Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me, because it will not take me 5 minutes to do what I want to do. I am with my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), on this. I do not understand the priorities that the Small Business Administration are using when they talk about not supporting a loan program that has generated 360,000 jobs in the last year.

How could this administration, that has lost as many jobs as it has through the almost 4 years of being in office, now be talking about doing away with a program that is a job creation mechanism? I, for the life of me, do not understand that. And the only thing I can say is, this is just not rational decision-making being made.

This argument that somehow we are going to restore these funds by increasing fees on small business people who apply for the loans just makes even less sense to me. Because those are the very people who need the money without additional fees being generated and charged and assessed to them.

So the priority setting here in an appropriations process tells a lot about the values of an administration and the values of an SBA. And, apparently, this SBA and this administration simply do not care about small businesses or about job creation, even though it is giving lip service to it throughout the country.

I think we should support this amendment, and I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding to me. It does not take a long time to say this administration's priorities are out of whack on this issue, and we should support the amendment that has been offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), who cannot understand the priorities that this Republican administration is putting forward any more than we can on this side.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to honor all those who have died in military service with a moment of silence. I am particularly reminded of the courage and sacrifice of our World War II soldiers as we celebrate the long-awaited opening of the monument to those who died in that war. As Americans we express our gratitude to them this year as we reflect on the fact that men and women are again fighting and dying for our country.

Almost 800 American soldiers have died since the beginning of hostilities in Iraq. I would like to recognize four of these individuals, all reservists and residents of the 12th Congressional District of North Carolina, who died this past year. Specialist Mark A. Bibby, a twenty-five year old student at North Carolina A&T State University in Greensboro, NC, was killed on July 21, 2003 when a bomb exploded near his Humvee in Baghdad. Specialist Lunsford Brown, also a native North Carolinian and student at North Carolina A&T, died on September 20, 2003, in a mortar attack at the Abu Ghraib Prison in Baghdad. He was twenty-seven years old and the father of a three-month- old baby girl, Amber.

On April 23rd, 2004 the remains of Army Sergeant Elmer C. Krause, also a resident of Greensboro, North Carolina were identified. Sergeant Krause had been listed as missing on April 9th when his convoy came under attack. He was forty years old and had a nine-year-old son, Jonathan. Relatives said he wanted to go to Iraq ``so someone else could come back home.'' Most recently, on May 3rd, Sergeant Gregory L. Wahl, of Salisbury, North Carolina, died when his vehicle flipped into a canal in Balad, Iraq. He was thirty years old and the father of four- year-old Alexis. I extend my condolences to the families, friends and communities in my congressional district who mourn the loss of these men.

Today, I honor all our fallen heroes and sincerely hope that our soldiers in Iraq will soon come home safely and honorably.

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

Mr. Speaker, I voted for H.R. 2844, the expedited election procedure which provides that States should try to have expedited elections in the event of a catastrophe within 45 days.

I voted for that measure because I thought it was better than nothing,

and prior to that we did not have a process in place. I voted for it because, on a motion to recommit, the opposing side, the Republican side, decided that they would accept the motion to recommit to at least make whatever State procedures were in place subject to the civil rights laws of our country and other voting rights laws.

H.R. 2844 provided a transition position that will expedite an election within 45 days, but I still think that there is a need to have a debate about whether there ought to be a different process for replacing Members in the event of a catastrophe in a shorter time frame, and I am satisfied that the only way that that can happen would be through a constitutional amendment.

I am probably the least likely person to be supporting a constitutional amendment, and I rise today neither in support of nor in opposition to H.J. Res. 83, the proposed constitutional amendment that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) has offered. What I am disappointed about is that we have taken this very weighty national issue and turned it into what has essentially become a partisan issue, a political issue; and we have used this opportunity, instead of as an opportunity to hear from the people and to try to form a consensus about what should happen under these circumstances, to basically one-up the other side. Let me rush this thing to the floor without any real debate.

I think the sad thing today really is that we have not had an opportunity to review and study and have hearings on either the Baird proposal or a number of other proposals that are out there that cry out for hearings and the kind of debate that we believe are necessary and that the public deserves.

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

The chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary has properly framed the debate that we should be having to date as a choice between this bill and the options of having constitutional amendments. What he failed to indicate was that the rule does not make in order that debate, and it is for that reason that I rise in opposition to the rule itself, because this is not an issue about which there is a right or wrong answer. There are a number of different alternative solutions to the problem that present themselves if a number of people are wiped out in this body.

What we ought to be doing is having a serious debate about each one of those options so that each Member of this Congress can make a reasoned evaluation of what way to go. So I think we should defeat the rule, go back to the drawing board, and let us bring all the options to the body for debate.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, the artificial time frames and deadlines specified in H.R. 2844 could make it impossible to comply with many State and Federal laws. Consequently, it has the potential to cause serious violations of voting rights and civil rights. To correct that problem, I rise to offer this motion to recommit with instructions.

The motion to recommit seeks to limit the damage posed by H.R. 2844 by ensuring that nothing in the bill will undercut the requirements of the civil rights and voting rights laws that this Congress enacted and this country has painstakingly honored over the last 40 years.

I cannot support a measure that does not protect the voting rights of every American, including racial and language minorities, people with disabilities, the elderly, and our young men and women serving in the military.

H.R. 2844 jeopardizes those protections now afforded to racial and language minorities under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by making it impossible to provide voting materials to States or political subdivisions with more than 5 percent of the citizens of voting age who are single-language minorities and are limited-English proficient within the time frame prescribed by this legislation.

Are these citizens not entitled to participate? The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 sought to empower individuals with disabilities to participate fully in society. H.R. 2844 will diminish both laws by not providing sufficient time to find facilities to host polling sites that are accessible to persons with disabilities. These citizens should be entitled to participate in our democracy even in crisis times.

In the last term of Congress, we passed the Help America Vote Act of 2002. The bill passed with bipartisan support in an effort to address the problems brought to light during the 2000 Presidential elections. Does H.R. 2844 allow enough time for provisional ballots to be printed and for other important provisions of that law to be complied with? The answer is, no.

H.R. 2844 will also undermine the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act by failing to provide sufficient time for absentee ballots to be printed, distributed, and returned from Americans living abroad. This includes military and diplomatic personnel, their families, and other Americans living abroad. The Department of Defense believes that a minimum of 45 days should be allowed from the time ballots are printed, not from the date the election is called. Our military men and women are serving our Nation all around the world. They should be entitled to participate in our democracy, even in times of crisis.

I think we should be sure that every law passed by this body to ensure equal protection of voting rights to every citizen, not just certain Americans, should apply to special elections. H.R. 2844 fails to make good on that promise.

For these reasons, I offer this motion to recommit and ask my colleagues for their support based on the proposition that every citizen should be able to participate in our democracy, especially in times of crisis.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to substitute myself for the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and control the time in opposition to the bill.

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

I want to start by putting a couple of things in perspective. First of all, I agree with a lot of what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) has said about personal responsibility, so I want to go on record as saying that. I personally like fast food on some occasions, but I also take personal responsibility for my own fitness. So I am not here about personal responsibility. People do have personal responsibility. Let me put that on record.

I am here as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, a subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary and, for that reason, I have the responsibility to control the disposition of time on this bill. And because I am standing

in the middle of it, I suspect there will be a number of things said that I need to clarify in advance to position myself.

First of all, I suspect that my colleagues are going to hear that I am somehow a defender of fat, irresponsible people today. I suspect that at some time during the course of this debate, I am going to be characterized as the defender of irresponsible litigation. I suspect at some point during the course of this debate today I am going to be characterized as the defender of trial lawyers, the hated trial lawyers that many of my Republican colleagues just despise so much.

Let me make it clear at the outset of this debate that I am not here as any of those things. I personally do not think much of these kinds of lawsuits, and I want to go on record as saying that. But that is not the criteria in which I can evaluate this proposed legislation.

As a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, I have some other responsibilities. I have a responsibility to defend the federalist system that has been set up under which we operate and which is a constitutional framework over which States and local governments have certain responsibilities and over which the Federal Government has certain responsibilities. And too often, what we hear in this body is lip service to that federalist system and lip service to the proposition that people support States' rights and, yet, when the rubber meets the road, they walk away from any commitment to it. I think that is what is happening with this legislation that we are debating today, because this has been an area that has been uniquely within the province of States and State judiciaries and State legislatures.

I also want to warn us against this notion that somehow or another, our court system is run amok and that we should take responsibility as Members of Congress in trying to correct every aspect of our court system. Now, I want to tell my colleagues, I suspect that if there was anybody here who ought to be suspicious and concerned about State courts and State courts running amok, it would be me. I grew up in the era of the civil rights movement, and many of the State court judges during that era were not especially sensitive to people who looked like me and had the racial characteristics that I do. But one of the things that I learned during that process is that I do not always like the result that a court comes out with, but the system of justice and judicial responsibility and the division of responsibilities between the legislative branch and the judicial branch, between the Federal, State, and local governments is a pristine, wonderful system that we should honor, and sometimes we have to be patient and let this work itself out in a way over time, and that is exactly what has happened in this case. From the dropping of this bill to the time that we have come to the floor to debate it today, every single lawsuit that has been filed dealing with this issue, every single lawsuit has been dismissed by the courts.

So when I say this is a solution in search of a problem, understand that there is no problem out there. The court system has already addressed this perceived problem that we have. This, I say to my colleagues, is an effort to take this politicized notion of personal responsibility and try to rub people's faces in it without regard to the federalist system in which we are operating.

This bill would insulate an entire industry from liability and would undermine and insult, insult our State judiciaries in the various States around the country, and the State legislatures and the whole concept of Federalism. The growing trend in this body to attempt to preempt by legislation litigation that is deemed ``undesirable'' or ``frivolous'' is very troublesome. It gets us to a legislation by anecdote, a legislation by result, rather than any kind of honoring of the process that we should be working within.

I believe it is arrogant and disrespectful of our system of government. This bill and others like it presume that State courts, State legislatures, and the citizens of the States themselves are woefully incompetent to address burdens on their systems of government and that, somehow, we, as Members of Congress, have some great intellectual capacity and responsibility up here to control everything that exists in our country. It is a wrong-headed approach that we have set upon.

There is absolutely no evidence in support of the proposition that our States cannot handle these matters. The details of this bill drafted in haste will be aptly debated throughout the amendment process. But my major concern, and one that I will reflect in the amendments to the bill that I offer, is what we should be doing as national policymakers. I do not believe that overreacting to every headline constitutes responsible legislating. I hope that this body will get back to the business of evaluating the serious problems confronting the American people and developing some solutions to those problems: employment, the economy, deficits, war. And this bill does not do that. Simply put, as I indicated before, this is a solution in search of a problem, and it would not even be on the floor, I think, today if we were dealing with some of the problems that we really ought to be confronting.

Mr. Chairman, with that, having set the framework, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute simply to respond to the prior speaker.

Here we go, exactly what I said was about to happen is happening. 89 percent of the public support does not support these kinds of lawsuits, but that does not mean that we need a Federal statute to deal with this issue. In fact, it probably means exactly the opposite of that.

Second, there have been a number of suits filed and every single one of them has been dismissed up to this point. So the process is working. And you are already beginning to see that this is really about having this opportunity in an official context to beat up on trial lawyers. We ought to be trying to do some serious legislating rather than just politicking with this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

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

Mr. Chairman and Members, I would just reiterate a couple of points. It strikes me that given what has transpired since this bill was introduced, even if it was originally a good idea and even if you accepted the notion that State courts were going to be irresponsible and not do what they are supposed to be doing, now that we have seen the passage of time and had the proof that State courts will dismiss these lawsuits, even if this bill was a good idea, it seems to me that we have proven with the passage of time that it is now definitely a solution in search of a problem. The lawsuits have been dismissed.

So, in effect, the system has worked exactly like we would like it to work. That is the way our system is set up. If an individual believes that he has a cause of action and they believe that they have been wronged, or somebody has failed in meeting a standard that is applicable, they have the right to file a lawsuit, go to court, and have that court make a determination on their lawsuit. And that is exactly what has happened.

Now, quite often people make those judgments in different ways and you end up with lawsuits being filed that get dismissed. And that happens to probably well over 90 percent of the cases that get filed in court--they get dismissed before they come to trial.

Does that mean that they are all frivolous? Well, some of them probably are frivolous. And there are rules in place that allow the courts to sanction people and fine them and charge them attorneys fees of the opposing party when they file frivolous lawsuits. But people still file frivolous lawsuits, and those rules then are triggered and the courts handle that.

Does it mean that even the frivolous lawsuits should not have been dismissed? Well, there is another category of cases where there is not enough law to support filing a lawsuit. Whether you have a good lawsuit is a function of whether you have got the facts and a function of whether you have got the law on your side. But our system is set up to allow courts to make that determination, and I would submit that State courts have as much expertise, probably more expertise, in making these determinations than our Federal judiciary.

The next point I would draw from this is that as these lawsuits have been dismissed, it strikes me that it is less and less and less likely that subsequent lawsuits will be filed because then you have got a backdrop against which people can go into court and say, well, this issue has been determined by a court adversely and so it should not be here. There is an increased possibility, probability that courts will find that subsequent lawsuits are frivolous in this area. But all of those things argue for our staying out of this and not building a whole new Federal framework for dealing with a problem that does not exist because our system is working.

Now, the next point I want to make that I have heard come out of this general debate up to this point is this job loss notion. I have heard some really interesting explanations by this administration about why we are losing jobs in this country. But this about takes all I have heard. Here we are now with some of my colleagues saying, well, if we allow these lawsuits to be filed against McDonalds or whatever the fast food chains are, we are going to result in job loss, and that is what is causing the big job loss in this country.

Give me a break. We ought to know better. And there are a bunch of reasons that I could go into about why we are losing jobs, but this would be about the 999,000th reason that I would get to before I would be identifying a source for job loss in this country. So we are kind of grasping at straws here, from my perspective, on that argument.

Finally, it amazes me how the same people who, over and over and over, had campaigned saying they believe in local control and States' rights. When they do not get the result that they want at the State level or even in this case when they do get the result that they want at the State level because all of these cases have been resolved adversely that have been filed, it is amazing to me why we think in our arrogance in this body that we ought to just take over because we do not like the result or we think State legislators are incompetent or local elected officials are incompetent, we ought to take it over at the Federal level and forget about the constitutional framework that we are operating in. And it is more inexcusable to me when these bills come out of the Committee on the Judiciary, where there should be the highest of respect for the constitutional parameters in which we operate.

This is not something that we should be doing from a number of different perspectives. And I just beg my colleagues, I guess it is a good debate. It is a good way to get us out here on the floor and take up some time when we really ought to be talking about the things that are really causing job loss. We are out here grasping at straws looking for some something to do today. Do we not have something else that we could be doing on the floor today that really honors our constitutional framework? Surely there must be something better.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I am going to ask the gentleman from Michigan if I can ask him a question or two, if he will go back to the microphone because he touched on a subject that I talked about in the general debate here, and he at least has tried to put this in perspective for me.

I could not quite figure out what it was that the argument was that this bill was about job creation. Is the gentleman now saying that the production of hamburgers is a manufacturing job?

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman giving me that enlightenment because I had been trying to stretch my imagination to figure out how this debate was about jobs, and I think the gentleman has put his finger on it. I do not necessarily agree with him, but at least that gives the argument some plausibility if one is trying to argue that the processing of hamburgers is manufacturing jobs and it is a manufacturing process and that we have got to protect manufacturing jobs in this country, then we want to do everything we can, but I think it is a stretch.

As I said before the gentleman arrived on the floor, I have heard some pretty interesting explanations for job loss in this country, but this would be way, way, way down the list, like 999,000 on my list of the problems that is creating job loss in this country. I am surprised that the sponsors of this bill have couched it in terms of job creation, but the gentleman has certainly, with the years of experience he has been here, given me some framework within which to evaluate that. I am most appreciative to him.

I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am going to join my colleague from Michigan in supporting the amendment. I am not sure whether it was tongue-in-cheek that he was supporting the whole concept, but I cannot join him in supporting the bill if he is supporting the bill. I doubt that that is what he is doing. I think that was kind of tongue-in-cheek that he was proceeding, but I certainly support this amendment. It makes a terrible bill less terrible. We could not make it any worse, I do not think, and more importantly, from the sponsor's perspective, it keeps the bill from having to go to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

But this is such a critical piece of legislation that it must be considered on the floor today and anything that would delay the consideration of it on the floor today, even if it went to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, which has jurisdiction over most food issues and matters of commerce of this kind, would surely be counterproductive.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman from Virginia's (Mr. Scott) amendment. It seems to me to be absolutely consistent with the manager's amendment which said that this legislation was not going to be construed to include an action brought under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

State consumer protection laws are characteristically State counterparts to the Federal Trade Commission Act. They are States' efforts to protect the same kind of things at the State level that the Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction over at the Federal level.

Now, this kind of takes me back to the argument before, I had the notion that the reason that they really were striking the Federal Trade Commission Act from the applicability of this proposed law was because they really did not want this legislation to have to go to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, so it was more about them not wanting to delay today's proceedings and not wanting them to let the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for which there has been a long-standing tension on many issues between the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Energy and Commerce, they did not want them to have any jurisdiction over this.

But if we are going to exclude actions brought under the Federal Trade Commission Act at the Federal level, in fairness, unless we are saying to the States that somehow or other they are less attentive to these issues or less intelligent or have less of an interest in protecting your citizens than your big brother Federal Government has, then it seems to me that we ought to be following the same process at the State level, and it is the State consumer protection laws that are the equivalent of the Federal Trade Commission Act on the Federal basis.

So if we are going to be parallel or consistent in our evaluation of these things, it seems to me that the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) makes patently good sense. And of course I am not sure that any of this is designed to make patently good sense, but I think it is our obligation in this body to at least try to bring some consistency to it.

Now I am assuming that under the Federal Trade Commission Act, if there are any individual causes of action, those things would be protected also. I do not know that. We have not had any hearings on this to make that kind of determination, but certainly the word ``person,'' as it is defined, would exclude State consumer protection laws that are typically administered by the attorney general for the protection of the citizens in that particular State, and perhaps that is the reason that the State attorneys general are so vigorously opposed to this legislation. They do not view us or the Federal Trade Commission as being their big brothers, and more brilliant, sometimes more arrogant, they would tell you. They think that they serve a pretty valuable role in this Federal system that we have. Again, we are dishonoring that role. I urge support for the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment that is being offered simply strikes two words from the bill. Those words are ``or State.''

This is an opportunity for those of us who really believe in the Federalist system in which we operate. Those of us who believe truly in the rights of States to control what happens in their States and in their communities, those who believe truly in States' rights to get it right, I am giving you the opportunity.

If there is a rationale for our involvement in this and if there is something that we should be exercising jurisdiction over, it is what comes into the Federal courts, and not what goes into the State courts. So the effect of this amendment is simply to take out the State court component of this.

I want to confess up front that I think this is a bad idea, whether it is in the Federal court or the State court; so I am going to vote against the bill even if this amendment passes. But for those who believe that this is a good bill, that this is a worthy cause, if you have any belief in the Federalist form of government in which we operate, that States and State judiciaries and legislators have certain powers, then you should be supporting this amendment.

State courts and legislatures are perfectly capable of determining which lawsuits are appropriate and which lawsuits constitute an undesired drain on their resources. Right now, 11 State legislatures, including California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, South Dakota, Washington and Wisconsin, the chairman's own State, have introduced or passed legislation to ban some form of obesity-related lawsuits. Some of those States have banned a broader range of cases than this proposed legislation would ban.

H.R. 339, this legislation that we are considering, would displace and disrespect the actions of those State legislatures that have acted and impose a ban on those States that have not perceived a need to enact legislation banning obesity suits.

The bill arrogantly presumes that State court judges are incapable; and I am going to keep saying that over, and over and over again. I have said it a million times; I may say it a million more times before this debate is over. It is arrogant for us to assume that State court judges are incapable of carrying out their judicial responsibilities. Should State court judges determine that any lawsuit lacks merit or appropriate proof, they can dismiss it. If they determine that a case is frivolous, they can dismiss it and sanction the attorneys involved.

The proponents of this bill seek to prevent cases that have already gone through the system and have been dismissed. This bill is a solution in search of a problem, believe me.

If there is a rationale for this bill, and I do not believe there is, we at least ought to respect the Federalist form in which we are operating and limit the application of the bill to cases filed in the Federal court. We are not Big Brother here in this body, and my colleagues have reminded us of that many, many times rhetorically. They say they believe in States' rights. If they do, if you do, my colleagues, please support the Watt amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The gentleman puts it a lot milder than I do.

I am not surprised, but I am extremely insulted, that this piece of crap, this bill, would be put on the same level that our civil rights laws in this country have been put on.

Now, I am not surprised. I knew that was coming, because we have had this discussion with my chairman on several occasions on this floor. But I want you to know that the notion that there are basic constitutional rights that the civil rights laws had to enact to enforce was based on rights that were articulated in the Constitution. The right to vote, and it is a shame that we had to have legislation at the Federal level to make it clear that the right to vote applied to all of our citizens in this country, there is no comparison between this bill and that.

The right to travel on a bus and sit where you want, it is a shame that we had to have Federal legislation to tell the States that they had to enforce that basic human constitutional right.

I am insulted that this piece of legislation, and if I went too far in calling it a piece of crap, I apologize to the Chair. I knew he shuddered when I said that, so maybe that is going too far. But it is an abomination for us to be trying to compare this statute to the civil rights laws.

I am really disappointed that this kind of expansive, unprecedented interpretation of the Commerce Clause would be articulated by the chairman of our committee on the floor of the House of Representatives. Under the theory that has just been advanced, to tie it back to the Commerce Clause, to tie this legislation back to the Commerce Clause, anything could be taken over by the Federal Government. There would not be any State legislatures or State courts. Anything in commerce of any kind could be taken over.

That is not what the Commerce Clause says. And with all due respect, I went to law school too. I took my constitutional law under a guy named Robert Bork. I do not think he would say that is what the Commerce Clause says.

I am flabbergasted that we would be told on this floor that this proposed legislation is sanctioned by the Commerce Clause and that it is anywhere in the ball park close to what the civil rights laws were designed to do.

We ought be ashamed of ourselves. And we ought be ashamed of ourselves for destroying the Federal concept that our Founding Fathers made for us. It would be something else if we were doing it about something that is real. There is not a single pending lawsuit now involved that has not already been dismissed. The States are already acting on this. It is not as if they are ignoring it.

If you were in the State legislature, if you want to go vote on stuff like this, go to the State legislature. Many of us came out of the State legislatures. There are people there that are just as smart, just as intelligent as we are here in this body. For us to insult our State legislators and our State judiciary for some political purpose is unforgivable, in my opinion.

announcement by the chairman pro tempore

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Andrews amendment, and I would say that this is one of the areas, one of several areas, in fact, that the processing of this bill without really letting it go through the Committee on Commerce or without really a whole heck of a lot of deliberation in the Committee on the Judiciary, and hearings, this is just one of those areas that might have been dealt with if the bill were being considered in a serious legislative process, rather than just a political vehicle.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would just say that the gentleman need not worry about whether there is a definition of obesity. If they do not like the definition of ``obesity'' that the courts give, I guarantee my colleagues we will be back here next year or the year after next with a Federal piece of legislation that is designed to solve that problem. That is the way this bill is being processed and the spirit in which it is being processed. Unfortunately, nobody has any good ideas or can protect their own States, other than this Congress or my colleagues on this committee, and that is the way they proceeded.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman from Washington's (Mr. Inslee) amendment; and I want to yield to him, but I want to make one comment before I do so.

My colleague, the sponsor of this bill, has on several occasions told us a persuasive, powerful reason for doing something related to this bill is something that we did related to H.R. 1036. First of all, many of us voted against H.R. 1036. It did pass this body, but then it went to the Senate and the Senate jettisoned the bill. So to use as some powerful reason that something is in a bill that had not even gone through the legislative process, was not even worthy of sending to the President's desk for signature, strikes me as being about as far a stretch as saying that this bill is about employment rather than politics.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

Reclaiming my time, I would just reiterate the points that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) has made and suggest to him and the body and the chairman that it is unfortunate that the Committee on the Judiciary in the House has become the repository of everything essentially political. And so two things quite often result from that: number one, just about every vote is a party-line vote because we know that there is a political reason, not a substantive reason that the legislation is being put forward.

Number two, it quite often puts us in a position of thinking, well, this legislation is not serious and it is not going anywhere anyway, and as happened with the legislation that has been referred to on several occasions here, well, the United States Senate, the more deliberative body, will bail us out and save us from ourselves.

I think that is a dangerous slippery slope that our committee has gotten on, and I wish there was some way to pull us back from that so that we would in our committee anticipate, have hearings, and deal with the kind of serious problem that has been identified by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) here; and it would not be just a question of whether the sponsor of the bill thinks that this does not apply or may not apply. Maybe under those circumstances the committee and its members would look at what this stuff really says, the bill, look at the drafting of the bill. That is part of our responsibility as legislators, and it is even more a part of our responsibility as members of the Committee on the Judiciary; and I fear that we have failed in that responsibility.

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

The chairman of our committee may be correct about that part of the bill, but only if the manager's amendment passes, I think would he be correct in what he has said, and at this point, while all of us are in support of the manager's amendment, I guess until this bill passes, I mean, we are still here.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time just for a second, because when we are in the middle of a debate and we are trying to figure out the impact of amendments and coordinate them, it becomes a little unclear what is happening.

The original bill did say that an action regarding the sale of a qualified product which is adulterated, as described in section 402 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act was one of the things that was not covered under the base bill. The manager's amendment, however, struck that language and inserted instead, such terms shall not be construed to include an action brought under the Federal Trade Commission Act. It makes no reference to adulterated, I believe. Maybe I am misreading this, but this is one of those things where I think we should take absolutely no chance.

Even if it is redundant in some way, it clearly was not intended and I would hope that my colleagues would just accept the amendment. If it turns out to be redundant, then there are a whole bunch of things in the law that are redundant. That has never been something that we have shied away from. If we want to make something patently clear, we quite often make it redundant. We might say it three, four or five times in the same statute, and this is a point that I think needs to be made patently clear.

I yield back to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman).

Reclaiming my time, the gentleman seems to be shaking his head yes. Maybe that means he is going to accede to the argument. If he is, I am happy to yield to him for that purpose.

The gentleman is not there yet. In that case, I hope he will get there, because if there is any ambiguity in this, we need to make sure that it is cleared up, and I think it is very ambiguous at this point. I would rather have a redundant provision in the bill than to have an ambiguous or no provision in the bill.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I am just wondering whether we have the right manager's amendment, because I do not for the life of me see any of what the gentleman just described as being in the manager's amendment, or in the amendment that I have. Perhaps I have the wrong one.

The manager's amendment I have substitute language that says nothing about adulteration.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, is it not true that only the government could bring an action there? It would not be an individual action. And would that not be the exact point that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) is making?

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond to one thing that the gentleman just said who just debated. I, obviously, did not know any of our Founding Fathers personally, so it is hard for me to imagine what would make them turn over in their grave or whatever, as he indicated. But I think they would be a lot more distressed that we were here in this body today saying that State legislators are incompetent to handle these issues in our Federalist form of government than they would likely be incensed with us dealing with this mundane issue having to do with french fries and hamburgers. I think that is what would distress our Founding Fathers. And I regret that the gentleman missed that part of the debate earlier here. I think that is the distressing thing about this debate.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson).

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

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

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I will try to be brief, because we have been here for a long time. I do want to compliment all of my colleagues who have really explored the issues related to this bill vigorously, and I think it has been a good discussion.

This final amendment, and I do think it is the final amendment, would strike section 3(b) of the bill. Section 3(b) provides that a qualified civil liability action that is pending on the date of the enactment of this act shall be dismissed immediately by the court in which the action was brought or is currently pending.

The effect of that language is to make this bill retroactive in its application applied to pending lawsuits as of the date the law becomes effective. Now, there are not currently any pending lawsuits, because all of them have been dismissed, as I have indicated previously. But between now and the time that this legislation may be enacted, other lawsuits may be pending or may be filed; and so this amendment is aimed at protecting against retroactive application of this bill because I think it is just unfair and almost un-American to change the rules of a legal process in the middle of the action.

Under this bill, any banned lawsuit would be dismissed by a court whether it has just been filed, a judgment is imminent, or a judgment has been entered and post-judgment proceedings and appeal may even be in process. This requirement is inherently unfair to litigants who may have devoted countless time and resources based upon their legitimate reliance on the laws of the States at the time they initiated their lawsuits.

Whether or not there are pending cases that would be dismissed under the bill, the retroactivity of the bill is bad policy and bad precedent. Our Nation prides itself on a fair, impartial, and open judiciary. This provision, however, undermines the judiciary and erodes public confidence in the system. The American people cannot have faith that any of their rights are secure if we change the rules of the game midway through a legal process. The judicial system, State and Federal, is a vital part of our constitutional framework, and we should not be changing the rules in midstream.

As a litigator, I know how deeply our citizens feel about rights they advance in court. I know the personal stress and financial strain that lawsuits may impose on an entire family, and I know how contrary this provision is to fundamental notions of fairness and fair play. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment to eliminate the retroactivity of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I just want to briefly make it clear that my colleagues are trying to make it appear that this is a customary practice of ours. It really is a rare thing to make a piece of legislation retroactive, and even rarer to make it retroactive to pending lawsuits that have already been filed.

I have got a whole list of things that we have filed that one could argue might be better candidates for retroactive application than this particular piece of legislation that our own committee has passed out. And to hang our hats on something that the Senate did not even think was worthy of passing on to the President is a real stretch.

I am going to resist the temptation to start reading the bills that the Committee on the Judiciary has passed without retroactivity but things like the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act, which limited the liability of those who donate food to a charity, we did not even make that retroactive in its application.

There are a bunch of things that we passed, and I am the first to concede, as the chairman acknowledged in his statement, I am not arguing this is unconstitutional or even unprecedented, I think it is unfair and unnecessary in this case.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Watt

Amendment No. 6: At the end of the bill (preceding the

amendment to the long title), insert the following new

section:

Offered By: Mr. Watt

Amendment No. 7: Section 3(a), strike ``or State''.

Offered By: Mr. Watt

Amendment No. 8: Strike section 3(b).

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate our Carolina Panthers on going to the Super Bowl. I want to congratulate the owner, Jerry Richardson, and the other owners, Coach Fox, and the members of the team for their outstanding job they have done during the course of this year and cheer them on to victory in the Super Bowl.

It is amazing how something like this can bring a community together even in the face of adverse economy and job loss and deficits. This has been a rallying point for our community, and I applaud the Carolina Panthers and wish them well as they go on to the Super Bowl in Houston this weekend.

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

Mr. Speaker, I guess I continue to be amazed at the extent to which the majority in this House will go to try to serve the interests of their particular favorite constituencies, even to the point of doing substantial harm to people who are struggling in this country. And that is certainly the case with respect to farmers.

To hold this bill, the original bill, the extension of the family farm provisions of the bankruptcy law, a totally noncontroversial bill which could have been put on the suspension calendar and passed without any dispute whatsoever, to hold it hostage to a bill that has been in process for several years now and has not been able to be passed by both the House and the Senate or reach the President's desk for signature just strikes me as being extremely insensitive, even if one did not know the surrounding statistics. But when one knows the statistics related to bankruptcies over the last year, it is even more alarming that this kind of Russian roulette would be played with this bill.

Business bankruptcies actually fell last year if you exclude family farms from the business category by 7.4 percent. Personal individual bankruptcies increased by about the same percentage, about 7 percent. But chapter 12 bankruptcies, those designed to meet the needs of financially distressed family farmers, increased by 116.8 percent.

Now, what happens then if this Russian roulette does not play itself out in the way that the majority would like it to play itself out and the family farm provisions expire? This would be the kind of irresponsible activity which I think is inexcusable. I think we should oppose this rule and oppose the bill if it gets amended to include the bankruptcies reform provisions.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me begin by offering my unequivocal support for S. 1920 that would provide for an extension of chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code which expired last December. That piece of legislation is noncontroversial and necessary to ensure that the farmers in our country have access to the bankruptcy protections they so earnestly deserve as they struggle to keep our food supply thriving and to maintain their farms.

As ranking member of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law and a former conferee on H.R. 975, I continue to oppose the substance of H.R. 975 and further believe that the current maneuver to force the hand of the Senate is irresponsible and will only result in further delay in extending the family farmer protections everyone agrees should be extended.

The gentleman from Wisconsin's amendment tacks on to this otherwise noncontroversial bill H.R. 975, the product of a conference on which I served last term minus the negotiated provision that would prevent those who commit acts of violence against women and abortion clinics from avoiding penalties by declaring bankruptcy. This bill did not pass last year, and I believe it will meet the same fate this year. Therefore, the only result will be that the family farmer will be held hostage to efforts to leverage support for the larger bankruptcy reform.

My opposition to H.R. 975 has not changed. I believe that the omnibus bankruptcy reform bill is an unfortunate convergence of expedience and politics. There obviously is abuse in the bankruptcy system and reform is necessary, but I continue to believe that H.R. 975 is not a rational way to respond to abuse to set up a separate set of rules for what is, in effect, a pauper's bankruptcy court system and a different set of rules for a higher income bankruptcy court system.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that we should stop playing games with the family farmer. Like the National Farmers Union, and I quote from their letter to the House leadership, I ``reject this legislative strategy as an insensitive, cruel and malicious effort that will only serve to increase the level of distress of farm families who are already experiencing severe financial difficulties.'' I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill and for a process that will respect the plight of the farmers of this country.

In response to the comments of the gentleman from Wisconsin, let me submit to this body that the primary reason we have an increasing number of bankruptcies, although there may be some abuse and I do not argue with that, but the primary reason we are having an increase in the number of bankruptcies in this country is job loss and economics which is being driven by this administration.

Second, I want to know how many times the House has to beat itself on the chest on this issue and try to force this issue. We have got a bill that is already in conference, I thought, in the other body; and this bill, if the Senate wanted to take it up, would take it up. So what are we doing beating our chests again this year saying we support bankruptcy reform?

And finally, I would just submit that this is an effort to find someone to blame for the failure to pass the bankruptcy reform legislation. The last time I checked, the Republicans were in control of the House, the Republicans were in control of the Senate, the Republicans were in control of the Presidency. It would seem to me, if you are in control of this process and you want to pass the bankruptcy reform bill, you would pass the bankruptcy reform bill and we would not be here going through this charade, blaming it on somebody else for failure to pass this bill. It is a convenient way to blame others, but it is a terrible way to do business.

National Farmers Union,

January 23, 2004.

Hon. Dennis J. Hastert,

Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Democratic Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Hastert and Democratic Leader Pelosi: On

behalf of the family farmer and rancher members of the

National Farmers Union I write to encourage the House of

Representatives to immediately adopt the language contained

in S. 1920 which passed the Senate late last year and

extended the chapter 12 provisions of title 11 of the United

States Code for an additional six months retroactive to

January 1, 2004.

The Chapter 12 provisions, which allow the development of

alternative financial reorganization plans for farmers and

ranchers within the bankruptcy code, expired at the end of

2003 when the House failed to take action on the Senate bill

even though these provisions have been considered non-

controversial by both parties over the course of several

years. Any delay in approving an extension of Chapter 12

places agricultural producers and their families who are

faced with bankruptcy in a serious and untenable position.

We understand there are some in Congress who wish to

utilize the extension of the agriculture provisions as a

means to leverage support for a broader bankruptcy reform

measure that contains highly controversial and divisive

provisions unrelated to the farm bankruptcy law. We reject

this legislative strategy as an insensitive, cruel and

malicious effort that will only serve to increase the level

of distress of farm families who are already experiencing

severe financial difficulties.

Thank you for your attention to this important issue.

Sincerely,

David J. Frederickson,

President.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I am a little perplexed by the gentleman's statement. He was yielded 4 minutes. He took 3 minutes and 50 seconds to talk about the problems with the bill and 10 seconds to praise the bill; yet he is going to support it. If there is no public policy justification for this provision, it seems to me that the gentleman would be voting against this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) the ranking member of Committee on the Judiciary.

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

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me also just make a couple of responses to the statement of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

Number one, it is interesting that the chairman thinks that the abortion issue should not be part of the bankruptcy bill. Seemingly, everybody who abuses the bankruptcy process other than people who have had judgments against them for destroying or damaging bankruptcy clinics would be an appropriate subject for this. I thought this whole thing was to try to get to people who are abusing the system. If that is not an abuse, then I am not sure I understand what it is.

Second, in response to the gentleman's comments about this bill preserving criminal discharges, this is not about criminal discharges, this is about people who have gotten judgments against abortion clinic bombers or damagers, civil judgments, and had those defendants thumb their noses at those judgments by saying ``I am just going to declare bankruptcy so I do not have to pay this judgment.''

So if that is not an abuse, then I do not understand what an abuse is. If this bill is about dealing with abuse, then it seems to me people who fall into the category of abortion clinic abusers of the process should be equally accountable.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) to pursue this discussion.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Chairman, it is obvious that maybe all of my colleagues need to read this bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time, although I doubt that I will use it.

Let me just correct a couple of things that have been put out here that seem to me to need correction. First of all, child support and alimony are already nondischargeable and all of the women's and children's advocacy groups oppose this bill. So do not be misled by this claim that somehow or another this bill is going to do something to help women's and children's advocacy groups with child support.

Second, the implication has been made that there is somehow a cap on the homestead exemption in this bill, and that is not the case. We tried to get one on several occasions. It has never worked. It has always failed. And so anybody who is proceeding on the assumption that there is some kind of cap in this bill should dissuade themselves of that notion.

Having made those corrections and comments, Mr. Chairman, I presume the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) will have the last word. I encourage my colleagues to vote against the bill on the grounds that it will play Russian roulette with family farmers. We ought to proceed with the family farmer bill, which needs to be extended to protect family farmers and not get them caught up in all of this other politics about abortion and in a larger bankruptcy reform bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise solely to advise that we have had no indication from our side that there is anybody who opposes these technical amendments and we, therefore, concur in the amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time; and, Mr. Chairman, I do not think I will take 5 minutes, but I wanted to make a couple of comments because the chairman of the full committee has chided me on one or more occasions about voting against the rule that would have allowed the old bankruptcy bill that had the abortion clinics provisions in it to come to the floor and has made it sound like I did something that was inappropriate.

Now the chairman of the committee is going to have the opportunity to show how committed he is to a permanent extension of the family farms because the gentlewoman from Wisconsin's (Ms. Baldwin) amendment would make the family farms provisions of the bankruptcy law permanent, and he has gone out of his way to talk about how he would like to see those provisions be permanent. I will be anxious to see how he plans to vote on this

amendment because this is the clear way to make the provisions that protect family farmers permanent in the law, to keep it away from all of this abortion clinic politics, to keep it completely away from bankruptcy reform politics. This is the vote that will show either my colleagues are committed to protecting family farmers in this country or they are not.

I am anxiously awaiting how my colleagues are going to cast their vote on this, since the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has made such a point of pointing out that I voted against the rule that would have allowed the prior bill to come to the floor last year. So this amendment is on the floor. There will be a recorded vote. I will be anxious to see how my chairman votes on it.

It is clear that farmers in this country are having a difficult time. Whereas there was a 7 percent, almost-8 percent decline in small business or business bankruptcies in 2003 and a 7 percent increase in individual bankruptcy filings in 2003, there was a 116.8 percent increase in bankruptcy filings by farmers in this country.

So it is clear that farmers have been in distress.

This bill started out being a noncontroversial, farmer-friendly bill that would have passed this House on the suspension calendar had the leadership decided that it would put it on the suspension calendar. It had broad bipartisan support. We have extended on several occasions before the family-farm provisions.

It is not tied up in the politics of bankruptcy reform. It is not tied up in the politics of abortion clinics and whether there ought to be abortion provisions in the bankruptcy bill. This is a clear, clear- cut vote on whether we want to permanently extend the family-farm provisions.

So let there be no mistake about it, family farmers ought to hold Members of this body accountable on this vote. It is not trapped with any kind of political agenda. It is what we all have fought for. It is what we say we all believe in. This is our opportunity to vote on it. So I want to encourage my colleagues to support the Baldwin amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in opposition to the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Green) amendment and in support of the underlying bill, and it may come as a surprise to some people because I cannot think of a more difficult position to be in than to be opposing my friend from Virginia. My friend from Virginia and I have been debating this issue about what the appropriate role of the Federal Prison Industries should be for a number of years now, which brings me to the first point I wanted to make. When I was in the State legislature, the way they would kill a bill would be to send it to a study commission, and they would study that bill to death until it went away, and that is really what the purpose of this amendment is that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) has offered. He wants to send this back for further study as if we have not been studying this for a long, long time. That is the first point I want to make.

The second point I want to make is if they find an issue where the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) is on one side and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) is on the opposite side, one can almost be guaranteed that that is a very difficult issue and that it is not an issue of the good guys against the bad guys. This is not a good guy/bad guy issue. It is an issue of how we try to define the appropriate role that the Federal Prison Industries ought to be playing in the overall context of what we are doing here. Federal Prison Industries serves a very important role, and I am not adverse to the Federal Prison Industries, but it has to have some balances to it, and it should not be used solely as a baby-sitting or a prisoner-sitting mechanism. It ought to be used for its original purpose, which was to train people and get them prepared for reentry into society and prepared to accept jobs when they come out of the prison system. And I think the system is out of balance now because we have set up a system where we basically guarantee contracts to the Prison Industries program rather than putting them in a position where they are obligated to compete, and they are going to have a competitive advantage just in terms of the lower wages that they are paying in the system. But we cannot give such an advantage to the Prison Industries that we start to disadvantage and be unfair to businesses that are outside the prison system because ultimately if we do that, we will do damage to private businesses. They will then lay off or terminate people who are employed by them, and that will run the risk of cycling them into a life of crime because they will have to depend on that as a means of survival.

So this is a very delicate and difficult issue, and the Committee on the Judiciary has been working the issue, debating the issue, trying to find the right balance, and I think we have found a reasonable balance on this issue. That is why we see Democrats and Republicans on both sides of this issue, liberals and conservatives on both sides of this issue. It is not a philosophical issue. It is not a bad guy versus good guy. It is what is the appropriate balance? And I think this bill strikes an appropriate balance, and I would encourage my colleagues to defeat the amendment, which would study it to death forever, and to support the bill so that we can get on with making the reforms that are needed.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to honor Dr. Kenneth Chambers, a friend and constituent who is retiring after 40 years of practicing medicine. Dr. Chambers will be honored on Saturday, October 18 at Friendship Missionary Baptist Church in Charlotte, North Carolina, in my congressional district.

Dr. Kenneth Chambers graduated from Meharry Medical College in 1959 and started a general practice in Wadesboro, NC. In 1966, he completed his residency in obstetrics and gynecology at Harlem Hospital in New York. He later moved to Charlotte, where his brother Julius Chambers was practicing law.

I had the privilege to get to know Kenneth Chambers through his brother, who is the person who convinced me to return to my hometown of Charlotte to practice law. Dr. Kenneth Chambers helped blaze the trail for black doctors in Charlotte and went on to serve in many leadership positions such as President of the Charlotte Medical Society, the Old North State Medical Society and he served on the North Carolina Medical Board from 1995-2001.

Dr. Chambers has impacted the lives of many people throughout his remarkable career. I am pleased to honor him and wish him, his wife, Grace, and his entire family all the best as he begins the next chapter of his life.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the residents of Lexington, North Carolina, part of which is located in my congressional district as they celebrate the 175th anniversary of their city.

Lexington was incorporated on December 28, 1827, and the first town commissioners were elected February 7, 1828. They are celebrating their anniversary throughout 2003.

Today Lexington has around 20,000 residents and is a thriving part of North Carolina's Triad. Lexington is the county seat of Davidson County and is world famous for their Lexington-style barbecue, which many regard as the world's best. Lexington is also renowned for its furniture and is the home of artist Bob Timberlake.

I wish all the best to Lexington residents and Mayor Richard Thomas as they celebrate ``Lexington's 175th Years: Past, Present and Future.'' I thank my colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) for joining me in honoring this city that we both are proud to represent.