Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4340, the United States-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. This agreement is an example of the success that bi-partisan engagement on trade issues can generate, and this agreement should be a model, a starting point, for how we can achieve success in the future.

During consideration of this agreement in the Ways and Means Committee, Democrats expressed their concern about the treatment and application of international labor standards in the agreement. Since that time, both the Administration and Bahrain have worked at our urging to include Bahrain's commitments to begin applying international labor standards immediately in their county as well as their timetable to bring all of their laws into ILO compliance as conditional and enforceable elements of the agreement. In other words, as we argued during the CAFTA debate, workers rights should enjoy the same level of protection we place on goods and intellectual property rights, a balance that was sorrowfully left out of the CAFTA agreement. In addition to this, the Bahraini government has demonstrated its world leadership by recently becoming one of the first Arab League nations to remove its boycott on Israeli goods and services.

These steps are encouraging, and indicate that countries are willing to accept minimum standards if the United States insists they be part of free trade agreements: The agreement shows that working together bipartisanly on trade issues will produce agreements that address the standards we feel every trade

agreement America signs onto should meet: the broad fulfillment of America's economic interests, the opening of fair markets for America's goods and services and the reversal of America's ever-growing trade deficit.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening in strong support of the Prescription Drug Flexibility Act for seniors. You know, we ask an awful lot of our senior citizens, so many of whom, as Tom Brokaw has eloquently penned, are a part of the greatest generation ever.

After traveling home this past Thanksgiving for the break and having an opportunity to conduct hearings throughout my district and speak to seniors directly, they did not realize that what we have asked of them in signing up for the so-called prescription drug plan under Medicare part D, that they are now required to be accountants, attorneys and actuaries in order to be able to fill out this form. It is a travesty that for so many of our seniors they find this not only confusing and complicated, but very difficult as well, and are unsure as to whether or not they are going to receive any specific relief.

That is why I have introduced legislation that I believe is both pragmatic and provides the opportunity for seniors to seek relief from the burdensome task that faces them.

Specifically, this legislation would accomplish three things. First and foremost it would extend for 2 years the time period in which seniors have to sign up. I think it is incredible to think that we could get 42 million people to sign up for a program in 6 months where in the State of Connecticut they have 44 choices in options to choose from. In many States it is as many as 60, 65 choices that people have to pursue in order to make sure they are making the right decision. And, of course, if they have not signed up in time or they are given misinformation, they receive a penalty for that starting at 1 percent a month and accumulating forward. Just out of simple fairness to the people we are sworn to serve, we ought to make sure that we are extending the time period, and this legislation calls for a 2-year extension.

The legislation further goes on to look at a provision that is commonly referred to as the ``lock-in provision.'' What that means for those that are struggling with this part D is that while the HMOs and insurance companies can opt out of their formularies or of their coverage, you are locked in for at least a period of a year. Well, common sense and fairness would say that if a company is covering you and say you are on Lipitor and then they opt out of that coverage, you ought to have the same right without penalty to opt out and get the kind of coverage that you need and desire.

The third thing that this bill does is also recognize that in the State of Connecticut, more than 44 choices, unfortunately there will be some companies that give misinformation and, again, maybe intentionally, maybe not, but the only people who will pay a penalty in this circumstance are the elderly. We think it is only fair that if they give out misinformation, if they tell people that they have a credible plan and they do not, that they ought to be subject to a fine.

In fact, the troubling thing about this whole piece of legislation, which I was proud to vote against, is that there are no fines for the HMOs or the insurance companies or the people that mislead the elderly. The only fine that this legislation seeks is to fine the elderly if they do not sign up for a program. So this legislation seeks a $10,000 fine per incidence for those who provide misinformation to the elderly.

Now, it is instructive, of course, as to how we got there. This vote, as many know, was passed on this House floor at 5:30 in the morning by one vote. The travesty of this legislation is that on page 59 of this 700-page document, it specifically excludes the Secretary of Health and Human Services from negotiating directly with the pharmaceutical companies. Now, that, by the way, is exactly what the VA Commissioner does on behalf of our veterans. In the State of Connecticut, our veterans pay a $7 co-pay. When we look at our senior citizens and when we look at this bill and when we think of the cost that has been incurred without the creation of any new bureaucracy but simply by having the Secretary of Health and Human Services negotiate directly with pharmaceutical companies, not even having to travel outside to Canada and becoming refugees within their own health care system, Americans ought to be entitled to get the same kind of deep discounts that we provide our veterans.

That, in fact, is exactly what other nations of the world see fit to do for each one of their citizens, which is why, as Mr. Emanuel pointed out earlier, in the United States we are paying on average 60 percent more for prescription drugs than our neighbors in Canada and Mexico and, in fact, in all the industrialized nations of the world. Why? Because they negotiate directly. And the pharmaceutical industry is not losing any money abroad. So I think it is morally incumbent upon this Congress to take up that legislation that will correct that process.

But what passed that fateful day is law; so we must advise our seniors to proceed cautiously and hopefully providing them a window in time where they can make the correct decision. There will be, as some of the advertisements say that are paid for with Medicare and Social Security dollars, an opportunity for some to benefit; and I encourage them to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to submit for the Record the following commentary written by Keith Burris which appeared in the Journal Inquirer on November 21, 2005. It is one of the most thoughtful and accurate commentaries on the plan for action in Iraq proposed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha). I agree wholeheartedly with his conclusion, ``John Murtha is trying to save lives now. He is right. And courageous. And the loyal friend of those who fight.''

Supporting Our Troops

(By Keith C. Burris)

Everyone knows that public support for the president's war

in Iraq has eroded. We know it not only because we read the

newspapers and their reports about the polls but because so

many of us are a part of that erosion.

After 9/11, most of us were capable of a knee-jerk

reaction. Most Americans felt, ``We have been attacked; we

cannot just sit back and wait for the next attack.'' Most

Americans supported attacking Afghanistan, because, to the

extent that there was a Terrorist Central, that was it.

Invading Iraq was a tougher sell.

But Americans were inclined to trust their government, even

though the memory of the Vietnam War was fresh in our minds.

That was a war in which thousands of young soldiers fought

bravely and some 50,000 died. They were told, and we were

told, that they fought for freedom; to contain communism;

and, to paraphrase what was then being taught senior officers

at the Army War College: If we fought the bad guys over

there, we might not have to fight them over here.

Today, the young men and women fighting in Iraq are told

the exact same things, and the nation is today told the exact

same things, except that the word terrorism may be

substituted for communism.

Our leaders went into Vietnam with good, even noble

intentions: To ``help those people'' and to give them what we

have--freedom and democracy. But our leaders didn't know

enough about the history or the culture of the region. They

didn't have a clear political or military objective. They

didn't have adequate military power to subdue the country. So

they got bogged down in a civil war in which they could not

be sure about their allies and they sent our soldiers to

fight a guerrilla war in which tactics were as unfocused as

strategy and mission.

And then they began to lie.

The newest Nixon tapes show that the president actually

instructed his aides and the military to lie. Our government

broadened the war--into Cambodia. It told us it didn't. It

got caught in the lie. And then the Nixon administration told

the Congress and the public our troops were out when they

were not. It's easy, explained the commander-in-chief to his

deputies--we say one thing and do another.

Indeed, the entire war was based on what is now called

``false intelligence.'' President Lyndon Johnson told the

Senate that an American ship had been fired on in the Tonkin

Gulf.

It hadn't been.

The final stage was flag waving: President Johnson,

President Nixon, and their allies and aides said that people

who suggested we had to correct this massive, tragic

mistake--negotiate a political end and get the troops out--

were demoralizing our troops and aiding and abetting the

enemy.

In other words, they were treasonous.

Don't criticize the war effort while there are men in the

field, we were told.

But if the war was not criticized, and a correction of

course was not made while the war was going on, and the

president would not or could not exert sufficient military

effort to win the war, how would the war ever end?

It could only end as it did. By sputtering out. But with

ultimate Viet Cong victory

and hasty American retreat by the U.S. troops that remained.

Meanwhile, between the time the nation realized it had made

a mistake, roughly 1968, and 1975, many thousands died. Many

fine foot soldiers. Many naval men patrolling waters they

would give up, take back, and ultimately give up again. Many

Marines. Many, many Vietnamese civilians.

And all for what?

None of it stopped the triumph of communism or the

subsequent triumph of capitalism in Vietnam.

We got it wrong.

But, worse, once we realized we got it wrong, we ``stayed

the course,'' and then our leaders told us lies.

The biggest lie was: The way to show devotion to the troops

is to support a war without a goal; without adequate military

strategy or resources; without a chance of victory. If you

love the boys, don't question the war.

In reality, that attitude killed a lot of boys who should

not have died.

The biggest lie was that patriotism is blind acceptance and

sacrifice of our country's young.

But something stopped Abraham before he slew his son Isaac.

Maybe it was the voice of God. Or maybe it was the voice of

questioning and of reason.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Professor Lawrence F. Roberge for being awarded the 2005 U.S. Professor of the Year for the State of Connecticut by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and the Council for Advancement and Support of Education, CASE.

Professor Roberge earned this award for his work as the associate professor and chair of the Science Department at Goodwin College located in East Hartford, CT in my district. As a dedicated educator for nearly 20 years, Professor Roberge has taught a variety of college science and technology courses. Professor Roberge's expertise and skills aided him in also designing and teaching online educational courses.

During his tenure as chair of the Science Department at Goodwin College, Professor Roberge developed multi-media and computer-based teaching tools to aid in the development and training of the Science Department teaching staff. In addition, Professor Roberge was responsible for designing the science curriculum and labs for the nursing program. Professor Roberge was an inspiration in the classroom while he taught courses in chemistry, anatomy and physiology, and microbiology.

The Council for Advancement and Support of Education and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching award four university and college professors as national winners and also recognize a State Professor of the Year in 40 States, the District of Columbia and Guam. These professors are recognized for their outstanding commitment to teaching undergraduate students and their influence on fellow colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me today in congratulating Professor Lawrence F. Roberge for receiving this prestigious award. As a former educator, I am honored to recognize Professor Roberge for his exceptional commitment and service to teaching undergraduate students in the State of Connecticut.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the conference report of H.R. 3010, the Labor-Health and Human Services-Education Appropriations bill

for Fiscal Year 2006. This bill and the Republican majority are out of touch with the needs of the American public.

This legislation is a question of priorities. It is unconscionable that the Republican majority prepares to fund $70 billion in tax cuts with cuts to key education, job training and health care programs. With States across the country struggling to find the dollars to fully implement No Child Left Behind, this bill would cut No Child Left Behind funding by $784 million. With college tuition costs rising, this bill would freeze Pell grant funding at last year's level. With energy costs rising, this bill would also freeze Low-Income Home Energy Assistance funding at last year's level. With 7.4 million Americans out of work, this bill would cut $245 million for unemployment insurance and employment services programs.

Additionally, this bill would provide the National Institute of Health, NIH, which works to research and combat diseases like cancer and chronic illnesses such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and ALS, with the smallest funding level increase in 36 years. This bill would also slash $31 million in funding for Preventive Health Block Grants and provides virtually no funding for new Community Health Centers. This bill fails to recognize the continued HIV/AIDS crisis by freezing funding on virtually all components of the Ryan White AIDS Care program, except AIDS Drug Assistance. In total, this bill ignores the health needs of Americans.

This bill does not reflect the priorities of the American people. As Members of Congress, we cannot abandon our obligations to our children, to our parents and future generations by cutting vital programs to finance tax cuts bigger than we can afford. I urge my colleagues to reject the underlying bill and do better for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentlemen from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) for yielding me time and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) and her colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) as well.

Mr. Speaker, you know, constituents back in my district have written us. And they have talked about listening to your voices, because truly you have struck a cord with America. More often than not, we go home and we hear from people, why are the Democrats not speaking out, or we do not seem to hear the Democratic message.

Well, frankly, in a one-party town, where the Presidency and all of the attendant agencies are controlled by the Republicans, where the House has been in control by the Republicans for more than a decade and where they control the Senate and are now putting a further ideological grip on the Supreme Court, it is in fact a one-party town.

As the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) pointed out, when Democrats even try to get an amendment put to the floor, the heavy-handed Republican majority makes sure that no issues of consequence are voted on in this Chamber.

Time and time again, the Democratic message is squelched. You have used the analogy, I have heard throughout, of football. And sometimes when people ask about the Democratic message, the best offense is a good defense.

What stands between this ownership society juggernaut of privatization that they want to foist on the American public is the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and the Democratic party. However underfinanced, however squashed by the heavy-handed Republican majority, we continue to speak out in our only venue that we can, the public venue; and that is why people from my district have applauded the efforts that all of you have made.

You know, Roosevelt said it best of our colleagues, They are frozen in the ice of their own indifference. It is that indifference that troubles the American people. You have pointed out how we are basically prevented from working in a bipartisan fashion. But what is even more disturbing is when you reach out to this administration, whether you are mothers and fathers waiting outside in Crawford, Texas, and you find there is indifference to your sons and daughters who have given up their lives, or whether you are on the rooftops of New Orleans and there is indifference to your pleas for help, or whether you have to go to Canada to get prescription drugs because there is indifference to the kind of need that you have, indifference to the kind of energy needs that you will have this winter, it is that indifference that has consumed this body.

But because of voices like yours, and I commend each and every one of you, the American public is listening, and there will be a change in the ballot box come 2006 because this message is going to be heard.

Yes, we are on the defensive because we have to deal with this enormous juggernaut in Orwellian fashion that continues to perpetrate its message, a false message, a message of false hope and false opportunity, and the only push-back that they are getting are from the voices of Democrats like yourself.

I commend each and every one of you, and I thank you for your continued efforts on this floor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. Speaker, it is also the gentlewoman from Florida's (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) voice that stood out almost singularly when again the heavy-handed control of this Republican- dominated majority tried to foist the Terry Schiavo incident upon us. I thank the gentlewoman for your strong voice at that time. It was resounding all across this Nation. It was picked up by the Hartford Current editorial board, to name just a few of the people it has impacted.

The gentlewoman is right. It is not only specifically we can cite but it is the anecdotes that we can understand. I waited in the Rules Committee until 4 o'clock in the morning to try to get a bill that would provide for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to be able to do the same thing that every other nation does for its seniors, and that is to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies.

There is no way on that Medicare bill that that is not a germane piece of legislation, but it was denied access to the floor because of the power of its ideas.

When the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) suggests that we do not have ideas, we have many ideas. The ideas are squashed by the heavy-handed Republican majority here. So, therefore, there was not a vote that had taken place that would allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical companies so that our senior citizens could get the same kind of benefits and discounts, frankly, that the veterans do through the VA administration here.

But in the first 100 days the Democrats take back this Chamber, that is the kind of change the American public can expect to see; and that is why I am so proud of your efforts that you have been doing on a regular basis on this floor. Believe me, it is working. Because people are hearing all across this country. We refuse to be drowned out by the Republican majority and their Republican message machine, a network that is vast and large. And whether it is Pat Robertson's 700 Club or whether it is Rush Limbaugh or Cal Thomas or whether it is the Kato Institute or the Heritage Foundation or all the other entities that converge in synchronized and coordinated fashion to try to stifle your voice, you have stood up and spoke for America. God bless you. God bless America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and celebrate the life of the distinguished Civil Rights leader, Rosa Parks who died Monday, October 24, 2005 at the age of 92. A woman of great character and conviction, Rosa Parks inspired a generation to change the course of history.

For half a century, the story of Rosa Parks--of a woman with the courage to challenge an unjust system, has been marked in history as a lesson for both young and old. While riding a bus home from her job in Montgomery, Alabama on December 1, 1955, Rosa Parks defied the segregation laws of the time and refused to give up her seat to a white passenger. She was then arrested and fined $14. Her bold and single act of defiance sparked a 381-day boycott of the Montgomery bus system by the African American community and ultimately the breakdown of segregation in the south.

Born Rosa Louise McCauley on February 4, 1913 in Tuskegee, Alabama, she married Raymond Parks in 1932 after briefly attending Alabama State College in Montgomery. As the first female member of the Montgomery chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Rosa Parks worked tirelessly with her husband to encourage and increase voter participation in the African American community. Following the couple's move to Detroit, Rosa Parks began her 20-year service to the 14th district of Michigan as an administrative assistant in Congressman John Conyers, Jr.'s office. She also founded the Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self Development to encourage leadership among Detroit's youth in 1987.

Although modest about the pivotal role she played in the Civil Rights movement, Rosa Parks has been recognized with some of the most prestigious awards and honors in the country. Among her many awards, she was the recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, which is our Nation's highest civil award for merit and integrity, and the Congressional Gold Medal, which is the highest expression of national appreciation for distinguished achievements and contributions. She was also awarded the Springarn award by the NAACP that recognizes the highest achievements amongst African Americans and the Martin Luther King Jr. Award that recognizes those who work for social change through nonviolent means.

The longest journey begins with the smallest step. Rosa Parks' actions seemed small on that December day, but they accelerated the Civil Rights movement and enkindled a passion for equality in a generation. I had the honor of joining our colleague from Georgia, Mr. Lewis, in March to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Voting Rights March in Alabama and the many heroes who were inspired by Mrs. Parks. I was moved by their struggles and motivated by their strength. However, the journey towards true equality remains unfinished and the most fitting tribute to Mrs. Parks would be for us to continue that fight in her memory.

And so today, I join the country in bidding farewell to a true American hero and inspirational leader. Mrs. Rosa Parks will be greatly missed by her family, the Nation and the world.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today sharing the concerns of my colleagues about the dangerous expansion of the eminent domain power and the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London. I firmly believe there need to be safeguards against the excessive and unfair use of the government's eminent domain power. Governors and State legislators across the country, including those in my home State of Connecticut, are currently grappling with this important issue. As a former State legislator, I understand that these issues are best reviewed and addressed at the local level. The Federal approach is overly broad and although well intentioned, falls short of protecting the communities it purports to protect.

Let me make my position clear, private property is one of the most fundamental rights our founding fathers safeguarded in the Constitution. Property rights deserve the utmost protection from governmental intrusion. As a lifelong resident of Connecticut, I am saddened by the Supreme Court's decision in the Kelo case and like many in Connecticut and across the country, feel vulnerable to the potential abuse of eminent domain authority. However, I do not feel this bill brings justice to communities or comprehensively secures property rights from the misuse of the local and State government taking authority.

By attempting to narrow the scope of eminent domain through broad and vague terms, Congress is assuming to identify what does and does not constitute a local public need--a job historically left to our towns, cities and States. These local municipalities would risk losing much- needed economic development funds should they exercise eminent domain authority that goes outside the ambiguous Federal standard set in this bill. Unfortunately, the people most affected by this punitive measure are not the local and city governments making the decisions or the ones at the bargaining table, it is individuals and families living in communities throughout the city, in neighborhoods that depend on federally funded economic development projects for decent housing and livable communities. These are the ones who will truly be penalized by this bill.

Eminent domain is a careful balance of protecting private rights and local public needs. This bill is not yet there. Because of the work still ahead of us, I am voting against this legislation today in the hope that these issues will continue to be addressed during conference with the Senate and that it will work to clarify these remaining questions.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 65, a resolution of disapproval of the 2005 base closure and realignment recommendations.

I am proud that my state delegation--commonly referred to back home as ``Team Connecticut''--was successful in saving Sub Base New London from closure. Together our congressional delegation, Governor Rell, members of the New London community and military experts put together an airtight case for the survival of the base. As a result, the commission realized what Connecticut knew all along: That Sub Base New London is not only a critical asset to our State, but a vital part of our current and future national security.

The members of the 2005 BRAC Commission were given an extraordinary responsibility and performed their duties in a thoughtful and responsible manner. However, they were given the job of examining a flawed proposal based more on achieving the bottom line then ensuring the security of our Nation. If passed, H.J. Res. 65 would put an end to the current BRAC process--one that I have long believed to be the wrong process at the wrong time for our Nation.

Since 2002, I have voted in the Armed Services Committee and on the floor to either repeal or delay BRAC 2005 because I have felt all along that the process had serious flaws. With 150,000 of our men and women in uniform serving overseas in the Middle East, continued operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and failures to meet recruiting goals, now is not the time to close or realign major portions of our military infrastructure. We should not be closing and consolidating bases and infrastructure here in the States now, when in another two years we may be bringing a significant amount of troops and equipment back from Europe and other forward deployed locations and we would have to spend more money again to reopen or recreate space for them. We should not be closing or realigning before the completion of the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), which projects the threats our nation will face and guides our force structure for the next two decades. The Commission simply and rightly called conducting BRAC before the completion of the QDR ``inverse'' and ``illogical.'' This is simply the wrong time for

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Gasoline for America's Security Act and in strong support for the substitute offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher).

Our Nation is facing a real energy crisis. The people of Connecticut, and millions of Americans, are paying record amounts to fill their gas tanks. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that in the upcoming winter, homeowners in the northeast can expect to pay almost 30 percent more to heat their homes. American families will pay hundreds, if not thousands, more in extra energy costs this year. This will be a hard year for too many Americans.

Yet, in the name of Hurricane Katrina the House majority leadership is pushing a bill that does nothing to reduce our dependence on oil, lower gas prices, or help Americans get through the upcoming winter. We cannot solve high gas prices by throwing money at oil companies. We need to bring some real transparency into the oil industry and shine the brightest possible light on how these companies--making billions in record profits are

squeezing every possible dollar out of the American people. It's our American families who are struggling to heat their homes and fill their tanks this winter that need relief, not big oil.

I was honored to join the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Slaughter) in offering an amendment that would have ended the practice of wholesale price discrimination by prohibiting oil companies from restricting the source of a dealer's supply of gasoline. This amendment, based on legislation proposed by Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, would have gotten straight to the heart of high gas prices by freeing our local gas stations from the hold of big oil companies. The hard truth is that our small local gas station owners are just as much at the whim of big oil companies as the rest of us. They are locked into restrictive franchising agreements that require them to purchase their supply from a single wholesaler. As a result many of these owners, who may own two or more stations in different towns, often have to pay different prices on the same gas on the same day, depending on where their stations are located. Our amendment would have simply freed station owners to find the most competitive and fair market price to purchase their supply and pass real savings on to their customers.

Last night, while I was waiting at the Rules Committee to testify on our amendment, I had the opportunity to listen to many of my colleagues offer amendments that would have significantly improved this bill. From increasing fuel efficiency, addressing the natural gas crisis and making our Nation energy independent, it was clear to me that there are many worthwhile ideas that deserve real debate on the House floor. Unfortunately, as they do time and again, the majority rejected these excellent amendments in favor of pushing a bill that will do nothing for Americans paying high energy costs.

Instead of throwing taxpayer dollars at an industry making record profits, let us debate the real issues that are driving up the cost of energy. Let us take on the price gouging and market manipulation that is happening at all levels of oil production and distribution. Let us have a real discussion on how we can free our nation from dependence on foreign oil and develop the hydrogen and fuel cell technologies that will lead our energy future.

These debates are not taking place on the House floor today. The American people deserve better.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote on H. Con. Res. 248, honoring the life and work of Simon Wiesenthal

and reaffirming the commitment of Congress to the fight against anti- Semitism and intolerance in all forms, in all forums, and in all nations. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 520.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Threatened Endangered Species Act, the so-called ``reform'' that will dismantle our Nation's most fundamental wildlife protection law and in support of the bipartisan Miller, Boehlert, Dingell, Gilchrest, Dicks, Saxton, Tauscher, Kirk Substitute. I am disappointed at the missed opportunity for the House to strike a real balance in the protection of rare species facing extinction and landowners from future government constraints.

While I agree that the current Endangered Species Act, ESA, needs improvements and updating, the controversial bill before us today does little to improve the current ESA. Among other things, the Threatened and Endangered Species Act would remove the federal protection of critical habitats that are necessary for the recovery of a species. I also find it extremely disturbing that my colleagues are so intent on establishing an entirely new entitlement program to pay landowners for compliance at the taxpayers' expense at the same time they are working so hard to privatize entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security.

I believe there is more we can do to support the goals of the ESA. That is why I support the bipartisan substitute amendment offered by Representative George Miller and Representative Sherwood Boehlert. This compromise amendment would proactively conserve species using both real science standards and conservation incentives for landowners. This amendment maintains several provisions in the underlying bill, but would, among other things, take a more comprehensive approach to recovery plans and create an advisory board to provide scientific advice to the Interior Department about applying the best science when enforcing endangered species law.

It took decades for many of our Nation's species to reach the point of extinction. It is unrealistic to propose that there will be a quick fix to the recovery of animals and plants facing

decline. For over 30 years, the ESA has been a work in progress. Now is not the time to turn back the clock on wildlife protection.

Environmental preservation is about self-preservation and about the land we are leaving our children. As Members of Congress, as responsible citizens, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting real reforms to the ESA by supporting the bipartisan substitute amendment and rejecting the underlying bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the amendment offered by my distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) that would allow Head Start centers to partner with colleges, universities and community-based organizations to recruit and train college students to serve as mentors and reading coaches to preschool children.

Early childhood is a critical time for children to develop reading, language and cognitive skills. For 40 years, Head Start has worked to increase the overall school preparedness for the Nation's young children in low-income communities. As Congress moves forward to reauthorize Head Start and make a number of changes, the reauthorization should include meaningful programming to improve the offerings of Head Start programs. This amendment, that allows Head Start centers to partner with an institution of higher education or a community-based organization in order to recruit and train college students to serve as mentors and reading coaches to preschool children, and would allow children to receive the personal instruction and attention they need to be successfully prepared for school.

One-to-one learning is a proven teaching method that strengthens cognitive skills in young children. Mentors provide children with the additional support they need to boost comprehension and self- confidence. Back home in my district in Connecticut, the Jumpstart Hartford program is an excellent example of this type of comprehensive learning partnership. Jumpstart Hartford, in partnership with the University of Hartford, facilitates one-on-one instruction with students from the University and young children from low-income families in Hartford. The program places special focus on developing stronger language, literacy, social and initiative skills. The program has made significant gains in narrowing language and literacy gaps with its young children.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the DeLauro amendment that would allow mentor partnerships in Head Start and make real progress towards preparing all children in Head Start for success in school and throughout life.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me start by associating myself with the remarks of the distinguished Democrat from Tennessee and the accolades that have been given to the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) who was on the floor earlier, for the hard work and effort that they have put forward.

My amendment cuts right to the chase of a deep and abiding concern that I and a number of small manufacturers in the State of Connecticut and, I dare say, across this Nation have. We all know the statistics: 3 million Americans employed in manufacturing have lost their jobs, 110,000 in this year alone; 57,000 jobs have been lost in the State of Connecticut since 2001.

The genesis of this amendment came at a Chamber of Commerce meeting when small businessmen got up and spoke out with great alarm, wondering out loud how is it that we can have a Department of Agriculture and not a department of manufacturing that focuses on these issues. Where is the ombudsman and voice for us at the national level? They prevailed upon me to introduce this legislation. I am proud to say it is endorsed by the National Council for the Advancement of Manufacturing and the IAM, to name a few. But the focus here is to make sure that we have an individual within a department that is doing its job.

Now, the President has appointed a so-called ``manufacturing czar,'' but he has no budget and he has no resources. This amendment is straightforward and pragmatic. It redirects and reorients the already existing resources that we have in order to create a position whose sole focus becomes manufacturing and who becomes the ombudsman for the small manufacturer who is crying out as they continue to see their jobs outsourced overseas, as they see very little voice that they have in terms of the larger scale dealing with the WTO and a number of the trade agreements that come forward.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman not opposing me, and I appreciate and I understand his unwillingness to debate what Mr. Frink has been able to accomplish in his position to date.

The hard truth is that we have not been able to accomplish much, and the reason is, I think as everyone knows, it has become intuitively obvious to the National Coalition for the Advancement of Manufacturing, that he is located within the bowels of an administration and given no budget and no resources to carry out a goal that all of us agree needs to be accomplished.

So that is why we take and reorient existing resources to accomplish that goal; so there is no new bureaucracy that is created, it is just reoriented and refocused in a manner that will provide a voice, with resources and a budget, to speak out on behalf of manufacturers. This bill is not of my creation. It

comes out of the mouths of those people who are directly impacted: the small manufacturers all across the State of Connecticut and this great Nation of ours.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) who understands these issues and understands what is happening in our State of Connecticut with regard to manufacturing.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) whose sentiments that he expressed earlier today are mine, as well, with respect to this bill. I have the greatest admiration for my colleagues on the other side, but I have to go home and face constituents who wonder aloud why they do not have a voice, an ombudsman, and why moving at a snail's pace in this direction cannot wait.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of an honorable gentleman from my home state of Connecticut, Mr. Ralph Nader, to submit for the Record a copy of testimony that he earlier submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing regarding the confirmation of Supreme Court Chief Justice Nominee Judge John Roberts.

Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee,

thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on the

nomination of Judge John G. Roberts Jr. for the position of

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. I

ask that this statement be made part of the printed hearing

record.

In 1994 I testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee

on the nomination of Stephen G. Breyer by President Clinton

to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United

States. In that testimony I called attention to the

importance of balance in the way our laws handle the

challenges of corporate power in America.

I said:

``For our political economy, no issue is more consequential

than the distribution and impact of corporate power.

Historically, our country periodically has tried to redress

the imbalance between organized economic power and people

rights and remedies. From the agrarian populist revolt by the

farmers in the late 19th and early 20th century, to the rise

of the federal and state regulatory agencies, to the surging

trade unionism, to the opening of the courts for broader non-

property values to have their day, to the strengthening of

civil rights and civil liberties, consumer, women's and

environmental laws and institutions, corporate power was

partially disciplined by the rule of law.''

Today it is more important than ever for all Supreme Court

Justices and, in particular, the Chief Justice of the Supreme

Court to have the inclination and wisdom to realize that our

democracy is being eroded by many kinds of widely reported

systemic corporate excesses. Giant multinational corporations

have no allegiance to any country or community, and the

devastation and other injustices they visit upon

communities throughout the United States and around the

globe have outpaced the countervailing restraints that

should be the hallmark of government by, for and of the

people. Unfortunately, the structure and scope of these

hearings are not likely to devote a sufficient priority to

the corporate issues of our times.

In 1816 Thomas Jefferson wrote: ``I hope we shall . . .

crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed

corporations, which dare already to challenge our government

to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our

country.'' Imagine his reaction to the corporate abuses of

Enron Corp, HealthSouth Corp., Tyco, WorldCom or Adelphia

Communications Corp to name only a few, along with the drug,

tobacco, banking, insurance, chemical and other toxic

industries. The corporate crime and greed of today tower over

the abuses of the ``moneyed corporations'' of Jefferson's

day. The economic power of giant corporations is augmented by

a flood of Political Action Committee (PAC) money and

other donations that shape the quality and quantity of debate

in our country and consequently drive our society to

imperatives that are increasingly more corporate than civic.

You will hear about Judge Roberts from several

perspectives, but it is safe to assume that questions and

testimony about Judge Roberts' views on corporate power and

the rule of law will be inadequate given the broad and

profound impact giant corporations have on our democracy. An

important procedural and substantive corollary is the

important role our civil justice system plays in expanding

the frontiers of justice and in giving individuals the

ability to hold ``wrongdoers'' accountable in a court of law.

``If we are to keep our democracy, there must be one

commandment: Thou shalt not ration justice,'' said the famous

jurist, Learned Hand.

Unfortunately, powerholders, corporations and other

institutions which are supposed to be held accountable by the

civil justice system, are striving to weaken, limit and

override the province of juries and judges. Some companies,

led by insurers, have used expensive and focused media to

promote the view that civil juries are too costly and too

unpredictable. This narrow and short-sighted perspective is

contrary to the long-standing tenets of our democracy and in

particular the Seventh Amendment to our Constitution.

The civil jury system of the United States embraces a

fundamental precept of tested justice: ordinary citizens

applying their minds and values can and do reach decisions

on the facts in cases that often involve powerful

wrongdoers. This form of direct citizen participation in

the administration of justice was deemed indispensable by

this nation's founders and was considered non-negotiable

by the leaders of the American revolution against King

George III. But the civil jury is more than a process

toward bringing a grievance to resolution. The civil jury

is a pillar of our democracy necessary for the protection

of individuals against tyranny, repression and mayhem of

many kinds and for the deterrence of such injustices in

the future. Our civil jury institution is a voice for and

by the citizenry in setting standards for a just society.

Jury findings incorporated in appellate court decisions

contribute to one of the few authoritative reservoirs of

advancing standards of responsibility between the powerful

and the powerless--whether between companies and

consumers, workers, shareholders and community or between

officialdom and taxpayers or citizens in general. Knowing

the evolution of the common law and the civil jury

provides compelling and ennobling evidence of this

progression of justice. Chief Justice William Rehnquist

wrote, ``The founders of our Nation considered the right

of trial by jury in civil cases an important bulwark

against tyranny and corruption, a safeguard too precious

to be left to the whim of the sovereign, or, it might be

added, to that of the judiciary.''

As the hearing unfolds, I suggest that the members of the

Judiciary Committee devote some time to areas beyond those

that are traditionally the focus of witnesses and questioning

by Committee members and ask fundamental questions about the

views of Judge Roberts, a former corporate lawyer at Hogan &

Hartson, regarding corporate power and the civil justice

system.

In the spirit of expanding the criteria by which the

Committee and the public can measure Judge Robert's judicial

and civic philosophy, I offer the following questions for you

to pose to the nominee. Some of the questions are narrowly

focused and some are broad-gauged. But, in their totality

they constitute the broad kind of ``litmus test'' that should

be applied in selecting and confirming all judges. In short,

does the nominee, having met the threshold requirements of

competency, believe that the rule of law should be used to

broaden and deepen, procedurally and substantively, our

democracy--even if it means the rights of the giant

corporation or powerful interests must be circumscribed to

protect the rights of the individual citizen and of

our communities--rural or urban, large or small?

In pursuing its own line of questions, the Committee should

not let its exploration of the nominee's views be

artificially restricted. Judicial nominees have given two

reasons for refusing to answer questions, but these reasons

are contradictory. First, they say, if they publicly express

their views, it will compromise them if the issue comes

before the Court. Second, they say, judges do not decide

legal issues in a vacuum: they only decide a concrete dispute

in a specific adversarial context. Accordingly, some nominees

claim it's silly or inappropriate, for example, to say

whether they believe the Constitution protects the right to

abortion, because Justices don't decide cases by asking such

abstract questions. They face a particular statute,

challenged by a particular party directly affected in a

particular way, and the resolution of that dispute will turn

on all those particulars.

This second response has a degree of merit--and undercuts

the first reason for refusing to answer most questions.

Precisely because neither nominees nor the public can know in

what context issues will reach the Court (if at all), it is

not problematic for nominees to discuss their views. They

should not say how they would decide an actual pending case,

but, short of that, it is fine for them to discuss issues

because that in no way commits them to taking sides in any

actual dispute--such disputes are invariably context-

specific. For example, a nominee may be asked about the

doctrine that treats a corporation as a ``person'' entitled

to various constitutional rights. His or her thoughts on this

issue will not tell us what he or she will do if such an

issue is raised in a case before the Court. The latter may

depend on the nature of the corporation (non-profit? media?

multi-national?), the nature of the claimed right, and much

more.

Moreover, even if the nominee testifies that he or she

disapproves the doctrine, as a Justice the nominee may hold

that the question is settled law. Or if a nominee says that

he or she agrees with the doctrine, a new circumstance--or a

party making a new argument--may lead the nominee to hold

otherwise. Nothing a nominee says guarantees that he or she

will decide any case any particular way. Nothing that is said

has to be fixed in stone. Judges do give opinionated public

speeches, do they not?

It may be wondered whether, in light of the above, any

purpose is served by asking the nominee his views. The answer

is yes. It's no secret that nothing a nominee says binds

the nominee once he or she receives an office with life

tenure. Nominees can't and shouldn't be bound. But

especially with a nominee who has a limited public record,

the hearings provide some basis for gauging the nature and

quality of his ideas, about his philosophy of due process

for example. At any rate they have that potential--if

Senators do their job and do not accept a nominee's self-

serving refusal to answer questions.

At the outset, it would behoove the Committee to establish

the parameters the nominee will use in fashioning responses

to your questions by asking:

What criteria are you using to determine if you will

directly answer or not answer questions posed to you by

members of the Senate Judiciary Committee?

If the Court has recently ruled on a matter, will you

provide the Committee with your views on the Court's ruling?

If a matter is long settled, will you provide the Committee

with your views on the Court's ruling?

Once this baseline has been established, the following

questions should shed light on nominee's approach to some

major issues of our day.

1. Lloyd Cutler, speaking as a prominent corporate

attorney, once said: ``There is one point I want to make

clear: we believe in the arguments that we make.'' Do you

believe the arguments you have made on behalf of your

corporate clients?

2. Do you believe limits on television station ownership

abridge the free speech rights of corporate broadcasters?

3. What is your view of the First Amendment rights of the

listeners being paramount to those of the broadcasters as

articulated by the Court in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC,

395 U. S. 367 (1969)?

4. Do you see a problem when corporations are treated as

equal participants, with every right to use their First

Amendment rights to dominate public policy debates such as

those that occur in state and local referenda?

5. Do you believe the Court should uphold state and

Congressional limits on corporate political expression in

order to equalize contributions to public debates?

6. Do you believe that a strict reading of the Constitution

provides for the treatment of corporations as ``persons''

under the law for purposes of equal protection, freedom of

speech or due process of law? And, if so, what in the

Constitution's text provides a basis for this belief?

7. Many observers complain that law firms representing

large corporations routinely abuse the discovery process in

order to delay and harass their opponents. Have you observed

that phenomenon? If so, what should be done about it?

8. In 1986, in Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Public Util.

Comm'n of Cal., 475 U.S. 1 (1986) the Supreme Court (5 to 3)

struck down a state regulation as violating a utility

company's ``right of conscience'' under the First Amendment.

What makes the case particularly unsettling is its

disconnectedness to opinions past and future. As Justice

Rehnquist observed in his lengthy dissenting opinion in the

case, ``the two constitutional liberties most closely

analogous to the right to refrain from speaking--the Fifth

Amendment right to remain silent and the constitutional right

of privacy--have been denied to corporations based on their

corporate status.'' Do you think it makes sense to attribute

a right of conscience to a commercial corporation?

9. Would any trade agreement, such as GATT, NAFTA, or CAFTA

ever require Senate ratification as a treaty?

10. Does the President have complete discretion to

determine whether an international trade or other agreement

must be submitted to the Senate for two-thirds treaty

approval? If not, what are the criteria that determine when

an international agreement must be submitted to the Senate

for two-thirds treaty approval?

11. Are there limits on Congress' power to strip federal

courts of jurisdiction over a particular issue? If so, what

are such limits?

12. Do you believe victims of defective products that meet

federal standards should be limited from recovering damages

from the manufacturers of the defective products?

13. Do you believe Congress should federalize and pre-empt

state products liability common law in any or all sectors?

14. Plaintiffs' trial lawyers have been blamed by their

corporate critics for all sorts of problems with the economy

and

legal profession. Do you believe that those representing

injured persons in product liability and medical malpractice

cases are harming America?

15. So-called tort-reform is aimed at restricting the

amount of non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering, a

party can receive. Are you concerned that this interferes

with the traditional role of juries and judges to find facts

and mete out appropriate justice?

16. Do you believe the use of the government contractor

defense should be limited in nonmilitary procurement? If so,

how?

17. Some people say the Ninth Amendment can play no

substantive role in protecting rights, that it's merely a

statement of principle or reminder of limited government.

Do you agree?

18. A number of legal scholars argue that the 11th

Amendment has been interpreted by the Court to shield states

from liability for wrongdoing in a way that blatantly

contravenes the original intention of the Amendment. Are you

familiar with that scholarship and do you find it persuasive?

19. In what circumstances, if any, is it appropriate for a

contractual arbitration clause to contract away substantive

contract law, tort, or statutory rights? For instance, can an

arbitration clause require arbitration of a worker's Title

VII rights and at the same time limit the worker's

compensatory damages to $200,000? Can that same clause

require the loser to pay the winner's attorney's fees? Can

that clause require that the parties to arbitration bear

their own attorney's fees?

20. Describe the presumption against preemption of state

law. Does it apply in some or all instances where federal law

is said to preempt state law?

21. Is the presumption against preemption of state law (by

federal law) similar to the plain statement rule that demands

that Congress speak with unmistakable clarity if it wishes to

override the states' sovereign immunity? If the presumption

against preemption is not similar to the plain statement

rule, explain how it is different?

22. How is the presumption against preemption applied in

cases where federal regulatory law (regulating, for instance,

drugs, boats, pesticides, motor vehicles, and the like) is

said to preempt state tort law that provides monetary

remedies to compensate for injuries caused by a product that

the federal government regulates?

23. Do you believe Congress should pre-empt the state-law-

based medical malpractice system?

24. What are your views on the ``American rule'' as opposed

to the English rule under which the losing party in

litigation generally pays the winner's costs, including

attorney's fees?

25. What has been your reaction or views on Congressional

funding levels for federally funded legal services programs

over the last two decades? Should government be responsible

for funding representation for poor people in civil

litigation where important property or liberty interests are

at stake? Or should that be mainly or entirely a private

function?

26. Some scholars and judges believe that ``Originalism''

is the only principled method of constitutional

interpretation. Do you agree?

27. Do you believe that a declaration of war by Congress is

Constitutionally required for the United States to engage in

war?

28. Does a Congressional delegation of the war-making

discretion to the President in the form of a war resolution

meet the test of Article One, Section Eight of the

Constitution?

29. What level of equal protection scrutiny was applied in

Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)?

30. What is the precedential effect of Bush v. Gore? In

other words, what kinds of equal protection claims does Bush

v. Gore control or apply to? After Bush v. Gore, may a

political entity (city, county, state) holding an election

use more than one type of voting methodology (paper ballots,

standard machines, punch cards, etc.) knowing that the error

rates (whether through undercounts or otherwise) are

different from one methodology to another?

31. Is there a need to amend our open government laws to

make the President subject to them in whole or in part? Would

such amendments be constitutional?

32. Do you believe arguments before the Supreme Court

should be televised in the way C-SP AN televises

Congressional deliberations?

33. In your view, is the Freedom of Information Act

functioning properly at this time? If not, what are the major

problems facing the Act?

34. In Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia

Dept. of Health and Human Resources, 532 U S. 598 (2001)

case, the Court rejected the argument that a party that has

failed to secure a judgment on the merits or a court-ordered

consent decree, but has nonetheless achieved the desired

result because the lawsuit brought about a voluntary change

(the catalyst theory) in the defendant's conduct is entitled

to attorney's fees. Does the rejection of the catalyst theory

of fee recovery in the Supreme Court's Buckhannon decision

apply across-the-board to federal fee-shifting statutes? If

not, to what kinds of fee-shifting statutes is it likely to

apply and to what kinds is its application more doubtful?

35. Brian Wolfman, Director of the Public Citizen

Litigation Group notes, ``The Bush administration says that

Buckhannon applies to [Freedom of Information Act] FOIA

cases, even though Congress stated explicitly, when it

enacted FOIA, that fees should be available when FOIA cases

settle. The Bush Justice Department has consistently argued

to expand Buckhannon to every pro-consumer and civil rights

statute in every conceivable situation.'' What approach (or

approaches) to statutory construction of Congressional

enactment was evident in the Supreme Court's Buckhannon

decision? How would you describe the reliance on (or lack of

reliance on) legislative history in the majority's reasoning

in that case? Do you believe the Bush Justice Department is

applying the Buckhannon decision correctly?

36. From both a legal (constitutional) and practical

perspective, what is your view of the trend in the federal

judiciary toward releasing more of its opinions in

``unpublished'' form, i.e., where the relevant court accords

no precedential effect to the decision for other cases?

37. Should federal judges attend seminars which are funded

by private corporations (or by foundations that are funded by

such corporations) that have matters of interest to the

corporations before the courts?

38. Do you believe a government attorney, in a subordinate

position, should be forced (under penalty of discharge) to

work on a case or argue a position that he or she believes is

illegal, unconstitutional or unethical? Or should government

lawyers have a ``right of conscience'' like other

professionals?

39. What kinds of participation in civic life may federal

judges continue to be involved in once they assume their

judicial positions?

40. How many hours or what percent of their work time do

you think partners in major firms should devote to pro bono

work each year?

41. How many hours on average did you bill per year as a

partner and at what rates?

42. How many hours on average did you bill per year as an

associate?

43. What was the nature of your pro bono work and

approximately how much time per year did you devote to pro

bono work?

44. Corporate attorneys and legal scholars have written

books and articles decrying unethical or fraudulent billing

practices in large corporate law firms. An article in the

Summer 2001 Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics titled

Gunderson Effect and Billable Mania: Trends in Overbilling

and the Effect of New Wages states that unethical billing

practices are ``a pervasive problem in law firms across the

country''--do you agree?

45. Did you ever observe unethical billing practices when

you were in private practice?

46. If so, what was the nature of and who were the

protagonists of such practices?

I hope these questions, whether asked orally or submitted

to the nominee in writing for response, spark a robust,

constructive debate between the Committee members and the

nominee. Such exchanges should provide the Senate and the

larger public with insights into how Judge John G. Roberts

will, if confirmed as Chief Justice, perform his duties.