Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 766, a modified, closed rule for H.R. 4571, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2004. This is a fair rule which provides for consideration of this important legislation and gives the minority an opportunity to offer a substitute amendment for the full House to consider.

With regard to the underlying measure, I support placing some level of accountability upon those who would otherwise unnecessarily burden our Nation's judicial system. While most tort reform measures focus primarily on the amount of damages one can collect through civil actions, little is ever said, much less done, to admonish the individuals who are the cause of the unnecessary litigation. As a matter of reason, we all agree that individuals should be given the right to seek redresses for certain grievances through civil litigation, as long as those claims are legitimate in their nature. After all, it is the responsibility of this Nation's judicial system to uphold the rights and liberties of the American citizen.

Our system of justice is flawed, however, in that it fails to incorporate checks upon those who would use it for other either malevolent means or personal gain. Under current law, for example, a lawyer who files a blatantly frivolous lawsuit in violation of Rule 11 may actually avoid punishment as long as he or she withdraws the filing within 21 days after the opposing party has filed a motion for sanctions. Judicial filings, whether legitimate or frivolous, bring cost burdens to both parties involved and the government, and these costs, most notably attorneys fees, do not evaporate once the frivolous claim has been withdrawn.

H.R. 4571, however, corrects these shortcomings by imposing reasonable standards of responsibility on the legal community and preventing lawyers from circumventing Rule 11. Most importantly, this legislation sends out a clear message that our judicial system was intended to protect the rights of the aggrieved, not to provide wealth to those who would profit from the aggrieved. As such, I am hopeful that my colleagues will join me in support of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 757. Three years have passed since a beautiful September day was shattered by terrorists who despised the thought of a Nation that allows its people the freedom to live and worship as they choose. I agree with President George W. Bush that ``the terrorists are offended not merely by our policies--they are offended by our existence as free Nations.''

I looked back on some of the things we said in the days following the attacks of September 11, 2001. We said that these were acts of war. We said that we would get serious and win this war. And we said to those who commit these kinds of acts that we will find you and destroy you. And we vowed to remember what happened--always.

America quickly got serious about fighting terrorism. While the enemies of freedom brought war to our shores 3 years ago, the American people and the American military are making progress in meeting this challenge. This war is being fought on multiple fronts: diplomatic, financial, investigative, homeland security, humanitarian, and militarily. We must continue to fight the war on terrorism because the terrorists will continue with their efforts. Their aim is to change the way of life of countries that love freedom, and their goals include the destruction of the civilized world and an end to American efforts to encourage democracy abroad.

And while we continue to make great strides in the war on terror, we must never forget what happened. It's been 3 years, but the tragedy, the courage, and the determination we saw that day must serve as a reminder of our calling from that day forward. On Saturday morning, please take a moment to remember those who lost their lives that day, and remember those who continue to mourn loved ones who did not return home on September 11, 2001.

May God continue to bless the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 724 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 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. 724 provides for consideration of H.R. 4850, the District of Columbia Appropriations Act of 2005, under an open rule, as is customary with most annual appropriations measures.

I am very pleased that the normal, open amendment process outlined in H. Res. 724 will allow a Member to offer any amendment to the bill, as long as it complies with the standing rules of the House.

The rule provides 1 hour of debate in the House on the bill equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill.

H. Res. 724 waives points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI, which prohibits unauthorized appropriations or legislative provisions in an appropriations bill, except as specified in the resolution.

H. Res. 724 also authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. This procedure will help the House in considering amendments in a more orderly manner. Finally, H. Res. 724 provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the underlying legislation, I want to begin by commending the chairman of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen). He has done a good job in working with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) in crafting H.R. 4850, and the bill deserves the support of the House today.

This provides the District of Columbia with a $560 million Federal payment, and it provides $8.2 billion in

funds for the District of Columbia's governmental activities. Both of these figures match the President's budget request.

On a parenthetical note, I would note that the county in which I live, Gwinnett County, Georgia, has 50 percent more citizens than the District of Columbia and provides all the same services with the exception of welfare, and it does it for $1 billion a year.

Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for an open amendment process for consideration of the FY 2005 District of Columbia appropriations bill. I urge my colleagues to support this fair rule.

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

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, I thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier), for yielding me this time.

I rise in strong support of H. Res. 712, the rule that provides for the consideration of H.R. 4759, the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. I urge all my colleagues in the House to join me in supporting this rule, as well as the underlying legislation.

The full House will be debating H.R. 4759 under a closed rule which is called for under the expedited procedures by which Congress considers legislation implementing free trade agreements. To the credit of all parties concerned, this bill has broad bipartisan support within the Committee on Ways and Means and across the aisle within the full House.

With regard to the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, it has been an honor for me to work with the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier) and the House leadership in generating the needed support for this important trade agreement, and I am pleased that it is being considered on the House floor today.

Over the past century and through various wars, one of America's most important and dependent allies has been Australia. After September 11, 2001, Australia again showed its support and solidarity with the United States by being one of the first nations to commit troops to Afghanistan. Australia has continued its support for the war against terrorism by committing troops to Iraq as well.

With approximately $28 billion annually in two-way trade of goods and services, Australia is also a major trading partner of the United States. Of this $28 billion, the U.S. enjoys a significant surplus, $8 to $9 billion. Australia is America's ninth largest goods export market.

In addition to trade benefits on a national scale, Georgia, the State that I am proud to represent, has benefited from trade with Australia. In fact, in 2003 Georgia had the 13th largest number of exports to Australia in the United States, with total exports valued at almost $288 million. These exports have provided, and continue to provide, high-paying jobs, jobs to the citizens of my State.

With the enactment of the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement, U.S. farmers, investors, workers, and companies will further benefit from our current relationship.

Under the FTA, U.S. workers and companies will receive the most significant immediate reduction of industrial tariffs ever achieved in a free trade agreement, as more than 99 percent of U.S.-manufactured products will immediately become duty free upon entry into Australia.

Some of the particular manufacturing sectors and Georgia goods that will benefit include transportation equipment, paper products, computer and electronic products and machinery manufacturers. All U.S. agricultural exports to Australia, totaling more

than $400 million, will also receive immediate duty-free access. The FTA also removes foreign investment screening for a range of U.S. foreign investment activities, including the establishment of all new businesses in Australia.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, Australia is a strategic ally and an important trading partner. Now is the time to strengthen the ties that bind our two countries. America must continue to strive toward expanded free trade and not retreat into the mistaken protectionism of the past. We must work to open markets, eliminate tariffs and barriers and ensure that our Nation remains at the forefront of global economic success. The freedom to trade is a basic human liberty, and its exercise across political borders unites people in peaceful cooperation and mutual prosperity.

I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we may proceed to debate and adopt the underlying measure.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 710 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 purposes of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 710 provides for the consideration of H.R. 4766, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriation Act of 2005, under an open rule, as is customary with annual appropriations measures. I am pleased that the normal open amendment process outlined in H. Res. 710 will allow any member to offer an amendment to the bill as long as it complies with the standing rules of the House.

The rule provides 1 hour of debate in the House on the bill equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. H. Res. 710 waives points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI, which prohibits unauthorized appropriations or legislative provisions in an appropriations bill, except as specified in the resolution.

H. Res. 710 also provides that the amendment printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution may be offered only by a member of the subcommittee designated in the report and only at the appropriate point in the reading of the bill, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment. H. Res. 710 waives all points of order against the amendment printed in the report.

The resolution gives the chair the ability to provide priority in recognition to those members who have preprinted amendments in the Congressional Record. This procedure will help the House in considering amendments in a more orderly manner. Finally, H. Res. 710 provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by commending the work product of the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla). He has done a good job in crafting this funding bill, especially as we face budgetary limitations, and the bill deserves the support of the House today.

With regard to the underlying legislation, I do want to briefly note that this appropriations bill provides for more than $83 billion in funding. Included in this bill is $43 million in higher funding levels for food safety and counterterrorism activities. Also included is an increase of $20 million for BSE, or mad cow disease, detection and prevention activities.

We are also fulfilling the commitments to our food and nutrition programs with an increase in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, the WIC program. This measure also provides an increase in funding for Agricultural Research Service, including full funding to complete construction of the National Centers For Animal Health.

Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for an open amendment process for consideration of the agriculture appropriations bill. I urge my colleagues to support this fair rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues support both the rule and the underlying bill. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 707 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 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. 707 is a structured rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 4755, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act of 2005. It is a fair and appropriate rule and should be approved by the House so we can move on to consideration of the underlying legislation.

H. Res. 707 provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. It also provides that the bill shall be considered as read.

H. Res. 707 waives points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule 21, which prohibits unauthorized appropriations or legislative provisions in an appropriations bill.

The rule makes in order only those amendments put in the Committee on Rules report accompanying this resolution. H. Res. 707 provides that the amendments printed in the report may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. The rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report.

Finally, H. Res. 707 provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my friend and colleague from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), the chairman of the subcommittee. He has worked very closely with his ranking minority member, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran of Virginia), in crafting this bill, and for that he deserves our support. This appropriations bill is one of the more challenging bills to manage, and he does so with respect to the institution in which we all serve.

I do want to specifically note that this is a fiscally responsible bill, and I commend the gentleman from Georgia's (Chairman Kingston) management oversight that will certainly ensure that organizational changes are managed better within the agencies of the legislative branch of government.

Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for a fair amendment process for consideration of the legislative branch appropriations bill. I urge my colleagues to support the rule.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to note that we did have this discussion in the Committee on Rules about the printing yesterday. It just came up yesterday for the Republicans being criticized forever for rushing things to the floor. This seems a bit quick for the Democrats to do so. None of us on the Committee on Rules, Republican side, have seen that yet, but the committee of jurisdiction is actually the Committee on House Administration, and I think

it would be appropriate to let the authorizing committee have a shot at this to take a look at the problem before we move to address it on the House floor in an appropriations bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the gentleman came very close to impugning the motives of the chairman and the actions of the committee. I would just suggest that he tread a bit more lightly on that.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I feel certain that the gentleman was not referring specifically to me, because I do not have Federal health insurance.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am in no way trying to defend or impugn any question of what the Committee on Resources did, but I think the appropriate place to have a look at that is through the Committee on House Administration or through the bipartisan Committee on Franking. I expect that will be done. Not on the floor of the House.

I know they do not want to miss an opportunity to make political hay over this, but the fact of the matter is, this is an inappropriate place to have that discussion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 701 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose 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. 701 is a traditional open rule providing for consideration of H.R. 4754, the Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2005.

The rule does not restrict the normal open amending process in any way, and any amendments that comply with the standing Rules of the House may be offered for consideration.

H. Res. 701 provides 1 hour of debate in the House on the bill, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. H. Res. 701 waives points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of Rule XXI, prohibiting unauthorized appropriations or legislative provisions in an appropriations bill, except as specified in the resolution.

In order to facilitate the consideration of amendments on the floor, the rule gives the Chair the ability to provide priority in recognition to those Members who have preprinted amendments in the Congressional Record. Finally, H. Res. 701 provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by noting the work of the subcommittee in bringing this legislation forward to the House floor. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) testified together before the Committee on Rules yesterday in bipartisan support of their work product, and they have done a good job in setting the funding priorities of these departments and agencies within the budgetary limitations we currently confront.

Mr. Speaker, debate time on the rule should primarily focus on the fairness of this rule and the wide open amendment process that it outlines for House debate and consideration. However, I do want to note that this appropriations bill maintains the continuing pledge of the House to meet the challenge of international terrorism and to ensure that law enforcement across the Nation has the resources necessary to combat crime in America.

Funding for the Department of Justice, in particular, is indicative of the Committee on Appropriations' obligation to provide the necessary funds to address terrorism, increase our Nation's intelligence capabilities and maintain a focus on law enforcement threats such as illegal drugs, cybercrime and espionage.

Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for an open amendment process for consideration of the Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary appropriations bill. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

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

I also want to commend the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) and the gentleman from New York (Ranking Member Serrano) for a very fine job done under strained circumstances. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and support the underlying legislation.

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, the Rules Committee may meet this week to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 3574, the Stock Option Accounting Reform Act. The Committee on Financial Services ordered the bill reported on June 15, 2004, and has yet to file its report with the House.

Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment to the Committee on Rules in room H-312 of the Capitol by 10 a.m. on Thursday, July 8. Members should draft their amendments to the text of the bill, as reported, on June 15, the text of which will be available later this evening on both the Committee on Financial Services' and Committee on Rules' Web sites.

Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate format. Members are also advised to check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules may meet this week to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 2828, the Water Supply, Reliability, and Environmental Improvement Act. The Committee on Resources ordered the bill reported on May 5 of 2004 and filed its report with the House on June 25, 2004.

Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment to the Committee on Rules in room H-312 of the Capitol by 10 a.m. on Thursday, July 8. Members should draft their amendments to the text of the bill as reported by the Committee on Resources.

Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate format. Members are also advised to check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain that their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this structured rule, and thank my friend and colleague from the Rules Committee, Mrs. Myrick, for yielding me this time.

H. Res. 686 is a structured rule that provides for the consideration of H.R. 4548, the FY2005 Intelligence Authorization Act of 2005. It is a fair and balanced rule that deserves the support of the House. It makes in order a total of ten (10) separate amendments to the underlying bill, three from members of the minority and the remainder from members of the majority. These ten amendments were more than half of the 18 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of the underlying measure, H.R. 4548, which authorizes funding for critical intelligence programs for

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 449 and commend my friend and colleague, Mr. Burns of Georgia, for bringing this resolution, honoring the life and many accomplishments of the late Ray Charles, to the House floor for consideration today.

Ray Charles was born in Albany, Georgia on September 23, 1930. When he was only seven, he lost his eyesight to glaucoma. As a teenager, his family sent Ray to the St. Augustine School for the Deaf and Blind, where he learned to read and write music in Braille.

At the age of 15, Ray graduated from St. Augustine and went out on the road as a traveling musician. Throughout the 1950s, his young career began taking off, as evidenced by the fact that during this period of his career, he played at Carnegie Hall and the Newport Jazz Festival.

From 1960 to 1966, he won 9 of his 12 Grammy awards, as he forged a unique style, incorporating elements of jazz, blues, country and western, swing, and gospel. In addition he was a very talented pianist, who could also play the saxophone and had a voice that was distinctive in both tone and range.

A few of his major hits include ``What'd I Say,'' ``Hit the Road, Jack,'' ``I Can't Stop Loving You,'' and ``Georgia on My Mind,'' which became the state's official song as he made it one of his signature performances.

Amazingly enough, his popularity continued well into the 1990s, almost 40 years after he started. In 1993, he won his last Grammy for ``A Song For You.''

Sadly, Ray Charles died earlier this month, at the age of 73 on June 10, 2004 after a lengthy illness.

Ray Charles once stated ``I just want to make my mark, leave something musically good behind.'' It is certain that he left more than something ``musically good behind''--he left behind a legacy as one of the finest and greatest American musicians of the late 20th century. He will be sorely missed.

I urge all of my colleagues in the House to join me in approving this measure.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 671 provides for the consideration of H.R. 4503 under a closed rule as well as providing for the consideration of H.R. 4717 under a closed rule. I urge my colleagues in the House to join me in supporting this rule so that the full House can proceed to consider the merits of the underlying legislative measures.

In particular, I want to urge the House to approve H.R. 4503, which is a comprehensive energy plan that focuses on developing and implementing new energy technologies, as well as increasing current energy reserves through cutting edge methods and technologies. It closely follows the text of H.R. 6, the final version which the House passed last year but which has fallen victim to a filibuster by the minority of the other body's membership.

In recent months gas prices have increased from an average of $1.34 to over $2 per gallon. Furthermore, the average family is paying 25 percent more for energy than they were in 1998.

We must take action, but more importantly Congress needs to take the right kind of action. Increasing the supply of energy will help bring prices down, while imposing governmental mandates and requirements will simply drive energy prices higher.

The ability of our economy to continue growing and creating jobs, as it has for the last several quarters, depends on affordable energy prices. H.R. 4503, H.R. 4517, and 2 other energy-related measures that the House will consider later today are explicitly designed to increase energy supplies, bring prices down and make the United States more energy independent.

Energy drives the American economy, and this legislation would allow us to reiterate our commitment to the economy and send the message to the American people that our consumers and businesses need a new far- sighted, free, market-oriented energy policy.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule so we

may proceed to debate the underlying legislation.

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

On an October evening in 1975, before he announced that he would seek the Republican nomination for President, Ronald Reagan addressed the 20th birthday celebration of The National Review. It was an uplifting and humorous speech until the end, when he somberly quoted Whittaker Chambers. Two decades earlier, Chambers had written, ``It is idle to talk of preventing the wreck of Western civilization, it is already a wreck from within. That is why we can do little more now than snatch a fingernail of a saint from the wrack, or a handful of ashes from the fagots, and bury them secretly in a flower pot against that day, ages hence, when a few men begin again to dare to believe that there once was something else, that something else is thinkable, and need some evidence of what it was, and the fortifying knowledge that there were those who, at the great nightfall, took loving thought to preserve the tokens of hope and truth.''

Chambers spent 13 years in the service of the Soviet Union as a spy. He always believed that the world was engaged in a battle between the two great religions, communism and freedom. He believed that communism could not survive in a world where people believed in a higher power. Freedom, on the other hand, could not survive in a world where people did not. A nascent faith took hold in Chambers, and in 1937 he left communism for freedom. As he did so, he told his wife that he feared they were moving to the losing side.

This is what Ronald Reagan was thinking of in October of 1975. Communism was ascendant, and free people were losing their confidence, becoming fearful and timid of the future, and over the following 4 years, the Soviet Union increased its influence in 14 sovereign nations around the globe.

I was privileged to travel in his campaign plane in 1976 when he was in the Southeast, and in several meetings thereafter, with large numbers of people or small numbers of people, he always spoke less than anyone else in the room, enjoyed watching others have it out, and indeed, the next day he may not have remembered the name of everyone in the room, but he never forgot who he was. He never forgot who he was.

Michael Deaver tells a wonderful story about walking on a street with Ronald Reagan in 1978. By this time, he was easily recognized. A fellow kept inching close to him on the street wanting to say hello. Reagan saw him, looked over, reached out his hand and said hello. The man said, ``May I have your autograph, Mr. Milland?'' Reagan wrote Ray Milland on his paper and walked on. Michael Deaver said, ``Why didn't you tell him who you were?'' Reagan said, ``I know who I am. He wanted to meet Ray Milland.''

That was pure Ronald Reagan. He was not interested in making sure a stranger knew of his importance. He cared about making this one stranger happy.

Four years later he was President. He faced a military where one- third of our fleet was in dry dock, one-third of our planes could not fly for lack of spare parts. Our soldiers were practicing with pretend bullets. The economy had a 21 percent interest rate and a 14 percent inflation rate, and we were in trouble.

On January 20, 1981, President Reagan addressed these challenges and then said this: `` . . . together, with God's help, we can and will resolve the problems which now confront us.

``And, after all, why shouldn't we believe that? We are Americans.''

Over the next 8 years, his economic policies took an economy from $2.5 trillion to $5 trillion. Revenues to the Federal Treasury went from $519 billion to $1.054 trillion. We created 20 million new jobs, and on the foreign front Reagan was the first President since 1917 to ignore the bureaucracy and speak truth to evil. Eight years later the evil empire was crumbling, and the Cold War was over.

I always thought that the biggest missed opportunity of the past 60 years was to not have celebrated the end of the Cold War. Ronald Reagan deserved that, and now he takes his leave.

It has been a very difficult decade for Mrs. Reagan and the family, but for those of us who love freedom, we remember a man who dared to believe that there once was something else, that something else was thinkable. He gave us evidence of what it was in the fortifying knowledge that he would be there at the great nightfall to take loving thought to preserve the tokens of hope and truth, and he was there. Not a bad final act for a B actor from Dixon, not bad at all.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, and thank my friend and colleague from the Rules committee, Ms. Pryce, for yielding me this time.

I support passage of H. Res. 656, which is a closed rule, and urge my colleagues in the House to join me in doing so. The Rules Committee received a couple of amendments to H.R. 444, but a rule of this nature was needed in order to allow the House to work its will on H.R. 444, without getting into a number of issues unrelated to the goals of helping displaced workers return to good jobs.

I want to commend Mr. Porter of Nevada for his effort in bringing H.R. 444, the underlying legislation, to the House floor. This bill provides for the creation of personal reemployment accounts, allotting $3,000 to help unemployed individuals find new jobs. This is a new approach to reducing unemployment, and it allows individuals to have more control over their job search.

Those unemployed individuals who are eligible for these reemployment accounts may use the money toward job training, child care, transportation, or other programs that would assist them in returning to work.

Additionally, under H.R. 444, if an individual finds employment before the 13th week of benefits, he may keep the left-over money for his personal use. Therefore, it creates an additional incentive for unemployed individuals to find work quickly.

This is another part of our plan to help workers find good jobs. This Congress understood that by reducing the tax burden and improving economic incentives, we could boost economic growth and increase the flow of resources into production. That occurred by following the implementation of the Republican tax relief plan. By reducing the tax burden on small businesses and families, we are creating more economic activity which means more jobs for all Americans. Today, we are taking another step to help unemployed workers, and this bill will give those seeking a job another resource to assist their efforts.

H.R. 444, is not a ``hand-out'' for our Nation's unemployed; instead, it offers them a ``hand-up.'' By giving individuals more control of their job search, they have the opportunity to become self-reliant. For these reasons, it's very important that we pass H.R. 444 today.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule so that we may proceed to debate the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding this time, and I rise in opposition to the underlying resolution.

I will agree with the argument that the Founders could not have envisioned airliners being used as missiles against skyscrapers, or even the U.S. Capitol. I do not, however, subscribe to the theory that the Founders were unable to envision in their minds a terrorist attack with the ability to take the lives of Members of Congress en masse.

On November 5, 1605, 13 co-conspirators placed 36 barrels of gunpowder in a cellar beneath the British House of Lords with the intent of destroying the entire British parliament and killing King James I, who was charged with convening the legislative body on that day. Only through an anonymous letter and the quick action of a few members of Parliament was a British soldier named Guy Fawkes arrested minutes before he was to light a fuse that was designed to spur a revolution in England.

My point is that the Founders were cognizant that a terrorist attack on the government resulting in the deaths of scores of Members of Congress could occur. The Founders drew a great deal of our constitutionally-formed system of government from the British parliamentary system and English common law. They were perhaps the greatest political thinkers in history. Yet, despite this knowledge of British history and clear references in the Federalist Papers to the dangers of any effort that would deny the right of elected representation, there are those who

have argued today under the assumption that the Founders never contemplated such a situation.

Despite knowing that a surprising and devastating attack could befall this government, the Founders were adamant in their belief that under no circumstances were Members of the House to be selected by any means other than popular elections. Elections are the key events that connect the American people to their government, and these elections have a legitimacy no appointment process ever could.

Although we can all agree that an attack on this body would threaten the fabric of this country, that same fear should not drive us to weaken the very foundations upon which this Congress, as the Federal government's legislative branch, operates.

Federalist No. 52 says it best: ``the right of suffrage is very justly regarded as a fundamental article of republican government. To have submitted it to the discretion of the states would have been improper . . . for the additional reason that it would have rendered too dependent on the State governments that branch of the Federal government which ought to be dependent on the people alone.''

In addition, I am concerned that the constitutional amendment before us today would not only override H.R. 2844, which already passed the House by an overwhelming vote of 306-97, but it would remove the Congressional authority to expedite special elections in emergencies under its existing Article I, Section 4, clause 1 authority. H.R. 2844, as passed by the House, is designed to ensure that the House can be repopulated by legitimate democratic means within 45 days after an attack causes multiple vacancies in the House.

The proposed constitutional amendment also includes a provision that states that ``Congress may by law establish the criteria for determining whether a Member of the House of Representatives or Senate is dead or incapacitated . . .'' I am quite concerned that this particular provision would deny the House its existing authority to address incapacitation by House Rules. This is an authority the House Rules Committee is already exercising. The provision of the constitutional amendment needlessly involves the Senate in how the House operates. By doing so, it would unfortunately make addressing continuity in government more difficult than it already is.

Mr. Speaker, and I continue to believe that government should neither exist nor change but with the express will of the people by whom and for whom it is created. I am hopeful that the prevailing will of this body will reflect that of our nation's Founding Fathers and will ultimately preserve its own popularly-elected nature by defeating this resolution.

With that Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues in the House to join me in voting against this resolution.