila) for bringing this issue before the House of Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture.

``Until recently, 11 dependents of the Forest Service employees stationed in Puerto Rico attended the DOD Educational Authority schools at the Naval Station Roosevelt Road. However, this naval station closed earlier this year at the direction of Congress. As a result, Federal Forest Service employees assigned to Puerto Rico are faced with limited choices and opportunities for their children's education. This could lead to loss of qualified staff of the Forest Service willing to work in Puerto Rico.

``While other Federal agencies have authority to reimburse their staff for educational expenses incurred by their dependents while assigned to Puerto Rico, the Forest Service has no similar authorization. This legislation, which is supported by the Forest Service, will simply employ authorization to the Forest Service to reimburse its staff for educational expenses incurred by their dependents when assigned to Puerto Rico.

``I encourage Members to support this simple but fair legislative solution.''

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to say that I will be voting for H.R. 5025, the Fiscal Year 2005 Transportation, Treasury, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Bill in the hopes that this bill's serious problems can be fixed in conference negotiations with the Senate.

Unfortunately, the House and Senate Transportation Conferees have been unable to reach a deal on a transportation reauthorization bill. As a result, appropriated funds for unauthorized programs were struck from the proposed Fiscal Year 2005 Transportation, Treasury, and Independent Agencies Appropriations bill. Doing so made this bill woefully inadequate in terms of funding levels for various transportation agencies and programs including the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Amtrak, the Federal Transit Administration and the Surface Transportation Board.

However, I am going to vote for the bill based on the assurances of the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Transportation, Treasury and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee that funding for these critical accounts will be reinstated in conference. I hope that by furthering this bill, we can ensure that funding for North Dakota's significant transportation needs is secured.

I rise as well to express my opposition to the authorization of an automatic cost-of-living (COLA) pay increase for Members of Congress contained within H.R. 5025. A fiscally responsible Congress should have the opportunity to consider a pay raise independently of funding for important transportation projects in their districts. That is why I voted against the previous question on the rule to allow consideration of H.R. 5025 separate from this provision. It is my hope that Congress will take steps to ensure separate consideration for any increases in the future.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2028, the Pledge Protection Act.

I strongly believe that the Pledge of Allegiance, including the phrase, ``under God'' is a constitutional expression of patriotism. I recall reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in school as a child growing up in Valley City, North Dakota, and I believe that it plays an important role in unifying our country and celebrating our national identity.

Like my colleagues, I was outraged by past court decisions that erroneously declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional. That is why on March 20, 2003, I voted in favor of H. Res. 132, which urged the Supreme Court ``to correct the constitutionally infirm and incorrect holding'' by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in its revised decision on the Newdow v. U.S. Congress case. This resolution also expressed the sense of the House of Representatives that the recitation of the Pledge is a ``patriotic'' act rather than a religious one, that phrase ``One Nation, under God'' should remain in the Pledge and that the practice of voluntarily reciting the Pledge in public school classrooms should be encouraged by the policies of Congress. Furthermore, on July 22, 2003, I voted in favor of the amendment offered by Rep. Hostettler to H.R. 2799, the Commerce, Justice and State and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, which barred the use of any of the funds appropriated by the bill to ``enforce the judgment'' in the Newdow v. U.S. Congress.

During the 107th Congress, I also voted in favor of H. Res. 459, which expressed the view of the House of Representatives that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' original decision in Newdow v. U.S. Congress to strike the words ``under God'' from the Pledge of Allegiance was incorrectly decided. Similarly, I strongly supported S. 2690, legislation that reaffirms the language of the Pledge of Allegiance, including the phrase ``one Nation under God.''

I am concerned that the passage of H.R. 2028 would deny the Supreme Court its historical role as the final authority on the constitutionality of federal laws and nullify the separation of powers set forth in the United States Constitution. Furthermore, H.R. 2028 sets a dangerous precedent for future Congresses. By adding language from H.R. 2028 to unconstitutional legislation, a future Congress could enact laws that are clearly contrary to key tenets of the Constitution while preventing the Supreme Court from ever considering their validity. Given these considerable problems with H.R. 2028, I intend on voting against this measure.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to say that I will be voting for H.R. 5006, the fiscal year 2005 Labor, Health and Human Services, Education Appropriations bill, but doing so with some reluctance. While I support many of the funding provisions in this legislation, I also believe that this bill shortchanges many important needs in education and health care.

Almost three years after the historic No Child Left Behind legislation was passed into law, I remain concerned about Congress' ongoing failure to commit the resources promised to our Nation's teachers, parents and students. While I support the intentions of the education reform promise to leave no child behind, I am also convinced that the success of this new law will be determined in part by the investment made in this historic reform effort. I am deeply disappointed that this funding plan falls more than $7.2 billion short of the resources promised for low-income and disadvantaged districts, thereby making up the vast majority of the total $9.5 billion NCLB shortfall contained in the bill.

Not only does this bill fall short on critical funding for education, but it also makes cuts to the Rural Hospital Flexibility and Outreach grant programs, important resources to North Dakota health care providers. It is my understanding that Chairman Regula has committed to work to restore this funding in conference, and I intend to actively support those efforts.

Certainly, this bill includes many provisions that I applaud. While I was pleased that the Rural Education Achievement Program once again received funding to help rural districts manage the No Child Left Behind Act's new accountability requirements, I strongly believe this program merits an increase in funding. I was also pleased that this bill restores the federal overtime protections to six million workers who saw their overtime pay threatened by the Department of Labor's new rules.

Ultimately, I cast my vote in favor of this legislation in order to ensure that the appropriations process could move forward. I remain hopeful that the Senate will include higher funding levels for these programs and that we can work on a bipartisan basis to develop a fiscally responsible funding plan that provides adequate resources to strengthen our schools, address our public health needs, and support our Nation's workers.