Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 235, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 22) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that American small businesses are entitled to a Small Business Bill of Rights, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, the goal of the Small Business Bill of Rights is to provide a blueprint for Congress to help small business employers create more jobs. A job is the best social program in the world. It provides income, health insurance, and dignity.

Significantly, 70 percent of all new jobs in the United States are created by small business people. In light of the fact that small business employers are the engine that drive this economy, I decided to meet with 20 very successful small business people in Orlando, Florida, to learn firsthand what, if anything, Congress could do to help small business employers create even more jobs.

I learned a lot by sitting down and listening to small business people. First, I learned that the number one issue facing small business people today is the skyrocketing cost of health insurance. In fact, a growing number of small businesses today are not able to provide health insurance to their employees, primarily because of the surging cost. Of the 45 million Americans without health insurance, 60 percent are small business employees and their families.

Right now, small businesses are unable to achieve the bargaining power of large corporations when negotiating with insurance companies to obtain affordable health insurance for their employees. The premiums that small businesses pay are typically 20 to 30 percent higher than those of large companies.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, small businesses that obtain insurance from association health plans can save up to 25 percent.

These small business people told me that they needed the right to be able to join together to purchase affordable health insurance for their employees so their workers have the opportunity to get the same health care benefits now reserved for those employees of Fortune 500 companies.

The second thing I learned is that many of these small businesses are family owned. Unfortunately, the death tax causes one-third of all family-owned businesses to liquidate after the death of the owner. If Congress does not undertake any meaningful reforms of the death tax laws, then small businesses will go back to paying up to 55 percent in tax rates in the year 2011. Unfortunately, the only small family-owned business in America that knows for sure whether they will die in the year 2010 is the Sopranos.

Understandably, these small business people want the right to tax laws that allow family-owned small business people to survive over several generations and offer them incentives to grow.

The third thing I learned is that frivolous lawsuits and the rising cost of liability insurance represent a very serious threat to small business owners. Unlike large, multinational corporations, small business owners do not have the resources to defend themselves against frivolous litigation and are often forced, for business reasons, to settle a claim for $5,000 to $10,000 rather than pay a defense attorney $100,000 to successfully defend them in court.

Finally, I learned that burdensome regulations and paperwork cost small business more than $5,500 per employee, and these small business owners understandably want the right to be free of unnecessary, restrictive regulations and paperwork which end up wasting their time and energy and prevent them from creating additional jobs.

After listening to the challenges and solutions proposed by various small business people, I worked with some of my Democrat colleagues to craft a Small Business Bill of Rights.

I want to particularly thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer) for being an original cosponsor of H. Res. 22.

Now, we had a hearing on the Small Business Bill of Rights last month. At that hearing, witnesses from NFIB and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce testified that the four issues identified in the Small Business Bill of Rights were in fact the top four issues affecting small businesses in the United States today, according to the surveys of their members.

After the hearing, we added language relating to the importance of lower energy costs, increasing access to capital, and opening access to government contracts for small business. To my left here is a chart which shows the Small Business Bill of Rights.

Number one. The right to join together to purchase affordable health insurance for small business employees, who make up a large portion of the millions of Americans without health insurance.

Number two. The right to simplify tax laws that allow family-owned small businesses to survive over several generations, and offer them incentives to grow.

Number three. The right to be free from frivolous lawsuits, which harm law-abiding small businesses and prevent them creating new jobs.

Number four. The right to be free of unnecessary restrictive regulations and paperwork which waste the time and energy of small business people.

Number five. The right to relief from high energy costs, which pose a real threat to the survival of small businesses.

Number six. The right to equal treatment as compared with large businesses when seeking access to start-up and expansion capital and credit.

Number seven. The right to open access to the government procurement marketplace through the breaking up of large contracts to give small business owners a fair opportunity to compete for Federal contracts.

Now, if someone is not in favor of the Small Business Bill of Rights, if they would be voting ``no'' on this, then what would they be voting in favor of? In favor of higher health insurance costs, higher taxes, more frivolous lawsuits, more paperwork and regulations, higher energy costs, more obstacles to getting capital, more obstacles to getting Federal contracts for small business people?

In fact, the Small Business Bill of Rights, as you might imagine, passed the Committee on Small Business on a voice vote. Not a single Republican or Democrat member voiced opposition to this. There is nothing here at any time that any Republican or Democrat during the markup process or the Committee on Rules or anywhere else sought to remove. There is no controversy that has been articulated so far about these seven things.

To the extent people may have criticisms, it is criticism of what is not on here. Some folks wish that there were a couple of things that were added that were not here. I can tell you that when I met with small business people, various of them told me different items that were not on here. But when I interviewed 20 people and then had testimony from the witnesses of large organizations, I tried to put together the top-tier issues that affect people across the board in the United States. And while some issues may affect this person or that person, these are the top-tier issues.

Now, it does not list every issue in the world affecting small business people. This is merely a blueprint. If I put every single issue affecting small business people, all people, then what we would probably have is something that is as thick as a phone book. But what we have here are some consensus noncontroversial items, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' in favor of H. Res. 22.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to briefly address some of the items raised by the gentlewoman from New York. This bill, House Resolution 22, is what it says it is, a blueprint for Congress to follow; that, if followed, will help small businesses create additional jobs. She says, well, it is not enough just to have a blueprint, we should do something about some of these things; and why has this Congress not done anything about it?

I had to smile when hearing that, and I will give three examples of why. The very first thing in the Small Business Bill of Rights says the right to join together to purchase affordable health insurance for small business employees. Now, I happen to be a cosponsor of that legislation, the Association Health Plans, as is the gentlewoman who uttered that statement. And, in fact, Congress has just acted on that bill on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, on which I serve, and we will be bringing that bill up to the floor for a vote in the future where it will surely pass the House of Representatives. I recently met with President Bush about that issue and asked him to help push this issue in the Senate.

The second issue mentioned in the Small Business Bill of Rights is the right to simplify tax laws that allow family-owned small businesses to survive over several generations and offer them incentives to grow. Why have we not done anything about that? In fact, just last week we passed a law repealing the death tax. In fact, I cosponsored that legislation.

The third issue was the right to be free from frivolous lawsuits which harm law-abiding small businesses and prevent them creating new jobs. In fact, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) has filed legislation called the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act, which I have cosponsored, which says we will have mandatory sanctions for frivolous lawsuits, and three strikes and you are out for those attorneys who file frivolous lawsuits. This is not really a Republican issue, but as well as having support of people like myself, it had the support of Senator John Edwards and Senator John Kerry on the campaign trail, who said we should have tough sanctions and a three-strikes-and-you-are-out penalty. That is legislation that passed the House last time and we will surely seek to pass it this time.

So, Mr. Speaker, we have laid out the blueprint here and then said we are creating order out of chaos. Of all the different myriad issues, these are the top-tier issues, and now we must take action to pass these pieces of legislation. And in fact this Congress is committed to doing that and has already done that in the three instances I have talked about.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to insert for the Record a copy of the exchange of letters between the chairman of the Committee on Small Business, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo); the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas); and the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) regarding H. Res. 22.

And I will also insert into the Record a statement by the chairman of the Committee on Small Business, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

House of Representatives,

Committee on Ways and Means,

Washington, DC, April 26, 2005.

Hon. Donald A. Manzullo,

Chairman, Committee on Small Business,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Manzullo: I am writing concerning H. Res. 22,

a resolution ``[e]xpressing the sense of the House of

Representatives that American small businesses are entitled

to a Small Business Bill of Rights,'' which was reported by

the Committee on Small Business on Thursday, April 21, 2005.

As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has

jurisdiction over the Internal Revenue Code. The second

resolution clause referring to the ``right'' afforded to

small businesses to simplified tax laws would require changes

to the Internal Revenue Code, and thus clearly falls within

the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. However,

the Committee will not take action on this particular

resolution. This is being done with the understanding that it

does not in any way prejudice the Committee with respect to

the appointment of conferees or its jurisdictional

prerogatives on this or similar legislation.

I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming

this understanding with respect to H. Res. 22, and would ask

that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be

included in the Congressional Record during floor

consideration.

Best regards,

Bill Thomas,

Chairman.

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

Mr. Speaker, I recognize how important access to capital is to America's small businesses. That is why we listened to small business owners when they testified here last month and included language in this bill emphasizing the importance of capital and credit to small business growth. I am very happy that the 7(a) program, referenced by the gentleman, is not only thriving but that it is self-sufficient, operating at a zero subsidy and saving American taxpayers millions of dollars.

With the passage of the Small Business Bill of Rights, we will be emphasizing Congress' commitment to access to capital for small businesses.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, again I have to smile listening to the gentleman's comments because he said this is a bill of platitudes that is a partisan Republican agenda, and then he turns around and

said that he proudly supports association health plans, along with the ranking member, and we need action on them. I think that is a bit inconsistent, although I will agree with the gentleman, association health plans are very important. I think it is fair to say that they will pass overwhelmingly in the House. We want to make that a priority. I think it is fair to say the Senate has not taken them up, should have taken them up, and darn well better take them up and finally pass them this term. I think we want to send a strong message that the House considers this a top priority of small businesses.

With respect to the other issues, certainly we want to focus on the top-tier issues, such as repealing the death tax, and not just a platitude. We want it to pass and we took action last week, and it is going to come back in the form of a conference report. We want the small business community to be on record as saying that we think that is important that we finally repeal the death tax once and for all.

With respect to frivolous lawsuits and liability concerns, we will have an opportunity to address that this Congress. We want this country to know we are listening to small business people when they say that they are concerned about frivolous lawsuits and there should be some sanctions. So we have simply taken many, many issues, identified them in this blueprint by saying these are the top-tier issues that the NFIB says are the top issues to their members, the Chamber of Commerce says, and the regular people that I have interviewed say, and say, we hear you, we know you want action, and we are identifying these top priorities, and we intend to take action on those top priorities.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) just urged a ``no'' vote. Now what does that mean: A Member is not for the things that we have here in the bill of rights, seven things that no person at any time on the Committee on Small Business has ever moved to strike, and we are voting on this Small Business Bill of Rights. We are not voting on what is not here; we are voting on what is in front of us.

I want to be very clear to Members who are heeding this gentleman's advice that they should vote ``no.'' If a Member votes ``no'' on what we are advocating, you are voting ``yes'' for higher health insurance costs, ``yes'' for higher death taxes, ``yes'' for more frivolous lawsuits, ``yes'' for more paperwork, ``yes'' for higher energy costs, ``yes'' for more obstacles to getting capital, and ``yes'' for more obstacles for getting contracts from the Federal Government for small businesses.

I believe the appropriate vote here is a ``yes'' vote to send a message to the small business people in this country that we appreciate the fact that they are creating 70 percent of all the new jobs in this country. We hear their concerns. We want to help them. We have listened to their top priorities; and by golly, we are going to work to pass each and every one of these items in this Congress.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) had the opportunity to read the bill. She said it does not say anything about access to capital or contract bundling. In reality, it specifically says small businesses shall have the right to equal treatment as compared to large businesses when seeking access to start- up and expansion capital and credit. It says small businesses should have the right to open access to the government procurement marketplace through the breaking up of large contracts to give small business owners a fair opportunity to compete for Federal contracts.

We specifically added those provisions knowing that they were of concern to the minority members on the Committee on Small Business.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly respect the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) and appreciate the gentleman agreeing with at least some of the positions in here, although the gentleman's position is somewhat interesting to me because on the one hand he is demanding that certain items be included that are not included, and on the other hand he says the resolution is meaningless.

So if in reality the resolution is meaningless, then why is it so key to him to have those things included?

The second thing he mentioned is we must not care about minority- or women-owned businesses. There is not one single thing in the Small Business Bill of Rights that says anything bad about women or minority businesses. I have not heard from any colleague any ill feelings to any women or minority businesses. There is language talking about equal access to capital and government contracts.

His saying next, I believe, we must not have talked to any folks representing minority-owned businesses, in reality we had testimony from the Chamber of Commerce at this hearing which said they represent 3 million businesses, testimony from NFIB representing 600,000 small businesses, small business owners, white, black, Hispanic and others; and they gave us their top four issues as surveyed by their own members as association health plans, repealing the death tax, cracking down on frivolous lawsuits, and reducing paperwork. So these were the top-tier issues of these organizations, which do include small businesses.

I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, with respect to what was considered by the committee, the committee, minority members included, got a full hearing. Everybody got to ask questions twice. They then had three provisions added to the original Small Business Bill of Rights by me through substitute amendments, and then they got a vote on four of their six amendments before time expired. No, there was not a vote on the 8(a) program. There is nothing in here that says 8(a) is bad or good.

I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, and certainly she can get her own time to respond, but, no, there was a lady who was invited to testify before the committee representing herself. She certainly did not represent 100 percent of all minorities in the country. She did not pretend to represent any minorities other than herself.

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

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

I will respond to the comments of the gentlewoman from California. Mr. Speaker, no one, no one, at the hearing of this resolution, either submitted written testimony or spoke about the Small Business Administration's microloan program. That is not to say that the program is unimportant. The Committee on Small Business has argued against eliminating the microloan program in the past. However, the main purpose of this resolution is to include only those issues that affect a broad cross-section of all small businesses. The microloan program serves a small niche marketplace. Access to capital issues are already addressed in the Small Business Bill of Rights. We specifically say small businesses should be entitled to the right to equal treatment as compared to large businesses when seeking access to startup and expansion capital and credit.

Again, this is an example of someone criticizing the resolution not for what it says. They do not disagree with what it says. It is something that is not even there in it, and it confounds me a little bit. And I have to tell my colleagues when I interviewed various businessmen, they had a lot of ideas that they thought should be included and focused on in Congress that, frankly, I did not include in this resolution, even though I like them and they are sincere and it is important to them, because it was not a top-tier issue. It did not affect a broad cross-section of people. It was not a consensus noncontroversial issue.

Just to give one example, one of the businessmen I interviewed was Mr. Bruce O'Donohue, who installs traffic lights. He says the biggest frustration as a small business person is getting reimbursed from the local, State, and Federal Government when they install traffic lights. It has a big impact on a small business guy to do work and then wait 4 or 5 months to get paid much more than it does a Fortune 500 company. I am sure for him this is more important than death tax laws and association health plans and frivolous lawsuits, and I do not doubt the sincerity. But I did not include it because it was the only time I heard it. It did not come up in the hearing. It was not a broad consensus issue.

So I could have made this piece of legislation as thick as a phone book and included everything in the world, but then nothing would ever get done. Instead, we decided to go with a blueprint of the top-tier issues that essentially says to Congress these are important; and if we do nothing else, let us at least achieve these top priorities.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, just to respond to one allegation by the gentlewoman which essentially was that Republicans have been in power for a while and have done nothing to help small businesses with respect to tax relief. I would dispute that pretty vigorously, and I do not need to look for too many examples of that.

When I was elected to Congress in the year 2000, small businesses, most of which are subchapter S pass-through entities, were paying a tax rate of 40 percent. On the other hand, the Fortune 500 corporations were paying a corporate tax rate of 35 percent. President Bush thought that was unfair, and we passed President Bush's tax relief initiative and brought small businesses from 40 percent down to 35 percent. We have seen 2 million new jobs created in the past year in large part because of that tax policy, and, in fact, 70 percent of those new jobs were created by small business people.

He also thought it was important that people have incentives to invest, so he asked us and we complied, and we lowered the capital gains tax from 20 percent down to 15 percent. We have had extraordinary tax growth. So I think the President has taken the lead with respect to tax relief, and the Congress has agreed with him, and we have had some pretty good success with that.

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

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

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

Again, I respect the comments and enthusiasm of the gentleman from Illinois, and I wish I had his wonderful voice, by the way; maybe I would be more persuasive.

We hear criticisms that, well, this is just a blueprint, we need action. And then it is criticized because it does not have a thing or two that they want in there. So if it is, in fact, a meaningless blueprint and does not in fact do what I say it does, and that is provide a blueprint of action for this Congress, why are they so desperately trying to get their provisions in here?

I have to tell my colleagues that there are some folks who do not agree with their characterization that this is not important. The NFIB, which represents 600,000 small businesses, sent out a letter yesterday to every Member of Congress, please vote for the Keller Small Business Bill of Rights. This is important to us to have this blueprint.

The Chamber of Commerce sent out a letter on April 25, 2 days ago, which represents 3 million people, asking each Member of Congress, please vote for this Small Business Bill of Rights. This is a blueprint that is critical to have on the record so that this Congress will follow it.

I believe that we do need to have action after this. I believe that the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) was smart and right to cosponsor the Association Health Plans. I share her criticism as to why the Senate has not acted, but we are going to act on this, and we are going to demand they act.

She inquired of me earlier, well, you, and I assume she meant my party, control the White House and the Senate; why do you not do something and get the President to act? I have to share with my colleagues that on March 18, just a little while ago, I had the happy privilege of flying down to my home district of Orlando with President Bush on Air Force One and he invited me up to his cabin there where his mom, Barbara Bush was, and I got the chance to chat with them, just he and I and Senator Martinez, for an hour. He said, if you could have me do anything, what would you want me to do? I said, sir, I want you to use your bully pulpit to help us pass association health plans in the Senate. He said he supports it and he would agree to do that.

So I do not know what more I can do, other than asking the Commander in Chief, one on one, and getting his commitment that he is going to push for that. But I have tried. I wish I were a dictator for a day sometimes, because if I was, we would have association health plans.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, let us talk a little bit about this Small Business Bill of Rights and whether or not it accurately represents small business people. When I was assigned to the Small Business Committee, before accepting my Chair there, I decided to personally go interview small business people in my district.

I did not pretend to have any idea as to what their top issues were. I just knew that they were creating 70 percent of all new jobs in this country; and I wanted to see what, if anything, I and other Members of Congress could do to help them. I went into those meetings with an open mind. I then came out learning that the skyrocketing health insurance was the number one issue, and they wanted association health plans.

I learned their number two issue was small family-owned businesses wanting to pass the businesses from one generation to the next under some reformed death tax laws. Right now what we have was unacceptable.

I have learned that they had concerns about frivolous lawsuits, and their liability premiums were going up, and that it was hard for them to defend a case in court, even if they were not at fault, because attorneys are so expensive, and so they would rather pay 10 grand to settle a case where they did nothing wrong rather than pay $100,000.

I also learned that they were spending about $5,500 per employee on unnecessary paperwork and regulations. I learned from these meetings that, in fact, those were not only the top four issues, but in about that order.

And then later, when the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) said that she wanted to have a hearing on this matter, we had the majority and minority call witnesses. And I did not know what these witnesses were going to say at that hearing.

But when we got to the hearing, we had the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which does represent 3 million businesses, and not just the 20 I spoke of, say that, in fact, according to the polls of those members, those four issues that consistently came up in my district of Orlando were the top four issues in the country facing small businesses.

We then had a gentleman testify on behalf of NFIB named Jerry Pierce. And he testified those were the top four issues according to him and NFIB. And so, in fact, we had isolated the top four issues affecting small businesses, and they rightfully deserve to be there.

So we put together this Small Business Bill of Rights; did not do it alone, sat down and talked with a Democrat colleague of mine who is the original cosponsor of this, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer), and put together what we thought were the top four issues.

We then had a hearing. And the minority said, well, there are some other issues that are also important dealing

with energy costs and access to capital and contract bundling. We put those there as well.

And so we came up with this Small Business Bill of Rights, not by accident or witchcraft or consulting some psychic. We came up with these issues by talking directly to business people out in the field, in congressional hearings, and listening to what they said in their surveys. And we came up with a pretty good bill that almost everyone, Republican and Democrat, should support.

Now, there is a reason not to support this; and I will tell you, in the interest of straight talk. If you disagree with what this says, and you believe there should be higher health insurance, then do not support it. If you think there should be more taxes, then do not support it. If you think we should have more frivolous lawsuits, do not support it. If you want more red tape and paperwork, do not support it. If you want higher energy costs, do not support it. If you want more obstacles to getting contracts, do not support it. If you want it to be harder to get access to capital, do not support it. But if you are a small business person and you represent small business people, realize that this Small Business Bill of Rights represents what they tell us they want Congress to do.

During this week, National Small Business Week, let us send a message to small business people: we hear you, we have a resolution listing these as the blueprint for our priorities in Congress, and we are going to vote ``yes'' to send a message that we are going to get these things done, if nothing else.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``yes'' on H. Res. 22 and vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 22.

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

Mr. Speaker, the death tax kills small family-owned businesses, it makes financial planning nearly impossible, and it is an unfair form of double taxation.

The death tax is itself the leading cause of death for over one-third of all small, family-owned businesses who cannot afford to pay a death tax rate of up to 55 percent in order to keep the family business alive. Under current law, there will be no death tax owed in the year 2010, but, in 2011, death taxes go up to 55 percent. Unfortunately, the only family-owned business in America who knows whether someone will die in the year 2010 is the Sopranos. The rest of us have to spend thousands of dollars each year on accountants, lawyers, and financial planners to make sure our family-owned business survives.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote yes to completely repeal the death tax once and for all.

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

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that class action reform is badly needed. Currently, crafty lawyers are able to game the system by filing large, nationwide class action suits in certain preferred State courts such as Madison County, Illinois, where judges are quick to certify classes and quick to approve settlements that give the lawyers millions of dollars in fees and give the clients worthless coupons.

Let us take a look at Madison County, Illinois with this chart. Madison County, Illinois has been called the number one judicial hellhole in the United States. In 2002 we can see there were 77 class action filings, and in 2003 there were 106 class action lawsuits filed. The movie ``Bridges of Madison County'' was a love story. The ``Judges of Madison County'' would be a horror flick.

Unfortunately, all too often it is the lawyer who drives these cases and not the individuals who are supposedly hurt. For example, in a suit against Blockbuster over late fees, the attorneys received for themselves $9.25 million, while their clients got a $1-off discount coupon. Similarly, in a lawsuit against the company who makes Cheerios, the lawyers received $2 million for themselves; predictably their clients received a coupon for a box of Cheerios.

In a nutshell, these out-of-control class action lawsuits are killing jobs, they are hurting small business people who cannot afford to defend themselves, they are hurting consumers who end up paying higher prices for goods and services.

This legislation provides much-needed reform in two key areas. First, it eliminates much of the forum shopping by requiring most of these nationwide class action suits to be filed in federal court. And, second, it cracks down on these coupon-based class action settlements by requiring fee awards to be based on the number of coupons actually redeemed or the number of hours actually billed.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this class action reform legislation. It is about common sense, it is about justice, and it is about time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of both the rule and the underlying class-action reform legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that class-action reform is badly needed. Currently, certain crafty lawyers are able to game the system by filing large, nationwide class-action suits in certain preferred State courts such as Madison County, Illinois, where judges are quick to certify classes and quick to approve settlements that give millions of dollars to attorneys and only worthless coupons to their clients.

Looking at this chart, for example, we can see the history of Madison County, Illinois, which has been called the number one judicial hellhole in the United States. There were 77 class-action filings in 2002, and 106 class-action lawsuits filed in 2003. Now, the movie Bridges of Madison County was a love story. ``The Judges of Madison County'' would be a horror flick.

Unfortunately, all too often, it is the lawyers who drive these class-action suits and not the individuals who allegedly have been injured. For example, in a suit against Blockbuster over late fees, the attorneys received $9.25 million; their clients got a $1 off coupon for their next video rental. Similarly, in a lawsuit against the company that makes Cheerios, the attorneys received $2 million for themselves, while their clients received a coupon for a free box of Cheerios. In a nutshell, these out-of-control class-action lawsuits are killing jobs, they are hurting small business people who cannot afford to defend

themselves, and they are hurting consumers who have to pay a higher price for goods and services.

Fortunately, this legislation provides much-needed reform in 2 key areas. First, it eliminates much of the forum shopping by requiring that most of the nationwide class-action suits be filed in Federal court. Second, it cracks down on these coupon-based class-action settlements by requiring that attorney fee awards be based on either the value of the coupons actually redeemed, or by the hours actually billed by the attorney prosecuting the case.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation will and should comfortably pass the House of Representatives. Last week, this exact bill received 72 votes in the U.S. Senate, and last year we passed a similar bill with 253 votes. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the bill and vote yes on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding. Our colleagues in Congress owe the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) a great debt of gratitude for successfully and persistently pursuing this legislation for a great number of years, and tomorrow he will finally put the ball in the end zone, and he is to be congratulated.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this class-action reform legislation.

The bottom line is that class-action reform is badly needed. Currently, crafty lawyers are able to game the system by filing large, nationwide class-action suits in certain preferred State courts like Madison County, Illinois, where judges are quick to certify class actions and quick to approve settlements which reward attorneys with millions of dollars but give their clients worthless coupons.

Speaking of Madison County, let us look at this chart here, and as we can see, Madison County, Illinois, which by the way has been called the number one judicial hellhole in the United States, there were 77 class- action lawsuits filed in 2002 and 106 class-action lawsuits filed in 2003. Now, the movie ``Bridges of Madison County'' was a love story. The ``Judges of Madison County'' would be a horror flick.

Unfortunately, all too often it is the lawyers who drive these cases and not the individuals who are allegedly injured. For example, in a suit against Blockbuster for late fees, the attorneys received $9.25 million for themselves while their clients got a coupon for a $1 discount on their next video rental.

Similarly, in a lawsuit against the company who makes Cheerios, the attorneys received $2 million for themselves, while the plaintiffs received a coupon for a free box of Cheerios.

In a nutshell, these out of control class-action lawsuits are killing jobs, hurting small business people who cannot afford to defend themselves and hurting consumers who have to pay a larger amount for goods and services.

This legislation provides much-needed reform in two key areas. First, it eliminates much of the forum shopping by requiring that most of these nationwide class-action claims be filed in Federal court.

Second, it cracks down on these coupon-based, class-action settlements by requiring that attorney-fee awards be based either on the value of the coupons actually redeemed or by the hours actually billed by the attorney in prosecuting the case.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation should comfortably pass the U.S. House of

Representatives tomorrow. Last week, this exact bill received 72 votes, broad bipartisan support, in the U.S. Senate, and last year we passed a very similar class-action reform bill in the U.S. House with 253 votes.

I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this class-action reform legislation. It is about justice. It is about common sense and it is about time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favor of a part of President Bush's budget that receives no fanfare or publicity, and that is Pell grants.

Pell grants are dollars we give to children from low- and moderate- income families to help them go to college. I personally would not have been able to go to college without Pell grants, and I serve as chairman of the Congressional Pell Grant Caucus.

When I was elected to Congress in 2000, I made increasing Pell grant funding my top priority, and with this budget, President Bush has done his part, too.

Looking at this chart, let us compare the funding situation in 2000 to the new budget proposal. Overall funding has increased 137 percent. Maximum Pell grant awards are up from $3,300 to $4,150, and an additional 1.6 million students are now able to go to college.

Mr. Speaker, Pell grants are truly the passport out of poverty for so many worthy young people, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this budget.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order at this time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in favor of a part of President Bush's budget that receives no fanfare or publicity, and that is Pell grants. Pell grants are dollars that we give to children from low- and moderate-income families to help them go to college. I personally would not have been able to go to college without Pell grants, and I serve as chairman of the Congressional Pell Grant Caucus.

When I was elected to Congress in 2000, I made increasing Pell grant funding my top priority, and with this budget, President Bush has done his part, too.

Now, I have heard some people complain that maybe the President and Congress are not doing enough to increase Pell grants, so I am here today to provide a little straight talk regarding Pell grant funding.

Let us begin by comparing funding situations in 2000 with the President's current budget proposal. As Members can see, we have increased Pell grant funding overall by 137 percent since the year 2000 from $7.6 billion to $18 billion. We have also increased the individual awards from $3,300 to $4,150 with an extra $1,000 for those smart kids who qualify under the Pell Grant Plus Program by taking rigorous courses. And we also have an additional 1.6 million students who are now eligible for Pell grants, an increase of 41 percent.

Some say that maybe we should be doing even more than this. Well, let us compare the history. Over the past 20 years, we have had Pell grants, demonstrated here based on the Democratic-controlled Congress in yellow from 1986 to 1995, and the Republican Congress afterwards. As Members can see before Republican control of Congress, the Pell grant level remained flat at or around $2,300, and increased dramatically up to $4,150 today, with an extra $1,000 for those who qualify for the Pell Grant Plus Program.

Some say, why just a $100 increase for students, why not more? Well, for every $100, it costs the taxpayers $400 billion to pay for it. We also have the especially large challenge of having the largest number of high school graduates in history, and it is going up and up and up until the year 2008, and then it will decline.

The third challenge is we face a Pell grant deficit of $4.3 billion that made these increases hard. President Bush's budget pays that Pell grant deficit off.

The final chart I would like to show is showing the overall Pell grant funding for the past 10 years. As Members can see, in 1996 Pell grants were funded at $4.9 billion. Under this budget just announced by the President, Pell grants are funded at almost $18 billion. In other words, we have more than tripled funding for Pell grants over the past 10 years.

Members will also note that the amount we spent last year, $12.4 billion, has been increased 45 percent to $18 billion, the largest increase in any domestic program.

As we look to the future, the President's budget indicates that we are going to raise Pell grants by $500 over a 5-year period, and an additional $1,000 will be funded through the Pell Grant Plus Act, legislation I filed, and which President Bush's budget fully funds.

Mr. Speaker, Pell grants are truly the passport out of poverty for so many worthy young people. Not only is increasing Pell grants the right think to do for young people, to help low-income college kids fulfill their American Dream; it is the right thing to do for the Treasury. By investing $13 billion in Pell grants, it helps generate over $85 billion a year in additional revenue because the average college graduate makes 75 percent more than the average high school graduate.

Mr. Speaker, I hope our colleagues on both sides of the aisle will understand and appreciate our efforts to increase funding for Pell grants and will vote ``yes'' on this budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a wise saying we have used in Florida over the past 4 years that the other side would be wise to learn: ``Get over it.''

Is it not ironic that the very people who refuse to move on are the people from Moveon.org and their hero Michael Moore?

There's a wise saying we've used quite a bit in Florida over the past 4 years that the other side would do well to learn--Get over it. Isn't it ironic that the only people who refuse to ``move on'', are the people from ``move on.org'', and their hero Michael Moore?

My colleagues across the aisle have two sides to choose from, the John Kerry side that acknowledges the election is over and President Bush has won. Or the Michael Moore side that defines ``democracy'' as Democrats going to the polls, and ``conspiracy'' as Republicans going to the polls.

The election is over and the results couldn't be clearer. We know that President Bush won the electoral vote by 286 to 252. We know that President Bush won the popular vote by 3.3 million votes. We know that President Bush won Ohio by more than 118,000 votes, an overwhelmingly comfortable margin. We know that in every area of Ohio, bipartisan county boards have verified and vouched for the integrity of the Ohio election results.

Why are we here wasting time on silly Hollywood inspired conspiracy theories?

Well, since Hollywood likes conspiracies so much, here's a real one. On June 23, 2004, the Michael Moore movie ``Fahrenheit 911'' premiered in Washington, DC. According to U.S. News and World Report, New York Times, and National Journal, one of the few Senators who attended this premier was Senator Barbara Boxer. In this movie, Mr. Moore said it was shameful that not one U.S. Senator objected to the electoral vote count in Florida. Two days ago, on January 4, 2005, the same Michael Moore published a new letter to Senator Boxer and other Senators reminding them that they didn't object to the electoral vote count 4 years ago, and requested that they rise and object to the vote count from Ohio today. Today, in fact, Senator Barbara Boxer just objected to the Ohio vote count.

Is this all merely a coincidence? Is this pandering to the Michael Moore wing of the Democratic Party? Is it worth wasting 2 hours of Congress' time? The only bigger waste of 2 hours would be to go see ``Fahrenheit 911.''

Do the people in the Michael Moore wing of the Democrat Party really think that the American people and their congressional representatives, are so stupid that they could be tricked into objecting to these electoral results? Well, the answer is ``yes.''

Michael Moore told a British newspaper ``Americans are possibly the dumbest people on the planet . . . We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don't know about anything that's happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing.''

In Germany, Mr. Moore told the German people ``You can see us (Americans) coming down the street . . . We've got that big grin on our face all the time because our brains aren't loaded down.'' He further asked the German people, ``Should such an ignorant people (as Americans) lead the world? . . . Don't go the American way when it comes to economics, jobs and services . . . it is the wrong way.''

Regarding those who are now killing Americans in Iraq, he said, ``The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not insurgents or terrorists or the enemy. They are the revolution, the minutemen and their numbers will grow--and they will win.''

How many normal people in this country really believe that a terrorist like Al-Zarqawi, who chops off the heads of Americans over in Iraq, is on the same level as Paul Revere, the folk hero of the American Revolution?

Here's some straight talk. In 2000, they didn't like the way the votes were counted in Florida. Now, they don't like the way the votes are counted in Ohio. In the blue States, they call it a recount. In the red States, we call it what it is: sour grapes.

Mr. Speaker, President Bush has clearly won the electoral vote and the popular vote. Certifying these electoral votes is the only course for us to follow. Why allow the conspiracy theorists to undermine the public confidence in the electoral system itself? Let us vote down the objection, certify the electoral college results, and prepare to celebrate the happy day of January 20, 2005 when President George W. Bush is once again sworn in as the President of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues across the aisle have two sides to choose from, the John Kerry side that acknowledges the election is over and President Bush has won, or the Michael Moore side that defines democracy as Democrats going to the polls, and conspiracy as Republicans going to the polls. The election is over and the results could not be clearer. Why are we here wasting time on silly, Hollywood- inspired conspiracy theories? Well, since Hollywood likes conspiracy so much, here are some real facts.

On June 23, 2004, the Michael Moore movie Fahrenheit 9/11 premiered in Washington, D.C. According to U.S. News and World Report, the New York Times and the National Journal, one of the few Senators who attended its premier was Senator Barbara Boxer. In his movie, Mr. Moore said it was shameful that not one U.S. Senator objected to the electoral vote in Florida.

Two days ago on January 4, 2005, the same Michael Moore published a new letter to Senator Boxer reminding them that they did not object to the electoral vote count 4 years ago, and he requested they rise and object to the vote count from Ohio today. Today, in fact, Senator Boxer objected to the vote count. Does Michael Moore and the people in the Michael Moore wing of the Democrat Party really think the American people and their elected representatives are so stupid that we could be tricked into objecting to these electoral results. Well, the answer, I think, is yes.

Michael Moore told a British newspaper, ``Americans are possibly the dumbest people on the planet. Our stupidity is embarrassing.'' In Germany, Mr. Moore told the German people, ``You can see us Americans coming down the street. We have that big grin on our face all the time because our brains are not loaded down.''

Regarding those who are now killing Americans in Iraq, Michael Moore said, ``The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not insurgents or terrorists or the enemy, they are the

revolution, the minutemen, and their numbers will grow and they will win.''

Mr. Speaker, how many normal people in this country really believe that a terrorist like al-Zarqawi is the same as Paul Revere? I ask my colleagues to vote no on this objection.

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

Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation because special education funding, teacher quality, and school safety will all go up while unnecessary paperwork requirements and frivolous lawsuits will go down. This is a good bill, and it deserves our support.

Mr. Speaker, as the only Member of Congress from Florida who serves on the Committee on Education and the Workforce and as one of only five House Republicans to serve on the IDEA Conference Committee, I wanted to learn firsthand about the key issues impacting our special education students. So I helped teach an elementary school education class in Orlando, Florida. I also met with high school special education teachers. And I invited the leading special education expert from my hometown, Orange County Public School System, Harriet Brown, to come and testify before Congress.

From this experience I learned three important things. First, I learned that special education teachers are forced to spend up to 2 hours a day completing paperwork instead of teaching.

Second, I learned that much of this paperwork is defensive in nature because of the fear and threat of frivolous lawsuits.

Third, I learned that there was a student who jeopardized the safety of a middle school in Orlando by bringing a gun to school, yet he could not be expelled for 1 year, which is the normal penalty, because he was an ``exceptional education'' student even though his disability had nothing to do with bringing the firearm to school.

I am pleased to say that all three of these problems have been fixed in this

legislation. First, the paperwork reduction legislation I authored is specifically included in this bill. As a result, the Secretary of Education will now develop model forms which will streamline and reduce the paperwork volume, and 15 States will be free of various paperwork requirements under a new pilot program.

Second, to reduce lawsuits, attorneys' fees will now be awarded to the prevailing party, and if a lawsuit is determined to be frivolous, the lawyer that filed that suit will personally be responsible for paying the other side's costs. There will be a 2-year statute of limitations.

Third, a student who brings a gun to school can now be expelled for up to 1 year under the Gun Free Schools Act if his behavior was not directly caused by the disability.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, our investment in special education is now at the highest level in the history of the United States. From 1995 until today, Congress has increased special education funding from $2.3 billion to $11.1 billion. That is an increase of $8.8 billion, or 383 percent.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation will dramatically improve the lives of disabled children in Orlando, Florida, and all across this Nation. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2004. The overriding central purpose of this legislation is to prevent frivolous lawsuits from being filed in the first place. To achieve this, we provide for tough, mandatory sanctions, including a three strikes and you are out penalty, which I authored.

Now should Members vote for this legislation? To determine that answer, may I suggest that Members consider three questions:

First, do Members believe frivolous lawsuits waste good people's time and money?

Second, should lawyers who bring frivolous lawsuits face tough mandatory sanctions?

Third, when a court has determined that an attorney has brought at least three frivolous lawsuits under Rule 11, should there be a three strikes and you are out penalty?

If the answers to those questions are yes, Members should vote in favor of this legislation. In fact, I will take it a step further and tell Members flat out that the answers to those questions are yes, at least according to Senator John Edwards, a Democrat from North Carolina, who was a plaintiff's personal injury attorney.

On December 15, 2003, Newsweek magazine published an article written by Senator John Edwards where he said, ``Frivolous lawsuits waste good people's time and hurt the real victims. Lawyers who bringing frivolous cases should face tough, mandatory sanctions, with a `three strikes' penalty.''

Mr. Speaker, I agree, and that is precisely what this legislation does. Congress should act today in a bipartisan manner to prevent and punish frivolous lawsuits. We should care about each more and sue each other less. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2004.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for yielding me time.

I rise today in opposition to the Democratic substitute and I will address the three or four strikes and you are out provision of the Democratic substitute. I would like to begin by pointing out what the Democratic White House hopefuls have said about this issue.

Senator John Edwards published an article in Newsweek Magazine on December 15, 2003, where he says, ``Frivolous lawsuits waste good people's time and hurt the real victims. Lawyers who bring frivolous cases should face tough mandatory sanctions with a three strikes penalty.''

He also told the Washington Post on May 20, 2003, ``We need to prevent and punish frivolous lawsuits. Lawyers who file frivolous lawsuits should face tough mandatory sanctions. Lawyers who file three frivolous cases should be forbidden to bring another suit for the next 10 years. In other words, three strikes and you are out.''

That is not what the Democratic substitute says. The Democratic substitute only provides that on three strikes the offending attorney will be referred to a bar association and no action need be taken by the bar to discipline the attorney under the substitute. That is not what Senator Edwards said. Senator Edwards did not say, three strikes and we are going to put a letter in your personnel file. He did not say, three strikes and we will send a diplomat from the U.N. to talk to you. He did not say, three strikes and we will refer this matter to a State bar association where they will not be required to take any disciplinary action.

Could it be that when it comes to cracking down on frivolous lawsuits with a tough three strikes and you are out penalty that the White House presidential candidate were for it before they were against it? Could this be an example of flip-flopping? Do we really have, in fact, two Americas, one America where we see very tough campaign rhetoric about cracking down with mandatory sanctions and a three strikes and you are out penalty and another America where we see watered-down liberal legislation on the floor of Congress?

I think there should be one America, one America where we prevent and punish frivolous lawsuits, not just with words but with actions. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this Democrat substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I have just returned from Florida where I took a helicopter tour of the greater Orlando area and saw firsthand the extensive damage which has literally turned upside down the lives of several hundred Central Floridians. I have empathy for those who have suffered such severe damage because my own mom, Laura Keller, completely lost her home in Hurricane Charley.

Despite these temporary heartaches, I am optimistic about central Florida's future. Last Tuesday, we passed legislation in Congress to immediately provide $2 billion to FEMA to help our citizens in Florida recover from Hurricanes Charley and Frances. The very next day, President Bush signed this legislation into law. Together we acted with near-lightning speed to provide immediate relief. This $2 billion will be able to help Central Florida families with things like temporary lodging, food, water supplies, medical care, and will allow roofs to be repaired. I know that I speak for all central Floridians when I say to my congressional colleagues all across the country, thank you for being there and voting for this important relief package.

But after taking this helicopter tour, I can tell Members this $2 billion we have already provided is only a down payment, and I say that regretfully because I know how tight money is around here these days. Fortunately, President Bush agrees more money is needed. Earlier today the White House requested that Congress provide an additional $2.5 billion in hurricane relief for Florida. I will strongly support this much-needed appropriation.

Mr. Speaker, our citizens have suffered enormous out-of-pocket costs which should be taken into account by FEMA. For example, imagine that a person has a $300,000 home and he has suffered $30,000 in property damage as a result of these two hurricanes. Now some people outside of Florida may mistakenly think no problem, you have insurance, insurance will pay for it.

Actually, it is a big problem and here is why. Since many of these Florida insurance policies have 5 percent deductibles and these two hurricanes are viewed by insurance companies as two separate and distinct events, it is entirely possible that the individual will have to pay the entire $30,000 bill himself, 100 percent out of pocket. I believe in this type of circumstance, if the person is not eligible for a FEMA grant, he should at least get a zero percent loan from FEMA to cover the out-of-pocket cost. It is patently unreasonable for us to assume that the average citizen has $30,000 lying around in his checking account just in case he unexpectedly gets blind-sided by two hurricanes.

Mr. Speaker, these people need help, and it is up to those of us in Congress to try to help them. Rest assured that Congress, especially those from Florida, will continue to work very closely with President Bush and Governor Jeb Bush over the next few weeks to help rebuild Florida as quickly as possible and in a way that makes Florida stronger than ever before.

I urge all of my colleagues in Congress to support this $2.5 billion hurricane relief package. It is the right thing to do and now is the right time to do it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this emergency supplemental appropriations bill to provide $2 billion to FEMA to help the citizens of Florida recover from Hurricanes Charley and Frances.

I am sensitive to the fact that these two hurricanes have had a devastating impact on the lives of several hundred thousand Central Floridians. My own mom, Lora Keller, completely lost her home in Hurricane Charley.

Despite these temporary heartaches, I am optimistic about Florida's future. Congress, especially those of us from Florida, will work very closely with President Bush and Governor Bush over the next few days to help rebuild Florida quickly, and even stronger than before.

This $2 billion will be able to help Central Florida families with things like temporary lodging, food and water supplies, medical care and will allow roofs to be repaired.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to support the amendment and in opposition to the 2005 Foreign Operations appropriations bill. At a time when our country is facing record budget deficits, I cannot justify voting for the largest foreign aid bill in history. We should not give away billions of dollars in foreign aid in the name of friendship when everybody knows that friendship cannot be bought.

Over the past four sessions of the U.N. General Assembly, 86 percent of the U.S. foreign aid recipients voted against the United States a majority of the time. Now, let me give my colleagues five specific examples.

Egypt is slated to get $1.836 billion in foreign aid in this bill, even though they voted against us at the U.N. 86 percent of the time.

Indonesia will get $151 million in foreign aid. They voted against us 83 percent of the time.

Nigeria will get $68 million in foreign aid. They voted against us at the U.N. 76 percent of the time.

Kenya will get $67 million. They voted against us at the U.N. 81 percent of the time.

Bangladesh will get $63 million in foreign aid. They voted against us 82 percent of the time.

Not one of these five countries contributed any money or troops to the war effort or reconstruction of Iraq.

Now, some might say, but what about the money we are giving Israel? Well, I fully and completely support 100 percent of the $2.58 billion in aid to Israel. They are, by far, our best ally in the Middle East. They are the only democracy in the Middle East, and they face increasing terrorist threats.

But I cannot in good conscience vote for a $19.4 billion foreign aid bill when only a tiny portion of it goes to support our valuable ally Israel.

I cannot go home to Orlando, Florida, and look waitresses and secretaries in the eye and tell them that we took taxpayer dollars from their paychecks and gave it in foreign aid to countries that do not even support the United States.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and vote ``no'' on the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Weiner amendment to restore funding for the COPS program to last year's level.

Here is the bottom line. At a time when our homeland security threat levels are up, does it make sense that our funding for COPS should go down? Of course not. Yet this bill cuts the COPS grant programs by nearly half. Common sense suggests that cities all across America would be expanding, not decreasing, their police forces in the face of growing homeland security demands.

Now, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge has consistently said that homeland security starts in our hometowns. I can tell you firsthand that when it comes to making our hometowns safer, there is no Federal program more popular with the sheriffs and police chiefs in Orlando, Florida, than the COPS program.

The COPS program has helped local communities in central Florida and all across the Nation by hiring an additional 118,000 additional police officers. A study by the University of Nebraska found that the COPS program is directly linked to the dramatic drop in crime since 1995. Literally every single congressional district has received funding and has benefited in some way from the COPS program.

The COPS program is popular because it works and because it allows local law enforcement agencies to apply directly to the Department of Justice for the money by filling out a simple one-page grant form.

Now, I have listened to the opponents of the Weiner amendment. They are all reasonable, well-intentioned people. And this is essentially what they have to say: They say the bill is fine the way it is because the $3 billion it provides for State and local law enforcement is over the President's budget request, and that the offset of $106 million from the Census Bureau programs is too much of a cut from the Census budget.

On the surface, that argument sounds pretty good, but it is a bit misleading in three areas: The amount of the funding, the type of the funding, and the supposed cuts from the Census Bureau. In the interest of straight talk, I will squarely address each of these three issues.

First, I will address the amount of funding. The total amount appropriated in this bill for local and State law enforcement represents a cut of $103 million from last year's level. The threat levels are up, yet the law enforcement funding level goes down? No, sir, that dog will not hunt.

Second, I will address the type of funding. While the COPS hiring grants have been cut, other types of funding to State and local police agencies are inadequate replacements because these other types of funding do not go directly to the law enforcement agencies, but rather are sent to the States where much of the money is eaten up in administrative costs; and there is a long delay in getting the money sent to law enforcement agencies. Moreover, even when the local law enforcement agencies finally do get the money, it is usually not used to hire new police officers because they are based on a 1-year grant.

In stark contrast, money out of the COPS program goes directly to the local law enforcement agencies, using a one-page form, and can be used right then to hire new police officers for 3 years without bureaucratic delay, red tape and any unnecessary expense.

The third and final flaw deals with the supposed cuts from the Census Bureau. Here is the deal with that: The Census Bureau programs received an increase in funding levels by 32.4 percent this year. By cutting this dramatic increase down to the more reasonable amount of an 8 percent increase, it will allow us to still increase the Census budget and yet restore the COPS funding levels to last year's appropriated level.

Do our COPS, who are on the front lines of homeland security, not need the money more than the bureaucrats at the Census Bureau?

I urge my colleagues to restore funding to the COPS program and vote ``yes'' on the Weiner amendment.