Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, as a supporter of the arts and the humanities, I am pleased to support this amendment. During my time in Congress I have had the opportunity to meet with numerous constituents regarding the need for continued arts funding.

In this time of daunting budget deficits, we must spend our collective resources as wisely as possible. Funding for the arts is sometimes construed as a giveaway on the part of the federal government, which does not result in tangible benefits to the nation. I dispute that claim--in my district in Utah, we are fortunate to have a thriving arts and humanities community that generates revenues for the local economy, teaches our children about American cultural traditions, and builds civic spirit through public events.

I believed that our nation should invest in programs that generate benefits such as these and I hope my colleagues will join me in voting to restore funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for Humanities to last year's levels.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. Two years ago Congress and the President worked together on a historic piece of legislation: the No Child Left Behind Act. This bipartisan agreement exchanged tough accountability standards for significant financial resources to help local schools implement reforms. Everyone agreed that money alone would not improve schools. But, funding and reforms were to go hand in hand.

I had some concerns about provisions in No Child Left Behind and the burdens they would place on our local schools. But, I was reassured that with overwhelming, bipartisan support, Congress and the President would deliver the needed resources to make this effort a success.

Since the No Child Left Behind Act was signed into law in 2001, the federal commitment to provide the necessary resources has been broken. Congress has let our schools and our children down.

Our teachers are hard working, and our administrators know what they are doing. They continuously do much with very little. But, we are pushing our education system to the breaking point. Without adequate resources our local schools are struggling to meet tough new accountability standards. Despite provisions stating that states would not be required to spend their own resources on federal reforms, that is exactly what is occurring.

State budget shortfalls have already drained precious resources from our local schools. Constantly asking them to do even more with even less is the wrong pattern. it cannot reform or improve our schools. It will leave them unable to perform many of their core functions. It will eliminate quality, successful programs. And, it will drive teachers out of the education profession.

The federal pattern continues to be: promises made, promises unkept. Sadly enough, the promises being broken are those made to the next generation.

Providing a quality education for our children should be a top priority. However, as states are assembling their plans to assess and improve student performance, the federal government is eliminating the tools that would help them succeed. After-school programs that provide tutoring services have been cut. Resources to train and provide professional development for teachers are being reduced. The mandates should not continue if the requisite funding is not supplied.

The cornerstone of No Child Left Behind is Title I funding for schools serving large proportions of disadvantaged, low-income students. In order to raise the academic performance of these students, Congress promised incremental funding increases in Title I. For this fiscal year, $18.5 billion was promised. However, this appropriation bill would only provide $12.35 billion, continuing the pattern of breaking federal promises. In addition, Utah would receive nearly $4 million less than promised for after-school programs, $2 million less than promised for teacher quality programs, and over $8 million less than promised for Impact Aid that offsets the costs of education near military bases and Native American reservations.

These are not just numbers; they are tools: the resources that are critical to meeting new standards. Without the tools, our schools simply cannot work.

This legislation would also continue the pattern of failing to deliver on the promises made decades ago to provide 40 percent of the costs of special education. It would fund Utah at $11 million less than the amount promised by the House of Representatives this April when we reauthorized the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

Our nation and my state are facing tough economic times that require tough choices. But, it is shortsighted not to recognize the role of education in the prosperity of the next generation. It is an investment worth making. It is an investment we cannot afford to neglect. Keeping our commitments regarding education funding will be critical to training the teachers and educating the leaders of tomorrow. It is time for Congress and the President to work together in a bipartisan way to keep our promise.

Mr. Chairman, nanotechnology presents incredible opportunities, not just for pure science, but for a host of interdisciplinary areas. The wide range of potential applications of this research is one of the best reasons why we, as a nation, should commit to long-term support of nanotechnology. Many of the most exciting ideas are still years from completion and even the current success stories are products of long-term research, study, and dedication.

It is also important to realize that, due to the expense of establishing top-level research infrastructure, facility sharing must also be a priority. We have an opportunity to promote relevant, needed research and every effort should be made to best utilize limited resources. I look to the national laboratories at Sandia National Laboratories, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and at other sites to avail themselves of the scientific talent within this nation.

Finally, there exists a tremendous opportunity for today's research commitment to become tomorrow's commercial success. We need partnership between federally funded research facilities and private industry in order to generate the ideas that will drive business in the future. I thank the Committee for its interest in this area of science and look forward to contributing to the national discourse on nanotechnology.

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

I rise today in support of H.R. 758, the Business Checking Freedom Act of 2003. By repealing the prohibition on the payment of interest on demand deposits, this bill will repeal the last vestige of interest rate controls enacted in the 1930s during the Depression. This prohibition long ago ceased to serve any useful purpose and has imposed unnecessary costs on banks and their business customers, particularly small banks and businesses that cannot afford sophisticated cash management products. The repeal of this prohibition is long overdue.

For institutions that cannot offer demand deposits, however, the bill includes a provision added as a result of an amendment that I cosponsored with the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking member, and others that permits depository institutions to offer interest-bearing negotiable order of withdrawal, or NOW, accounts to their commercial customers. This provision will allow institutions such as industrial loan companies to offer the same type of interest-bearing account to business customers that they have long been able to offer to individuals, nonprofit organizations and public entities.

I think it is important to note this provision does not permit industrial companies to offer demand deposits. As has been the case since the enactment of the Competitive Banking Equality Act of 1987, ILCs would continue to be prohibited from offering demand deposits. Moreover, ILCs will continue to be subject to the same safety and soundness regulations by the FDIC and by their State regulators as under current law.

There is no indication that State regulators will allow their chartering authority to be used in an inappropriate manner. I note, for example, that State authorities in the past have rejected applications by some commercial companies to establish ILCs where there were concerns about how the charter would be used.

H.R. 758 also will permit the Federal Reserve Board to lower the reserves it currently requires on transaction accounts, such as demand deposits and NOW accounts, and to pay interest on the reserve balances that depository institutions are required to maintain. While providing these cost savings for banks, the bill will require the board to conduct an annual survey on a broad range of bank fees and services and to report to Congress on trends in the cost and availability of retail banking services. This survey will provide Congress the information we need to determine the extent to which retail customers receive the benefit from the cost savings we are creating with this bill.

H.R. 758 is a good, balanced bill that resulted in benefits for both banks and

their customers. I recommend passage of this bill.

I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the subcommittee chairman, and the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the ranking member, for this bill. I want to recognize that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the chairman of the full committee, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for their support of this, as well; and I want to acknowledge the lead sponsors of this bill, which are the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), and the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to address a couple of the concerns that have been raised.

First of all, there is nothing in this bill that creates new authority to offer accounts to businesses. So while the Federal Reserve did suggest that we are altering the structure of banking in the United States, the institutions raised already can offer ILCs. Tyco already has one. So this bill talks about parity. It talks about banks and industrial corporations both offering interest on business checking accounts. That is all this bill does.

There is a broader discussion about the validity of the ILCs. That is not what this bill is about. It is about offering two entities to have parity in terms of offering the same service.

And let me mention one other point in this regard, and that is in terms of the concern about mixing of banking and commerce. FDIC Chairman Powell has stated that he does not have any safety or soundness concerns relating to this provision of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a piece of legislation that is overdue. The notion of eliminating interest on business checking accounts is something that seems like common sense. I was a small businessman before I came to Congress, and it never seemed to make sense to me is that this prohibition existed. We are talking about removing some inefficiencies that exist in our financial marketplace. That is why this legislation has such strong bipartisan support. I encourage Members to pass this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his leadership on this issue; and I want to strongly associate myself with and endorse all the remarks he has made in this debate today. I, too, will vote for the underlying bill, the omnibus bill, but I cannot believe that we are in the circumstance we are in right now.

I come from Salt Lake City. The Smarts are my constituents. We had a miracle occur in Utah a couple of weeks ago. It happened based on the principles of AMBER Alert, where information was disseminated to the public, and the public was looking for the perpetrators, and they were found.

How can we let this delay any longer? Every day we delay is another opportunity lost, perhaps; and how do we place the value of even one, just one time when we could find a child after being abducted before that child was harmed?

I think that, as we look at this debate, it is important to note that the Senate passed this bill unanimously. A majority of the House of Representatives in both parties has signed on as cosponsors to the comparable legislation in the House. If it comes up for a vote, I cannot imagine anyone not supporting this. We are getting caught up in another important piece of legislation that, as I said, I would support, but it is going to take time for that legislation to become law. That is the fact. If we separate out a stand-alone AMBER Alert vote in the House, that can become law very quickly. That is the issue at hand today. That is why I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question. Let us get this bill out on the House floor.

I cannot understand why this has become partisan. This should not be a partisan issue, but the leadership seems to not want to allow a vote on this. It happened in the last session of Congress after the Senate passed it unanimously. It is happening again now. It is time for us to put that aside. This is too important of an issue. We all care about this so much. Again, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minority whip.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that we saw the benefits of an Amber Alert-like program yesterday in the State of Utah. We had a wonderful event occur, and it occurred because information got out to the public.

What concerns me, Mr. Speaker, is that the Senate has already passed national Amber Alert legislation unanimously. It has been in the House for 2 months now, about; and I would submit that the legislation referred to that is going to be in the Committee on the Judiciary contains a number of other provisions which are worthy of consideration, but I would suggest it might be worthwhile for us to take a look at the Frost-Dunn bill, the straight Amber Alert bill passed through the United States Senate. We could take it up on a unanimous consent request right now and get it on the President's desk right away.

Every day we delay is a day when another abducted child may have less access to an Amber Alert System that gets the information out to people. We learned a lesson in Salt Lake City. We are very proud of the miracle that occurred yesterday. Mr. Smart, in his time of triumph, still is emphasizing the need for Congress to move forward on this, and I would suggest that that is something this body ought to consider.

Mr. Chairman, the proposal before us today to reauthorize Temporary Assistance to Needy Families TANF, is one that falls short of providing temporary assistance or focusing on needy families. While there are aspects of H.R. 4 that should be applauded, such as increasing overall funding, restoring federal support for the Social Services Block Grant, removing the disincentives for two parents families, and approaching welfare cases with a family-oriented perspective, this legislation falls short on providing the real solutions that families struggling in Utah require.

There are several essential elements for welfare reform that are lacking in H.R. 4. First, is state flexibility. H.R. 4 would limit state flexibility and subsequently undermine the welfare successes that Utah has experienced. The whole concept of the 1996 reforms was for states to tailor services. Over the last six years, it has been the ability of the states to adapt programs to meet the needs of populations with multiple barriers that has allowed

caseloads to decline. Developing true self-sufficiency requires state flexibility. It means looking towards the long-term and providing credit for educational and vocational training, and it requires state alternatives to increase participation rates.

At the same time that H.R. 4 limits state flexibility, it fails to even provide adequate funding for the increased requirements it entails. H.R. 4 would require the states to do more with fewer resources. It increases the mandates on the states to increase participation rates and work hours, but does not provide the resources to implement these changes. It leaves the states without the ability to cover the increased costs related to stricter work requirements and removes the credits available to the states for decreasing caseloads without providing other benefits. This unfunded mandate cannot be supported by Utah, and will not provide the temporary assistance required at this time.

H.R. 4 also falls short on supporting families. It requires parents to go to work without any resources to care for their children. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that new work requirements would require $44 million dollars more for child care in Utah. H.R. 4 does not provide these resources. In addition, H.R. 4 would no longer allow single mothers with children under age six to be fully compliant if they work 20 hours a week. Instead, they would be required to work 40 hours a week, despite the young children they have at home, and then would be provided with no additional resources to help them obtain child care. Such actions are not pro-child and are not pro-family.

I cannot support legislation that falls short on providing for the real people that I represent in Utah. They deserve more. That is why I support reauthorization of TANF that is built on sound principles: flexibility for the states, reasonable requirements, real work that will lead to long-term self-sufficiency, educational and vocational training, and adequate resources for childcare. Such a proposal would recognize the real needs of real Utahns and provide needy families with real, temporary assistance.

Mr. Speaker, Saturday's tragedy was both unexpected and shocking. It evoked memories of an earlier American tragedy, the 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. But we must remember that this terrible loss shows the continued bravery of the American space program. We forget so easily the immense risks associated with space exploration, and I commend those individuals who continue to put themselves at great risk in order for all of us to live in a more enlightened and advanced society.

In the wake of this tragedy, NASA and the Congress must work together to initiate the most complete and thorough investigation possible in order to prevent similar tragedies in the future. The work of exploration is ongoing and we must be vigilant in maintaining standards of safety. Larger questions about the future of our journey into space must also be addressed by Congress.

It is important that we also remember the three crewmembers still on board the International Space Station who lost valued friends and peers. I am hopeful that they will safely return to Earth as soon as possible.

I extend my deepest sympathies to the families of the heroic crew of Space Shuttle Columbia. I am certain that the men and women at NASA are struggling with their grief, as well, and my thoughts are with them also.

Let us all remember the remarkable individuals who reached the stars and lived lives of great American accomplishment.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon).

I first met Wayne Owens when I was 12 years old. He was running for Congress in 1972 in the State of Utah and he took the State by storm. He walked over 700 miles during that campaign. And the walking was not just a gimmick. The walking was an indication of the fact that Wayne Owens genuinely, genuinely wanted to get to know the people of whom he was asking for a vote and the people who he was going to represent.

I think throughout his life, with all of the great goals that Wayne tried to achieve and the big picture and the big items he pursued, he never lost that notion of relating to the individual person, to the common man. That is something we here in this House should remember as we look back on Wayne's life.

I had the opportunity to be a campaign manager for Wayne Owens during one of his elections. It was an exceptional opportunity, a challenging opportunity, because Wayne, again, always liked to dream big and he would ask a lot of the people who worked for him. He pushed people beyond what they thought they could do. And as someone who was rather young at the time, I got to be a campaign manager, and that was something that was a significant development in my own life. So I considered Wayne a friend, a mentor, I considered him my Congressman, and I am pleased to occupy the Second Congressional District office that Wayne once represented so well.

When Wayne came to Congress the first time he happened to be on the Committee on the Judiciary, and he was involved in the impeachment process with then President Nixon. That was an exceptional period in Wayne's life. It was a time when he had invested so much time and effort in terms of examining that issue because he understood the gravity of the situation. This was not a partisan effort. And I remember talking to Wayne about the stories of when he actually voted out those articles of impeachment, about he and his colleagues walking out of the room with tears coming down their faces because they recognized what a difficult circumstance that was for this country.

I think that was one instance where Congress behaved in a professional way, and it showed the strength of this country that we were able to move on from that circumstance, and Wayne Owens was an important player in that process.

It was mentioned earlier about how he advocated for victims of radiation exposure. When Wayne was not in Congress, when he was an attorney, he represented victims of radiation exposure, the widows of the miners that worked in the uranium mines, the people who were told this was safe when it was not. And that work in private life is another example of a guy who acted in the context of service, and when he got to Congress he continued with that and pushed ahead with the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act.

This was a critical issue that forced the Federal Government to acknowledge it had lied to people and exposed people to dangerous radiation through open air testing of nuclear weapons in southern Nevada and also through the uranium mining activities; an important issue for people throughout the Colorado plateau.

As I have gone through these comments, what strikes me is the fact that Wayne Owens was a guy who always had big goals and big objectives, whether it was trying to address a wrong that the Federal Government had committed and force them to admit culpability, whether it was other issues we have heard about today, like pursuing peace in the Middle East, whether it was pursuing a tremendous change in public lands policy in Utah, with Wayne's vision of a wilderness designation in that State. And there were other big goals and lofty dreams that Wayne Owens pursued, some of which are successful today, and some of which the work is going to go on past Wayne's activity in regard to those issues. Significant issues.

I could go on and on. The Central Utah Water Project, a project that had been involved with Federal funding for many, many years but it was going in the wrong direction. Wayne was part of a group that pulled people together from the sportsmen community, from the conservation community, from the agriculture community, and they completed the Central Utah Water Project as a Member of Congress in 1991, a significant issue that moved the State of Utah forward.

That is the Wayne Owens I am going to remember, a guy who would dream big and would relentlessly and tirelessly pursue issues. But what I will also remember is what I pointed out at the start of these comments. This was someone who was incredibly genuine and would listen to people and took the public trust very seriously. It is the type of approach to the job that I think we can all learn from, and I think we can do no better activity to honor Wayne than to follow in that way in terms of how we approach this job.