Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the 42nd Annual YMCA Youth Governor's Conference that is currently being held here in Washington, DC. The YMCA Youth Governor's Conference brings together some of the most outstanding youth leaders in America. YMCA Youth and Government is a Nation-wide program that allows thousands of teenagers to simulate State and National government. The elected Youth Governors of the State programs are currently in Washington, and I am honored to serve as the Congressional sponsor for the Member's breakfast in honor of the YMCA Youth Governor's Conference.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to personally recognize each of this year's YMCA Youth Governors for their dedication and service to America's youth.

Gina Bullock of Texas, Ethan Link of Tennessee, Alex Sanders of Georgia, Elizabeth Strassner of Oklahoma, Martin Holmes of Maine, Michael Sheflin of New Jersey, Joseph Colarusso of New York, Wayne Bragg of Mississippi, Ryan Wedge of Connecticut, Eli Turkel of Delaware, Matthew Stoller of Massachusetts.

Ann Nemitz of Arizona, Sarah Coburn of Oregon, Richard Friedman of Alabama, Judd Kennedy of Pennsylvania, Kristen Adams of Michigan, Asher Perlman of Wisconsin, Meg Dennard of Louisiana, Rushi Desai of Missouri, Torry Van Slyke of Idaho, Renee Walker of North Carolina.

Richard Marrs of Virginia, Scott Antolak of Minnesota, Kyle Smith of California, Allen Klump of South Carolina, Kyle LaFountain of New Hampshire, Justin Cajindos of Illinois, Stephen Takach of New Mexico, Justin Hoefflicker of Indiana, Rasean Crawley of Kentucky, Keisha Hyman-Girth of Washington, James Walsh of Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 276 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a standard rule for consideration of conference reports and waives all points of order against consideration of the conference report.

Mr. Speaker, the process of reauthorizing the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act and the Family Violence Prevention Treatment Act completes a promise made to the American people that was begun in the 107th Congress. Unfortunately, the last Congress adjourned before consensus was reached between the two bodies on this very important issue. By taking up the conference report on the reintroduced legislation today, Congress is demonstrating an ongoing commitment to ensuring that programs to prevent child abuse, neglect, and family violence can continue to work and to protect American families.

The underlying conference report that we are debating maintains important Federal resources for identifying and addressing issues of domestic violence. It supports efforts to ensure that the current programs designed to address these issues are operating effectively and efficiently, and that they promote the prevention of child abuse before these heinous acts can occur.

The conference report retains language promoting partnerships between child protective services and private and community-based organizations, including education and mental health systems, to provide child abuse and neglect prevention and treatment services. It improves the training, recruitment, and retention of individuals who are capable of providing services to children and families. It also increases the availability of casework supervisors for oversight and consultation, while simultaneously improving public education on the role of the child protective services system and appropriate reporting of suspected incidents of child abuse and neglect, to reduce the number of false or malicious allegations.

This conference report requires States to have provisions and procedures for administering criminal background checks to prospective foster and adoptive parents, and other adult relatives and nonrelatives residing in the household, and helps to improve the training opportunities and requirements of child protective services personnel to ensure their active collaboration with families, and their knowledge of legal duties with these individuals to protect children's individual rights.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation also requires States to implement policies and procedures to address the needs of infants born and identification as being affected by illegal substance abuse or withdrawal symptoms resulting from prenatal drug exposure, including the requirement that healthcare providers involved in the delivery or care of such infants notify child protective services of the occurrence of such conditions in infants. It then requires the development and planning of safe care for such infants.

Lastly, the conference report retains language that expands priority services to infants and young children who are born with a life- threatening condition or with other very special medical needs, to ensure that these special needs are met and that these special children have a chance in life.

If there is one issue upon which every single Member of this institution can agree, regardless of his or her political belief, it should be the need to prevent child abuse and domestic abuse. These atrocities and often silent crimes do lasting damage to the lives of individuals and the moral fabric of our society. There exists a responsibility incumbent upon each of us to enact laws that protect the most vulnerable in our society, and this conference report will go a very long way to accomplish that exactly that noble and moral goal.

I am pleased to note that the House version of this legislation, H.R. 14, easily passed through its committee of jurisdiction, the Committee on Education and the Workforce, earlier this year and then through the House by voice vote. Today's conference report should continue to enjoy widespread and overwhelming bipartisan support as it has already enjoyed tremendous support throughout the child abuse and family violence prevention advocacy communities.

I would ask each of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to demonstrate their commitment to American families, to American communities, and to America's future by supporting this conference report. In particular today, I would like to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the House sponsor of this legislation; and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for their hard work in producing this conference report. I would also like to take this moment to commend the conferees from both bodies that have labored to produce this fine product.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule and the underlying legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the issue we have before us, this rule, this conference report that we are working on, really does talk about ways in which we can go and improve the lives of millions of children, where we can help families. Families, many times single parents, who are under the stress and strain of attempting to go to work, raise their family, meet their obligations in the community, to their schools, need some help, and I think that that is exactly what this bill does. It does it in a way that community-based organizations can become involved in the life and the opportunity to make not only their neighborhoods and their schools and their communities is safer and better, but they did it in a way that is a partnership.

This administration, this President, supports this. This administration, our President, when President Bush was the Governor of Texas, worked extensively in Texas across Texas in poor communities to try to make the lives better of children to provide them an opportunity to grow up and not only be in safe neighborhoods, but also have safety in their schools. So I think that the underlying legislation in this conference report is fabulous. It does a lot of things to make sure that as a Member of Congress, that all of us as Members of Congress, that we can become engaged in things that we not only can hold our head up high about but we can mentor with our President to make sure that people see this Congress as a caring group of men and women who not only want to ensure the success of people who many of whom we will never know their names but the children who live their lives and are prepared for the future.

I think that in the scheme of things this is a question that comes about not just to Members of Congress but as a demand on this country. The demand on our country is do America's greatest days lie in our future? Are we doing those things throughout the 40 some weeks that we are here in Washington, D.C. away from our families, are we handling the business of the people to

make sure that we make life better? And I think that answer is yes. Today the underlying legislation is yet another example of this Congress working together with this President to make sure that America's greatest days lie in our future because we are active, engaged, and involved with our communities and with people back home.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), from the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

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

Mr. Speaker, hearing the gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman from Pennsylvania speak about children, about the things that we encounter and learn from time about tragedies that occur in people's lives with women who have problems along life, either drugs or alcohol, and also at the same time at which they are birthing babies and carry life within them, and the impact that it has on those children, not just at birth but throughout their life, it is a stunning problem in America.

But to hear the gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman from Pennsylvania speak about the great parts about this bill, about how this Congress can reach out, how we as a government can keep working with local communities to bring out the best, not only in their interaction with these mothers that are at risk, but also child abuse victims, it is all important.

I am hopeful we can also learn a lot from the things we have learned over the last few years about people who perpetrate crimes upon children, the identification of those kinds of people, so that communities can do a better job spotting these people and protecting their children. That is what this bill is about. That is the good part of what this bill is about.

I appreciate both these gentleman for coming and telling their stories, not only about why they support this bill, but why this rule is fair and important for us to pass and this conference report. Let us get it to the President and let the President continue to do the things for the American people that he did for the people of Texas when he was Governor.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Marietta, Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), one of our bright young Republican Members.

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

I appreciate the gentleman from Florida for his support of this conference report, S. 342, Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003.

Mr. Speaker, we have had a good debate today. We have talked about the children of this country. We have talked about our communities. We have talked about our schools. We have talked about the desire that we have as this United States Congress, this administration, President George W. Bush and the kind and gracious leadership of this House, including our Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), and our majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), to time after time take time out of their schedule not only to talk about children, children that are the future of this country and will make a difference, but also that these three gentleman, as leaders of our country, take time to make sure that this administration and the laws of this country are there to protect children, the most vulnerable part of our society.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of what this will do. This conference report will go to help people. It will strengthen our communities. It will strengthen community-based organizations who work in a way that we need them to become efficient and be efficient and to offer these services.

I am proud of what we are doing. I am proud of what this Congress is doing, and Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 256 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule, House Resolution 256. This rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1474, the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act.

The Committee on Rules on Tuesday afternoon granted an open rule providing for 1 hour of general debate in the House on the underlying bill, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, and provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

I would like to reiterate to the House my satisfaction in the open rule granted for consideration of the underlying piece of legislation that we are debating today, which is also known as CHECK-21.

CHECK-21 is an important bill, although it may seem a bit confusing at first blush for America's banking customers and check writers. The good news is this bill garnered bipartisan support in both the Committee on Financial Services and the Committee on Rules, and I anticipate the same result as we move forward towards final passage on the floor today.

The legislative work our House of Representatives will complete today builds on the legislative work that was started back in 1987 to foster innovation in the check collection system. The Expedited Funds Availability Act, which became law back in 1987, directed the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to improve our check processing system.

Today we are making logical extensions to the work started in 1987 by using our much-improved electronic transfer technology to make check writing speedier and more reliable for all parties involved.

Mr. Speaker, each check that is written and used for payment must actually make its way back to the check writer's home bank. That is how each bank patron with a checking account gets the check he or she wrote mailed back to them so that it can appear in their monthly statement.

When we stop to think about it, there is a lot of time, money, and effort invested in getting checks back to their home banks. Checks that are written in one corner of our country today will be trucked and flown to their home bank, wherever they reside, all over the country as a normal part of American commerce, a great expense of time and money. Today, American commerce bears the great expense of time and money associated with shipping checks around the country because it is worth it. Checks are an important commercial instrument that help keep our economy moving.

Today, as a cosponsor of the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act, I am proud to announce the introduction of a new instrument of commerce into the American economy, the substitute check. The substitute check will provide opportunities to greatly decrease the frantic highway and air traffic associated with the gargantuan task of shipping and flying billions of dollars worth of checks around this country every single year.

Thanks to electronic imaging, paper checks have the opportunity to be converted into electronic form, transmitted in seconds to the home bank across the country, and printed out at their final destination as substitute checks.

The bill provides all those institutions that see electronic transfer of commercial paper as the latest wave in modernizing our economic system the opportunity to use substitute checks, but does not require it. That way we all have a chance to ease into the new potential provided by the creation and introduction of substitute checks into the mainstream of commerce.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to reassure customers that the same protections provided today under the Uniform Commercial Code for paper checks would also apply to substitute checks. Additionally, CHECK-21 provides legal indemnification protection to bank customers for losses arising from the receipt of substitute checks.

CHECK-21 is a great bill, Mr. Speaker. I congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) of the Committee on Financial Services, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) of the Committee on Rules, as well as the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), who is the subcommittee chairman that is directing this legislation today, as well as all the original cosponsors of this very important bill.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying legislation.

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

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

The Committee on Rules meets on a regular basis throughout the week, taking important pieces of legislation, hearing debate. It is not unusual for us to be in the Committee on Rules not only at odd hours of the day and night but also to hear hours of testimony from Members of Congress who have important legislation that they wish to bring forward; and I would like to be one member of that committee that stands up and says that I believe that the leadership of the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), our chairman, and his balance and wisdom and his dedication to a fair process is something that I believe sets this Committee on Rules up for success every single day. This bill that is on the floor is yet another example of that success that the chairman and this committee achieve.

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I recall, the debate about this tax bill was all about deficits and all about whether the increase of the debt, the public debt limit was going to be achieved. And what happened is that, as we deliberated about the bill, any motion to instruct conferees from the other party was about those two issues. It was not about the substance of the bill as it related to anything that was contained within or to be talked about by the conferees. But, rather, they were focussed entirely on the debt and the amount of money that would be as a part of bill.

Now we find out that, oh, my gosh, there was a part of this great tax cut that they maybe were for even though they were voting against that. So it is very interesting to hear this debate today.

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

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

This debate has gone very quickly away from the subject that we had at hand, but I would like to remind my colleagues that tax cuts do work. They get money back to people who are able to utilize them, just like the families that are being talked about here.

The fact of the matter is that this fabulous jobs and growth package that was signed by the President last week has already begun to work in the marketplace. It is seen as a catalyst now for people to want to come and invest more money, not only in this country but also for corporations to have an opportunity to begin employing people, an opportunity for the American people to see the opportunity for them to have jobs and more money back in their pockets; and it is amazing how the debate over all these years and even from just about 10 days ago, May 22, when every single tax cut was bad and every single thing that we would do to take money away from our precious government was seen as a threat to national security, and yet, today, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are talking about a tax cut that would be necessary to help out the American people again.

That is why we will stay after this. That is why the Republican Party will continue to not only believe in tax cuts that are great for people but an opportunity to give more money back to people who have earned that money and to help out families and children. This is why we have had as part of the bill the marriage penalty because we do not believe that one spouse that works even part-time should be taxed at the highest rate of the household income.

We are proud of what we are doing, and we are going to keep doing it; and so I am pleased to hear my colleagues talk about the need for tax cuts for all Americans.

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

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

This rule that is before us about check clearing is really something that I think that consumers and the banking community are going to find of interest, and I am sorry that the debate is not on this modernization of the system.

What we are going to do with this wonderful bill that we have before us today is to, once again, prove that an agenda that can move forward problems that are facing the American public, costs that are in its way, inefficiencies in our banking system which is what this bill is about, we are going to solve, be another part of the solution today; and I am very, very proud of not only the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), a bright young Member that we have, and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) for bringing this bill, these ideas forward. But I think it shows that, as we talk about and move forward in this great body, the important aspects of that make a difference in America, just like tax cuts; that the American people will see that this House of Representatives not only works, it provides tax relief.

It provides things in our banking system that will keep modernizing America. It will make sure that we are prepared for the future, and as we go past this bill into other areas, whether it be appropriations or working with intelligence or matters of national security, that this House of Representatives every time brings forth a full debate, not only on the issues but makes sure that time is allocated for even the minority party to stand up and to talk about their frustrations.

I think what we are doing today with this bill makes sense. I think the American people see that this House of Representatives and this administration intends to move forward in a proactive, positive way that all Americans can have not only confidence in their government but also confidence in the free market enterprise system that we are so proud of that produces jobs and keeps our economy going.

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

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

This Republican House has since 1997 made sure that we reduce taxes on people all across the board; and under this new tax cut that we are talking about, a single mother with two children earning $20,000 will receive over $2,000 in payment from the government with no tax liability, no tax liability and $2,000 back. So we really do care about people. We have reduced the tax burden on the American public and will keep doing that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

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

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

Prior to 2001, the child tax credit was $500 for an eligible child. The child tax credit was not refundable for most families. However, for families with three or more eligible children the credit was refundable, to the extent the family had payroll liability that was not offset by the earned income tax credit.

What we have attempted to do, and what was signed into law on May 28, accelerates and increases the child credit. Certainly one has to qualify, but the child credit will increase from $600 per child to $1,000 per child in 2003 and 2004, and in 2005 the credit will revert back to its 2001 act-in phase. That means that what we have done is to move forward very quickly an acceleration, because I believe, and my party believes, and this bill believes that it is the right thing to do.

The bottom line is that due to political constraints there was not as much money. So what we did is we moved forward from $600 to $1,000, but it is only good for 2 tax years. We have a lot of work to do, Mr. Speaker; but I am ready to do that work. I think this body is ready to do that work, and we intend to get it done.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I will allow the minority the opportunity to consume their time, and then I will close.

Mr. Speaker, regular order.

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

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

We are having this debate on the rule for Check-21. It quickly went to child tax credits.

I include for the Record information on this from the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to honor the champion of the 76th annual Scripps Howard National Spelling Bee. 251 spellers advanced to the finals of the National Spelling Bee that were held here in Washington, D.C. during May 28-29.

The champion of the spelling bee is Sai Gunturi, an eighth grader at St. Mark's School of Texas, that is located in Dallas. Sai was challenged throughout the 15th round of competition, and ultimately won the tournament by correctly spelling the word pococurante {pO-kO-kyu- 'ran-tE} (pococurante is defined as caring little or indifferent, nonchalant). Sai was sponsored by The Dallas Morning News and comes from a fine family tradition of spelling excellence, as his sister Nivedita, tied for eighth place in the 1997 National Spelling Bee.

Sai is not just a terrific speller, but also a tremendous asset to the greater St. Mark's school community. He is a community leader and an astounding scholar. My sincere congratulations go out to Sai, his family, and to his teachers and friends at St. Mark's.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about today is extending the debate that took place yesterday in the Committee on Rules on this exact same subject as we were rendering a rule about this debate that would take place today.

I found yesterday, as I find today, that many of the speakers on the other side do not understand that there are three types of late-term abortions. One of those three is called a partial-birth abortion. There are two other procedures.

Today, this bill is about partial-birth abortion. And for anyone to characterize this debate as it is not going to stop another abortion, it is not going to do anything, it is meaningless, that is simply not only untruthful, but it is disregarding the facts that are being placed before our colleagues today.

What we are going to stop is a late-term abortion, and we recognize that there are two other types of late-term abortions that take place. There are some who suggest that as a result of Supreme Court laws and tests, that because those abortions would take place, in essence, in the womb, that they would not be legal.

We, today, my party, this Committee on the Judiciary, this House of Representatives, is debating and will outlaw that which is known as partial-birth abortion.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Congressman Larry Combest for his service to this chamber and to the people of Texas. The 19th Congressional District of Texas has been diligently represented by Congressman Combest for over eighteen years since his initial election to Congress in 1984. Larry's greatest accomplishments came during his reign as Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee. Under the leadership of Chairman Combest, the Agriculture Committee completed years of work in passing the Farm Bill that President George W. Bush signed into law last year.

Prior to being elected to the House of Representatives, Larry was no stranger to Capitol Hill. He served as a legislative assistant to Senator John Tower of Texas from 1971 to 1978.

I've had the privilege of working alongside Larry since I came to this body in 1997. I have come to know Larry to be not only a hard- working colleague, but also a wonderful friend, He and his lovely wife Sharon will be greatly missed around these halls.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the very capable and intelligent staff of Congressman Combest. Among the staff, Congressman Combest's Senior Legislative Assistant, Taylor Bledsoe, will also shortly be leaving the Hill. Taylor has been a great asset to Congressman Combest, and is a good friend. I wish Taylor and his wife Jen all the best for their move back to the Lone Star State.

Larry leaves behind Texas-sized shoes for his successor to fill. I wish Larry and his family well. Thank you Larry for your service to Texas and to the nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to congratulate Taiwan President Chen on his third anniversary in office.

Taiwan and the United States have enjoyed a close relationship with each other for more than 50 years, both economically and politically. I hope that in the very near future we will increase trade opportunities with Taiwan by launching trade negotiations on a free trade agreement with Taiwan. America must let all countries know that we firmly stand behind the Taiwan Relations Act and that we believe that a peaceful solution is the only answer to the so-called Taiwan issue.

I also strongly support Taiwan's democratization at home and its campaign to join international organizations abroad. Taiwan is a strong ally of ours which stood shoulder to shoulder with the United States after 9/11. To Taiwan and President Chen I say, America appreciates your friendship and partnership.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concern about the outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in Taiwan. Despite the World Health Organization's categorization of the disease as ``a worldwide health threat,'' it has refused to help Taiwan during this time of need.

What the WHO has failed to realize is that ``worldwide health threats'' do not remain neatly behind political borders. Taiwan may not yet be a member of the WHO or a recognized independent state by some countries, but that does not make SARS any less of a threat to the Taiwanese people.

This crisis underlines the need for Taiwan to be granted observer status in the WHO, much like their status in the World Trade Organization. Global health risks must be addressed wherever they may occur and regardless of the political environments surrounding them. We should not expose the Taiwanese people to unnecessary health risks simply because their status in some intergovernmental organizations is uncertain.

I urge my colleagues to remain outspoken in their support of Taiwan's bid to gain observer status in the WHO so that dangerous diseases like SARS may be battled wherever they occur.

Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 206 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules met yesterday afternoon and granted a structured rule for H.R. 1350, Improving Education Results for Children With Disabilities Act of 2003. This rule makes a total of 14 amendments in order, including 3 minority and 1 bipartisan amendment. I am very proud of not only the Committee on Rules, but also the Committee on Education and the Workforce for preserving the greatest hallmarks for democracy while setting the stage for today's votes on H.R. 1350. I believe inclusion, deliberation and full participation was achieved in making sure that this important Act is brought forward.

Mr. Speaker, since I want original enactment in 1975, the purpose of IDEA has been to ensure free appropriate education is achieved nationwide for disabled students. When IDEA was first enacted, this was the goal. Today we are here to improve upon the things that we learned since the last IDEA reauthorization in 1997.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, as through IDEA, the Federal Government is, in fact, authorized to cover 40 percent of the costs that schools nationwide spend to educate special needs students. However, the Federal Government today picks up only about 18 percent of the total cost of educating our special needs students and we must do better than that.

The good news this year, Mr. Speaker, is that the budget agreement reached by the House and the Senate this month includes an increase of $2.2 billion for special education in 2004. This unprecedented funding to increase for special education programs means that the Federal share of the special education will be brought up to 21 percent this year. The good work for the Committee on the Budget this year also establishes a clear pattern to reach our State goal of funding fully 40 percent of the total cost of the special needs education within the next 7 years.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the fact that from fiscal year 1996 to fiscal year 2003, overall IDEA funding has increased by nearly 21 percent, from $3.2 billion to $10 billion annually. In fact, the 2003 funding level is more than a 15 percent increase over the 2002 funding level. This is a positive trend and proves that we are serious about attaining our goals and meeting our commitment to special education needs. But there is so much more that this bill does, more than just increasing funding. And I would like to provide some of the major provisions of H.R. 13 where Members of Congress will be able to see that this committee and the committee work that was done not only by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) but also the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) really has made a difference in the life and ongoing life of IDEA.

The underlying bill ensures that State will align their accountability systems for students with disabilities to the No Child Left Behind Act system and requires each child's Individual Education Plan, known as an IEP, to specifically address that child's academic achievement.

H.R. 1350 makes significant changes to the Department of Education's activities on research of special education, establishes a center for special education research within the Institute of Education Science and authorizes the creation of a commissioner for special education research to oversee the Institute's research into special education and related services.

It incorporates elements of the gentleman from Florida's (Mr. Keller) Paperwork Reduction Bill, H.R. 464, including the 3-year individualized education plan known as IEP; it creates a 10-State pilot program that allows State to reduce the IEP paperwork burden on teachers in order to increase instructional time and resources and improves results for disabled students.

For these and so many other reasons, Mr. Speaker, I have ask that you and each of my 434 other colleagues join me in supporting the dream of the greatest realization of our beloved, compassionate and democratic Nation. The realization that we have inherent worth and that here in America we will provide opportunity, love and compassion for every single one of our children.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and with great respect to the gentleman from Massachusetts, I would tell him that I too have received a good number of letters which involve feedback from parents who are concerned about changes in the law; they are concerned about what any IDEA reauthorization would look like.

As a parent of a son, a person who has Downs Syndrome and is affected with the afflictions that come with that syndrome, I can tell my colleagues that I too am concerned about

these things and approached this entire effort with an open mind, instead of saying I do not want any changes. I said, what are the things that we have learned from time; what are the things that we think we can do to get closer to not only better inclusion but to have better results from our children who fall within the IDEA guidelines?

Mr. Speaker, my son, who is 9 years old, and who is in first grade, is making progress. And I see where these things occur. But this committee and this subcommittee, under the leadership of the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), have done things to go in and instead of keeping the status quo, they have gone in and made things dynamic. We are going to be more inclusive, we are going to provide more money, we are going to do those things that will enhance the relationship that a parent has in an IEP, which are these individual times processes that one goes through where they sit down and look at their child and try to map out and plan out a way for them to fully meet their needs and also those educational opportunities that are ahead of them.

After looking at the entire package, not just a piece or a part, I am satisfied; and I believe that what has occurred here is a better bill. Is it perfect? Probably not. But under the current law, there are still parents and still students that suffer needlessly as a result of either people not understanding the law or people not complying completely. That will always be a part of the process. But the advantages of this new bill come about as a result of the intuitive nature of this committee and subcommittee, who wanted to enhance and learn from the past and make it better.

So as a parent of a child who is affected by what this legislation will do, and as an advocate on behalf of this community, I am asking those people who have written in, those people who have called, and I have talked to a good number of them, to allow us an opportunity to speak fully about the entire bill, to put it into context; and I believe that by the end of today, as the smoke has cleared, as we have talked about it, the advantages will be very apparent for not only the parents but also the students that are impacted.

It is ultimately the parents who are put out on the front line in trying to negotiate. Parents are scared and they are worried about this; but if we walk through the things that this bill will do, including providing more funding and more flexibility, they will see where the advantages will be true for each one of them and their children. So I would politely address the concerns that the gentleman from Massachusetts has, because it is a real question that does exist in real parents' minds; and I respect the gentleman for his discussion.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wilmington, Delaware (Mr. Castle), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Education Reform.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) and the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) were at the Committee on Rules last night and spoke eloquently about their desire to ensure the funding levels. There are several issues there, but one of the most important ones was requiring that additional increases in funding above fiscal year 2003 levels be passed down directly to the local level.

There was a very important discussion in the Committee on Rules about Governors and the responsibility they would have as they managed their State budgets. I would like to make sure that the Members of Congress understand this will be part of the debate that takes place today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), a member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire upon the time remaining for both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to let the gentleman know that I would be pleased to have them consume several speakers so that we can get more closely aligned on the time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank several people who have been a part of our success today, not just the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) and the gentleman from Delaware (Chairman Castle), but also from the Committee on Education and Workforce, David Cleary and Sally Lovejoy; from the staff of the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), Sarah Rittling; from the Committee on Rules, Adam Jarvis and Eileen Harley; and from my staff, Bobby Hillert and Tucker Anderson.

Mr. Speaker, this is about a decision that this House is going to make to debate today, IDEA. That is what the vote on the rule is about, are we going to proceed with regular order?

I am in favor of what we are doing. I believe that the clay that we have put in front of us today will be a better model. We will rebuild IDEA and we will make it better than what it is today.

As the parent of a child who will fall under IDEA, I can tell you obviously there are risks involved any time you get into a new circumstance. I am convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that the opportunity that this great body has to make IDEA better for every single student, for the teachers and the administrators who will work underneath these new processes and the students who come into contact with our children, will find that this will be a better way. We have learned from the last 7 years. We will learn on a going-forward basis. It is the right thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, I ask every single one of my colleagues, please support the rule. Let us debate IDEA, and let us get it passed today.

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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 181 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am exceedingly pleased today that we will consider legislation protecting interstate commerce in firearms and ammunition under the direction of a structured rule that allows for a total of five minority party amendments to be made in order.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I call up H. Res. 181 to do my part to ensure that businesses in the United States that are engaged in interstate and foreign commerce through the lawful design, manufacture, marketing, distribution, importation, and sale to the public of firearms or ammunition are not and should not be negligent through lawsuit for the harm caused by those who criminally or unlawfully misuse firearm products or ammunition products that function as they are designed and intended. The people who choose to bring these lawsuits want to hold manufacturers negligent for the criminal abuse of their products, but it is like suing the Louisville Slugger for harm caused by criminals using one of their famous products to unlawfully threaten or harm a third party and not for hitting baseballs, for which that product was intended.

It is my intention today to provide Members with information about this fair and balanced rule and also the underlying legislation that will be on the floor today. This underlying bill must be passed today if we are to beat back the forces who believe that responsible gun ownership is an oxymoron and those who are bent on destroying a citizen's right to firearms for lawful purposes. Lawsuits have been filed nationwide and are pending in our courts today that seek to hold these businesses responsible on a negligence theory for the harm caused by criminals or unlawful use of firearms or ammunition by others, when the product functioned and was designed and was intended to perform and it did, once again, a dangerous and slippery proposition which the underlying bill will prevent.

Guns can be dangerous and deadly when criminals and others who unlawfully use them do so. But then again, so can automobiles, especially when they are used illegally, which I will never condone, and which the underlying bill does not condone or seek to excuse from negligent causes of action. In fact, under the provisions underlined in this bill, H.R. 1036, plaintiffs may still bring negligence causes of action for harm caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of guns or ammunition.

The forces arrayed against this bill today believe that guns have no constructive purpose in American society and believe that all firearms are so inherently dangerous that no level of responsible caution and education could ever render them useful or enjoyable to a law-abiding citizen. It is on this most tenuous, dangerous, and shaky logic that the gun haters have mounted their present flank maneuvering on the second amendment in both our State and Federal courts through these negligence lawsuits. These hostile forces to the second amendment can only be repelled when every single American who believes in the right to keep and bear arms shall be firmly entrenched by passage of this underlying legislation.

I believe today that the House of Representatives is rightly and correctly again invoking its right to regulate interstate commerce in the name of protecting our citizens' constitutional rights, in this case, the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Without it, the myriad lawsuits nationwide advancing a negligence theory for the harm caused by the criminal or unlawful use of firearms or ammunition by others, when the product is functioning as it was designed and intended to do, will form a very real threat, completely halting the movement of these lawful products in interstate commerce. In fact, this is the very intent, what this bill is all about. It is to stop the chilling effect that would stop the design, production, trade and ownership of legal firearms and ammunition in the United States by lawsuits.

Mr. Speaker, I want to wrap up what I have said today by stating that the interstate commerce clause thankfully gives us the power and the right to be here in the House today to protect the Second Amendment from these dangerous attempts by others who would

twist the common law to meet their goal of eroding its protections by flanking maneuvers in State and Federal courts.

I am proud of this legislation that we are on the floor to pass today.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we are continuing the debate today on the floor after we had an opportunity yesterday in the Committee on Rules to talk about this, and the bill is pretty straightforward. It says that a manufacturer of a gun, ammunition or other product that might be used, with the gun working as it was intended, we would hold them harmless; but if a person was illegally or unlawfully using these guns or obtaining these guns under some measure, that they would be held responsible.

The interesting part about this, and there are so many analogies that could be used, but it would be like an automobile, which kills millions of Americans every year. It would be like an automobile that was properly designed,

properly structured, properly placed upon the roadway, and there is not one parent or one person that I know of that has years of experience in using an automobile that would not say to an occupant or to someone who was going to use their car that this could be a dangerous product.

But if we use it properly, then we have no worry about it. But if the manufacturer of that product, the car, manufactured it, designed it or did something that they know they should not have done, and it has happened in the automobile industry, it has happened with side fuel tanks, it has happened with any other number of defective parts of that product, then they would be held liable.

Such is true today also if gun manufacturers do something that is inherently wrong with their product.

But what this bill says is, once that gun or ammunition, just like a car is designed properly, is sold legally and properly under the laws of this country, and if it is utilized properly, that they could not be held liable. Such is true with guns.

The bottom line is that what is true is that the Democrat Party chooses to take this up as an issue because they are antigun. That is what this is about. We see these forces every day. We see them on the street. We see them with the things that they do. This is another way to get in the way of the second amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

So the reasonable legislation that we propose today is one that says that if someone has a legally manufactured product that they obtained legally, and it is used properly within the laws of this country, that a gun manufacturer will be held harmless. It is as simple as it is. I think it makes sense. We support what we are doing here with this underlying legislation.

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

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

The previous speaker just hijacked the intent of this law, and he misled people who are listening in this body today. The fact of the matter is that any gun manufacturer who is negligent for their product by what they produce would be held responsible under this bill, and for any person to assume otherwise means they have not read the bill. They would be incapable of understanding, and they choose not to, they choose not to.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman was allowed his opportunity to speak, and I am sure that the minority has lots of time left.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Speaker's help. Regular order, please.

So, Mr. Speaker, what happens is that anyone who chooses to mislead those people that are in this body today, that they would not be held liable, is simply not true. That is not what this bill is about. The bill that we know and the underlying legislation makes perfect sense, and that is why we are here.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), the original author of this bill. I, as an original cosponsor, am pleased to have him.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules took a lot of time yesterday. We heard a lot of testimony. The gentleman is correct, he did come and approach the Committee on Rules, as well as other Members of this great body.

I think the Committee on Rules, through the leadership of the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), heard the testimony and, in fact, Mr. Speaker, made in order several amendments, five, and two from the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt). That gives him the ability today to have two amendments for a total of 40 minutes. Three others are allowed for a total of 60 minutes, 20 minutes each. I think that is pretty good. I think that does allow debate on the floor of this House, more than almost 2 hours of debate, to talk about these issues.

Best of all, they are going to get their own vote. They are going to get their vote that they asked for up on the board, and every single Member will be here, so they have a chance to tell their story. I think that this process, while it may not always work the way every single Member wants, the Committee on Rules did the right thing.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) from the Committee on Rules.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman makes some points. They are that he felt that these amendments were denied through the process. But the way we operate here is that the Committee on Rules operates in the daylight. We come and tell people when they may file amendments. Either those amendments may or may not have ever seen the light of day in another committee.

This Speaker and this Committee on Rules chairman want to make sure that we are open for business, that we tell people when we will be there; that we have, in my opinion, an appropriate number of people who sit through the hearings, as I have done, as I did in this case again; and responsible people listen to the arguments and the debates about the merits of those things which they wish to have placed in order.

We then hear the deliberation, we hear the debate, and then we go back

and make a decision about it. Then there is a vote. The votes are in the open where everybody can see them happen.

Mr. Speaker, my chairman allows many times more debate than what I probably would think would be reasonable, but he does it. It is a fair and open process. We know what this bill is about. We know where there is disagreement. We know why we are doing this. It is the right thing to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have one additional speaker. Mr. Speaker, what is the time remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I will close after this speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is the very end of the debate about a very, very important commonsense piece of legislation.

The amendments that were before the Committee on Rules would have done a lot of things. I disagree with us having the Federal Government print a list of all the people who have a gun in this country. I think that is dangerous. I think that is dangerous precedent for us as consumers to think that we would purchase a product and then someone would print our name about a product that we buy. But that is what we were asked to do yesterday, and we denied them. We did allow the minority the chance to have its debate on five amendments. That is what is going to take place today.

This legislation is common sense. The process has been open and fair. The Committee on Rules was available yesterday. The Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman, intentionally went out of their way to make sure that we would have a vigorous debate today because we think the light of day is the best disinfectant there is to fairness.

The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), the original sponsor of this bill, the author of this bill, showed up on the floor and offered a hardy debate. We have had others that have done the same. So I think America is free. I think we are using this body for what it was intended, as a sharing of issues and ideas. And most of all I would like to applaud the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), who is the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. The gentleman has been to the Committee on Rules, placed himself available before each and every Member to answer questions. I think that the commonsense legislation that he brings forward at this time with respect to what we are going to do on floor debate is important and good.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that Members would support this bill, this rule, and of course, all the underlying legislation.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the living legend of Emmitt Smith, the NFL's all-time leading rusher. I was among the legions of Dallas Cowboys fans who were saddened to see Emmitt leave the Cowboys after thirteen seasons with America's Team. I would like to take this opportunity to honor this future Hall-of-Famer for both his professional success and for his tireless community service efforts. Emmitt served as the Cowboy's representative to the United Way from 1994-1995 and is the founder of Emmitt Smith Charities, providing educational scholarships to his hometown of Pensacola, Florida,

While Emmitt is only 5'10'' tall, his giving heart is the size of Texas. I was only too happy to be able to watch Emmitt rush for his NFL record of 17,162 yards. When Emmitt was drafted by the Cowboys in the first round of the 1990 NFL Draft, he had left the University of Florida as a junior without his college degree, Today, many pro athletes leave college early without a degree, or don't even go to college and leave high school straight for professional sports. To his credit, Emmitt went back to the University of Florida and received his Bachelor's degree in 1996.

I will miss not being able to see #22 suit up for the silver and blue. However, I wish Emmitt Smith all the best, and sincerely thank him for all that he has done on the field, and off the field for the greater Dallas community.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about bankruptcy today again. We have done this four times. This rule will pass because it is a fair rule. The underlying legislation will pass overwhelmingly because it is great legislation that the American people not only asked for but want. It will help streamline and make better the bankruptcy procedures that are necessary as our courts deal with them, and as people who have gotten into financial trouble deal with the old legislation and find out what a problem it is.

I am proud to be here today to talk about good legislation that is good for the American public, it is good for consumers, and I am very proud of what we are doing.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), a member of the Committee on Rules.

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

The gentleman from Massachusetts has been a very active player in this process for a very long time, and he speaks very forcefully about all these rich people who utilize the schemes within the bankruptcy law, but then the gentleman failed his own test when he spoke about millionaires because he moved the test down to a household of $125,000, not a house that a millionaire or some rich corporate executive that the gentleman speaks about would want to protect, but where the average American lives, where the average American who would have a chance to lose their own house in the event of bankruptcy, and that is the sad part about this, is that this clamoring, this beating of the drum about corporate executives and corporations and how bad they are for America and all these rich fat cats, and then the other party takes it out on the average person, and they want more. They want to make sure that literally any person who would have a bankruptcy could lose their house.

The Republican Party disagrees; I disagree. I think that people who are Americans who get up and go to work and are hard working would find this really despicable, to take a person's home because they got into trouble. But now we say oh, no, down to $125,000, not the millionaire. So once again we learn the Democratic Party philosophy, and that is anybody who has a job or house is not protected. Oh, up to $125,000 is. I wonder who has those kinds of houses? The answer is millions of Americans, and that is what the other side of the aisle is out after on the floor of the House of Representative again today if one engages in bankruptcy.

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

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

The gentleman and I have spoken about this often, as a matter of fact, including in the Committee on the Judiciary. We will still hold on this side of the aisle that if you want to aim at millionaires, then make it to a millionaire level instead of to a middle-class issue, and that is $125,000. I do not get it, and I do not think they do, either. But the American public that loses their home does understand it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules has been the subject of debate today; and the Committee on Rules met last night to talk about this bankruptcy bill, presented a fair, as they always do, rule to be able to discuss and debate this important issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

(Mr. DREIER 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 has been a vigorous debate. We go through this often. There are some nice things I would like to say about two nice gentlemen also. One of them is the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), and the other is the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner).

These gentleman have ably, carefully taken in the views of witnesses, of thoughts and ideas not only about bankruptcy, but have included in that the thought processes of consumers and normal people and bankruptcy judges. These two gentlemen have worked diligently to make sure that this body, the United States Congress, has a chance to have before it not only good legislation, but legislation that is well thought out.

In particular I would like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) for his patience, guidance and leadership to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House, and also the body of the Committee on Rules, because the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) has done an outstanding job in making sure that today we have a great piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, congratulations to the 2002 Calvert High School Trojan six-man football team upon winning Calvert's first Texas State football title in school history!

Team members Herbert Kinney, Darius Smith, Chris Ford, Greg Ford, Sammy Wells, Deuantay Green, Torre Grimes, Joske Bowen, Tijon Green, Brandon Stewart, Brian Ford, Randall Green, Jay Green, Lionel Melton, James Ashley, Tranquille Kinney, Corey Gibson, Mario Smith, and Dekesselar Ford provided a natural well spring of notable Calvert championship athletic talent, the likes of which has not been seen since National Baseball Hall of Fame inductees and half-brothers Rube and Bill Foster.

Head Coach and Trojan alumnus Coylin Grimes provided the unflappable leadership and football know-how necessary to mold this outstanding group of players into an unstoppable force and an unbeaten team (14-0). Upon realizing his team's championship ambitions last December way out in San Angelo, Coach Grimes remarked, ``This feels great. The kids deserved it; the city of Calvert deserved it. It's just a great time to be a Calvert Trojan fan.'' You did it, Coach, and we're all proud of you and your work in guiding this outstanding group of young and talented athletes towards achieving their highest goals for the 2002 football season. The lessons of determination, concentration, and dedication, along with the rewards attending these lessons will not be forgotten, and will be shared by every Trojan athlete and scholar for all time. We also congratulate assistant coach Randy Boley, team managers Kiemon Council, Kasey Burnett, and Javion Council, whose dedication to the success of the 2002 Trojan six-man football team should also be honored.

The Trojans scored all 51 of their points in the final half of 2002 championship play, stunning the Sanderson Eagles who went into the locker room at the half up 32-0. The 4,000 football fans on hand at San Angelo's Bobcat Stadium were treated to a 50-yard score on the Trojan's final possession of the game by playmaker Darius Smith. Darius, who finished the game with 206 yards rushing, 88 yards receiving, and five touchdowns, caught a short pass on a flare route, broke two tackles, and took the ball over the goal line with less than a minute remaining in regulation to bring the Championship home to Calvert, 51-46. Congratulations to the Calvert High School football team and to their fans, friends and families in Calvert, Texas and throughout the country!

Mr. Speaker, in the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Congress clarified that all injuries allegedly related to an ingredient in a vaccine should be heard under the quick and inexpensive, no fault Vaccine Injury Compensation Program established in 1986. Though this was a simple clarification of existing law, some people cried foul. They claimed these provisions were inserted into the bill as a favor to pharmaceutical companies and that they would somehow take away the rights of unfortunate people who have experienced an injury. In fact, it did no such thing.

The vaccine ingredient provisions in the Homeland Security Act reaffirmed Congressional intent of the Vaccine Program's jurisdiction over all claims of vaccine related injuries, and that preservatives contained in vaccines were not subject to some special exception to the program. It did not change the state of the law, but ensured that those experiencing injuries from vaccine ingredients were not given false hope or having their time wasted having their lawsuit dismissed by the court for not going through the Vaccine Program.

The controversy surrounding these provisions is over the process by which they were adopted, not the language itself Their repeal would not change the law in any way; as courts have correctly decided, injuries allegedly resulting from ingredients in vaccines fall under the Vaccine Program. Furthermore, the lack of these provisions may add uncertainty in the vaccine market and higher insurance rates for vaccine manufacturers something that our nation attempted to avoid in 1986 and may be even more important in today's environment. Nevertheless, repealing the provisions will remove the cloud cast over their benefit. If this language is repealed, Congress should reintroduce the provisions in another separate measure so that we may have more debate on the actual language and the public can be assured of the need for this clarification of the law.

Mr. Speaker, President Bush this week announced plans to make sure that in the tax proposals that this Congress will address that as part of that tax package we will not tax dividends, and I want to stand up and say how proud I am of what the President is doing because it is furthering the commitment that I believe this House of Representatives should have as well as the President to where we do not tax savings or investment in America.

I believe as the vigorous debate takes place across this country and in this body we will find out that this will be good for people who will be able to save money, save money, and not have it taxed in between that period of time every year for tax purposes but will see their savings grow. I am proud of what this President is doing. I plan to support not only his tax bill but the things the President does, and I offer a hearty congratulations to the President of the United States, George W. Bush.