Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, while I generally support this rule, I do not support the requirement that amendments to this bill must be preprinted in the Congressional Record. We offered an amendment in the Committee on Rules to delete this provision from the bill, but it was defeated. I am concerned that there seems to be an increasing pattern on the part of my friends on the Committee on Rules majority to report rules which allow only those amendments which are preprinted. This may be helpful to the committee of jurisdiction in preparing for the floor, but it can be troublesome to the rest of the House Members who are then limited in their opportunities to contribute their ideas to the overall debate. A truly open rules process does not limit the offering of amendments in this way. The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act, H.R. 1658, gives people whose property has been seized by the Federal Government because of alleged connection to criminal activity improved chances to recover that property. To some degree, we are today attempting to amend the law of unintended consequences, a law of nature which usually applies in situations where apparent only through the luxury of hindsight. Civil asset forfeiture in its current form was created to fight the war on drugs. Law enforcement officials have reported that civil asset forfeiture is one of law enforcement's most effective tools and have expressed concern that H.R. 1658 would impair the ability of law enforcement to deprive criminals of the proceeds of their illegal activities, and I hope that an amendment will pass today that will satisfy the concerns of law enforcement. However, in recent years, many have complained that the government's authority to seize property has been used excessively and has resulted in abuse suffered by innocent property owners. Civil assets forfeiture differs from criminal assets forfeiture in that criminal forfeitures are part of a criminal proceeding against a defendant, and the verdict of forfeiture is rendered by a court or jury only if a defendant is found guilty of the underlying crime. In contrast, civil asset forfeiture focuses on property connected to an alleged crime. The government targets the property, and because the property itself is the defendant, the guilt or innocence of the property owner is said to be irrelevant. This bill requires the government to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the property confiscated was subject to forfeiture because of illegal misuse. Under current law, the burden of proof lies with the person whose property was seized, and the government has only to show probable cause that the property is subject to forfeiture. Under the bill, an owner would not be required to forfeit property at the time of the illegal conduct if the person did not know of the conduct giving rise to forfeiture; or, if the property owner did all that he reasonably could to keep the property from being used illegally. The bill requires the Federal Government to give 60 days written notice when confiscating private property. Under the bill, a person would also be entitled to the immediate release of seized property if continued possession by the government would cause substantial hardship, such as preventing the functioning of a business, preventing an individual from working, or leaving an individual homeless. Moreover, the bill provides financial damages to be paid for the destruction, injury or loss of goods or merchandise while forfeited property is in the government's possession. As was pointed out during the hearing in the Committee on Rules hearing, this bill is sponsored by the members of the Committee on the Judiciary on both sides of the aisle who often represent divergent points of view. The fact that they are in concert regarding this measure favorably commends it to the House. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) for yielding me the customary time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me just say in response to what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) has said about the Chinese's first act was to ban the burning of flags, I understand that was also the same act of Adolf Hitler. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant). (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the pending amendment because I simply cannot understand how a House of people who are willing to wait 4 days for dry cleaning cannot wait for a gun. Announcement by the Chairman

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, the recent school tragedies in Colorado and Georgia were a cry for help, and my friends on the other side have answered with an NRA wish list and a near-to-far-Right agenda. The bill is full of solutions in search of a problem, while the real challenges go unmet. I offered an amendment to reach out to those children who are living in the shadows, to give them a chance to learn that someone does care about them, by using the school facilities that we have all paid for in our communities that sit idle during after- school hours. We even had a way to pay for it from the juvenile justice budget, but I was not allowed to offer that amendment. Instead, this rule says, put the Ten Commandments on the wall and hush. The people of America want to control gun violence, and the leadership on the other side offers us two amendments to put more guns on the streets of the national capital of Washington, D.C. Talk about offering a drowning man a glass of water. We ask for more police in the schools. No, says today's amendment, just pray more in school. Well, I believe that God helps those that help themselves, Mr. Speaker, and we are obligated to do what only we in Congress can do. Mr. Speaker, our children are praying. They are praying for relief from the terror of violence bursting through their school doors. Please defeat this rule and this bill and let them know and their families know that we support their prayers.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I need to inquire of the gentleman from the Committee on Rules.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, if I may say, we are getting accustomed to rewriting the rules on the floor, and I just thought if there was an opportunity to add another amendment, I would very much like it to be mine because it does address the problem of violence.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, if we are adding amendments to the rule, as a member of the Committee on Rules in, I assume, good standing, I would very much like to inquire whether my amendment can be made in order.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I find that probably nothing is more confusing to our fellow Members and to the audience at large as when we talk about slots and density control. And I would like to take just a few moments if I may to try to give my colleagues my view of what this discussion is really about. As we know, there are four airports in the United States that are density controlled. And there are many more airports in the United States, notably, Los Angeles and Atlanta, that have far more traffic than the density controlled airports. Safety is not the issue. The issue is simply this: It is important to note that a slot is not a gate. ``Slot'' is the term used for landing and takeoff at airports. And what the United States has done now is allow four airports in the United States to have nothing to say about it but the major airlines controlling who gets to land and who gets to takeoff. Because the slots, the landing rights of those airports, is in the hands of the major air carriers. If a start-up airline wants to rent a slot or lease a slot from one of the carriers, as I pointed out earlier, it could cost them up to $2 million a year and they may be given the right to land at 2 a.m., and they may also be required to use the reservation system of the major airline, and they may also be required to use the ground crew of the major airline, which are some of the reasons why many start-up airlines never survive at all. So what we are doing, if we let density stay at these four airports, do not lift the density, we are simply continuing the system of letting the major airlines determine who flies in and out of those four airports. It is important to understand that it is their control. As I said earlier, they buy and sell them to each other, they lease them out to other airlines, and they use them as collateral for loans. The most important point I want to make is that that does not belong to them. Because even when they were given the right to control, the retention of the slots, the landing rights, were retained by the American people with the right to he reclaim them. And that is what needs to be done in this bill. It needs to be done now. I urge all of my colleagues to vote against the Hyde-Morella amendment today that retains density. Because they are not helping an airport, they are continuing a monopoly situation. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson). (Mr. JACKSON of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this resolution calls for a structured rule, which makes in order only those amendments printed in the rules report accompanying the resolution. These restrictions are totally unnecessary and limit the full debate on what is a most important issue. I would note once more that the open rule best protects all Members' rights to fully represent their constituents. The underlying bill we are considering attempts to ensure that America's aviation system remains safe and competitive as we enter the 21st century. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more critical to the economic well-being of our Nation. Our aviation system was once the envy of the world. Now many communities find themselves cut off from the booming economy as a result of their inability to move their goods and services and people where they need to go. This problem has enormous economic implications for certain regions of the country, including my own. Mr. Speaker, we are going to hear vigorous floor debate on a variety of issues but we know this: economic development cannot occur without affordable, accessible air transportation. My district of Rochester, New York, is the largest per capita exporting district in the United States. This region exports more goods than all but nine States. Indeed, we are among the top 10 exporting areas in the entire country. Last year, 1.2 million people flew out of our airport. The 28th District of New York is the proud birthplace of a number of Fortune 500 companies, such as Eastman Kodak, Xerox Corporation, Bausch and Lomb, making it the world's image center. Of equal importance are the hundreds of small and mid-sized high-technology firms that have been growing in the region over the last several years. Indeed, these companies are now critical to the lifeblood of our community. But that continued success is by no means certain. Many firms or businesses are either moving out or choosing to expand in other regions of the country. The reason? Exorbitant airfares and the inability to get a decent flight schedule. Last year we learned that Eastman Kodak plans to move the marketing headquarters to Atlanta because of cheaper and more frequent flights out of Atlanta's airport. That effect on our area's smaller companies is equally pronounced. A relatively young and growing Rochester-based firm recently wrote me that high fares to and from Rochester are the primary reason it froze professional positions in its local office, opting instead to expand its mid-Atlantic offices. Rochester is like many mid-sized communities that got left out of the benefits promised by deregulation. To be blunt, deregulation failed us. During the 1980s, 13 air carriers served our region, affording consumers choices and creating a competitive environment that produced reasonable fares. Now one dominant carrier and four additional carriers effectively serve our region, but not effectively. They barely serve us. My constituents pay the second highest airfares in the United States, second only to Richmond, Virginia. The major airline carriers have clipped the wings of any would-be start-up carriers. While more than one carrier may service our region, they do not compete among themselves on most routes. For example, let me say that competition is not the answer, because we have two airlines that will take persons from Rochester, New York, to Chicago round trip, but both airlines charge $1,267, to the penny, very same price. The result has been the creation of de facto monopolies on individual routes that are gouging business people and consumers when they fly. Congress can and must level the playing field for start-up air carriers so that they can compete with the major carriers. The low-cost airlines formed after deregulation are the primary source of price competition in other areas of the country. When they enter the market, these airlines force the big carriers to reduce fares. Without the pressure from the bargain airlines, the large competitors charge the consumers exorbitant prices. In fact, we are fairly certain that, if one lives in an area where one's airfares are reasonable, the people of Rochester, New York, are helping to subsidize that. Two years ago, I pledged to my constituents to confront this problem head on. I authored legislation calling on the Department of Transportation and the Department of Justice to get tough on the predatory behavior of major carriers. I have testified numerous times before both House and Senate colleagues, and we had hearings last February with the Secretary of Transportation Rodney Slater on the high cost of airfares. The major carriers attacked my efforts claiming I was addressing a nonexisting problem. This was no small attack because the carriers had spent millions of dollars on lobbyists, on law firms, public relations firms, and focus groups. Fortunately, the flying public has not been fooled, and the drumbeat for greater action from their leaders continues, and we have been successful. As I stand here today, the Department of Justice has launched a full antitrust investigation into the behavior of the major carriers. The Department of Transportation, for the first time in 20 years, drafted comprehensive guidelines to prevent anticompetitive behavior. But, Mr. Speaker, just recently four major airlines raised their prices over a weekend together. In the old days, we used to call that collusion. Now it is simply called free enterprise. Thirty-six States' attorneys general are pressing their State courts into action, and the full House, the full Senate and administration are all moving forward with comprehensive measures to tackle the problem. My bill, the Airline Competition and Lower Fares Act, includes measures to address the distribution of landing and take-off rights at airports, known as slots, and the predatory practices of the major carriers. I commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) and the ranking member for including provisions in AIR 21 to address the slot issue. Slots are critical to this debate. Currently the major carriers have a stranglehold on the slots, effectively preventing low-cost carriers from entering the market. In the 18 years since airline deregulation, major airlines have increased their grips on the access to slots at the major airports. At four airports in the country, LaGuardia and Kennedy Airports in New York, O'Hare Airport in Chicago, and National Airport near Washington, D.C., the dominant airlines use their control of slots to squeeze out the smaller carriers, and consumers are getting crushed in the process. Deregulation of the airline industry increased the demand for slots at these airports. The DOT, I think, out of a moment of sheer madness, gave permission to the major airlines to use these slots as their personal property. They did, however, retain those slots as the property of the people of the United States. However, the major airlines have been allowed to buy and sell them to each other, to use them as collateral for loans; and we must stop that. As many as one slot, if an airline decides to rent it to another smaller start-up airline, can cost as much as $2 million a year during peak hours. That is money they are making off of our landing rights, Mr. Speaker. Few start-up companies can overcome such a financial barrier to enter the market. When the slots were first distributed, it was made clear that they were government property, and we retain the right to reclaim them; and the time for that is now. We heard testimony at the Committee on Rules yesterday to the effect that the elimination of the slot rule would pose a threat to safety. Mr. Speaker, this is not true. In testimony before the House Subcommittee on Aviation, the top officials of the Department of Transportation refuted this notion. Indeed, when asked directly by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), ranking member, whether any safety reasons existed that would warrant maintaining the current slot system, FAA Administrator Jane Garvey issued an emphatic no. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, if the slot control density was a safety issue, there are several airports in the United States that are far more used and more dense than the four airports that are slot-controlled. If it were safety, one may believe that the Atlanta airport, for one, would be one of those recommended. It is not a safety issue. Again, I commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) and the ranking member for tackling the problem. Last fall, the ``Economist'' magazine, surely a publication with capitalist credentials in order, noted that ``if passengers are to benefit fully from airline deregulation, they also need to be protected from what could all too easily turn into just another bunch of price-gouging cartels.'' I could not agree more. There may have been benefits promised by deregulation, but we do not have them. Without effective competition in this market, businesses and consumers cannot get a fair shake. AIR 21 will provide additional airport capacity and help to improve large and small airports to ensure that we have fair competition in an industry where individual air carriers have market dominance over many communities. Mr. Speaker, I feel it is necessary to say again that we found out last year, when Northwest Airline employees went on strike, that they left whole States in the Northwestern United States without service. Mr. Speaker, while I will not call for a recorded vote, I do say that we will have a vigorous debate on this bill before it is over. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, all Americans, including members of Congress have been saddened and frightened by the violence occurring in our schools. Just yesterday, a bomb was found in a school in rural upstate New York. On June 6, I had the marvelous experience of hearing a graduation speech given at Apponequet Regional High School in Freetown, MA, by Lauren Secatove, my granddaughter. Her thoughts on responsibility were so moving that I should like to share them. Speech by Lauren Secatove, June 6, 1999, Apponequet, Maine Regional High School Good afternoon, friends, family, teachers, and members of the class of 1999. Welcome to the last day of our childhood and the first day of the rest of our lives. Needless to say, June 6th, 1999 will forever be a turning point for each of us. It seems trite to refer to a day as a point of turning, and the mere concept evokes confusion. To where, to whom, into what do we turn? We have come to an intersection with no signs, our pasts beeping loudly at us, and a foggy road ahead. Some of us are struggling wildly to go into reverse, which in life is utterly impossible. We are hesitantly facing our future, an unnerving task for we know not what the future holds. But take comfort; the beauty of the future lies not in its planning, but in its spontaneous creation. Do not look feverishly ahead, as if you were trying to turn to the last page of a book, for each one of us has the same ending, the same last sentence. And actually our beginnings are quite similar. Today we find ourselves all at the same point, in the same place, even wearing the same thing. So if our endings are the same, and our beginnings similar, it must be somewhere in the middle where we form ourselves. It must be this time where we define who we truly are, and what we are going to accomplish. This is no easy task. It is also a task that we must perform alone. As we work to complete this goal, we must always be conscious of three things; the responsibilities we hold to each other, to the world and to ourselves. First; our responsibility to each other-- To live solely for oneself is not truly living. We must each make a commitment to do for others. We have lead a somewhat sheltered life up to this point. The world is very different from our small towns. Our differences are minute compared to the diversity we will soon encounter. While our small community gives us the opportunity to form close bonds, it also secludes us from the world. There are many different ways of living, feeling and thinking, no one better than another. Be proud of who you are, where you come from, and what you believe, but grant others that same pride. Also remember that equality is not a reality. There are millions of people who suffer daily, millions who need our help. Go through life with an open mind and outstretched arms. Learn how to tolerate and how to heal. Next, our responsibility towards the world; Today when we are handed our diplomas, we are also being handed the responsibility of the world. The burden and the glory of future events lie upon us. It is up to us to lead civilization forward. It is up to us to raise loving human beings. It is up to us to improve the lives of others on this earth. It is up to us to create our own individual happiness. It is up to us to encourage peace. It is up to us to prevent the students from Colorado from becoming the most infamous members of the class of 99. We can do better by doing good. Each generation has had their own problems to solve and overcome. We are charged with carrying the world into the next millennium. Perhaps the coming millennium has given everyone an apocalyptic spirit, for many people do not believe that we are a capable or qualified generation. We are inundated with stories everyday covering the ``troubled youth of America'', a generation that is portrayed to be aimless and unproductive. Prove them wrong Every single one of us sitting here today has the ability to improve the world. Your diploma is your ticket, and your personal integrity your tool. Use them wisely and for benevolent purposes. Face the challenge, accept it and exceed it. Finally, regarding ourselves; Although many people have aided us on our journeys, it is due to our self-determination that we are here today. It was of our own volition that we woke ourselves up each morning, excruciatingly early, to go to school. It was our personal fortitude that kept us up late at night to finish our English paper or to comfort our crying friend, both equally important duties. It was our own kindness that earned us the friendships that we made, and our own faults for letting go of the friendships we lost. It was our own courage that moved us to try out for the team, audition for a part, and to say those three words; I love you. While many of our high school days seemed focused on mere survival, our goal for the future is now much higher; success. Potential means nothing in the real world. History books are not filled with people who had potential. Only the driven and determined people are remembered, only those who never compromised themselves, and those who stood up to opposition have changed the world. Please be careful to not equate success to a paycheck. Success is not professional advancement, or the price of your car. Success is going to bed content and waking up happy. Success is living with your soul mate. Success is looking into the eyes of your child. Success is accepting yourself unconditionally. Success is having an ambition to become something great. In closing, I would like to extend my congratulations to each member of the class of 1999, and wish you luck as you work to achieve success, and define yourselves. May we all sleep contently. Sweet Dreams.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, today we return to the Education Land Grant Act, which was scheduled for consideration a few weeks ago but postponed until today. The bill was reported on a voice vote from the Committee on Resources. It is a relatively straightforward bill and enjoys bipartisan support. Although I know there are Members who have objections which will be raised in the ensuing debate, it will be ably handled on our side by my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). Mr. Speaker, this is a request for an open rule on a bill which could easily be handled on the suspension calendar, and an open rule which was granted only after the Democrat efforts to bring forward the juvenile justice bill were defeated on a party line vote. Mr. Speaker, this weekend I had the privilege to attend my granddaughter's high school graduation and to hear her give a commencement address welcoming her classmates to the last day of their childhood and the first day of the rest of their lives. She stated: We have come to an intersection with no signs, our past beeping loudly at us and a foggy road ahead. Some of us are struggling wildly to go into reverse, which in life is utterly impossible. We are hesitantly facing our future, an unnerving task for we know not what the future holds. But take comfort, the beauty of the future lies not in its planning, but in its spontaneous creation. Mr. Speaker, I was just like thousands of other parents and grandparents who attended the graduation ceremonies over the past few weeks. There we were, watching our kids, our grandkids, the kid next door who only last week it seems was learning to ride without training wheels, and is now about to claim his or her future. Sadly, so many, far, far too many children in recent years have gone through that rite of passage forever tinged by violence inside their school walls. In some instances, the classes following these children will have learned not only the fire drill but the evacuation drill, in case a classmate has a gun. A columnist in my hometown paper, the Democrat and Chronicle in Rochester, New York, observed that we have had so many school shootings that we can now rank them in order of the carnage which was created. It is so sad I can hardly speak to it, but in homes across this country, families are being forced to have exactly that discussion. Mr. Speaker, if Members do not believe the threat is real, ask the mere child who came to me recently wondering how to find a bulletproof vest. Mr. Speaker, let us not get complacent on the issues of gun violence and juvenile justice. Let us not let another graduation day pass without action by this House to reduce violence and to help our troubled children. Mr. Speaker, that is still a debate which this House needs, which I encourage the leadership to allow, and which America wants. Instead of or at least in addition to the debate on the Education Land Grant Act, let us have a constructive and bipartisan debate on our response to the growing crisis of school violence. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume and I thank my colleague for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, this resolution calls for a modified open rule which makes in order only those amendments preprinted in the Congressional Record and limits debate of the bill to 4 hours. These restrictions are wholly unnecessary. Any time one imposes an arbitrary time limit, one runs the risk of limiting full debate. I oppose the rule in its current form and note that open rules best protect all Members' rights to fully represent their constituents. Moreover, I have significant concerns about the legislation the rule makes in order. While the bill purports to preserve U.S. sovereignty over the use of Federal lands, in reality, this measure is unnecessary and could hinder United States participation in international efforts to protect and preserve valuable lands throughout the world. Similar dubious legislation has failed in two previous Congresses, and this bill will get the same fate. The World Heritage Convention and the Man and Biosphere Program will provide the international community with means of recognizing areas with great natural and cultural significance. These honorific programs respect each State's sovereignty and have no legal jurisdiction over countries or communities. Since 1973, the World Heritage Convention has successfully been implemented by the United States Department of Interior. The Convention was, in fact, a United States initiative under then President Richard Nixon. A site may be listed as a World Heritage site only if it contains cultural or natural resources of universal value, and if the national government where the site is located nominates and protects the site. Listing an area as a World Heritage site imposes no change in U.S. law nor any requirement for future changes in domestic law. It does not give oversight, management, or regulatory authority over United States lands to any foreign and national organization. Nor does the United States Man and Biosphere Program place any U.S. lands or resources under the control of the United Nations or any international body. In fact, this is a domestic Federal program. It, therefore, does not impose any restrictions beyond those already in place under American law. For over 20 years, under the auspices of four Republican and two Democratic Presidents, these programs have functioned with little or no controversy. The allegations by the proponents of H.R. 883 that these beneficial programs somehow threaten the United States sovereignty are pure fantasy. However we do have a Federal, foreign encroachment on American lands, and I am referring to the mining and mineral rights that have been leased to foreign corporations with leases that cost about an average of $2.50 per acre per year. These leases have been in effect since the days of Ulysses S. Grant. If we would like to do something to protect our own lands, and stop cheating our taxpayers. We should change this disgraceful giveaway. Our national parks do need attention, but Congress certainly could do better than this bill, which is designed to remedy an imaginary problem, the supposed encroachment of foreign domination over our public resources. Mr. Speaker, another community woke this morning to the horror of a school shooting. It is not as bad as Columbine we are told. We hope that these are not going to be fatal shots. But surely this House can be better spending this time, rather than spending 4 hours on this one House nowhere bill, and be working on after-school programs and try to do something about bringing guns under some control. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.