Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) who, as a proud Cuban-American, is also a member of the Republican baseball team, a person who enjoys not only supporting other Cuban-Americans but also our baseball team, and to be joined by my good friend, the gentleman from the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), also a Cuban-American.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I come to the floor this morning to speak on H. Res. 315, honoring Texas Ranger first baseman Rafael Palmeiro for his amazing feat of hitting his 500th career home run. This resolution honors not only Rafael's accomplishments in major league baseball which are numerous, but also his many off-field contributions which are just as important.

Rafael is the epitome of hard work and professionalism, and I am proud to honor him today, this individual who puts his family, his team and his community before himself.

On May 11, 2003, Rafael Palmeiro hit his 500th home run at the ball park in Arlington Texas, becoming only the 19th player in baseball history to do so. With his 500th home run, Palmeiro joined the company of baseball's elites like Hank Aaron, Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle, and Ted Williams. In fact, since May 11 when he accomplished this feat, Palmeiro has now moved to 13th on this exclusive list of 500 home run hitters.

Mr. Speaker, beyond the statistics and the numbers, however, Rafael Palmeiro has done significant work by make making a difference in his community. Whether it is encouraging foster parents through his hard work at the Lena Pope Home in Ft. Worth, Texas or encouraging kids to read with his Raffy's Readers program, Palmeiro is an ardent spokesman for children's causes.

Mr. Speaker, these are just a sampling of Rafael Palmeiro's actions in giving back to his community. This, on top of spending time with his lovely wife, Lynne, and their two sons, Patrick Ryne who is 13, and Preston Connor who is 8. Rafael Palmeiro has become a role model for people of all ages with his on- and off-the-field accomplishments.

I am proud to be the lead co-sponsor of this bill honoring a fine man who is a shining example of the things that a kind and good person can achieve in their life.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 360 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us is a fair and bipartisan modified open rule, simply requiring that proposed amendments to the underlying legislation be preprinted in the Congressional Record. This rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services.

It provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Financial Services now printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and shall be considered as read.

It waives all points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, and makes in order those amendments to the committee's amendment that are printed in the Congressional Record or are pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate. It also provides that only the Member who has authorized for an amendment to be printed or a designee may offer it and that each of these amendments shall be considered as read.

Finally, this rule also provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

It has also come to my attention that a clerical error has caused Amendment No. 15 to be incorrectly printed in the Congressional Record, and I would like to inform Members that a copy of the correct amendment is available at the desk for their review.

I rise today to introduce the rule for H.R. 2622, the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003, known as the FACT Act. This legislation represents a truly bipartisan effort by the Committee on Financial Services to produce a thoughtful and well-debated piece of legislation, and I would like to congratulate both the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Ranking Member Frank) for a great deal of credit for their leadership that each of them have shown throughout the process of bringing this bill to the floor today.

The United States enjoys a financial system that is the envy of the rest of the world. It is the most free market, transparent, open and robust system on the planet. American consumers and others who come from across the globe to conduct business here would not enjoy the benefits of this free market system without strong, smart laws to provide this transparency and freedom while offering meaningful consumer protections.

The Fair Credit Reporting Act legislation that we are debating today lives up to this same high standard of smart and strong financial policy. It promotes transparency and a dynamic economic system in America while protecting consumers by preserving the basis of our uniform national consumer credit system. The national system currently in place has tremendously beneficial effects on the American economy and for American consumers. It has provided for the democratization of consumer credit since the Fair Credit Reporting Act was first passed in 1970 by ensuring affordable access to credit for millions of Americans through uniform credit reporting standards, and it has increased the speed and efficiency at which these credit transactions can be processed.

This legislation also makes extensive revisions to the Fair Credit Reporting Act's, or FCRA's, provisions governing the accuracy of consumer reports and enhancing consumers' ability to correct errors in them. By improving the accuracy of these reports, both consumers and those who supply the marketplace with credit reports stand to benefit tremendously.

It should also be noted, as proof of their commitment to bipartisanship, that the Committee on Financial Services approved this legislation by a vote of 61 to 3, following an extensive and wide- ranging battery of hearings.

This legislation improves the accuracy of credit reports in a number of ways. It allows consumers to place fraud alerts on their personal credit reports to prevent identity thieves from opening accounts under their name. It allows consumers to block information from being given credit to a credit bureau and from reporting by a credit bureau after filing a police report if such information results in identity theft. It gives consumers increased flexibility to dispute inaccurate information in their credit reports. It provides victims of identity theft with a summary of their rights and gives consumers the right to see their credit scores. It expands consumers' access to a free copy of their credit reports and protects consumer privacy by restricting access to consumers' sensitive health information.

This legislation also provides our Nation's financial institutions with new powers and obligations to ensure that they are doing as much as they can do in the battle against identity theft. The legislation requires credit card issuers to investigate suspicious address changes. It requires creditors to take additional precautions before extending additional credit to consumers who have placed a fraud alert on their files. It prohibits merchants from printing more than the last five digits of a payment card on an electronically printed receipt. It obligates banks to develop policies and procedures to identify potential instances of identity theft and to reconcile potentially fraudulent consumer address information during the opening of an account.

This legislation also contains a provision of special interest to me and a number of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle. Title VI of this legislation contains a provision that I have authored that I believe will improve workplace safety for millions of Americans. Right now, an opinion by the Federal Trade Commission uses an interpretation of FCRA to create a disincentive for employers to retain objective and professional investigators of workplace misconduct, such as sexual or racial harassment, workplace violence, threat, fraud, SEC violations or other improprieties.

This legislation would clarify that decision, ensuring that our workplaces are free of violence, fraud and intimidation by all employees.

The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the Committee on Rules chairman; the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), Committee on Financial Services ranking member, and a bipartisan coalition of other members of this body, including the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) have cosponsored this provision, and I am glad that today, while we are doing as much as we can to help consumers and to preserve this great system of consumer credit, we have also taken the opportunity to do something for American's employees.

Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule that every Member of the House should support. The underlying legislation is also a bipartisan effort that passed through

its committee of jurisdiction overwhelmingly and deserves the support of every Member of this body.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Dallas, Texas (Mr. Hensarling), who is on the Committee on Financial Services.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), one of the bright young stars of the Republican majority and a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit and the main sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this debate today, this opportunity to talk about the Fair Credit Reporting Act with not only the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and his colleagues on his side of the aisle, but my colleagues on this side of the aisle, we give thanks for a lot of hard work that has taken place.

The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) from the Committee on Financial Services, began the process, was a leader in the identity theft issue. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) have done a fabulous job, but let us not forget the work that we did together with the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and others on the Democratic side, to ensure that this bill has the necessary protections.

I thank the staff director of the Committee on Rules Billy Pitts, and Josh Saltzman and Adam Jarvis, who are with the Committee on Rules, and from the White House we received a great deal of hard work from Elen Liang representing President Bush. I would like to thank them for their strong work. I support this rule and the underlying legislation, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it also.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I rise with him tonight to honor the memory of our fellow friend and Texan, A.C. Barger of Leon County, Texas.

A.C. left us in July; and although I am saddened by the loss of such a vibrant and caring person, I feel privileged to have known him and will tell you that my life was honored as a result of his service not only to me but to others.

A.C. left behind a giant footprint throughout his years, and he touch the lives of many, many people. He opened his home to me on numerous occasions and I can testify he was a man filled with the joy of living. He was also a man dedicated to service, service to his wife, service to his family, service to his Lord, service to his community, service to his country. He was a husband, a father, a friend, and a patriot.

From his service to the U.S. Army in Korea, to his work with the youth and elderly in Leon County, Texas, A.C. Barger made a difference and inspired others to do the same. Anyone can talk about ideas, but A.C. recognized that only actions ultimately mattered. He cared about people, and he did his very best to provide them with happiness.

A.C. walked the walk when it came to putting others first.

I thank A.C.'s family for sharing him with us over the years. A.C. leaves behind his wife of 45 years, Darlene, as well as his daughters, Kathy and Donna, and their families. I share their sense of loss. I know that A.C.'s family misses him, and I know that others in Texas, including myself in those, would say great job, and we will miss you our friend.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a modest attempt to inject an objective standard into the Federal Government's Amtrak route funding decisions. Under the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997, Federal financial assistance to cover operating losses incurred by Amtrak were to be eliminated by the year 2002. Sadly, Amtrak is nowhere near eliminating its need for Federal financial assistance to cover its operating losses. I cannot say we are any closer to achieving that goal now than we were in 1997.

The Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 established and provided for an independent commission known as the Amtrak Reform Council, which was statutorily charged with evaluating Amtrak's performance and making recommendations for achieving further cost containment, productivity improvements, and financial reforms. Its work has not gone completely unnoticed by this Member. At least I believe one amendment and change should be made as a result of its report that was made in February 2002 to Members of Congress.

Appendix V of that report, which I have blown up for Members' consideration and will include for the Record, calculates in its last column what is known as the operating ratio for each of its 2001 routes.

My amendment simply states that based on each route's operation ratio, Amtrak either gets fiscal year 2004 Federal funding to operate the route or it does not. The routes highlighted in green on this chart will make the cut and receive Federal 2004 funding. Those are routes that recoup 50 cents in revenue which include State subsidies for each dollar in operating costs. The routes highlighted in red on this chart will not make the cut and will receive no fiscal year 2004 funding. I believe these routes unfairly stretch the pocketbooks of the American taxpayer and put the Amtrak system at risk.

This amendment is an honest and modest attempt to inject some objectivity into the Amtrak funding process. As Members can see, the lion's share of the corridor trains will stay in business in fiscal year 2004 under my amendment. That is because they show the greatest potential for ridership and for achieving the goal of the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 of eliminating Federal assistance to cover Amtrak's operating losses.

Six of the 19 long-distance trains will receive 2004 Federal funding under my amendment. Those that cannot show at least $1 for every $2 in cost will not. This amendment is more than reasonable. With it, Congress simply says any passenger route that fails to generate just $1 in revenue for $2 in cost is a route not worth keeping in the upcoming financial year. This amendment also involves more than just a concentration of funds on the most visible lines of Amtrak. It also involves America's trust.

The public must trust in what Congress is doing with their money. Amtrak is not a public welfare project. It provides a real service, it buys capital equipment, it owns a significant amount of real estate, and it holds substantial quantities of hard assets, all of which were once in the hands of the private sector.

My amendment is also about running a railroad. If we lay any claim to being a competent governing body capable of spending taxpayer money wisely, then we have to take the responsibility for the money and we have to make sure that the way it is spent is put to good use. Putting a cap on poor performance and the routes that do not make this revenue cut simply is something that Congress must step up to the plate and address. Allowing Amtrak to operate any and all unprofitable lines without any limitation forfeits far too much of our credibility with this body that we can run a railroad or be worthy stewards of the taxpayer money.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) allowing me to stand in opposition to the Van Hollen amendment.

Today what we are talking about really is the opportunity for the taxpayer to be the winner in the work that is performed by and for the government. This amendment obviously would require that all public- private competitions be conducted under the old and wisely distrusted A-76 circular.

We, in Congress, had a hand in forming not only this Commercial Activities Panel, but I think that Congress needs to listen to the changes that took place back in May from this body.

Essentially, what they did is they went and looked at other areas of government that had been doing outsourcing in a positive way; what I might call best practices, a way to look at the way things should be done that would be better for not only government employees and also good for those who might be bidding, but, more importantly, to really get them up to date with the leading edge practices.

Essentially what happened was there were a lot of transparencies, a lot of things that were recognized that needed to be changed. Some of them had a time frame so that these competitions did not stretch on forever. But perhaps the most important part of applying this, and these changes, is that it is going to really offer a level playing field. That is entirely different than the old A-76 process.

Mr. Chairman, the old A-76 was essentially a competition where everyone bid and then the government was a part of that. These changes will create a level playing field that I think is better for government employees. Because what will happen is the competition will now be under the Federal acquisition regulations, which means that government will be able to respond to the best offer from the private sector. So the government will be able to now respond.

Those employees will now be given an opportunity to see that bid and to compete against that, which gives government employees a chance, not in the whole mix, but rather specifically against the best offer to where it is a real competition.

These are things that have been done in the Department of Defense for a number of years.

So instead of allowing the mix where government employees would be participating against eight or ten different proposals, they now have an opportunity, under the revision that came from this Commercial Activities Panel, to update the process and make it better. Government employees now have an opportunity to compete against what is seen as the best offer.

I disagree with the gentleman from Maryland. I think really what is trying to happen here is they are just trying to kill the whole process, cause a smoke screen when, in fact, we, as Members of Congress, should recognize that through a series of acts, that we have talked about and debated on the floor of the House of Representatives that we determine that the taxpayer needs the best that can come from these competitions. If it is government employees, so let it be. If it is not government employees, in a part of the business that is not inherently governmental, then it should go to whoever can do that best, who can do it at the best cost, who can provide it day in and day out to the best effort of what the taxpayer is.

I will tell my colleagues that I oppose the Van Hollen amendment because I believe that the commercial activities panel who offered many unanimous recommendations, unanimous recommendations from people all over, not only unions, but also other commercial bodies, people who know the business, people who know the marketplace, people who know what is fair so that the taxpayer can get the best dollar for what they paid for, they are the people who studied this, they are the people who made the recommendations, and they said they want to be fair, fairer, best practices, not only to government employees, but also those employees who might be in another company who are competing for something that is part of the business of the United States government that is not inherently governmental.

So the gentleman from Oklahoma, who is standing up today to oppose this unwise amendment, I stand with him, also. I stand with the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform who understands that we must defeat the Van Hollen amendment.

Offered By: Mr. Sessions

Amendment No. 24: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Sec. 742. None of the funds made available in this Act may

be used to operate individual Amtrak routes whose Operating

Ratio (defined as expenses divided by revenues, where

revenues include State subsidies) is identified as greater

than 2.0 in the February 7, 2002, report by the Amtrak Reform

Council entitled ``An Action Plan For the Restructuring and

Rationalization of the National Intercity Rail Passenger

System''.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 335 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us is a well-reasoned rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2427, the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act of 2003. This rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and provides 1 hour of debate, evenly divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their designees.

The rule also provides that during consideration of the bill, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the bill to a time designated by the Speaker.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the rule for H.R. 2427, the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act of 2003. The fact that this legislation is on the floor today demonstrates the willingness of the House Republican leadership to deal with contentious issues publicly on this House floor and to allow democracy to work by giving every Member an opportunity to cast their vote on an important issue and issues that are important to them and the American public.

But, while I believe that the underlying legislation that we will bring to the floor later is well-intentioned, it is also deeply flawed and puts the health and well-being of the American public at great risk. Congress needs to find a way to provide affordable prescription drugs to all Americans. This, however, is not the way to do it.

Mr. Speaker, the problems with this legislation can be divided into three main categories. First, safety; second, fairness; and, lastly, legal liability.

On the topic of safety, H.R. 2427 is certain to harm Americans in a number of ways. First is the issue of

verifiability. Today, on nearly every single East Asian street corner, an American traveler can pick up for only a few dollars what looks like at first inspection to be a Polo shirt that would retail in American stores for around $50. However, as anyone who has ever bought one of these shirts has learned, perhaps the hard way, after a few washings, these shirts fade, rip and generally fall apart. But I believe the consumer knew what the consumer was buying at the time that they bought it.

H.R. 2427 would open American consumers of prescription medicine up to this same kind of potential scam by allowing them to be ripped off by offering an inferior product that looks like the genuine article, but with life or death consequences not associated with purchasing illegal leisure wear. The difference here is that the consumer does not know what they are purchasing. The other can be verified and they know for sure.

I believe that the health and well-being of American drug consumers is all too important to allow them to be taken advantage of in this fashion by passing a law that would allow clever black market manufacturers with the capability to make superficially similar reproductions of prescription drugs and to pass them off as the real thing to unsuspecting American consumers.

Of course, the difference here is that when you buy that shirt on the street corner, you know that what you are buying is probably a fake and it will fall apart after a few washings, whereas our Nation's seniors and other prescription drug buyers will think that they are getting the real thing, a mistake that could have dangerous or even fatal consequences.

Another safety issue raised by this legislation is that it leaves us utterly defenseless if a health safety crisis caused by substandard or fake imported medicine is discovered. The bill would remove 16 important provisions in the U.S. law which currently protect American consumers from unsafe, counterfeit and substandard imported medicines.

For example, importation would be required under H.R. 2427 even if the Secretary of Health and Human Services believes it would pose ``an additional risk to the public health and safety.''

To demonstrate the full nature of this threat, an analogy can be drawn with yet another health crisis that happened recently. Earlier this year, when there were concerns about Mad Cow Disease in cattle from Canada that might make it its way into the United States, the Food and Drug Administration took immediate action to close the border to Canadian beef. Likewise, we need the same kind of protection for counterfeit prescription drugs that may be making their way across the border. Unfortunately, this legislation provides no protection.

The removal of these important safety provisions will lead to an influx of counterfeit and dangerous medicines into the United States. I believe that our public health and safety officials should have the right to close our borders to counterfeits and to importers who counterfeit prescription drugs. However, once again, H.R. 2427 would strip the ability of the Department of Health and Human Services to suspend reimportation of specific products or from specific importers, even if the agency discovers a pattern of counterfeits.

Existing law already allows for reimportation of prescription drugs when the health and safety of Americans can be ensured.

This bill would change that and allow importation even when health and safety could not be assured.

This legislation says that safety, in essence, does not matter. But I do say that safety matters, and it should matter whether we are talking about the beef we eat or the prescription drugs that we take.

Finally, this legislation poses a safety risk to consumers because it prevents consumers from being able to guarantee the source or effectiveness of their prescription drugs. In fact, in a letter to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Commissioner of the Drug Administration, Dr. Mark McClellan stated that this legislation would ``create a wide channel for large volumes of unapproved drugs and other products to enter the United States that are potentially injurious to the public health and that pose a threat to the security of our Nation's drug supply.''

A real live example of this case is of an Internet-based counterfeit drug provider, TrustedCanadianPharmacy.com, that claims to be the most trusted pharmacy in Canada. The site is actually registered in Barbados which, I believe, is an island off Venezuela, not a Canadian province. The products from this site could be imported into America fraudulently, with consumers believing that they were getting reimported drugs through Canada. That is why the Canadian Government has ``never stated that it would be responsible for the safety and quality of prescription drugs exported into the United States, or any country, for that matter.''

The second set of problems created by this legislation relates to fairness, both to American consumers and to the developers of the new and innovative drugs of tomorrow. If Congress were to pass this legislation, America would be justified in importing the practices of those countries that coerce drug innovators into providing their lifesaving products at below market rates. These other countries get these anticompetitive prices for medicine by blackmailing drug innovators with the threat of breaking their patent rights and illegally transferring their intellectual property to a domestic manufacturer if they refuse to concede in providing their drugs at an artificial, nonmarket rate.

As it currently stands, American prescription drug consumers already subsidize the anticompetitive practices of countries with socialized medical schemes, and I believe that is unfair. However, the answer to this problem is not to import the price controls and strong-armed tactics of the European Community. It is to address the issues through trade negotiations and the enforcement of legal mechanisms to protect American manufacturers' intellectual property.

By being unfair to the producers of these innovative medicines, H.R. 2427 also has shortcomings that consumers need from these medicines to live healthy, productive, and pain-free lives. Importing the socialist price controls of other nations will create a disincentive for drug companies to reinvest in new drug research and development, and could set back the search for cures for breast cancer, AIDS, and a number of other deadly diseases for decades by starving the private sector of these funds and the incentives that it needs to conduct this ongoing, time-consuming, and often unprofitable research. In fact, in a letter to House Speaker Dennis Hastert, the National AIDS Treatment Advocacy Project noted that ``It is foolhardy for Congress to double NIH research and then launch hasty reimportation schemes that will undermine the entire drug development process by opening the floodgates to counterfeits which will destroy the value of intellectual property.''

Finally, this legislation raises a number of complicated and troubling legal issues. For example, if a consumer who purchases a tampered or counterfeit medicine gets sick or simply does not get better because they are taking a counterfeit placebo, where do they turn for legal relief? Will they sue the drug manufacturer of the real drug who had nothing to do with the counterfeit product consumed? Will they sue the doctor who prescribed the medicine, thinking that their patient will be using the real or true product? Will they sue the pharmacy that reimported it? How about the hospital or medical complex where the doctor has that practice?

There is no telling how great the overall drain on these productive and helpful industries could be as a result of being in court with these tort claims arising from this faulty reimportation scheme, nor is there any indication of how much this inefficiency will increase the health care and insurance costs of every American.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation would create a congressionally mandated litigation disaster that has the potential to destroy the viability of health care and insurance in America.

I would like to close by listing just a few of the organizations who oppose

this bill: the American Medical Association, the United States Chamber of Commerce, the Hispanic Business Roundtable, the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, the Society for Women's Health Research, the Seniors Coalition, 50 Plus, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, and the National Prostate Center Coalition. These are simply a few of the 200 organizations that have looked at this underlying legislation and wish to make their words known that they do not support the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Girardeau, Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Surf Side, Texas (Mr. Paul).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), one of the brightest young Members of Congress that we have.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), who is the author of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to let the minority know that I have two additional speakers, but I would like for them to feel free to run down their time and then just before the gentlewoman from New York closes, we will have one speaker for 1 minute and then we will close; and if we could proceed under that agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Morristown, New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire and confirm that I have 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I have one other speaker for about 4 minutes, and then I will consume the last 30 seconds. So I will let the gentlewoman decide if she would like to finish and then we will close.

Mr. Speaker, to answer the gentlewoman, I have 4\1/2\ minutes remaining. I will use 4 minutes for a speaker to close, and then I will end the debate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery).

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

These proposed changes will prevent the greatest scientific research and development organization in the world from continuing to solve the medical problems of tomorrow. We need to pass a prescription drug plan that reduces the cost of drugs, not one that ruins those that make drugs that solves problems, that takes care of the real-life problems that we face, moms, dads, brothers, and sisters. We need to make sure that we vote ``yes'' on the rule and that we vote ``no'' on Gutknecht to make sure that the prescription drug people who do the hard work are alive and well and provide those things that are necessary and pass a prescription drug plan that takes care of the problems with the cost of high prescription drugs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for yielding me this time. Tonight is a very important debate for this country. It is important for us to understand that the drugs that get reimported in this country may not be known and understood exactly for what they are by the consumers of this country.

As a person who travels overseas, when I want to buy a shirt that might be on the street in Bangkok or in Shanghai, I know that that is probably a counterfeit. I buy that and purchase that shirt knowing that. But as a consumer in this country, going on the Internet, thinking I am buying something from Canada, it can be from somewhere else. It happens every day.

Let us not let this happen to consumers. Let us let them know what they are buying, where they are getting it from; and let us make sure we reduce the cost of prescription drugs in this country. We have a plan to do that. That plan is called a prescription drug plan that the Republican Party has had on this floor. Let us reduce the cost of prescription drugs but let us keep our seniors safe.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me this time.

Also, he and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) are heading up this great effort from the Republican side to make sure that we work with the administration on this important effort for free trade agreements.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this Singapore effort because I believe it is in the best interest of America. It is in the best interest of Singapore. These are two great nations who

not only work with each other but have so much in common. This free trade agreement is going to do things which will help both countries, most specifically as it deals with intellectual property and the way we deal with each other to resolve disputes.

Singapore is going to adopt as a result of this free trade agreement laws which are the same or similar to the United States so that our companies, people who do business back and forth, have an opportunity to look at the same type of legal system in the resolution of disputes.

As was noted on June 10, Tom Lipscomb wrote in the Wall Street Journal: ``Entertainment content is now [America's] largest export, and information is the basis of more than half of gross domestic product'' of America. We need to make sure intellectual property, we need to make sure that the content that is a valuable asset of United States of America has an opportunity to have a free and open day in court wherever we sell these intellectual property possessions that the United States has.

Singapore is a good friend of America. We are going to find that as we work through free trade agreements that this will become the gold standard as we deal with other places all around the globe.

I support the free trade agreement with Singapore. I thank the gentleman from California for his expert leadership and his vision in making sure that with our President that we have friends all around the globe that enjoy the same opportunities that we do in America.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 2 o'clock and 50 minutes a.m.), the House adjourned until today, Thursday, July 24, 2003, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the Singapore free trade agreement with the United States. This week we will be debating and voting on the free trade agreements with Chile and Singapore. I stand in support of these because I believe that these agreements will not only nurture our friendship and relationship with these great nations, but also will be in the best interests of the United States.

In terms of direct economic benefits, there are three broad areas that I believe in particular the United States will gain benefit from with this free trade agreement with Singapore: goods, services, and intellectual property.

Mr. Speaker, the United States of America is friends with Singapore, and we value the relationship we have. The relationship with Singapore's ambassador to the United States and also our relationship with Singapore is one that needs to be strengthened and nurtured. By signing this free trade agreement, we are going to bring into play the opportunity for America and Singapore, who we already share so many good things in context with from business relationships, but we are going to codify this free trade agreement around the ability we have in our legal systems to not only work together and agree with the differences that we may have, but to be able to do business in an ever- increasing small world, a world where the things that we do here in the United States are the things that are done in Singapore, and to make sure these difference are resolved properly.

Intellectual property is one of the key components of the intelligence and strength of this country, and I believe that this free trade agreement will allow the free flow of not only intellectual property but the things that come as a result of that. This agreement updates also Singapore's intellectual property laws, and as was noted by Thomas Lipscomb on June 10 in the Wall Street Journal, ``Entertainment content is now America's largest export, and information is the basis of more than half of our gross domestic product.''

Mr. Speaker, I will tell Members that this free trade agreement with Singapore is going to be one that will benefit Singapore and the great people of this Nation. I stand in support of this free trade agreement. It is about jobs, about intellectual property, it is about goods and services. It is about a relationship with one of America's greatest trading partners and allies, Singapore.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and I approach the floor today to discuss section 335 which would block the Department of Interior from conducting public/private job competitions. As a result of this opportunity to be on the floor, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and I have chosen to have side-bar conversations with the chairman of the committee.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Reclaiming my time, I would like to engage, if I could, in a colloquy with the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), the chairman of the subcommittee, concerning this matter.

Mr. Chairman, it is my hope and belief that you and I will be able to work together on this issue such that it might be able to be resolved in conference; and it is my understanding that what we will do is, as we work towards that resolution, it will allow completion of the work today to move on this bill and then that negotiation to begin.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I also thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform. It is obvious to me, based upon this dialogue, that we will work diligently between now and the time that the conference on this important bill comes forth.

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

Offered By: Mr. Sessions

Amendment No. 7: Strike section 335 of the bill (page 154,

lines 12 and 13).

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies for yielding to me and for his tremendous work on this legislation and important issues. I also want to thank the chairman for working with me to provide adequate funding for Down Syndrome research, particularly in the area of enhancing cognition and preventing the early onset of dementia for people with Down Syndrome.

This year, the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities at the Centers for Disease Control recognized the need for studies in these two areas. The first study would develop estimates of the number of persons with Down Syndrome by age group and racial and ethnic breakdowns. The second study would document the onset and the course of secondary and related developmental disorders and health conditions of individuals with Down Syndrome. The committee report makes reference to these proposed studies, and I want to thank the chairman for including that language in the report.

Current estimates indicate that there are approximately 350,000 individuals living in the United States today with Down Syndrome, but we do not know how they break down by age group or by ethnic group. We also do not know why children with Down Syndrome are more at risk for developing secondary conditions, like autism and obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Mr. Chairman, I want to know, do the gentleman agree that the funding of these studies should be a national priority?

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to thank the gentleman for his comments and would ask if he would be willing to work with me in the conference towards funding these two studies of the CDC in fiscal year 2004?

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gracious gentleman for his time and for his work.

Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 309 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us is a fair, modified rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 438, the Teacher Recruitment and Retention Act of 2003.

The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. The rule also provides that all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.

The rule provides that an amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Education and the Workforce now printed in the bill shall be considered as read and as an original bill for the purpose of amendment. It also provides that all points of order against the amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived.

This rule allows for the consideration of an amendment printed in the Committee on Rules report, if offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) or his designee, to be considered as read and debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided between a proponent and an opponent of the amendment, which shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. Finally, the rule waives all points of order against this amendment, and it also provides for one motion to recommit, either with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to report that today, by taking up and passing H.R. 438, the Teacher Recruitment and Retention Act of 2003, this Congress will address an urgent crisis facing our Nation's schools and their students. Today a shortage of highly qualified teachers in mathematics, science, and special education leaves schools all

across our country unable to provide students with the educational opportunities that they deserve. The shortage of highly qualified teachers in these subjects is a very real problem and one that disproportionately affects children from urban and rural areas. A few simple figures do a good job of demonstrating the full and overwhelming scope of this problem.

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, between 1999 and 2000, 67 percent of public middle and high schools had teacher vacancies in special education. Seventy percent had vacancies in mathematics. Sixty-one percent had vacancies in biology and life sciences. Fifty-one percent had vacancies in physical science. Two- thirds of our Nation's public elementary schools reported vacancies in special education.

Additionally, according to the Committee for Economic Development, almost a third of high school mathematics classes are taught by teachers who did not minor or major in mathematics. In biology, that level rises to 45 percent, and tops out at 60 percent for teachers of life sciences.

Mr. Speaker, the successful education of our children is inextricably tied to the quality of the teachers instructing them. Students cannot possibly be expected to fill the jobs of tomorrow if they are not getting the instruction that they need during their formative academic years today.

The answer to solving this dilemma which represents one of our Nation's greatest educational needs can be boiled down to something that is simple, and that is local schools facing teacher shortages need the flexibility to recruit and to retain the skilled teachers that their students deserve. By forgiving the student loan debts of math, science, and special education teachers at high-risk schools, we can help these schools to attract and retain the talent that they desperately need. By paying off the debts, this will allow the school districts the flexibility to go after those teachers that they need most.

Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, 5 years ago, Congress passed the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 and created a student loan forgiveness program for qualified teachers in return for their commitment to working in a low-income school for 5 years. This program has allowed teachers taking advantage of this opportunity to have up to $5,000 of their outstanding loan obligation forgiven after their fifth completed year of service.

The Teacher Recruitment and Retention Act would expand the current teacher loan forgiveness available under the Higher Education Act to address our Nation's critical teacher shortages in math, science, and special education. To be eligible, teachers in these three disciplines must serve in a Title I school with 40 percent of its students at or below poverty level. The bill also increases the total loan forgiveness to a maximum of $17,500 for these enhanced-need subjects, while accelerating the speed of these benefits to allow them to accrue after the second year. This would allow teachers committed to serving our highest-risk schools to receive the benefits when they need them most: right in the beginning of their careers when most teachers face their most substantial financial obstacles.

In order to maintain the integrity of the program, the legislation requires teachers who fail to meet their end of their commitment to repay their loans and debts in full. It also ensures the quality of the teachers receiving this benefit by requiring that teachers applying for the increased loan forgiveness amount must meet the ``highly qualified'' definition before receiving any loan forgiveness.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner); and the sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson) for their hard work in bringing this bill through the legislative process and onto the floor today. Both they and their colleagues on the Committee on Education and the Workforce have brought an outstanding product before the House that answers President Bush's challenge to recruit and to retain highly qualified teachers in disadvantaged schools, while addressing the critical shortage of math, science, and special education teachers now facing elementary and secondary schools. Making sure that these teachers can afford to work in our highest-risk schools is the first step in ensuring a quality education for our children.

I would also like to thank our President, President Bush, for bringing the critical problem facing our most at-risk students and schools to the attention of this Congress. I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) for rising to this challenge in addressing this problem.

I support this rule and the underlying legislation on behalf of today's students, and I urge each of my colleagues to do the same.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, in the 108th Congress, one of the brightest and best chairmen who serves this great Congress is a young man from Ohio. And as chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, he has sought to make sure that the issues that are before his committee and this Nation are addressed; they are addressed as a result of hands-on looking at the problems in our schools through a lot of intensive work all across this country, not just urban and not just rural schools, not just inner-city schools, not just certain types of academia looked at, but rather all of public education, and the work that the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), has put into this bill and other bills that are very apparent before this Congress, including IDEA, which is related to special education, are very apparent to the energy of this chairman.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to welcome the fabulous chairman of this committee for such time as he may consume.

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

The debate last night in the Committee on Rules did allow testimony from the gentleman and others who were with him, and they made a lot of good points. They made a lot of good points about how important Head Start is, not only to students as they come through the process and to parents, but to our educational quality; and there

was a great debate on that, an opportunity for feedback, and it simply was not included in this package.

What is included in this package is the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), who I believe is the main author of this bill, I think, accepted the challenge from our President, as I think many Members of Congress have, to go back to our local schools, to go to our school districts and to go listen to teachers, to listen to parents, listen to students, to listen to administrators, to listen to people who serve on the local boards of education and to hear from them about the state of education and things that we need.

I am just pleased that one of those good ideas, even though the gentleman from Massachusetts had also a good idea, but that we were able to bring one of these good ideas, gather a consensus about it, make it bipartisan, get through the process, go to the Committee on Rules, sustain the things that we believe about this bill that are fabulous, fabulous for schools, to go attract and help relieve the debt from these teachers who are in math, who are in science, who are in special education, because those are the hardest teachers to get.

I believe we are doing the right thing. I believe that what this entire opportunity is about today is to say that paying attention to students and teachers, school administrators, our whole process is what our President has asked us to do. I think we are bringing back bits and pieces of those things that we have learned that will make a real difference, make a real difference in the lives of not only each of the teachers and our school systems, but for the parents and students who are part of that.

I support what we are doing. This is a great rule. This is a great opportunity for us to pay attention to people who pay attention to our students and people who pay attention to us in our educational setting, and I am proud of what we are doing.

Mr. Speaker, I would notify the gentleman from Massachusetts that I do not have any further speakers at this time, and I will let him determine what he would like to do, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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

The bottom line is we are trying to aim this money, these loan forgiveness opportunities, at the teachers who we need most.

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

I do understand the frustrations that the gentleman is talking about, Mr. Speaker. I also understand that the Committee on Rules has a job to do. Its job is to follow the rules of this House. The bottom line is that the gentleman from Los Angeles, who did have three very well- thought-through amendments that he chose to bring before the Committee on Rules were not germane. They were not germane because, despite what the gentleman from Massachusetts has claimed about it being for teachers, the amendments are very clearly written to say a librarian working full time in a public library. A librarian working full time in a public library, number five. Amendment number six in a public library. That is not germane to this bill where we are talking about teachers. That is not a part of what we are talking about, so it was not germane.

Lastly, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) took time to come before the Committee on Rules. We appreciate that. The bottom line is that there was a vote already, through regular order in the committee of jurisdiction, and the gentleman did not win in the committee of jurisdiction.

And so the process in this House is being followed, the process where people have an opportunity to bring forth amendments, bring forth ideas that they have. For us to challenge ourselves on this education opportunity that is in front of us is important, and that process is something that we followed today.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts to engage me.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

The gentleman, when he spoke earlier, talked about how the Committee on Rules did not make Republican Members' amendments in order, and now he is coming and asking us to treat them the same way. The bottom line is it is a fair process for Republican or Democrat. It is a fair process for people who go through the regular order, who have an opportunity to present germane amendments. It is very fair.

The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the great chairman of the Committee on Rules, spends an extensive amount of time attempting to work with Members to make sure their amendments are germane, to make sure their amendments are well understood, to make sure their amendments have time to come forth before the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would at this time close by saying that we believe this rule that is before this great body today deserves not only the attention of the American public, but also a vote today.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank in particular two professional members of the Committee on Rules, Adam Jarvis and Eileen Harley, for their fabulous work on this, and Committee on Rules associate Josh Saltzman from my staff, for their great work on bringing this wonderful bill forward.

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

The previous question was ordered.