Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Let me just say in conclusion that I have great respect for Chairman Barton and Ranking Member Dingell. They have worked very hard on this bill. I think it is a better bill that is before us than the one that we passed here in the House. As Chairman Barton pointed out, Ranking Member Dingell supports this bill. There was virtually a love fest in the Rules Committee last night, in part a tribute to the process during these last several weeks. Having said that, some of us obviously have some philosophical differences, and some of us feel compelled to vote against this bill. I have no doubt that this bill will pass with strong bipartisan support, but as I said at the beginning of my remarks, I feel compelled to oppose the bill as well. I am concerned about some of what I consider are giveaways in this bill that I think were unnecessary. One would ease environmental restrictions on oil and gas companies drilling on public lands. The other would give billions of dollars in, I think, undeserved tax breaks to companies that, quite frankly, right now are gouging Americans. Oil companies right now, I think, are gouging Americans who are paying the highest gas prices in recent memory. I think this bill could have been a better bill. Again, there are philosophical differences here. There will be a debate on the conference report. I have no objection to the rule. Again, let me close by expressing my respect and admiration for Chairman Barton and Ranking Member Dingell, notwithstanding the fact that I oppose their final product. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the ranking member on the Trade Subcommittee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, whatever position Members have on this legislation, they should vote against the previous question so we can consider another and, I believe, a better approach to our trade troubles with China. We have only had a short time to examine this bill, but from what we can tell, H.R. 3238 is a bill that is all bark and no bite. It calls for more reports and studies, but it does not give American businesses a real tool to fight China's companies that receive unfair subsidies from the Chinese Government. The Rangel proposal contains a countervailing duty mechanism that American businesses could actually use to fight these unfair trade practices, and, at the very least, the House deserves a debate on the Rangel proposal, but it is not going to get one here today unless we defeat the previous question. We all read the papers. We all know that the purpose of this bill is not to have a serious debate over China policy. We know it is part of a desperate effort to win a few more votes for our trade agreement called DR-CAFTA that even supporters do not particularly like. Allowing this House a chance to debate and consider the Rangel alternative to this bill would turn a purely rhetorical exercise into a meaningful, badly needed debate about our Nation's trade relations with China. Three closed rules were reported from the Committee on Rules last night. That is three major pieces of legislation that have absolutely no opportunity for amendment or alternative points of view. That is not how this House should operate. We have a chance to change that right now by voting against the previous question and allowing the Rangel substitute to be part of the legislation. So vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can include this important amendment. I want to make it clear that a no vote will not stop us from considering the legislation, but it will enable us to consider the Rangel substitute. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues not to be fooled. This bill is a toothless response to a very serious problem. My friends on the other side of the aisle supporting this bill rightly have stated that China is stealing our jobs, but this bill and CAFTA later is going to give our jobs away. Again, vote ``no'' on the previous question; let us make this flawed bill significantly better. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just say to the gentleman from Indiana that I share his anguish over the process. I share his frustration over the fact that many of us, we want to have more of a policy debate here. I would suggest to the gentleman from Indiana if he really wants a policy debate, that he will join with us on this side and vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can bring up some very reasonable, thoughtful amendments that will put some teeth into this bill. I bet we will get bipartisan support for these amendments. I think one of the reasons why they are not being made in order is because the leadership on your side believes that, in fact, these amendments will actually carry the day. I would say to the gentleman from Florida that just to make it clear that one of the reasons why so many of us voted against this bill yesterday, one is because it does not have any teeth in it. That does not mean it does not have reports; reports and dialogue, and that is it. We have had enough of that. We wanted something that had some teeth in it, that was actually going to send China the message we want to be sending. But we also objected to the fact that this bill has never gone before a committee, never had a hearing, never had the benefit of expert testimony, never had a markup, has never been open to amendment. That is not the way this process is supposed to work. This is supposed to be a deliberative body. Flawed legislation like this can be made better. At least we should be given the chance to let the majority in this House work its will. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me just respond to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers) by saying we are very concerned about the fact that China is cheating and not keeping its word with its trade obligations. Our problem with this bill is it is largely symbolic. It does not do what we want it to do. In fact, if press reports are to be believed, this bill is being brought to the floor today, as ineffective as it is, so Members on the other side of the aisle can have some cover to vote for CAFTA later on today. This bill is largely symbolic. This bill is not tough. It is ineffective. The gentleman complains that those on our side are criticizing the way this rule has been put together. We are criticizing because we have amendments that will actually make this bill tough and will strengthen this bill. We are sending a great message to China about democracy when the Committee on Rules last night shut off all debate, when it says to Members who have legitimate amendments that have bipartisan cosponsorship on amendments, by the way, you cannot have an opportunity to offer your amendments on the floor. We have spent an entire week debating naming of post offices, but we do not have the time to have a serious debate on this. It is ridiculous. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the House decided that this time it would not accept the practice of approving bills that materialize out of nowhere. This time, the House decided it wanted a real debate on China's unfair trade practices and how best to remedy them. So the House did not approve the two-thirds majority needed for passage under suspension of H.R. 3283, a bill that has never gone before committee, never had a hearing, never had the benefit of expert testimony, never had a markup, and has never been open to amendment. Instead, this House demanded that the bill be taken up under regular procedure. That is why we are here today. But even under regular order, the Republican majority has done all it can to stifle debate. Last night the Republican majority on the Rules Committee reported out a closed rule for H.R. 3283, a closed rule that only allows for 1 hour of debate and no amendments; well, except for the one amendment offered by the back room author of this bill in the first place, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means. Last night the Committee on Rules heard testimony on three amendments that would seriously address some of the major challenges facing U.S. trade with China and other nonmarket economy nations. First, there was the amendment modeled on the bipartisan bill originally introduced by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis). This amendment might actually provide needed remedies to tackling China's currency manipulation. Then there was a amendment offered by the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), a comprehensive amendment that addresses the real problems facing America in its trade with China, currency manipulation, export surges, barriers to U.S. export of goods and services, and the right of American private sector companies and workers to challenge China's agricultural and manufacturing subsidies. Finally, there was an amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) which would have shut down the loopholes in the countervailing duties in the Thomas bill. Each of these concrete proposals presented to the Committee on Rules last night deserve debate, and would significantly enhance the underlying do-nothing legislation. But the Republican leadership shut them out and shut down debate. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules has become a place where democracy comes to die. Heaven forbid that this House might take up amendments that actually address the real issue surrounding China's unfair trade practices and provide genuine remedies. Heaven forbid that this House might actually have a real debate on these matters, and heaven forbid that the Republican majority might actually allow votes on these serious unfair trade practices. What is the majority afraid of, a straight up-or-down vote? Mr. Speaker, I have sat in this Chamber and heard over and over Members on the other side of the aisle give 1-minute speeches demanding that the Senate have up-or-down votes on judicial nominations. Well, Mr. Speaker, if up-or-down votes are good for the Senate, why are they not good for the House of Representatives? This House has had enough time this week to provide 40 minutes of debate each to the naming of half a dozen post offices, but we do not have enough time or interest to give the Ryan-Hunter-Davis amendment 10 or 15 minutes, or the courtesy to give the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means 10 or 15 minutes to offer a substitute amendment? The Chinese Government must be laughing with glee at the Republican leadership's blatant abuse of power in their lock-step rejection of democratic debate. Instead, we are forced to settle for the Thomas bill, a bill that fails to offer solutions and fails to take action. Instead, it calls for more reports, more studies and more dialogue. In fact, when the Thomas bill does take action, it actually opens up more loopholes for China to exploit, more ways for China to hide its subsidies, and more opportunities for China to manipulate and falsify its trade and economic data. Mr. Speaker, standing up for American businesses and workers against America's unfair trade practices should be one of our top trade priorities. The growth of China's economy and its trade with the rest of the world is one of the most significant developments of the 21st century, and the Bush administration and the Republican leadership of this House have no effective policy for dealing with it. Last year the U.S. trade gap with China was $162 billion. This year it is expected to climb to $225 billion. And China continues to engage in unfair trade practices, with billions lost to Chinese piracy of U.S. intellectual property, Chinese subsidies for its manufacturers, and Chinese currency manipulation harming U.S. exports. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and let this House debate the thoughtful, meaningful amendments that have been offered. That is how democracy is supposed to work. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that I can amend the rule to allow the House to consider the Rangel substitute. The substitute was offered in the Committee on Rules last night, but was blocked on a straight party-line vote. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to print the text of the amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from Florida just commended the gentleman from Pennsylvania for being the author of the bill. This is the bill that the gentleman from Pennsylvania introduced, and then, mysteriously, this is the bill that came out of nowhere out of the Committee on Ways and Means, no hearings, no markup, nothing. So we are talking about two different pieces of legislation. This bill that mysteriously has appeared before us weakens the countervailing duty section. It makes this bill that the gentleman from Pennsylvania introduced originally worse. So that is what we are concerned about here. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am a little perplexed here. The gentleman from Florida talks about Democrats offering all kinds of amendments and discussing all kinds of things if we had an open rule. Well, that is called debate. We do that here. At least we are supposed to do that here. We have not been doing it lately. And I should also add that we are not here calling for an open rule. We are asking for right now that they give us at least three amendments. Three thoughtful amendments have been offered, that is it. There are not thousands of amendments, three; and we cannot even discuss those. We cannot even have a debate on those. We cannot have an up-or-down vote on it. My colleagues talk about how the Senate should vote up or down on judicial nominees. Why can we not vote up or down on these thoughtful amendments? We are being denied that. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui). (Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) who believes that if 8 hours of debate was good enough for NAFTA, it should be good enough for CAFTA.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Rules and someone who believes that we should have a deliberative process here in the House.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today the House is debating a trade agreement of tremendous import not because the markets, exports or money involved are especially significant; the six countries involved, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Honduras, and the Dominican Republic, are smaller in combined economic clout than the average midsize American city. Most of their products already enter the United States duty free, and our exports to them are modest. No, Mr. Speaker, this debate is important because it brings into sharp focus the differences over what our global economy should look like, of how we in the United States and our global trading partners seek to grow our national economies, create good jobs at decent wages, and generate the kind of revenue necessary to provide basic public goods and services, promote human health, and protect the environment. That is why, Mr. Speaker, this rule is an outrage, an absolute disgrace. It is one of the most disrespectful rules issued by the Committee on Rules, which has become infamous for shutting down debate. This rule allows for only 2 hours of debate on the CAFTA Implementation Act. That is just 60 minutes each for supporters and opponents of this agreement to make their voices heard on this very important and very controversial trade agreement. I know that nearly every Member on this side of the aisle would like an opportunity to speak on this bill, to make clear to the American people, and especially to their constituents at home, why he or she supports or opposes this trade bill. Mr. Speaker, if every opponent wanted time to speak, then this rule would allow each of them to have just 16.8 seconds to make a statement, and the same holds true for those Members who support CAFTA. What a mockery of the democratic process. In 1993, when the Congress debated the North American Free Trade Agreement, the rule granted Members 8 hours of debate; 8 hours, Mr. Speaker. Sadly, since Republicans have exercised control of Congress, we have seen the complete erosion of debate on trade agreements, where now just 2 hours of debate has become the standard. Well, a couple of hours might serve for a debate on a Free Trade Agreement with Australia or Jordan or even Chile or Singapore, agreements that garnered fairly broad bipartisan support and were not viewed as very controversial. But CAFTA is arguably the most controversial trade agreement that has come before this House since NAFTA, and the Members of this House deserve much better than the shabby treatment handed to them by the Republicans of the Committee on Rules. Mr. Speaker, this is not a debate over whether or not to trade with Central America. We already trade extensively with Central American countries and the Dominican Republic. But this is a debate, Mr. Speaker, about people's jobs, both here in the United States and in Central America. Now, maybe they do not care about jobs on the other side of the aisle, but, to the average worker, it is a big deal. I am tired of trade agreements that do not improve workers' wage protections or benefits, but, rather, are a rush to the bottom that puts profits above people. Since 2000, the United States has lost 2.8 million manufacturing jobs and 1 million high-technology jobs. We now have a $162 billion trade deficit with China, and a $42 billion deficit with Mexico. Clearly, the rules of international trade have failed the American worker, the American standard of living, and the American dream, and have made American jobs our number one export. CAFTA will further this trend by rewarding companies that throw U.S. workers out on the streets and by creating jobs in countries where labor is cheapest, environmental laws are weakest, and where the rights of workers are violated and scorned. But this rule, Mr. Speaker, will deny Members the right to debate these very serious matters. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject this rule and demand the right to speak. Mr. Speaker, today the House is debating a trade agreement of tremendous import--not because the markets, exports or money involved are especially significant--the six countries involved--Costa Rica, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Honduras and the Dominican Republic-- are smaller in combined economic clout than the average mid-size American city. Most of their products already enter the United States duty-free, and our exports to them are modest. No, Mr. Speaker, this debate is important because it brings into sharp focus the differences over what our global economy should look like; of how we in the United States and our global trading partners seek to grow our national economies, create good jobs at decent wages, and generate the kind of revenue necessary to provide basic public goods and services, promote human health, and protect the environment. This is not a debate over whether or not to trade with Central America. We already trade extensively with all the Central American countries and the Dominican Republic. In addition, we have special trade relations with all of them under the GSP and the Caribbean Basin Initiative. Mr. Speaker, the months and weeks leading up to this vote have been filled with the sounds of battle between so-called ``free trade'' versus ``fair trade.'' Mr. Speaker, I am more interested in ``smart'' trade. Smart trade is about who gets protected under this agreement and who does not. Smart trade provides significant gains for U.S. workers and consumers, as well as businesses. Smart trade supports and strengthens development, democracy and the rule of law. Smart trade guarantees economic opportunity for those who may be displaced by trade. Smart trade is concerned about what happens to the most vulnerable-- in our country and in our trading partners. Smart trade is sustainable, both here at home and abroad, because it is created in a bipartisan fashion--and because it brings the benefits of trade to all countries, and to all the people of those countries, including the poorest. Judged against these standards and principles, CAFTA is neither ``free'' nor ``fair'' trade, and it is certainly not ``smart trade.'' Mr. Speaker, since the year 2000, the United States has lost 2.8 million manufacturing jobs and one million high-technology jobs. We now have a $162 billion trade deficit with China and a $45 billion deficit with Mexico. Clearly, the rules of international trade have failed the American worker, the American standard of living and the American dream, and have made American jobs our number one export. CAFTA will further this trend by rewarding companies that throw U.S. workers out on the streets, and by creating jobs in countries where labor is cheapest, environmental laws are weakest, and where the rights of workers are violated and scorned. Even so, CAFTA is not likely to provide any real increase in U.S. jobs or production. The six CAFTA countries together currently account for barely one percent of U.S. trade. In addition, about 80 percent of the people in CAFTA countries live at or below the poverty line--which is about two to three dollars a day--or $400 to $900 a year, depending on which country we're looking at. Almost half the population works in subsistence agriculture. The only significant export industries in these countries--with the exception of Costa Rica--are apparel and agriculture. This is the reality of life in Central America, and it should be a sobering reminder to all of us: The overwhelming majority of people in the CAFTA-DR region are not consumers of high-value American goods--but they are extremely vulnerable to the kind of dislocation caused by such trade openings. Mr. Speaker, we should not visit the mistakes of NAFTA upon the people of Central America. To take just one example, wages for Mexican workers are even lower today than they were before NAFTA. And while U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico greatly increased, millions of poor Mexican farmers lost what little income they had, often even losing their small plots of land. In order to survive, they now farm even more marginal land, cut down forests, or use chemical inputs that pollute the water and poison the soil. Is this what we have in mind for Central America's campesino farmers? It is if we adopt this CAFTA agreement. Mr. Speaker, a critical issue in strengthening democracy is to protect and expand human rights. Workers' rights are human rights. They are not a luxury. As every wealthy nation can attest, they are central to improving living standards and quality of life, and creating a broad middle class. While there are a number of labor provisions in the CAFTA agreement, they are enforceable under only one trigger: Namely, if a country fails to enforce its own labor laws. CAFTA countries' labor laws, Mr. Speaker, are internationally recognized as weak. Whether you are looking at reports by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the International Labor Organization, the United Nations, or our own State Department Country Reports--Central American labor laws are criticized for failing to meet international standards of freedom of association, the right to organize, and the right to bargain collectively. This doesn't even begin to touch upon the lack of health and safety guarantees in the workplace. Also universally acknowledged is that even these weak laws are not enforced. Ineffective judicial systems, coupled with the power exercised by political and economic elites, derail nearly every attempt to enforce current labor laws. We had an opportunity under CAFTA to negotiate provisions that would have promoted the enactment of stronger labor laws and dispute mechanisms in the CAFTA region. But under the agreement before us today, that opportunity has been squandered. Mr. Speaker, I am very familiar with the CAFTA region. I have traveled widely throughout Central America, especially in El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua. I have formed deep attachments to the people of this region, and I appreciate how far these countries have come since the wars there ended. I want to see their democracies thrive; I want to see their lives and livelihoods improve; and I think a good trade agreement could make a valuable contribution to these efforts. But this CAFTA is not such an agreement. All the issues of concern that will be raised during today's debate are not new. They have been cited and documented for the past 3 years in anticipation of the initiation of talks between the U.S. and the Central American governments, during the negotiations, and after CAFTA was signed. The central design for fast-track, up-or-down voting procedures on trade agreements was to place a premium on consultation and accommodation during the conception and negotiations of trade agreements--in effect, to pursue a bipartisan trade policy. But the DR- CAFTA negotiations turned its back on this process. Not just Democrats--but anyone and everyone who tried to raise issues about labor rights, or environmental protection, or transparency and participation, or the need for access by the poor to critical life- saving drugs, or the vulnerability of critical agricultural or manufacturing industries, or the need to account for the vulnerability of the rural poor--were completely and totally shut down and shut out. This is why this trade agreement in particular has been so universally criticized throughout Central American and the United States by religious leaders and communities, labor organizations, campesino groups, environmental and women's organizations, legal advocates, small farmers, and consumer groups. When the U.S. Trade Representative announces there is absolutely no way for CAFTA to be renegotiated, I can only ask, ``Why not?'' If the fast track, one-vote-is-all-you-get process results in the defeat of this CAFTA agreement, then wouldn't the House clearly be calling for a renegotiation of the agreement? Saying--Pay attention to our concerns and go back to the table? It took the Bush administration barely 1 year to negotiate this CAFTA--why not take some time to get it right? Mr. Speaker, this agreement fails to learn from the mistakes of NAFTA. It fails poor workers and poor farmers throughout the CAFTA region, who make up the majority of the people. And most importantly, it fails our own workers, consumers and communities. Vote it down, Mr. Speaker. Vote it down.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, fast track up-or-down voting procedures place a premium on consultation and accommodation during the conception and negotiation of trade agreements. But the DR-CAFTA negotiations turned its back on this process. Everyone who raised concerns about labor rights, environmental standards, or the vulnerability of key agricultural and manufacturing sectors was shut out. That is why this agreement has been so universally criticized throughout Central America and the United States. Mr. Speaker, I am very familiar with Central America. I have deep attachments to the people, and I appreciate how far these countries have come since the wars there ended. I want their democracies to thrive. I want their lives and livelihoods to improve. And I think a good trade agreement could make a valuable contribution to these efforts. But this CAFTA is not that agreement, and this rule deprives Members of their democratic rights to speak on the floor of the House on this controversial issue. It is shameful how the Republican leadership of this House continues to use the Committee on Rules as a weapon to undermine the deliberative process. It is disrespectful to American workers that the Republican leadership is shortchanging this debate. It is a disgrace. But, sadly, that has become the norm around here. I urge all my colleagues to vote down this rule and vote down this CAFTA bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), who believes that 2 hours of debate is an insult to American workers.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out that the little black book that the chairman of the Committee on Rules read from also said that the Rules of the House allows for up to 20 hours of debate on trade agreements. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), who believes that a full and thorough debate is a good thing. (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say, if it is not in the agreement, it is not in the agreement. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), who believes that the debate on CAFTA should be longer than the vote on CAFTA. (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), who believes that it is shameful that the majority has stifled debate on this important trade agreement. (Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me time. I rise in opposition to this rule and to the underlying legislation. This bill is a perfect example of the ironclad control that the pharmaceutical industry has over the Republican leadership of this House. It is so in your face, it is so out in the open, it takes my breath away. Instead of improving the medical industry and providing protection to its consumers, H.R. 5 provides sweeping liability protections to drug manufacturers. H.R. 5 does nothing to address the dramatic escalation of insurance premiums and health care costs. Forty-five million Americans, 16 percent of our population, do not have health insurance. Placing caps on the punitive damages that could be awarded to victims of medical malpractice will not provide one single American with health insurance. From the onset this bill has been handled improperly: no mark-ups, no amendments, no hearings. In fact, for the third time in 3 years, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) has pointed out, the Committee on Rules' Republicans have prevented any House Members from offering amendments to this bill. Last night the committee Republicans rejected all 15 amendments offered, including an amendment that would have stripped the bill of the special protections for irresponsible drug companies. Over the past 3 years, Committee on Rules' Republicans have rejected a whopping 67 amendments to medical malpractice legislation. Eliminating amendments and shutting down debate is not how this House should operate. Why has this bill been rushed to the floor, bypassing both the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Energy and Commerce despite the abundance of startling information in the headlines regarding the misconduct of drug industry giants like Merck, the creator of the deadly drug Vioxx? According to testimony given by FDA scientist Dr. David Graham before the Senate Committee on Finance, Vioxx may have caused as many as 55,000 deaths and 160,000 hearts attacks. Mr. Speaker, how can we reward a company that has knowingly created, marketed and distributed a drug which has caused 55,000 deaths? Well, that is exactly what this bill does. By providing across-the- board immunities to drug and device manufacturers, the pharmaceutical industry would never be held accountable for injuring or even killing people. Without the threat of full liability, there are no financial incentives for drug companies to keep life-threatening drugs like Vioxx off the market. Vioxx was always a dangerous drug. From its inception in 1999, Merck knew that Vioxx significantly increased the chance of hearts attacks and cardiovascular problems. In 1999 and 2000, two clinical trials showed that people taking Vioxx had a fivefold increase in hearts attacks. It was not until 2002, after multiple requests from the FDA, that Merck reluctantly change its warning label to include the severe risk of heart attack. Mr. Speaker, this was too little, too late. Vioxx should have been pulled from the market years ago, and its victims and victims' families should have been compensated appropriately. It was not until September 2004, after several more studies and testimonies from high-level FDA officials that Merck voluntarily withdrew Vioxx from the market. And here we are, less than a year later, considering a bill that provides immunity for drug manufacturers that create and distribute unsafe, possibly deadly, drugs. Mr. Speaker, everyone is aware of the dangers of Vioxx, and the fact that Merck continued selling it knowing of its dangers. How can this House in good conscience reward the drug industry for bad behavior? The American people deserve a better bill, a bill that actually protects, not endangers them. I would like to say to my friends on the other side of the aisle: if you want to protect irresponsible drug companies, that is your choice. Go right ahead and do it. But I am interested in protecting people. The least you could do is allow us to vote up or down on amendments that would hold the drug companies accountable. There is no reason why, none whatsoever, why this rule needs to be closed. It is a disgrace that this has been brought to the House floor under a closed rule. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the underlying bill.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.