Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity to congratulate a congregation in my district celebrating its 90th anniversary this year. Agudas Achim Congregation in Alexandria, Virginia has been a fixture in Northern Virginia as a place of worship and a vibrant community. In conjunction with their 90th anniversary, the men and women of Agudas Achim are taking the opportunity to honor the military veterans who are part of their congregation and its extended family.

Since the Revolutionary War, Jewish servicemen and women have served our nation proudly. Whether they served as members of the infantry, pilots, doctors, nurses or chaplains, Jewish soldiers have proudly defended democracy throughout the world while protecting the freedoms of all Americans. Today they continue to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan to bring stability and hope to the people and region. Throughout the years, Jewish Americans have fought with great honor and distinction.

Responding to the call for service, Jewish Americans have served in the military in greater percentages than their percent of the population. They have shown great dedication and love for their nation and the rights that are within it. They recognize that freedoms, such as the freedom of religion, are not universal values granted to every person. Many of our ancestors, especially those of Jewish Americans, came to this country to escape religious tyranny. Today, this same drive that brought us together, helps us fight to gain these same freedoms for people throughout the world.

We remember those who fearlessly paid the ultimate price in defending the United States during times of war, and recall the sacrifice made by those who bravely fought and returned home. We also keep in our thoughts those who continue to serve our nation proudly in Iraq and Afghanistan. Together these men and women have helped preserve the freedoms that we cherish. While many have not made it home, I am certain there is comfort in knowing they perished fighting for their beliefs and for the protection of their families and friends back home.

I would like to thank all those Jewish men and women and their families who have served our nation. Their courage has helped preserve basic human rights for people throughout the world. I also thank Agudas Achim Congregation for paying tribute to these veterans, and bringing attention to their selflessness in defense of freedom. Agudas Achim has been at the forefront of defending these freedoms and, in doing so, has made Northern Virginia a better place to live.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit the Office of Personnel Management from being able to offer or administer health savings accounts or health reimbursement accounts as part of the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan.

Just yesterday, the Office of Personnel Management announced that starting on January 1, the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan will include the option of Federal employees to enroll in high deductible health plans which offer health savings accounts or health reimbursement accounts.

A bipartisan group of Members in both the House and Senate have expressed very strong concern that these plans are untested in either the public or the private sector. For that reason, they should be viewed very cautiously in terms of whether or not they should be included in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan.

As Members know, Mr. Chairman, the Medicare prescription drug bill which was enacted this past December included a provision unrelated to either Medicare or to prescription drug coverage. It expanded and renamed medical savings accounts as health savings accounts. They are the same thing. Because there was so much controversy surrounding medical savings accounts, I guess they felt renaming it,

they will have a better chance of getting it through, but the same objections apply.

Health savings accounts are plans that combine a high-deductible, catastrophic insurance policy with a tax-exempt savings account dedicated for health care expenses. Health reimbursement accounts are similar to these HSAs except that they are not tax-exempt and the plan account credits may only be used for health care expenses.

The general concern is that health savings accounts and health reimbursement accounts circumvent the fundamental principles of group health insurance by dividing healthy people from sick people, putting them into different coverage options. Healthier enrollees tend to gravitate to the health savings accounts and other so-called consumer- driven financing schemes because low health care users, those who are younger and healthier, oftentimes more affluent, they are rewarded with unspent balances or credits at the end of each year. But the less healthy enrollees, the older enrollees, the poorer enrollees, they avoid health savings accounts and these so-called consumer-driven plans because they could pay out-of-pocket costs in the thousands of dollars. They are almost sure to use up the entire deductible, so it becomes prohibitively expensive for older people to use these kinds of plans. As a result, higher health care users use the traditional comprehensive plans. The phenomenon is called adverse selection. And it forces insurance carriers to raise premiums, to cut benefits, in fact, to squeeze the people who need health insurance coverage out of the market. They are not going to be able to afford the kind of health insurance cost that they need because they are reducing the risk pool.

Adverse selection occurred when these health savings accounts as similar plans were offered to public employees in Ada County, Idaho and in Jersey City, New Jersey. As a result, the county and city stopped offering these plans to their employees. They did not work. We have that empirical experience. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that legislation introduced in the 105th Congress to make medical savings accounts available to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program would have cost taxpayers $1 billion over 5 years. This plan will cost taxpayers $1 billion over 5 years and there is no offset in this bill for that additional cost. It is also projected that enrollee costs would skyrocket above the average annual premium increases. Obviously they are going to skyrocket because as you reduce the pool to the older, the sicker, the less affluent, it is a much higher risk pool and the insurance premiums are going to go through the roof.

Mr. Chairman, the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program has long been heralded as the model health care plan. However, the inclusion of these health savings accounts or health reimbursement accounts will jeopardize the quality and it will raise the cost, the FEHBP program will not be as successful as it has been in the past, and many people will suffer as a result. We should not proceed with implementing these untested plans without knowing the impact of these very high deductible health plans, what impact they will have on the future of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan.

That is why this amendment is absolutely necessary. It is essential for the future viability of the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan. We should not be making Federal employees a Petri dish for these ideological ideas, Mr. Chairman. They have not been tested. In the few places where they have been tested they have not worked.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I would say to my very bright friend who I know feels very strongly about this, but the statistics that he cites are not with regard to public employees nor does it apply to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, a very successful plan, one of the most successful in the country, where every Federal employee participates.

I would say to my friend that I do not know any Federal employee that has asked for this. Every Federal employee wants the system the way it is working now. I know thousands of Federal employees who are opposed to this.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the information we were just provided by the gentleman from Minnesota, but the fact is that none of the employees that he cites would be affected by this amendment. This amendment only affects Federal employees, and every Federal employee organization is in favor of my amendment and opposes putting health savings accounts, the same thing as MSAs, into the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. I have a letter from the National Association of Retired Federal Employees. This is their biggest issue. Don't do this to us. More than a million people are saying, don't do this. I have a letter from the National Treasury Employees Union supporting my amendment, opposing what this bill would do. The American Federation of Government Employees opposes it.

The gentleman from Wisconsin cited some other employees apparently that said it was a good thing, but they are not members of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. Those who would be affected do not want it.

Support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding to me and for his leadership on this bill.

Mr. Chairman, there are several things that have been said that need to be clarified. First of all, this concept of medical savings accounts, health savings accounts, that is the same thing, has, in fact, not been shown to be successful. It has not even been tested. It just passed in December with the Medicare prescription drug bill. I mentioned two situations where they tried it out in Ada County, Idaho, and in Jersey City, New Jersey; and it was so unsuccessful, they had to terminate it. This does not work.

The gentlewoman from Connecticut talked about the need to be able to buy eyeglasses and dentures and so on. That is flexible spending accounts. We are in favor of flexible spending accounts. There is no problem with flexible spending accounts. That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about introducing a relatively radical new concept and using Federal employees as the guinea pigs.

The Federal employees health benefits plan has 249 different options, 249 different plans. This is not a problem with choice. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), I believe it was, mentioned several public employees. They may not have the options. I am quite confident they do not have the options that Federal employees have. But the Federal employees health benefits plan is working. It is working better than any other health plan in the country, as far as I can see.

And now what do we want to do and why is this amendment so important? People who for ideological reasons, I think, more than any, perhaps to save some money, they are offering to young people, people who are the least likely to get sick, people whose priorities are buying a home, providing for their start-up family, any number of things, purchasing an automobile and so on, health care costs are not a big priority because they are young and they are healthy. And relative to the rest of the country, they are relatively affluent.

So it makes sense for them to purchase these HSAs. Some will because there will be a lot of aggressive marketing telling them how much they will save. But the deductibles are enormous. If they do get sick, if there is an accident, then they are in tough shape. But a lot of young people are willing to take the chance. I would have taken the chance. Most of us, when we were in our 20s and early 30s, take the chance. But that chance is not availability to older and sicker people. That is why the National Association of Retired Federal Employees has this as their number one priority. Because what happens when these younger healthier people choose these HSAs, MSAs, they pull out of the risk pool. They are no longer insured. And as a result, we have two different classes. We have the young and the healthy who are insured by these HSAs, and we are going to have the older and the sicker who are in the traditional comprehensive plans because health care is a much greater priority for them.

So what happens to these traditional plans for the older, the less healthy, to some extent the less affluent people, what happens? The risk pool is reduced. It is more exclusively the people who are most likely to have serious illnesses, and so the premiums go through the roof. They skyrocket. What we have done is to divide up the health benefits plans between the young and healthy and the older and the sicker, and it is the older and the sicker who will not be able to afford the medical care they need.

What happens to the medical profession? We are going to start squeezing. The same thing is going to happen to Medicare. We will start squeezing reimbursement because we cannot afford the kinds of premiums. We cannot afford to pay 72 percent of the average cost of premiums. The Federal Government cannot; so we will be cutting back. So doctors will have their reimbursement back. Everyone is going to suffer except those folks who are willing to take the risk. And one day, 20 or 30 years from that decision-making point, they are going to wish that they were part of the larger pool.

This is terribly dangerous, Mr. Chairman. We cannot let this happen. Do not do this to Federal employees. Do not do it to the Federal employees' health benefits plan. Support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw attention to an issue that has languished here in the House and in the other body.

Ten years ago, Congress, at the urging of then-President Clinton, enacted sweeping reforms in an effort to crack down on crime. 100,000 officers were added to the law enforcement ranks. Background checks and waiting periods to purchase firearms were made mandatory. And perhaps one of the most important pieces in this omnibus anti-crime initiative, the Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), was brought into effect.

These reforms have worked. In the ten years since enactment, crime in the U.S. has gone down dramatically. Firearm deaths have decreased by 25 percent. The use of semi-automatic guns in crimes has lowered by nearly 50 percent.

But on Monday, September 13th, one of the key policies that has made the past decade an anti-crime success story will be dismantled. Despite campaign promises in 2000 that the law would be reauthorized, President Bush has not lifted a finger to save the Assault Weapons Ban. At the same time, the House and Senate Majority Leadership have consistently opposed efforts to bring the bill up for a vote.

Despite this unwillingness to act, the sad fact remains that the banned assault weapons and copycat versions that gun manufacturers issued to legally circumvent the law lead to gun deaths. Assault weapons are being used in one out of every five killings of law enforcement officers in the U.S. These guns have no use for hunters and very limited use for sport shooting. To most people, this is a common sense public safety issue. Polls have consistently shown that nearly three-fourths of the public support extending the AWB.

On Monday, if we lose the assault ban, which appears to be the case barring a legislative miracle, then we will have lost both a symbolic and practical tool in the fight against gun violence in America. Our streets will once again be less safe. Police officers will have a greater reason to worry about their safety, and gangs, terrorists, drug dealers, and criminals of every description will have greater access to weapons enabling their activities and putting the safety of all Americans at risk.

Mr. Speaker, I call on this body to listen to the American public and do its duty to protect the safety of our citizens. The Assault Weapons Ban should be brought up for a vote immediately.

Mr. Speaker, during this time of war, our thoughts are constantly with our active duty military personnel overseas, and also with all of the men and women who have worn the uniform of the United States military through the years. I rise to honor an individual who retired last month following a long period of outstanding military service to this country. Sergeant First Class William R. Dwyer has served this nation with distinction and honor for the past twenty years, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to honor him today.

Sergeant First Class William R. Dwyer enlisted in the United States Army in February 1984. During his career, he served as a communications and intelligence specialist in a number of challenging assignments, including overseas tours in Germany, Panama, Korea, and England. Throughout his service, he has been a leader and always used his knowledge and extensive experience to better our defense and our community.

Throughout his successful and noteworthy career, Sergeant First Class Dwyer focused on his duties to our nation and the United States Army. He concludes his remarkable career as a Vietnam War analyst at the Department of Defense where he has pushed toward resolving the still open cases of Americans missing from the Vietnam War.

Sergeant First Class Dwyer is highly regarded by his peers as someone who has demonstrated by his example the values, respect for family and hard work that is so central to our Armed Forces, and which has been the cornerstone of our nation's democratic freedoms. I am certain for these reasons, among others, he will be greatly missed by his colleagues and others who have worked with him over his years of service.

I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking and congratulating Sergeant First Class William R. Dwyer for his dedicated and committed service to the United States. I wish him and his family the best as they look toward the future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Chief Edward Plaugher who has recently been named Career Fire Chief of the Year for 2004 by Fire Chief magazine. Chief Plaugher retired as Chief of the Arlington County Fire Department in June and was instrumental in the response at the Pentagon on September 11th.

In recognition of his service in Virginia Fire Departments over the last three decades, the Virginia State Fire Chiefs Association nominated Chief Plaugher for this prestigious award. For 24 years he served with the Fairfax County Fire Department, and in 1993 was named Chief of the Arlington County Fire Department. Throughout his tenure he has been known as a leader throughout the firefighting community. Because of his leadership his fire department was aware and prepared for the threat that terrorism could pose to Arlington County, Virginia, and the United States.

This awareness first began in 1995 after the sarin gas attacks in the Tokyo subway system. Chief Plaugher recognized that something similar could happen in Arlington County and the metropolitan area and began preparing his department and the region for this possibility. One of his top accomplishments was the creation of the first locally staffed terrorism response team in the United States.

It was through this foresight that the Arlington County Fire Department was able to so effectively deal with the terrorist attack on the Pentagon. Chief Plaugher and his firefighters were commended for their quick and organized response to the tragedy. Without the leadership of Chief Plaugher and the dedication of the men and women of the Arlington County Fire Department and other Northern Virginia fire departments more lives would have been lost on that tragic day.

I would like to thank Chief Plaugher for his distinguished service to Arlington and Fairfax Counties. His leadership and vision have helped create some of the premier fire departments in the nation. He is highly deserving of this honor. I wish Chief Plaugher and his family the best as he begins his much deserved retirement.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment which will help to correct an ``unfair penalty'' relating to Title I funding for some of our nation's most deserving schools.

There are four different grant categories which deliver Title I funds to school districts: Basic Grants, Targeted Grants, Education Finance Incentive Grants (EFIG), and Concentration Grants. The Department of Education maintains a 5 percent poverty level ``cliff'' for Education Finance Incentive Grants and targeted grants.

This means that if a school district's poverty line falls below five percent, they lose a significant portion of their Title I funds.

The Davis-Moran amendment would provide a phase out of funds over several years, for example, if the school district falls below the 5 percent requirement, they would only lose 33 percent the following fiscal year. After the second consecutive year, they would lose 66 percent. After the third year, they would lose all funding. If a school district's poverty data rose above the 5 percent minimum level, it would be fully eligible to receive education finance incentive grants and targeted grants.

As a representative of one of the largest public school systems in the country, Fairfax County, I am deeply troubled that they are set to lose over $3 million in Title I funds because their poverty level is 4.96 percent, slightly below the 5 percent floor required for most Title I grants.

This loss of Title I funds is going to have a devastating impact on several school districts and comes at a particularly critical time. School districts are facing the public choice and supplemental services sanctions mandated by No Child Left Behind, and these same school districts are going to be forced to redirect Title I funds out of the very classrooms where they are needed the most.

No Child Left Behind stipulates that the Department of Education must use the most-up-to-date poverty data from the Census Bureau in determining a school district's eligibility to receive Title I funds.

Because of this, the Department of Education is using data from census year 2000 for their calculations of poverty rates. Unfortunately it is 2004 and we do not have the same economy that we had 4 years ago.

In Fairfax County alone, the student population eligible for the free and reduced-price lunch program has increased by 18 percent since FY 2000. This data more clearly reflects the need of the Fairfax County school system to receive Title I funds than old census data.

Because Title I funds are allocated on the basis of poverty and not the basis of free and reduced price lunch eligibility, this school system stands to see their Title I funds decreased by 26 percent, the largest dollar decrease of any school division in the country.

This poverty threshold calculation actually under emphasizes significant pockets of poverty in otherwise relatively wealthy school districts. The Fairfax County Public School System is a perfect example of a school district which includes the wealthy areas of Great Falls and McLean but also the traditionally underserved areas of the Route 1 Corridor and Baileys Crossroads, where a majority of students on free and reduced lunch reside.

This calculation is not fair to those students in the poor sections of a wealthy county, and does not accurately portray the needs of them, their teachers and their schools.

I urge all my colleagues to adopt the Davis-Moran amendment and make the Title I funding formula more equitable in order to ensure that no child is left behind.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Rochester, New York for yielding me this time.

I rise today in support of the Moroccan Free Trade Agreement because it is an important agreement with a moderate Muslim country and it represents a vital step towards establishing broader free trade in the Middle East.

Former Clinton administration U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor said, ``Closer and mutually beneficial ties between Morocco and the United States will bolster a country that has for several centuries earned a reputation for moderation, tolerance, and stability. The Moroccans have democratized their political structures. They recently made historic reforms to improve women's rights, and codified new labor rights and protections based upon key International Labor Organization conventions.

Mr. Speaker, the Moroccan Free Trade Agreement is the first trade pact to be negotiated with an Arab and Muslim country since September 11, and it

would permit Morocco to join Jordan in the ranks of countries that have entered into an enhanced partnership with the United States.

This agreement will enhance our foreign policy and diplomatic efforts to bridge greater understanding and cooperation with moderate Arab nations.

This FTA is going to ensure that U.S. businesses and workers have greater access to the Moroccan market by further eliminating trade barriers. It will deepen and expand bilateral commercial ties beyond the average level of $1 billion in current annual two-way trade flows. In fact, the United States enjoyed a surplus of $2 billion between 1999 and 2003. So they are buying more from us than we are buying from them. This is creating more jobs in the United States.

More than 95 percent of bilateral trade in consumer and industrial products will become duty free immediately upon entry into this agreement, with all remaining tariffs to be eliminated within 9 years. It is the best markets access package of any U.S. free trade agreement with a developing country.

It is going to create new opportunities for U.S. banks, insurance, securities and related services and telecommunications. Key U.S. export sectors gain immediate duty-free access to Morocco, such as information technology, machinery, construction equipment, and chemicals. Morocco is going to accord substantial market access across its entire services regime and adhere to strong and detailed disciplines on regulatory transparency, a key factor.

Additionally, Morocco has agreed to strengthen its intellectual property laws, and the agreement is going to help Morocco to further expand its economic and labor reform efforts.

Mr. Speaker, this FTA will expand trade and bring greater economic opportunities for U.S. workers, farmers and businesses, and is going to promote economic development in other nations.

Through this type of economic engagement, we can forge stronger ties with our allies around the world and promote democracy, free markets, and improved labor standards. That is why I support this agreement. I urge my very good friends, particularly on this side of the aisle, to vote in favor of this implementing legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the so-called ``Marriage Protection Act.''

How marriage is being protected by keeping committed gay and lesbian couples from getting married does not make sense to me. Will it strengthen heterosexual relationships? Reduce promiscuity and unwed pregnancy? Instruct people on the importance of communication to a successful relationship?

No, it would do none of these things.

What it would do is take away Americans right to Due Process and represent a radical departure from our Constitutional and legal tradition in an effort to single out a specific group of American citizens for discrimination. This bill would strip our federal court system of its independence, setting a dangerous precedent and threatening the underpinnings of our free and democratic society.

The Marriage Protection Act precludes federal courts from reviewing the constitutionality of the cross-state recognition section of ``the Defense of Marriage Act.''

The result of this legislation would be that if DOMA is challenged, the 50 State Supreme Courts would each issue a separate and final ruling on the cross-state recognition section of DOMA. The Supreme Court, whose job is to settle conflicting or contradictory state and federal court rulings, would have its hands tied, thus thwarting their ability to resolve the ensuing confusion. What a mess.

If we decide to wall off the federal courts ability to rule on this issue, where will such actions stop? One can easily foresee a number of other hot button social issues with which this country is clearly divided being blocked in a similar fashion from consideration at the federal level.

Furthermore, we already have sufficient legislation to allow individual states the ability to retain and structure marriage laws the way they see fit. While I opposed and continue to oppose the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which passed the House back in 1996, this law is still fully functional and in effect. Since then, it has not been invalidated by any court anywhere in the country.

Mr. Speaker, I am troubled that we are wasting floor time to discuss this issue today. At a time when there are many more pressing matters needing to be discussed and deserving of debate, we are considering ``The Marriage Protection Act,'' a classic example of an election year wedge issue designed for maximum political impact. I implore the House to consider the full implications of this legislation and urge its defeat.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I had a couple of amendments at the desk that I will not offer in favor of engaging in a colloquy with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg). The reason I offered those amendments is the Pentagon has a day care facility located on its campus that has capacity for over 200 children. After September 11, 2001, parents of those children were assured they would not have to be relocated. Now they are told without any real warning that they have 60 days to vacate. This is nearly 3 years after the attack on the Pentagon.

In Northern Virginia, there is a waiting list of 12 to 18 months at most of the day care facilities, so we offered an amendment to try to speed up the process of building a new day care facility at nearby Fort Myer. That is what this colloquy concerns because it is beyond me why the Pentagon would tell the parents that they have only 60 days to vacate.

They say they have information that the Pentagon might be more likely to be a target between now and Election Day. If that is the case, they need to evacuate them immediately. There is some suspicion as to the purpose, but I do not want to engage in that speculation. I want to do what we can as a legislative body to ensure there is an alternative site because I think most parents would agree that if they had an opportunity to sit down and talk with the decisionmakers at the Pentagon that it makes sense to begin to relocate the children.

Mr. Chairman, let me ask the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), I understand that the Pentagon, in response to the recent decision to close the day care facility at the Pentagon, has offered to expand and accelerate the planning and construction of the new day care facility at Fort Myer, but at the earliest will be able to start construction in October 2005; is that correct?

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Chairman, does the Army have an updated estimate on how much this project will cost and when this project will be completed?

Mr. Chairman, my concern is there may be a lack of coordination between the Army and the Washington Headquarters Services at the Department on how to proceed with the design, planning and construction of the new day care facility. To the gentleman's knowledge, is the Army working with the Washington Headquarters Service on moving forward with this timetable of October 2005?

Mr. Chairman, it is my hope I can work closely with the gentleman from Michigan on ensuring that the Pentagon work quickly toward providing a completed alternative day care facility at Fort Myer as soon as possible. I would hope that in the meantime the Department dedicates all means necessary to find immediate interim solutions for the parents of the more than 100 children at the Pentagon today who are still without adequate child care options.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's assistance on this matter. My present concern remains how best to encourage the Pentagon to focus on providing interim day care service. I look forward to working with you to see if there is any assistance we could provide for interim solutions.

I want to recognize the fact that the gentleman from Northern Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce,

State, Justice, both of whom have constituents in this situation, as I do, and they have also worked very diligently on this. We appreciate the opportunity to work with the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce federal legislation that will help states and localities rein in rogue towing operations that continue to harass and take advantage of local residents.

In 1994, Congress enacted the Federal Aviation Administration Act which opened a loophole permitting tow truck operators to qualify as interstate carriers exempt from state and local regulation.

A year later in 1995, Congress passed another attempt to streamline the federal government in the form of a law eliminating the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). This legislation struck down the regulatory body that provided federal oversight of the tow truck industry, leaving the tow truck industry without proper federal, state or local regulation.

In the years since, a number of conflicting U.S. District court rulings between towing operators and localities have been issued, including a 2000 Supreme Court decision in the City of Columbus v. Ours Garage and Wrecker Service. While the Supreme Court found that both state and local governments have the ability to exercise, free from federal preemption, the ``safety regulatory authority'' provided in law, the Court unfortunately failed to address what specific types of regulation would qualify under this distinction. Subsequent federal court decisions have yielded little additional clarity and have probably confused the issue further.

Without a clear judicial precedent, states and localities have been confronted with a barrage of problems related to ``non-consensual'' or ``trespass tows.'' It has been brought to my attention that in Arlington County, VA alone, over 280 complaints and inquiries with regard to trespass towing have been received in the past 2 years.

Due to a lack of clear guidance from the courts and the large number of cases which have been brought to my attention involving a group of small but very active predatory towers in this region, I am here this morning to announce the introduction of legislation that will close the federal loophole, once and for all, that has prevented states and localities from having the full authority to regulate all aspects of ``non consensual'' towing.

Entitled the ``State and Local Predatory Towing Enforcement Act of 2004,'' this legislation simply amends title 49 of the United States Code to give state and local governments the ability to enact common- sense, pro-consumer ``trespass towing'' protections for their residents.

Something is wrong when, in the absence of any federal regulatory oversight, local and state governments do not have the proper authority to protect their citizens against companies not conducting safe business practices.

Whether it be overcharging someone an arm and a leg for parking illegally in an area with no signs properly designating the space, to a lack of ATM machines at tow lots requiring cash only transactions to get your car out of impoundment, tow companies should be held accountable by state and local governments for non-consensual towing practices that do not take the consumer into account.

A solution to bring an end to this out of control problem is needed. The ``State and Local Predatory Towing Enforcement Act'' is that solution. It will correct a lack of regulatory oversight for an industry whose image is being tarnished by a few bad apples, and in doing so, will return power back to the people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Kaptur amendment to provide a modest $6 million in funding for the Farmers' Market Promotion Program. This program was established by the Farm Bill to make grants to cooperatives, nonprofits, local governments, economic development corporations and regional farmers' market authorities for projects to establish, expand, and promote farmers' markets, roadside stands, and community supported agriculture programs. Unfortunately, the program has never been funded.

At a time when we spend billions on programs that primarily assist large agribusinesses, Congress needs to reaffirm its commitment to help farmers most in need of assistance. This relatively small investment in the Farmers' Market Promotion Program will produce economic benefits to small farmers and local communities that far exceed the $6 million investment we are proposing in this amendment.

Farmers' markets are essential sources of income for thousands of small farmers. They provide farmers with direct access to consumers, and, in many instances, all of the small farmer's income comes from sales at farmers' markets. In a USDA survey of 772 farmers' markets, over 6,000 farmers said they sell their products only at farmers' markets.

Mr. Chairman, consumers also benefit from farmers' markets. Consumer demand for locally grown food produced by small farmers is on the rise. For safe, nutritious food, Americans place more trust in smaller scale farms. According to a recent national consumer survey, seven in ten Americans said smaller scale family farms are more likely than large farms to use techniques that won't hurt the environment.

Farmers' markets also help promote nutrition education, wholesome eating habits, and better food preparation, as well as boost the local community's economy. Many urban communities where fresh, nutritious foods are scarce gain easy access to quality foods at fair prices.

Consumers also have the opportunity to personally interact with the farmer who grows the produce. I enjoy spending Saturdays shopping at the farmers' markets in my district and interacting with the farmers. I know many of my colleagues have similar positive experiences at markets in their district.

The sights and smells of fresh produce, a conversation with a local farmer about the weather and growing techniques--these experiences make shopping at farmers' markets such a unique and enjoyable experience.

I urge my colleagues to support the Kaptur amendment to provide a modest but important investment in the Farmers' Market Promotion Program. Let's take this opportunity to help family farmers and consumers.

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) has, in fact, been fair. We have worked out an appropriations bill that we can both live with. So this should not take an inordinate amount of time.

Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, there is some disagreement over the rule, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) I know will be addressing a consideration of the rule, but that was not a matter that was left open to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) or myself. It was an amendment that might have been added.

The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) has an amendment that he would at least like to talk about, and I think it has considerable merit, but there are a lot of things that had considerable merit that are not included within this bill.

We had a very tight, tough 302(b) allocation; and it was felt that the Congress itself has to lead by example. Our original requests were not realistic. They would have increased spending in this appropriations bill by more than 14 percent above last year's spending level; and some of the major parts of this campus, the Capitol Police, the Architect of the Capitol, et cetera, had increases that were over 30 percent this year over last year. So they were not granted.

What we have before us is basically a flat bill. It is actually a .1 percent cut below last year's level. It is probably unprecedented. Maybe somebody is going to find an appropriation bill that was actually cut below the prior year, but I am skeptical that there is such a thing. I think all of us would have liked more money for a number of components of this bill, but it is responsible, and, as far as I am concerned, it is a fair bill. It covers in full, mandatory cost increases without resorting to any layoffs or RIFs.

In terms of percentages, the Office of the Attending Physician, who does a great job, Dr. Eisold and his colleagues are terrific and often called for in crisis situations, they receive a 13.7 percent increase, well justified, but the Open World Leadership Program, which I also think is well-justified, fared the worst with a 50 percent cut.

Hopefully, we will be able to restore some of that money in conference.

Now, somewhere in between those two ends of the spectrum, all the other legislative branch agencies, the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Compliance, Government Printing Office, our own Members' Representational Allowance, they will receive considerably less than was requested, but certainly enough to carry out their primary responsibilities and missions.

The Capitol Police will be given approximately a 6 percent increase and additional flexibility to use unobligated funds from last year to cover most of their new equipment needs.

I am disappointed that this bill, though, does impose such a stiff cut to the Open World Leadership program, because it promotes democracy by bringing foreign leaders from Russia and other countries that were satellites of the Soviet Union to study our democratic institutions, something that is very much needed. And when we consider the relative costs if we do not get democracy embedded in those countries, it is substantially greater, obviously.

I am also troubled the public printer will lack the funds to modernize the functions of the Government Printing Office. But I am pleased that, despite the overall freeze, the chairman agreed, and I think we had the consensus of our subcommittee, that we should finally establish a staff fitness center. So I trust that the staff is going to be very pleased with that, and it is something that a number of us have been wanting to see go forward.

The Congress, of course, is the institution that is at the heart of this great Republic's democracy. A $2.75 billion budget is less than .15 percent of the proposed total Federal budget. It is a small price to pay for a legislative body that represents the world's greatest democracy.

So while the bill is fair, we do fall far short of what we may need to do in the future to provide for this institution's needs, the people who work here, and the people who visit here. If we attempt to continue such a tight budget in future years, and I am afraid that the same justification is going to apply, with large looming deficits for the next decade, then this institution will truly suffer.

The flat funding we have in this budget will not be sustainable. It will trigger reductions in force, it will compromise security, it will render our now current computer information systems obsolete and ineffective, and it will undermine improvements in productivity and efficiency that will subsequently drive up future maintenance costs. Popular initiatives, like digitizing the Library of Congress' collections and sharing its wealth of literary material with the public, simply will not happen.

We cannot balance the budget by freezing the legislative branch's budget. In fact, we cannot even balance the budget by freezing all of discretionary spending. So we do have some fundamental differences about our Nation's priorities, but those fall outside the scope of this committee. I am not going to dwell on them.

This year's appropriation bills mark the beginning of what in the past has been an abstract budget debate, but we are now getting into the real consequences of a budget resolution that I think is insufficient, and we are going to have to address those 302(b) allocations in the future.

Again, specifically, the legislative branch appropriation bill is a fair bill. I think it is reasonable and sustainable, at least for this year.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will be the last speaker before we move to amendments, unless the gentleman from Georgia would like to offer some concluding remarks.

Again, I will summarize what I said earlier. It is a fair bill. I thank the gentleman from Georgia very much. I want to thank Liz Dawson of the majority staff. The Democratic staff person has been Tom Forhan, who has done an excellent job, and Tim Aiken, my legislative director.

I have got a whole list here, and I ought to mention them. Chuck Turner deserves mentioning, Kathy Rohan, Clelia Alvarado, and I have already mentioned the others, and Heather McNatt. I thank them.

Again, I want to say a word about something that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) mentioned, this business of the mounted police on the Capitol. I wholly agree with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) and the chairman. I do not think this is a necessary adjunct to our Capitol Police. I think it is a strange and illogical addition, in fact, and particularly when I learned that the Capitol Police have to spend what must be a good hour driving down to the BLM property on Gunston Road. I was involved with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) in setting that aside for the Bureau of Land Management. I am very much familiar with it. But I never imagined it would be housing horses that had to be deployed on the Capitol grounds. So they pick up the horses. They schlep the poor horses all the way back to the Capitol for a few hours, I guess, galloping around, and then they schlep them all the way back to this BLM property down in Lorton, Virginia, down Route 1. It is congested; so it is bumper to bumper. That is almost inhumane in itself, but it is certainly inefficient and a strange use of our resources. I am glad that that was eliminated.

There are a number of things that we chose not to fund, but I think in subsequent years are probably going to have to be funded. As I said, I know a .1 percent cut in the legislative branch appropriations bill is not reasonable in the long term, although we can clearly get along with it this year.

I do hope we will restore the Open World Leadership program in conference. We do have dental and vision benefits for the people who work here in the legislative branch, and that is an appropriate thing to do, and it is largely consistent with what we do with the executive branch. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) is going to have an amendment with regard to science and technology. We do need a resource to avail ourselves of when it comes to scientific and technological issues which change every day, and we really do need a good deal of expertise to assist us in that. But he is going to have an amendment to address that issue.

With that, I think we can go on to the amendments, and I suspect shortly we will have a full complement of House Members to be able to vote.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to the amendment as well, although I share the very deep respect and warm regard for the author of the amendment.

I concede that 1 percent is not a whole lot of money in the scheme of

things, but the fact is that your own chairman has very skillfully already cut the spending in this bill.

As was said, this bill is already $395 million below what was requested, so I think we want to acknowledge and almost reward the committees when they do cut below last year's level. Imagine, it is below last year's appropriation level, and the fact is that it is as low as we can go, because if it goes any more, even a 1 percent cut will trigger reductions in our workforce.

We are also told it would compromise our plans to upgrade security, and it would slow down or cancel investments to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the legislative branch's operations.

It is based on two assumptions, which I think we are going to find are not entirely the case. One is that the large budget deficits in growth in Federal spending is the exclusive result of discretionary spending increases. That is not the case. And, two, that there is enough waste, fraud and abuse that a 1 percent cut could actually improve government efficiency. I think we are going to find that is not the case as well.

The fact is that discretionary spending is the one portion of the Federal budget that has grown the least and is subject to the greatest level of scrutiny and control by the Congress through our appropriations bills.

I have to say, we ought to be boasting about the fact that we have the most honest and professional public employee workforce in the world. I am proud of the people who toil long hours to serve our needs and ensure that this body operates efficiently and effectively. Any waste, fraud and abuse that exists is far more likely to be the result of conflicting, outdated or inconsistent Federal policies.

I cannot understand why we are spending taxpayer money on many other things that I would like us to look at, such as national roads and national forests. We encourage timber harvests and then cover the costs of the building of roads that do not necessarily have to be built and that cost the taxpayer a great deal of money. We have enormous agricultural support subsidies to any number of industries. In fact, there will be a number of programs in the next appropriations bill that we will consider, the agriculture bill, that we ought to look at, entitlement programs. But I do not think a 1 percent across-the-board cut to the workforce in the legislative branch is warranted at this time. I urge Members to reject the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a man who spent his entire life devoted to helping working men and women and their families. Bertrand Seidman a constituent of my district and legend in the labor movement, recently passed away after a lifetime of advocating for working people in the United States.

After earning his Master's degree in economics from the University of Wisconsin at Madison, Mr. Seidman began his stellar career at the Bureau of Labor Statistics in Washington, DC. In 1944, he started performing his service as a conscientious objector clearing a path for the Blue Ridge Parkway. During this time he began educating his fellow workers in industrial relations and later led a year-long strike after the government stopped paying conscientious objectors while still having them work.

In 1948 he began his distinguished career with the AFL-CIO as an economist in their research department and later served as the European representative for the AFL-CIO. He continued his service to the nation as a member of the United States delegation to the United Nations' International Labor Organization from 1958 to 1976 and then from 1987 to 1988.

It was after this service that Bert Seidman was appointed to become head of the AFL-CIO's Social Security department. He worked there for twenty four years and ensured that the labor movement would continue to focus on social welfare issues. He was especially interested in health care, pensions and occupational health for all. Mr. Seidman was also active in making sure that Social Security would not be privatized and that all Americans would have health insurance, regardless of their economic status.

Our nation lost an activist when Bert Seidman passed away on June 24th. He will always be remembered for his role in our nation's labor movement. Bert wanted to make sure that when people worked their whole lives, they would be taken care of in their retirement, and if they were ill or injured, they would have ample health care to help their recovery. Most importantly, he was for the most basic right, equality. I am grateful for his vision, his dedication and the many years of

service he gave to our nation. May his memory and the ideals he fought so hard to protect be preserved so future generations of working people are assured of basic rights and protections in a vastly changing workplace.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to say that I plan to vote for this bill, but there is no way I can support this rule.

There were a total of eight amendments submitted. There were seven by Democrats, one by a Republican. The one by the Republican was allowed. Only one out of the seven submitted by Democrats was allowed.

A lot of them had no political overtones whatsoever. What is wrong, for example, with studying ways to improve and expand day care services on the Hill for our employees? That is hardly political. The only thing I can imagine is wrong is that a Member of the majority did not think of it; and I am sure if they had, it would have been made in order. But that should have been allowed, to study it.

Now, I acknowledge that at least four of the amendments have some political overtones, and I can appreciate the embarrassment that Members of the majority must experience when their legislative actions stretch the bounds of proper rules and procedures of the House.

How long, I think we know how long, what, 3 hours we kept that vote open on Medicare prescription drugs. We have subsequently read about all of the promises and the threats that were thrown back and forth to change the result, successfully, I might add.

Then, on a separate issue, how often have we seen conference agreements completed before the conference was even convened? The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) had every right to bring our attention to that abuse of power.

I doubt the majority would have approved any of those amendments, but they should have been debated.

Then there are the two amendments by the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman). First, should C-SPAN tapes be rebroadcast for political purposes? I am not sure, but I think it is something that ought to be discussed on the floor of the House, and I regret the fact that we did not get an opportunity to discuss it.

He had a second amendment to curb another potential abuse of power. I think it could be a pretty serious one. It is inappropriate to use the franking privilege out of committee resources to mail mass propaganda pieces on behalf of any Member, on the majority or the minority side.

Now, if you look at the numbers that we have, the Committee on Resources apparently has asked for about half a million dollars to be mailing pieces into other Members' districts. We saw the explanation by the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman). No matter how much we want to cooperate with the other side, this is a major potential abuse of power, if somebody does not stand up and say wait a minute, there is something wrong with this.

This has to be discussed. The public needs to be aware of it before we embark on this. Of course, if nothing is said, other committees are likely to do the same thing, and no ranking member has that ability.

So this was an amendment that really needed to be discussed, and perhaps in that discussion we could get an explanation that would show us that this is not as abusive as it appears at first glance. Perhaps there is a logical explanation, but we sure ought to get that kind of explanation. The fact that we were denied the opportunity to discuss this is reason enough to vote against the rule.

What we are looking for is fairness. We are looking for the resources in this bill to continue this great institution at a reasonable level, a fiscally responsible level, one that is acceptable to both sides. But when the process is clearly not acceptable to both sides, I think we have an obligation to stand up and say no.

I would like to see some support from the other side of the aisle for raising objection to the way in which this rule was put together.

Mr. Speaker, every week we recognize all kinds of people and, though deserving, most of us have never heard of them. Today I would like to give some recognition to the passing of a man we have heard of.

I think the movie ``On The Waterfront'' was one of the finest American movies ever made because of the ability of Marlon Brando to depict that heroic struggle of a working class guy to achieve his own individual integrity. Then there was Stanley Kowalski, Don Corleone, and so many other iconic roles throughout Mr. Brando's career.

He was outstanding, but he always defied convention and challenged authority, and so he was always on the outskirts of proper society, but he deserves recognition.

I will always admire him for giving up the Oscar to recognize the shameful treatment that we have given Native Americans. I suspect that God broke the mold when Marlon Brando passed. We need more Marlon Brandos in our society. He was a man who had the courage of his convictions, and for that alone he deserves recognition in this body.