Ric Keller

Mr. KELLER

Mr. KELLER. 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. KELLER. 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. KELLER. 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. KELLER. 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. KELLER. 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.

Mr. KELLER. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

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

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

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

Mr. KELLER. 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. KELLER. 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.

Mr. KELLER

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from West Virginia for yielding me this time, and I rise today in strong support of the rule and H. Res. 22. The purpose of the small business bill of rights is to provide a blueprint for Congress to follow to help small business employers create even more jobs. A job is the best social program in the world. It gives a person income and health insurance and dignity. Since 70 percent of all new jobs in this country are created by small businesses, I met personally with 20 very successful small business employers in central Florida to learn firsthand what, if anything, Congress can do to help them create more jobs. Four top-tier issues consistently emerged from these meetings. First and foremost, they had the problem of addressing skyrocketing health costs, and they wanted the ability to join together to negotiate lower prices. Second, family-owned businesses, we are seeing one-third of them having to liquidate because of the death tax, and they needed some commonsense reform there. Third, they had a problem with frivolous lawsuits and skyrocketing liability insurance. Unlike a big corporation, if someone sues them, they do not often have $100,000 to successfully defend the claim, even if frivolous. They have to settle it for a nominal amount, $5,000 or $10,000. The fourth problem they mentioned over and over was paperwork and red tape. After listening to their concerns, I joined with my original cosponsor, a Democrat, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer), and wrote and filed House Resolution 22. We have given plenty of opportunity for people to be heard on H. Res. 22. For example, other nonbinding House resolutions sometimes go right to the floor with no hearings, no markups, no motion to recommit. They just get an up-or-down vote on a Suspension Calendar, with no chance to amend at any point. Well, that is not what happened here. In this particular instance, the minority requested that we have a hearing. We readily agreed and had a hearing. At this 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 right now. The minority was allowed to call witnesses at that hearing, and they did. Every member of the hearing, Republican and Democrat, was afforded two full rounds of questioning. Afterwards, the minority said, well, now we want to have a markup on this nonbinding resolution. We agreed to that as well. At the markup, in an effort to reach out, I offered a substitute amendment which addressed three additional issues that the minority thought were important to them, issues relating to energy costs and access to capital and contract bundling. The substitute amendment I offered was approved by a voice vote. Even though I had already included these three additional issues at this markup, the minority offered amendment after amendment after amendment after amendment. For example, one of the amendments called for Members to take a controversial stand on whether or not people agreed with the personal retirement accounts under President Bush's Social Security proposals. Things like that ate up time. The four amendments offered by the minority were defeated. But each time they insisted on calling for a roll call vote which ate up additional time. Now, it is my understanding that the minority Members had two more amendments that they wished to offer, but the chairman had only scheduled an hour for the markup under the understanding that the minority would have few amendments. So what exactly did the minority get in terms of due process here? They got a full blown hearing. They got three additional issues added to the original resolution, and they got votes on four of the six amendments they offered. H. Res. 22 was passed by the full committee on a voice vote. Not a single person on the committee, Republican or Democrat, voiced opposition to H. Res. 22 during that voice vote, and the reason is it represents a noncontroversial consensus of what small business employers tell us they need. Now, what are the Small Business Bill of Rights? There are seven: first, the right to join together to purchase affordable health insurance for small business employees. The right to simplify tax laws that allow family owned businesses to survive over several generations. The right to be free from frivolous lawsuits which harm law-abiding small businesses and prevent them from creating new jobs. The right to be free of unnecessary restrictive regulations and paper work which wastes the time and energy of small businesses while hurting production and preventing job creation. The right to relief from high energy costs which pose a real threat to the survival of small businesses. The right to equal treatment as compared to large businesses when seeking access to capital and expansion capital and credit. 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 the Federal contracts. This is what the small business people in America tell us that they want. This is what we learned from the hearing, and this is what is included as the top tier issues in the Small Business Bill of Rights affecting small business people. Now, if someone is opposed to this Small Business Bill of Rights, what would they be for? They would be for higher health insurance costs, higher taxes, more frivolous lawsuits, more paper work and red tape, higher energy costs, more obstacles to getting capital and more obstacles to getting government contracts. Now, significantly, at no time in this process, during the markup or otherwise, has there been any attempt to strip away one of these seven rights. To the extent the minority has a controversy with this, it is not anything that is on the board here. It is they think one or two additional things should be there. Well, let me remind you. The Small Business Bill of Rights is a blueprint that lists the top tier issues facing small businesses in the United States. It does not list every small business issue known to man. If it did, this thing would be as thick as a phone book, and it would not list the priorities. Some of the business people I met with had things that I did not list because, while it was important to that person or this person, it was not something that was a consensus issue affecting the small business people across the country. Now, if a Member has some issue that was not included, and they think it is a real important issue, then there is nothing preventing them from filing their own nonbinding House resolution and having that proceed under the regular order. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule. Plenty of opportunity has been heard for both sides to give their input to the Small Business Bill of Rights. It is a bipartisan Small Business Bill of Rights from the get-go when it was filed by a Democrat and myself, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Small Business Bill of Rights, H. Res. 22.

Mr. KELLER

Mr. KELLER. 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. KELLER

Mr. KELLER. 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. KELLER

Mr. KELLER. 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. KELLER

Mr. KELLER. 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. KELLER

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

Mr. KELLER

Mr. KELLER. 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.

Mr. KELLER

Mr. KELLER. 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. KELLER

Mr. KELLER. 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. KELLER. 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. KELLER

Mr. KELLER. 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. KELLER

Mr. KELLER. 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.