Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 525, the Small Business Health Fairness Act. This legislation would allow small businesses to pool their resources into what are known as Association Health Plans, AHPs, to purchase health insurance.

Pooled alliances, including AHPs, help control health care costs by permitting individuals to use their collective bargaining power to win cost concessions from insurance companies.

These alliances also achieve economies of scale for administrative functions--substantially cutting overhead costs, which currently amount to between 30 and 40 cents of every premium dollar paid by small businesses to insurers.

Purchasing alliances have been a popular response in many States to the problems many self-employed and small business owners have had securing affordable health insurance for themselves or their employees.

While I sensitive to the concerns many disease advocacy groups have about this legislation, the fact is this legislation provides the same exemption from State benefit mandates for small businesses already enjoyed by large employers.

The cost savings from avoiding benefit mandates has been estimated to be between 4 and 13 percent. This could make a huge difference for small businesses looking to offer their employees health insurance. Because small businesses are extremely cost-sensitive, studies indicate that even a 5 percent reduction in costs will result in a 10 to 15- percent increase in small businesses offering health insurance.

The legislation also protects against these plans ``cherry-picking'' the healthiest employees by restricting the ability of self-insured health plans to be qualified as an AHP. Unless a self-insured plan is in existence before the date of enactment, it would be required to offer membership to a broad cross-section of trades or to employers representing at least one higher-risk occupation.

Additionally, AHPs must comply with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which prohibits group health plans from excluding high-risk individuals with high claims experience.

The bottom line is this legislation will help small businesses, which are the engine in our economy, provide health insurance to their employees. I urge the passage of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. I just want to congratulate him, the ranking member of the committee and particularly the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) for what he has done for over 10 years in this battle. His effort is awesome. This legislation is needed. We believe in universal coverage for mail, but know cost savings need to be made. Congratulations to all of you for doing such a great job in bringing this legislation before us.

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

The Postal Service delivers to 140 million sites, and there is about a million new sites every year. It provides universal service.

When I hear my colleagues talk about fine-tuning this bill, that is what we have been doing for the last 10 years. This is a bill that has been fine-tuned, and it has been fine-tuned in a way that has gotten support from disparate parts.

The employees who work at the postal system know that more than 200,000 jobs are going to be lost. That is why we opposed the first amendment by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) because we need employee buy-in.

The reason why we opposed this amendment, it seems to fail to understand that there is competition with FedEx, with UPS, with DHL and many more things. They are also competing with the newspapers.

We are trying to provide flexibility to the postal system. So I understand the concept of fine-tuning, but I would dispute significantly the failure to recognize that the bill has been fine- tuned. And when I am hearing my colleagues offer their amendments, I feel like they have not read the bill, because the bill allows for competition, it allows for flexibility, and it has buy-in in all of these disparate parts.

This amendment needs to be defeated if we are going to pass this bill.

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

A year ago today, the 9/11 Commission released its report. This report outlined 41 recommendations to protect this Nation from future terrorist attacks.

It is crucial we ensure the implementation of these recommendations.

The 9/11 Commission produced what I feel is a sacred document. Their conduct should bring pride to all Americans because they realized that their mission was larger than partisan politics and acted accordingly.

They completed this undertaking with determination, clarity, and vision. On behalf of a grateful Nation, we pledge to continue to work to make their entire vision reality.

Congress and the administration have made many significant changes over the years to improve the security of the homeland. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act signed by the President in December of 2004 was a critical step forward in reorganizing our intelligence community, creating a Director of National Intelligence with personnel and budgetary authority, creating in statute a National Counterterrorism Center, improving our transportation security, and making important immigration reforms.

There are still challenges, however, that need to be met. The Privacy and Civil Liberties Board established by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, for example, should be operating and should be mandated with robust powers to oversee the government's adherence to the guidelines set forth by the 9/11 Commission. This board is critical in ensuring a balance between civil liberties and security.

In addition, more attention needs to be given to aviation security, mass transit issues, and first responders. We need to inspect air cargo that rides in the hold of passenger aircraft, and we must tighten security around mass transit areas.

Furthermore, our first responders must have appropriate communications.

Finally, the 9/11 Commission concluded that Congress needed to dramatically strengthen oversight and focus accountability. The commission recommended a single principal point of oversight and review for homeland security in each House of Congress, preferably a standing committee on homeland security and dedicated appropriations subcommittees on intelligence. We have a dedicated committee in the House of Representatives on homeland security, but it needs to be strengthened.

The Senate still does not have such a committee for Homeland Security.

Today's anniversary reminds us how important it is we implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and how important it is we protect our Nation from those who would do us harm.

Mr. Chairman, the Cold War is over and the world is a more dangerous place. The strategy that we used to have of containment, react and mutually assured destruction went out the window on 9/11. Lord, it probably went out earlier, we just did not get it.

We need now to be able to detect in order to prevent, and our intelligence community needs the capability and the tools so they can detect and prevent.

We are not going to be able to harden a subway site, a bus station, a train station. We can have more people, dogs, cameras, lights, we can do a lot of things to help, but we cannot stop it unless we have the tools. We do not want to use the criminal means to go after terrorists because you have to wait until the crime has been committed. We want to prevent not a crime from being committed; we want to prevent a terrorist attack from being committed. So give them the tools.

The PATRIOT Act does it. We have seen it operate for 4 years. It has been amazing how well it has operated.

When people talk about libraries, why in the world would we want to make a library a free terrorist zone? We allow our forces to go in for a crime in a library. Why should they not be allowed to go in for a terrorist issue?

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

I have made eight trips to Iraq since April 2003, and will be going again this weekend. I have traveled with the military and I have also traveled with nongovernment organizations outside the umbrella of the military. I have literally talked with hundreds of Iraqi citizens, and I know their greatest fear.

Their greatest fear is, that we will leave. That is what they have told me. They think we will leave them.

It is vitally important to the future of peace and prosperity in the Middle East and, in fact, to the entire world that the United States maintain its commitment, meet history's challenge, and assist that nation to stay on the course towards stability, democracy and economic vitality.

The United States has set many important benchmarks. We sought to transfer power to an Iraqi government on June 28, 2004, and we did. We wanted to support the Iraqis in organizing a free and fair election and, on January 31, along with U.S. and international assistance, the Iraqis held their landmark election, their first in 50 years. It was thrilling to witness. Women forced the men to come out and vote.

As we speak, all elements of Iraqi society, Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds are, working to draft a constitution and will hold a national referendum on the document on October 15. And, in spite of the threats against them, they are persevering.

During our visits to Iraq, we observed our troops training the Iraqi security forces, their police, their border patrol, their army. And as President Bush has said, as the Iraqis step up, Americans can step down. That is the plan. Like the other goals we have committed to in Iraq, we will stay our course.

Our withdrawal from Iraq will be made consistent with, as the amendment states, our foreign policy and national security goals relating to a free and stable Iraq and, thus, a free and stable world.

Mr. Chairman, Iraqis are making significant progress. I would like to read a short passage from an e-mail my niece just received from a soldier who just returned after 15 months risking his life for Iraqis and for the national security of the United States. This is what he said: ``Despite what you might hear elsewhere,'' like in this chamber I might add, ``the tide has turned in the Middle East and democracy is taking hold. There is much work yet to be done,'' he continues, ``but we should all be excited by the progress made so far. Just think about it! Government `of the people, by the people, for the people' has found a foothold in, of all places, the Middle East!'' And, he continues, ``Words are hard to come by to express my exuberant hope for the future of the Iraqi people and the rest of the Middle East.''

Mr. Chairman, I could not agree more with this soldier's sentiments.

As I witnessed Iraq's election, it is clear the only real losers are the terrorists and insurgents trying to stop the march of democracy.

In defiance of the terrorists and insurgents, Iraqi men, women and children came out in droves.

There was a tangible sense of pride when the Iraqis dipped their index finger in a well of ink and cast their vote.

One voter expressed gratitude to me when he said, ``Like you in the United States, I'm getting to choose my own leaders.''

We need to continue the process of supporting this nascent democracy and providing the new Iraqi government and its people with the physical, financial and moral support to secure their nation and ensure liberty thrives.

I support the hard work of the International Relations Committee on the underlying legislation and the gentlelady's amendment and urge my colleagues to support its adoption.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of international wildlife conservation efforts and the Global Environmental Facility, GEF.

Protecting and preserving our environment is one of the most important duties I have as a Member of Congress. We simply won't have a world to live in if we continue our neglectful ways.

I support maximizing the GEF's resources, leveraging the highest possible contributions from the other donor countries, and demonstrating U.S. leadership on international environmental issues.

The GEF is the primary financing mechanism for important environmental work around the world, helping developing countries address the many environmental challenges associated with ending poverty and enhancing economic development. Since its establishment in 1991, the GEF has provided $5 billion in grants, leveraged $16 billion in co-financing for projects in 140 countries around the world, and has provided more than 4,000 grants directly to community groups and non- governmental organizations. The U.S. has provided close to $1 billion to the GEF over this same time frame.

Because other countries' contributions are indexed to the United States' level of support, we have the ability to either gather great resources for the global environment or greatly limit the international response to issues such as tropical forest loss and the decline in coral reefs worldwide.

Funding the GEF is a good investment. Choosing to make the highest commitment to the GEF will truly help define American leadership on environmental issues to the rest of the world.

Mr. Speaker, on June 28, I was attending a funeral and missed 2 recorded votes.

I take my voting responsibility very seriously and would like the Congressional Record to reflect that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on recorded vote number 324 and ``yes'' on recorded vote number 325. I also missed recorded vote number 331. Had I voted, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, which would increase funding for the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, created by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (P.L. 108-458), to $1.5 million.

The bill currently reserves $750,000 of the $53 million budget of the Executive Office of the President for the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. The amendment would reserve $3 million of this $53 million budget. This level of funding is closer to what was initially given to the 9/11 Commission.

The purpose of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is to ensure the protection of civil liberties by the federal government. The appropriate amount of funding is crucial in ensuring that privacy and civil liberties concerns are appropriately considered. This will prove significant in the implementation of laws, regulations, and executive branch policies related to efforts to protect our Nation against terrorism.

In addition, the additional funding will allow the board to develop the infrastructure they need to do their job and will demonstrate Congress's intentions to fully support this significant board.

We certainly understand the need to aggressively fight the war on terror, but the 9/11 Commission Report reminds us that, ``The choice between security and liberty is a false choice, as nothing is more likely to endanger America's liberties than the success of a terrorist attack at home. Our history has shown that this insecurity threatens liberty at home. Yet if our liberties are curtailed, we lose the values that we are struggling to defend.''

The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is an important body. We must do everything we can to ensure its efficiency and operation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the amendment to increase HOPWA funding to its Fiscal Year 2004 level of $293 million.

This amendment is tremendously important for thousands of people afflicted with AIDS. I appreciate the good work the Chairman has done on this bill, as well as the fiscal constraints of this budget cycle. The bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is when it comes to the HOPWA program I think we should provide more.

The Centers for Disease Control, CDC, estimates there are between 1 and 1.2 million Americans living with HIV and AIDS. A majority of these individuals will face a housing crisis at some point during their illness as a result of increased medical expenses and lost wages. HOPWA is the only federal program specifically designed to meet their needs.

The HOPWA program is one of the most cost-effective ways to provide people living with HIV/AIDS with adequate and affordable housing. Acute care facilities, under Medicaid cost more than $1,000 a day as compared to

HOPWA community housing, which averages $55 to $110 per day.

The program keeps those living with HIV/AIDS off the streets and out of expensive acute care facilities.

My predecessor, Stewart B. McKinney, died of AIDS-related pneumonia. His wife, Lucie, carries on his work as chairman of the Stewart B. McKinney Foundation. This foundation is dedicated to providing housing to persons and families living with HIV/AIDS. The McKinney House and other HOPWA programs approach the HIV crisis in a truly caring, community-based and cost-effective manner.

Because 90 percent of HOPWA funds are distributed to States by formula, States and localities control how money is spent--not the Federal Government. Communities, are empowered to use HOPWA funds to meet their unique housing needs--from providing short-term supportive housing for low-income persons with HIV/AIDS, to building new community residences.

The flexibility has, in large measure, contributed to the widespread success of the HOPWA program. The bottom line is that money for HOPWA is money well spent. I urge support for this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for accepting the amendment.

I rise in strong support of this amendment, which would increase funding for the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, created by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (P.L. 108-458), to $1.5 million.

The bill currently reserves $750,000 of the $53 million budget of the Executive Office of the President for the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. The amendment would reserve $3 million of this $53 million budget. This level of funding is closer to what was initially given to the 9/11 Commission.

The purpose of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is to ensure the protection of civil liberties by the Federal Government. The appropriate amount of funding is crucial in ensuring that privacy and civil liberties concern are appropriately considered. This will prove significant in the implementation of laws, regulations, and executive branch policies related to efforts to protect our Nation against terrorism.

In addition, the additional funding will allow the board to develop the infrastructure they need to do their job and will demonstrate Congress' intentions to fully support this significant board.

We certainly understand the need to aggressively fight the war on terror, but the 9/11 Commission Report reminds us that, ``The choice between security and liberty is a false choice, as nothing is more likely to endanger America's liberties than the success of a terrorist attack at home. Our history has shown that this insecurity threatens liberty at home. Yet if our liberties are curtailed, we lose the values that we are struggling to defend.''

The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is an important body. We must do everything we can to ensure its efficiency and operation.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, however well intended this amendment may be, it goes to the heart of what is very important in this country, and that is getting our young people to want to participate and be part of our society, and it employs a lot of young people from our urban areas. But, more important than that, is they work at minimum wage, but then they get a stipend to help pay for their education.

Why do we give away college grants, when young people are willing to work to get them? For me, this is so central to what we believe as Republicans: Do not give them a grant, have them earn it. They earn these grants, they do incredible service throughout the country, and it replaces having young people do a job just to do a job. They do meaningful, meaningful work.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 511. This section violates clause 2(b) of House rule XXI. It proposes to change existing law and, therefore, constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill in violation of House rules.

I do this on behalf of the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis) of the Committee on Government Reform.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to state my concern with the manner in which Title I funds for No Child Left Behind are distributed.

Title I, the funds meant to provide aid to states and school districts to help educationally disadvantaged children achieve the same high standards as all other students, are increased in this bill by $100 million over last year, bringing the total funding to $12.7 billion.

However, Title I funds for Bridgeport, Connecticut, will be cut this year for the fourth year in a row under NCLB. According to the Department of Education, Bridgeport will receive $678,000 less in Title I funds for the next school year, going from $13.7 million to just over $13 million, and down from a high of $14.8 million in 2002.

I voted for NCLB. I support this legislation because it is a monumental step forward for American public education. I also believe NCLB grants unprecedented flexibility to local school districts, demands results in public education through strict accountability measures, empowers parents and provides a safety valve for children trapped in failing schools.

It is hard for me to fathom, however, that while we have increased funding for Title I by 52 percent since 2001, Bridgeport, one of the most disadvantaged school districts in the country, has received a cut of $1.8 million. I believe the law should make sense. The spirit of the bill is to provide funding to the neediest districts, and, quite frankly, cutting Bridgeport funding does not seem to reflect that intention.

While I realize it is not necessarily within the purview of this committee, I believe the formula needs to be fixed.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to state my opposition to the extension of the refusal clause provision.

The refusal clause exempts health care companies from any federal, state or local government law that ensures women have access to reproductive health services, including information about abortion.

If extended, this provision will continue to have many negative effects by overriding federal Title X guidelines that ensure women receive full medical information. A fundamental principle of Title X, the national family planning program, ensures pregnant women who request information about all their medical options, including abortion, be given that information, including a referral upon patient request.

I am also concerned this bill does not include an increase in funding for Title X. Each year approximately 4.5 million low-income women and men receive basic health care through 4,600 clinics nation wide that receive Title X funds. This program reduces unintended pregnancies and makes abortion less necessary. Had funding for Title X kept pace with inflation since 1980, with no additional increases, it would be funded today at double its current budget.

While Title X is receiving flat funding from last year, the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Act of 2006 gives abstinence-only sex education programs an increase of $11 million, to an all time funding high of $168 million. Unlike Title X, abstinence-only programs do not provide clinical health services.

Additionally, research shows comprehensive sex-education programs, which teach both abstinence and contraception, are the most effective. There is no federal program that earmarks dollars for comprehensive sex education.

I support a woman's right to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy subject to Roe v. Wade, but we can all recognize the importance of preventing unintended pregnancies.

Abortion is a very personal decision. While a woman's doctor, clergy, friends, family and public officials may have an opinion, the ultimate decision rests solely with her. It is vital for every woman to have access to as much information as she needs in order to make this decision.

I oppose these provisions and encourage my colleagues to do so as well.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey-Lowey-Leach amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey/Lowey/Leach amendment to H.R. 3010, the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Act of 2006.

This amendment would restore the $100 million that this bill cuts from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, CPB.

I support CPB, NPR and PBS because they provide Americans of all ages with a broad range of valuable programmIng.

CPB helps fund local stations all across America, and if we implement these cuts, the impact on local services, community support and vital programming will be significantly damaging.

Local public broadcasting stations are leaders in education, news and information, and are attracting growing numbers of listeners as they air unique programs.

Restoring the $100 million cut will allow CPB to continue funding the important community service contributions of local public television and radio stations.

I support this amendment and encourage my colleagues to do so as well.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.J. Res. 10, which would amend the Constitution to allow Congress to pass laws banning the desecration of a flag.

I find it abhorrent anyone would burn our flag, and if I saw someone desecrating the flag, I would do what I could to stop them, at risk of injury or incarceration.

For me, that would be a badge of honor. But I think this constitutional amendment is an overreaction to a nonexisting problem. Keep in mind the Constitution has only been amended 17 times since the Bill of Rights was passed in 1791. This is the same Constitution that eventually outlawed slavery, gave blacks and women the right to vote, and guaranteed freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Amending the Constitution is a very serious matter. I do not think we should allow a few obnoxious attention-seekers to push us into a corner, especially since no one is burning the flag now without an amendment. I agree with Secretary Powell, who when he served as Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staffs, wrote, ``It was a mistake to amend the Constitution, that great shield of democracy to hamper a few miscreants.''

When I think of the flag, I think about the courageous men and women who have died defending it and the families they left behind. What they were defending was the Constitution of the United States and the rights it guarantees as embodied by the flag.

I love the flag for all it represents, but I love the Constitution even more. The Constitution is not just a symbol, it is the very principles on which our Nation was founded. I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 160, which recognizes the historic significance of Juneteenth Independence Day and encourages its continued celebration so all Americans can learn more about our country's past.

The resolution also rightly expresses the sense of Congress that knowing our history helps us solve challenges we face in the future, and that the celebration of the end of slavery is an important part of the history and heritage of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, Juneteenth has long been recognized as the day to celebrate the end of slavery in the United States. Juneteenth is the traditional celebration of the day on which the last slaves in America learned they had been freed.

Although slavery was abolished officially in 1863, it took over 2 years for news of freedom to spread to slaves. On June 19th, 1865, U.S. General Gordon Granger rode into Galveston, Texas and announced that the State's 200,000 slaves were free. Vowing never to forget the date, the former slaves coined the nickname Juneteenth, a blend of the words June and 19th. This holiday originated in the Southwest, but today it is celebrated throughout the Nation.

H. Con. Res. 160 underscores that the observance of Juneteenth Independence Day is an opportunity for all Americans to learn more about our common past and to better understand the experiences that have shaped our great Nation. I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution.