Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 360, a resolution commemorating the 60th anniversary of V-J Day and the end of World War II in the Pacific.

Sixty years ago today, Japanese offIcials formally surrendered and by doing so concluded the bloodiest war in modern history,

The United States entered the Second World War in December 1941, following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and over the next four years Americans participated in the greatest national endeavor in our Nation's history.

The casualty toll of Americans in the Pacific Theater during World War II was approximately 92,904 killed, 208,333 wounded, and tens of thousands missing in action and prisoners of war, with civilians and military forces of the Allied Powers suffering equally devastating tolls.

Mr. Speaker, the people of the lnland Empire are grateful to this greatest generation for their sacrifice and we honor them for their courage.

Courage of people like Frank Sandoval of Ontario, California who bravely stood his ground as a landing crew machinist during battles with Japanese forces off the Island of Leyte, Philippines.

Courage like that of former Congressman Jerry Pettis, who fought in the Pacific and then returned home to dedicate his life to his community. Indeed, our local VA Medical Center in Loma Linda is named after him.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support this resolution so we may appropriately acknowledge the countless number of Americans who sacrificed their lives in World War II.

The contributions of these brave Americans have allowed us to live in the prosperous and free America we know today. It is our duty not only to recognize and remember their example, but also to courageously follow it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report for H.R. 3, the Transportation Reauthorization.

The sad fact is that American transportation infrastructure is not keeping pace with population growth, traffic, the increase in the movement of goods, and the basic need to have better freeways that connect us as a Nation.

Our freeways and transit systems have been key components of American society. They enable us to exercise our fundamental freedom to travel, explore and move cross-country with ease.

Just as important, our freeways allow for the movement of goods and interstate commerce. That is why this bill is such an important federal priority, and why we should have funded it more generously.

We know that the United States of America is the single largest exporter and the single largest importer on the face of the earth. We have an $11 trillion economy.

The region I represent in California, called the Inland Empire, is growing by leaps and bounds. The Inland Empire is among the few remaining areas with affordable housing within driving distance of Los Angeles.

The Cities of Fontana, Ontario, Rialto, Colton, and San Bernardino stand to nearly double their populations by the end of the decade. The Inland Empire will grow by another 1.6 million people by 2020, bringing the population to 4.8 million.

The growth in my district outpaces that of 45 States. This growth requires a significant investment in transportation infrastructure to allow our residents to commute safely through our roads, rail and highways.

My region also has a constant flow of traffic and rail to and from the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, two of the busiest ports in the entire world.

Trucks from all over the nation travel Interstates 10, 15 and 215 to deliver their goods to port or to a warehouse.

Because of the high volume of movement in my region I understand the challenges we face in improving our roads and freeways to make them safer, cleaner and less congested.

This conference report includes funding for important grade separations that are badly needed in my district so we can improve the safety of rail traffic and rail crossings. Also, this conference report invests in freeway interchanges and overpasses in the fast-growing region I represent.

I am also glad that this bill contains funds to do the final upgrades to the Santa Fe Depot.

Mr. Speaker, our Nation has waited long enough for these overdue infrastructure investments. I urge my colleagues to support the conference agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report for the Energy Bill.

Americans need an abundant supply of energy to maintain a high quality of life and sustain our economy.

This comprehensive bill helps provide for our Nation's energy needs by encouraging domestic energy production.

America has become too dependent on foreign oil, making our consumers subject to volatile prices and the whims of often hostile, antidemocratic leaders. We have seen the consequences as oil and gas prices continue to rise. The price of imported oil recently reached record levels of $60 a barrel. That is a full $10 more than six months ago and nearly $20 more than two years ago. I am well aware of the hardships this causes for consumers, workers and our economy.

In my district in California the cost of gasoline has risen to $2.89 a gallon. Many of my constituents commute to Los Angeles, which is 60 miles away. Many others are truckers who depend on stable gasoline prices to put food on the table. These hard-working people are affected daily by our country's dependence on foreign oil.

Nobody should make false promises that gas prices will immediately be lowered.

This bill is not a quick fix, but it includes important provisions to help meet our country's energy needs, while also promoting energy efficiency, conservation and diversification, including incentives for alternative sources like ethanol, solar and wind.

By decreasing our dependence on foreign oil and expanding production of alternative sources, we are not only protecting consumers and protecting our national security, but we are also protecting our economy by creating perhaps one million jobs.

Improving our Nation's energy efficiency and cost efficiency is a bipartisan issue.

I am pleased to support H.R. 2419 for the economic and national security of our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5, the Republican Medical malpractice bill.

This bill is bad medicine for American consumers. It is a bitter pill for our seniors, our children, and the middle class.

The Republican majority will stop at nothing to prevent access to the legal system for those who are hurt. First they said that all they wanted to do was limit class action lawsuits to Federal courts. Now that they have succeeded, they are back again, to take more rights away from American patients and consumers.

Mr. Speaker, the majority will distort the facts, but the American people will not be deceived.

The bill places a $250,000 cap on pain-and-suffering awards in medical malpractice lawsuits. $250,000. Is that what a lifetime of pain and suffering at the hands of malpractice is worth?

Would you want your mother, grandfather or child to be in that situation? As the bills pile up, and the Republicans say, sorry, but we have sold out to the special interests?

The bill makes it much harder for patients injured by medical errors to seek redress. It shortens the time for patients to prove they were hurt by malpractice. It gives legal immunity to drug makers, those same companies

that have already killed and maimed people with products that were prematurely released on the market.

Many of us are alarmed at the skyrocketing cost of medical care, including patients, who are the consumers. However, medical malpractice is not the reason for these increasing costs. It is medical mismanagement and corporate greed.

The Washington Post had an article this past weekend about the health care system for our seniors. The frightening truth? Some health care providers deliberately, or indifferently, provide bad medical care, so that they can increase the costs of treatment, while patients become even sicker. Wounds become infected, equipment is covered with dust, and sterile techniques are not used.

It sounds like the plot of a bad medical thriller, or medical practice in some remote corner of the globe, but it is happening, right here in America, to your father or mother, grandmother or grandfather.

So, I say, stop picking on the legal system, which fights for the rights of the poor, the sick, the elderly, and the injured.

Many of the rights that consumers enjoy today are the result of path- breaking legal decisions and the lawyers who were willing to stand up and fight.

The Republicans would like to take us back to a darker time, when corporations ruled and the underserved had no rights. We must say, no; we must oppose this bad medicine. Enough is enough. We must oppose this bad bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in oposition to this bill.

I urge all of my colleagues to join me in standing up for America and our working families by rejecting CAFTA.

CAFTA is a bad deal: bad for workers and businesses in my district, bad for America, and bad for workers in Central America.

CAFTA would cause more job losses, more poverty and more hardship for workers both here at home and in Central America, while expanding the gap between rich and poor.

We all should have learned from the mistakes of NAFTA, which was passed 12 years ago and has hurt American workers.

Let's all keep in mind the saying, ``Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.''

After NAFTA, there should be no CAFTA.

When NAFTA was passed, many believed it would lead to higher wages and economic development in the U.S., Mexico and Canada and less illegal immigration.

Those hopes turned out to be false: Instead of helping American workers, NAFTA took away jobs. Instead of helping American businesses, many were forced to close down or move out of the country.

As we work hard to strengthen the American economy, we cannot afford a bad trade bill that is unfair to American workers.

CAFTA does not hold companies in other countries to the same standards. Workers in those countries do not have the same rights or protections. They do not have a voice and do not have safety standards.

Central American workers will be exploited. They will be expected to work like elephants and if they are not producing enough to satisfy their bosses, their jobs will be eliminated and replacements brought in.

We must not help or reward companies that prefer to exploit Central American workers in sweatshops instead of creating jobs in the U.S., hiring American workers and increasing wages.

It seems every day we read in the papers about another factory closing down. Since President Bush took office, 2.5 million manufacturing jobs have been lost. At least 750,000 American jobs have been lost directly due to NAFTA. And they are not coming back.

My constituents know about the impact of offshoring. We remember when Kaiser Steel closed its factory in Fontana, California, resulting in devastating job losses that hurt hundreds of workers, their families and their neighborhoods.

I am especially concerned about the harmful effect that CAFTA would have on Hispanic communities in the U.S. because we have seen that almost half (47%) of the American workers who lost jobs due to NAFTA were Latinos.

In addition to protecting American jobs, I want to protect our homeland security and I

am concerned that CAFTA would make us less secure. Our ports and borders are already vulnerable. Many shipments of cargo enter our country without inspection. Increasing shipments of goods from Central America could pose additional threats to our security.

I am disappointed that the Administration did not work closely with my colleagues in the Congressional Hispanic Caucus to propose an agreement that protects American workers and businesses.

Instead, the Administration is proposing an unacceptable trade deal that I cannot support.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3283, concerning trade with China.

I join with millions of American workers in saying no to this ill- conceived Republican gift to the Chinese government.

This bill does nothing to address the growing unfair trade gap between China and the United States--an imbalance purchased with China's exploitation of political prisoners, oppressive jail-like working conditions, child labor, and suppression of basic freedoms.

Products made in China are cheap through the exploitation of the workforce. Every time

we shop, we are driving the nail further into the coffin of American manufacturing jobs.

This bill does nothing to address artificially low prices. It does nothing to stop manipulation of currency to drive the United States further into a trade imbalance. It does nothing to save honest American workers from losing their jobs.

This bill weakens the ability of the United States to apply sanctions against China for unfair trade practices. Democrats have offered several much stronger proposals to deal with this issue, and the Republicans have refused to let them come to the floor. Not a single one has been considered.

To help U.S. workers, farmers and businesses, and America's long-term economic security, Congress should take decisive action to bring about fair trade with China, instead of squandering this opportunity on a weak Republican bill.

If Congress wants to take real action, it should pass comprehensive legislation to end currency manipulation; allow U.S. companies to challenge subsidized imports from China; and fix China safeguard statute and other import remedies to protect U.S. manufacturers against surges and other unfair imports from China.

I support American workers in saying, let's combat China's unfair trade practices by providing us with the tools to save American jobs.

It is an insult to American workers that, in the same week that Congress is considering CAFTA, it is bringing forth a weak China trade compromise bill. This demonstrates the majority's anti-worker agenda, that gives priority to Chinese workers instead of American jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition of H.R. 525 and the association health plans it creates.

There are 44 million Americans who are uninsured in this country and this bill will not even affect 1 percent of them. Not 1 percent.

CBO found that only 360,000 uninsured Americans would join AHPs.

This bill in fact hurts those who enroll in the plans and will even cause healthcare costs to go up for many other Americans.

There has to be a better way to help 44 million uninsured Americans.

AHPs will not be accountable to State health regulations. This will leave consumers who enroll in these plans without protection or a right to appeal if their cancer or diabetes treatment or medicines are denied.

We cannot let AHPs become bargain basement plans that enroll only the healthiest Americans. What will happen to our sick, elderly and those with severe health conditions?

Twenty million Americans will face higher healthcare costs. Twenty million.

Health insurers will give breaks to the AHPs and charge other consumers more. Studies show that these higher healthcare costs could cause up to 10,000 Americans to become insured.

There is a better way to help small businesses and the uninsured.

H.R. 525 will not help small businesses or their employees. This is a shortsighted plan that does nothing to cover the 44 million uninsured Americans who cannot afford to get sick.

Mr. Chairman, since the days of the pony express, the USPS has become a part of the American family.

Consider the special place of the Postal Service in our society and its importance to Americans: to the teenagers waiting by the mailbox for the college acceptance letters, to families waiting for letters from loved ones serving abroad, to businesses reaching out to new customers and to so many others.

The Postal Service delivers mail six days a week to nearly 140 million addresses. Every year this number increases by 2 million.

The Postal Service's unmatched ability to reach every household and business in America six days a week is a vital part of the nation's infrastructure.

The Postal Service needs tools to modernize and compete. That is why today I am a cosponsor of H.R. 22, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act.

This legislation will not only ensure survival of the Postal Service but also help preserve universal service at affordable rates for American mailing consumers.

We need to ensure the long-term viability of this $900 billion industry and its nine million employees.

I only wish that we could also pass H.R. 147, the Social Security Fairness Act.

We need to correct the Windfall Elimination Provision, which lowers Social Security benefits for retirees who receive a Civil Service Retirement System annuity and Social Security benefits from other jobs.

Too many Postal Service employees have seen their Social Security benefits reduced by as much as 55 percent because of the Windfall Elimination Provision.

We also need to fix the Government Pension Offset, so that spouses and survivors do not have their benefits reduced.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 22 is a good first step and I encourage my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Chairman, since the days of the pony express, the USPS has become a part of the American family.

Consider the special place of the Postal Service in our society and its importance to Americans: to the teenagers waiting by the mailbox for the college acceptance letters, to families waiting for letters from loved ones serving abroad, to businesses reaching out to new customers and to so many others.

The Postal Service delivers mail six days a week to nearly 140 million addresses. Every year this number increases by 2 million. The Postal Service's unmatched ability to reach every household and business in America six days a week is a vital part of the nation's infrastructure.

The Postal Service needs tools to modernize and compete. That is why today I am a cosponsor of H.R. 22, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. This legislation will not only ensure survival of the Postal Service but also help preserve universal service at affordable rates for American mailing consumers. We need to ensure the long-term viability of this $900 billion industry and its nine million employees. I only wish that we could also pass H.R. 147, the Social Security Fairness Act.

We need to correct the Windfall Elimination Provision, which lowers Social Security benefits for retirees who receive a Civil Service Retirement System annuity and Social Security benefits from other jobs. Too many Postal Service employees have seen their Social Security benefits reduced by as much as 55% because of the Windfall Elimination Provision. We also need to fix the Government Pension Offset, so that spouses and survivors do not have their benefits reduced.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 22 is a good first step and I encourage my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 376, to ask the FTC to look into the misrating of the ``Grand Theft Auto'' video game.

I have been working on this issue for the last five years, since 2000, and have been working also with Representative Wolf and others to ensure that members and the public understand the importance of this issue to our children. It's good to know that other members are becoming aware of the problem and together we can work in a bipartisan effort and make a difference.

Through our hard work, and that of those who are with us, the ESRB, the Voluntary Industry Rating Board, has now changed the rating of ``Grand Theft Auto'' from an M to an AO. That is not enough, because there are literally dozens of games out there that have the same type of offensive content, and the burden is now on the industry to explain why all of those games should not be rated AO, also.

But we will not wait for the industry. We must take action now. We must step up the pressure. For this reason, we have asked the FTC to scrutinize all video games, including ``Grand Theft Auto'', to make sure they are properly rated. We appreciate the continued expression of support by the Congress. Together we can make a difference.

My legislation, the Software Accuracy and Fraud Evaluation Rating Act or Safe Rating Act (H.R. 1145), would empower parents, by calling upon the FTC to look at all video game ratings.

Parents are the gatekeeper for what their children watch or play, but how can they do that, if the ratings are not accurate? How can they do that if the ratings are confusing? We must empower parents!

The decision to rate ``Grand Theft Auto--San Andreas'' as adults only represents a small victory for those of us who have been calling on the video game industry to clean up its act.

However, the industry's self-regulation is a case of the fox guarding the hen house--and American children are at risk because of this.

Although the ratings board has decided in July of 2005 that San Andreas should be rated adults only, it has already been sold for at least 18 months, earning millions of dollars for its producer. In fact, it was the best-selling game of 2004! And that means that millions of American children have played it, being exposed to graphic violent and sexual content.

Parents are confused by the ratings and angry that their kids are being exposed to filth and violence.

I hear from concerned parents in my district in California and from all over America.

The most important step we should take now is to pursue an investigation by the Federal Trade Commission into the video game rating system as my legislation calls for.

I have recently met with the FTC chairwoman Deborah Majoras to press for changes in how the games are reviewed and rated.

This is a $25 billion worldwide industry that makes much of its profits by targeting teenage and younger boys.

The industry can give a game an M rating with a wink because it knows that any kid can buy a game even if it has an M rating.

There are several problems with the M Rating:

The wording on the label (in the small print on the back of the package) does not give parents a full and honest understanding of what is really in the game.

The M rating is confusing because the criteria that the industry uses to determine an M rating is almost identical to what it uses for the adults only rating.

Kids are buying these games! This month CBS News reported the results of a recent study: Despite the warning labels, 50 percent of boys age 7-14 have bought a game rated-M, for mature audiences, and a stunning nine out of ten of the boys have played them.

These games are harmful to children. Playing a violent or graphic video game hurts a child even more than watching a violent movie or TV show or listening to an obscene song because the child is role playing. The child assumes the identity of a criminal or a gang member.

Too many video games glorify and reward violent and criminal behavior. Why don't the video games feature heroic characters? Instead of having a child act like a cop-killer, why not make him a police officer? Instead of someone who kills, why not make him a lifesaver, like a fireman or a doctor?

It's time that the video game industry acted responsibly. It's time to take a hard look at their ratings. We must support this legislation on the floor today, and I urge all members to give their full support to my bill, H.R. 1145, to have the FTC look at the ratings of all video games.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my extreme disappointment in the mediocre efforts of the Republican administration and leadership to adequately fund the Veterans Administration. Their lack of consideration and foresight led to an enormous shortfall in veterans' health care funding which we must immediately remedy.

Time after time, the Republican majority has shown our beloved veterans where their priorities lie. For the 2005 and 2006 budgets, they were unwilling to listen to Democrats who have consistently fought for increases for veterans' health care. More than a year ago, my distinguished colleague from Illinois, Mr. Evans, made it known that the funding for the VA would fall immensely short of what is required for proper health services--over $1.3 billion short.

Despite these figures, the Administration and Republican leadership continued their indifference towards helping our veterans. They were reluctant to admit any shortfall in VA health care funding until recently, when they reversed their position by asking for supplemental funding of $975 million. Still, my Democratic colleagues and I were dissatisfied because it still fell short of the $1.3 billion total that was necessary. Finally, just yesterday, the Bush Administration admitted that an additional $300 million was needed to secure veterans' health care for FY05.

While it is nice to see that the Republican leadership has finally decided to take care of our veterans, this delayed and belated action is unacceptable. Many VA medical facilities have already been affected by the lack of funds. They have begun cutting nursing and medical staff, closing operating rooms, and not scheduling medical appointments.

Though many speak of acknowledging the contributions of our veterans, actions speak louder than words.

It is not enough to thank our veterans for their contributions and then fail to provide them with the fundamental right of access to health care.

We must continue the work we have seen from the Senate and supplement the budget with an additional $1.5 billion in funding for veterans' health care.

It is the least we can do for those that have sacrificed to defend our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion to Instruct Conferees by Representative Capps.

Our greatest obligation is to protect the people we represent. That means protecting their health and wellbeing. Therefore, it is important that we do not let those responsible for MBTE contamination of our water off the hook.

Clean and safe drinking water is vital to our health, not a luxury.

So I want to make sure that chemicals that cause cancer or other illnesses that threaten the health, even the lives, of my constituents are not able to contaminate the water we drink.

That is why I have been working hard to gain funds to pay for the removal of perchlorate from groundwater in San Bernardino County.

And that is why I am concerned about MBTE and its impact on the communities I represent.

MBTE is a dangerous chemical that has contaminated the groundwater in thousands of sites across the country.

Unfortunately, instead of holding the manufacturers of MBTE accountable for the harm their products have caused, some Republicans in Congress want to make the American people pay.

I believe in being accountable and responsible. This Administration has talked about accountability, but now Republican leaders are now trying to pass the buck.

The cost of cleaning up MBTE-contaminated water nationwide is estimated to be $29 billion.

It is wrong to ask the county and city governments and local water agencies to pay. Their budgets are already under a lot of stress, and they would have to raise the funds from taxpayers and ratepayers.

We must reject provisions that give corporate polluters a free pass. MBTE manufacturers must be held accountable for the harm they have caused and clean up their own mess.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the previous question on the rule. We need to allow for Democratic amendments, namely one to increase the federal minimum wage.

While Republicans demand up or down votes on controversial appointees, why are American families denied an up or down vote on the Miller-Owens bill to raise the minimum wage. The Miller-Owens bill would gradually raise the minimum wage by $2.10--from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour.

The minimum wage has been frozen at $5.15 since 1997. The inflation- adjusted minimum wage is 26 percent lower today than it was in 1979. If the minimum wage had just kept pace with inflation since 1968 when it was $1.60 an hour, the minimum wage would now be $8.88 an hour.

The number of Americans in poverty has increased by 4.3 million since President Bush took office--and the minimum wage is part of the problem. Nearly 36 million Americans live in poverty, including 13 million children. This is a travesty that must end.

Increasing the minimum wage would help lift a half million workers rise out of poverty and would not have any impact on jobs, employment or inflation. In the four years after the last minimum wage increase passed, the economy experienced its strongest growth in over three decades. Nearly 11 million new jobs were added, at a pace of 232,000 per month. There were ten million new service industry jobs, including more than one and a half million retail jobs.

Mr. Speaker, a fair increase in the minimum wage is long overdue, and I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can vote on the Miller-Owens minimum wage bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 740 and the three other OSHA bills under consideration today.

Republicans are suggesting that our laws are hurting American jobs and productivity. How can that be so when we continue even now to push for CAFTA that would outsource additional jobs outside of this area, not to mention many of the other jobs that we have lost? It is untrue. It is bad enough that millions of Americans are being shipped overseas. We cannot afford to lose any more jobs. We have got to keep them here in the United States.

Now the Republicans want to weaken the protection that exists for our Nation's workers, our Nation's workers, working families and others who deserve the right.

Last year, Republicans passed FCC and ETI, a bill that gave tax breaks to companies that moved to China and India, and I state that, moved to China and India. Half the time the consumers do not know who they are talking to when they pick up the phone because they are from some other company.

Republicans need to stop confusing people on the reason why jobs are leaving the mainstream and are being sent to mainland China. We should put the blame for losses in California and across the country where it belongs, and I state where it belongs. They failed, the policies of this administration, the President's so called compassionate conservatism has cost us 3 million jobs, and I state, 3 million jobs. That is American jobs that we could put on working families. Please end this compassion.

Remember that it was the President Bush's top economic advisors who claimed that sending American jobs overseas is a good thing. Well, we know it is not a good thing to American workers here and what it does to them.

Weakening American labor standards and allowing American workers to be exploited as they are in third world countries is not the solution. That type of thinking would put boys and girls out of the classroom and into the coal mines? These four bills are anti-worker, and I state, anti-worker, anti-safety, and they weaken the health and safety laws. And they hurt the American workers and working families.

H.R. 739 weakens enforcement of the health and safety legislation by dragging out the debate for imposing penalties.

H.R. 740 weakens worker protection by packing commissions with partisan appointees who agree with the President's anti-workers agenda, and I state, partisan appointees who agree with the President's anti- workers agenda.

H.R. 741 encouraged frivolous challenges to labor law rules and interpretation. H.R. 742 requires OSHA to pay attorneys fees for employers that win cases against OSHA.

However, these companies do not pay OSHA when they lose. Therefore, employers have nothing to lose by challenging those violations in court.

The real losers under this legislation are the American taxpayers, American workers, American families in this country, American people who work to make our country great.

As you can see, all four bills are antiworker laws, and the only way to justify them is to trump up charges that worker protection laws are costing American jobs and hurting American productivity. That is not true, because it is American families, American workers who have made this country great. We need to keep them here, and we need to protect them here in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose all four of these anti- OSHA bills.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 740 and the other three OSHA bills under consideration today.

Republicans are suggesting that our laws are hurting American jobs and productivity.

This is untrue. It's bad enough that millions of American jobs are being shipped overseas.

Now Republicans want to weaken the few protections that exist for our Nation's workers.

Last year, Republicans passed the FSC/ETI bill that gave tax breaks to companies that move to China or India. Republicans need to stop confusing people on the reasons why jobs are leaving Main Street and being sent to mainland China.

We should put the blame for job losses in California and across the country where it belongs: the failed policies of this administration. The President's so-called compassionate conservatism has cost us 3 million jobs. Please end the compassion!

Remember that it was President Bush's top economic advisor who claimed that sending American jobs overseas is a good thing.

Weakening America's labor standards and allowing workers here to be exploited as they are in third world countries is not the solution. That type of thinking would take boys and girls out of the classroom and into the coal mine.

These four bills are anti-worker and anti-safety. They weaken health and safety laws and hurt American workers.

H.R. 739 weakens enforcement of health and safety regulations by dragging out the date for imposing penalties.

H.R. 740 weakens worker protections by packing the commission with partisan appointees who agree with the President's anti-worker agenda.

H.R. 741 will encourage frivolous challenges to Labor Department rules and interpretations.

And, H.R. 742 requires OSHA to pay attorney fees for employers that win cases against OSHA. However, those companies do not pay OSHA when they lose. Therefore, employers have nothing to lose by challenging most violations in court.

The real losers under this legislation are American taxpayers and American workers.

As you can see, all four bills are anti-worker laws. The only way to justify them is to trump up charges that worker protection laws that are costing American jobs and hurting American productivity.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose all four of the anti-OSHA bills.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great respect that I pay tribute today to the life of Frank Ting-Kuo Chen, a man whose contributions to family and community cannot be understated. Frank was a man of great compassion and character. He will be deeply missed, but always be fondly remembered.

Frank's life is a true example of the achievement of the American Dream. Mr. Chen was born on January 1, 1941, in Taipei, Taiwan, the seventh child in a family of five sons and three daughters. In 1965 he married his love, Cha Cheng Chen, and they went on to celebrate 40 years of marriage.

Frank began his own company in Taiwan in 1970, where he manufactured and traded products that were distributed across the United States. He went on to hold several positions in public office, including serving as District Representative for the Chung Shan district in Taipei from 1976 to 1977. Frank had a passion for reading and worked for the newspapers China Post and the Stars and Stripes.

In 1977 Frank moved to the United States to give his children a better education. He settled in Moreno Valley, California, where he expanded his business and went on to achieve his lifelong dream of sending his children to college. Even with Frank's successful business career, he always made time for his wife and family. He is survived by Cha Cheng Chen, and his children, Suzanne, Ping and Lee.

Frank tirelessly devoted himself to his community, and in particular to facilitating the cultural exchange of Chinese Americans in the greater Los Angeles area. He was involved with numerous civic organizations in Southern California, and in particular the Chinese Students Association of the University of California at Riverside. He was later appointed as an official delegate of Taiwan's Overseas Chinese Affairs Commission, where he dedicated himself to providing assistance to immigrants and new residents in the Inland Empire. In 1988, he founded and served as President of the Inland Chinese Association, which has since grown to over 1,000 members. In 1989, he spearheaded the establishment of the first Inland Empire Chinese Language School. He later also led the movement to establish the Chinese Pavilion, a major landmark in downtown Riverside, to commemorate the early Chinese immigrants who inhabited the area in the late 19th century.

Although Frank is no longer with us, his legacy will never leave us. He dedicated his life to his family and his community, and in doing so improved the lives of thousands. His life is an example to all of us of how one person can make a difference. We are all truly better for having known Frank Ting-Kuo Chen.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 27, which withdraws approval of the United States from the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization.

The WTO was created to oversee and regulate international commerce through the establishment of universal trade agreements. The institution of these agreements would provide assurance and accountability between member nations, with the prospect of future economic prosperity. The goal of these trade practices is to ease facilitation of global business for producers, exporters, and importers.

My opposition to this resolution and consequent support of the WTO is not without qualification.

While there is great value in continuing multilateral trade regulations and mailltaining the general integrity of the WTO, this organization has consistently foundered in its role of impartial adjudicator and continues to undermine the domestic trade sovereignty of our Nation.

Over the past decade, we have witnessed a massive increase in the U.S. trade deficit, an alarming number of dislocated American workers, and consistent threats to the autonomy of U.S. domestic trade policy.

The international community has seen the numerous shortcomings of the WTO system, including poorly enforced labor laws that afford many countries an unfortunate competitive advantage in the global marketplace. The premise of independent unionization and equitable development has not been realized in the past 10 years under the WTO and continues to underscore the need for a reevaluation and modification of the institution.

Though the World Trade Organization has failed to deliver on the promises of economic gains to developing countries and general worldwide trade policy, the solution is not to withdraw U.S. support or approval. We must continue to work inside the infrastructure of the WTO and towards progressive policies. As a principal partner in the WTO, we must not disassociate ourselves from the organization or we will realize the regression of our global economy. Our obligations to the American worker necessitate a competent and responsible trade policy that can only be achieved through the refinement of the current system.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this resolution but reserve judgment over the current policies and procedures of the World Trade Organization. It is in the best interests of our nation to continue our active involvement in the WTO, while reconsidering and reworking current international trade policies.