Floor Statements

Let's have a little reality check, Mr. Speaker. There are Republicans cowering in fear right now about their vote on this immoral budget bill. That's right. There are Republicans right now, huddled in their offices, who are scared to death that their hard working constituents will be furious if they vote for cutting student loans for their kids, or cutting health care for pregnant woman and little children, or literally taking food out of the mouths of hungry kids so that rich people can get tax cuts.

Mr. Speaker, those Republicans ought to be scared and I want to offer them some friendly advice. Remember, I warned them that seniors would be very unhappy with the Medicare prescription drug bill they insisted on passing, and I was right. So now I'm warning you that, no matter how sarcastic or self-righteous your leaders get tonight, your constituents get it: cuts in health care and education for them, tax cuts for millionaires, and unprecedented increases in deficits. Don't kid yourself. The American people see it.

It is very dangerous to underestimate the American people, and there are many Republicans that know that. All the fancy arguments that say ``reduced spending is not really a cut'' are going nowhere, and they know it. They can walk the plank for their leaders tonight, but if they think they are going to get away with it, they should think again.

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

I rise in strong support of H.R. 1065, the U.S. Boxing Commission Act, which would establish a national regulatory body for the sport that has been riddled with corruption, scandals and lax enforcement of regulations, putting the lives of contenders on the line.

I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee Chairman Stearns with, whom I worked closely on this legislation in a bipartisan way, to produce a product that I hope that our colleagues on both sides of the aisle will readily support.

I want to thank in addition to the bipartisan staff who worked on this legislation, I would like to thank our legislative counsel, Brady Young, for his advice, expertise and the patience that is often required when working with our bipartisan team.

I know that there are some in this body who have just wondered why we are addressing this particular issue of boxing when they argue there are more important issues facing our country. I would respectfully point out that it certainly is not the least important issue that we find time to deal with in this body, and that, in fact, it does deal with the health and the safety of literally thousands of people in our country. So I am happy to be supporting this bill right now.

With the passage of the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 and the Muhammad Ali Act in 2000, minimum Federal standards were set to protect the physical and economic well-being of boxers, and State boxing commissions

were charged with meeting those standards. Some States have strong boxing commissions such as New York, Pennsylvania and Nevada that not only require the Federal standards but set additional regulations beyond the minimum requirements.

I want to point out that nothing in this legislation would prevent those that have stronger regulations from using those. Let me read directly from the legislation on minimum standards: Nothing in this Act prohibits any boxing commission from enforcing local standards and requirements that exceed the minimum standards or requirements promulgated by the commission under this Act.

What we found, however, was that there are too many other States that are ignoring the rules, and boxers are the ones who are paying the price.

Many argue that federally mandated health and safety standards are not being adhered to because no corresponding national regulatory body exists. Let me quote from the letter I received from the College of Sports Medicine, who heavily supports this legislation, when they say that, professional boxing is the only major sport which does not have a governing body to establish and enforce rules and practices. It is the only major sport that does not have that.

When the greatest and prettiest of all times, Muhammad Ali, tells you, ``Boxing reform measures are unlikely to succeed unless a U.S. Boxing Commission is created with authority to oversee a sport that still attracts a disproportionate number of unsavory elements that prey upon the hopes and dreams of young athletes,'' when Muhammad Ali tells you that, as he did to us in our hearing, one listens, and that is what Chairman Stearns and I did with the drafting of H.R. 1065.

Boxing is an enormous enterprise. The sport generates over $500 million in revenues each year. However, because so many parties have a financial stake in each boxing match and because competing interests often run counter to the boxers' well-being and because not every manager is as upright as Clint Eastwood in ``Million Dollar Baby,'' many contenders end up destitute.

In this sense, boxers are like many other kinds of talent or workers. Their gifts and their hard work are others' fortunes, and they are treated as disposable assets.

Boxing is also unlike many other sports in that there are very serious physical repercussions. If health and safety standards are not being met, boxers could die, and they do.

Over the past 50 years, more than 130 fighters have died due to boxing-related injuries in the United States. In 2005, we lost the first woman to boxing, Becky Zerlentes. Dr. Zerlentes, a professor of geography, got her Ph.D. at my alma mater, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

I believe that it is our responsibility to ensure that boxers are not being put in the ring without being protected, both physically and economically. We know it is a dangerous sport by its nature, but it is our responsibility to ensure that laws that are already on the books are enforced. That is why I joined Chairman Stearns in drafting H.R. 1065 to establish the United States Boxing Commission. This bill will help to ensure that standards are uniform and enforced and that boxers are protected.

The formation of a national regulatory body is supported by the Association of Boxing Commissioners, the organization of State boxing commissioners. They love their sport, and they want to make sure that the laws that govern it are being enforced, keeping the sport safe and respectable. Our bill also enjoys the support of those who say that boxers' health must come first, the American College of Sports Medicine and the American Association of Professional Ringside Physicians.

Finally, it would be a tribute to the greatest of all times, to Muhammad Ali, who lent his name to the law that is meant to protect boxers from those who see them as just a commodity and is not being enforced as it should be.

We need to pass this bill to do a service to the boxers, to the young athletes who see their dreams and their hopes come to life when they are in the center of that ring and the bell signals the first round.

I urge my colleagues to join in this bipartisan leadership of this legislation and support H.R. 1065.

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

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

I am aware of some concerns raised by the Governor's office in New Jersey about this legislation, where they are concerned about what they say is the erosion of State authority. So I want to be very clear about this and once again read from the bill and read an additional section from it:

``Section 9, Noninterference with Boxing Commissions. Paragraph a, Noninterference: Nothing in this act prohibits any boxing commission from exercising any of its powers, duties, or functions with respect to the regulation or supervision of professional boxing or professional boxing matches to the extent not inconsistent with the provisions of this act.'' By that we mean anything that has more enforcement powers. We are just setting a floor and the States can exercise all their powers, duties, or functions in addition to that.

And ``b, Minimum Standards: Nothing in this act prohibits any boxing commission from enforcing local standards or requirements that exceed the minimum standards or requirements promulgated by the commission under this act.''

A State like New Jersey that contends that they are doing a good job, we say go ahead and do it. We welcome that. We acknowledge that, and we hope that they will continue to do it. But the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of States, despite the passage of the acts of 1996 and the Muhammad Ali Act in 2000, are not doing that; and that is why most people associated with this sport including State commissioners, including State commissioners have weighed in in support of this legislation and look forward to the Federal Government seeing that boxing alone is not without some kind of national standards, and that is why this commission is so important.

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

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

I would like to say a special thank you to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush) for the work he has done on the bill and for his strong support of the legislation.

I would also like to read a statement on behalf of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) who is the ranking Democrat on the Committee on the Judiciary.

He says, ``I rise in strong support of H.R. 1065, the United States Boxing Commission Act, which establishes a Federal commission with oversight responsibilities for professional boxing in the United States. This much-needed commission will establish uniform minimum standards which States must follow. It will also be empowered to issue additional regulations to improve the integrity and safety of the sport.

``Further, the commission will establish a Federal licensing requirement for participation in United States matches for certain boxing personnel, including boxers, managers, promoters, match makers, referees, judges and sanctioning.

``In July 2003, the GAO issued a report on professional boxing and listed elements identified by industry experts as essential to improving the health, safety and economic interests of boxers: medical examinations, monitoring of training injuries, assessments of medical risks, health and life insurance, the presence of appropriate medical personnel and equipment, and enforcement of suspensions for injuries.

``Additionally, the GAO found that industry experts believe additional changes are required in boxing and listed the following needed changes: one, require pension plans for boxers; two, require full disclosure of purses and payments; three, require minimum uniform contractual terms between boxers and promoters; and, four, prohibit conflicts of interest.

``While the Federal law has created requirements for States to follow, these laws are largely being ignored. H.R. 1065 will aid in correcting this injustice.

``Boxers often have little or nothing to show from their match proceeds, despite others earning vast wealth off the boxers' talents. We owe it to our athletes to create laws that protect their interests and to make sure those laws are enforced. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1065 and to support professional boxers.''

Mr. Conyers was unable to come down to the floor himself and wanted to make sure that this strong support of the legislation was placed in the Record.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), who is himself a champion weight lifter, for weighing in on this legislation. I appreciate it very much.

There are literally millions of people who enjoy the sport of boxing, who watch it and follow it and who want to see that there is some integrity in that sport. A lot has been said about the contenders themselves, about the boxers. I would echo what my chairman, Mr. Stearns, has said in response to

the question, why should we care? We should care about these young boxers who are trying to follow their dreams and to help create a sport that does guarantee them some level of standards of health and safety and opportunity. And we should also care because it is a $500 million industry in this country that has been plagued with lots of scandals and irregularities.

So we are not talking about creating a major bureaucracy to oversee this, we are looking at a self-funding body that would now add professional boxing to every other sport that has some national standards and national rules and regulations. I think it is fairly modest in its construction, and I would certainly urge all Members on both sides of the aisle to join us, and thank Members on both sides who came down and supported this regulation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment.

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

I just want to make a few remarks in support of the Stearns amendment. The Stearns amendment would ensure that establishment of the boxing commission would not be a burden to the taxpayers. It would require that the fees collected from the licenses go to offset the cost of running the commission. The amendment is fiscally responsible, and it is consistent with PAYGO principles that helped us achieve budget surpluses in the 1990s.

This amendment was crafted in consultation with the Committee on Appropriations and achieves the stated objective. While I believe that boxing needs to have serious oversight, I also believe it should be paid for by those who profit and promote the ringside event. It is the least they can do for the sport they love, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, as the designee of Mr. Filner of California, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment enhances safeguards to protect professional boxers. We all know that boxing is a tough sport with even tougher consequences and it is essential that we protect boxers as much as possible.

Unfortunately, there are varying standards among the States on what type of medical services need to be available during boxing matches. Because appropriate medical care is critical in determining whether the fighter injured in the match will recover, suffer permanent damage or will die, depending on the extent of the injury, this amendment would call on the boxing commission to establish minimum standards and what type of medical services must be available at professional boxing matches.

Additionally, many boxers only have insurance coverage the night of the fight. It is not surprising that many insurance companies do not offer boxers health and life insurance policies at affordable rates for the rest of the time. And not every boxer is a prize fighter taking home a big purse. This amendment would simply encourage the Boxing Commission to establish an insurance fund to cover members of the professional boxing community.

We have all heard of the destitute boxer struggling to get by. This amendment would call on the Boxing Commission to come forward on recommendations regarding the feasibility of the pension system for professional boxing participants. Remember, again, this is asking them to come forward simply with a recommendation regarding the feasibility of a pension system.

Finally, like most other sports, boxing is an international business. As such, I believe it is important for the Boxing Commission to enter into agreements with other foreign boxing entities to set minimum health standards for boxers who fight overseas.

All of these measures are important to improve the sport and to provide additional safeguards to boxing, and I urge support of this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

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

Mr. Chairman, as the designee of Mr. Filner of California, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) named this the Archie Moore Criteria for Rating Boxers. So the reason that he called this amendment the Archie Moore criteria for rating boxers is because Archie Moore, also known as the Old Mongoose, held the light middleweight title for 10 years. By the time of his retirement, after 197 fights, Archie had compiled a truly unassailable sports record of 145 knockouts. All of this is even more remarkable when one considers that he spent a large part of his career, approximately 16 years, traveling to an unending string of boxing honky tonks open to fighters who could not break into the big leagues.

Archie did not get a title shot until he turned 39, a time when most boxers retire. There were many barriers preventing great boxers like Archie from rising through the ranks. One primarily being a broken rating system for boxers.

It is the job of the sanctioning organizations to rate boxers and to designate a champion. Sanctioning organizations make their money by sanctioning champion fights. The higher a fighter is rated, the more likely it will be for him to get high paying fights, especially championship fights.

However, often rankings are not based on objective talent or win-loss records; rather, boxers who belong to certain promoters may be highly ranked regardless of skill and ability. A fighter could be the best in his weight class, but if he is not associated with the right people he may not be ranked and thus lose his chance to further his career.

Previously, Congress passed legislation under the Mohammed Ali act to require all sanctioning organizations to develop credible and consistent ratings criteria. However, there are still problems with the system.

For example, one of the sanctioning organizations had a dead man ranked in the top 10 of a super middle weight division for 4 months. During the 4 months in which the dead man was actually ranked, he moved up in the ratings, going from Number 7 to Number 5.

This is just one incident on a long list of problems associated with the ratings system conducted by boxing sanctioning organizations. Obviously, something is wrong, and something ought to be done.

My amendment will require the Boxing Commission to establish guidelines for rating boxers. These guidelines must be followed by organizations that sanction boxing events. My amendment does not strip boxing sanctioning organizations from ranking boxers; however, it does require them to adhere to a set criteria established by the Boxing Commission.

Boxing will never be the sport it once was until the rating system is made more legitimate and respectable, which is why I am asking you to support my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to quote an article that appeared last Friday in the Chicago Sun-Times by religion writer Kathleen Falsani under the headline ``Bush Administration's Moral Compass Is Lost.''

She wrote, `` . . . this week, as Republican leaders try to force a monstrous $50 billion budget cut designed allegedly to offset the mounting costs . . . of hurricane-related aid through Congress, it is clear that the Bush administration's moral compass . . . has been lost. The proposed budget cuts, part of the so-called `budget reconciliation,' would have devastating effects on the poorest, most vulnerable Americans, while allowing tax relief for the rich.''

She goes on to say, ``Maybe Republican leaders should consider proposing an open season on the homeless or the resurrection of debtors' prisons while they're at it. Is this the kind of leadership the majority of voters that, according to the pollsters at the time, cast their ballots in 2004 based on `moral values' had in mind? Is this what faith-based `compassionate conservatism' looks like? Is our Nation more moral, more secure, or spiritually healthier than it was a year ago? And to address my fellow Christian voters,'' she said, ``has the Good News been advanced in any way? No, absolutely not.''

America can do better.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding to me and allowing all of us to come to the floor today to talk about what is really meaningful in the budget. There is no one in this House that knows every paragraph and every decimal point in this budget reconciliation bill better than the gentleman from South Carolina, and no one who knows better, too, the pain and the suffering that you can read between the lines.

Besides the U.S. Constitution, there is no document more defining of our priorities and our values and our morality than budgets. Yes, budgets. Even though we have pages of numbers, it is a moral document. I want to read from an article written by the religion writer for the Chicago Sun-Times paper last Friday. This is what Cathleen Falsani had to say.

She wrote: ``This week, as Republican leaders try to force a monstrous $50 billion budget cut designed allegedly to offset the mounting costs of hurricane-related aid through Congress, it is clear that the Bush administration's moral compass has been lost.

``The proposed budget cuts, part of the so-called budget reconciliation, would have devastating effects on the poorest, most vulnerable Americans, while allowing tax relief for the rich.

``The massive budget reductions would include billions of dollars from pension protection and student loan programs.'' She goes on to list them.

Then she says: ``Maybe Republican leaders should consider proposing an open season on the homeless, or the resurrection of debtors' prisons while they're at it. Is this the kind of leadership the majority of voters who, according to pollsters at the time, cast their ballots in the 2004 based on moral values? Is this what they had in mind?'', she asks.

``Is this what faith-based compassionate conservatism looks like? Is our Nation more moral, more secure, or spiritually healthy than it was a year ago? And, to address my fellow Christian voters specifically,'' she asks, ``has the Good News been advanced in any way? No, absolutely not,'' she says.

She goes on to describe ``all 65 bishops at the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America have signed a letter to Members of Congress vehemently opposing the proposed budget cuts, saying in part `The biblical record is clear. The scriptural witness on which our faith tradition stands speaks dramatically to God's concern for and solidarity with the poor and oppressed communities while speaking firmly in opposition to governments whose policies place narrow economic interests driven by greed above the common good.' ''

That is what the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America said. She goes on to say: ``The Evangelical Christian theologian and leader, Jim Wallis, founder of Sojourners, a national network of progressive Christian peace and justice activists, led an ecumenical gathering of religious leaders in a protest at the Capitol building last Thursday, calling the proposed cuts `a moral travesty.' '' This is quoting Jim Wallis: ``Instead of wearing bracelets that ask, `what would Jesus do,' perhaps some Republican should ponder, `what would Jesus cut?' ''

The author writes: ``The immorality, by any religious tradition's measure, of the proposed $50 billion budget reconciliation package, is brazen. If enacted, it would prove only to increase the suffering of the already struggling poor, including tens of thousands who lost everything along the gulf coast. Maybe immoral isn't the appropriate word,'' Kathleen Falsani says. ``Maybe immoral isn't the appropriate word. Downright evil is a better description.''

I thank my colleague for allowing me to read this article. I think it is instructive to all Members of Congress and all people of faith as well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today In support of H.R. 1973, the Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act. And I want to thank my colleague, the author of this

legislation, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for his leadership on this critical issue and for doing great honor to the name of one of my dear departed friends. The late Senator Paul Simon, my friend from Illinois, was one of our strongest proponents of the need for U.S. leadership in addressing the global water crisis. He considered his book on this topic, Tapped Out, one of the most important works of his life. Senator Simon stated: ``In our world increasing numbers of people cannot assume they will be nourished and sustained, and within a few years, a water crisis of catastrophic proportions will explode on us--unless aroused citizens in this and other nations demand of their leadership actions reflecting vision, understanding, and courage.''

If Senator Simon were with us today he would certainly point out the fact that globally, over 1 billion people lack adequate access to safe drinking water and over 2 billion have no access to proper sanitation. Five million people, mostly children, die unnecessarily from water- related diseases each year. This is not just a problem that affects other countries. Three of our fastest growing states--California, Texas, and Florida--are feeling the squeeze on water supplies and will soon face major difficulties unless we take action now. In Illinois and the other Great Lakes states, we are faced with challenging resource management issues as we seek to preserve and protect our nation's largest fresh water supply and the largest free-flowing supply of fresh water on earth.

Mr. Speaker, it is in Senator Simon's memory and because of the urgency of this issue, that I support the Water for the Poor Act. As Senator Simon wrote, ``No other nation has the capabilities and resources to lead.'' Because water is a finite resource that is essential to all forms oflife, u.S. policies should seek to ensure that all people have access to clean water to meet their basic needs. Senator Simon's wife Patty Simon is working hard to carry on his legacy and this critically important mission and each member of this body should join in that critically important effort.

The Water for the Poor Act will help to increase access to safe water and sanitation worldwide in an affordable and equitable way. It expresses the policy that the United States needs to increase the amount of funds available for water and sanitation, supports innovative funding mechanisms, greater international coordination, and better integration of water and sanitation into other development efforts. Finally, it requires the development of a strategy to meet specific goals and benchmarks on the way to halving the percentage of people without access to safe water and sanitation.

At the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, the United States and 185 other countries agreed to the goal of cutting in half the percentage of people without access to safe water and basic sanitation in the world by 2015. The United States should lead in meeting and exceeding that goal. The Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act is the best first step in that direction. I, again, thank and commend my colleague and all of the cosponsors of this important legislation. And I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 1973.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 484, a resolution which supports efforts to promote greater awareness of effective prevention programs for youth at-risk of running away from home and the need for safe and productive alternatives, resources, and supports for homeless youth. The resolution also commemorates National Runaway Prevention Month.

The statistics of runaway and homeless youth are staggering: 1.6 million youth are on the streets every day; more than 1,200 youth run away from home each day; and 1 out of every 7 children in the United States runs away from home before the age of 18. It's not easy being a kid today. The decisions and concerns confronting kids today are tougher than ever: peer pressure, drug/alcohol abuse, and more. Some face pregnancy or AIDS. Many more are experiencing violence in the streets, at home, and in the classroom.

For the estimated 1.6 million kids living on the street, these dilemmas may be especially difficult because there is all too often no one to talk to. These youth thought they could escape their problems by running away, only to encounter even more problems.

That is why I support the National Runaway Switchboard (NRS)'s mission which serves as the federally-designated national communication system for homeless and runaway youth. While its national headquarters is in my district in Chicago, NRS provides services to youth and families across the country. Without organizations such as the National Runaway Switchboard, over a million youth each year would have nowhere to turn during a time of crisis. Established in 1971, NRS is recognized as the oldest hotline in the world. With the support of more than 150 volunteers, NRS handled over 111,000 calls last year and more than 3 million calls in its 34-year history. NRS provides crisis intervention, referrals to local resources, and education and prevention services to youth, families and community members throughout the country 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Over 10,000 youth have been reunited with their families through the NRS Home Free program.

On April 18, 2005, I joined Executive Director, Maureen Blaha, at NRS headquarters to unveil NRS's new 800 number, 1-800-RUNAWAY to the American public. NRS also announced the establishment of a new web site, www.1800RUNAWAY.org to match its new signature 800 number. These new initiatives are intended to provide vulnerable and at-risk youth with an easy name and number to remember when they are experiencing crisis and looking for help. The NRS hopes to offer its services to more and more youth with the rollout of 1-800-RUNAWAY.

Now is the time to protect the vulnerable and support our youth. Tomorrow's leaders are running away from homes and falling into a life of uncertainty, violence, and crime. I urge my colleagues to join me in this fight to save tomorrow's leaders; vote ``yes'' on H. Res. 484.

Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 1409, the Assistance for Orphans and Other Vulnerable Children in Developing Countries Act. This bill will provide assistance for the most vulnerable children in the poorest of nations for basic care, HIV/AIDS treatment, school food programs, education and employment training assistance, and protection of inheritance rights. This bill also establishes the position of Special Advisor for Orphans and Vulnerable Children within the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to better coordinate the task of helping these children.

As a mother and as a grandmother, I will not stand by while millions of children all over the world suffer through the most abject, hostile, and inhumane conditions. In the last decade alone, more than one million children were orphaned or separated from their families as a result of war. As of July 2004, there were more than 143 million children living in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean who were identified as orphans, having lost one or both of their parents. Of this number, approximately 16 million children were identified as double orphans, having lost both parents--the vast majority of whom died from AIDS. According to a joint report of UNAIDS and UNICEF released in July 2004, every 14 seconds a child is orphaned by AIDS worldwide. Even orphans who are adopted continue to live a life of poverty and disadvantages due to the lack of proper infrastructure and the large poverty-stricken population. According to the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), orphans are less likely to be in school and more likely to be working full time. We must help and protect these children from a life of disease, crime, and uncertainty.

I support H.R. 1409 because a child should be receiving a balanced diet, not worrying whether there will be food to eat the next day.

A child should live in a secure and safe environment, not in such poverty-stricken conditions that they become victims to the sex trade. Every second, more of tomorrow's leaders are orphaned. We must do all we can to ensure that the world has the opportunity to see and benefit from their leadership, their potential. Over 33 humanitarian, NGO, and child care organizations support the passage of this bill. The valuable programs in H.R. 1409 can make a world of difference for orphans, proving them shelter, medical care, food, and, eventually a new home.

Families across the United States and around the world are willing to welcome and adopt orphans from around the world. This means a new chance at a bright new future for the most vulnerable in our society. We need to do everything we can to make those possibilities a reality. I urge my colleagues to protect our children and our future by voting ``yes'' on H.R. 1409.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 420, the so-

called Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act. The legislation will have a significant, adverse impact on the ability of civil rights plaintiffs to seek recourse in our courts.

This bill would remove a court's discretion to impose sanctions on attorneys for frivolous lawsuits under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. By removing a court's discretion to impose sanctions, this bill would make Rule 11 sanctions mandatory.

Mandatory Rule 11 sanctions are a failed experiment. When they were mandatory--between 1983 until they were repealed in 1993--they were disproportionately used to harass civil rights plaintiffs bringing claims to enforce civil rights laws. It would be a mistake to turn back the clock on civil rights.

If such mandatory sanctions are reinstated, what can we expect? The movie, based on the first sexual harassment class action, North Country, perfectly illustrates the problem. North Country is based on the real life case of Lois Jensen, who in 1975 was a single mother on welfare and took a job working in the taconite mines of northern Minnesota. In that male-dominated work force, she endured extreme sexual harassment and her employer refused to do something about it. After 25 years and three trials, Jensen finally prevailed in 1998. Landmark litigation takes time. And landmark causes of action, often referred to as novel, should not be confused with frivolous claims.

If H.R. 420 passes, motions for Rule 11 sanctions will be disproportionately brought by big corporations against individual plaintiffs to harass, drag-out, and make the costs of their litigation more expensive.

It's important not to make landmark civil rights cases more difficult. Mandatory Rule 11 sanctions would make such compelling cases more difficult by allowing big companies even more opportunities to out-litigate the individual. H.R. 420 will require a mandatory sanctions regime that would apply to civil rights cases and massively skew the playing field against injured victims. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 420, and support the Democratic alternative.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 368, congratulating the State of Israel on the election of Ambassador Dan Gillerman as Vice President of the 60th United Nations General Assembly. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important resolution.

In June 2005, Ambassador Gillerman was elected to serve as the Vice President of the General Assembly of the United Nations. Incredibly, Ambassador Gillerman is the first Israeli to serve as Vice President of the General Assembly in the past 53 years. The last Israeli to hold this prestigious post was the legendary Abba Eban, who served as Vice President in 1952. Ambassador Gillerman is bringing years of notable experience to this international body which historically has not been supportive of the State of Israel.

Ambassador Gillerman has played a prominent role in helping to steer Israel towards economic liberalization and a free market economy. He has served on the Prime Minister's National Economic and Social Council, the President's Committee of the Coordinating Council of Israel's Economic Organizations, and as Chairman of the Israel-British Business Council, as well as being a member of the executive board of the International Chamber of Commerce.

Most importantly, Ambassador Gillerman has been personally involved in the economic aspects of the Israeli/Palestinian peace process. He has honorably represented Israel during talks with Palestinian and Arab leaders trying to further economic cooperation within the region. I hope that his appointment at the United Nations will lead to further progress on a final peace settlement between Israel and Palestine.

I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating Ambassador Gillerman and the State of Israel on this historic occasion.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 397, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. I believe this bill unfairly grants the gun industry immunity and takes away an individual's or state's ability to hold gun manufacturers, gun dealers, and gun trade associations accountable for negligence and product liability standards that apply to other industries. The bill perpetuates the gun industry's disregard for public safety and holds up their ``see-no-evil, hear-no- evil, speak-no-evil'' approach to gun manufacturing and distribution.

My opposition to S. 397 is an effort to crack down on negligent gun companies whose sole interest is making money even when it is at the expense of innocent lives and law enforcement. This bill would void a number of pending cases around the country which seek to hold the gun industry accountable for its actions. That includes cases brought against the gun industry by the City of Chicago and Cook County on behalf of victims of a shooting rampage a few years ago. That one tragic incident killed Ricky Byrdsong and injured others in our community. Those cases charge that the gun industry causes a public nuisance by being negligent in gun sales practices, particularly by making them available to minors and others who are banned from owning guns. This bill takes us backwards and gives immunity to the very industry that has the power to regulate the manufacturing and distribution of its products. One death by a handgun is too many. But when 647 people are murdered by guns in one year in just one city, as was the case in Chicago in 2002, now is not the time to give immunity to the gun industry.

Although I oppose S. 397, I support an amendment that was added to this bill before it passed in the Senate. The amendment offered by Senator Kohl draws its provisions from the Child Safety Lock Act. It would prohibit the sale, delivery, or transfer by a licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer of a handgun to anyone who does not have a secure gun storage or safety device. Child-safety locks cost as little as $10 and could save lives if sold with firearm. In fact, the Illinois House of Representatives passed a bill this year that will require gun dealers to sell child-safety locks with every handgun, to help prevent children from shooting themselves or others. This is important because our children possess the physical strength to accidentally fire a gun. According to the Illinois Council against Handgun Violence, 25 percent of 3- to 4-year-olds, 70 percent of 5- to 6-year-olds, and 90 percent of 7- to 8-year-olds can fire most handguns. The American Bar association believes that a locking device to prevent accidental firing should be a standard for the gun industry as seat belts are for the car industry. I support this amendment, and I hope it is enacted.

S. 397 would strip away the legal rights of gun violence victims, including law enforcement officers and their families, to seek redress against irresponsible gun dealers and manufacturers. That is why the American Trial Lawyers Association, the American Bar Association, as well as law enforcement officers oppose this bill. As it is, guns are one of the few consumer products that are exempt from health and safety regulations. Therefore, litigation is the last opportunity for victims of firearm violence to hold the gun industry accountable when it acts negligently or recklessly. This bill would protect the gun industry at the expense of gun violence victims. We must not let the gun industry off the hook. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on S. 397.

Mr. Speaker, today we honor the life and legacy of Rosa Parks. On October 24, Rosa Parks died in Detroit at the age of 92. I join all of my colleagues and on behalf of my constituents express sorrow on the death of Rosa Parks, the woman many consider the mother of the civil rights movement.

Rosa Parks' refusal to give up her seat on a bus to a white person on December 1, 1955, touched off the 381-day Montgomery bus boycott, and led to the repeal of so-called Jim Crow laws of segregation in the South. It is the courage, dignity, and determination that Ms. Parks exemplified on that day that allows most historians to credit her with beginning the modern day civil rights movement. The events that began on that bus captivated the Nation and transformed a 26-year-old preacher, Martin Luther King Jr., into a major civil rights leader. ``Mrs. Parks' arrest was the precipitating factor rather than the cause of the protest,'' King wrote in his 1958 book, ``Stride Toward Freedom.'' ``The cause lay deep in the record of similar injustices.''

Rosa Parks didn't set out to be a hero. But by taking a stand, she became the catalyst for a profound change in American society, and the walls of segregation came tumbling down. Rosa Parks is a national treasure and an inspiration for the ongoing fight for social equality. She reminds us that the pursuit for justice is an obligation for all instead of a choice for some. She was one small woman who had a big impact and empowered individuals. Her life's work is a shining light in our Nation's history.

Rosa Parks said, ``I'd like people to say I'm a person who always wanted to be free and wanted it not only for myself; freedom is for all human beings.''

This year marks the 50th Anniversary of Rosa Parks' courageous and defiant act of civil disobedience. As we honor her life and legacy, I ask the Congress and the great people of this Nation to work with the same courage, dignity, and determination exemplified by Rosa Parks to address and change modern day inequalities and injustices. I know that this Congress and the people of this Nation can work to further the ideals of Rosa Parks and the Civil Rights Movement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Mrs. Bonnie Marley of San Diego, California and Mr. Ron Blackman of Fort Wayne, Indiana. These special individuals dedicated their lives to educating the United States' next generation of cosmetologists. Mrs. Manley and Mr. Blackman were owners of Pivot Point International member schools, part of a global beauty education company headquartered in my district. They honorably supported the company's philanthropic commitment to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC).

Mrs. Manley was passionate about the welfare of children. Whether it was caring for her own grandchildren, or a missing child hundreds of miles away, she inspired her students to raise more than $50,000 for

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3675, the American Spirit Fraud Prevention Act. Hurricane Katrina was one of the worst natural disasters to have ever struck the United States; and it will take months, if not years, to recover from its wake. Countless lives were lost, and the Nation was confronted with a new reality, a harsh sense of our vulnerabilities. One saving grace, the one ray of hope that helped to combat the pain, suffering, and sadness of the Nation, was the commitment displayed by Americans who were determined to help. As the cities of New Orleans, Gulfport, Biloxi, and others try to regain their footing, residents around the Nation, including the Chicago area, where I am from, have opened their hearts, their homes, and their pocketbooks to provide support to those who have lost so much.

Over $1 billion has been raised for relief efforts and aid to victims of Katrina from donations large and small made by the American public.

Unfortunately, however, there are some in our country who demonstrated the shameful side of humanity by attempting to illegally profit from Katrina. Those individuals tried to exploit the generosity demonstrated by so many through fraudulent solicitations in which they claimed to be representing organizations benefiting the victims or providing emergency response services. While those despicable acts are already illegal, it is necessary for the Congress, on behalf of our constituents, to send a clear message that such behavior will be subject to even more severe penalties in the future.

Under H.R. 3675, the American Spirit Fraud Prevention Act, the maximum civil fines for actions of fraud in an attempt to profit from national emergencies will be doubled. These increased penalties will apply to all violations that occur within 1 year of the time the President declares a disaster and all violations that occurred during and up to 1 year after the expiration of a Presidential emergency declared under the National Emergencies Act.

The American public is caring and committed. We care about the well- being of our neighbors, and we are committed to do what we can to ensure prosperity and security for this Nation. While our government needs to do much more to improve its preparedness and response, we will not allow the generous and caring spirit of the American public to be victimized during a national emergency.

I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this bill.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 485, a resolution supporting the goals of Red Ribbon Week, October 23 through October 31, 2005.

As mentioned, the original and most fundamental purpose of Red Ribbon Week is to honor the memory of Enrique ``Kiki'' Camarena, a Drug Enforcement Administration agent who was brutally murdered by drug traffickers in 1985.

Now in its 20th year, Red Ribbon Week has grown into a national campaign to promote drug-free communities by raising awareness, particularly among our children, of the perils of drug use. During this week, communities, school and home-based programs will convey important drug use information to millions of our fellow citizens, particularly the most vulnerable among our children.

I regularly participate in one of those celebrations in my own district and appreciate the educational aspect of Red Ribbon Week. It aims to prevent drug use. Red Ribbon Week is a useful part of what we all acknowledge is a constant challenge in young lives.

Notwithstanding the many laudable aspects of Red Ribbon Week, it is clear that we still have a lot of work to do. The most recent National Survey on Drug Use and Health tells us that almost 8 percent of the population over the age of 12 are current users of illicit drugs. Current use of illicit drugs is even more prevalent among teens, almost 11 percent. While marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug, methamphetamine use is spreading across the country at alarming rates.

The NSDUH report also notes significant use and abuse of alcohol, tobacco and legal drugs such as pain relievers and tranquilizers. Again, young people in their late teens and early twenties have use rates in each of these areas that are significantly higher than the overall average.

We need to bolster our efforts aimed at prevention and do more to return our citizens to normal productive lives when their lives have been overtaken by drug abuse. And we should steer our policies and resources away from the overly militaristic and supply-side strategies of recent years. They do not work, and the money would be better spent on proven, effective ways to combat drugs and drug use.

While resolutions such as this are nice, and, in fact, they are important, they do not provide the additional resources necessary to provide prevention and treatment services for all who need them. Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, I would urge all of my colleagues to support H. Res. 485, supporting the goals of Red Ribbon Week.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).

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

Madam Speaker, it is obvious what the Republican talking points are today. If the Democrats were in charge, how we would increase spending and increase the debt. Well, guess what, Democrats were in charge and what happened, we ended up, after President Clinton left, with $5 trillion in surpluses, surpluses as far as the eye could see.

We had not the deficit, but actually a surplus in the yearly budget of $236 billion. And what has happened since? Madam Speaker, we are $8 trillion in debt. From $5 trillion surplus to $8 trillion in debt.

What happened to all those projected surpluses every year? Oh, the Republicans said that by 2005 we would have a $269 billion surplus in the budget. Forget it, it is $319 billion in debt.

So what are we talking about when we say fiscal responsibility? And how are they going to do it now, never mind the $200 billion for the war in Iraq, let us not charge for building Baghdad, let us cut spending so we can offset rebuilding Biloxi.