Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, what were they thinking? The Republicans that control this House look at our economy and the job losses, the declining wages and rising cost of health care, and you know what they think the problem is? That the people are earning too much overtime pay. So they decided to cut it for 6 million American families.

They look at jobs going overseas, and do you know what they think the problem is? They do not think there are enough jobs going overseas, so they continue to vote for tax credits to help companies send jobs overseas rather than create them at home.

And they look at crime in America, and do you know what they think the problem is? That there are not enough guns and assault weapons on our streets, so they let the assault weapons ban expire and want to end the gun ban in the District of Columbia.

They look at the cost of pharmaceuticals, and they decide that they are not as expensive as the senior citizens in this country find them. So they decide they are not going to let them go to Canada. They are not going to let them reimport drugs from overseas to cut the cost of drugs. Rather, they are going to prosecute them and the governments, cities and counties that are trying to help those individuals have affordable drugs.

They have lost their way.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sanders Amendment.

The Sanders Amendment would ensure that the Treasury department not use any of its funds to undermine the federal court decision in Cooper v. IBM that held that cash balance conversions violate federal pension and age discrimination law.

We've been here many times before.

In fact, this is the fourth time that the House is voting to protect older workers' pensions under cash balance pension plan conversions. The last 2 times the amendment passed by 308-121 and 258-160.

Instead of voting to prevent the Treasury department from undermining workers' pensions, I wish we were voting on affirmative legislation to set standards for cash balance plans.

This issue has been going on since 1999.

In 1999, IBM converted its pension plan to a cash balance plan.

Luckily, it's computer savvy workers quickly figured out that the conversion would reduce their expected pensions.

The workers mobilized and got Congress to hold hearings.

The Clinton administration imposed a moratorium on approvals of conversions in September 1999.

But then, the new Bush administration tried to issue regulations lifting the moratorium and permit conversions without any worker protections.

Immediately 218 members of Congress wrote to the President urging him to revise the regulations and protect older workers.

Four times the House and Senate have voted to require Treasury to withdraw its regulations and protect older workers.

Finally, this year, in 2004, the Bush administration relented and withdrew the regulations. The administration even sent up a revised legislative proposal that contained a modicum of older worker protections though it did not go far enough to protect older workers.

But, still the issue is not resolved.

Either Congress or the courts must set standards for cash balance plans and conversions to such plans.

The Republican Congress has done nothing on this issue for almost six years.

If anything, Republican leaders would defer to employer lobbying and simply permit cash balance conversions without any protections for older workers.

That's why the Courts may have to be the body that resolves some of these issues.

One court, the federal district court for the state of Illinois, determined that conversions are illegal. Other courts have disagreed. These cases and others still waiting to be heard will take years to resolve.

This amendment makes clear that the Treasury department shall not interfere in these cases.

Today worker pension security is in crisis.

This administration has done nothing to protect workers' pensions and done everything to undermine them.

They didn't protect workers after Enron and WorldCom from employers loading pension plans with employer stock and letting the executives protect themselves while leaving the workers stuck with worthless stock.

They didn't protect participants in 401(k) plans from a broad range of mutual fund abuses that have decimated retirement nest eggs.

And they are not protecting workers now from rampant pension underfunding. The PBGC, the agency that insures traditional pensions, has a $10 billion deficit. And if the airlines go under, the deficit will increase by another $30 billion. Over 1,000 pension plans are more than $50 million underfunded. And workers don't even know because the PBGC is required to keep the information secret.

The administration and the Republican majority are doing nothing to protect worker pensions.

I urge my colleagues to vote once again and remind the majority that it is the will of the Congress that older workers be protected in cash balance pension plan conversions.

Mr. Speaker, three years since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, we solemnly remember those who risked their lives, those whose lives were lost and those they left behind.

America changed forever that day. Some called 9-11 America's wake up call.

The actions of first responders and everyday citizens give true meaning to the word hero. I applaud the resolution in the House today for honoring their service and the memories of those no longer with us.

But sadly, Mr. Speaker, I must tell you that this resolution is flawed. While it rightfully honors the victims and heroes of September 11, it misleadingly connects the invasion of Iraq with the war on terrorism. Iraq did not start the U.S global war on terrorism--Osama bin Laden did.

Despite that fact, after only four months of hunting for bin Laden, the U.S. began redirecting military and intelligence personnel from his pursuit in Afghanistan to preparing for war with Iraq.

The President then declared in a press conference that, ``I don't know where [bin Laden] is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him . . . I truly am not that concerned about him.''

The President was clearly at odds with his terrorism advisers.

The FBI was concerned about him. It said that al-Qaeda remained the ``number one concern.''

Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge was concerned about him. He said America was still bin Laden's number 1 target.

Despite all this, what did the President do?

He shortchanged homeland security needs like port, rail and border security. He reduced law enforcement funding by over 30 percent. And he became less concerned with the man who started the war on terrorism and more concerned with Saddam Hussein--a man the 9-11 Commission determined had no operational connection to al Qaeda and who played no role in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

Did this make America any safer? If so, redirecting resources from hunting the world's number one terrorist in order to invade Iraq might have made sense. But the fact is, the invasion in Iraq has made us less, not more, secure.

And because of that fact, we do ourselves as a country and the memories of those who were lost on September 11, 2001 a great disservice by misrepresenting the facts.

The invasion of Iraq did not deny terrorists a safe haven from which to operate, but rather it created one. In fact, because of poor planning and inadequate troop levels, U.S. forces in Iraq have withdrawn from unstable areas like Falluja, Ramadi and Samarra allowing them to become foreign terrorist safehavens. The low troop level has also prevented the U.S. from sealing off the borders and allowed foreign terrorists to enter Iraq at will.

More American Service members have been killed since the President announced that all major combat operations had ended than before that time. All told, over 1,000 soldiers have been killed, 7,000 wounded, and the rate at which American soldiers are being killed is rapidly increasing.

With all that said, the President still speaks of ``taking the fight to the enemy'' so that we don't have to fight him at home. But the Department of Homeland Security had to raise the terrorist alert level four times since the invasion of Iraq. And Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge has said, ``[al Qaeda] is still determined to strike.''

The Bush Administration would still lead us to believe that al Qaeda is no longer a threat because two thirds of its senior leadership have been captured or killed. But Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld says ``it's almost impossible to have metrics'' that determine whether Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are being drained of support around the world. In fact some experts still put al Qaeda's end strength at close to 18,000.

Secretary Rumsfeld went on to say that the War on Terrorism is not ``a military problem alone.'' In fact the overreliance on military

means to address the threat of terrorism might have done more to help al Qaeda recruit new members than it did to shrink the organization.

So what lessons have we learned three years later?

Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11; our invasion of Iraq made us more, not less vulnerable to terrorist attack; despite capturing and killing al Qaeda leaders, the organization remains operational; we shortchanged homeland security; and the President's attempt to make America safer by taking the fight to the enemy and invading Iraq has done nothing to deter bin Laden's desire to attack the U.S. again.

The administration has failed to adequately address the worldwide threat of terror. It has alienated much of the international community and failed to assemble an effective coalition. We honor the fallen today, but we must also refocus America's foreign and security policy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw attention to an impending pay cut to middle class families. As my colleagues here in the Congress know, the House voted last week on a bipartisan basis to stop a new policy that President Bush has put in place to change the definition of who qualifies for overtime pay.

For years it has been clear that in certain types of work you would earn time and a half pay for every additional hour you work if it is more than 40 hours in 1 week.

Overtime pay is not a minor thing to these families. It often accounts for more than 25 percent of middle class families' paychecks.

It helps foremen, assistant managers, journalists, registered nurses, and workers who perform relatively small amounts of supervisory or administrative work. It helps salespeople who perform some amount of work outside the office, chefs, nursery school teachers, workers in the financial services industry, insurance claim adjusters, funeral directors and embalmers, law enforcement officers, athletic trainers and many others from all different parts of the workforce.

But the Bush administration has changed all of that and 6 million middle class families are now at risk of losing their overtime pay.

Democrats in Congress have been leading the fight to stop the President and to stop the pay cut, but the leaders in Congress and the White House are doing everything in their power to see that we do not win.

The whole issue is a very curious thing.

The President looked out at our economy, at the mounting job losses, at the declining real wages and the rising costs of health care and college tuition, and he saw trouble. He believed that the threat to the middle classes was that they were earning too much overtime pay, and he ordered the Department of Labor to devise a scheme that would allow employers to force their employees to work the overtime hours but not receive the overtime pay.

It was not a popular plan. The Department of Labor received tens of thousands of comments from the public opposing it. Lawmakers received calls and letters and e-mails from our constituents opposing the plan. In fact, the department had to revise its proposed changes to try and, quote, make it fairer. Their first plan would have taken overtime pay away from 8 million families. This plan takes it away from 6 million. It still is not fair and it is not the answer to what ails our economy.

But even though the plan was unpopular, the President knew he could count on his friends in Congress to withstand the public opposition.

Late last year, the Senate, in a bipartisan vote, voted to stop the President's plan, and the House cast a procedural vote to support the Senate's provision. But when the final bill made it out of Congress and went to the President, the Republican leadership in the House and the Senate had stripped the bill of the amendment that would have blocked the President's overtime pay cut.

That is where we are again.

Last week, on a bipartisan basis, the House voted to stop the President's overtime pay cut, which went into effect on August 23. It was a pretty big vote for a controversial issue: 223 voted against the President, including 22 Republicans, and 193 voted for the President's plan, all Republicans. Now the Senate is going to take up the issue.

But already aides to House leaders like Majority Leader Tom DeLay have indicated publicly that they will not let this amendment stay in the final bill that goes to the President for signature. Even though the majority of the House voted to stop the President's overtime pay cut, the President's allies are here to prevent the majority will of the House from prevailing.

Mr. Speaker, what is wrong with the current leadership in this Congress? They do not respect the will of the majority.

You know, sometimes it works just the other way. Take the vote on Medicare last year, one of the most controversial pieces of legislation to come before this body. The President's plan was crafted and designed for the drug companies and the insurance companies, even though it was supposed to be for seniors to help them pay for the high cost of valuable prescription drugs. But the Medicare bill does nothing to slow the rising prices of prescription drugs for seniors.

When the bill was brought to the House floor in November last year, those of us who opposed the bill were winning. When the clock ran out and the time was up for the vote to be ended, we were winning. The Medicare bill was going to be defeated. But the Republicans had another idea.

They refused to bring the vote to a close. Twenty minutes went by, a normal time for a vote. We were winning. An hour went by; we were winning. Two hours went by; we were still winning. By this time, early in the morning, the President had been woken up to make phone calls, to help in the feverish effort to twist congressional arms. One Congressman said afterwards that he had been offered a bribe by a congressional leader for his vote, a matter that is still under investigation by the FBI and the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

Finally, after nearly 3 hours, one of the longest votes to be held in the history of Congress, the President's allies turned enough votes; and they proceeded to pass the drug companies' Medicare bill by a slim majority. And that bill is now law.

Whether it is protecting overtime pay of the middle class or protecting seniors from the drug companies' Medicare law, or countless other issues, the current leaders in Congress do not respect or honor the majority here in the Congress who support these measures. They will not respect the will of the majority of Americans who are represented by those Members of Congress, over half of the country expressing their view that they do not want that law to go into effect, whether it is to cut overtime pay or whether it is the phony prescription drug bill that does not provide the benefits that our seniors need and have come to expect.

This is one of the many things that is wrong with the way the House of Representatives is being run under the current leadership, and it is one of the things that must change come this November.

The House and Senate should respect the will of the majority of its Members on these issues of overtime pay and middle-class prescription drug benefits.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, we have just seen the last desperate attempt by the Department of Labor to hold on to its outrageous regulations to take away overtime from 6 million hard-working Americans; 6 million Americans that use overtime to maintain their status in the middle class; 6 million Americans that use overtime to pay for their children's education, to qualify for their home, to make their car payments; 6 million Americans that hate overtime on Thursday and Friday night and over the weekend, but they love it at the end of the year when it is in their W-2 form.

It makes up a considerable amount of their yearly income. For those who receive overtime, it is as high as 20 to 25 percent of their income throughout the year. This is how they maintain their standard of living, by working overtime.

And what is overtime? It is the premium time you get paid because you were asked to work beyond your 40 hours. You get a premium because you have to go out and rearrange your child care arrangements, you have to change your doctor appointments, you have to limit your ability to see your children and participate in their school events or sporting activities. Because it imposes a burden on the worker and it gives a benefit to the employer, that is why it is premium time.

What does the Department of Labor do, what does the Bush administration do, and what is this Republican Congress trying to do? They are saying to the American worker, you are going to work the hours; you are just not going to get the pay.

This is the largest government-imposed pay cut in the history of this country, the largest government-imposed pay cut in the history of this country, when American workers are threatened by the outsourcing of their jobs, instability in the workplace, a struggling economy, their pensions are under assault, their companies are threatening to go to bankruptcy court to get rid of their health care, to get rid of their pensions, to undermine their wages, to take away their union contract, if they have one. And what is the Bush administration's response to this? To cut their overtime.

What is it that the middle class in America did that so enraged the Bush administration that they have an all-out attack on middle-class families, hard-working families in this country? What is it that the middle class did to anger them that they would undermine their pensions? What is it that the middle class did to anger them that they would try to take away their ability to control their workplace and the hours they work, to take away their overtime pay, to try to get rid of their ability to organize?

It is the middle class that built this country. They built the great institutions of this country. They built the great structures of this country. They built our cities. They built our colleges. They built our universities. It is the middle class that we hold up to the rest of the world and say, if you have a large middle class, you can have a great democracy, if people truly believe that they are getting the chance to participate and to better the future of their children and to better their lot in life.

Now, all of a sudden, along comes the Bush administration, and they think the middle class is the enemy. They have been waging a campaign for 4 years against the middle class Americans and their standard of living. They have dramatically increased the debt that they are going to have to pay back to the government. They have dramatically underfunded the capabilities of Medicare and Social Security that the middle class is going to rely on for health care and for retirement. But I guess maybe the Bush administration, with their trust funds and their money and their oil companies, they do not understand that. They have never shared those burdens of the middle class.

So what we just saw here was the last attempt by the Solicitor in the Department of Labor, who has had to rewrite these regulations several times because they have never been able to get them right, because they have uncovered so many people they said were not uncovered, and they did not cover people they said were covered; but now that same Solicitor comes out and tries to tell us that if the Congress tampers with this, somehow it will undermine the rights of working people to get overtime.

Well, that is a Republican Solicitor working for the Republican Department of Labor, who is working for the Republican Secretary of Labor, who is working for the Republican President. But if you go to CRS, which is nonpartisan, they simply say, we all understand this, we have seen these riders before. This tells you to go back to the regulations and reimplement the regulations that were in effect on July 14, 2004. That is the plain reading of this act, and Congress has done this many times.

So if you vote for this, what you will be doing is saving millions of people their right to overtime for the work that they provide. Millions of people who, if you do not vote for this, working foremen, working supervisors, assistant managers, team leaders, registered nurses, workers who perform a relatively small amount of supervisory amount of administrative work, they are going to take away your overtime if you tell somebody to stand over there or move or there.

Mr. Chairman, they are going to take away your overtime if you are a chef or a nursery school teacher. No matter how low your pay, they are going to take away your overtime. Workers in the financial services industries, the insurance claims adjusters, journalists; hello, journalists, you are about to lose your overtime.

What is it you guys have against these hard-working Americans that you are going to rip them off this pay that they are entitled to?

Well, let us understand. Let us understand what it is about. Let us understand that these are people who work hard and rely on this, and this Congress, this Congress should not be the handmaiden of this activity. And if this amendment prevails, if the Obey-Miller amendment prevails, these workers will have another chance at holding onto that pay for their work that is so terribly important to them.

I would hope that we would reject all of the scare tactics, we would reject the Solicitor that has not gotten it right yet, and we would reject the Department of Labor.

Remember the Department of Labor when they issued these regulations, they said none of these people are affected? Then Senator Judd Gregg ran around and created an amendment and entered 50 categories of people that he wanted to exempt from the people that the Department of Labor said were not impacted. That is what the Republicans' response was in the Senate. They immediately exempted 50 professions because they were terrified that the regulations were wrong, and the regulations, in fact, turned out to be wrong. They said they did not cover fire and policemen, and then they had to cut a side deal with firemen and policemen because they were wrong.

So let us not trust the Solicitor of the Department of Labor. Let us go with what CRS says. This is what the Congress has done, and we do this every appropriations season on riders. This is a rider to protect the American wage-earner in this country, and I hope that we will pass it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to the Hayworth amendment. I think it is unfortunate, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) pointed out, that this amendment is offered here. This amendment will not stop the impact of the NLRB ruling, it will simply stop the enforcement of that act, so those who want to seek to organize under the act will go forward,

and we will find out about penalties for noncompliance or the results of the actions much later, some years from now, if this amendment passes.

But I think it is also important to note the gentleman sort of belittled the efforts of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), myself, the leaders of the tribes, the leaders of the AFL-CIO sitting down together to work this out. And yet he cites that the California arrangement was basically the subject of negotiations where, in fact, the tribes, the labor unions, and Governor Schwarzenegger came up with an arrangement that some say is stronger than the current National Labor Relations Act.

The point is these are good-faith negotiations. We have had several meetings. Many people were surprised that either of those organizations would walk into the same room to sit down and discuss this, but they recognized the problem here. The problem, unlike State governments, is that you have tens of thousands of workers and potentially many tens of thousands of workers working in Indian gaming facilities, who, if they are not properly treated, if they are mistreated, not saying they will be, they are not enrolled members of the tribe, and they really have no recourse. They have no recourse to that activity. They cannot vote against the mayor, they cannot recall the city council, they cannot organize their fellow citizens because they are not members of that tribe.

As my colleague knows, in many of these instances, the size of the tribe may be a couple hundred people. Obviously, they cannot run a casino because the workforce there is several thousand of those individuals. So I do not think it is a matter of national policy. And the Indians have recognized this in our discussions, that you would leave people without some recourse to an ability to organize. That is why they have recognized, at least in these discussions, that we should go forward and try to see whether or not we can develop a system that honors sovereignty and is a parallel system to provide for the protection and the recognition of these workers.

That is, in effect, what we are doing now. And I did not quite understand the previous exchange, because the suggestion is somehow that this is make-work. I hope not, because I, obviously, and many of the people in that room are very prominent people and very busy people. I hope we are not wasting our time.

Now, what has happened since this amendment appeared, those meetings have all been canceled. So I think it has been destructive to that process.

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I am sorry, but I will have to ask him to repeat the question.

Reclaiming my time, which the gentleman yielded to me, Mr. Chairman, I would respond that, actually the chairman of the San Manuel Tribe will say no; that that was not the case. But I would tend to agree with the gentleman. Exactly.

That is what we are trying to do here as representatives of the Federal Government, recognizing the doctrine of sovereignty and protecting that with the tribes.

Mr. Chairman, there is a little bit of having it both ways. The gentleman from Arizona says he respects the California compacting process; yet in the 106th and 107th Congress, we debated this amendment when he wanted to prohibit the State of California or any entity negotiating a compact with the Indians from even discussing labor rights. I am a little bit confused here about what it is.

The gentleman does not like the negotiations that were going on because he likes what California is doing, but now we see in fact this amendment is not just about what happened with the National Labor Relations Act, because he has been trying to prevent the tribes or States from engaging in any discussion on terms and conditions of employees. This was long before.

The gentleman does not come here with some pure heart. The gentleman is subsuming what those compacts could be about; and this Congress, recognizing sovereignty, passed legislation to allow for that compacting to take place. That is what the law is, that those arrangements take place between the governors and the tribes.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to better protect the pension benefits of millions of Americans. Workers' retirement security has been taking it on the chin for the last 4 years. First, tens of thousands of workers and retirees lost their retirement savings after the Enron and WorldCom debacles. Then the Bush administration tried to restart the cash balance conversions and cut the pensions of millions of older workers. Under that proposal millions of older workers would have seen their pension benefits cut up to in half, and they would have had no way to return and repair the amount of money that they were planning to retire on. And now we find out that thousands of pension plans are, in fact, underfunded, and many are considering the termination and the dumping of billions of dollars of liability on the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, the agency that ensures the workers of this country's pensions.

The Pension Benefits Guaranty Corporation has gone from a $7 billion surplus to a $10 billion deficit in just 2

years. The GAO has it on its watch list of high-risk agencies. And a handful of airlines, including United, Delta, and US Air, may soon dump more liabilities on the Pension Benefits Guaranty Corporation that reach as high as $30 billion.

One of the worst parts of this is that the workers have no idea that their pension funds are underfunded and at risk, that their employer could default on their pension promises. Let me say that again. That while these plans are underfunded, and while they are at risk, the workers are not informed of that information. Pension law requires underfunded pension plans to report their underfunding to the government, but not to the workers.

My amendment is simple. I prohibit the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation from enforcing the part of the law that prohibits them from disclosing to workers and to retirees the funding status of their pension plan. After all, this is their money. This is money that they have contributed to those pension plans. It is money that they are planning on for their retirement. It is money that they are planning on for their future, and it is money that they cannot replace if they are an older worker. They ought to have this information.

Most interesting is the fact that the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation wants to make this information public. The Bush administration has said that they support making it public. But this provision in the law prevents them from doing this.

There is no reason why the government should know the status of company pension plans, but the workers should not. Workers are losing more and more each day under the administration's proposals on pension. Their jobs are being outsourced overseas. Their wages are falling. They have no protection of an adequate minimum wage. They are either losing their health care benefits or paying more in copays and deductibles and more of their wages on skyrocketing health insurance premiums, and they are losing their retirement security.

We have got to be able to provide them this information. This is very analogous to the workers at the Enron Corporation. The corporation knew that their 401(K) plans were in serious jeopardy. The corporation officers were unloading the stock because they knew they could not continue that criminal enterprise that they were engaged in in ripping off the energy consumers of this Nation. They unloaded. They got out. They took care of their golden parachutes. But the workers lost their 401(K) plans.

In this Congress we listened to the testimony of these workers as they talked about their entire retirement being destroyed, workers who were 60 years old, 65 years old, who had worked 10 and 15 and 20 years, who were planning to retire, no way to replace those savings. And now we see, and now we see, that there are hundreds of corporations that are underfunding; in fact, over 1,000 corporations that are underfunded according to the law in their pension plans, but this information is disclosed only to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation and not to this.

Why am I here with this amendment on the floor? Because I have requested the chairman of the committee to ask to make this information public, and he has refused to do so. If he would do that, the law provides that it would be made available to the Members of Congress. At least we could start to see some of this information. But that will not be done.

The fact of the matter is this, and it is very simple: The workers in these corporations paid into these pensions. The corporations contributed to these pensions. The workers gave up other benefits to get these pensions. That money belongs to the workers. The workers ought to have the information.

Mr. Chairman, it is just a matter of decency. We see now major reforms going on in the administration of mutual funds and how their relationships are on behalf of workers, the disclosures of fees, the disclosures of their transactions, time days, one scandal after another, with people cheating the owners of the money out of their funds. Now we see the machinations of corporations as they try to cover up the potential liability or the potential failure or the loss of these pensions of the workers. Transparency is the watchword of the day. The workers of America, of corporations that are in danger of unloading these pensions and getting rid of these pensions, the workers of this country are entitled to that information.

I would hope that this House would support this in the name of the transparency, in support of the position of the Bush administration, in support of the position of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation that this information should be made available, and I would urge an aye vote.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank the comments of my chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), on this situation. But I must say I continue to disagree with the gentleman, and I disagree on two grounds.

First and foremost, we have made several requests to him to ask the PBGC, and we have specifically have asked, the Democrats on the committee have asked the PBGC for this information. They will not make it available to the committee, much less the public. They will not make it available to the committee because the chairman of the committee must make that request to them.

So when you talk about us going into long-term pension reform, Mr. Chairman, at a minimum we ought to have this information about the magnitude of the problem and the variations among the various corporations and the industries that are involved in this, if we are going to, in fact, deal with some kind of long-term and necessary fix, that I hope we will, and I thank you for holding those hearings. We need that information as members of the committee at a minimum.

But, furthermore, this information was available up until 1994. Then the Clinton administration cut a deal on the financing of GATT, and this information, the corporations prevailed on them to make this secret in exchange for a premium increase to pay for GATT. Who got left out? Who was not at the table? The American worker. So all of a sudden they did not get the information anymore.

The point and the magnitude and the necessity for this amendment, let me just point out that according to Standard & Poor, 290 of the 362 companies in the Standard & Poor's 500 that offer defined benefit plans are underfunded by $165 billion in 2003.

The point is this, that this is a huge, looming problem. You know the people who just went through bankruptcy at U.S. Air and thought they had cured their problem? Well, when United said, we think we might offload our pension onto the public taxpayers, all of a sudden the people at U.S. Air are in trouble again.

We think these people ought to have that information, so they, when they are negotiating, because if United does this, it is a likelihood that U.S. Air does it, and if U.S. Air does it, it is a likelihood that Delta will do it.

Well, that is a catastrophe for the PBGC and for those workers. There is something about transparency. We insisted in other financial arrangements where individuals have their money in the hands of third parties, and in this case we ought to do it for corporations.

So I appreciate, and I have said to the chairman very often, that he has given attention to this problem. We hope to have a long-term solution. But this is fundamental to the rights of workers at this most perilous time with respect to the security of their pensions.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, I appreciate that argument, but in reviewing the case, the Bush administration said they support the disclosure under this provision of the law, and the PBGC supports that. I do not think these two entities are interested in destroying these corporations. The fact of the matter is this information was made available for many years.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 714. This resolution honors a woman who has been one of the most influential and positive forces on public education for many years.

Last week, Sandra Feldman retired from the presidency of the American Federation of Teachers, which represents 1.3 million teachers--from pre-schools to universities--throughout this nation.

Through this resolution, the Congress joins her colleagues in the AFT, and throughout the education field, in recognizing and honoring her contributions to teaching and to the improved status and professionalism of educators.

Ms. Feldman's involvement in improving the quality of education began as an advocate for children during the civil rights movement in the 1960s.

She understood, as we should all, that the right to a sound public education is one of the most basic of our civil rights.

Without that education and training; opportunities are cut off from young people in higher education, employment and promotions.

Her work continued as a public elementary school teacher in 2nd and 3rd grade classrooms at PS 34 in Manhattan. She was elected to the presidency of the United Federation of Teachers in 1986, and then the AFT presidency in 1997.

Ms. Feldman's tenure as president of AFT has been marked by tireless efforts to improve teaching and learning in our country. Ms. Feldman's strong national leadership on standards based reform helped strengthen student performance and expand the skills of teachers.

Along with many Members of Congress, state and local legislators, and local board of education, I have long sought Ms. Feldman's advice and counsel in the development of education and child development policy.

She has never failed to respond to requests for her expert advice, serving on innumerable task forces and commissions, and as a regular witness before Congress.

Quite simply, her leadership at the AFT has enabled the nation to improve teacher quality and make academic achievement a reality.

The contributions of Ms. Feldman to our educational system has been immeasurable. This resolution only recognizes these contributions in a small way. The true measurement of Ms. Feldman's efforts are seen in our schools.

Her impact can be seen with an increased focus on teacher quality and better working conditions for teachers. But also her impact is evident in the strength and desire by our schools to improve teaching and learning.

Her leadership at the AFT has brought increased commitment to closing the achievement gap and ensuring all children can succeed.

This is the type of leadership that will continue to strengthen our educational system for

years to come, and that will open the door of opportunity to millions of children who otherwise may well have languished in underfunded, unsupported schools throughout this country. That is a legacy that any teacher can be very proud of.

I urge all Members to support this resolution, to recognize a great educator and advocate for teachers and schools, and to wish Sandy the very best for her years of contribution to her country.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman very much for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, the great ape populations are declining at an alarming rate worldwide.

The continuing destruction of habitat, in combination with the growth in the commercial bushmeat trade in Africa and increased logging activities in Indonesia, has led scientists to suggest that the majority of the great ape populations will be extinct in the next 10 to 20 years.

To address this crisis, in May 2001, UNESCO and UNEP established the Great Apes Survival Project, known as GRASP.

GRASP is uniquely placed to mobilize resources and provide a communication platform to bring the dramatic decline of great ape population to a halt.

But, sadly, Mr. Chairman, the bill we have before us includes no funding for the GRASP program.

While I recognize that assessed contributions to UNESCO are part of the CJS appropriations bill, voluntary contributions to UNESCO programs, like GRASP, are usually included in the Foreign Operations appropriations bill's International Organizations Account.

For fiscal year 2004, Congress appropriated almost $1.9 million in voluntary contributions to UNESCO programs. It is my hope that, in the further deliberations of this bill, both here and in the conference, serious consideration can be given to the funding of GRASP programs to protect the great apes from total extinction.

Could I ask my friend from Arizona, the distinguished Chair, for his help and cooperation on this very important issue as we move to the conference on this legislation.

I thank the gentleman very much for that.

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a resolution honoring Ms. Sandra Feldman upon her retirement from the presidency of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT). She is stepping down from this position at the AFT's annual convention later this week. Ms. Feldman has been a tireless advocate for improving the quality of teaching in our schools.

Ms. Feldman was born in New York City and is a product of its public schools. She is a former 2nd and 3rd grade teacher at PS 34 in Manhattan. She began her career advocating for children and better learning outcomes during the 1960's civil rights movement. Ms. Feldman was elected to the presidency of the United Federation of Teachers, the New York City affiliate of the AFT, in 1986. She subsequently was elected to the presidency of the AFT in 1997.

Ms. Feldman has brought this diverse background and her valuable experiences together to be a force for education reform. Ms. Feldman's leadership at both the UFT and AFT helped define national education reform efforts as they developed and grew in the 1980s and 1990s. Her work helped shape the standards movement and brought accountability for results back to education.

Ms. Feldman is probably best identified as being a stalwart champion of increased teacher quality. Better than anyone, Ms. Feldman knows the importance of a highly qualified teacher, especially for the most disadvantaged children. While improving the working conditions and benefits of her membership, she also asked for better results and higher qualifications. A well qualified teacher is the most important element in a successful learning experience. Sandra Feldman's leadership at AFT has only reinforced this important fact.

Despite her retirement, I am confident that her services will continue to be sought after on numerous panels and task forces to improve educational outcomes. Very simply, her service to both her membership and the children of America has been immeasurable.

The resolution I am introducing today honors Sandra Feldman on her retirement from the presidency of AFT. Despite her leaving this position, I am confident that her expertise and skill will continue to positively impact teaching and learning for years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I rise in opposition to H.R. 1587 and urge a no vote by the House.

There is no one in this House who does not wish to see improvements on Vietnam's policies on democracy and freedom. I have visited the nation on four occasions in the last 5 years, meeting with everyone from workers in shoe factories to high-level government ministers. There are many and I would say a growing number of Vietnamese who share the hope of a more open and democratic society and who are working to achieve these goals.

This legislation will not help them.

There are many in our own veterans' organizations who are working closely with the Vietnamese on the POW/MIA issue. I have gone to the excavation sites and seen the close cooperation that has resulted in the repatriation of over 500 remains of their loved ones here in the United States.

This legislation will not help in that effort.

Our government is working closely with the Vietnamese to address the issues of infectious disease control, including AIDS and SARS, which are real issues because of the heavy travel between our countries. We know that many Vietnamese acted quickly in the case of the SARS crisis and controlled what might have been a far more severe pandemic.

This legislation will not promote improved cooperation on health policy.

Throughout Vietnam, in the aftermath of the normalization of relationships, the passage of the Bilateral Trade Agreement, U.S. businesses are investing hundreds of millions of dollars to build a better trade, to provide jobs, and to improve the economic relations between our countries.

This legislation is not going to enhance those investments or those benefits.

I have been working with the international labor organizations and U.S. companies to improve Vietnam's compliance with basic labor rights and standards, and we have seen improvements in many areas, although much additional work remains to be done.

This bill is not going to provide or achieve those goals.

On these, and many other areas, we are working to improve our relationship and improve the nature of the society in Vietnam for the benefit of its residents, who include the family members of millions of U.S. residents and citizens.

This bill will set back those efforts. It provides the harshest elements in the Vietnamese government with the rationale for reacting to our pressure. Does anyone in this Chamber, after our long experience in Vietnam, seriously believe that the Congress ordering them to change an internal policy in the nation, however desirous we may be of seeing that change, is going to persuade the government in Hanoi to do it because we so order it?

We all share the hope that Vietnam will evolve into a freer and more open, democratic nation. We hold the same goals for other nations in the region and around the world where records of human, labor and religious rights are no better than in Vietnam and, in some cases, worse.

Just earlier today, prior to this legislation, we considered legislation criticizing China, whose record on religious freedom, political democracy, and labor rights is certainly as unacceptable as Vietnam's, but it would not withdraw the nonhumanitarian assistance as this bill does. It urges them to improve their record on intellectual property.

We know why this legislation periodically resurfaces. We understand that there are areas in this Nation with large concentrations of Vietnamese expatriates who remain embittered about the outcome of the war and the government in control in Hanoi. Many of those same expatriates send hundreds of millions of dollars back each year to Vietnam to assist their relatives who still live in that nation. I understand their viewpoint, and I was one of the Congressmen sent in the 1970s to inspect the refugee exodus from Vietnam.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to call to my colleagues' attention the recent passing of a good friend, an outstanding educator and public servant, and a wonderful husband, Bill Thurston of Vallejo, California in my congressional district.

I urge my colleagues to read the article that follows below about Mr. Thurston's life, his passion, and his significant contributions to the city of Vallejo and the greater Solano County community. Bill was a longtime history and political science instructor at Solano Community College and a member of its board of trustees. He served on the county and state Democratic Central Committees for 22 years, and served eight years on the Democratic National Committee.

He was a friend and supporter to my father for his work in the state legislature and he was a mentor to me about the education of children and the needs of our community.

To Bill's wife of over 25 years, Rosemary Thurston, and to all of Bill's family I offer my sincere condolences at this time. For the many of us who were lucky enough to know Bill and to call him our friend, our lives are richer for it and we will always carry a place for him in our hearts. May he rest in peace.

[From the Vallejo Times Herald, July 7, 2004]

Longtime Vallejo Educator and Activist Dies at 74

(By Robert McCockran)

Bill Thurston, a longtime history teacher, state Democratic

Committee leader and Solano Community College trustee died

Tuesday. He was 74.

A family member said Thurston, 74, was having shortness of

breath (about, 10:25 a.m.) and had to be rushed to (Kaiser

Permanente Medical Center) and collapsed in the hospital.''

Another family member said Thurston's wife, Rosemary, was

distraught and unable to talk about her husband's death.

``We can say that he's gone and we can say that he didn't

suffer,'' the family friend said, adding that a memorial

service will be arranged.

For 20 years, Thurston taught political science and history

at Solano Community College.

``I feel very sad, very sad,'' said Pam Keith, a fellow

trustee. ``He was just a very special person to me and I'm

going to miss him very, very much.''

``There will be a lot of people turn out for this guy,

whatever the situation is. He's got 500 children,

grandchildren, great-grandchildren, (and) great-great-great-

grandchildren, And he's touched so many lives over the years,

one way or another. People that you don't even know about,''

Keith said.

Another fellow board member, Willie McKnight, called

Thurston ``a great educator'' and noted that they were

fraternity brothers, having joined Alpha Phi Alpha in 1979.

McKnight said Thurston loved music, although he didn't play

any instrument and, he often spoke at his church. ``He always

was willing to speak and was always trying to uplift our

black boys and girls.''

Pelton Stewart, executive director of the Continentals of

Omega Boys and Girls Club, said when he first came to Vallejo

Thurston took him under his wing and ``told me some pitfalls

to avoid politically in our little city.''

``He was a real long time dedicated supporter of the Boys

and Girls Club. He and his wife were always at our banquets,

always supporting. He was just a great man,'' Stewart said.

``He gave a lot back to the Vallejo community. He was very

proud of his African ancestry and helped with the African

American library in Oakland and very proud of the education

system here in Solano County.''

Thurston was born Jan. 15, 1930 in Logtown, Mississippi. As

a young child, he once recalled watching police wake a

sleeping African-American man at a train station. They kicked

him, then shot him in cold blood, Thurston told an

interviewer.

Thurston's family moved to California in 1944, and at age

17, he joined the military. He served in Korea, Germany, the

Philippines and Okinawa before leaving the service in 1964.

Thurston earned an AA degree at Solano Community College

and a BA at California State University at Hayward. In 1972,

he began teaching at Solano Community College.

``I never taught a class without dealing with reality,'' he

once told a reporter.

``In all the U.S. history classes I taught, I always

included segments on the failures of Reconstruction after the

Civil War and on the struggles of women. I taught the bad

things and the good.''

In January 1985, Thurston was elected vice-chairman of the

California Democratic Party.

He served on the county and state Democratic Central

committees for 22 years, retiring in 1994. He also served

eight years on the Democratic National Committee.

In May 1988, Thurston was a delegate for presidential

nominee Michael Dukakis.

But Thurston was not so partisan that he ignored weaknesses

of his fellow Democrats. He once referred to Oakland Mayor

and former California governor Jerry Brown as a ``flake'' and

said he was not overly impressed with former President Bill

Clinton.

Frank Jackson, former president of the Vallejo Chapter

NAACP, said of Thurston: ``We go way back. Bill and I were

real close friends.''

Jackson said he served with Thurston on an affirmative

action committee at Solano Community College.

``The thing I liked about Bill, he was fair and equitable.

When something wasn't right, he'd say `this isn't right' or

`this is the thing that we're doing,''' Jackson said of his

fellow NAACP member.

``Any time I would call on him and ask him to do anything

he was always willing to help out. And, anytime anybody

called me about anything political, I would tell them to call

Bill Thurston,'' Jackson said.

Mel Jordan, an architect for the Vallejo City Unified

School District who designed Jesse Bethel High School, said

he was very close to Thurston.

``Basically, Bill Thurston is almost like a second father

to me. In other words, a mentor. He really assisted me in a

lot of decision-making types of things for my own personal

life,'' Jordan said.

``He's extremely going to be a loss to me, but he's passed

on so much wisdom. It's almost like passing on the torch

because we connected so much over the years,'' Jordan said.

Former Vallejo mayor Terry Curtola said he'd known Thurston

most of his adult life.

``Always was an adviser to me in my political career. Just

what I like to call a good old boy Vallejoan. He was always

supporting everything that went on. Always had the best of

Vallejo at heart. Just a good man,'' Curtola said.

``I think what I like the most about Bill more than

anything, he covered all the diversities of our whole

community. You could never pinpoint him. He was just a man

that I always went to for advice. Even when I didn't go to

him for advice, he'd call and give it to me anyway.'' Curtola

said.

Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, yesterday a bipartisan majority in this House voted to change the PATRIOT Act so the government cannot wantonly snoop and peer in what people are reading in their public libraries and at their book stores. But that bipartisan majority was unable to be sustained because of the corruption of the Republican leadership in this House, because of the corruption of the rules of this House, and because of the corruption of the principles of this country by that Republican leadership.

What they could not stand was the fact that there was a majority that disagreed with the handful in the Republican leadership. So they nullified the vote. They nullified the principles of democracy; they nullified the principles of majority rule in the House of Representatives.

That very same day, thousands of families and schoolchildren came through the Capitol and they were told this is where democracy reigns. This is the beacon to the world. This is where freedom exists. But it does not exist on the floor of the House of Representatives because of the corruption of the leadership of the Republican Party.

Every time they believe the majority is going to win out here, a bipartisan coalition majority whether it is on minimum wage, whether it is on overtime, they prevent that vote from taking place. The people who are truly afraid of the majority in this country is the corrupt Republican leadership in this House.

Mr. Speaker, early on after 9/11, it was said that this country was attacked by terrorists because the terrorists hated our freedom and hated our democracy.

What is it about our freedoms and our democracy that the Republican leadership does not like? What is it about the concept of majority rule that the Republican leadership does not like? What is it about the idea of a free and open debate that the Republican leadership does not like? What is it about the fact that if you can put together a bipartisan coalition to win a point, to win an amendment, to defeat a bill or to pass a bill, if it is not consistent with the Republican leadership, they get to then overturn it, they get to nullify the majority? They get to nullify the actions, as they did yesterday when the time came to end the vote; they nullified the actions of over half of the people in the country of the United States of America because their representatives voted to amend the PATRIOT Act. But that is not what the Republican leadership wanted, so they simply held the vote open until they could nullify the will of the majority in this country.

If the Republican leadership stays at it long enough, there will not be any freedoms. There will not be any democracy for the terrorists to hate, because the Republican leadership in this House is doing an incredible job of destroying the history of this House, the history of open debate, the history of the majority prevailing, while protecting the minority.

This Republican leadership, the White House, and so many people, say we have to go and deliver democracy to Iraq, to Iran, to Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan. What about a little democracy on the floor of the House of Representatives of the United States of America? What about a little respect for democracy here? What about a little respect for the Rules of the House? What about a little respect for the rights of the majority to prevail on a vote? What about respect for the right of the minority to raise the point to offer an amendment? If you have a good amendment and they think you will prevail on the floor, you will get enough Republicans and Democrats to vote for that amendment, the Committee on Rules will not allow it in order.

If you sneak one by them and the majority surprises them and you win a vote on the floor of the House of Representatives, they take that vote away from you.

This is not what democracy is about. This is not what freedoms are about. This is not what people think they are dying for around the world. This is not what they pursue when they pursue the hope of America, they have seen that beacon of liberty, that Statue of Liberty. Do they really think that when they are all done, they get the dictatorship of the Republican majority to shut down democracy?

Would that be worth dying for? Would that be worth putting your life on the line for? Would that be worth to sacrifice when people take to streets all over the world so that they can become like America only to be tricked and find out that in America, in the House of Representatives, the Republican dictatorship has shut down that democracy, has shut down that freedom. And when the majority in this country through their representatives suggest that they want to make sure that their freedoms and their rights were protected in the PATRIOT Act, the dictatorship of the Republican majority said no. A majority vote on protecting the rights and the freedoms that are so fundamental to the heritage, to the culture, to the history, to the future of this country. A majority vote was nullified by the Republican dictatorship.

It is a sad, sad day for democracy in the House of Representatives, the people's House of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me, and I want to commend her for her work on this legislation, also to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) for all of his work on this legislation.

Regretfully, I must oppose this legislation because I think at the moment, as this is currently drafted, this legislation fails to address what is, I believe, a fatal defect. Not only do I think it will delay the consideration of this legislation for a successful passage through the Congress, I also believe that it has a very real possibility of throwing much of this legislation back into the court, something we are trying to avoid with the CALFED process, and that is, the preauthorization of future California water projects.

I appreciate what the gentleman said about WRDA; but I think if he takes a close look at WRDA he will find, in fact, it is a much different process than what we envision here. In fact, the language of this legislation says that virtually any water project or water supply or water yield can move into construction after a feasibility study. It does not say a favorable report, as it says in the WRDA or the Chief's. It simply says if you have the feasibility study, you can move on; and I think what, in fact, we will see is that those people who are critics of many of the projects that all of us support in this legislation will start to raise Cain at the local level about the process being rigged.

They will take this to the courts, take this to the bow, and we will go through a process that is just going to be unacceptable in terms of meeting the goals that the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) have for this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to recommit, and every Member of the House who is concerned about runaway spending should join me in this vote.

The motion seeks to delete just one feature of this bill: The so- called ``preauthorization of future California water projects'' that ends a century of congressional review and design of massive, costly, and sometimes controversial water projects.

Passing this bill without deleting the so-called preauthorization provision grants a blank check to bureaucrats and Federal agencies to spend billions of dollars on dams, conveyance facilities, and other potentially controversial water projects in California without any further authorization by Congress.

This provision grants special privileges to California projects. They alone, not projects in Arizona, Colorado, or New Mexico, or anywhere else in the reclamation west, would be cleared for construction based upon a study done by the planners in the Department of the Interior. A study might reveal serious fiscal, legal, or environmental problems. But the project goes ahead anyway unless Congress passes a bill to stop it. If that bill is not brought to the floor of the House, the project goes forward.

So as projects in other States are forced to wait for bills to pass authorizing their construction, California moves to the front of the line, awaiting no authorization, freed from the scrutiny that will be imposed on projects in every other State. Those of you who have been here for a while know that water projects typically move in packages so that no State is left behind. Well, say goodbye to that process if this bill passes with the California preauthorization process, because many of the biggest, most expensive, most controversial projects will be off and running while you are still in the paddock.

Now, some may ask, why would I, as a Californian, raise this concern? Because I am a strong supporter of CALFED, I am a strong supporter of the record of decision, and I would like to support this legislation. But as the former chairman of both the Subcommittee on Water and Power and the full Committee on Resources, I know that a project that bypasses the authorization process is going to face withering opposition in the appropriations process and in the regulatory and judicial process and among the voters back at home, and that is why I offer this motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentlewoman for her comments, and say to the House that if this motion is passed, the bill would come back immediately to the House for its consideration and then it would move on to the Senate without this very controversial provision that has substantial Senate opposition and we can get on with passing this bill that the people have worked so terribly hard on and which our State needs.

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.