Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to read a Q and A between Vice President Dick Cheney and a questioner in Davenport, Iowa, on August 24, 2004, because I think it helps to kind of put this in perspective, and maybe some of my colleagues should listen to this. The question was: ``We have a battle here on this land as well. And I would like to know, sir, from your heart, I don't want to know what your advisors say or even what your top advisor thinks, but I need to know, what do you think about homosexual marriages?'' And the Vice President responded: ``Well, the question has come up obviously in the past with respect to the question of gay marriage. Lynn and I have a gay daughter, so it's an issue that our family is very familiar with. We have two daughters, and we have enormous pride in both of them. They're both fine young women. They do a superb job, frankly, of supporting us. And we are blessed with both our daughters. ``With respect to the question of relationships, my general view is that freedom means freedom for everyone. People ought to be able to be free, ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to. The question that comes up with respect to the issue of marriage is what kind of official sanction or approval is going to be granted by government, if you will, to particular relationships. Historically, that's been a relationship that has been handled by the States. The States have made that basic fundamental decision in terms of defining what constitutes a marriage. I made clear 4 years ago, when I ran and this question came up in the debate I had with Joe Lieberman, that my view was that that's appropriately a matter for the States to decide and that's how it ought to be best handled.'' I very rarely agree with the Vice President of the United States, but I think he makes an awful lot of sense on this issue, and I think he makes a compelling case why we should not be moving forward with a constitutional amendment. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is another sad day for the House of Representatives and for the people that we serve. Once again, some in the leadership of this House, including and especially the majority leader, have brought a divisive, unnecessary, and just plain mean-spirited bill to the floor in order to advance their own partisan political interests. Once again, they have decided to ignore unemployment, ignore the health care crisis, ignore record deficits, ignore national security, in short to ignore the real concerns of the American people. Why? You can find the answer just by looking at the calendar. We are 5 weeks from an election and there are some, not all, but some Members on the other side of the aisle who have chosen to put aside the important work we need to do. By today, the 13 appropriation bills should have been signed into law. So far, only one has the President's signature. Where is the Homeland Security appropriation bill? Can anyone really say with a straight face that a constitutional amendment beating up on gay people is more important than funding our Homeland Security needs? How about the recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, or the transportation bill? How about funding for schools and hospitals and veterans? They are nowhere to be found. Instead, we get legislative gay bashing. Another sad day. Today, we are being asked to consider H.J. Res. 106, which would amend the United States Constitution to ban gay marriage, to ban civil unions, and to abolish the ability of States to interpret their own State constitutions. So this is no small matter. It is important to note at the outset that the Constitution clearly prohibits the government from interfering with the marriages performed by religious institutions. Our Founding Fathers were very clear about this. The government cannot force any church or synagogue or mosque to perform a religious marriage. That will not change, no matter what happens today. Now, there are several fundamental problems with this amendment. First, it has long been the tradition in this country that States, not the Federal Government, have the right to regulate marriage and other issues of family law. And States are already addressing same-sex marriage. When the Hawaii Supreme Court held that denying same-sex couples the right to marriage violated the Hawaii constitution, the voters of Hawaii passed a constitutional amendment allowing the State legislature to limit marriage to different-sex couples. The people of Alaska amended their constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman after an Alaskan trial court held denying the right of marriage to same-sex couples violated the Alaskan constitution. States all across the country are moving in similar directions, but that is not good enough for the supporters of this amendment. They believe that the only way to address this issue is to add discrimination to the United States Constitution. Of course, the irony in all of this is that the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, was signed by President Clinton and is already the law of the land. Under DOMA, States can already refuse to recognize marriages from States with different policies. I guess that fact does not make for very good press releases or 30- second political attack ads. Second, if this amendment becomes the law of the land, civil union and domestic partnership laws all across the country will be thrown out the window. Things like hospital visitation rights, family medical leave, and inheritance rights can be taken away. According to the Coalition Against Discrimination in the Constitution, an organization of civil-rights groups, labor unions, and religious organizations, this constitutional amendment would likely prevent the civil unions enacted by the States of Vermont and California. Now, we will hear a lot of talk from people on the other side of the debate today about Massachusetts, so let me talk about my home State. Our State Supreme Court decided in favor of same-sex marriage last year. And right now there is a legislative process underway in which the people of Massachusetts will have the opportunity to change our own State constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage, if they so choose. The interesting thing is that I doubt that it will succeed in Massachusetts. Starting on May 17, 2004, gay men and women in Massachusetts got married, and guess what? The world kept spinning on its axis, the sun came up the next day, people went to work, sent their kids to school and cheered for the Red Sox. So we are doing just fine in Massachusetts, thank you very much. And we certainly do not need anyone from Colorado or Georgia or Texas telling us how to handle the marriage issue in our own State. The impeccably conservative Vice President of the United States, Dick Cheney, said it well in 2000, and I have his words right here, and I quote, ``The fact of the matter is that we live in a free society, and freedom means freedom for everybody. And I think that means that people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into. It's really no one else's business in terms of trying to regulate or prohibit behaviors in that regard. I think different States are likely to come to different conclusions, and that's appropriate. I don't think there should necessarily be a Federal policy in that area.'' And those are the words of the Vice President of the United States, Dick Cheney. The Vice President speaks from very personal experience. He loves someone who is gay, not because she chose to be gay but because that is just who she is. Mr. Speaker, if this amendment passes, discrimination against a group of people will be written into the Constitution of the United States. If this amendment passes, we will be taking a step backward in our march toward equal protection under the law. All of us take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution not to use it as a political weapon. There are some who say that this is about protecting future generations, our kids. Well, let me tell you in this chamber today, I have two beautiful children, a 6-year-old son and a 3-year-old daughter, who I love more than anything, and I do not want them to grow up in a country where an entire group of people is treated as second class citizens. To those, like the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Musgrave), who say this is about protecting marriage, let me ask, just whose marriage are you trying to protect? I am happily married, and I do not need Members of Congress to protect my marriage. Please do not use my marriage to promote homophobia and discrimination. Mr. Speaker, this amendment is wrong. And to those of my colleagues who support this amendment today, let me state clearly that you are on the wrong side of history. It is wrong to tarnish our most sacred document, our Constitution, with discrimination. It is wrong to take a beautiful institution like marriage and use it as an instrument of division and hostility. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to do the right thing. Help secure the blessings of liberty for all Americans. Vote ``no'' on this amendment. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the next speaker, I would like to point out one thing which I find particularly interesting, and that is at the recent Republican National Convention in New York City, all of the featured prime-time speakers that the party decided to put on display for us, Rudy Giuliani and George Pataki and Arnold Schwarzenegger, all oppose what is trying to be done today. They all oppose this constitutional amendment. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me first say to the gentleman who just spoke, I guess I must obviously have more confidence in our State legislatures across this country than he does because State legislatures all across this country are acting on this issue. I think they are closer to the people of the States than in many respects we are. It seems to me that this process is working. When he says that we are forced to be here, that we cannot talk about getting a real highway bill, that we cannot talk about health care, that we cannot talk about national security issues or veterans benefits or education, but we have to be here and debate this right now, the fact of the matter is this debate is going on all across this country, and we should let that process make its way through. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the Log Cabin Republicans, which is a very well-known group to all of us here in the Congress, a group that voted to endorse Bob Dole in 1996 and George Bush again in 2000, has issued a statement entitled ``Log Cabin Republicans Vote to Withhold Their Endorsement from President Bush.'' The statement says that it is impossible to overstate the depth of anger and disappointment caused by the President's support for an anti- family constitutional amendment. It goes on to say that using gays and lesbians as wedge issues in an election year is unacceptable to Log Cabin, and they conclude by saying that this year they will withhold their endorsement of President Bush.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just like to read a couple of other quotes here which I think are enlightening. One from John McCain, Republican Senator from Arizona where he said: ``The constitutional amendment we're debating today strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans.'' He added, the amendment ``usurps from the States a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most States do not believe confronts them.'' Let me read one other quote here. ``It seems to me that the power to regulate 'commerce' can by no means encompass authority over mere gun possession any more than it empowers the Federal Government to regulate marriage, littering, or cruelty to animals throughout the 50 States. Our Constitution quite properly leaves such matters to the individual States.'' And that is from the words of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in U.S. v. Lopez. Mr. Speaker, today, we have the opportunity to do the right thing. We have the opportunity to reject the politics of division and discrimination. We have the opportunity to protect the Constitution of the United States, to stay on the path toward equal protection under the law for every single American. We have the opportunity to act in a way that reflects well on this institution and the people we are elected to serve. I am encouraged, Mr. Speaker, by the number of Republicans who will vote ``no'' on this misguided constitutional amendment today. And I am proud to stand with them. We will hear a lot about Massachusetts today. A son of our State named John F. Kennedy once said, ``The heart of the question is whether all Americans are to be afforded equal opportunities, whether we are going to treat our fellow Americans as we want to be treated.'' Mr. Speaker, that is indeed the heart of the question. I urge my colleagues to seize this opportunity, vote ``no'' on this constitutional amendment. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just point out to the gentleman who just spoke that there is no law in this country that forces any given religion to recognize any particular marriage. Religions are separate from what we are talking about here today. I just want to remind the gentleman that there are non-Christians who live in this Nation as well, and I would hope that he would believe that this country is equally theirs as well.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and let me just conclude for our side here by saying that this debate is not about whether or not we are going to support this extension. We are all going to support it. That is not the issue. What we are expressing here is a frustration that we do not have a 6- year bill. And contrary to what the gentleman from New York says, most transportation planners that I have talked to, and I am sure he has talked to, if he has listened to them, would tell him that a 6-year bill is better than an 8-month extension for this reason: that many transportation programs require long-term planning. It is not a quick one-time investment. With an 8-month extension there is not the certainty of what happens after 8 months. My point earlier was simply that this is another missed opportunity by this leadership. The Republicans control the House, they control the Senate, and they control the White House. Surely, surely they could have worked out a deal. Surely they could have helped accomplish a 6- year extension. That is what the frustration is on this side. Our Governors and our mayors and our town managers and our city planners are all looking for a long-term guarantee of funding, and they are not going to get that. They are going to get an 8-month extension. And, yes, that is better than nothing. We need to keep this funding going. But the fact is they cannot plan long term; and as a result of that, we are not going to create as many jobs. The future for some of the economic development that we all hoped for that will come from some of these projects will have to be put on hold, and I think that is a shame. So I want to commend the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the chairman, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and all the Members who have worked hard in a bipartisan way. I only wish that their spirit of cooperation would have translated to the leadership of this House and the other body and the White House. We should be doing so much better than this. We should be passing a 6-year extension right now. So I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule, and I urge them to vote for the extension; and, hopefully, we will, sooner rather than later, get a 6-year bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), my good friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this rule and the underlying bill are for an 8-month extension of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st century, TEA 21. It marks the sixth extension of that landmark legislation since it expired last year and reveals, once again, the rank and utter incompetence of the Republican leadership to get a transportation reauthorization bill. This extension, while absolutely necessary to keep the Nation's highway and transportation agencies running is, simply stated, another glaring failure of the Republican leadership in this session of Congress. Mr. Speaker, let us pause for a moment to remind everyone of the facts. They are in charge of the White House. They are in charge of the Senate, and they are in charge of the House of Representatives. The transportation reauthorization bill is one of the most strongly supported, popular and bipartisan measures to be considered in the House. The programs authorized in this bill touch every American and affect their lives every single day. There are probably only a handful of Members who do not want to see a transportation bill reauthorized for another 6 years. Nevertheless, this President and the Republican leadership, which have presided over a historic loss of more than 2 million American jobs, are stonewalling a transportation bill which will create 47,000 new jobs for every $1 billion of investment. The refusal of this leadership to work in good faith with the other body is costing our economy precious jobs, while the condition of our roads and bridges continue to deteriorate. Instead of providing real leadership, the majority party and the President have let the conferees twist in the wind while we continue to pass short-term extension after short-term extension of these important programs. The States, which we were elected to represent, are left to guess at when we will have a transportation bill, as they endeavor to undertake critically important public works projects. According to the American Association of State Highway Transportation officials, 33 States say that a short-term extension rather than enactment of a 6-year bill will mean $2.1 billion in project delays and the loss of over 90,000 jobs. Now, I understand that the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) and everybody on the committee are doing the best they can given the Draconian allocations set by the Republican leadership. The members of that committee, the bipartisan cooperation of that committee deserves to be praised by all of us, and it should be an example to the rest of this body. I support these extensions because we cannot afford to let these programs expire. But it is important to know that the leadership of this House and the administration have not done all they can to ensure that the full reauthorization is completed and signed before the programs expire. Mr. Speaker, as I said before, the President is the leader of his party. Where is the leadership? The transportation bill will provide every American with the roads and bridges that they need. It will provide economic stimulus across the country with various projects that are written into it. And, most importantly, this bill will create new jobs at a time when new jobs are desperately needed. But instead of looking out for the American public, the leadership and the President have held on to their ideology to the detriment of this country. So, Mr. Speaker, I want to say again that while I support this extension, I am disappointed and discouraged by the way the leadership has so profoundly mismanaged this process, and I hope that we can do better next year. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank my colleague, the gentleman from New York, for his comments. I always enjoy listening to his interesting spin on things. The fact of the matter is, the problem is not with the authorizers. The authorizers have done a great job. As I said, we need to praise, in a bipartisan way, the members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. But the problem is with the leadership, and the problem is with the White House who is insisting on unbelievably low numbers for the reauthorization of this bill. As a result of not having a 6-year bill, there are a number of States that have put projects on hold, and that means that these projects are not being built. They are not going forward. The jobs are not being created. We should have done better. We are all going to support this extension. We have to. We have no choice. This is the right thing to do. I am just lamenting the fact that we should have had a 6-year bill, and I regret that the White House and the leadership were not able to get together and make this a priority, especially at a time when there is record job loss. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me be clear to everybody here, because the gentleman from New York keeps on talking about this in terms of a ``yes'' or ``no'' vote. We are all going to vote for it because there is no other choice. Nobody is opposing the extension here. What we are simply saying is they have mismanaged this process. He talks about jobs that could be maintained. Well, we want to not only maintain jobs, we want to create them. Let me repeat to him, according to the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials, 33 States say that a short-term extension rather than enactment of a 6-year bill will mean $2.1 billion in project delays and the loss of over 90,000 jobs. If we did our job right in this House, then this would not be the case. There would be more jobs coming. I would remind the gentleman, again, I am pretty sure that one party, one party, controls the House and controls the Senate and controls the White House. Contrary to what the gentleman says, this is not about finger-pointing to point out that you guys cannot get your act together. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Davis).

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the transportation bill is one of the most strongly supported, popular, and bipartisan measures to be considered in the House. The programs authorized in this bill touch every American and affect their lives every single day. There are probably only a handful of Members who do not want to see the transportation bill reauthorized for another 6 years. But it appears that the Republican leadership and the administration are stonewalling this process by their refusal to work in good faith with the other body. Let us look at the facts. Republicans are in charge of the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. But, instead of providing real leadership, the Republican leadership and the President have let the conferees dangle in the wind while we continue to pass short-term extension after short- term extension of these important programs. By my count, Mr. Speaker, this is the sixth temporary extension to be considered and sent to the President. Do not get me wrong. I strongly support these programs. I understand that the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) and others are doing their best given the draconian allocation set by the Republican leadership. I support these extensions because we cannot afford to let these programs expire. But it is important to know that the Republican leadership and the Bush administration have not done all they can to ensure that the full reauthorization is completed and signed before the programs expire. Mr. Speaker, the President is the leader of his party. Yet the President has shown a lack of leadership on this issue. The transportation bill will provide every American with roads and bridges that they need. It will provide economic stimulus across the country with the various projects that are written into it. Most importantly, this bill will create new jobs at a time when the new jobs are desperately needed. But instead of looking out for the American public, the President and the Republican leadership in this body have held onto their ideology to the detriment of this country. Mr. Speaker, I want to say again that I support this extension. While I am concerned anytime the Republican leadership proposes a martial law rule, I also want to express my support for this particular rule that will allow us to consider this sixth extension and send it to the President before these programs expire. But I am disappointed and discouraged by the way the President and the Republican leadership have mismanaged this process, and I hope we can do better next year. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by reading a ``Dear Colleague'' letter from the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member, and the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis) entitled Please ``Oppose H.R. 3193.'' They write, ``We are writing to urge you to oppose H.R. 3193, a bill that would make Washington, D.C. less safe. H.R. 3193 falls within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Reform, but was not considered by the committee.'' They say this bill ``repeals the D.C. laws that restrict the possession of firearms in the District of Columbia. Among the laws repealed are the ban on semiautomatic assault weapons, the ban on armor-piercing ammunition, and the gun registration requirements. Although one can debate the merits of some of D.C.'s gun laws, no one should question the importance of keeping fully-loaded assault weapons off the streets of the Nation's Capital city. ``Another problem with H.R. 3193 is its impact on home rule for the District of Columbia. Congress would never act to repeal the gun laws for communities in Northern Virginia or Southern California. Whether we agree or disagree with the District's laws, we should accord the mayor and District city council that same respect. ``Please join us in voting no on H.R. 3193.'' This letter was signed by the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Davis) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman). A number of speakers have said D.C.'s gun laws violate the second amendment. They do not violate the second amendment. In a recent NRA- inspired lawsuit, D.C. citizens challenged the constitutionality of the city's gun laws. In a decision styled Seegers v. Ashcroft, a D.C. Federal court judge found that the D.C. gun laws did not violate the plaintiff's second amendment rights. In fact, because the second amendment specifically applies to State militias, the court held that the amendment cannot apply to the District of Columbia, which is not a State. Mr. Speaker, this body considered this issue in 1999 when the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode) offered this repeal as an amendment to the gun show bill. That amendment was defeated by a vote of 175-250. This House has already spoken. Members defeated that awful idea then, and I hope they will defeat it again today when this bill comes to the floor. I hope Members of this House will stand up to the NRA and will do the right thing, will do the right thing by the citizens of this city. How anybody can make the case that making more military-style assault weapons available on the streets of D.C. somehow is going to decrease crime is beyond me. It makes no sense at all. This is an arrogant bill, where people who have no idea what is going on in this city are imposing their will on the people of the District of Columbia. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record two editorials, one from the Journal Gazette of Fort Wayne, Indiana, entitled ``Where Are Souder's Priorities'' and the other from ``The Decatur Daily Democrat'' entitled ``Souder's Contempt.'' I wish the gentleman who introduced this bill would have paid attention to the editorials from his home newspapers. They are right. D.C. has a right to determine its fate on these gun laws. Congress has no business repealing what the local leaders and legislators in D.C. have decided. I hope all Member of Congress do the right thing, will stand up for our kids, will stand up for our police. All of the police officers, the police chief, the police associations, are all against this bill. Let us do the right thing and defeat this bill. House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform, Washington, DC, September 27, 2004. Please Oppose H.R. 3193 Dear Colleague: We are writing to urge you to oppose H.R. 3193, a bill that would make Washington, D.C., less safe. H.R. 3193 falls within the jurisdiction of the Government Reform Committee, but was not considered by the Committee. H.R. 3193 repeals the D.C. laws that restrict the possession of firearms in the District of Columbia. Among the laws repealed are the ban on semiautomatic assault weapons, the ban on armor-piercing (``cop-killer'') ammunition, and the gun registration requirements. Although one can debate the merits of some of D.C.'s gun laws, no one should question the importance of keeping fully loaded assault weapons off the streets of the nation's capital city. Another problem with H.R. 3193 is its impact on home rule for the District. Congress would never act to repeal the gun laws for communities in Northern Virginia or Southern California. Whether we agree or disagree with the District's laws, we should accord the Mayor and the D.C. City Council the same respect. Please join us in voting ``No'' on H.R. 3193. Sincerely, Tom Davis, Chairman. Henry A. Waxman, Ranking Minority Member.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the so-called District of Columbia Personal Protection Act and to this closed rule. Mr. Speaker, today the Republican leadership is, once again, letting the American people down by considering the wrong bill at the wrong time under the wrong circumstances. Once again, we are considering legislation in the shadow of the November elections. With 5 weeks to go until Election Day, the Republican leadership has put the country's agenda on hold in order to force an unnecessary vote on a bad and stupid bill. Once again, the Republican leadership is catering to the special interests at the expense of the public good; and once again, the Republican leadership is squandering the House's very limited time with this foolish, misguided, election-year legislation. Mr. Speaker, we are just one day away from the end of the fiscal year, and only one, and I repeat, one, appropriation bill has been sent to the White House. Not only are the remaining 12 appropriations bills left on the table, not only has the House failed to complete consideration of all of the appropriations bills, but the Republican leadership, which controls both Houses of Congress, cannot even agree upon a budget. Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership cannot get its act together on the highway bill, a bill that would create thousands of good-paying jobs. The Republican leadership cannot find the time to work on a bill to increase the minimum wage, even though wages are stagnant and over 4 million Americans have fallen out of the middle class and into poverty since George Bush became President. And the Republican leadership cannot even get its act together on the Department of Defense authorization or the FSC/ETI bill, each of which has languished in conference for months. Mr. Speaker, as the House takes up this frivolous legislation today, the Republican leadership has yet to act on the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission report. Although the other body is working on legislation to implement the 9/ 11 report and the Democratic leader of this House has introduced legislation that addresses the report's recommendations, here we are today wasting precious time that could be used to debate the 9/11 report's recommendations. Will it take another September 11 anniversary before the Republican leadership will act? Will we see the Republican leaders' bill before the election? Will we have to wait until after November for the necessary reforms that will help make our country and our citizens safer against terror? Mr. Speaker, if the American people want real leadership on real issues facing the Nation, they certainly should not look to this House of Representatives. Under this Republican leadership, this House has become a place where trivial issues are debated casually, and serious and important ones not at all. In fact, today, we are debating H.R. 3193, a bill that would overturn Washington, D.C.'s laws and restrictions on the possession of firearms. Among its provisions, H.R. 3193 repeals the District's ban on semi- automatic assault weapons, its gun registration requirements and its ban on cop-killer ammunition. That is right, Mr. Speaker, this bill puts cop-killer ammunition on the streets of our Nation's capital. Simply put, this legislation makes the Nation's capital a more dangerous place to be a police officer. As D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams wrote to the congressional leadership, ``It is unthinkable that, while the Nation's capital is under alert, Congress should take action to expose more than half a million residents, almost 200,000 Federal workers and 20 million tourists to greater danger.'' It is unthinkable, Mr. Speaker, to put our officers at greater risk at a time when Capitol Police expect $20 million in additional unbudgeted expenditures to secure the Capitol Building for this year. The last thing they need to hear is that semi-automatic weapons can now be carried on the National Mall or cop-killer bullets are legal in the District of Columbia. While the bill changes the law to allow District of Columbia residents to carry pistols, open or concealed, in their homes and places of business, it does not repeal another District of Columbia gun law. The law we will not repeal today is the provision outlawing people carrying or having readily access to firearms ``upon the United States grounds or within the Capitol Buildings.'' So we will vote to approve guns in another person's workplace in the District but not in our offices. It is unthinkable that only 2 years after the Washington area was terrorized by snipers who killed ten people in the region and while the Nation's capital is still under terrorist alert, Congress would take action to expose more than half a million District residents, almost 200,000 Federal workers and 20 million tourists to greater danger. This bill will make the District of Columbia a more dangerous place to live, to work and to study. Although Members of this body may disagree on gun issues, surely, we can all agree that the citizens of the District of Columbia should not have to face fully-loaded assault weapons on their streets, in their neighborhoods and around their schools. But, Mr. Speaker, this bill and this rule did not have to be so lousy. Last night, the Committee on Rules had the chance to make this a better bill and a better process. Instead, the leadership of the Committee on Rules decided to pass a rule that makes a mockery of the deliberative process Congress is supposed to follow when we consider bills. First of all, the Republican leadership brought this bill to the floor without consideration by the committee of jurisdiction, the Committee on Government Reform. Then, last night, when members from both parties brought amendments to our committee, the Committee on Rules rejected them all. The rule does not make in order the gentlewoman from California's (Mrs. Bono) and the gentlewoman from New York's (Mrs. McCarthy) amendment addressing the fact that this bill repeals the ban on cop-killer bullets. This closed rule guarantees that this bill would emerge from this House with no real debate or consideration. This House floor has become a ``legislation-free zone.'' Mr. Speaker, this issue is about more than guns. This issue is about how the residents of Washington, D.C., are treated. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the Members of Congress from Indiana or Texas or Massachusetts have a monopoly on wisdom when it comes to local laws, and I would not presume to impose on the citizens and elected officials of the District of Columbia something that would never, never, never be allowed or accepted by my own city council or State legislature. Mr. Speaker, not one constituent of any voting Member of Congress will benefit by today's action. As the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette stated in an editorial published just last week on September 21, 2004, ``This page believes Washington should be able to set its own gun- control laws but acknowledges that honest people can disagree regarding the city's second amendment rights. But there is little doubt that, right now, Souder's bill is simply a waste of Congress' time and does nothing to improve good government or help his constituents in Indiana.'' Mr. Speaker, let us follow what the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette wrote and address the real needs of our constituents. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am a little bit baffled by the previous speaker to imply that somehow the passage of this bill would make the residents of D.C. safer. If this bill is enacted, the following weapons would be lawful to possess: The AK-47, the Israeli Semiautomatic Uzi Carbine, the Bushmaster X- 15, which was used by the D.C. area snipers to kill 10 people in 2002; the Barrett M82 A-1 50-caliber sniper weapon, which has the range of about 1 mile and is used by U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and worldwide to penetrate bunkers, to disable armored personnel carriers, and to take down enemy aircraft. This bill would allow fully-loaded assault weapons to be carried in public. This bill would allow armor- piercing ammunition, including cop-killing bullets. This bill would eliminate the District's registration program even for assault weapons. This bill would allow individuals to carry concealed hand guns in their places of business and property. Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that anybody can say with a straight face that this will make the residents of D.C. and this country safer. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter from Mayor Anthony Williams and a letter from the Chief of Police, Charles Ramsey, in strong opposition to this legislation. We have heard from the gentleman from Oklahoma and we have heard from the gentleman from Georgia who think they know everything about what the people of the District of Columbia need and deserve; how about listening to the mayor of this city and to the police chief of this city who say this is a bad bill which will make the streets of this city more dangerous? Washington, DC, September 16, 2004. Hon. Tom DeLay, Majority Leader, House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Representative DeLay: Princess Hansen. James Richardson. Chelsea Cromartie. Myesha Lowe. These are the names of four children who will never see adulthood. These are the names of four children whose parents are devastated by grief. These are the names of four children out of 14 who were killed by illegal guns in the District since January. On behalf of the residents of the nation's capital, I am writing to express strong displeasure upon learning that federal legislation to repeal the city's gun control laws could shortly come to a vote in the House of Representatives. The District of Columbia Personal Protection Act of 2004 is not just a step back in our efforts to control crime--it is a couple of football fields back. I take sharp exception to this wholly inappropriate intrusion into what is clearly a local matter. On behalf of the residents of the District of Columbia, I urgently ask you to take no further action on this legislation. It is unthinkable that while the nation's capital is under alert, Congress would take action to expose more than a half a million District residents, almost 200,000 federal workers and 20 million tourists to greater danger. The District of Columbia has been governed by an elected Mayor and thirteen elected Council members since 1975. During the Council's first legislative session in 1976, the District passed legislation that restricted the possession, use and transfer of handguns and semiautomatic weapons. The courts have upheld the constitutionality of this law and no bill has been passed in the District to water down our gun-control laws since. District leaders have enacted gun safety legislation based on our citizens' view that any increase in the number of guns in the District increases the likelihood that crimes will be committed with those guns. We have made significant progress in reducing crime, although we still have work to do. This year alone, District residents have witnessed a 24 percent reduction in homicides and a 13 percent decrease in overall crime. There is no way to argue that lifting our weapons bans will not jeopardize this progress. My administration has worked very hard to produce these results and I ask you to respect our efforts by leaving one of our most important anti-crime tools in place. My greatest frustration is that in spite of the significant reduction in homicides, 14 children, the largest number in five years, have been killed by guns this year. These killings, some by children, are reason enough to do no more harm by allowing more guns in our city. Our residents know all too well the human costs exacted by guns and violence. Eighty percent of all homicides in the District last year were committed with guns, all of which were brought into the city illegally. Because of the porous nature of our borders, we can never rely on laws alone to keep guns out of our city, but these laws are indispensable local tools to combat crime. Our ability to reduce homicides would be severely compromised if--in addition to confiscating guns brought in from other jurisdictions--we were required to combat gun violence from weapons maintained, carried and bought within the District. We are taking aggressive measures to further reduce homicides and violent crime in the city by increasing the number of sworn officers to 3,800, restructuring our Patrol Service Areas, strengthening our investigative capacity, and improving 911 response times. For Princess Hansen. For James Richardson. For Chelsea Cromartie. For Myesha Lowe. I implore you to take no further action on the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act of 2004. The citizens of the District of Columbia want nothing more than other American citizens would demand and get--the right to make our own decisions about our public safety. Sincerely yours, Anthony A. Williams, Mayor.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, our Constitutional Framers drafted a living document that, while not perfect, created a vibrant representative democracy. They crafted the Constitution as a document that could be improved over the course of history. The Framers themselves would probably agree that the Constitution, as originally drafted, would not be perfect into perpetuity. Indeed, in Federalist 43, James Madison states ``that useful alterations will be suggested by experience, could not but be foreseen.'' The Framers improved the Constitution by amending it with the Bill of Rights. Since this important document was signed in 1789, a total of 27 amendments have been added. As Members of Congress, we take an oath to uphold and defend that Constitution. It is our duty to take the proper actions to ensure that our democracy and our way of life are preserved for the future. The tragic attacks of September 11, 2001, and the threat of future attacks require that we ensure that there is a continuity of the government created by the Framers. Before September 11, 2001, the United States had withstood a civil war, attacks on its soil and attacks upon Washington, DC and the Capitol itself. But the continuity of government established by the Constitution, and the ability of the Congress to fulfill its Constitutional duties, has never been more at risk from attack. Today, we live with the grim knowledge that a terrorist attack could take place again here in the United States and that terrorists may attempt to attack and destroy this Capitol Building. And it is with this understanding that the Congress must ensure that the government established by the Framers continues well into the future. The Framers and the Congress, over the past 216 years, created a presidential line of succession in case the President is killed or dies in office. Article II, section 1, paragraph 6 establishes: the Vice President as the next in line to take over the presidency in case the President is removed from office for any reason. This same clause also gives Congress the power to establish the line of succession beyond the Vice President, and the Congress acted by creating this line of succession, as established in chapter 3, section 19 of the U.S. Code. There are safeguards in the Constitution and established by law should a President become unable to fulfill his or her constitutional duties, die, or be removed from office. Simply, there is a plan to ensure that the executive branch can continue to exist should something happen to the President. The Constitution also established the bicameral Congress--the House of Representatives and the Senate--and established that the House is a body that can only be constituted of Members who are directly elected by citizens of the United States. The Constitution says that a vacant House seat can only be filled by direct election, and a seat can only become vacant at the end of a 2-year term established in article 1, section 2, paragraph 1 of the Constitution or with the removal of a Member of Congress either by death, resignation, declination, withdrawal, or by expulsion. However, as I've already stated, the Framers of the Constitution never planned for an event, including an attack on this country, that could cause mass death or incapacitation of Members of Congress. After September 11th, we need to ask ourselves how we can preserve our government, as designed by the Framers, in the wake of a catastrophic event. And we need to do so with an eye looking toward the future. A key problem created by an attack that kills or incapacitates more than half of the Members of Congress actually lies in the way a quorum of the House is defined. It may sound arcane to some, but establishing a quorum is vital to the way our government works. If the House were not able to establish a quorum, this body could not vote on legislation. In the wake of a catastrophe, the House must be able to act. However, without a quorum, the U.S. government could grind to a halt until a quorum is actually established. In other words, if this country were attacked again and the House could not establish a quorum, we could not pass important legislation like emergency appropriations, improvements to already established security laws, or even a declaration of war. At the beginning of the 108th Congress, the House enacted an important rule change that codified a long-standing House precedent allowing the Speaker of the House to reduce the number of the quorum by one for each vacant seat in the House. This rule change took place with the adoption of H. Res. 5, the resolution adopting the Rules of the House for the 108th Congress. The codification of this precedent is important, but it does not address the problem of incapacitation. If any number of Members of Congress were killed in a terrorist attack, this new rule change would allow the Speaker to reduce the whole number of the House that determines a quorum. But what would happen if an attack occurred in the United States and more than 218 Members were alive but not able to return to the House chamber to vote? The reasons for this could be anything from an attack that results in over 218 unconscious Members to a breakdown in the transportation system preventing Members of Congress from returning to Washington. While this issue may not seem important compared to the issues that dominate the news these days--the continued instability and rising death toll in Iraq, the economic challenges in this country, and the presidential race, just to name a few--this is something the House of Representatives must address. Continuity of Congress, the ability to preserve the American government as established by the Framers in the Constitution, is an issue that transcends partisan politics and while we must take action to persevere the continuity of Congress, it is essential that we do so in a bipartisan way. I strongly believe the House must act on continuity of Congress in a bipartisan fashion. There cannot be any other way for the House to act and for those actions to be considered legitimate. Simply, any rule change of this magnitude must transcend partisan politics. But I must express my concerns with the public consideration and discussion of this issue and with the current draft that attempts to address incapacitation and a provisional quorum. I want to clarify that I am not making these statements as a Democrat or as a Member of the minority party. Rather, I am making these comments as one Member of Congress committed to defending the Constitution and protecting this institution and this country. Mr. Speaker, I am dismayed that the Rules Committee only held one hearing on this issue. To Chairman Dreier's credit, the panel was distinguished, and the discussion was fairly comprehensive. But the reality is that one hearing on this issue is inadequate. We heard from then-Parliamentarian Charlie Johnson and members of his staff, former acting Solicitor General of the United States Walter Dellinger, and the Attending Physician of the House, Dr. John F. Eisold. While the discussion was lively, I don't believe it explored the topic of incapacitation to the fullest extent possible. I am most concerned about Professor Dellinger's testimony. Unfortunately, the Republican majority on the Rules Committee decided to invite only one outside witness--Professor Dellinger. This witness, while well-informed and knowledgeable on this subject, was clearly brought in to validate the majority's views. No other outside witnesses were invited to testify. Professor Dellinger is of the opinion that to address the problem of incapacitation, we only need to amend the quorum requirements in House rule XX. There are other experts, constitutional scholars and other lawyers including some congressional staff, who believe that such a change is unconstitutional and that the only way to change the quorum requirement is to amend the Constitution. Amending the Constitution is serious business. Like Madison, I believe that amending the Constitution should be based on experience, and I strongly believe amending the Constitution should not be a knee- jerk reaction to a perceived problem. But unlike other proposed constitutional amendments that have been proposed in this Congress, the constitutional amendment to preserve the continuity of Congress, and the continuity of the American government as a whole, raises important concerns and deserves to have a thorough hearing and thoughtful discussion. Of course, the devil is in the details and the specific language of any proposed amendment is vital. But preserving this country as it was founded is one of our responsibilities as Representatives of the American people. I want to make clear that I'm not advocating for or against a constitutional amendment, but only that I believe it is a topic that deserves a fair and comprehensive hearing. Unfortunately, it appears that the Chairman and some members of the Rules Committee and the Republican leadership have come to the conclusion--without comprehensive hearings--that a constitutional amendment is not needed and that all we need to address these challenges is a change in the quorum definition in the House Rules. Along with my concerns that the Rules Committee only held one hearing, Professor Dellinger said something else that I fully support but, unfortunately, confirms to me that this process started off on the wrong foot. In his testimony, Professor Dellinger said that any change in the House Rules must be bipartisan and that there must be a bipartisan consensus before any change is made. Unfortunately, the Republican majority on the Rules Committee decided to share a draft of the proposed rule change with Professor Dellinger prior to the sharing it with the Democrats on the Committee. I, for one, don't think such secrecy is considered bipartisan. I, however, believe that this is water under the bridge and that we must move past such events and deal with the issue at hand, which is guaranteeing the continuity of Congress in case of a catastrophic terrorist attack. I believe we still can work together and produce a true, bipartisan rule change. Mr. Speaker, Chairman Dreier and his staff have drafted a proposed rule change that, except for one provision, is a good proposal. I am pleased that this proposed change has language defining the circumstances under which this process can be invoked. This proposal includes time limitations on the calls of the House required to determine whether there is a real quorum in the House. Should a quorum not be attained, the Sergeant-at-Arms will compile a report documenting the status of every Member currently elected to the House. I believe these are all good provisions and I'm pleased that Chairman Dreier and the Republican leadership worked with the Democratic staff to improve these provisions over the past few months. However, the proposed rule change, as currently drafted, allows the Speaker of the House, after he receives the catastrophic quorum failure report from the Sergeant-at-Arms, to unilaterally declare that a quorum has not been attained and begin the process to reduce the total number of Members required for a quorum under catastrophic circumstances. The latest draft shared with me requires the speaker to consult with the majority leader and the minority leader on the content of the report, but it does not require that the concurrence of the speaker, majority leader and minority leader. Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this proposal without the inclusion of ``concurrence'' of the speaker, majority leader, and minority leader. The need for concurrence of both parties in the House is not just a partisan statement made by a Member from the minority party, but a real concern made by someone who reveres and respects this institution. And I'm not the only person who believes this. I want to read directly from Professor Dellinger's prepared testimony before the Rules Committee on April 29, 2004: For the rule's invocation to have true legitimacy, there must also be some procedural guarantee that the rule is not being improperly invoked for factional reasons. Unlike the traditional rule, where the quorum calculation is based on strictly objective measures such as death, the reduced quorum rule for extraordinary circumstances would be based on less clear-cut circumstances, presenting a heightened danger of manipulation. This loss of objective standards may be necessary in order to deal with the special problem the rule is designed to address; but Congress should certainly take care to minimize the risk of manipulation. For that reason, I strongly recommend that the power to invoke the rule be placed not solely in the discretion of the Speaker, but rather require as well the concurrence of one or more members of the minority party's leadership, from a list chosen ahead of time. This need not be viewed as an encroachment on the Speaker's or the majority party's authority. There is a real danger that, after an attack or other national catastrophe, any action taken by the speaker without the concurrence of the minority leader could have the perception of partisan politics. This is true no matter which party controls a majority of seats in the House. In times of crisis, any action by the House of Representatives must be bipartisan. There cannot be any perception that the majority is using any tool as part of a partisan power grab. The American public wants to be reassured that the House is acting in the best public interest; they want partisan politics to be put aside during a national crisis. They simply want to be safe, secure, and reassured that the American government will respond to their needs. After September 11, 2001, the House came together and acted as one unified body. We put partisan politics aside. We held joint press conferences, we received joint briefings, and we conducted joint strategy meetings. Unanimity and consensus is vital during a national crisis. The unified message and unified actions--the one voice--coming from the House of Representatives after September 11, 2001 was reassuring to the American people. Any action taken by the speaker of the House--irrespective of that speaker's party--that is not taken with the concurrence of the minority leader could be seen as inappropriate by the American people. Requiring the concurrence of the minority leader puts the needs of the country ahead of the threat of partisan politics, and it is a necessary protection against anyone who may want to abuse our democracy during a time of national crisis. Mr. Speaker, although I'm disappointed that it's taken this long to act on the issue of incapacitation--it's been over 3 years since the attacks of September 11--I'm pleased that the Rules Committee is finally acting on this important issue. I hope the chairman and the Rules Committee will look to the future, and realize that concurrence is an important part of this process that it is vital to show the American people that the Congress can put partisan politics aside in the time of crisis. I want to thank the chairman for organizing this special order tonight. I look forward to working with him on this issue, and I hope he will take my views--and those of my Democratic colleagues on the committee--into account as he finalizes this proposal.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, sadly, the best that can be said of this fiscal year 2005 Transportation, Treasury, and Independent Agencies Appropriations bill is that it represents a valiant effort to fund the important agencies it covers despite a grossly deficient budget allocation. The subcommittee's fiscal year 2005 budget allocation is $389 million less than the President's request and $2 billion than the level of budget authority provided in the fiscal year 2004 Omnibus Appropriations bill. So, therefore, I want to be begin by thanking the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), subcommittee chairman, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), ranking member, for their hard work and diligence in bringing this bill forward under very difficult and trying circumstances. The gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), ranking member, also deserves credit for helping to craft a bipartisan bill that attempts to spread the pain of this pitifully inadequate budget allocation equally. That being said, the fact remains that this appropriations bill does not meet the very real and growing needs of our Nation in a number of areas, particularly with respect to our deteriorating transportation infrastructure. And, Mr. Speaker, that simple fact is especially hard to reconcile with this administration's reckless fiscal policies of tax cuts for the wealthy. This fiscal year 2005 Transportation, Treasury Appropriations bill provides $89.9 billion in total funding, an increase of $1 billion over the President's request and $495 million below the fiscal year 2004 level. Discretionary spending is capped at $25.4 billion, which is $2.9 billion below the fiscal year 2004 level. Among the more glaring shortcomings of this appropriations bill is the continued, conscious and deliberate underfunding of Amtrak. This recurring game of brinksmanship with our national passenger rail system has simply got to stop. During their brief tenure, David Gunn and his management team have made significant improvements in the operational efficiency of Amtrak by cutting waste and reducing expenses while increasing ridership and raising revenues. However, despite these impressive gains, there still exists a massive $6 billion backlog of critical capital improvements, created in large part by years of deferred maintenance along the Northeast Corridor, which absolutely must be addressed. No less than the Inspector General has stated that Amtrak needs $1.5 billion annually just for its capital needs. Mr. Speaker, this capital backlog is not imagined. It is very real and we need to provide sufficient funding to address it. The $900 million provided for Amtrak in this appropriations bill is half of the $1.8 billion Amtrak says it needs next fiscal year to keep the system operating reliably and to begin to address its capital backlog. If this $900 million in funding is allowed to stand, Amtrak will likely cease operations in mid-2005. If my colleagues doubt that, perhaps they should update their resume and apply for Mr. Gunn's job. Otherwise, do not be surprised when the trains stop running in the spring of next year and no private rail carrier steps up and offers to operate passenger service without a public subsidy. My colleagues should consider themselves warned. Mr. Speaker, the underfunding of Amtrak in this appropriations bill is compounded by a reduction in spending on new starts projects within the Federal Transit Administration's budget. At a time when our cities and towns are choking from congestion and the transportation reauthorization bill is mired in election year politics, we can scarcely afford to underfund projects which promote public transit. I have cities in my congressional district like Fall River in Massachusetts, which has 92,000 residents and is located only 50 miles south of Boston but has no access to commuter rail service. In these tough fiscal times, the FTA's new start program represents the only hope of expanding commuter rail to cities like Fall River. We should be increasing funding for new starts, not reducing it. Equally as troubling to me is the dramatic decrease in funding for Federal Aviation Administration facilities and equipment. This fiscal year 2005 appropriations bill provides $392 million less for FAA facilities and equipment than the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. As the commercial airline industry continues to recover from the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and consumer confidence returns, we must not jeopardize the safety and the security of America's airways by short-changing the agency's staffing equipment or facilities. In the Committee on Rules earlier today, Mr. Speaker, several amendments were offered to the rule, motions that would have provided protections for important amendments so that they could be debated and voted on right here on the House floor today. If the Committee on Rules had approved these motions, the House would have had the opportunity to debate and to vote on these amendments today. Unfortunately, as has become kind of regular order in the Committee on Rules, the Committee on Rules, on party-line votes, denied providing the necessary protections for these amendments, and they cannot be voted on today. The first amendment brought to the Committee on Rules by the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), would have increased funding for Amtrak by $300 million. The cost of the amendment would be paid for by a small reduction in the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for any person making more than $1 million. This amendment would provide badly needed funds for Amtrak; and, as we all know, Amtrak desperately needs increased funds if it is to continue providing the services that all of our constituents rely on. The second amendment would have protected from a point-of-order language already included in the bill that allows government jobs to be privatized only if such actions would save at least $10 million or 10 percent of the program's cost. The Office of Management and Budget has been working on a proposed rule that puts civilian employees at a competitive disadvantage to noncivilian employees. This language would ensure that the civilian employees have a level playing field when it comes to competition with noncivilian employees. Additionally, it would provide that taxpayer funds are properly spent, which is simply not the case under the new OMB guidelines. In other words, by leaving this provision unprotected, this important language, originally adopted in the committee, can be struck from the bill, making it much easier to privatize important Federal jobs. The third amendment offered in the Committee on Rules today would have protected a provision in the bill that provides a 3.5 percent COLA for Federal civilian employees. This is the same level the President proposed for members of the Armed Forces; and while all of us support our troops and we want to ensure that our troops and their families are paid what they deserve, we cannot and we must not forget about the jobs that civilian and Federal employees do each and every day. In fact, I strongly believe we should provide Federal employees with equal pay adjustments. Beyond that, a fair pay adjustment is needed to keep pace with private sector salaries so the Federal Government can compete for quality employees in the future. Finally, Mr. Speaker, on a special note, I want to publicly commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for raising the very important issue of foreign truck certification in the full committee markup of this appropriations bill. As a former member of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the lead sponsor of the Safe Highways and Infrastructure Preservation Act, I am keenly aware of the danger bigger trucks, foreign or domestic, pose to the American driving public on our interstates and highways. I would strongly encourage Members to take this issue very, very seriously and to immediately insist on stringent safety and environmental standards for foreign trucks. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and in opposition to H.R. 4571, the so-called Frivolous Lawsuit Protection Act. Today the Republican leadership of this body continues willful disregard for the American public. Once again we are considering legislation in the shadow of the November elections, and once again the Republican leadership is catering to big business at the expense of the public good. And once again that leadership is squandering the House's limited time with foolish, misguided special interest legislation. This is a bill that attempts to turn back the judicial clock by over a decade; and in the process, more pressing issues and priorities are ignored. Mr. Speaker, this simply is not needed. Yesterday the Federal Assault Weapons Ban died at the hands of the Republican leadership. President Bush, who, during his first campaign, said he saw no reason for such weapons to be on the street, indicated on more than one occasion that he would sign a new bill if the Republican-controlled Congress sent him one. But the Republican leadership refused to bring the reauthorization up for a vote. I believe they prevented a vote to protect President Bush from having to sign or veto the reauthorization of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Why? Because doing the bidding of the gun lobby is their priority. Apparently the Republican strategy in homeland security includes defying law enforcement by making these military-style assault weapons more available. Mr. Speaker, in addition to failing to act on the Federal assault weapons ban this week, the Republican leadership has scheduled zero time, that is zero time, to consider the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. The Commission took a hard and comprehensive look at the intelligence and homeland security needs of our country. They asked Congress to do its job, to take a hard look at the way this House organizes and carries out its works, ways that potentially undercut the security of our Nation and our people. Yet, today, in this House, it is business as usual, with special interest legislation on the House floor. Six weeks have passed since the Commission's report was first issued, and we still have no firm date as to when this House will take up legislation and debate the Commission's recommendations. Will it be before Congress breaks for elections? Will we have to wait for another September 11 anniversary to come and go before we take up the Commission's findings? Or, like today, will this body continue to waste its time on frivolous legislation? The Republican leadership in both parties of Congress has failed to pass a budget resolution, but we are not talking about that today. And today we begin one more legislative week without a transportation bill. We certainly are not working on a bill to increase the minimum wage, even though wages are stagnant and over 4 million Americans have fallen out of the middle class into poverty since George Bush became President. In fact, the Bush administration and the Republican Congress are on track to have the worst jobs record since the Great Depression, all the way back to Herbert Hoover. The average length of unemployment is at a 10-year high, and manufacturing employment remains at a 53-year low. Yet, this House does not seem to have the time to do anything to help the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs. No extension of unemployment benefits, no help for the millions of uninsured Americans, and certainly, no effort to reduce gas prices or lower the cost of college tuition, or pass a highway bill that might create good- paying jobs. No, Mr. Speaker, we are not taking up legislation to address these issues today. Mr. Speaker, if the American public wants real leadership on real issues, they should not look here for help. Indeed, this body is guilty of willful neglect of America's priorities. Why do we not work on a bill to help the millions of uninsured Americans? Over 70 percent of the uninsured live in households with at least one worker, and yet we sit idly by as more and more Americans work in jobs that provide little or no health care benefits. Instead, here we are, taking up H.R. 4571, the so-called Frivolous Lawsuit Reduction Act, a bill that does nothing to address the real problems facing working families of America, yet does so much to help the special interests who fill the campaign coffers of the majority. Among its provisions, H.R. 4571 would turn back the clock to the pre- 1993 provision of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provisions that were changed on the recommendation of the Judicial Conference after years of study, approved by the U.S. Supreme Court, and reviewed by Congress in accordance with the Rules Enabling Act. What will this bill change? The supporters of H.R. 4571 contend that it would help reduce frivolous lawsuits. That is what they say. But in reality, the bill would have a terrible effect on credible claims brought by families, workers, consumers, and senior citizens. Without many of these civil lawsuits, the following changes in consumer products would likely never have occurred: The redesign of defective baby cribs so that they no longer strangle infants; flammable children's pajamas taken off the market; the redesign of harmful medical devices; the strengthening of auto fuel systems so that they do not blow up upon impact; the addition of basic safeguards to dangerous farm machinery; and the elimination of asbestos so that workers are no longer poisoned in their workplaces. Mr. Speaker, instead of providing more protections for the average American, the Republican leadership actually provides protections for, get this, the ``Benedict Arnold corporations'' who reincorporate in a foreign tax shelter only to avoid paying U.S. taxes. Specifically, this bill protects these Benedict Arnold corporations from lawsuits American citizens could file if they are injured by those corporations' products. Unbelievable. The bill limits the venue of a lawsuit against a corporate defendant to either the place the injury happened or the jurisdiction where ``the defendant's principal place of business is located.'' If a foreign corporation does not do significant business in a place where the injury occurred, a plaintiff cannot sue a corporation headquartered outside the United States. In other words, a person injured by a defective product would be able to sue a U.S. corporation in its principal place of business, but he or she would often have no way to seek redress against a foreign corporation. Now, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) attempted to fix this provision. While the Republican leadership actually made the Turner amendment in order, they did so only after a provision intended to hold these Benedict Arnold corporations accountable for their actions in the United States was removed from the amendment. The provision the Republican leadership removed from the Turner amendment defines Benedict Arnold corporations as U.S. companies that set up corporate shells in foreign countries in order to escape U.S. tax liability and other U.S. regulatory duties. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the one proposal that was intended to protect people, not corporations, was left on the Committee on Rules floor last night. The Republican leadership does not want the American people to know that their bill puts Benedict Arnold corporations ahead of American consumers. This is just one example of the Republican leadership bending over backwards for special interests, while ignoring the real issues facing the American people. I hope my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), will take the time during this debate to explain to the American people why the Republican leadership continues to protect Benedict Arnold companies instead of fighting for American jobs here at home. But, then again, today's debate is not about the real issues confronting the American people; it is all about distraction. If we waste enough time on this bill, maybe the American people will not have time to ponder the failures and the lack of action by the Republican- controlled Congress on our most pressing priorities. It is a cynical ploy, and I hope that the American people recognize it. I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 4571. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)