Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I think this piece of legislation that the majority is clearly going to be able to pass today is one of the most outrageous tax cuts that we have brought

to the House floor. The Democrats are going to offer an alternative, and I appreciate the fact that it was allowed by the Rules Committee, but this alternative would exempt 99.7 percent of American families from having to pay inheritance taxes. So all we are really talking about is three-tenths of 1 percent, a relative handful, the people who clearly can most afford to pay taxes.

This excessive, unnecessary cut will pass despite the fact that, within the last few legislative sessions, this Congress has voted to take 300,000 families off food stamps, to take 300,000 children off daycare, to run the risk, by taking $20 billion out of Medicaid, that as many as 7 million very poor elderly people dependent on government help in nursing homes will not get that assistance.

Where are our priorities? Where is our source of fairness?

You know, I think that we would all agree that we believe in equal opportunity. But in this country, unfortunately, when you see the effect of these tax cuts, that equal opportunity is really dependent upon the accident of birth. Millions of people in our country are suffering for the accident of birth, without health insurance, without any real prospect of getting decent schooling. And yet where are we putting our tax cuts? What excuse are we using for burdening the next generation with hundreds of billions of dollars of debt?

We are taking hundreds of billions of dollars, borrowing it from the Social Security trust funds, just to give more help to the very children who, because of the accident of birth, have the very best education that this country can allow, have all the contacts imaginable, are virtually guaranteed economic success unless they choose to turn their backs on it.

What we have done is to turn our backs on the vast majority of the American people, and to close our consciences to our children's generation, who are getting swamped with debt. This bill is going to cost $290 billion added on to a public debt that our children will never be able to recover from. And it is not necessary.

I ask you to consider the fact that it takes away the stepped-up basis at the point of inheritance, insuring that there will be more small businesses, more family farms that are going to get hurt--over 70 thousand--by this provision, by this legislation than are going to be helped, because they are going to have to pay capital gains at the point when they actually inherit calculated by going back to the original cost to the deceased. So it just does not make any sense, other than to people gripped by this ideological fervor to cut taxes irregardless of the rationale or the consequence. It is terrible legislation. It ought to be defeated.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life and legacy of Pope John Paul II. His life will serve as an inspiration to all those who seek to make this a more peaceable and unified world.

Born in Wadowice, Poland, Karol Wojtyla did not know the challenges that life would present to him, or that he would confront these challenges with great courage. His mother passed away when he was nine years old, followed by his brother several years later. It was during this time that his faith in God strengthened and he began his journey towards the papacy. Karol Wojtyla quietly studied to become a priest during the Nazi occupation of his beloved Poland, and in November 1946 he was ordained a priest.

During his service as a priest and later as Archbishop of Krakow, Father Wojtyla actively defied the Communist regimes that were attempting to end religious worship throughout Poland. In 1967, he was made a Cardinal and on October 16, 1978 he was elected as the 264th Pope of the Catholic Church and took the name Pope John Paul II in honor of the three pontiffs who preceded him.

During his papacy, Pope John Paul II showed the world the strength of his character that the people of Poland had known for years. In May 1981, he survived an assassination attempt and later met with his would be assassin and forgave him. This example of absolution showed the world the true nature of this man and the power of faith.

Pope John Paul II was instrumental in defeating Communist regimes throughout Eastern Europe. His support for the Solidarity Movement in Poland helped create a domino effect throughout Europe as people chose democracy over Communism.

His work to foster ecumenism throughout the world's principle religions will also be a part of his lasting legacy. Pope John Paul II was the first pope to visit the Western Wall in Jerusalem and asked for forgiveness from the Jewish people for wrongs the Catholic Church had committed against them. He also reached out to Muslims and visited with leaders of the Islamic faith.

As the most traveled Pope in history, John Paul II brought his message of hope to millions of people in 129 countries. He was also able to make a connection with the youth of the world that no other Pope had achieved. He recognized the importance of young people to not only continuing the life of the church, but also sustaining the future of our world. He championed human rights and justice for the poorest people in the developing world to the youth he met with throughout his papacy. I am hopeful that when the young people he touched with his words and actions become leaders in our world they will continue this message of hope.

Mr. Speaker, Pope John Paul II taught the world many important lessons. He taught us to forgive, to stand up for the rights of all people, and how to create change peacefully. He has touched many lives, and will continue to do so even after his passing. As we reflect on his legacy and the spiritual guidance he offered, may people of faith everywhere take guidance from the values he instilled in our world.

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

Mr. Speaker, the most traumatic moment of my life was when my mother died in my arms. She had chosen not to be dependent on a respirator in a hospital but to die at home with her family. These circumstances, or some variant of them, occur eventually within every family, and whether the Federal Government has the right to intervene in those private tragedies is the issue before us tonight.

I talked to Terri Schiavo's brother today, and then finding what he said convincing, I read through all of Mr. Schiavo's testimony and interviews. And now I do not know who is right and who is wrong. But that is the point. Neither do my colleagues. But 10 courts have heard from all sides, from every relevant witness, and all of them, 19 judges, many of them conservative Republicans, all have reached the same conclusion, that in fact Terri Schiavo's husband's wishes are consistent with his wife's, that the feeding tube should be removed.

I have never met, certainly not examined, Ms. Schiavo; but nor have any of the so-called medical experts in this body that have testified on the basis of edited videotapes ever examined her either. But every qualified doctor who has examined her has reached the same conclusion: she is in a perpetual vegetative state; she has no cerebral cortex.

The reason this issue is before us, I think, is that it is all about religion and politics. But does not every religion teach, first of all, that no human being has the right to play God? And is not one of the very first principles of politics is that we should not use individual human tragedies, people suffering in anguish, political pawns to appease the interest groups that keep us in power.

Mr. Speaker, the night that this was brought up last week, we also voted on a budget resolution, and we decided to cut tens of billions of dollars out of the program that enables the poorest and the sickest and the most dependent among us throughout this country to be able to live in a dignified, safe and sanitary nursing home. We decided to cut that money. I did not agree with cutting that money from Medicaid, but I do agree we have that right. We have the right to cut taxes for the wealthy, while we cut health care for the poor. But we have no legislative, constitutional authority to intervene in these very personal family matters, and most importantly, we have no moral right to be doing this tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues Eleanor Holmes Norton and Tom Davis in introducing the ``End Gridlock Act.'' This bill is a refinement of a proposal, the ``Washington Regional Transportation Act'' (H.R. 2882) that I introduced last session.

Unfortunately, this region is not yet prepared to embrace last year's proposal and establish a regional transportation authority. Last year's bill called for the creation of a regional transportation authority, one that could receive a dedicated revenue source, issue bonds and be in an ideal position to coordinate land use and transportation funding decisions. I regret that the time is not ripe for this a proposal.

The defeat of the Northern Virginia transportation referendum in 2002, in my view, moved us away from real progress in solving our transportation problems. Unfortunately, poor management of the state's transportation programs and false promises by past state officials left the public distrustful that any meaningful solutions were possible.

I'd trade the price of a daily cup of coffee for real investments in transit and road improvements, something that would shave 10 minutes off my commute. I think a majority of the public share this view, but they have been skeptical and fear that the money raised would not be spent wisely or spent on projects that have their own built-in opposition and controversy.

The legislation I am introducing today does not to create a regional authority, it won't build new roadways. Instead, it focuses on making improvements to what already exists. It is a small but important first step that I hope builds the foundation for greater regional coordination and cooperation and builds public confidence for longer term solutions.

Believe me, we need better coordination and cooperation. We need to rebuild confidence. The legislation I am introducing today borrows from some of the best, simplest and most cost-effective proposals. Some of the ideas were drawn from local transportation and planning experts. They are small ticket items, but if they prove successful, maybe the consensus will be there to support a more ambitious agenda. The Washington Post highlighted some of these potential projects in a series featured last year.

These investments included building sidewalks and pedestrian and bike paths to connect communities to schools, transit centers, Metrorail stations and commercial centers. This legislation will provide grants to help localities synchronize traffic lights signals on major transportation corridors which will reduce travel time and improve capacity. The bill provides money to encourage more businesses to offer greater telework and telecommuting options. It will provide grants to give transit riders real-time information on bus and rail schedules so they can time their departures from home and work to arrive at a transit stop just when the bus pulls up. It will also fund advance technologies to allow buses to slip through interchanges before the traffic

lights change and on and offload passengers without blocking traffic.

These simple measures can be done for a few million dollars as opposed to the tens or hundreds of millions other projects require but for lack the funds are not being built and would take years to complete. It is said that if you can encourage just 3 percent to today's drivers to carpool or take the bus, you can reduce congestion by 10 percent.

In addition to these type of investments, the bill also allows the regional governments to fund a transportation incident management operations center. The center would be modeled after the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut program, known as TRANSCOM, where a full-time staff is focused on helping the public get around congestion problems when they occur. How many people remember the ``Tractor Man'' episode? There were hundreds of law enforcement and emergency response people on the scene, but it was hours before anyone there began to try to figure out how to move traffic around when all the adjacent streets were closed.

Similarly, how many times do commuters find road or utility construction closing traffic lanes in a haphazard manner. Jurisdictions should be working together to coordinate their construction schedule to minimize the time a lane along a transportation corridor remains closed. A New York-New Jersey TRANSCOM-type program for the National Capital Region would be on point for coordinating critical transportation information 24/7.

These are simple solutions, but ones that are not in the interest of any one jurisdiction to fund. But, if a federal grant was offered as an incentive, the local governments might all be willing to contribute, or better yet, compete to pull down the extra federal money. Mr. Chairman, this bill is the first step to end this region's gridlock. It gets us started and could bring measurable quality of life improvements to this region's citizens at a relatively small cost.

I will be working with my colleagues from this region to try to incorporate this proposal into this year's surface transportation reauthorization bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, along with Congressman John J. Duncan, Jr. of Tennessee, to introduce the ``Families for ED Advertising Decency Act,'' which would require the Federal Communications Commission to revise its indecency standard and treat, as indecent, any erectile dysfunction prescription advertisement broadcast between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. on radio or television. This standard is similar to what has been applied to tobacco products and what is currently followed by hard alcohol advertisements.

Our offices have received numerous phone calls and electronic mail messages from angry parents that work hard at monitoring the television programs that their children watch. With the proliferation of ED commercials, many parents are forced to mute the television during

commercials to avoid having to explain to their children the possible side effects of a life-enhancement drug. A parent should never have to be forced to confront these issues with their children during family viewing hours.

These advertisements run frequently during all hours of the day and last year nearly $400 million dollars was spent on advertising for the three most popular erectile dysfunction drugs: Viagra, Cialis and Levitra. While the pharmaceutical companies will tell you that they run these advertisements during television programs that appeal to the population that they are trying to target, these are the same television programs that parents like to view with their children, including the Super Bowl and college basketball games.

As you may know, the new Medicare Part D Prescription Drug benefit will begin covering ED prescription drugs when it starts in 2006. This means that the cost of advertising these ED drugs is going to be passed on directly to American taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind all Members of Congress that it is time for us to do our job and address the concerns of millions of American families who do not want to see these ads during family viewing hours. Corporate profits should never trump family values.

We urge all Members of Congress, from both sides of the aisle, to support the ``Families for ED Advertising Decency Act'' and restore decency standards to the American airwaves.

Mr. Speaker, I join many of my colleagues and 8.5 million members of the Humane Society of the United States in designating March 15th as the International Day of Action Against the Canadian Seal Hunt. Across the world in 50 cities, citizens will be coming together at Canadian Embassies and Consulates to call for an end to the horrific slaughter of harp and hooded seals.

The Canadian seal hunt season runs from November 15th to May 15th and occurs off the coasts of Newfoundland and Labrador. Anyone with a commercial sealing license or provincial hunting license can take part in the seal hunt.

The Canadian government has authorized the killing of over 300,000 seals this year alone, and 975,000 from 2003-2005. They have also helped to pay for this hunt with $20 million in subsidies provided to the sealing industry between 1995 and 2001. While there are quotas in place, they are not enforced by the government. According to the Humane Society of the United States the number of seals killed in 2002 surpassed the quota by more than 37,000 seals, and in 2004, by nearly 16,000. These numbers do not take into account the number of seals who were wounded and perished later.

While this season's seal hunt opened on November 15, 2004, the bulk of the killings will begin taking place in the next few weeks as new seal pups are born. These new seal pups are called ``beaters'' by the hunters. While hunters do kill adult seals, an estimated 95 percent of those killed are twelve days to twelve months old. These seals, who are either clubbed or shot to death, are killed primarily for their skins.

In 1991, an independent team of veterinarians found that the seal hunt did not adhere to Canada's animal welfare regulations. Most disturbing of their findings is that 42 percent of the seals they studied had likely been skinned alive while conscious. This high percentage of live skinnings alone is a disturbing number, but combined with the other details of the seal hunt it is clear that it is time for an end to this practice.

The Canadian fishing industry claims that the seal hunt needs to continue because they eat too many cod and adversely impact the fish population. However, two Canadian government marine scientists have stated clearly that the true cause of cod depletion was over fishing. They also noted that, ``the consensus among the international community is that seals are not responsible for the collapse in cod stocks.''

The Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans Minister hailed the seal hunt by saying it will harvest ``a valuable natural resource.'' Harp and hooded seals are not a natural resource, but animals that should not have to endure the suffering inflicted through the government authorized seal hunt.

I join with not only the Humane Society of the United States, but also with Greenpeace, Nova Scotia Humane Society and the World Society for the Protection of Animals, among many other organizations, in calling for the Canadian government to end this barbaric and inhumane practice.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend the gentleman from South Carolina for his leadership.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the fiscally responsible Democratic alternative budget offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and in opposition to the Republican leadership's unbalanced budget.

Mr. Chairman, the annual budget resolution is not a legally binding document, but a guide, a blueprint for our Nation's budget. While the House regretfully--and irresponsibly--failed to pass a budget resolution last year, we should not by our inaction diminish its importance. The budget resolution should reflect this body's values and priorities and those of the American people. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the majority's 2006 budget resolution does not reflect the American people values, priorities and needs, let alone their children's needs. This budget will, in fact, hurt the vast majority of Americans for years to come.

This budget resolution makes tax cuts for the wealthiest in our society its top priority. By contrast, it puts little or no priority on programs to serve veterans. It slashes funding to protect the environment and eliminates numerous education programs. Low-income households and underserved communities take the worst hit through excessive cuts to health care programs, education, critical infrastructure and housing.

These funding cuts include the elimination or substantial reduction of 150 programs. For example, the Department of Education eliminates 48 programs, costing a total of $4.3 billion, and the Department of Health and Human Services eliminates 33 health and social services programs costing $2.0 billion. Some cuts are implemented over a 10-year budget window, but many are eliminated entirely in fiscal 2006. For example, all vocational education programs are eliminated immediately. The budget slashes $522 million for all technology education programs and $437 million for State grants for safe and drug free school and community programs. The Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, budget is cut by nearly one half billion dollars, jeopardizing EPA's ability to enforce environmental regulations and coordinate mitigation programs with State and local governments.

The Republican budget cuts veterans' health care by $14 billion below current services over the next 5 years. These cuts come at a time of unprecedented growth in demand for services. The Veterans Health Administration, VHA, is struggling to provide adequate health care services for our aging Vietnam, Korean, and World War II veterans, in addition to serving the needs of the countless and increasing Iraq war veterans.

The Congressional Budget Office predicts that the administration's policies expressed through this budget will result in deficits of $250 billion or more each year over the next 10 years. The programs I just cited represent a small portion of the discretionary budget. Targeting environmental, veterans, health care, education, basic scientific research and housing programs for cuts, while advocating permanent tax cuts that benefit the highest income tier, is not the way to balance the budget.

These discretionary programs represent only 16 percent of the deficit but are charged with nearly 100 percent of budget cuts. While the tax cuts represent the cause of the majority of our deficit, they will not be pared back but instead are made permanent.

The Bush administration and its House leadership proposes to make tax cuts permanent even though this policy would cost $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. Mounting debt and enormous interest obligations will be borne by current and future generation. Equally troubling, most of our new debt is being purchased by foreign nations. Japan and China, for example, hold nearly $1 trillion in American debt. A decline in the dollar's value against the Euro during the last year has not gone unnoticed by foreign governments that finance U.S. deficit spending. Financial ministers have expressed increasing concerns about America's unwillingness to reduce deficits. Asian nations, including South Korea, are now balancing their currency portfolio with Euro purchases. Without a historical comparison it is difficult to adequately predict what impact these trends will have on American economic and national security. Some of us are growing increasingly concerned by the administration's lack of a comprehensive strategy for reducing our reliance on foreign financing. even acknowledgment of the problem would be helpful.

The President has insisted on cutting taxes during a time of war. You don't finance two wars with five tax cuts. President Bush is the only president ever to do so, and his stubborn pursuit of additional costly ``reforms'' (such as the multi-trillion dollar Social Security privatization plan) seriously imperils America's ability to compete in the future against emerging economies in Asia and the European Union. Our economy, particularly in my home district on Northern Virginia, is currently in pretty good shape. But our standard of living and growth cannot be sustained if we insist on deferring enormous debt and interest obligations to future generations. The House leadership's blind acquiescence to the President's policies is regretful and irresponsible.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Republican leadership's budget, which basically rubber stamps the President's budget. I strongly support the Spratt alternative Democratic budget, a much more responsible and morally defensible budget.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is based upon two facts that I think we agree on on both sides of the aisle. One was very articulately expressed by the chairman of the defense appropriations committee earlier today when he asserted the fact that we are a coequal branch of government. We are equally responsible for what military activity we engage in. We will be held equally accountable. And the fact that we hold the purse strings makes it incumbent upon us that we have some expectation of how much a war is going to cost, how we can budget for it, and particularly what measurable criteria are we seeking to enable us to complete our mission.

The second fact is one that has been expressed time and again, particularly by our senior military officers, that we ought not engage in military activity, that we ought not go to war without a plan to win the peace. That is what this amendment addresses. It would give nominal resources to the Secretary of Defense to be able to give us the kind of information that we need to work with the executive branch to evaluate how we are doing in terms of succeeding in our mission in Iraq.

For example, what level of physical infrastructure reconstruction does the administration feel is necessary for the Iraqi economy to be viable. We have invested billions of dollars in reconstruction. How much more might be necessary?

In terms of political stability, are we waiting for ratification of the constitution and then a subsequent election? And if that election goes well, will that mean that we can gradually begin completing our mission at least in terms of the proportion of the troops that are currently committed?

And, particularly, what level of Iraqi security forces will be necessary? We have been given wildly varying numbers, 40,000 to 160,000 to over 200,000. What does it mean for Iraqi security forces to be adequately trained and equipped? Does it mean a 6-week training course in human rights, which some have suggested meant that they could be considered security forces, or does it mean the kind of intensive training for many months that is comparable to what we give our troops so that they can engage in battle and can show leadership in the face of military confrontation? Those are things we need to discuss together.

What we want are the measurable criteria. It is not an unreasonable expectation. And when we pass a supplemental that contains $600 million for a new embassy that maintains our substantial force in Iraq, we want to make sure we do not give any credence to our enemies who, in Secretary Rumsfeld's expression, seem to be able to recruit insurgents greater in number than we could ever possibly kill. They are able to do so by accusing us of being permanent occupiers, thereby denying Iraqis of true sovereignty over their own country.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it would remain in the bill that the administration would have to detail and share with us what is their strategy for success.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Federal Transit Benefit Act. This legislation codifies Executive Order # 13150 that directed all executive branch agencies to provide their employees in the national capital region with the full tax-free transit benefit provided under current law.

Initially the benefit was set at $65 per month, but increased to $100 per month beginning in January 2002.

Give up your car and parking spot and you can receive a voucher to cover a portion of your transit or van pool cost commuting to work. The benefit has been a godsend to this region, helping to reduce traffic congestion, reduce air pollution and improve quality of life issues for Federal employees.

The Metropolitan Washington Council of Government estimates that this benefit has boosted ridership in transit services and van pools by more than 100,000 Federal employees and reduced vehicle miles traveled between 40 million and 54 million.

The legislation I am introducing today will extend this benefit to the other branches of the Federal Government, the legislative and judicial branches, all independent Federal agencies, postal workers and the Smithsonian that were not covered by the executive order.

I have long sought to maintain parity in salaries and benefits for all Federal workers. This legislation restores parity ensuring that those Federal agencies that don't currently provide this benefit for their employees will do so.

The legislation will also remove current law restrictions and enable Federal agencies to offer their employees shuttle services between their office and transit centers like Metro, MARC, and Virginia Railway Express. Under current law, Federal agencies are prohibited

from providing shuttle services to their employees if it is not a part of official business.

The Federal Government is the region's largest employer. As such, it can and should do more to help its employees cope with some of the Nation's worst traffic congestion and in doing so help reduce harmful automobile emissions that have pushed this region into severe nonattainment.

This legislation was unanimously approved by the House Government Reform Committee last session. Its need is long overdue.

Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment. Governor Warner of Virginia has contacted us in support of Mr. Davis's amendment because he does not see how exempting low-income people from having to pay is enforceable.

I fully agree with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), my very good friend, that we do not want to put people in situations that they cannot afford, particularly the working class that we are trying to provide adequate transportation for, so that they can get to work in a timely manner.

In so many of our States, however, I certainly know in Northern Virginia, we do not have a way to move anybody unless we can figure out some more innovative way, and these HOT lanes do seem to give us the means to provide more transportation access. And I do not see how it is enforceable to do what the gentleman from Minnesota wants to do.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

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

I want to first express my appreciation to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox). He is a friend and colleague, but most importantly, when his constituents have a very serious concern, he has shown he effectively addresses the concerns of his constituents in California. And I appreciate his crafting this amendment. It is somewhat different from the amendment that I had in a bill, but it is certainly consistent.

What gives rise to the need for this amendment is what happened back in 1994, when the Tow Truck Operators Association slipped in language in the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization that claimed that towing was interstate in nature and, thus, can only be regulated by the Federal Government, which fell under the Interstate Commerce Commission.

Then, in the next year, in 1995, the Congress passed the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act, and thus, there was no one to regulate towing at the Federal level.

Now, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) very rightly says, most towing companies do not need regulation. They do a good job. You know, they do what they are supposed to do; they are decent people.

Unfortunately, when you have an unregulated situation, you do have a few bad apples, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) has said.

And they will take advantage of that situation and act in an abusive manner. That is why I want to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), our wonderful ranking member, for letting us bring this amendment to the floor.

It does involve transportation. It is appropriate to be included here. And, you know, nobody is trying to take too heavy a hand on any sector of the industry. But, the fact is there have been abuses.

In Arlington County alone, many of my colleagues live in Arlington County, they have had 280 cases of abusive victimization of people that have been sent to the courts in just the last 2 years. Now, a lot of this stuff, you

know, it does not need to happen. You do not need to damage a car when you tow it, letting it drag along the street.

You do not need to treat people abusively, particularly young single women who have their car towed and have to go to a remote, dark place and have to have a hundred dollars in cash instead of being able to write out a check or show a credit card.

There have been abuses. And there have been abuses in Los Angeles. Mr. Cox cited the case, what tow truck operator in their right mind, who in their right mind would tow a car with a baby in the car seat, the mother goes frantic, and the baby is towed to some tow truck lot.

Those are the kinds of abuses that we need to eliminate. And that is why the Cox amendment makes the owner of the property responsible. If the States choose, they can require that the owner be present when the vehicle is towed. That makes a lot of sense.

If it does not work, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) has agreed, we will pursue this further, until we give reasonable regulatory authority to States and localities. I think this is simply a commonsense amendment. I want to thank a former colleague, Mr. Bereuter; the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter); the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry); they were cosponsors of the legislation.

And I look forward to working with the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman form Alaska (Mr. Young) the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

You know, we will come up ultimately with the kind of regulatory authority that States need to bring this under control. But, we are not after all of the towing companies. Most of the towing companies are doing the right thing, and they are behaving as we would under that situation. It is just there are some abuses. We need some regulatory authority to bring them under control.

Mr. Chairman, I would love to yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

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

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time is remaining?

Mr. Chairman, in the 30 seconds remaining, I want to talk about one other point on a related issue, rather than take up the committee's time later in the day.

I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for the report language that addresses teen driver traffic accidents. It is good language. We are going to conduct a study on what we ought to be doing with regard to teenagers being responsible for such a high percentage of fatal crashes. It has gone from 6.6 percent to almost 15 percent now.

We are going to get a report to the committee to come up with some model driving school curricula and graduated licensing requirements. That makes a lot of sense, and it is good report language.

Again, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) for bringing this amendment up and for the committee for entertaining it, and I trust that it will pass, hopefully, unanimously.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Job Training Improvement Act, because it will reduce important job training programs such as the veterans employment programs, Perkins Vocational Educational Program and the Vocational Rehabilitation Program.

This measure consolidates the adult, dislocated worker and employment service programs and funding into a block grant, while also repealing the Wagner Peyser Act and removing many of the federal performance and accountability measurements that make the Workforce Investment Act such an important investment in our nation's workforce.

With the unemployment rate at 5.2 percent, it is reprehensible that this legislation will repeal a dedicated funding stream for one-stop centers where job seekers can learn about job opportunities, apply for aid and receive counseling.

We all know what is going to happen if Workforce Investment Act programs are block-granted.

States are not going to spend that money where it is needed the most, which is to aid job seekers in this troubling economy. Instead, these funds may be used to cover infrastructure and administrative costs. This will go against the true intent of the Workforce Investment Act, which is to invest in our workforce.

Even more troubling is the fact that H.R. 27 reduces preventive in- school youth training programs which keep students from dropping out of school. President Bush has pledged to expand the No Child Left Behind law to high schools and require students to take annual tests in reading and mathematics through 11th grade.

So the president wants to ensure that students and teachers are held accountable for learning standards, but he lacks support for programs that strive to keep kids in school?

As we all know, these workforce investment programs are already critically underfunded. They strive to meet the increasing demands placed upon them in an environment of increasingly inadequate resources. To be effective, these programs cannot sustain these devastating cuts.

Finally, the Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act would eliminate the civil rights protections of Americans, by exempting religious organizations from anti-discrimination requirements.

The message that we are sending to the millions of Americans who are unemployed, who are veterans and those who are in need of economic assistance is that we do not care about keeping them from falling further into an economic crisis.

This bill fails as a reinvestment in our workforce and fails to aid the millions of jobless Americans who need it the most.

I urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of the Scott Amendment which will protect current civil rights protections for employees and job applicants of faith-based organizations.

Mr. Speaker, every year approximately 300 recalls of potentially hazardous and dangerous consumer products are conducted by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Tragically, many of our constituents are never aware that a product in their home has been recalled due to safety concerns. In recent years more than 11 million potentially injurious products were on the market including baby cribs, strollers, and children's toys. The return rate for these recalled products is less than 20 percent. That means over 8 million life-threatening products are in homes across the Nation.

The main reason the return rate is low is that manufacturers do not have a proper system in place to notify consumers when their product has a defect. This is why I am introducing the Product Safety Notification and Recall Effectiveness Act of 2005.

This legislation requires manufacturers to include a product registration card or offer online product registration for every juvenile product, small household appliance or other product the Consumer Product Safety Commission deems necessary. These registration cards may not include any marketing information which is often a turn- off for consumers. The only use for these cards and the on-line registration is to create a database of necessary information to contact consumers directly in the event of a product recall.

The Product Safety Notification and Recall Effectiveness Act of 2005 will help protect children and families. In 1993, the National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration, NHTSA, introduced a mandatory registration card program for child safety seats similar to what this legislation proposes. A study published regarding this program, found that the registration program resulted in nine times more child safety seats being registered. An increase of 56 percent more seats were brought in for repair. These registration cards are helping to save lives.

This legislation has been endorsed by the Consumer Federation, Consumer Union and several other consumer and safety advocacy groups. They know that something needs to be done to help protect everyone from potentially hazardous items.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation. We have a responsibility to ensure that every family and every person in our congressional districts are aware of any recall to help improve their safety.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, even though I am in opposition to his position and favor this bill. This is not a radical bill, nor is it regressive. In fact, it is a reasonable compromise designed to address what is an abuse of the judicial system. That is why The Washington Post endorses this bill. It is why the Democratic Senators from New York, California, and Illinois all voted for the bill. In fact, Democratic Senators representing 19 States voted for this bill in the other body. Why did they do this? Because they believe on balance that consumers are going to be better represented in Federal courts.

And this notion that somehow State courts are going to be more inclined to represent consumer interests rather than Federal courts on issues like tobacco and civil rights and so on, I do not think history proves that to be the case.

I am particularly sensitive to these charges that this bill is going to inhibit civil rights actions. Clearly if we look at history, it is the Federal courts that have been far more insistent upon enforcement of civil rights than State courts. Even recently in the Home Depot case, a gender-discrimination case, it was settled with a $65 million settlement, filed in Federal court. The Coca-Cola racial-discrimination settlement, which guaranteed each class member recovery of at least $38,000, was achieved in Federal court.

Contrast that to the Bank of Boston case, where the depositors in Boston were not even aware they were members of a plaintiff class, where a lawyer filed suit down in Alabama supposedly representing their interest, and they found out when they had their bank account reduced by $90; $90 was taken out of the mortgage escrow account from these depositors to pay the lawyers when they were not even aware they were a member of the plaintiff's suit, and the lawyer walks off with $8.25 million. That is judicial abuse, and that is what this bill corrects.

This is a reasonable bill. The fact is that in so many State and local courts, they do not have the resources to go through the mountains of evidence that have to be presented in class action suits. In Federal courts they are far more likely to have those resources. They have court clerks and they can hire magistrates that can go through all of the evidence.

There has been far too much abuse where judges have certified these settlements at the tort lawyer's request and then, the defendant has to settle for large sums of money. That is not the way it is supposed to work.

On balance, I think the judicial system will be far more fair, responsible, and reasonable under this compromise bill; so I would urge my colleagues, particularly on the Democratic side, to support this bill.

I thank my friend and colleague from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for yielding the time.

Mr. Speaker, I plan on voting for this bill because I think it is about doing the right thing for the public interest.

But I am going to vote against the rule, because we are missing an opportunity. We miss an opportunity to address the fairness issue, which is a very important one. I also think we miss an opportunity to strike a blow for family values over corporate profit.

It seems that too often when the two are in conflict, invariably this Congress lets corporate profit trump family values. What I am referring to is an amendment that I offered. It is a bill that the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), myself, and others have cosponsored, that I put in the form of an amendment because it seemed relevant. What it would do is to treat ED ads on television in the same way that we treat ads for tobacco and hard liquor. They cannot be shown until after 10 o'clock. The reason for doing this is that our airwaves are saturated with these ads for erectile dysfunction drugs. I think it has gotten out of hand and I do not think it is right.

When I bring this subject up, people giggle and it is awkward to talk about it, but it is wrong in prime-time viewing hours, such as the Super Bowl when you have got tens of millions of people watching, a lot of them young kids, to be saturating the American public's mind with these pitches for ED drugs. It is just wrong. Most of it is for the purpose of competing between brands.

It is a particularly relevant issue to the Congress and to the American taxpayer because next year this administration has decided to let Medicare cover these drugs. So here we have a finite amount of Medicare that needs to be used for cancer treatment and heart disease and any number of serious illnesses, and yet we are going to take a substantial amount of this taxpayers' money and use it to give to the drug companies to help them pay for advertising.

As my colleagues know, in the Medicare prescription drug bill, we forbid the Federal Government from negotiating for lower prices of these drugs. These drug companies are paying half a billion dollars a year for advertising these drugs. And now as of next year, the American taxpayer is going to be footing a substantial amount of that bill. It is wrong. These things should not be advertised during family viewing times.

It was one thing when Bob Dole and people of a certain age, which is pretty much my age as well, were the pitchmen. But these are younger actors today. It is disingenuous to be describing this drug as medically necessary. As is the way that they warn of side effects, be careful for a 4-hour experience and so on. We know how disingenuous that is. We can giggle about it, but the fact is it is wrong. It is not appropriate when young, impressionable, teenagers and children are watching. We have some responsibility for what goes across the airwaves. They are public airwaves. This amendment should have been added to this bill for consideration today.