Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, here they go again. When they first took office, the Bush administration said we needed a big tax cut to get the economy moving again. They gave us a big tax cut, financed out of the deficit, financed out of Social Security; and we lost 1.7 million jobs since that tax cut. We have lost 2.5 million jobs since the Bush administration took office.

This morning they want to give us another trillion dollar tax cut to create more jobs, and the fact of the matter is that most of it will be financed out of the Social Security system and out of the deficit. When is this Nation going to learn that these people do not have a plan? They have yet to create a single new job; but what they will do in this tax cut is for those families earning over a million dollars, they will get $93,000 back next year in tax cuts. For the average family, they will get $217 back. In fact, over the next decade those families will take more in tax cuts than 90 percent of the population.

Mr. Speaker, this is once again showering hundreds of billions of dollars on the wealthiest people in the country while 2.5 million people are out of work, while 4 million people have given up looking for work, and three people are looking for every job that exists in this country. The Republicans and President Bush owe America better.

Mr. Speaker, we are now $2 trillion into the Republican economic scheme. First, they gave away a trillion dollars because we had such a big surplus, they wanted to return it to the people. Now we have trillions of dollars of debt. Now they want another trillion dollars, and they have not created a single job. The American people have been waiting for 2, 2.5 years for jobs, and this bill does nothing to create a job.

This bill does nothing but increase the deficit. It does nothing but increase the giveaways to the wealthiest people in this country. Yet the American people and their families are waiting to have the opportunity to go back to work, to stimulate the economy. But that is not what this legislation does. This legislation ignores the needs of working people in this country, ignores the needs of those families of working people in this country, and ignores the needs of those children who live in those families of working people in this country. How does it do it? By simply showering a trillion dollars over the next 10 years on Americans who do not need this money, many of whom have come to us and said, do something productive with it, and ignores the problems in the economy of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I want to join my colleagues on this side of the aisle who are rejecting this legislation because of its embracing of religious bigotry. As was pointed out, the language that is in the current law was authored by Dan Quayle, it was signed into law by Ronald Reagan. I guess that was when the Republican Party was a more tolerant party.

But this Republican Party today, for the first time, will repeal a major civil rights piece of legislation that outlaws discrimination based upon religion. To do so is to embrace the ugly, ugly form of religious bigotry. There is no other explanation for that. The people will be rejected in the pursuit of their employment, and it comes in a bill that is designed to get people more employment. They can be qualified for the job, they can be ready to go to work, they can provide value-added to their employer, and they can be rejected because of their religion and for no other reason.

That is bigotry. That is what the Republican Party is embracing here.

Yes, today religions can reject this with their private money and their private donations and collections. They can do that. But if they take Federal money, they cannot do it.

This is not about whether or not religious organizations participate in work employment programs, work training programs. One of the most effective programs in my district is run by North Richmond Missionary Baptist Church. It came out of welfare reform. It has done a tremendous job of getting people trained and into employment. But they do not discriminate against people, because the law does not allow that. But hundreds of thousands of dollars are run through that program to try to help people be employed. But this law will say for the first time that a religious organization with Federal money, with a position paid by the Federal Government, can discriminate against individuals because of their religion.

My colleagues are right. We should reject this. And it is an insult, and it goes to the level of the corruption of the democratic institution of the House of Representatives that we would not be allowed to have an amendment where we could debate and vote on this measure. This is fundamental to the freedoms of this country, it is fundamental to the right of free speech in this institution, it is fundamental to the democracy of the people's House. But this process has been so corrupted in the Committee on Rules, so corrupted by the Republican leadership that we will not be allowed a vote on the matter of whether or not people should be allowed to discriminate with Federal dollars, whether organizations should be able to engage in religious bigotry. Members will not be able to have an up or down vote. You talk about a corrupt process.

We spilled blood to bring democracy and freedom in Iraq and we see it being closed down in the House of Representatives. We see the underlying basic tenets of the democratic foundation of this House, the right to debate, the right to vote, the right to express our differences being corrupted by the Republican leadership and the Republican Committee on Rules.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

(Ms. WATSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.

I rise in opposition to H.R. 1261. This is the wrong bill being considered at the wrong time for the wrong reasons. This bill fails to extend unemployment benefits, it fails to create jobs, and it fails to stimulate the economy.

This economy is in the grips of a devastating economic stagnation, and it is now clear to everyone that the President's economic policies have utterly failed to date to create new jobs, they fail to stimulate new business growth, and they have richly succeeded in turning historic Federal surpluses into staggering deficits.

Unemployment is at 6 percent. That means that almost 9 million Americans are officially unemployed and another 9 million are either working part time because they cannot find full-time work or they are so completely discouraged that they have stopped looking for work. The Department of Labor's own data shows that there are three job seekers for every job available today. And yet this legislation comes forth and begins to unravel what has been a carefully constructed job-training program over the last 20 years on a bipartisan basis. It does so by undermining the ability of workers who are dislocated and others to get the services that they need to go back into the job market. But it also does it because of the insensitivity of this administration, because in this year, in this last year, as hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Americans join the ranks of the unemployed, this administration and this Congress cut $650 million of the programs under WIA. The President's budget this year suggests another $200 million in cuts.

So while they talk about the block grant and they talk about efficiencies, let us understand what they are doing. As the ranks of the unemployed grow in staggering numbers, there will be fewer resources available to help those individuals get back into the job market. There will be fewer resources available to help the 6 percent of Americans who are unemployed, to the 4 million Americans who are underemployed and are looking for longer hours.

Payroll employment has not been this depressed since the Great Depression of the 1930s, and why is that? Because there is not enough demand in the economy. But unfortunately tomorrow the Republicans will give us an economic program based upon tax cuts for the wealthy that most economists in the country have already said while they may agree with the tax cuts, it will not stimulate the economy. It is still questionable whether or not the Democrats will be able to put forth their program which economists tell us will create 1 million new jobs this year.

This legislation, because it is within the jurisdiction of the committee and our ability, could have also extended unemployment benefits for those who

are about to run out on May 31. But unfortunately the Republican leadership of the committee would not support that amendment and the Republican Committee on Rules would not make it in order.

So as we stand here in these dark times for unemployed American families who do not know yet whether or not unemployment benefits are going to be extended at the end of this month, where they will be playing with whether or not we will extend them, we know that within the Republican part the last time there was a huge amount of opposition to the extension of the unemployed benefits, that many people were lost because of the gap in that coverage. But this legislation is silent on that issue.

This legislation is like a narcotic. It wants to say we are moving around the structure of WIA, we are cutting the funding of WIA, but things are going to get better for the unemployed in this country. It is just simply not so because the Bush economy has been so terribly devastating to so many segments of the economy, whether it is in manufacturing, whether it is in high tech, whether it is in services, whether it is in transportation, whether it is in accommodations, and this President has yet to take a single step. Yes, he got his tax cut his first months in office. He has lost 2.5 million jobs since then, since then. That did not work. What he is suggesting is that we do more of the same. That is not an answer for these desperate families who are trying to hold themselves together through these dark economic times.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), a member of the committee.

(Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), a Member of the committee.

(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

(Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), an alumni of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

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

Mr. Speaker, this amendment would have the effect of providing an equivalent of 26 weeks of unemployment insurance to individuals who have exhausted both their State and their Federal extended benefits. The importance of this amendment is that it can provide a certainty to those people who are going to exhaust their benefits to know that these benefits will be there. We have tried in the Committee on Ways and Means yesterday to offer an amendment to send a message to these families. It was rejected. We tried in our committee. It was rejected. We tried in the Committee on Rules last night. It was rejected.

None of you, if you were in the situation of these families, would want to be taken up to the eve of the exhaustion of your benefits or, as we did a few months ago, we went past the exhaustion of the benefits. They exhausted on the 31st, and we went into January before we approved those benefits.

We owe it to these families. These families were working before their job disappeared. They are trying to provide for their families. They are trying to provide for their health care. They are trying to provide for their education and keep their house and keep their car. The least we can do is let them know in advance, but so far the Republican leadership has refused to do that.

The administration claims that they are still debating on whether or not they will extend the unemployment benefits upon exhaustion. Every member of our committee voted for this amendment. Every member of our committee on our side of the aisle spoke for this amendment because it is a compassionate thing to do. It is a decent thing to do, and it is a smart economical thing to do because this money to these families will enable them to participate in the economy and put demand into the economy. It is the minimum that we can do. We would like to just have a simple extension of the unemployments benefits, but so far there has been a deaf ear on the other side of the aisle on that matter.

So we would like to have this motion to recommit to succeed, to go back and to extend the equivalent of those 26 weeks to those individuals and to those families that are in dire straits. A million more families have exhausted their benefits than at this time in the last recession. The severity and the duration of this economic downturn is such, and this administration has yet to take a single step, a single step to help create jobs in this country, to help create the benefits for these individuals that they need.

That is what this amendment helps us to address. The first plan of this administration was a massive failure. They passed their big tax cut, a trillion dollars, and we have lost 2\1/2\ million jobs. We cannot just do more of the same. The American families that are under this economic stress in this job market in this lousy economy deserve better.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to regretfully announce the passing of a great jurist whose pioneering efforts in the field of juvenile law have changed much of the way we think about this complex and often controversial area of jurisprudence.

John Steketee was a third generation lawyer who spent over 30 years on the bench, mostly as presiding/chief judge of the Kent County Michigan Probate Court, Juvenile Division. I came to know Judge Steketee when he was the leader of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges and I was doing the research that would culminate in enactment of the P.L. 96-272, the national foster care and adoption reform law of 1980. Judge Steketee was one of the earliest jurists to focus on the importance of permanency planning for children who had entered into, and often became trapped within, the bureaucratic maze of the foster care system.

I frankly don't remember if I found him or he found me, but however it occurred, he played a hugely important role in shaping that legislation. Because of Judge Steketee's involvement, we were able to craft legislation that included case planning, periodic reviews of placement, and requirements for appropriateness of placements. He genuinely believed that the system had to be accountable to the child. The record of his achievements on the bench in Michigan, and his friendship with then-President Gerald Ford, helped many of those who might otherwise have been indifferent to recognize the workability and importance of the reforms we were proposing.

The first Children in Placement study was conducted in his court in 1971, which enabled him to discover lost children in the system and make sure that plans were being made for them. Through his association with them he was instrumental in successfully encouraging judges across the country to see permanency as an important issue for children and families, and that it was a duty for judges to hold all accountable for permanency to be achieved for all children. Judge Steketee was the first chair of the National Council's Permanency Planning Committee, and was the President of the Council 1984-1985. After retirement he continued to remain a strong advocate for permanency for the nation's children, and advocated for therapeutic juvenile and family drug courts.

I would like to extend my condolences and those of the House to his widow, Maribeth, his daughters Betsy Fenner and Martha Steketee, his three step-daughters, Erin Checchi, Leigh Baker, and Laurie Baker, and his seven grandchildren.

This is a man who made a great contribution to our nation and especially to its children and families, and I know the House joins me in paying respects to his memory. I would also like to include an article from the Grand Rapids Press on Judge Steketee.

[From the Grand Rapids Press, May 3, 2003]

Judge John Steketee, a Force for Children, Dies at 76

(By Doug Guthrie)

A voice for children in need was stilled Friday with the

death of retired Kent County Probate Judge John Steketee.

Steketee, 76, died from heart failure at Spectrum Health

Blodgett. He battled cancer since before his retirement in

2000, following 33 years on the bench.

``This is one of those people who may have been better

known in the nation than you thought you knew him at home,''

said David Mitchell, executive director of the National

Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.

With enthusiasm for openness and change, Steketee was a

pioneer in efforts to move foster children more quickly into

permanent homes. His reshaping of the juvenile welfare system

in Kent County brought national attention.

Mitchell said word of Steketee's death triggered a stream

of e-mails at his University of Nevada office in Reno.

``Without his example, leadership and vision, we would not

have moved the judicial system to the rules and permanence

for children that we have achieved,'' wrote Judge Richard

Fitzgerald of Louisville, Ky.'' . . . His mentorship of all

of us has helped us in building a just system.''

Said Mitchell, who served 18 years as a judge in Baltimore:

``He was a great man and mentor to so many of us. He taught

men and women throughout this nation how to be judges and

child advocates. He was loved.''

His closest friends and family were at a loss Friday to

explain what in Steketee's life gave him the strength to walk

alone so many years ago against the current of conventional

bureaucratic wisdom.

``I'm not sure what it was,'' said his son, John Steketee.

``He loved his work and had a desire to help.''

Press columnist Arn Shackleford for 35 years has written

weekly stories about local children in need of adoptive

parents. She said it was Steketee who encouraged her to

start.

``The first quote I ever used from him was, `You can't

replace parental neglect with governmental neglect.' He was

just a truly good person who loved kids,'' Shackleford said.

Raised on Grand Rapids' Southeast Side, Steketee became the

third generation of his family to practice law. After earning

degrees from the University of Michigan and Wayne State

University, he joined the family firm in 1956. He carried on

another family tradition, serving as the Netherlands'

vice-consul for Michigan.

Steketee was elected to Kent County's Probate Court in

1967, handling estates, juvenile issues, and mental health

commitments. The part of the job he liked best was obvious,

as the man with the snow-white beard became known as the

``Santa Claus Judge.''

His office in the Waalkes Juvenile Center on Cedar Street

NE became decorated over the years with hundreds of snapshots

taken at adoption ceremonies, where Steketee had everyone in

every adopted family swear under oath to love one another.

Off the job, he loved to sail. He owned two sailboats in

his lifetime, the Shields and Twin Wing, berthed in Holland.

He never raced, only cruised and relaxed on the waves.

Despite already being diagnosed with lung cancer, it was

state law that prohibited Steketee from seeking another six

years in office because of his age.

Even undergoing chemotherapy and radiation treatments,

Steketee remained active in his retirement.

Mitchell said he spoke with Steketee last week about plans

to attend the council's annual national convention in July in

San Antonio.

Until recently, Steketee also served as a visiting judge,

filling in for others on the Kent County Circuit bench. He

often stopped by the Kent County Courthouse to lobby for a

new idea, visit his old staff or simply find a lunch partner.

``He was fighting the cancer and trying to live his life,''

his wife, Maribeth, said Friday.

Judge Patrick Hillary, who was elected to Steketee's seat,

said Friday was a busy day in court, but one with many pauses

to reflect. Hillary used to practice as domestic relations

attorney in front of Steketee, and when elected, inherited

his staff and caseload.

``People say, `You replaced Judge Steketee.' I'm always

real careful to say, `I succeeded Judge Steketee,' '' Hillary

said. ``Nobody could replace him.''

Mr. Speaker, I know that all Members of the House of Representatives will want to join me in saluting the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local Union No. 104 on the 100th anniversary of its founding. Sheet Metal Workers' Local Union No. 104, through its many members over the last 100 years, has long played a vital role in protecting and organizing workers throughout Northern California.

The Sheet Metal Workers' International Association was first formed on January 25, 1888, in Toledo, Ohio. Since that day, local unions throughout the country have fought to protect the rights of workers in a wide variety of trades and job types; encompassing workers from tinsmiths to high tech specialists.

Sheet Metal Workers' Local Union No. 104 was formed on May 7, 1903, and is dedicated to the mission ``* * * to establish and maintain desirable working conditions and thus provide for themselves and their families that measure of comfort, happiness, and security to which every citizen is entitled in return for his labor, from a deep sense of pride in our trade, to give a fair day's work for a fair day's pay.''

Sheet Metal Workers' Local Union No. 104 membership includes individuals from the geographic regions of: Alameda, Contra Costa, Del Norte, Humboldt, Lake, Marin, Mendocino, Monterey, Napa, Santa Clara, San Benito, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Solano, Sonoma and Trinity Counties. Furthermore, Sheet Metal Workers' Local Union No. 104 currently represents more than 8,000 members local-wide, and is accredited with one of the most successful Organizing Programs in the country. The Union has organized approximately 50 new shops in that past two and a half years alone.

Sheet Metal Workers' Local Union No. 104's members are highly skilled craftspeople specializing in areas such as heating, air conditioning and ventilation, and architectural sheet metal. These members' work is attributed with achieving higher quality of air in homes, office buildings, medical facilities, schools and other official buildings, in addition to contributions to various architectural features such as copper roofs, stainless casing and bronze architecture which can be seen throughout many cities; an example of this work is the copper dome on San Francisco's City Hall.

Sheet Metal Workers' Local Union No. 104's efforts to raise the standard of living and protect individual rights for its membership, as well as other workers throughout the region, are deserving of our attention and admiration.

Mr. Speaker, I join Sheet Metal Workers' Local Union No. 104's officers and members in celebrating the 100th Anniversary of their founding, and I salute the work of the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local Union No. 104. I encourage my colleagues to similarly respect the positive impacts the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association has had within their home districts and States, and I encourage them to express their support of this historic anniversary for the Sheet Metal Workers' Local Union No. 104.

Mr. Speaker, last week the House considered H.R. 1350, Improving Education Results for Children With Disabilities Act of 2003. I would like to add the following list of organizations opposed to H.R. 1350 for inclusion in the Record:

National PTA, Children's Defense Fund, National Association

of Education of Young Children, American Academy of Child &

Adolescent Psychiatry, American Academy of Pediatrics,

American Association on Mental Retardation, American

Association of University Affiliated Programs, American

Council of the Blind, American Counseling Association,

American Music Therapy Association, American Occupational

Therapy Association, American Physical Therapy Association,

American Society for Deaf Children.

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, The Arc of

the United States, Association of Maternal and Child Health

Programs, Association of University Centers on Disabilities,

Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Children and Adults

with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Council for

Exceptional Children, Council of Parent Attorneys and

Advocates, Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund,

Disability Service Providers of America, Easter Seals,

Epilepsy Foundation, Federation of Families for Children's

Mental Health.

Higher Education Consortium for Special Education, Learning

Disabilities Association of America, National Alliance of

Pupil Service Organizations, National Association of

Developmental Disabilities Councils, National Association of

Mental Illness, National Association of Protection and

Advocacy Systems, National Association of School

Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers,

National Center for Learning Disabilities, National Coalition

on Deaf-Blindness, National Coalition of Parent Centers,

National Committee of Parents Organized to Protect IDEA.

National Consortium for Physical Education and Recreation

for Individuals with Disabilities, National Down Syndrome

Congress, National Down Syndrome Society, National Mental

Health Association, Research Institute for Independent

Living, School Social Work Association of America, TASH,

Teacher Education Division/Council for Exceptional Children,

The International Dyslexia Association, Tourette Syndrome

Association, UCP.

Mr. Chairman, this is a very important piece of legislation and I hope the Members will have an opportunity to listen to the debate. I wanted to thank my colleagues on the committee, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of our committee, for the work and effort they have put in on behalf of this legislation. We went through an extensive mark-up. We had an opportunity to offer a number of amendments. Unfortunately, most of them from our side were not accepted. But I believe that, in fact, this is a matter of good intentions by both sides of this debate.

I must state, however, at this time I think this bill does considerable harm. I think that this bill falls short in protecting what is the basic civil rights of children with disabilities to get a free and appropriate education. That is the intent of the law. And I am concerned that this bill does not do what it says it should do with respect to guaranteeing the basic rights of those children.

This bill also falls short on another front, and that is the guaranteed full funding of this Act. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) is right, the Congress has done a much better job in the last 6 or 7 years in providing those fundings, but the fact is that the promise that has been made to the local school districts has not been kept; and even this year in an appropriations bill passed just a couple of weeks ago, we are $1 billion 200 million behind that curve; and yet we will not be allowed to offer amendments to require that that funding be mandatory and that full funding be achieved by this legislation. That is a 30 year-old promise that we made, and it is unfortunate that we will not be allowed to have that amendment.

Yes, many in the school establishment and the education establishment are for this Act. It probably makes their lives somewhat easier; but we ought to be thinking also about the rights of these children and the protections of these children and the needs of these children and their families; to make sure that, in fact, the educational opportunity is provided to these children with disabilities.

It is for that reason that after reviewing this legislation that the National PTA, the Children's Defense Fund, the National Association of Education of Young Children, and so many other organizations have contacted the Members of Congress and said that this bill is unacceptable, that they oppose this bill because it does not provide that protection along with 14,000 other people who have sent e-mails and petitions against this legislation, representing the parents and families of these children who know how difficult it is to get that education for the children. And yet at the same time, when we have not met full funding, when we are weakening the rights of the children and the families, we also see that this legislation allows for the diversion of funds, some of which are for good purposes, but when you do not have the funding in place, you have to raise the question of whether or not this money ought to be diverted from the system. And also, we have to look at that diversion of these Federal funds targeted for the education of children with disabilities at a time when these funds at the local level are becoming more and more scarce because of the budget problems of our States that is now so well documented.

Finally, let me say, Mr. Chairman, that I am deeply concerned about the waivers that are authorized in the name of paperwork reduction for the States. I am very concerned that this

will allow the waivers of documentation to ensure access to a general education curriculum, documentation ensuring accommodations of State tests, information on a child's academic achievement, information on transition plans for post secondary education, procedural safeguard notices provided to parents so that they are aware of their rights, prior written notices to parents of the services and placements that their child will receive.

These are fundamental to these families. It is fundamental to these children. It is fundamental to making sure that they can get the education that they have sought for their child so that the child will have a full opportunity to participate in American society. And yet we see as we go into the due process hearings, you go in to enforce your child's civil rights, that you would be barred from raising new issues at a process hearing even if the evidence surfaces. If there is new evidence that comes to the attention of the school and the parents, you cannot raise it in these hearings. You cannot raise it. You cannot. All they have to decide is whether or not you are getting a free and appropriate education. But if there are errors made, the parent cannot raise them. Why are we precluding these parents?

The fact of the matter is that many school districts, we may not want to say it is one in our district, but there are a huge number of school districts that make it very difficult for parents to get the free and appropriate education, to get the services. Huge numbers of these children do not get services. They get put on the list for services. And there is a world of distinction between being on the list for services and getting services when your child is in an educational setting and you run the risk that they are going to fall further and further behind, and then you need additional services to have them catch up.

Then we have a cap on attorneys fees on this legislation, which says that it is going to be harder and harder for low income parents to find a lawyer to take these cases to challenge the school districts where that educational opportunity is being denied. But the school district, there is no limitation on their use of tax dollars paid for by these parents to defend what they have done. Now, nothing there. It is just that you cannot get attorney's fees when you bring a case because your child has been denied that education.

My concern, Mr. Chairman, is that this legislation is taking us back to another time. With the discipline provisions, where we are now going to determine this basic right to an education, this basic civil rights action based upon the code of conduct in individual schools, so that children with autism, children with cerebral palsy, severely emotionally disturbed children, are going to be determined by that code of conduct. You ought to read those codes of conduct and see whether or not that is how you would like your child to be measured up if they have Down syndrome, because unacceptable displays of affection are reasons for suspension.

You say a school district would not do that, but these are the same school districts that are throwing Harry Potter out of school. So we cannot take the educational needs of these children and the civil rights protections in this law and have them open to that kind of whim. And I think we ought to be very careful about that.

I would urge Members to vote against this legislation. It fails on the protections for children and it fails on the funding, and this will be our last chance to try and get and redeem the promise that every Member of this Congress has made to local school districts that we would provide the funding. We said we would provide the funding in No Child Left Behind. We are $5 billion behind on that one, and we are a $1.2 billion behind on this one this year. That is $7 billion that we are down at a time when the States are struggling, and at a time when it is becoming more and more expensive to educate these children. We ought not do that. We ought to have an amendment here on full funding and we ought to make it mandatory, and we ought to protect the rights of these children.

This is a very, very important bill that we take up here today. I urge members to listen carefully to this debate.

I first want to thank my colleagues on the Education Committee, Representative Castle, Representative Woolsey, and Chairman Boehner, for the time and effort they have put into this legislation. I appreciate the other side's willingness to discuss the issues in this bill, and to take the time in Committee over a 2-day mark-up to debate the 30-some amendments that members on both sides of the aisle offered. However, despite what I know were many good intentions on the other side of the aisle, this bill is fundamentally flawed.

The Bill Does Harm: The bill we will consider today has many, many provisions that jeopardize the quality of education provided to children with disabilities and their civil and due process rights under current law.

This Bill Falls Short In What It Does Not Do: Moreover, this bill breaks yet another promise to couple resources with reform. Despite promises made last year by the Administration, and by the Republican leadership of this Congress, the bill before us today fails to ensure that additional resources will accompany these major changes to the law.

Stakes Are High: The stakes in this reauthorization are very high. The reason we need a Federal law is that students with disabilities have special needs. They require extra attention and accommodations. And for a variety of reasons, without external pressure and assistance, many schools cannot or will not provide the services and accommodations necessary to ensure that every child has a free and appropriate public education.

Before 1975, approximately 1 million children with disabilities were excluded from public education. Millions more were given an inferior education even though they attended school. There are many provisions in this bill that would turn back the clock on the progress we have made. But you don't have to take my word for it. I have received stacks of letters on this from parents, educators, and experts who have expressed grave concerns about this bill. Dozens of national organizations--including the National PTA, the Children's Defense Fund, the National Association of Education of Young Children, and almost every group that exists to advocate on behalf of students with specific disabilities--opposes this bill. And an ever growing list--at current count 14,000--of individuals has signed an on-line petition expressing their opposition.

Many of the fights we will have today pit the interests of parents and students against those of school board members and administrators. What drives these fights primarily is the scarcity of resources. It is a problem we could easily solve. If we had the will.

Almost every member of the House is on record in support of full funding either as cosponsor of a bill, as a ``yea'' vote on non-binding resolution, or as a speaker on special orders. And all of the other vehicles we have in this body for pretending we are doing something.

But now the moment of truth has arrived. And suddenly the past supporters of full funding, under pressure from their leadership, are scrambling for cover. It would have taken only an additional $1.2 billion in the appropriations bill just passed in February to put us on the road to full funding.

The other side will tell you that we have done all that is possible. That there are no offsets to provide additional funding. With all due respect, those arguments do not stand up under scrutiny.

What we are asking for to ensure that children with disabilities have the accommodations, the aides, the qualified teachers, the curriculum, and other things they need to receive a quality education is chump change compared to other legislation this House has passed within the last couple of years.

No one asked for an offset when this Congress spent over a trillion dollars in tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. No one asked for an offset when we provided $99 billion over 10 years to repeal the estate tax for the richest 2 percent of decedents. No one asked for an offset when we spent $87 billion over 10 years on the farm bill. No one asked for an offset when we spent $36 billion over 10 years on a pointless energy bill. But suddenly we cannot come up with a measly $1.2 billion. Shame on us. Shame on us.

Diversion of Funds: To add insult to injury, H.R. 1350 contains many provisions that allow States and school districts to divert funds--all IDEA funds--away from direct services to students with disabilities during the regular school day. Here is a partial list:

Fifteen percent of funds can be diverted to a new ``pre-referral'' program;

Twenty percent of funds can be used to supplant local education funds; and

An unlimited percentage of funds can be diverted to ``supplemental services'' required under the Title I program of Federal education law.

These are all worthy purposes. But because we fail to provide the necessary funding, we are setting an even more intense competition for scarce resources. Resources that--given State and local budget crises and the prolonged economic downturn--are becoming scarcer and scarcer every day.

H.R. 1350 authorizes a pilot project under which the Secretary of Education may grant waivers to up to 10 States under the auspices of ``paperwork reduction.'' Under this authority, many bedrock requirements of IDEA could be waived, including:

Individualized Education Programs--

Documentation on ensuring access to general education curriculum;

Documentation ensuring accommodations on State tests;

Information on a child's academic achievement; and

Information on transition plans for postsecondary education or employment.

Procedural Safeguard Notices--Notices provided to parents to ensure they are aware of their rights.

Prior Written Notices--Notices to parents on the services and placement their child will receive.

Accountability and Public Reporting--State and local achievement and drop out data, disaggregation by race or LEP status, disproportionate representation of minorities in special education.

This bill Weakens Due Process Protections for Parents in All 50 States--even if children and their parents are lucky enough to live in one of the States that is not part of the waiver program, they cannot escape this bill's damage. The Republican bill would fundamentally undermine the due process rights of all parents:

Parents would be barred from raising new issues at due process hearings--even if new evidence has surfaced;

Hearing officers would be hamstrung to limit rulings to the denial of a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE);

Schools would not be liable for procedural, due process, and other violations; and

Schools would have little to fear in denying parents due process rights because parents would effectively have no recourse, no remedy.

H.R. 1350 institutes a one-year statute of limitations on violations of IDEA. Virtually the only thing that would have a shorter statutory reach would be parking tickets and traffic violations.

H.R. 1350 Caps Attorneys' Fees Reimbursement to parents, requiring Governors to set the rate of attorneys' fees reimbursement when a parent wins a due process hearing. This would allow caps on attorneys' fees but only for parents. School districts would still be free to hire and pay, at public expense, the salaries of lawyers who are on the opposite side of the legal battle from parents. This provision will effectively prevent low- and moderate-income parents from acquiring legal representation to protect the rights of their disabled children.

H.R. 1350 would allow students to be expelled unilaterally and placed in an ``alternative setting'' for any violation of a school's ``code of conduct.'' This is the single most egregious provision in this bill. It will set back the disability rights movement 30 years.

Under the guise of discipline, many children will confront the same obstacles they confronted before IDEA was passed--school districts that can say unilaterally: ``You are not welcome here. We do not want to educate you.''

Under this provision, a student could be expelled for virtually anything: chewing gum, shouting out in class, carrying a plastic eating utensil with their lunch, inappropriate displays of public affection, being late for class, not completing homework.

Moreover, placement in an alternative setting is unilateral. There is no ``manifestation determination'' that would mitigate the consequences for students whose violations are the result of their disability:

A child with Tourrete's syndrome could be expelled for shouting out in class;

A child with cerebral palsy could be expelled for inadvertently making contact with another student or teacher;

A developmentally disabled child (low IQ) could be expelled for an ``inappropriate public affection;''

A child with Attention Deficit Disorder could be expelled for repeatedly being late for class or getting out of his or her seat.

As I said in my opening, I think many of the provisions in this bill are well-intentioned. Some make sensible improvements in the law. But overall the bill is fundamentally flawed.

I hope we are able to improve the bill here on the floor and in conference and look forward to working with my colleagues in that effort. I hope we can make these so that this law makes a positive change in lives of children with disabilities and their families. And so that it garners the strong bipartisan support and consensus it has long enjoyed.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a very bad idea. This law was built up about guaranteeing to these children and to their families that they would have certain rights that would provide them an access to a free and appropriate education in the least restrictive environment. And over the years we have built up a system of accountability to make sure that that education was, in fact, provided to these children.

Now we come along with this voucher amendment where immediately upon the exchange of money from the school district to the private school, or from the parent to the private school, those rights are eviscerated. Because this bill deems upon acceptance of the voucher that these children are getting a free and appropriate education. We do not know whether they will or not. If the children decide they are not and they come back to the public school system, does the school system get to bring some of the money back? Is the money stuck over there? Does the school system now have to pony up additional money to educate that child? I think the answer is yes, they do because they have an obligation.

The fact of the matter is these schools, they do not have to accept the child if the disability is too expensive. They do not have to accept the child. They get to pick and choose among the children. The public schools have to take the children as they come to give them a free and appropriate education. These schools do not have to be certified. They do not have to be qualified. They do not have to be State licensed.

What happens to the money? You just get to take this money, the taxpayers' money and not have these accountabilities. I can understand the desire; and, in fact, the law provides for parents who think their children can get a better education at a private school with special skills or special talents or a record of handling these children in the appropriate way. They can petition to go to these schools.

In 1997, we had so many people leaving the system that we said you cannot do that because you are sticking the school district for so much money. And there was no process, there was no determination whether or not this was a suitable placement. Now you can just opt out. If the parent is lucky and if the child is lucky and it works, fine. If it does not, the school district is out the money, the child is out the education, and we are back in the stew.

This is just an unacceptable amendment. Nobody is required to make adequate yearly progress with these children under Leave No Child Behind. There is no accountability under that. There is for the school. There is no accountability in this legislation. There is no accountability under, in many instances, State law. So I do not understand. The President, the Congress decided that we are going to build a system of accountability, and now, still, simply, you can opt out of that.

If students need supplemental services, your legislation provides for supplemental services without limit to provide for that child that is hearing impaired, that is sight impaired, where they can get additional services. I assume that is the purpose of the supplemental services. But this voucher goes far beyond that.

This voucher simply gives some level of scholarship to the parents to take. But that does not mean the parents will get into that school. They may settle for a school that does not quite provide those services. It turns out that does not work, and they are back in the public school system. Meanwhile, the public school system trying to hold on to a critical mass of people skilled to deal with the education of children with disabilities, finds out that the cost per service per child goes up.

Again, as we have seen in the McKay program, about 25 percent of these people go out into those things. They get their scholarships. They go to schools, and they are coming back. We do not know quite why yet they are coming back; but obviously as they come back to the public school system, they are more expensive than when they left.

There ought to be some screen to know that this, in fact, is going to enhance the children's education. We understand and deal with, all the time, parents who want another location for the child. That is not this system. This is just a wide open voucher system without any accountability. It ought to be rejected by the House.

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

The arguments here are very similar to the previous amendment. One, it is a very bad idea in terms of policy and accountability and responsibility to these children, but it is also a bit of a hoax.

The idea that the parent can take the Federal share of the money, which the gentlewoman says is $1,400, maybe as high as $1,800, and go out and buy the same education they are going to get in the public school system for their children on the school-year basis, well, where does the rest of the money come from? At least if this bill had some intellectual integrity, it would say take all the money the school district is going to spend, take the $6,000 on a national average, give that to the parent and let them try to find this education.

Obviously, if the parent cannot come up with the additional money, they cannot provide for an education. Or if the child is severely disabled, this will not begin to cover those services. Remember, most of the people who go out to get these services end up suing the school district for those services and the school pays the whole amount. They pay $15,000, $20,000, $30,000, $40,000, or $50,000 because of the kind of intense services that these children need in order to qualify to get a free and appropriate education.

That is not what this amendment is about. This is just a shuck and a jive, that somehow you can go out and get these first-class services for a severely disabled child for $1,400. Again, the bill allows for, and I think it makes sense on one level, supplemental services. If $1,400 will buy the kind of services for a child that is moderately disabled or has a reading problem or something, and is labeled as disabled, fine, give them the supplemental services. But the notion someone can go out and buy an education for $1,400 is a hoax on the parents.

Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) because I think this amendment causes a great deal of trouble in terms of the questions of the stigma of people.

I have talked to an awful lot of parents who have great qualms about whether their children should be identified in special education programs, whether to try to get the child into the program when they know the child needs help or not because they are concerned about what that means in the future. We have struggled with this in the committee and on both sides of the aisle, this question of underidentification, overidentification, and of the illnesses that we should be treating in this setting.

I do not think that this language, and maybe it can be improved before the end of this process, but I do not think that this language is proper. It suggests that only a select number of people are fit to pass judgment on whether or not these children are eligible or not, and I think it does create a problem in terms of the question of mental disability and of special education. I hope that we would not agree to this amendment. I think it is very damaging on the front that we have tried to make some progress on with the public.

Mr. Chairman, this committee has struggled long and hard over many years to try and reduce litigation in this legislation. I think we have a magnet here in terms of litigation. And I also think because the definition of ``medically detectable and diagnosable physiological condition,'' I am not quite sure how we are going to comply with that in the number of conditions that children have. The number of means by which we now diagnose children I am not sure fit within that definition. By the same token, I suggest that does not mean that they are not properly enrolled in these programs and do not have a disability that requires special attention in terms of their ability to get an education. I think this is a really bad amendment, and I would urge Members to oppose it.

Madam Speaker, the distinguished majority leader got up here and said the first priority of the President was the economy. That is interesting for a President who over his 2 years in office has lost 2\1/2\ million jobs, 2\1/2\ million American workers who do not have jobs and hundreds of thousands of others that have run out of unemployment and the President has resisted extending their unemployment benefits. And we will see what happens this May as hundreds of thousands more lose their unemployment and they have no income support for their families, to pay

for their homes, to try to help keep their children in school and to pay the doctors' bills.

It is also interesting that he says that there are two purposes: one is to give tax relief to stimulate the economy, and the other is to keep the government from spending the money because they want to spend all the money. The last time I looked, the Republicans controlled the House of Representatives, the Republicans controlled the Senate, and the Republicans controlled the White House; but apparently we have got to destroy the American economy with these tax cuts before they kill again. They cannot control themselves from spending trillions of dollars. They cannot control themselves from running up the deficit. They inherited a $2 trillion surplus, and they have turned it into a $4 trillion debt. What happened with these people? They have no fiscal discipline. So now they want to spend a trillion dollars to create half as many jobs as the Democratic plan will create for $150 billion.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased that the House of Representatives today is considering my resolution to honor the outstanding program that is working with school districts, camps, teachers, and students across America to promote the healthy social and emotional development of children.

I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) for his cosponsorship of this legislation and for his own strong support of Operation Respect. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) was responsible for arranging for Peter Yarrow to visit the Republican Conference last year to talk about this program and to sing some of the songs, an achievement that deserves recognition in the House as well.

I also want to thank my cosponsors for their support of this resolution, particularly the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who is a strong supporter of character education programs in the Labor-HHS appropriations bill in recent years.

Lastly, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and his staff for their assistance in having this resolution placed before the House expeditiously.

Most of us here are familiar with the ``Don't Laugh At Me'' program. Last year, its founder and tireless advocate, Peter Yarrow of the legendary trio Peter, Paul and Mary, spoke to both the Republican Conference and the Democratic Caucus about the necessity for, and the success of, this program. Many of us have seen him as he has appeared before dozens of school boards, teacher organizations, parents groups throughout this Nation promoting sound emotional development and tolerance among our children.

We are all painfully aware of the images, language and experiences of children that assault their self-esteem, their attitudes toward others and their sense of compassion and tolerance. From bullying in the schoolyards to the lyrics of many popular songs, to the violence in film and news broadcasts, young children in our society, and adults too, are assaulted by messages and images of intolerance, brutality, victimization, and bias. Any reasonable person must be concerned about the impact of those values on these young children, now and throughout their lives. And we were concerned that they be taught alternative values that help us build closer personal relationships and stronger communities.

Fortunately, there are efforts and institutions that are effectively promoting positive values and respect, tolerance and understanding and compassion. Our churches and synagogues play that role. Programs like Head Start and after-school programs and sports and cultural experiences heavily influence children as well.

The character education programs that this Congress has been funding in recent years have similarly made great contributions.

One of the innovations enjoying great popularity and success and which we honor today by the passage of this

resolution is Operation Respect. Through the diligent efforts of Peter Yarrow and many educators, psychologists and advocates that work with him, Operation Respect has conducted over 230 workshops throughout the Nation reaching over 18,000 educators in 27 States. Tens of thousands of copies of its professionally developed curriculum have been distributed to teachers in after-school programs and camp operators and others who are similarly committed to making a difference in the lives of these children. Teachers love this program and have given it their strong endorsement. And today we should add the United States House of Representatives to that list saluting this great effort on behalf of America's children and America's best values.

Lastly, I would like to note that Steve Seskin, the composer of the song ``Don't Laugh At Me,'' which has inspired Mr. Yarrow's efforts, is a resident of my congressional district. Mr. Seskin is a very highly respected composer and recording artist as well in the folk and country venues; and in this case his music has helped to inspire a movement that is having dramatic and beneficial effects on millions of young Americans. And I appreciate the support of all Members of this House on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased that the House of Representatives today is considering my resolution to honor an outstanding program that is working with school districts, camps, teachers and students across America to promote the health social and emotional development of children.

I want to thank Duke Cunningham for his co-sponsorship of this legislation and for his own strong support for Operation respect. Congressman Cunningham was responsible for arranging for Peter Yarrow to visit the Republican Conference last year to talk about this program and sing a few songs, and that achievement deserves the recognition of the House as well.

I also want to thank my other co-sponsors for their support for this Resolution, and particularly, Mr. Obey for his strong support of character education programs and the Labor-HHS appropriations bill in recent years.

Lastly, my thanks to Chairman John Boehner and his staff for their assistance in having this Resolution placed before the House expeditiously.

Most of us are already familiar with the ``Don't Laugh At Me'' program. Last year, its founder and tireless advocate, Peter Yarrow of the legendary trio Peter, Paul and Mary, spoke to both the Republican Conference and the Democratic Caucus about the necessity for, and the success of, this program.

Many of us have seen him as he has also appeared before dozens of school boards, teacher organizations, parent groups and others throughout the nation promoting sound emotional development and tolerance among out children.

We all are painfully aware of the images, language and experiences of children that assault their self-image, their attitudes towards others, and their sense of compassion and tolerance. From bullying in school yards to the lyrics of many popular songs to violence in film and news broadcasts, young children in our society--and adults, too--are assaulted by messages and images of intolerance, brutality, victimization and bias. Any reasonable person must be concerned about the impact of those values on these young people now and throughout their lives, and we are concerned that they be taught alternative values that help us to build closer personal relationships and stronger communities.

These concerns have great immediacy. Just last week, there was yet another example of terrible school violence. A study of school violence in California recently concluded that ``alienated and disaffected young people are escaping the attention of families, friends and teachers until they explode.'' Meanwhile, programs like boot camps, may enjoy public approval but consume huge amounts of money and do not have a record of success.

Fortunately, there are efforts and institutions that are effectively promoting positive values of respect, tolerance, understanding and compassion. Our churches and synagogues play that role; programs like Head Start and after-school programs and sports and cultural experiences heavily influence children as well. The character education programs that this Congress has been funding in recent years have similarly made great contributions.

One of the innovations that has enjoyed great popularity and success, and which we honor today by the passage of this resolution, is Operation Respect. Through the diligent efforts of Peter Yarrow and many other educators, psychologists and advocates who work with him, Operation Respect has conducted 230 workshops throughout the nation, reaching over 18,000 educators in 27 states. Tens of thousands of copies of its professionally-developed curriculum have been distributed to teachers, after-school programs, camp operators and others who are similarly committed to making a difference in the lives of these children.

As H. Res. 161 states, the ``Don't Laugh At Me'' program ``increases mutual respect and fellowship among hundreds of thousands of elementary school children, creating an environment for students that improves focus on their schoolwork and encourages social and emotional growth.'' Evaluations of the program have found overwhelming support for its message among teachers, parents and students alike, as well as increased tolerance and a reduction in such negative behaviors such as bullying.

Among professional educators and others, Operation Respect has enjoyed similar popularity. Operation Respect and the ``Don't Laugh At Me'' program has been recognized by the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Association of Elementary School Principals, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, the American Association of School Administrators, the Council of Great City Colleges and Education, the National Education Association, the Council of Great City Schools, the American School Counselors Association, the National School Boards Association, the National Middle School Association, and the American Federation of Teachers.

Teachers love this program; here's a representative comments from a teacher in southwestern Virginia: Over the years I have used many approaches and programs, all of which have good points. ``Don't Laugh At Me'' encompasses all those strong points into one easy to use program. I've seen a difference in my class even though we have only used it for a few months. One of the biggest benefits is the dialog that comes from using the program. The kids love the CD and found the video to be very powerful. Now that I have had a chance to use ``Don't Laugh At Me'' and see its benefits, I will be doing a presentation to our staff about it. I guess I sound like a commercial, but I honestly loves this program!

Today, we should add the United States House of Representatives to that list saluting this great effort on behalf of America's children and America's best values.

Lastly, I would like to note that Steve Seskin, the composer of the song ``Don't Laugh At Me'' which inspired Mr. Yarrow's efforts, is a resident of my Congressional district. Mr. Seskin is a very highly respected composer and recording artist, well known in the folk and country venues, and in this case, his music has helped to inspire a movement that is having dramatic and beneficial effects on millions of young Americans.

I appreciate the support of all Members for this Resolution today.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to thank the gentleman for his remarks. The fact that he and I are working together on this, when we disagree on so many other issues, is in the spirit of this program. And as our great former Speaker, Tip O'Neill, used to say, you have to be able to disagree around here and not be disagreeable. I am working on that talent, but I have not achieved it yet. But this is in that spirit.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost).

(Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to thank the gentlewoman for her remarks, and to thank again the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) for his help in getting this legislation to the floor; to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) for his cosponsorship and his support for this program; to our speakers this afternoon in support of this resolution; and the gentleman from Nevada for taking time out to bring this to the floor this afternoon under suspensions.

Finally, I want to thank my very long-time dear friend, Peter Yarrow, for all the time and the effort that he has taken on behalf of the children of this Nation to promote their healthy development and their emotional stability. He has reached out to so many people across this country and made them aware of this effort, of this need on behalf of our children. It is a wonderful gift that he has given to the children of this Nation, to the educators of this Nation, to caregivers in all different settings for our children, and I just really want to thank him for that effort. I am honored to sponsor this legislation, and I want to thank the House for giving us time to bring it to their attention and I ask my colleagues to support it.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, for those of us who served in this House with the late Phillip Burton, who remember his vibrant, unrelenting and passionate leadership, and who share his dreams for an America where every resident enjoys dignity and equality--for those of us fortunate enough to have known and collaborated with him, today is a day of rededication.

It is almost impossible to believe that 20 years have passed since Phil Burton departed this scene, far too early and, I am sure he would admit, with far too much work left undone. He served with distinction in this Chamber from 1964 to the day he died, 20 years ago today. They simply do not make politicians like Phil Burton anymore, or at least, not enough of them, and this House and the country are much the worse for the shortage.

Those who worked with Phil never forgot the experience, for good or bad. He was a brilliant tactician, an unrelenting liberal, and a tireless advocate. He was not especially lovable, but he wasn't looking for love; he was looking for results, and he won the respect of friends and adversaries alike.

Phil would not like what he would see in American politics today. After decades of struggle and a decade of unparalleled economic prosperity, Americans work the longest work hours, for the lowest disposable income, with the smallest pensions and health insurance coverage and the least vacation time or maternity leave of any Western industrial nation. Today, the distribution of wealth in this country is more unequal than at any time since the New Deal, and is the most unequal of any society in the advanced industrial world. This is not the world Phil Burton would have wanted two decades after his death.

And yet our country in 2003, however enduring its problems, is a vastly better place for

Phillip Burton's service. Virtually all of the important steps forward taken in America during the turbulent 60's and 70's--civil rights, labor protections, pension security, education, land preservation, national parks--were deeply affected by Phillip Burton's tireless efforts. He was, in the words of Ted Simon in the Los Angeles Times, a ``stupendous and original figure'' who changed the political and legislative landscape as few before him ever dared to imagine.

Surely the greatest disappointment of his life was his failure to become Majority Leader, a race he lost by a single vote. And yet how proud he would be to know that one of his political godchildren--of which I happily count myself as one--would two decades later occupy the highest position in this House held by a Democrat, and the first woman to ever lead a party in Congress, his fellow San Franciscan Nancy Pelosi.

I knew Phil Burton throughout my entire life. He and my father worked together to build the modern California Democratic Party in the years after World War II. Many of the outstanding political leaders of our state, including George Moscone, Willie Brown, scores of members of the Legislature and Congress--including our current senate president John L. Burton--were students, friends and collaborators of Phil Burton.

When I came to Congress in 1975, I was placed on the same committees as Phil--Interior and Education and Labor. As a junior member, I saw first hand his extraordinary political acumen in meeting after meeting, often in his secret office in the Longworth Building, as he planned everything from minimum wage increases to welfare policy, to his historic mega-parks bill, or his even more impressive reapportionment map in 1982. Phil knew more details about any issue than just about anyone I have known here, and he knew more about almost everyone's district, too. Members might beg him to draw a line a little more in their favor, but Phil would be able to recite from memory, and without computers, the precise registration numbers in the newly configured district. ``You're in your mother's arms,'' he'd tell disappointed colleagues, ``now get to work.''

The Congress and the Nation are very different from when Phil served here. The tone is different; the agenda is different; and our dedication to using the power granted us by the voters to improve the lives of the working people, minorities, the poor, the immigrants and to improve the environment--well, that's very different, too. I'd like to believe we'd be a better country if Phil Burton had gotten to be Majority Leader and Speaker of the House.

Instead, 20 years ago today, we lost a ``brawling character and legislative strategist extraordinaire,'' in the words of Richard Cohen. In the sprawling, wildly popular Golden Gate National Recreation Area that he created--the Nation's most popular urban park--stands for all time an imposing statute of Phil Burton, tie askew, jacket flapping, arm outstretched. It is Phil at full throttle, in command, perpetually barking out a command direction and organizing the troops. There are a number of smaller models of that statute in some offices on the Hill, reminding us what it was like to serve with a true congressional legend, and continuing to summon up the best we have to offer for all the people of this nation.

Mr. Speaker, we rise today to invite our colleagues to join us in honoring the Jimmy Doolittle Raiders on the 61st Anniversary of their remarkable bombing raid during World War

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I thank the gentlewoman for offering this amendment along with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

I have been to Kaktovik. I have been to the North Slope. I have been to the mountains. I have been to the plains. I

have been there in the winter, I have been there in the spring, and I have been there in the summer. And, yes, it is a wilderness area. No, it does not have 200-foot-tall trees. No, it does not have lakes. It does not have a lot of attributes that we consider here in the lower 48, but it is pristine, and it is a wilderness, and it is worth saving.

And it is certainly worth saving when you consider how much energy, how much energy this Nation is prepared to waste under this legislation. If it is so valuable, why are we wasting it? Certainly you would not waste it to go in and invade this wilderness area for this purpose. It simply makes no sense at all.

I have talked to the natives up there. I have talked to the whaling captains. I have been all through their community, and I understand their desire. But this is a national asset. This is not to be determined by the whaling captains. This is not to be determined by the Congressperson from that district.

This is a national asset and it ought to be protected as such. We ought to understand that we do not have an energy policy that is worthy of this.

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I do not intend to object, and I yield to the gentleman to explain his request.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, continuing under my reservation, I want to join the gentleman in supporting this resolution congratulating the Laborers' International Union for the 100th anniversary of the founding of this union.

Our resolution cites the grand history of this union from its beginning, when Samuel Gompers, the first president of the American Federation of Labor, challenged laborers across the country to coordinate their activities into one cohesive unit; and in response, 25 delegates from over 17 cities, representing 8,000 laborers, met in Washington, D.C., on April 13 in 1903.

From that date to this date, again the laborers meet in this city under the leadership of Mr. Terry O'Sullivan, their current president, to deal with the issues confronted by this union.

This is a union, if we look across the American landscape, that has simply built America. The laborers were there first on most construction projects, be they public or private projects. It is a grand union that has undergone many reiterations in the past and represented many different kinds of workers, but most of us know today it is the hard-working members of the Laborers' International Union; and I want to extend my congratulations. And I also want to recognize the work of their director of legislative affairs, Don Kaniewski, who does such outstanding work on Capitol Hill on behalf of the Laborers' Union.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join today my good friend from Vermont, the Honorable Bernie Sanders, in cosponsoring his bi-partisan legislation to protect the pension benefits of older employees. Over 100 members of the House are original co-sponsors of this important bill.

I am also very pleased that this bill enjoys the support of the AFL- CIO, the AARP, the Communication Workers of America, the Pension Rights Center, and other organizations as well as individual employees throughout the country impacted by what are known in the pension world as ``cash balance plan conversions.'' These groups and individuals have been important leaders in this very difficult but important fight.

Millions of white-collar employees and other workers in America will benefit from our bill. Our bill is about fairness. Our bill says that if a company with a traditional defined benefit plan switches--in mid- stream--to a cash balance plan that costs that company less, an older employee has the right to choose to be in whichever of the two plans is better for him or her. We say, let the employee choose.

As you know, the reason that employers can save hundreds of millions of dollars by switching to the increasingly popular cash balance plans is because they will pay their employees less in benefits.

We are not proposing that all employers must have a traditional defined benefit plan for all employees. We are not saying that, nor

could we. We are saying very clearly, however, that if you promised an employee a certain pension, pay that employee the pension you promised.

Our bill would guarantee the right of employees who are 40 years old or older, or who have worked for ten or more years for the same company, to choose to stay in the traditional defined benefit pension plan even if the company decides to convert that plan to a cash balance plan.

When Treasury Secretary Snow visited with Senators Durbin and Harkin this past January prior to his confirmation, he told them that he believed in choice. He told them that his railroad company, CSX, offered choice. He said a board he sat on, Verizon, offered choice.

But now he is overseeing a pending change to pension regulations at the Department of Treasury that would not require companies to offer choice. Under the pending rules, a well-meaning company would be allowed to offer choice or otherwise treat their employees fairly.

The problem is that the rules do not require that they be treated fairly. That is wrong. And that is why we are sponsoring this legislation.

As Bernie pointed out a few weeks ago, no member of Congress would want to see the pension system here changed in mid-stream if it meant that after working for 25 years you would find your expected pension cut in half

Millions of employees across the country don't want to see their hard-earned benefits cut either. But they are afraid. They are looking at their retirement years, after a lifetime of work, and they are afraid that after a cash balance conversion they will lose half of the benefits they expected and worked so hard to achieve. The General Accounting Office has documented that conversions especially hurt older employees and can cost them as much as half of their pension benefits.

These employees are looking at the cost of health insurance, the cost of college for their children, and the cost of retirement. They have counted on their pension to help them through some of those costs. But under a conversion, they risk seeing those benefits and those dreams, cut.

Mr. Speaker, I have been contacted by employees in every industry from across the country, from the airline industry, the finance industry, and industrial companies. They are wondering why in the world would President Bush promote new rules that deliberately give employers the legal protection to slash pension benefits.

The President's proposal raises serious questions about the direction in which he is taking the nation and the people who work so hard every day to make ends meet.

The President does not have a policy to create jobs.

The President does not have a policy to eliminate the budget deficit.

The President does not have a policy to provide health insurance to the uninsured.

But President Bush does have a plan to help companies slash employees' pension benefits.

The business press is full of stories about this problem--retirement security. This isn't something Bernie Sanders and Rahm Emanuel and I have made up. The economic future of Americans is in serious jeopardy and these pension rules are one important part of that problem.

Our legislation will not create jobs, or restore the budget surplus, provide health insurance, or turn around the stock market, although we have proposals to accomplish those goals. Those are not the goals of this particular bill.

But our bill will establish fairness for the treatment of older employees' hard-earned pension benefits. That is what they deserve, what they expect, and what they need.