Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) to engage with me in a colloquy. And I take this opportunity to thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) for all of the fine work that she has done on this appropriation. And I would like to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) for the concern and care that he has shown for Africa and on this issue of HIV/AIDS over the years. And I do appreciate it.

But I rise today to talk about the fact that back in 2003, January 2003, the President made a commitment. If you recall in his State of the Union address, he said he was going to provide $15 billion over 5 years. That is $3 billion a year for global HIV/AIDS programs.

In the past year, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or as it became known as PEPFAR, has been underfunded significantly. I do appreciate the work that you have done. But in fiscal year 2003, we only received $1.6 billion for global HIV/AIDS programs.

In fiscal year 2004, only $2.3 billion was provided for those programs. We have done better in 2005, receiving $2.9 billion.

So the total funding for the last 3 years is only $6.8 billion. Congress would have to appropriate $8.2 billion over the next 2 years to complete the commitment for $15 billion for the 5-year commitment.

Why do I push this? I push this because every year 3 million people die of AIDS. Every year 5 million people become infected with AIDS. Over 25 million are living with HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa and over 7 percent of the adults in sub-Saharan Africa are infected by this deadly virus.

So while I thank you, I guess the question I am asking is can we do more and can we even save this funding that is in the budget, given that one of your Members, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) is talking about cutting it?

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I was referring to the PEPFAR portion of this. It was my understanding that the $15 billion commitment was above and beyond the other programs that you are alluding to. But I do appreciate that.

Well, I understand that and I appreciate the gentleman correcting my thinking relative to where the money was to come from, because in the AIDS activist community, we were all under the impression that the PEPFAR fund alone would produce the $15 billion. But we will certainly take that information.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for his commitment. The gentleman has demonstrated his commitment to this issue as much as anyone, more than most in the Congress of the United States. And I am going to review the numbers and

take his representation of how that funding has come together and have further discussions with the AIDS community. They are so concerned because since the President's commitment, over 7 million people have died. And also we will have an amendment coming up today from the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), and although I do not want to preempt the gentleman's presentation, I would hope the gentleman would join me in helping to put that down because that would undermine all the work that he has done.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

One week ago today, the Canadian Government issued a travel advisory for Haiti, warning its citizens not to travel to the island nation unless they have critical or compelling business or family reasons. The advisory was issued after a Montreal woman said she was kidnapped in Haiti and beaten and burned with candles until her family paid a ransom.

The U.S. State Department issued a similar travel warning on May 26, urging all U.S. citizens to leave Haiti. The travel warning was issued the day after unknown gunmen fired five rounds of bullets at a U.S. embassy van traveling in downtown Port-au-Prince.

On May 31, unknown gunmen shot a French official and stole his car while he was driving from Cap-Haitien to Port-au-Prince. The official died at a hospital in Port-au-Prince several hours later. At least seven people were killed the same day when armed men opened fire and started a fire that spread throughout an entire market in Port-au- Prince.

By mid-June, the Peace Corps had suspended its operations in Haiti and evacuated 16 Peace Corps volunteers. The same week, gunmen wounded two U.N. peacekeepers during a shootout in Cite Soleil.

Mr. Chairman, the violence in Haiti has been escalating over the past year. Kidnappings are now commonplace, and security is nonexistent. The interim government of Haiti has been unwilling, unable, incompetent, has not disarmed the gangs that roam, enforced the rule of law, or provide security to citizens and foreigners.

But the government is creating as many problems as those gangs that are roaming the streets. The Haitian National Police contribute to the violence through their use of force and summary executions. On February 28, 2005, during a large nonviolent march for democracy, police officers opened fire on unarmed demonstrators in broad daylight in the presence of international observers and media.

Many Haitians do not trust the U.N. peacekeepers who stood by and watched while the police fired on the demonstrators. Police officers are widely considered to be corrupt; and Amnesty International has expressed concerns about arbitrary arrests, ill-treatment in detention centers, and other human rights violations. There are an estimated 700 political prisoners in Haiti, and most of them have been detained illegally for months without formal charges.

This is not an atmosphere that is conducive to the organization of free and fair elections. Nevertheless, the interim government of Haiti is persisting in its plans to hold elections in October and November of this year. If elections are held under the current conditions, candidates will be afraid to campaign for office, and individual Haitians will be afraid to leave their homes to vote.

My amendment expresses a sense of Congress that national elections should not be held in the Republic of Haiti until conditions have been established to ensure that the elections will be free and fair.

The amendment specifies that conditions should include the following: the disarmament of all gangs and illegally armed groups; an end to kidnapping of civilians, security for all United States citizens working in Haiti; the establishment of security throughout Haiti in order to enable all candidates to campaign for office safely; plans to provide security at all polling places; plans to ensure security for United States and international election monitors; fair trials or release for all persons in Haiti who are being detained without trial; and respect for internationally recognized human rights.

Mr. Chairman, until all candidates for office can travel safely throughout Haiti, they cannot be expected to campaign for office. Until American citizens can travel to Haiti without risking their lives, they cannot be expected to monitor the Haitian elections. And until the people of Haiti can walk outside of their homes in peace, they cannot expect to vote.

Mr. Chairman, we are fiddling while Rome is burning. Haiti is in an absolute mess. The police officers, many of them are corrupt who were rebels, who were part of the coup d'etat, who were in exile before this interim government took over, are now executing members of the Lavalos Party, are basically killing folks who belong to the party that will likely prevail if there are elections. This violence must stop.

This Congress must send a message to CARICOM and everybody else that we will not support elections in this atmosphere. We should stop this madness and help to stabilize Haiti.

Point of Order

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) for his interpretation of what I am attempting to do here. I do not know what law the gentleman is referring to. There is no law that would have us dictate when elections are to take place in Haiti. There is no law that we would be in violation of by not using our influence to make those elections happen.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, this is being driven by Mr. Noriega at the State Department because they have helped to create this chaos in Haiti with the removal of the democratically elected

president, and this democratically elected president will probably not be able to return to Haiti. That is not a problem. That is not something that anybody should worry about.

What we should be concerned about is why they are insisting on holding these elections in this atmosphere of violence, corruption, and complete chaos in Haiti. So I do not think the gentleman is referring to any law that he can reasonably point to that we are in violation of.

Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to be on the floor this evening speaking about this particular issue. As a matter of fact, I was hoping over the next few days I could concentrate all of my time on the Out of Iraq Congressional Caucus that we are working so hard on.

But this is National Homeowner Month, and I could not help but focus on the fact that in America owning your own home is one of the most ideal things that you can do. Americans aspire to own their own homes. We socialize in such a way that we teach our children to go to school, to get an education, to get a good job or have a good career, become an entrepreneur, and buy your home.

And so as I focus on National Homeowner Month, I am outraged that the Supreme Court of the United States of America last Thursday made a decision that local entities could take American's homes in eminent domain proceedings for something other than public use. I am amazed that the Supreme Court of the United States on a 5-to-4 decision, I believe it was, decided that the law, the Constitution as we know it, I think it is the fifth amendment, that says yes, you may use eminent domain for good public use, is something other than what was intended. This ruling says you can take anybody's home for private use. In this case Susette Kelo, the woman from New London, Connecticut, who brought the case, was trying to protect her home from the desire by a huge corporation to build some condominiums.

And so now with this Supreme Court decision, the State, the city, the public entity, can take your home for private use. They can take your home and they can give it to private developers to build shopping centers. They can take your home and give it to developers to build a condominium. They can take your home for any reason that they decide is in the public interest, and they are trying to hide behind the idea that there are some cities and some entities that need to get rid of slums and they need to redevelop in the best interest of the citizens of that community.

Yes, it may go to a private company or to a private corporation and yes, they may get rich from that development. But if the city fathers get together and believe that that somehow is in the best interest and it is already all right, that flies in the face of the Constitution of the United States.

I do not think Members have to be a strict constructionist or a liberal constructionist. All you need is good sense to know that the Constitution of the United States did not mean for your city government or any other entity to be able to ride over your rights and take your private property and give it to somebody else.

As a matter of fact, I think this is dangerous. I think it is dangerous because your city fathers could get together with developers and take land in ways it has never been done before. We know too many stories about the influence of developers on county council members and on city governments. We know too much about the flow of money. We know too much about campaign contributions to those who would just as soon institute eminent domain as do anything.

As a matter of fact, without this interpretation that we got last Thursday, we have city fathers who have tried it, even though they did not have this ruling. You have communities that have to fight against city council members and mayors getting together trying to take their property and at least trying to call it for public use.

But now the Supreme Court has made it clear that they can take it for private use. I do not like it. Members do not have to be a Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative. Members just need to be an American with good sense that says you will not stand for it.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to get together with some of my friends on the other side of the aisle and we are going to create a law that will undermine this decision of the Supreme Court and take back amendment 5 of the Constitution so we can redefine the meaning in the way it is supposed to be defined.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for the time, and I applaud him for his efforts to expose what is wrong with CAFTA, the U.S. Central American Free Trade Agreement.

I must say he has put many hours into helping to organize us around this issue and to present the real facts about what CAFTA is and what it is not.

CAFTA is yet another unfair trade deal that will hurt working families in both Central America and the United States. CAFTA is not only the latest unfair trade deal in a decade of failed trade policies. Over the last 12 years, the U.S. trade deficit has exploded from $39 billion in 1992, to over $617 billion in 2004.

As a matter of fact, I think the most interesting thing about what is happening in the Congress of the United States is this tremendous trade deficit under what is supposed to be a conservative President.

And aside from the trade deficit, the United States deficit that we have here in America under this administration. I think people should take note of that. In my home State of California, over 353,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost since 1998.

Nationwide, almost 2.8 million manufacturing jobs have been lost since President Bush took office in 2001. CAFTA is modeled on NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. And let me say I did not support NAFTA, as I do not support CAFTA.

The North American Free Trade Agreement had a devastating impact on many American workers. When NAFTA was passed in 1994, the United States had a $2 billion trade surplus with Mexico. In 2004, we had a $45 billion trade deficit with Mexico.

NAFTA caused almost 1 million American manufacturing jobs to be exported to Mexico. CAFTA will cause even more manufacturing jobs to be lost to American workers. I do not care whether it is a Democrat President or a Republican President, I do not support these unfair trade agreements that cause us to have such huge trade deficits and who displace American workers.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for the press conference he organized where he had several business people who came to Washington, to explain how small- and medium-sized businesses will be unable to compete with cheap labor in Central America.

What I loved about that press conference was the fact that we had these representatives from small and medium-sized businesses coming to Washington, D.C. to tell the truth about how they have not been represented here in Washington. Many people think when the Chamber of Commerce speaks, they are speaking for all businesses. They made sure that everybody knew that this was not true.

They also made sure that everybody understands that the National Manufacturers Association was not speaking for everybody. These are small and medium-sized businesses that represent the heart and soul of America: Mr. Alan Tonelson with the U.S. Business and Industry Council, Mr. Jim Schollaert with the American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition, Mr. Fred Tedesco with the PA-Ted Spring Company of Connecticut, Mr. Jock Nash with Milliken & Company of South Carolina and the National Textile Association, Mr. Mike Retzer with the W.W. Strohwig Tool & Die of Wisconsin, and Mr. Dave Frengel with Pen United Technologies of Pennsylvania and Manufacturers for Fair Trade.

These business persons are the kind of business people that we talk about all the time. Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle talk about how we support small and middle-sized businesses, how they are the heart and soul of America. And how they really are responsible for creating more jobs than even the big conglomerates and the

international corporate businesses. We talk about how we want to give support to them. Well, this is how we can support them. Enough of the rhetoric. Let us get down to business.

If we want to support our small and medium-sized businesses in this country, we will not support CAFTA. We will not support what they have come to Washington to tell us undermines their ability to stay in business.

I think we could not have had a more clear representation of what is wrong with CAFTA than to watch these American business persons talk about what is wrong with CAFTA. When American workers lose good jobs in manufacturing, they often have no choice but to take jobs with low wages and no benefits.

The countries of Central America that are included in this agreement are some of the world's poorest countries. The average Nicaraguan worker earns only $2,300 per year, or $191 per month. Forty percent of Central American workers earn less than $2 per day. Central American governments do not enforce fair labor standards, and thousands of Central American workers work in sweatshops with dreadful working conditions.

CAFTA will do nothing to improve wages and working conditions in these impoverished countries. Opposition to CAFTA is wide spread, not only in the United States but in Central America as well. CAFTA will increase agricultural imports into Central America by large corporate agri-businesses. These imports will put an estimated 1.2 million farmers out of work, displacing families and causing an increase in world poverty. When poor Central American farmers lose their jobs, they will be forced to move into overcrowded cities and seek work in sweatshops producing manufactured goods that are currently made in America.

CAFTA will cause American workers to lose good manufacturing jobs and again seek jobs with lower wages and no benefits. At the same time, CAFTA will cause Central American workers to lose their farms and seek jobs in sweatshop with meager wages and no benefits.

CAFTA is not a free trade agreement at all. It is an outsourcing agreement. I say it again: this is not free trade; this is about outsourcing American jobs to third world countries for cheap labor. That is what it is. Let us call it what it is.

It allows profit-hungry corporations to ship American jobs to impoverished countries where workers can be forced to work long hours for little pay and no benefits. It is a bad deal for Central American workers, and it is an equally bad deal for workers here in the United States.

So I would urge this President, Mr. Conservative President, Mr. President who claims to have concern about American businesses, Mr. President who should not be the President, presiding over a big trade deficit, a huge deficit in the United States, I would urge him to withdraw this CAFTA agreement and negotiate a trade agreement that will create good jobs and provide real benefits to the impoverished people of Central America as well as the working people of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, it is awfully ironic that I am, who is considered a progressive and a liberal, even more conservative than the President of the United States when it comes to preserving American jobs and getting rid of a trade deficit that we do not deserve to have.

I think you are so right, and I thank you so very much for the leadership you have provided on these issues. I thank you for opening up opportunities for women to go down to Mexico and take a look at what is going on there. It is because of you that a lot of people in this Congress have become interested in this issue, and I appreciate the work you have done.

It could not have been better stated.

Mr. Speaker, I am here this evening to talk about something new and wonderful that has happened in the Congress of the United States of America. I am here to talk about a new caucus that is named Out of Iraq Caucus. I am here to talk about the men and women of this House who have decided they can be silent no longer. I am here to talk about men and women who represent various points of view relative to support for the President from the time that he first announced he was going into Iraq to now. I am here to talk about why we have formed this caucus, what we plan to do, but more than that this evening, we are going to focus on our soldiers and those who are in Iraq serving this country, those who are there in harm's way, those who have been killed in Iraq, those who are up at Walter Reed Hospital suffering from serious injuries, having lost limbs, having lost their eyesight, those who do not know what the future holds for them.

We are going to focus on that this evening because it is extremely important for the families of these soldiers to know and understand that we support these soldiers. We know that many of them went there because they were called to duty. They were recruited to go to Iraq because their President asked them to do so, and they wanted to serve this country despite the fact they did not understand all of the reasons why. Many of them went to serve because they thought that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. But, of course, we know now that Saddam Hussein was not responsible for 9/11, and many of the soldiers know that now.

So this caucus has been formed. We have 61 members, and they are still adding on. We met this morning at 10 a.m., and we will continue to meet as we develop our mission statement, as we help to define who we are.

Basically, we have come together to say we want out of Iraq. We want out, and this caucus is not putting a time certain. This caucus has not concocted demands about how we want to get out. We simply want our young people out of Iraq. So we will provide support to other Members of Congress, other caucuses who want to get out of Iraq. We will provide support to the citizens of this Nation, the organized national groups who want to get out of Iraq.

We will organize not only coming to the floor as we are this evening to talk about various aspects of this war. We will also organize workshops and seminars. We will travel, some of us, to different regions in this country, responding to citizens who are asking for Members of Congress to come and explain this public policy to them. We will be available to meet with the families of servicemembers who have been killed,

who have been injured. We have families who are asking to meet with somebody, anybody. We have people who are asking to meet with Donald Rumsfeld, who cannot get any response, who are not being talked to. We are going to meet with them. We are going to talk with them. We are going to share with them what we know.

But more than that, we are going to be an ear to family members who need to talk with someone about why their son or daughter died in Iraq. We are going to spend the time and give them some attention because we think that the least that we can do is sit and talk and listen to family members.

Some of them will say that they are very proud that their child or their son or their relative served in this war, and we will commend them for the pride that they feel and the fact that their relative, their child, their brother, their father served. Some will say that ``I once support the war but I no longer support it.'' We will listen to them, and we will hear what they have to say. And we will explain to them how we feel at this time about getting out of Iraq.

And so this is a caucus that will have the ability to extend itself not only to the organized groups and organizations but again to the family members.

I would like to point out something about this war. We have heard many of the statistics and much of the data over and over again. But we have to remind folks we have been there now since March 19, 2003. We have 1,722 soldiers who have died in this war, and the numbers mount each day. The number of soldiers injured: 13,074. We have many Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle who are going up to Walter Reed Hospital to see the soldiers there who are injured, and the stories that we hear coming back from those visits break one's heart. These are stories of young men and women who had hopes and dreams. Many of them went to war because they had no jobs. They did not know what the future held for them, and they thought, Perhaps if I go and serve my country and get an income, perhaps I can do good. I can not only serve my country, but perhaps I can get ahead. Perhaps I can learn a trade. Perhaps I can learn something. Perhaps I can exploit some of my talents and show what I can do. But when I come home, I want to go back to school. I want to go to college. I want to get married. I want to have children. I want to contribute to my community.

Well, unfortunately, these 1,722 will never be able to realize their hopes and their dreams. They have died. But the question still remains for many of us, Why are we in Iraq? What is the real story? We know now there are no weapons of mass destruction. Why are these young people dying?

I want to relate an interview that I watched on television this past Sunday. This past Sunday, as many folks in America do, I watched some of the great television shows, and I was watching George Stephanopoulos as he interviewed the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice. And he interviewed her. They talked about, of course, the work that she is doing in the Middle East, working with the issue of Israel, the Palestinians.

But then he segued to the war in Iraq. And he said to Condoleezza Rice, ``As you know, there has been a lot of talk back here in the United States about these Downing Street memos, the minutes of a meeting with Prime Minister Tony Blair in the spring of 2002 where they discuss their meetings with the United States.'' And then he said, ``I want to show you what one mother, Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a U.S. soldier, had to say about that memo this week.'' And then they showed Cindy Sheehan, mother. She said this: ``The so-called Downing Street memo dated the 23rd of July, 2002, only confirms what I already suspected. The leadership of this country rushed us into an illegal invasion of another sovereign country on prefabricated and cherry- picked intelligence.''

And then George Stephanopoulos said to the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, ``How do you respond to this, to what Mrs. Sheehan said? How do you respond to that?'' Condoleezza Rice started out with her explanation. She started out by saying, ``Well, I can only say what the President has said many, many times. The United States of America and its coalition decided that it was finally time to deal with the threat of Saddam Hussein.'' And she went on with the typical kind of discussion and explanation in line with the message that is given by this administration. Along the way, she said, ``When you consider what the Iraqi people had gone through in the Saddam Hussein regime's reign, what about the responsibility to the Iraqi people?''

I was struck by this conversation because not one time did the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, acknowledge Cindy Sheehan, who had been on the screen with the question that was raised by George Stephanopoulos. Not once on Father's Day did she say, we are sorry your son died, we feel your pain, we understand how you must feel. Not once did she recognize her. Not once did she recognize the death of her son. Not once did she show any sympathy. But oftentimes we hear from this administration how much they care about the soldiers.

Well, the Out of Iraq Caucus is going to show not only do we want them out of Iraq but we care about them. We will never fail to acknowledge a mother who is in deep pain about the loss of her son. Not ever will we be on national TV and not take a moment to say we too care about our soldiers. No. This conversation basically focused on our responsibility to the Iraqi people.

My first responsibility is to Americans and to those American soldiers. My first responsibility is to their safety. My first responsibility is to their well-being. My first responsibility is to acknowledge them and their families and their parents. And my responsibility, as a public policymaker, is to tell the truth. We all know now there were no weapons of mass destruction. We cannot tell these young people why they are really there. We cannot tell them that there is an exit strategy. We cannot tell them why many of their friends that they met in this war died in vehicles that had no armor. We cannot tell them why they died up in Fallujah. We cannot tell them why they died in Operation Lightning. We cannot tell them what they are doing in Operation Spear.

We hear all of these fancy, concocted names for the operations, but what we do not hear is the definition of why they are doing what they are doing. Are they simply being organized into these special operations to try to send a signal to the American people that they are really in charge? What are they to do when they go into these battles and into these special operations? Are they to shoot whatever moves?

We know that, yes, thousands of Iraqis have died because we have young people in these special operations, Operation Lightning, Operation Spear, operation this, operation that, who were told to shoot anything that moves. Many of them cannot live with the psychological damage that is fostered upon them because they are shooting and they are killing and they do not have all of the answers.

So today we focus on our soldiers, and we say to Cindy Sheehan we are sorry about the loss of her son and we thank her for caring enough to ask the questions, to be involved. We are trying to get public policymakers to do the right thing. So tonight, as we further announce the Out of Iraq Caucus and the Members who have signed up to do the work of providing the platform of creating the voice for those who want to speak out, we focus tonight on our soldiers in Iraq. Our prayers go out to them. We want them to be returned home. We want them to realize their dreams and their hopes and their aspirations.

I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), who has been on this floor night after night talking about these issues, the gentlewoman from California that basically said we want out of Iraq; administration, tell us how you are going to do it.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), not only for being here this evening, but for all of the work, all of the hours, all of the time that she has put into this effort.

I now yield time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), who too has been a leader in opposing this war. She warned us early on that we should not just give permission to the President of the United States to go to war without understanding what the reasons were and without having that debate. So, unfortunately, our debate is taking place a little bit late, but it is taking place.

I would like to thank the gentlewoman from northern California, the Oakland area, (Ms. Lee), for all of her work and for being here this evening.

I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee). We appreciate so very much the work that she has been doing and her wisdom and early warnings about this war.

Next, I would like to call on the Congressman from New York (Mr. Rangel), who is a veteran who knows a lot about war because he served.

He is a gentleman who has been unsettled about this war for months. And he has taken many opportunities to ask what we are doing. When are we going to have a discussion? When are we going to speak out? When are we going to have hearings? What is going on with this?

Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank him for raising those questions. I wanted to thank him for being a part of what we are attempting to do with the Out of Iraq Caucus. And I welcome him this evening to this discussion.

I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and ask him to remain for a colloquy if he has a few moments with all of us here. I thank the Members for focusing our discussion tonight on our soldiers and helping to remind people that these are real human beings, as I said before, with hopes and aspirations. And when they die, not only are those hopes and aspirations gone, but the family members are left devastated and destroyed by these deaths, and we have got to do more to slow our support for them.

It is not their fault if they are there. They answered the call for many reasons, some of which the gentleman described so wonderfully well in his presentation. Some people looking for just a job, for income. Some folks looking to serve their country, to answer the call for whatever reason. And what we have got to be sure about is that we do not allow these sacrifices to be taken lightly.

For example, we hear some Members saying, who wish to support the war, to continue to support the war, saying all they show on television are the bombings, the suicide bombings. All they show are the deaths and the destruction. They do not show the good stuff.

Well, I get very upset when I hear that, because what they are literally saying to me is that somehow the loss of lives of our soldiers should take second place or third place to some news about perhaps cleaning up a street somewhere. I cannot say news about new electricity or clean water or schools or any of that, but they simply say over and over again, all they show are these suicide bombings; they do not show the good stuff.

Well, I do not like hearing that because, again, they are relegating the loss of lives to some secondary status. And tonight we draw attention to the importance of the soldiers, how we are proud of them and their families. And I mentioned earlier that in this interview on Sunday with Mr. Stephanopoulos and Condoleeza Rice, even though he drew her attention to Cindy Sheehan, the mother who had a comment who had been here in the Congress trying to raise the discussion, he drew her attention to her and something she had said and Condoleeza Rice never acknowledged her, never said she was sorry about the death of her son, never gave any attention to the fact that this woman in pain was attempting to create this discussion.

So tonight there is a mother who has not been answered, who has been trying to get some response from Donald Rumsfeld. Now, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) has put together a letter to Rumsfeld saying, please talk to her. Not only has she been knocking down the door, making the telephone calls, she is talking about other mothers and other families. Please talk to her. Please respond to her.

I signed on to that letter today. We are going to encourage all the members of the Out of Iraq Congressional Caucus to sign on to that letter. But I would like to ask all Members here tonight, do you think that we should not only join as the Out of Iraq Caucus in asking Donald Rumsfeld to respond to Ms. Sheehan and perhaps other mothers and families, should we not have an organized way by which they really are talked to, that they have an opportunity to even come to Washington?

If we can offer $40,000 to their children to come to Iraq, can we not help them to come to Washington and be recognized and talk with them, not just in ceremony, not just one day perhaps out of the year; but when they say they need some answers that they want to know, should not we encourage Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleeza Rice and this administration to be more sensitive, more sensitive?

Those are certainly tough questions and, of course, just as Condoleeza Rice gave the framed message that she always gives when she is speaking publicly, Saddam Hussein was a terrible man, Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States. Now, the Middle East will be better off without Saddam Hussein. Those are the kind of answers I suspect that she would give. But I think when Condoleeza Rice is on national television in an interview where millions of people are watching, and you have a mother who is shown on television raising a question and you do not even take the time to acknowledge that mother, to say, Ms. Sheehan, I am sorry about the loss of your son.

Well, Cindy Sheehan has already made the inquiry. She had made calls. She has written the letter and now she has asked the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) to help her. He started to circulate a letter, which I signed, and I would like to encourage others, because we are not encouraging her to start this. She has already been doing it. And she is simply put out with the fact that she can get no response, no returned telephone calls, anything. And I think that we should give her some support.

In addition to that, I do think perhaps one of the things we should look at further is support for all the families who have questions, because what I am hearing is families are not being told how their children died. They get the message that it has happened, but when they start to ask for details and particulars they are not getting it. And as they put together these budgets, these budgets ask for whatever they think it is they need. And I think it is time to include in the budgets some assistance to the families, that they can at least be respected enough to be given the information, for somebody to sit down and talk with them and answer the questions, tell the truth. They may not get the truth. They may not get the questions answered in the way they want to, but I think we are going to have to try to work at forcing that to happen.

I am awfully sorry that our time has expired. I see two more Members just entered the room. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns) just entered the room and I know that they wanted to be part of this.

Mr. Speaker, I come this evening to further announce to the people of this Nation that we have formed an Out of Iraq Caucus here in the Congress of the United States of America.

There has been quite a bit of debate this weekend about the activities that took place here in Congress. There was a lot of discussion this weekend about the hearing that was held right here in the basement of the Capitol headed by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) in conjunction with a group that is now known as AfterDowningStreet.org. And that hearing helped to give exposure to the famous, now famous, infamous memorandum that basically some see as a smoking gun, discussing who knew what, when did they know it, and what did they plan to do.

In essence, it is easy to conclude reading that memorandum that this administration, the President of the United States of America and others, had decided that they were going into Iraq, that they were going to attack Saddam Hussein long before 9/11. So that hearing took place, and it was a very interesting one.

It was a very revealing one and over 30 Members of Congress joined in the basement in this crowded room. And I have had a lot of questions this weekend about why were we jammed into such a small room, and I had to answer truthfully and let the people who asked the question know that the Republicans are in charge. They are able to determine where we meet, if we can meet, what kind of space we will have. And they have said to us, they are going to stop allowing us to use any committee rooms. And so even though it was a very small room, it was all that we could get. But, of course, those who have the power can choose to use it responsibly or irresponsibly.

And I would say to the people of this country at this time that we will be thwarted in our efforts to get the word out, to have this kind of discussion; but we will persist, we will not give up.

Further, aside from that hearing, we did form the Out of Iraq Caucus. Over 60 Members have now signed up. And I am being asked by journalists and TV personalities, what happened? Why are you having this discussion and this debate that is occurring at this time?

I must answer those questions by saying, first of all, we have Members of Congress who were elected by their constituents on peace, justice and equality issue. We have Members of Congress who have long histories fighting and agitating for peace. Whether you talk about the Vietnam War or the work that many of us did to end apartheid in South Africa or the work that we are doing now to try to bring attention to genocide in Sudan, this is who we are. This is what we do.

Philosophically, we cannot sit here and allow this war to continue with no

exit strategy, no answers, no reports from the President of the United States about how they are really going to get the training done, what does that mean and basically when are we going to bring our troops home.

So we have joined with the American public. The American public have been waiting on us. They are against this war. The polls now are showing us that the American public wants this war to end, and so we have joined with them to provide some leadership.

Our caucus is made up of an array of Democrats, some who come from the New Democrats, some from the Blue Dog Democrats, some from the Progressive Democrats, but we have come together to talk about coordinating activities, helping to give a platform to this discussion, to work with the national peace organizations, to bring in people who have been trying to get to Congress but since we have no hearings that are going on, they have not been able to connect with anybody. We are going to connect with them, whether they are veterans against this war or mothers and fathers and family members who have had their children and relatives killed in this war. They are now going to have Members to talk to.

We are going to create this discussion and this debate, and some people are saying out now. Some people are saying, Mr. President, give us a strategy. Some people are trying to come up with a date certain.

We have a bipartisan effort that has been put together with a date certain attached to it. As far as our caucus is concerned, people see it a little bit differently, whether or not out now, whether or not we just beg the President to give us a strategy or whether or not we insist on a date certain. The most important thing is we are all organized just to get the word out. We want out of Iraq.

This thing will evolve, and as it evolves, we will know what the right timing is. The President will have an opportunity now, given that he has seen the polls and he understands what is going on, he can denounce it or reject it in any way that he wants, but the fact of the matter is the people of this country want us out. The new caucus that I am so proud of that we have formed will work to make sure that we have the debate that we have not had.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this very important amendment. This amendment would simply cause to have funds withheld for State or local antidrug task forces that do not collect and make publicly available data as to the racial distribution of convictions made as a result of their operation. This is so important. I had many of the members from Tulia, Texas, here at the Congressional Black Caucus week where we do our legislative conference. Thirty-nine of them were black. They were arrested on drug charges. There were 38 convictions, based primarily on the testimony of one informant who was later discredited. This one informant, this one man, had a record, he had a history, he lied, they came from a small town where nobody cared whether or not there was real evidence, and this was just outrageous.

The gentlewoman from Texas is absolutely correct. This information must

be made available so that we can stop this kind of misjustice and miscarriage of the law. I not only support it, I would urge my colleagues to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support House Joint Resolution 27 to withdraw the United States from the World Trade Organization.

The WTO is not about free trade or fair trade. It is about corporate power. WTO rules allow America's labor, environmental and public interest laws to be challenged by multinational corporations seeking profits and power. Other countries have also seen their domestic laws challenged in order to

expand corporate power. The WTO sacrifices the rights of workers, the protection of the environment and the health and safety of working families.

WTO rules support corporations to move their operations from one country to another in search of the cheapest labor and the least government regulation. If a country enacts a minimum wage law, a corporation that does not want to pay a decent wage can simply move its factory to another country. If workers in that country organize a labor union, the corporation can move the factory to a third country. Many corporations prefer to operate in countries such as the People's Republic of China, which outlaw independent labor organizations. The WTO has no restrictions on sweatshops, child labor, prison labor or slave labor.

WTO rules promote investment opportunities for multinational corporations without regard to their impact on workers, the environment or the public interest. Countries' labor, health and environmental laws can be challenged if they have a side effect of restricting trade.

In the 10 years since the WTO was established, a wide variety of U.S. and foreign laws have been challenged. With only two exceptions, every health, food safety and environmental law challenged at the WTO has been ruled illegal. Meanwhile, multinational pharmaceutical companies have used WTO intellectual property rules to deny poor countries the right to provide live-saving medicine to people with terrible diseases like HIV and AIDS.

They tried it with Brazil. The world protest against the attempt to keep Brazil from using generic drugs to save lives, prevent HIV and AIDS was fought off because of the protest, and they had to back down.

But look what they did in South Africa. I wish I had time to tell my colleagues about it.

In 42 out of the 48 completed cases brought against the United States, the WTO has labeled U.S. laws illegal. U.S. laws ruled illegal by WTO include tax laws, anti-dumping laws, sea turtle protections and clean air rules. And when the WTO ruled in favor of the United States in a case on bananas, it was to benefit who? A large corporation, Chiquita, that has now driven Grenada and some of these small countries into poverty. We do not produce any bananas here in the United States. We protected Chiquita, who mistreats its workers in Central America, and we put small Caribbean farmers out of work.

Mr. Speaker, after the WTO rules a country's laws illegal, the WTO authorizes economic sanctions that cost the country millions of dollars. These sanctions put small businesses out of business and workers out of work. History has proven that the WTO does not prevent trade wars. It authorizes trade wars.

The WTO puts profits of the world's wealthiest and most powerful corporations ahead of the health, safety and welfare and well-being of working families.

I urge my colleagues to support the WTO Withdrawal Resolution. It's time to stop the global expansion of corporate power and put working families first.

Mr. Speaker, CAFTA, the United States Central American Free Trade Agreement, is yet another unfair trade deal that will hurt American workers. CAFTA is the latest unfair trade deal in a decade of failed trade policies. Over the last 12 years, the United States trade deficit has exploded from $39 billion in 1992 to over $618 billion in 2004. If CAFTA becomes effective, the result will be fewer jobs for American workers.

CAFTA is modeled on NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, which had and continues to have a devastating impact on many American workers. When NAFTA was passed in 1994, the United States had a $2 billion trade surplus with Mexico. In 2004, we had a $45 billion trade deficit in Mexico. That means our trade deficit with Mexico increased by an average of $4.7 billion per year over the last 10 years. As a result of NAFTA, the United States has been exporting American jobs to Mexico.

Mr. Speaker, the countries of Central America already receive preferential trade benefits. About 80 percent of exports from CAFTA countries enter the United States duty free. If CAFTA is passed, 100 percent of nontextile manufactured goods from Central America will enter the United States duty free.

CAFTA supporters like to claim that CAFTA will create new markets for American products, but this argument is highly flawed. The six countries of Central America, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and the Dominican Republic are among the world's smallest economies. These six countries have a combined economic output of only $85 billion. My home city, Metropolitan Los Angeles, with a $411 billion economy, produces nearly five times the volume of goods and services as the CAFTA countries. The CAFTA countries are simply just too small to absorb a significant quantity of American manufactured goods.

Unfortunately, the countries of Central America also are among the poorest countries. The average Nicaraguan worker earns only $2,300 per year, or about $191 per month. Forty percent of Central American workers earn less than $2 per day. Central American workers simply cannot afford to buy American cars from Ohio or American computers from California.

Mr. Speaker, I have spent much of my time in Congress working on the issue of debt relief for poor countries. Two of the CAFTA countries, Honduras and Nicaragua, are included in my legislation, H.R. 1130, The Jubilee Act, which cancels the debts that poor countries owe to multilateral institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. In 2004, Nicaragua paid these institutions $107 million in debt service payments. That is $107 million that Nicaraguans could not spend on American products. As long as these countries remain heavily indented and deeply impoverished, their people will never be able to afford American products made by American workers.

Any way you look at it, CAFTA is a one-sided deal that offers limited benefits to foreign workers at a tremendous cost to American workers. The only service these six teeny Central American countries can provide to the United States is cheap labor. It is no surprise, then, that the largest share of U.S. exports to the CAFTA countries consist of fabric. This fabric is stitched into clothing and shipped right back to the United States where it is sold to American consumers.

CAFTA is not a free-trade agreement at all, it is an outsourcing agreement. It allows profit-hungry corporations to shift American jobs to impoverished countries, where workers can be forced to work long hours for little pay and no benefits. It is a bad deal for Central American workers and it is an even worse deal for workers here in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, American workers need good jobs that pay good wages. They do not need another NAFTA. I urge my colleagues to join me in defeating CAFTA.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support certainly of H.R. 1817, but it is not enough. It is not good enough.

This administration claims to make fighting terrorism its top priority, and that is why we set up the Department of Homeland Security. You are not supposed to tell us from homeland security what it is we cannot do, but what we can do.

I agree that maybe Secretary Ridge did not have enough information, did not have enough at his disposal, so he told us about the alerts; the yellow lights, the orange and the red and all of that; told us to go out and buy flashlights, duct tape, water, and plastic sheeting. But it is time to get serious.

Homeland security should not be a sound bite or a reelection strategy. We have got to do something about the border. This President promised us 2,000 border agents. We have citizens who have taken it upon themselves to protect our border, and here we are talking about we do not have enough money to fund 2,000 agents when we are giving a bonus to Halliburton. Give me a break.

We need money for first responders. We need money for our ports and our containers. This substitute will help to fill that gap. It is time we put our money where our mouths are.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. And I am surprised that my friend would propose that we increase the amount of money that taxpayers are paying for incarceration to now expand it to illegal aliens who commit crimes, leave the country and come back in. Where are we going to get all of this money?

We have one of the highest incarceration rates of any nation in the entire world. And we are spending a disproportionate amount of money on incarceration.

I submit to my colleagues that I think deportation is the answer, but have they thought about the fact that they should place the responsibility on keeping these criminals out of the country on the heads of the leaders of those countries?

We go right along with the leaders of these countries on trade agreements, on foreign assistance, with all kinds of assistance to these governments.

I would submit to my colleagues that if they submit the name of everybody that they deport and they send them back and they say to the leaders of these countries, If these people come back, we are going to penalize you in one of several ways that we cooperate with you; again, we have so many ways that we provide assistance to other countries, and we have got to make them responsible for keeping their criminals at home.

So I do not like the idea that we have a problem and that we are deporting criminals, and they are coming back, and we are going to make the American people pay for it. Make those other governments pay for it. Do not end up in press conferences with this administration, the head of our government's Members of Congress, working out all kinds of arrangements with

these governments to help them in so many ways, whether it is trade, foreign assistance or 909 other ways that we help them. Make them keep their criminals at home.

Penalize them if they do not. Do not charge the American taxpayer.

Mr. Chairman, allow me to shock the Members on the opposite side of the aisle and join with them in support of this amendment.

Mas vale tarde que nunca. It means, better late than never. And while my colleague here, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), is absolutely correct, we have put the cart before the horse, I suppose it is never too late to try and correct our errors.

I do think that we should have been involved in studies a long time ago. We are basically forever speculating and coming up with anecdotes without a basis of facts for our decisions. So I am hopeful that we will get the support of our colleagues in this Congress so that we can study.

While this is limited to the link between illegal aliens and gang membership, we need more studies on gangs, period. We need to find out, number one, where the young people are coming from. What is it about gang membership that entices them to want to be a part of that gang? What are their parents like? Are they the children of those who are already incarcerated? If we had an opportunity to support them getting back into school, moving out of neighborhoods, et cetera, what would happen?

So, again, even though this is a little late in coming, I do support the amendment, and I ask for an aye vote.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming the time, I would hope that the gentleman would also support the idea of a broader study on gangs, period, and that we could identify a number of areas to be looked at. Would the gentleman be interested in that at some point in time?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

I rise in support of my amendment. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and I have offered an amendment that would strike all of the mandatory minimum sentences in H.R. 1279, the Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act. The mandatory minimum sentencing requirements found in sections 102, 103, 104, 105, 106 and 107 are simply not the answer to gang deterrence.

Mr. Chairman, all of us know that mandatory minimum sentencing has not worked, and it does have a huge disproportionate impact on minorities. Just to name a few statistics, African-Americans only comprise 12 percent of the United States population; however, they comprise a staggering 58 percent of all prisoners incarcerated under Federal mandatory minimum sentences. There is something wrong with this picture.

Mandatory minimums are not even effective in deterring crime. Their only proven result is in driving up our prison populations, resulting in overcrowding and the need for the creation of more prisons. Increasing prison populations is not the solution to the prevention of crime in our communities, even communities infested with gang crime.

Mr. Chairman, mandatory minimums also impede on the role of our judges. We need to let judges be judges and ensure that they have the discretion to sentence criminal defendants in a manner that takes into account all of the facts and circumstances that are presented before them. Clearly, this must include an evaluation of any mitigating circumstances, such as the defendant's childhood experience, especially if the defendant is a juvenile; the mental state of the defendant; the role that the defendant played in the commission of the crime; the mental capacity of the defendant; the crime committed; whether force or a firearm was used during the commission of the crime; and whether a victim lost his or her life and was seriously maimed as a result of the crime. The mandatory minimums under H.R. 1279 would make it impossible for trial judges to fairly and fully evaluate the cases before them, because these sections overreach

into the State court's authority and remove the judge's sentencing discretion.

Mr. Chairman, to be tough on gangs, we must focus more on gang crime prevention. We need to implement more effective prevention tactics that focus on both individuals at risk of joining gangs and on former gang members at risk of rejoining a gang after being released from prison. Also, educational and rehabilitation programs for communities with gangs that have a high crime rate need to be implemented. We should focus our attention on what works.

I urge all of my colleagues to please support my amendment and to strike all of the mandatory minimum sentences included in H.R. 1279.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of our subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

(Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

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

Mr. Chairman, I think it is important for me to say on behalf of most of the Members, if not all of the Members of the Congress of the United States of America, we are all against crime. We do not support criminals. We are indeed passionate about victims. We want hard-core criminals off the streets.

What we do not support is using this terrible issue to get your law and order

credentials on. We do not want you using this issue on the backs of young people who may be victims of gangs rather than criminals themselves.

Let me just say this: we are against mandatory minimum sentencing because it takes away the discretion of the judge. The judge may give more time, given all of the facts. And, yes, they may give less time, given all of the facts.

We need to let judges be judges. We cannot sit here in the Congress of the United States and continue to take away the ability of judges to make decisions. So I stand here today with this amendment to say, let the judges make the decision.

You do not know if there is a kid who happens to live in a neighborhood that is infested with gang members and they must pretend to be in the gang in order to survive. Do you want that kid caught up in a situation where they are going to be given mandatory minimum sentencing, when they did not have an opportunity to have a judge understand what the extenuating circumstances were?

I do not think that is good legislating, nor is it good public policy. I would ask my colleagues to please support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) have any more time, because I wish to make a statement on this bill prior to the close of debate.

Mr. Chairman, let me just say this. I am not going to allow my amendment to get caught up in the politics of the day. I know that there are people who are just salivating for this amendment to remain on the floor so they can catch Democrats voting for something that they will use in their campaigns.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the bill and to the proposed rule for this bill.

The two amendments made in order under the proposed rule, the Scott amendment and the Jackson-Lee/Nadler amendment are very important amendments. At the same time, it is instructive to note that many of the nine Democratic amendments that were not made in order seek to protect the people most directly affected by the bill: the young girls who wish to exercise their constitutional right to end their pregnancy.

For example, I offered an amendment before the Committee on Rules to create an exception to the criminal penalties and a civil suit imposed on a person transporting a young girl across State lines in cases where the minor is a victim of incest. Because the bill lacks a judicial bypass procedure in circumstances where the Federal notification requirements apply, under this bill a young girl could be required to notify a parent who impregnated her before obtaining an abortion even though it would be inappropriate, traumatic, and potentially dangerous to require her to do so.

Mr. Speaker, if a young girl is required to notify a parent who has molested her that she is pregnant before traveling to another State to seek an abortion, I fear that some girls may seek to end their pregnancy without help, whether they do so by traveling alone to another State for the procedure, or even worse, through a self-induced or illegal back-alley abortion. However, the Republican members on the Committee on Rules refused to make this amendment in order on a party- line vote.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and I also offered a commonsense amendment barring a parent who has molested his daughter and caused her to be pregnant from any relief under this bill.

However, this too was rejected on a party-line vote.

Mr. Speaker, this bill should be considered under an open rule that would allow consideration of amendments to protect the young girls who choose to seek an abortion. In its current form, the bill gives rights to a parent who has victimized his daughter.

I urge my colleagues to reject the rule.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to what I think is an outrageous piece of legislation that is going to harm women and make criminals out of innocent individuals and even grandmothers who seek to help their granddaughters travel across State lines in order to end their pregnancy.

Mr. Chairman, we worked very hard in the Committee on the Judiciary to try and make sense out of this bill. Those of us who oppose this legislation thought for one minute that perhaps our colleagues would have enough humanity to recognize that there ought to be some exceptions to this bad bill. One that I dealt with had to do with incest.

Can Members imagine that a young girl has been raped or abused by a father, and now she has to go to him to ask him for permission to have an abortion; but beyond that, permission to travel out of the State to another State where the laws are different and would allow for abortion, perhaps without a bypass procedure?

It is inconceivable to me that we would have been denied this kind of an amendment. It is inconceivable to me that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would think that they should not only force a young girl who is the victim of incest to go to the perpetrator, maybe the father or the relative to ask them for permission, they even create penalties for anyone that would assist the young girl in traveling across State lines. This is absolutely outrageous and unreasonable.

Young women in this country increasingly are confronted with far too many traumatic situations. We have sexual predators out there, many in the headlines today. We have more and more cases of incest that we are learning about, and at the same time we would make life more difficult for someone who is the victim of incest. I would ask my colleagues to reject this legislation. It is absolutely unreasonable.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion to recommit with instructions. This motion is necessary in order to correct a glaring deficiency in H.R. 748. In its current form, H.R. 748 would permit a parent who impregnated his daughter nonetheless to bring an action under the bill against a health provider or a person accompanying a young girl across State lines for violation of the bill's notification provisions when a young girl travels across State lines to seek an abortion.

Mr. Speaker, this is about incest. My friends on the opposite side of the aisle would have you believe that there is an exception in this bill, that somehow they have taken care of this. It is not true. They have not made an exception for someone, a parent, that could now sue because the young girl did not come to them and get their permission, or if a person assisted this young girl, taking her across State lines.

The Nadler-Waters motion to recommit would prohibit a parent who caused his daughter's pregnancy from bringing an action under the bill against a health care provider or any person accompanying the minor across State lines when that minor travels across State lines to obtain an abortion.

Mr. Speaker, a parent who has molested his child and left her facing pregnancy should not be allowed to sue a medical care provider who aided this child in her moment of need or sue someone who accompanied his child across State lines to help her safely address this tragic situation. Nor should that parent have any role in his daughter's decision to seek an abortion, unless the daughter chooses to give her parent such a role. A person who has violated his daughter in such a horrible way simply must not be entitled to any relief.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit H.R. 748 to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions so that, at the very least, the committee may correct the obvious miscarriage of justice that the bill produces in its current form. And if my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle continue to insist that they made an exception, make them show it to you in the bill. Make them prove it to you.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6, the Energy Policy act.

H.R. 6 is a continuation of the disastrous energy policy that the Republican Leadership has been trying to force through Congress for the past four years. They claim that their bill will reduce the cost of a gallon of gasoline--which now averages $2.24 per gallon--and that it will reduce our reliance on foreign oil.

Unfortunately, both of these claims are false. In fact, enactment of H.R. 6 is likely to result in higher prices at the pump for Americans. Even the Department of Energy estimates the price of a gallon of gasoline will increase by three cents if this bill is signed into law.

Mr. Chairman, HR 6 is a massive give-away to oil and gas companies. It provides $7.5 billion in tax breaks and billions more in royalty relief to companies like Exxon, Mobil, Chevron, Texaco and ConocoPhillips, which are already earning record profits, supposedly to encourage these companies to drill more on our public lands and produce more gasoline and oil. As the President noted the other day, with the price of oil at $55 per barrel, these companies do not need any more encouragement to produce gasoline and oil.

The bill also permits drilling in the Artic refuge thereby putting at risk one of the last pristine areas in the world, simply to gain less than six months' worth of oil. Opening ANWR does not make economic or environmental sense and we should not allow it to happen. Instead, we should be increasing the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for cars and trucks sold in the United States to a more reasonable level. Taking this step would save millions more gallons of gasoline than would be recovered from ANWR, and raising these standards would help improve the quality of air that we breathe.

This bill also weakens our nation's environmental laws including the Clean Air Act.

Mr. Chairman, Los Angeles is consistently ranked among the worst cities in America when it comes to air pollution and smog. Yet, if Congress allows this bill to pass, the Clean Air Act will be severely weakened and thousands of my constituents will see their health suffer because of the increased pollution and smog. We should be supporting a bill that strengthens the Clean Air Act, not weakening it.

Mr. Chairman, I am also very disappointed in the fact that this bill does nothing to address the massive defrauding of Californian consumers at the hands of Enron and other energy companies during the energy crisis of 2000 and 2001.

During that time, energy companies intentionally took generators off line, made false submissions about the prices they bought and sold gas for, and fabricated transactions, all with the intention to make as much money as possible.

Unfortunately, for thousands of Californians, the energy companies succeeded in their efforts. In the summer of 2000, energy companies overcharged California $2.5 billion. In 2001, California paid approximately $26 billion for electricity because of the unscrupulous trading practices of the energy companies, raising the rates of every California ratepayer.

Mr. Chairman, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has already ruled that the prices the energy companies charged California were not `just and reasonable' as required by law. Yet the companies have not had to pay any penalty for their criminal actions. This bill does nothing to change that, but it should.

Mr. Chairman, the American people need us to enact legislation that will actually reduce the cost of gasoline and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. They want us to support a bill that makes real investments in renewable energy and energy conservation. I urge my colleagues to reject this special-interest legislation that puts big business before American consumers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this unfair, undemocratic closed rule and to the underlying bankruptcy bill. This lopsided bill will make it harder for families and seniors with debt problems arising from high medical expenses, job loss, divorce, or other financial hardships to address their problems while doing nothing to rein in the credit card companies whose practices have led to much of the rise in bankruptcies.

S. 256 presumes that bankruptcy filers are simply bankruptcy abusers looking to game the system and avoid paying their bills, ignoring the clear evidence that the overwhelming majority of people in bankruptcy are in financial distress because of job loss, medical expense, divorce, or a combination of these causes.

Mr. Speaker, an important and controversial bill like the bankruptcy bill deserves a real debate. Members deserve the opportunity to consider a wide range of amendments. For the Republican leadership and the Republican members of the Committee on Rules to propose that we consider a bill that is tilted toward the credit card companies and as complex as this bill is without giving Members any opportunity to amend it on the floor with only 30 minutes per side for general debate is a travesty and a gross abuse of power.

When this bill was in the Committee on the Judiciary, we had a pseudo-markup that lasted all day and was a complete embarrassment and a waste of time for all of the members, for the Republicans would not even consider one amendment, no matter how meritorious or beneficial to the American people, even if the amendment addressed issues not previously considered because of the Republican leadership's insistence on reporting out a clean bill in order to avoid a conference committee.

As a result, important, thoughtful amendments on such subjects as protection on domestic violence victims from eviction, disabled veterans, alimony and child support, exemptions for medical emergencies and job loss, underage credit card lending, and a homestead exemption for seniors, predatory lending and payday loans all were rejected by the Committee on the Judiciary.

Shame on you Republicans.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, does the rule not state that the objection must be asked for prior to the speaking of the Member? This Member spoke, and the objection was asked for after the party spoke. My understanding is it should have been done ahead of time.

What is the correct rule?

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I think what I observed was she asked unanimous consent. There was no objection. She proceeded to speak. She spoke, and the objection was not timely. It was asked for after she had completed speaking. That is what I saw.

Mr. Speaker, I submit that that was not a timely objection. It was not timely.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think so. And I would oppose that, and I would support my colleague, who again would ask that we have a vote on the ruling by the Chair.

Yes, Mr. Speaker. Based on my statement, he is now again appealing the ruling of the Chair based on that it was untimely.

I ask the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) if that is right.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw; and I thank the gentleman on the opposite side of the aisle.