Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 168 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

H. Res. 168 is a modified closed rule that provides 1 hour of debate in the House, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and provides that the amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. H. Res. 168 provides for consideration of the amendment printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution, if offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) or his designee, which shall be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for 40 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.

H. Res. 168 waives all points of order against the amendment printed in the report and provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in approving this rule so that the full House can proceed to work its will on the underlying Social Security reform legislation.

On March 5, just about a month ago, the House considered this bill with an amendment under suspension of the rules. A bipartisan majority of the House voted to approve this bill, 249 to 180, but it fell short of the needed two-thirds majority to pass the House under suspension. So today we are bringing it back to the House for further deliberation.

The controversy that arose during initial consideration of H.R. 743 last month dealt with the language in this bill closing the so-called ``last day rule.''

At the recommendation of the General Accounting Office, which estimates that this loophole could cost the Social Security program $450 million, this bill is seeking to eliminate the ``last day rule.'' The ``last day rule'' allows some workers in certain States to switch job classifications on their last day of service, pay Social Security payroll taxes for 1 day, and magically become eligible for Social Security spousal or survivor benefits without the government pension offset being applied to their benefits.

H.R. 743 eliminates this problem by requiring individuals to work in a government job that is covered by Social Security for the last 60 calendar months of employment in order to be exempt from the GPO. This is truly a reasonable proposal which should be promptly enacted into law.

The rule before us makes in order an amendment from the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) which strikes section 418 from H.R. 743. Section 418 is the segment of the legislation that once and for all eliminates the ``last day rule.'' So this rule will allow the House to choose between two starkly different proposals.

One proposal, H.R. 743, gets rid of this loophole which could cost Social Security almost $500 million. The other proposal, the gentleman from Texas's (Mr. Green) amendment, allows this loophole to continue on well into the future, thereby allowing the hemorrhaging of the Social Security program to continue unabated.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support H. Res. 168, a rule that will allow the House to consider and ultimately pass legislation that will improve the lives of millions of senior citizens across the country by strengthening the long-term solvency of the Social Security program.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the underlying legislation, H.R. 1104, the Child Abduction Prevention Act of 2003.

H. Res. 160 is a structured, but fair, rule designed to ensure that the whole House has the opportunity to consider a number of substantive amendments to improve upon the underlying legislation. The Committee on Rules has worked to be as evenhanded as possible and has permitted the overwhelming majority of amendments that were submitted for review last evening.

Mr. Speaker, it is disheartening to know that the youth of this country are exposed to the harsh realities of life earlier in their lives than ever before. This does not mean, however, that they are better prepared to face those realities. We must do everything possible to protect those who cannot defend themselves.

During this debate, it will be argued that we should simply take up a more limited bill that would be acceptable to the other body. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that we serve in this House simply to pass legislation acceptable to the other body. We are elected to pass effective legislation that will have the optimum benefits for the people we represent. In this case, we have the opportunity to enact effective legislation that will prevent crimes against children and save lives.

The Committee on Rules heard compelling testimony from the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), who stated that he wanted to enact the AMBER Alert legislation into law as soon as possible to assist in finding those children who have been taken. But he continued to state that we have a duty not only to pass legislation to find those who have been abducted, but we have an obligation to ensure that this legislation does everything possible to prevent children from being abducted in the first place. H.R. 1104 will achieve this goal by deterring crimes and providing a necessary line of defense. This bill does not impose excessive fines or punishment on convicted individuals; rather, this bill imposes reasonable, bottom-line standards of intolerance for the violation of our laws. I cannot possibly think of a more appropriate situation where strong punishment is warranted.

The desire to protect our children originates not from the mortal law of man, but rather the rules and state of affairs governed by the laws of nature. As a father and grandfather myself, I fully support any reasonable efforts that prevent harm from befalling our children or grandchildren and that punish those who would commit the crimes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the House pass this rule and pass the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting House Resolution 151, which provides for the consideration of the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution.

H. Res. 151 is a conventional rule for consideration of the annual budget resolution, and it provides for the consideration of four amendments in the nature of a substitute, including the so-called Blue Dog budget, the Progressive and Black Caucus budget, the Republican Study Committee's budget, and the minority leader's budget.

I want to commend my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), for crafting a budget that understands that we have an obligation to, first and foremost, fund our Armed Forces and protect the people of the United States; second, strengthen the American economy; and, third, maintain our commitment to priorities such as education, health care, welfare reform, while ensuring long-term fiscal responsibility.

To protect the United States, our budget must fund both homeland security and national defense priorities. Since World War II, the United States has been the world leader in freedom and democracy. As this leader, we have the responsibility of defending these principles throughout the world.

Our commitment, however, is sustained through the perseverance and strength of our Nation's military. Without the efforts of these heroes, our Nation could not possibly be the bastion of freedom and democracy it is today. We cannot possibly expect these individuals and our Nation to continue to bear this responsibility without providing the absolute best possible equipment for the task at hand. This budget provides that funding. It allocates funding for the Department of Defense to continue the mission to eliminate terrorism across the world, increases military personnel pay for our Armed Forces, and targets funding to ensure the deployment of our national ballistic missile defense.

In terms of homeland security, I am pleased that our budget provides $890 million in funding for Project Bioshield to secure vaccines against bioterrorism attacks, $3.35 billion for first responder training and equipment, and billions more to improve security and assess future threats to our Nation's airports, nuclear power plants, water facilities, and telecommunications networks.

Second, it is clear that our economy remains sluggish and that our budget must stimulate growth and get our fellow Americans back to work. To achieve this, our budget includes President Bush's jobs and economic growth plan, including an accelerated reduction in the marriage penalty, an increase in the child tax credit, and an overall acceleration of all tax rate cuts.

I always welcome this debate because it will speak volumes about the differing opinions on the role of the Federal Government in the lives of the American people. We continue to believe that individuals make much better choices with their money than the government can. At this time, not only am I certain that the American people will make better choices with their money, but that returning it to them will also help promote investment and increase consumer spending, which will in turn enhance our economy.

In its entirety, our budget is a commonsense plan to provide security for the American people by funding domestic and international security, invigorating the American economy, returning funds to the American people, strengthening Social Security, and reaffirming our recent successful welfare reforms.

Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule. I urge my colleagues to support the rule so we may begin the debate on the multiple budget options before the House today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this fair rule and the underlying legislation, H.R. 975. H. Res. 147 is a fair and responsible rule that will allow the House to work its will on the underlying bankruptcy reform bill. It makes in order two amendments sponsored by Democrats, two bipartisan amendments, and an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers). I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to join me in approving this rule so we can move on to H.R. 975, important bankruptcy reform legislation.

I support providing this bankruptcy protection. I believe that American citizens should be able to gain a fresh start after finding themselves incapable of meeting their obligations. In fact, our Nation has historically understood the importance of providing this protection.

As one individual put it during the congressional debate in the late 19th century, ``When an honest man is hopelessly down financially, nothing is gained for the public by keeping him down; but on the contrary, the public good will be promoted by having his assets distributed ratably as far as they will go among his creditors and letting him start anew.''

Today we debate the reform of U.S. bankruptcy law one more time. We should focus on how to ensure that bankruptcy laws follow their intended design, while working to derail the growing trend of using bankruptcy as a means for avoiding the payment of debts, even when those debtors are financially capable of paying off those debts. The question before us is, How can we prevent individuals abusing these protections, while ensuring that bankruptcy relief remains available for those who truly need it?

In 1787, the Founders of this country, some of whom were debtors themselves, recognized the necessity for providing leniency to individuals who are faced with increasing debts. The Founders understood that it was impossible for debtors to work towards paying off their debts while sitting in debtors' prison. I do not, however, believe the Founders would have approved of a system where bankruptcies have increased more than 400 percent in 23 years and represent a cost of $400 to every American family who works hard to meet its own financial responsibilities.

H.R. 975 works both to continue the Founders' vision for bankruptcy protection while curbing the abuses that have plagued the system over the past few decades. Congress should not be in the business of protecting those who wish to use bankruptcy as a financial planning tool, while penalizing hard-working Americans who fall into financial difficulties.

Last year, almost 1.6 million bankruptcy cases were filed in this country. We must ensure that this number is significantly reduced in the future. It is not shameful to file for bankruptcy if one falls on hard times. It is, however, shameful to use bankruptcy as a means of paying one's obligations.

As such, I urge Members to join me in supporting both this rule and the underlying legislation to help restore the legitimacy of this protective tool and to bring commonsense reasoning back to American bankruptcy law. I urge Members to join me in voting for the rule and

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the underlying legislation, H.R. 5, the underlying medical malpractice reform bill. This rule gives the minority party a motion to recommit with or without instructions. This motion to recommit provides the minority with an opportunity to amend H.R. 5 as it sees fits, something the House Democrats often refused to give Republicans before 1995.

As a former dentist I understand the necessity for this particular form of tort law and how the reality of judicial adventurism is a prime cause of rising health care costs and reduced access in our country.

I absolutely believe that medical malpractice litigation has a substantive effect on health care quality and costs.

In a recent survey of Georgia doctors, 18 percent said they would stop providing high risk procedures to limit their liability; 33 percent of OB-GYNs and 20 percent of family practitioners said they will abandon high-risk procedures such as delivering babies. In addition, 11 percent of physicians will stop providing emergency room services.

The benefits of capping malpractice damages are staggering. In California it is estimated that MICRA has saved under those with high- risk specialties as much as $42,000 per year, not to mention the $6 billion per year of savings to patients in California. According to the U.S. Department of HHS, limits on noneconomic damages could yield taxpayers 25- to $44 billion per year in savings.

Our founders incorporated explicit protections for citizens in criminal trials in the sixth amendment. However, they foresaw the potential abuse in civil trials and thus remained explicitly silent on the rights of juries to operate in civil cases.

In Federalist 83 Alexander Hamilton went to great lengths to discuss the absence of constitutional protections in civil cases, going so far as to claim that he could not ``discern the inseparable connection between the existence of liberty and the trial by jury in civil cases.''

According to Hamilton, the genius of the constitution was not only its flexibility in handling the changing nature of the American judiciary but also its reliance on the legislature to prescribe the effective checks on such changes.

Abuse in our judicial system can be remedied by the implementation and power of trials by jury, but a balance must be struck between that idea and the notions of common sense and personal responsibility. Unfortunately, our current system does not strike that balance.

I urge, as such, my colleagues to join me in passing this rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the President stated that to prove our health care system we must address excessive lawsuits--a prime cause of high health care costs to improve our health care system--excessive lawsuits. In a recent survey of Georgia doctors, approximately 18 percent expect to stop providing high-risk procedures to limit their liability risk. Nearly 33 percent of obstetrician/gynecologists and 20 percent of family practitioners said they will abandon high-risk procedures, such as delivering babies. More than 11 percent will stop providing emergency room services to reduce liability risk. Rising medical malpractice insurance rates are making it difficult for doctors to continue the life-saving work they love. We all want high quality, affordable health care and we all want to maintain an American system of medicine that serves as the model of proficiency and innovation. But our doctors and hospitals are being wrongly sued, we're paying more to receive quality care, and we are losing quality doctors. I urge my colleagues to pass medical liability reform.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is the 92nd birthday of the 40th President of the United States, President Ronald Reagan. He is the only political idol I have ever had. He came to the presidency knowing who he was, what he wanted to do, and he did it.

There is a wonderful story that then Governor Reagan told by his aide, Michael Deaver, who was walking in 1978 down the street in Manhattan.

A fellow inched up to him and wanted to say hello, and Governor Reagan said hello. The gentleman said, may I have your autograph, Mr. Milland? And Reagan kindly wrote ``Ray Milland,'' and walked on. And Deaver said, why didn't you tell him who you were? He said, I know who I am. He wanted to meet Ray Milland.

I am always heartened knowing somebody has come into office knowing who they are. I am as comfortable with President Bush, who knows who he is and what he wants. That is good for our Nation and good for the soul.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge an important national holiday in India, namely a celebration of the Indian people's long and protracted struggle for self-governance and freedom: Republic Day.

On January 26, 1950, India's constitution was ratified. The adoption of this constitution, which was greatly influenced by our Founding Fathers, makes India a model for nations across Asia and throughout the developing world.

As one of the world's most populated democracies, India is also a natural ally for our War on Terrorism. With its strategic location, India is a vital resource and a valued partner of the United States.

In a region too often afflicted with non-democratic governments, and wracked by intolerance across religious or ethnic lines, India truly stands out for its democracy and stability.

The Indian-American community within the United States has played a critical role in building this bridge between our two great nations, and I applaud their efforts.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 29 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

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

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 29 is a closed rule providing for the consideration of a very straightforward 1-week continuing resolution. The continuing resolution itself, H.J. Res. 13, makes further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003. The rule provides that H.J. Res. 13 will be debatable in the House for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). The rule waives all points of order in consideration of H.J. Res. 13, and it provides 1 motion to recommit the underlying measure.

I want to note that section 2 of the resolution provides that upon receiving a message from the Senate transmitting H.J. Res. 2 with a Senate amendment, it shall be in order to consider in the House a motion by the Committee on Appropriations chairman or his designee that the House disagree to the Senate amendment and request or agree to a conference with the Senate. This provision in this section of the report is necessary to permit the Committee on Appropriations chairman the authority to offer a motion to go to conference on the omnibus appropriations bill.

Mr. Speaker, this is a clean continuing resolution that will ensure that the United States Government remains open through February 7 and that all Americans who are expecting any kind of Federal benefit, a Social Security check, Medicare payments, or veterans benefits will continue to do so without interruption.

While we can debate the substance of the continuing resolution in subsequent general debate, I will note that as negotiations continue on the overall appropriations package, this continuing resolution will make sure that ongoing programs are continued at current rates under the same terms and conditions as fiscal year 2002, except for the defense and military construction bills that have already been enacted into law. Current funding expires at midnight on Friday, without action on the continuing resolution that this rule permits. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule so that we may proceed to consideration of the continuing resolution and ensure that the Federal Government remains open until February 7.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, over the past year, major newspapers reported almost daily on water problems, as over half of the United States experienced drought conditions. Rivers and wells dried up, aquifers were challenged by saltwater intrusion, and fish, wildlife, and crops were threatened. In many states, the droughts continue today, with no relief in sight. Even without the problems caused by drought, projected population growth for the United States indicates that water demand will continue to increase in coming years. It is critical that states across the nation find ways to store more fresh water to meet growing needs.

Water resources managers will be faced with unavoidable, life- threatening challenges in the 21st century, and we must prepare for these challenges now through extensive research and coordination of objectives among all levels of water management--federal, state, local, and the private sector. I am introducing a bill today to begin this process.

My bill would create the ``21st Century Water Commission'' to recommend strategies for meeting 21st century water challenges. The commission, composed of seven members appointed by the President, is charged with assessing future water supply and demand, evaluating federal water programs and the coordination of federal agencies, and researching contemporary technologies for increasing fresh water resources. The commission would also make recommendations for conserving fresh water, storing excess water for use in times of drought, and repairing aging, leaky infrastructures.

The legislation I am introducing today is designed to bring our nation's premier water experts and managers together to the discussion table to share their ideas for the future. This bill is in no way intended to federalize our nation's water policies; it should create a resource and a research engine to enable local communities to better solve their water problems.

In John Steinbeck's novel, East of Eden, the narrator observes, ``It never failed that during the dry years the people forgot about the rich years, and during the wet years they lost all memory of the dry years. It was always that way.'' I have been told over and over again that the United States only reevaluates its water policies when a crisis hits. But failure to plan for future water shortages is a recipe for disaster. We must begin now to advance the science and knowledge that will be necessary to deal with 21st century water challenges.

Last March, EPA Administrator Christie Whitman expressed that, ``Water is going to be the biggest environmental issue that we face in the 21st century, in terms of both quantity and quality.'' I couldn't agree more. Mr. Speaker, we must begin working today to meet this challenge, by passing the ``21st Century Water Commission Act.''

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 15 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 15 is a closed rule providing for the consideration of two continuing resolutions, H.J. Res. 1 and H.J. Res. 2, both of which make further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2003. The rule provides that H.J. Res. 1 will be debatable in the House for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of H.J. Res. 1, and it provides one motion to recommit the underlying measure. H.J. Res. 15 also provides that H.J. Res. 2 will be debatable in the House for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of H.J. Res. 2. It provides one motion to recommit.

As we start this year's legislative session, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule so we may proceed to consideration of the two underlying continuing resolutions, both of which will allow the Federal Government to remain open until the end of this month. Failure to pass these measures would mean the government, outside of the defense and military construction appropriations bills, would have to shut down on midnight this Friday, January 10. We simply cannot allow that to happen to the American people.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no more requests for time.

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

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

In closing, I would say to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), who worried about the fact that the Republicans were not defending the bill during the discussion on the rule, under the regular order during the discussion of the 1-hour debate on the rule, we should be discussing the rule. We will be delighted to defend the substance of our bills in the subsequent debate on the bills.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.