Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the troops in this country are going to be surprised to find out that the Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee filed a resolution saying that it is the sense of the House of Representatives, apparently as he sees it, that the deployment of the United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately. Apparently, the Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee thinks that we should not have an orderly withdrawal of the troops, thinks that we should not provide for their safety and protection on the withdrawal, thinks that we should not do the things that Mr. Murtha suggested that we do.

It is either that, sir, or they are going to think that this is some sort of a trick, that you filed this so that we would have been looking at something that Mr. Murtha did not want us to look at. Because if you are concerned about what the message is that the troops are getting in Iraq, you would, in fact, have a full-fledged debate here so that Mr. Murtha and other Members of both parties could express clearly and succinctly what it is they believe ought to happen in terms of policy.

But that is not what we are seeing here. You should have a chance for Mr. Murtha to discuss his idea on protecting the troops when there is a redeployment or redeploying to over the horizon so that there will not be a spread of terrorism, of making sure that any redeployment is made with the protection and the safety of the troops. But I do not think that is what is going on here.

You talk about your respect for Mr. Murtha. You talk about his known knowledge for the military, and yet it is you, sir, who comes down here and says that the Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee proposes that the House of Representatives put their statement and their resolve that we should deploy immediately from Iraq and not protect our troops, apparently, because it does not say that, and not provide for their safety, not provide for redeployment somewhere over the horizon so that we will be sure that terrorism does not spread there and we will be ready for any emergency.

If instead you want the troops to get the message that that is not what we want, then why did you not work with your delegation over there to make sure that Mr. Murtha's resolution could be proposed and debated and explained fully and then this country could have the benefit of a full discussion of where the policy is going, because this administration, apparently, has no clue and has no idea. They politicized the lead-up going into the area, and now you are politicizing how it is we are going to get this country back in order and out of there.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand it to ever be the habit of this institution for a Member on one side taking it upon himself to interpret the meaning of a resolution of a Member on the other side without giving that Member the courtesy and the respect of allowing them to put forward what the meaning and intention of their own resolution is. I think, sir, you are playing games.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from California (Mr. George Miller) for yielding to me. As you say, reading those articles is just shocking, but it is nothing new to us.

For a couple of years now, we have been following my colleague's lead as Democrats on the Education and Workforce Committee trying to get the Republicans in this body to understand the need to confront what is nothing short of a crisis. Millions of Americans are in retirement, or they are nearing retirement; and all they are experiencing now is either decreasing health benefits or decreasing pension benefits, and the total loss of one or the other in many instances. It is not fair, it is not right, and in fact it is not sound policy for this country.

For the past century, we have really had a history of gradually improving people's quality of life. Go back to 1938, when Franklin Delano Roosevelt said: ``There is still today a frontier that remains unconquered, an America unclaimed. That is the great nationwide frontier of insecurity, of human want and fear. This is the frontier, the America we have set ourselves to reclaim.''

At the time that he said that, a majority of aging citizens were faced with either working until they dropped or living in poverty as they got older or as ill health set in. But Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his thirst set about doing something about it: Social Security. Eisenhower later on added disability to that, and the Johnson years saw Medicare and Medicaid. All along the way, corporate America actually helped, with Jacob Hacker constructing what they called ``structures of security.'' They guaranteed pensions, generous health care benefits, and generous life insurance.

So we had all of America working together. This was an effort where together America did better. We were protected from what FDR called ``the hazards and vicissitudes of modern industrial life.'' Together, we shielded families and we covered them from uncertainty and fear.

Now that is all settling back in. If you look around and talk to any family, as my colleague has done, talk to families and again that uncertainty and that fear of the future is there for them. Corporate America no longer seems to want to participate. They are taking away health benefits; they are taking away pensions. They do not want to honor the pensions. And my colleague and I both know that people worked for those pensions. It was not something that was just given to them. They gave up extra salary on the promise that the company would set aside that money to build a pension fund or a health care fund for their retirement, for the future. They earned those benefits. They struck a bargain, and now that bargain is being broken.

We are watching as company after company cut back on health benefits, jettison pension obligations, and usually through the side door of bankruptcy. The gentleman mentioned what happened with United. They are not just going to toss them out. They go into a bankruptcy court, and they convince the court that they have to cut loose on those pension funds in order to regroup and come back out of bankruptcy at some point as a healthy company.

But the CEOs do not get hurt. The CEOs and other management people walk out with golden parachutes worth millions of dollars, leaving very little for the people that put their blood and sweat into building that company in the first place and building the value of that stock. We hear the obligatory regrets, we see the handwringing, and we are told there was nothing else to be done.

But we know that is not the case. Most did not exhaust all the avenues to finance a continuation of those pension funds, and my colleague pointed out a number of occasions like that. Most of these companies did not even work with the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation to look at the numerous number of financial vehicles that are out there that could have been used or at least considered to try to keep these plans healthy so that all these employees could have gotten more than they got when they were brought up at the bankruptcy and ignominiously dropped off and dumped.

Shareholders, new shareholders and new owners come out of bankruptcy and find a profitable company and make millions. But people who lost their pensions end up on the short end of it and their livelihoods are getting killed in this process. Companies did not honor their promises. They did not set enough funds aside. They used tricky accounting, unscrupulously applied by management, management obviously more involved with the bottom line and sometimes their own benefits and their own retirement programs than they were with the human needs of all those people that worked so hard to make that company successful.

Whole industries are now parroting what United did. We are watching the airline industry one after the other marching into the bankruptcy courts and saying, hey, this is not so bad. We can dump off our obligation and hurt all these employees, but we might save the company against other creditors. Under this Republican leadership in Congress, we have done nothing about that. We really have not looked at it and have not tried to deal with this problem. We have done way too little.

We have done a little. After 2 years of badgering from the Democratic side of the aisle, we are looking to try to shore up that Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, increasing the fees somewhat, making it more expensive to withdraw. But it is late, and it may or may not be all we need to do to make sure that that works. We have to tighten the rules to make sure we have the proper valuing system going on and to discourage people from dumping the funds.

We also have to set some parity. Maybe the surest way to make sure people get treated fairly is a bill my colleague has proposed to make sure that CEOs and other executives do not get treated much, much better than the employees; that they do not get to dump the employees off while saving themselves. If we had parity, where what is good for the goose is good for the gander, we would not be watching that happen.

We have to create more transparency. This is anther issue we have brought up time and time again. We ought to know ahead of time what the true status of these funds is. It is not enough to, well, say we cannot tell the public because sometimes on paper it looks worse than it is and they will panic. We are talking about adults here. We are talking about people trying to plan their future. And if we let them know what state that pension is in early enough in time, we can get the company and apply enough pressure to maybe correct that situation. That is good for all stakeholders, employees, shareholders, customers, and everybody right down the line.

We should require that the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation and companies try to work these things out before they go to bankruptcy. It ought to be a requirement that they use every single measure available and consider all alternatives and only go in as a last resort.

And we had better find a way to protect workers' pensions if they do go into bankruptcy. What is the explanation why people who have invested over the course of 15, 20, 30 years of work do not have their rights protected as a creditor, yet someone who might have given a loan to the company in the last 6 months gets credited as a preferred creditor and gets supported.

Whose rights are more important and who has a better claim to the assets of that company than the employees who made it what it is?

Finally, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation was not designed to have whole industries fall apart. It was designed that if an occasional company went under, it would be able to shore up and at least give those employees some portion of their retirement benefits so they would not lose everything. But now what we are seeing is other people following the lead of United, whether it is Delphi, United, other airlines, we stand the prospect of having whole industries jumping on the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation as an insurer and they are totally underfunded for that kind of a situation.

We need to look at that and say, is there something that we should set up, another source of funds, whether it is a ticket fee or something else, something that we can set aside so that industry going down does not take on the whole Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation and all corporations and put all those employees at risk.

More broadly, I think we need some leadership here in Congress on this issue. If corporations are not going to do anything about it, what are we going to do? What are we going to put in place for structures of security for the American people? What is our plan to make sure that something is there for people?

People do not save enough. History shows us that. If corporations are going to take their money over a number of years and not hold their promise, what are we going to do as a society to make sure there is some security for people when they retire and can no longer work because of their age or because of their health?

We need 21st century structures of security here. Democrats have been talking about this. We want to do something about it. We have ideas and we are open to a lot of other ideas. We cannot get the conversation started. We are going to keep at it.

Mr. Speaker, there are simple things that we should do just to get started. If we change the default on 401(k) plans so they default into them as opposed to they have to take an affirmative action in order to sign up for them, all of the reports show that would increase savings in this country or at least put a hedge on that.

If we allowed people to bifurcate their tax returns, so instead of one check sent back or put towards next year's taxes, workers could actually have some set aside for a 401(k), reports show it would increase savings.

We cannot get our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join us in doing a simple first step. This is a serious matter. They talk about the ownership policy of the President. But basically it is every man, woman and child for themselves. They are not going to tax the estates of dead people, not going to tax dividends, but are going to tax every ounce of work that causes sweat on your brow, not have companies live up to their promises with respect to your pensions, let companies take away the health care that they promised when you retire.

Mr. Speaker, as a government, we are about much, much more. This is a country that has always had a mixed economy. This is a country that has always relied on having a free market and that was always invigorated by a rigorous public square, public policy that worked for everybody; and corporations and individuals and government leaders worked together to find solutions.

We are ready to do that. If the other side does not want to do that, then step aside and let us go because this is a serious matter for families across the country. They are rightfully worried about this.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3863 is, in fact, a good bill, and I want to congratulate my colleague for filing this bill and working on it.

Obviously, as he stated, the bill directs the Secretary of Education to waive an institution's match requirement and to redistribute millions of dollars in unused campus-based aid funds such as work study and Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants to students and colleges that are impacted by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

The bill in the first instance states that the Secretary shall waive those match requirements if, in fact, an institution is located in the gulf area that is affected by the hurricanes, and it may waive them for institutions that accept for enrollment any affected students after considering an institution's student population, existing resources, and applying objective and consistent criteria. That makes great sense.

Under current law already, colleges that participate in the campus- based aid programs have to return any unused aid to the Secretary of Education at the end of the year. Then the Secretary can reallocate those funds to colleges that have an additional need or return the money to the Treasury.

This bill gives the Secretary the instruction and the latitude to take that money and redistribute it where it is most needed at this particular time after the devastation of the storms. The Department of Education estimates that this change could result in an additional $36 million of student aid to help affected students and colleges this year.

I support this commonsense step and believe that it will provide immediate relief to the affected colleges and students.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Speaker, assuming that my colleague has no other speakers, I yield myself such time as I shall consume.

I just want to, Mr. Speaker, highlight the point that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) finished with in her remarks.

If this bill is enacted, that she was talking about, H.R. 609, which, in fact, redistributes the campus-based aid formula, these very States that we are trying to help today, this afternoon, would be harmed. If it was enacted and those funds were redistributed without adding additional funds to protect schools that now receive assistance under that provision, Louisiana would lose almost $1.2 million in work study funds under the plan. Alabama would lose $1.3 million. Mississippi would lose nearly $2.5 million in work study. So almost $4.5 million in all the three campus-based aid programs.

This clearly does not make sense. Rearranging the deck chairs on a sinking ship is not going to save that ship from going down.

In higher education, we have a tremendous obligation now to have more children take advantage of college and graduate. It used to be a high school education was enough to catapult a son or daughter into the middle class. We all know today that that is not enough any longer, that we really need to encourage 2 to 4 years beyond high school; and in doing that, campus-based aid plays a very significant and important role.

Redistributing the funds in such a way that you are taking them away

from some campuses and then putting them on other campuses is, in fact, as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) said, taking from Peter to pay Paul.

The fact of the matter is we ought to increase the funding so that no student loses current assistance and new students who should be getting it do indeed receive the assistance that they need.

A reallocation of campus-based funds must include a significant boost in that funding in order to continue our efforts here so we give more children the responsibility and the opportunity to complete a college degree.

The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and I had offered that amendment in committee. It failed on a tie vote, 24 to 24. We got significant bipartisan support. In fact, a number of schools would be impacted. More than 80 Members of Congress have signed a letter to the committee asking them to take that offending provision that would redistribute the funds without adding additional money, to take that out of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I will place in the Record at this point a list of each of the States and how much money they would lose on campus-based aid if that redistributed formula under H.R. 609 passed without adding more funds in.

Mr. Chairman, years ago it was enough to have an education from kindergarten through 12 years, and now it is not enough. People know that you have to have a couple or 3 years before kindergarten and 2 to 4 years afterwards. It is now essential. It is a priority to have early childhood education. It is a difference between a child's future development and learning advantages, especially for those students that are disadvantaged like the ones that are served by the Head Start program. It makes them prepared for school.

A national review of 36 studies on the long-term impact of early childhood education programs found that low-income children who participated in such programs were less likely to be held back, less likely to be placed in special education classes, more likely to succeed in school, more likely to graduate, and more likely to be rated as behaving well in class and better adjusted in school.

Researchers have also concluded that there is a greater chance of these positive outcomes when young children are taught by teachers with bachelor's degrees in early childhood education. One of the largest national studies in this early education field was conducted by the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development. It showed that caregiver education and training were among the strongest predictors of quality in programs for preschoolers.

That is why it is a good thing that this bill has in it a provision that half of the Head Start teachers have to hold bachelor's degrees within a few years. That is an admirable goal.

We talked in committee about the fact that it is necessary for us to try to help that population of teachers be able to afford that. In Massachusetts, my State, they make less than half the salaries of kindergarten teachers. The national average is almost as bad.

I congratulate the chairman for working with us on the Higher Education Act to make sure there is a loan forgiveness program, $5,000 for 5 years commitment to teach early childhood education, that will help with this particular issue.

Significant improvements have been made to this Head Start bill. That is why it was unanimous approval essentially in committee. I am afraid some of the recommendations that are being put forward in the amendments here today are spectacular efforts to drive a wedge between the parties on this, to make it a less-than-unanimous bill. It is unnecessary, it is unfortunate, and I hope there is no discrimination in hiring practices. We can do better than that and pass a bill that is worthy of this Congress and helpful to the United States people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concern for the victims of Hurricane Katrina. Our thoughts are with all those who have been stranded by the storm, separated from their family and friends, and have suffered from tremendous personal and emotional losses. Worst of all is that it was the least among us--the poor, elderly, and infirm--who appeared to suffer the most. Television broadcasts beamed poignant images of those that could not leave, who were now forced to survive in an inhabitable city seemingly overcome with the presence of death and overtaken by depravity.

Adding to our grief and inflaming our outrage is that the Federal Government was woefully unprepared for this disaster. As the world watched, we responded in a way that was completely unacceptable. Despite assurance by FEMA Director Michael Brown that his organization was taking steps to ensure that disaster teams could respond within 12 hours and that disaster relief supplies could be delivered anywhere in the country in 24 hours, stranded residents in New Orleans reportedly went 4 days without deliveries of food and water. Inaction, mismanagement, and the inability to put the appropriate personnel and resources in the right place at the right time exacerbated an already grave natural disaster.

The scope of the tragedy we have seen in the Gulf Coast was not only anticipated but could have been minimized if the appropriate steps were taken. Multiple studies had identified the potentially devastating effects of a hurricane striking New Orleans. The Army Corps of Engineers requested funds for critical reinforcements to the levees in New Orleans but those calls have been unanswered. Further, as has been widely reported, since its transfer to the Department of Homeland Security, FEMA has been significantly diminished and undervalued.

However, after these sorrowful pictures that now seem so permanently seared on our conscience begin to fade, after the appropriate investigations occur on what went so tragically wrong, and after the devastated areas start to rebuild, we must take more from Hurricane Katrina than how to better plan, prepare, and respond for a potential natural disaster. We must finally begin to recognize and remember that the Federal Government can help Americans live better lives. For too long now, the Federal Government has catered to those who can well take care of themselves. It's about time we started to care and demonstrate compassion for those being left behind not just in New Orleans but throughout America.

Mr. Speaker, this so-called Small Business Health Fairness Act is a bill that is attractive to a few, seems to be sufficient for none, and is going to be harmful for many.

The Congressional Budget Office did an estimate of the proposed bill. It estimated that only 600,000 of the 45 million uninsured will be provided new insurance coverage by these AHPs. In fact, the respected 2003 Mercer Consultant Study that was done for the National Small Business Association found that the number of uninsured will increase by 1 million, as increased nonassociated market costs force small employers to drop coverage.

The fact of the matter is there is not going to be the dramatic savings proposed here. That is not going to materialize. The Congressional Budget Office found that these premiums for AHPs would only be marginally less than traditional premiums for health care plans.

In fact, the 2003 Mercer Study found that premiums would increase by 23 percent for those outside the AHP market. It also found that there would be an increase in the number of uninsured workers in small firms, an increase of 1

million people as a result of this plan being implemented.

Again, the fact of the matter is that Americans would also lose their right to vital medical coverage, like OB-GYN and pediatrician services, cervical, colon, mammography and prostate cancer screening, maternity benefits, well-care child services, and diabetes treatment.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is going to disallow a lot of State protections. In fact, that is how you get cheaper insurance. If you want to lower the price, you just do not give people the coverage that they need and deserve. Almost all of the States that we talk about have protections for people with coverage. Almost every Member of this House voted for the Federal Patient Bill of Rights that would have recognized these State protections that are in place for insurance programs; yet this bill would take those out carte blanche.

As a person in small business for over 22 years, and having represented a lot of small businesses, I can tell you from personal experience that small business employers do not want inferior coverage for their employees. We cannot allow it to happen again here. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that AHPs really already exist. They are called the multiple employer welfare arrangements, the MEWAs. The public record is filled with stories of failed MEWAs that left employers and employees alike with unpaid medical bills. From 1988 to 1991, dozens of MEWAs failed, leaving 400,000 individuals with over $123 million of unpaid medical claims.

Small business owners and their families and their employees deserve protections. They deserve to go to the emergency room. Women in small businesses deserve to go to gynecologists without referral from another doctor. Why should we treat small business owners and employees as second-class citizens and give them second-class health care? Instead of extending the patient protections to all Americans, this AHP bill would actually roll them back and roll back the limited protections that they get today.

Plainly speaking, Mr. Speaker, this bill eliminates all those protections. For this reason and for the other reasons I have mentioned, and the fact that over 1,000 different organizations oppose this bill, the National Governors Association, the Republican Governors Association, 41 State attorneys general, the National Small Business Administration, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, as well as a dozen other labor, business and consumer groups think that this is not a good bill, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and vote for the substitute.

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Boston Yacht Club (BYC) of Marblehead, Massachusetts, which this year is celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Marblehead-to-Halifax Ocean Race.

The race began in 1905 as an informal competition among sailors from the Boston, Eastern and New York Yacht Clubs. In 1939, the Boston Yacht Club joined with the Royal Nova Scotia Yacht Squadron to formalize this biennial event.

The race is run on alternate years from the Newport Bermuda Race, as one of the preeminent ocean races of the North Atlantic. The course runs 360 nautical miles from Marblehead through the Gulf of Maine, across the Bay of Fundy and up to Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.

There are few sailing sights as thrilling as the Marblehead-to- Halifax Ocean Race, which traditionally begins the second week in July. More than 100 spectator boats look on as over 100 racing yachts maneuver for starting position. The race committee is assisted by dozens of official boats and by both the United States and Canadian Coast Guard.

The Boston Yacht Club was founded in 1866, and at one time operated from five different locations in Massachusetts and one in Maine. Today the club operates from a single station in Marblehead, with 400 yachts flying the BYC burgee.

It is appropriate that the House recognize the Boston Yacht Club for continuing the tradition of the Marblehead-to-Halifax Ocean Race, which is part of the rich seafaring history of Marblehead.

In closing, I would like to acknowledge that many Boston Yacht Club members are running the race in memory of their comrade Paul Simon of Marblehead, who had intended to race this year, but was tragically killed with his wife Sanda in an automobile accident last March.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I think that this budget as well as these spending bills are clear expressions of the values of the majority party and the White House, but they are clearly not the expression of the values of this country. This country believes in moving forward and investing in its future. It believes in having education for its children, opportunity for everyone, health care.

We are cutting to the bone. This is not a debate about cutting waste and fraud. This is a decision that has been made to give enormous amounts of money back to people that are already very, very wealthy; and the choice was to get that money to cut into education, not to fund No Child Left Behind, not to fund community health clinics, not to fund job training programs, not to fund those things that make this country strong and give us a promise for opportunity and prosperity.

This is the wrong way for us to go. The American people understand that this majority is not talking to the issues that matter most to them. The issues that matter for them are the future of this country and not just arbitrarily giving money back to people who, frankly, have not asked for it and do not need it. At a time when our country is stretched, there is a need of making sure that we have a competitive strategy. Other countries are moving forward. We need to get even, move ahead, and do what this country is capable of doing, and that is lead.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. Regrettably, although the Rules Committee apparently found it in order to allow in the continuity of Congress aspect, it did not make in order an amendment that I offered to establish a special commission, a committee, to investigate the awarding and carrying out of contracts to conduct activities in Afghanistan and Iraq. This amendment is critical toward ensuring that we effectively exercise our congressional oversight responsibilities.

Congress has already appropriated some $277 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and that does not include the $45 billion in so-called bridge funding which was part of the defense appropriations bill which passed the House on Monday. We have

repeatedly and rightfully recognized that we have to meet the operational, technical, and equipment needs of our troops that are stationed over in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is paramount.

However, the fact of the matter is that when it comes to ensuring that those funds that we have appropriated for that purpose are properly managed and monitored, Congress has been largely silent.

I am heartened the gentleman from Connecticut's (Mr. Shays) subcommittee held a hearing yesterday, and I am heartened that the Committee on Armed Services held a hearing in a subcommittee back in 2004. But that is not nearly the amount of activity this Congress should be taking. We must do much better. Every single dollar that is wasted or lost in Iraq and Afghanistan because of mismanagement or fraud in contracting is one less dollar that can go to protect our troops, one less dollar for body armor, and one less dollar for protective equipment that can save lives.

To that point, on Monday the Boston Globe cited the Marine Corps Inspector General's report and reported that the estimated 30,000 Marines in Iraq need twice as many heavy machine guns, more fully protected armored vehicles, and more communications equipment to operate in a region the size of Utah.

One of the functions of this select committee that is proposed would be to see that our soldiers are properly equipped to carry out their mission. In fact, the original Truman Committee that was put in place during World War II is believed to have saved thousands of lives as the result of its success in cutting through the bureaucracy and making sure that effective weapons and other war supplies were not a part of the problem in that enterprise. The bottom line in this Congress, however, is that we have not lived up to our oversight responsibilities. We have abdicated them. We have relied on the administration to perform that role for us, and they have not done it, and we have shunned our responsibilities.

Here is their most recent record: In March and early April, we learned that the Pentagon auditors found that $212 million was paid to Kuwaiti and Turkish subcontractors for fuel that the Pentagon auditors concluded was exorbitantly priced. Halliburton then passed those payments on to the taxpayer. In late April, according to the Washington Post, the Government Accountability Office found that officials from the Departments of Defense and Interior who were charged with overseeing a contract to provide interrogators at Abu Ghraib ``did not fully carry out their roles and responsibilities, the contractor was allowed to play a role in the procurement process normally performed by the government.''

In May, the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction found that out of $119.9 million allocated for rebuilding projects, $96.6 million could not be sufficiently documented or fully accounted for at all.

In June, a Committee on Government Reform report, prepared by the gentleman from California's (Mr. Waxman) staff, cited an instance of $600 million in cash being shipped from Baghdad to four regions in Iraq to allow commanders flexibility to fund local reconstruction projects. An audit of one of the four regions found that more than 80 percent of the funds could not be properly accounted for and that over $7 million was simply missing.

A pattern exists here, whether it is revenues from the Iraqi oil sales or whether it is funds from the pockets of the American taxpayers. We are not taking our responsibility, and flagrant lack of contractor and bureaucratic accountability is taking place under our eyes. If we do not sufficiently account for these measures and have vigorous congressional oversight, how can we assure that our troops are going to get sufficient protection and that our taxpayers' interests will be protected?

My colleagues know that this is not the first time that we have had this amendment on the floor. They have now had at least four opportunities to stand up and be accountable to the American taxpayer, to make sure that our troops are protected. In every instance it has been essentially a party-line vote, with only two Members of the majority standing up for the rights of the taxpayer and the rights of our troops in this instance.

It is difficult to fathom that tomorrow this majority is going to bring on the floor of this House a bill for Health and Human Services and Education where they are going to cut to the bone, saying that there is no money. There will be less money for Pell grants for kids that want to go to college. There will be less money for elementary and secondary schools. We will fall further behind in our commitments to No Child Left Behind. We will not fund appropriate health care costs, like health clinics. We will not even fund the President's own commitment to high school reform and to community colleges. All, ostensibly, because there is no money. And yet the majority in this Congress refuses to do the oversight on over almost $300 billion where we know there have been flagrant abuses.

We need to do the right thing in this Congress. This is time for us to take the previous question, defeat it, make sure that this amendment comes on the floor. We will give them yet another opportunity to show that this House will live up to its responsibilities and protect the integrity of this fine institution.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

I rise to discuss H.R. 2475. It is a bill that, as people have said, takes a number of steps to strengthen our intelligence capabilities and, for those reasons, is supportable. Nevertheless, like most bills, it has parts that need to be moved on and worked on still.

As was mentioned, I am new to this committee, so first I want to recognize the efforts of all of my colleagues on the committee and the staff who did incredible work on this. I also want to acknowledge the fact that my minority colleagues have been outspoken during the past couple of years on a number of issues, and I want to thank them and my majority colleagues for incorporating those issues in this bill and, of course, the majority adding their own approval.

On the plus side, as has been mentioned, 100 percent funding for counterterrorism in the base budget is a huge step forward. We need to make sure we build on that. The White House proposal to fund 60 percent of that in a supplemental budget would have undermined our plans and operations, so 100 percent is a big step in the right direction. The bipartisan willingness to keenly scrutinize architectural programs for the quality, for the program management, for the budget responsibility, for cost is also important. It is helpful to allow for investments in human intelligence, and it can bring more public confidence to the work we do in this area.

I think it would be well-placed to put that kind of scrutiny on the whole budget at large, and I think we should consider making more of the Select Committee on Intelligence budget process public, to the extent possible, including at least the aggregate amount of money being spent so that the public will be able to focus on that and have more confidence.

The best intelligence oversight begins with looking at the 9/11 Commission's recommendations for reform of Congress's intelligence committees. We still need to do a considerable amount of work there concerning how those committees will be formulated and what budgetary appropriation aspect will be within what body. We need renewed oversight, and the Subcommittee on Oversight that has been formed and mentioned earlier is an improvement. Its time would be well spent if we ensure that the DNI and the DNI office is set up largely in line with Commission recommendations. We do not need another sprawling bureaucracy. It will be well-served to have a streamlined executive staff that utilizes existing agencies and moves forward on that basis. And it has to have the authority to ensure that the network agencies are reformed, coordinated, and effective. It also needs the authority to make sure that we have the appropriate budgetary and personnel powers within the DNI to work.

The DNI should follow the recommendation of the blue ribbon commission to establish a Civil Liberties Board and ensure that it effectively protects the civil liberties, even as we make sure aggressive intelligence measures are pursued. This too is essential to maintain public trust. It is as important as it is to require that we use taxpayer money wisely, and it is every bit as essential that our intelligence operate within the law.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), and thank the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) as well for your leadership on this issue, and for convening this e-hearing and also taking this time on the floor tonight.

I think it is imperative to read as many of these e-mails as possible into the Record and express the voice of so many people that earned their pensions, that worked their long work lives and took as a form of deferred compensation the rights to these pension benefits. They sacrificed pay raises and sacrificed other benefits in exchange for what they thought was a promise from the company that they were going to get this pension when they retired.

One UAL person wrote in and said, ``I joined UAL with stars in my eyes believing the promise of opportunity, a secure benefit package and the enthusiasm of being part of something great.''

Well, it really has not been something great for them. As the gentleman mentioned, in every way the employees tried to work it out with the company. I am so used, as the gentleman is, from hearing executives tell us, oh, the employees will not cooperate, the employees and their high costs are driving this company down.

Well, it was the employees at UAL that actually went into an ESOP program, an employee stock option program, that turned out to be near worthless for them in the long run. Some lost hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to help the company out. They underwent cuts in pay, they forewent benefits, and all of this to find the company surreptitiously sneaks into bankruptcy for 2\1/2\ years and then slides their benefits into bankruptcy and they end up going into the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation and getting about 30 to 40 percent of the benefits, if they are lucky.

These letters, these e-mails, are written about feelings of betrayal, absolute feelings of betrayal. They say it is a sign of what they think is happening to the moral fiber of this country. They wonder on a philosophical level how this is going to impact the values that they have been brought up with and they have been instilling in their children.

Jacob Acker said not too long ago that in 1938 FDR talked about the last great unconquered frontier of America was the frontier of uncertainty and insecurity. And then as a country we set out to do something about it. We worked with corporations, with employee groups, we worked with private groups and our government and we put in Social Security, we put in pensions, we put in health care benefits, the minimum wage, the GI Bill. We put in structures and security so people in this country would no longer feel that they were confronting that frontier of insecurity and uncertainty.

But here we are in 2005, we find out executives and management of a company can turn it around and take their promises and turn them into dust and take their employees and put them into sheer desperation, so that again in 2005 we are again facing a frontier of uncertainty and insecurity. And it is incumbent on this Congress to finally act.

I say to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), as ranking member of this Committee on Education and Workforce, and the members on the minority side who have been banging away for some time now saying this is an impending problem that has to be addressed, where is Congress on this matter? Where is the White House on this matter? They are dealing with issues the American public does not even care about. You look at what has happened so far this year on the agenda of this Congress and the White House. It is not about jobs, it is not about health care, it is not about education for people's children, and it is not about pension protection and retirement.

The closest the President comes is trying to privatize Social Security, which would put these people in further jeopardy. And that is what I hear often from the people at United. Boy, if they ever realized about the guaranteed benefit of Social Security being

important, they now realize it, because what they thought was a benefit due them from their employment has gone out the window.

As I said, these stories are touching. But they are more than touching; they are tragic. For many of the people here, it is too late to start over. I think in one of the letters that either the gentleman or the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) read, they talked about dedicating their life to the company for a promise and now being faced with decisions that they never thought they would have to face and making choices they never thought they would have to make.

What about their health care? Are they going to be able to afford it for themselves, for their loved ones, particularly for their children? There are 120,000 employees that face these deep benefit cuts. It is going to make a serious impact, and many of them are concerned for themselves, but, even more so, for what happens if other companies follow in the footsteps of United.

What happens if this Congress under Republican leadership continues to fail to act to shore up these defined benefit pensions, to shore up the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation system so that it takes care of people, to make sure that every corporation does not decide to slide into bankruptcy and dump its responsibilities onto the PBGC and to hurt their employees and leave them no recourse. We need to act.

Let me read one letter, if I can, from my district, Kevin P. Creighan and Cathy J. Hampton from Lynn, Massachusetts. They e-mailed in: ``We know that approximately 120,000 current and former employees will suffer if United Airlines is allowed to hand its pensions over to the PBGC. I will address the concerns of two of those current employees, my wife Cathy and myself, as examples of the upcoming devastation.

``Cathy has been with United for 27 years, and I have been there for 29, a combined 56 years of working hard, earning a living, and all along expecting a pension in 7 years' time when we planned to retire. At our retirement, between us we expected to have 70 years of loyal service to our employer, single employer; and we each expected to receive monthly pension checks of about $2,500 per month.

``If United is allowed to break its promise to pay our pensions, our actuaries tell us we would each probably receive less than $1,000 per month. We are already told that we could work an additional 15 years and we might get closer to our current pension, but that is predicated upon a very strong stock market and successful investments. Work 15 more years, and only to get closer to something else.

``Our retirement income would drop by 60 percent unless we choose to work beyond 70 years of age. This is not the American way. We thank you for considering how dreadful this situation is, not only for the two of us, but for our 120,000 colleagues who have worked every bit as hard.''

We have letter after letter from Massachusetts residents and people in my district that show, exactly as the gentleman's have, this is a tragic failure of Congress to respond and a tragic action by a corporation that should know better and should have acted differently.

If the gentleman will yield further, one of the things not true is most of these executives have not worked anywhere near the number of years that these employees have worked for that company. Many of them come on as directors of the board or in high-level positions for a much shorter period of time, qualify for some pretty extravagant pension rights of their own, solidify them by putting them in a trust that cannot be touched in a bankruptcy proceeding, and go out merrily into the sunset having destroyed a company, or at least their employees' chances to have a decent, dignified retirement.

If the gentleman will yield further, compare that to John Lagadinos from Billerica, Massachusetts. He is a retired aircraft mechanic with 42 years of service with United Airlines, 35 years were spent working the nightshift, afternoons, midnights, working most weekends, Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, with, as he says, no social life to speak of.

He says, ``We also worked in rain, sleet and cold, heat and cold. The executives didn't. So cold in the winter our hands would be cracked and bleeding from working on the aircraft outside.

``Contractually our monthly medical insurance for my wife and I was $22 per month pre-65 years of age and $24 per month post-65.

But, recently, that has been increased to $214 per month, with a decrease in coverage and an increase in out-of-pocket cost. So it is not bad enough that their pension rights are being shaved down to less than 15 percent but that they are heaped on with additional medical expenses, another promise that was made to them that is not being kept by corporations, as more and more companies are starting to default on their retirement health benefits as well. So it is a double whammy.

The prescription drug costs have increased from the $5 generic, $10 name brand to $19 generic, $51 name brand. His wife and he use four name brand drugs costing $204, that used to cost them $40.

Then he talks about what the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) talked about earlier. These same employees went into an employee stock option plan at the request of the company to try to save the company. They were not allowed to contribute to the 401(k) that they paid on their own. The company never contributed to the 401(k). In lieu of wages, they were given useless stocks and ended up selling on the employees for about a dollar a share. For this individual, it was costing about $160,000, which he lost.

He says, with all of these losses and losing a portion of our pension, too, I do not know how we will make it. They do not want this to become a precedent for other companies. Thank you for your concern and action.

Concern is something that we have here. Action is what this Congress needs to do and which it has not been doing.

Mr. Speaker, I do not have to remind the gentleman from California about his efforts to have the committee go to the administration and get that information about where does the rest of the employment situation lie, where are the rest of these pensions in terms of their viability. The fact of the matter is we have been unable to get that information until very recently. We got some of it.

But what is the problem with disclosing that to the American public? What is the problem with the Congress knowing the full extent and the public knowing the full extent, how many companies are in this precarious situation? That, if anything, would force Congress hopefully to get up and act.

Something that we have known, something that the gentleman has led the way in writing to the committee, speaking to the committee and the administration on this issue and now trying to get the information that will compel them to act on it. Because it is devastating to learn just how many companies are in a situation that are near default or problematic.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, my motion to recommit is simple and straightforward and deserves the support of every Member of this body. It would amend the criminal code to prohibit defrauding the government in connection with the reconstruction efforts in Iraq.

My motion would make it clear that these outrageous and unpatriotic activities would be subject to prison time and monetary penalties. Every single

dollar that is wasted because of corporate fraud or abuse in Iraq is one less dollar that can go to protect our troops, one less dollar for body armor, one less dollar for protective equipment that can save lives.

It is an unfortunate fact of life that, today, in Iraq, taxpayer funds are being routinely wasted by organized corporate criminals. The American taxpayer is being defrauded by a system of distributing funds that is totally unaccountable. This not only demeans and cheapens the sacrifices that our military and civilian personnel are making in Iraq, it endangers their lives.

Mr. Speaker, just last week, the House spent another $82 billion of taxpayer funds on the war. The cost of the war had already been over $200 billion. We also learned this week that the Pentagon auditors found that $212 million was paid to Kuwaiti and Turkish subcontractors for fuel the Pentagon auditors concluded was exorbitantly priced. Halliburton passed these payments onto the taxpayer.

That may be just the tip of the iceberg, as billions of dollars are being expended in Iraq with precious little accountability. While there are fraud statutes to protect against wasted tax dollars at home, none expressly prohibit war profiteering, and none expressly confer extraterritorial jurisdiction overseas, as my motion would do.

Against this backdrop, it is imperative that this Congress send a strong signal that we will not tolerate taxpayer rip-offs at the expense of our troops. I offer this amendment now because this bill before us is open ended as a crime bill. It not only deals with gangs but it amends the criminal laws on matters concerning hearsay, venues, statute of limitations and sentencing. It also authorizes new grants and databases, among other things. If we are going to do all of this, it certainly is appropriate that we also amend the criminal laws to combat blatant contract fraud in Iraq to protect our brave troops.

When concerns about wartime fraud were raised during World War II, President Roosevelt declared it was our duty to ensure that a few do not gain from the sacrifices of the many. Then, as now, our government cannot in good faith ask its people to sacrifice for reconstruction efforts that allow so many others to unfairly profit.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this commonsense motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose any rule that does not allow for consideration of an amendment to investigate the government contracts with regard to our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This supplemental that we are talking about under the rule is $82 billion in additional spending, bringing it to almost $300 billion for spending on combat operations, occupation and support for our military personnel.

Congress rightfully is trying to meet its operational and technical and equipment needs of our troops. But it also has to ensure that these funds are properly managed and that they are monitored, and in that regard, we have been largely silent in this Congress.

We should make no mistake about it, there is more than enough reasons to be careful and to scrutinize the procurement process. The Center for Strategic and International Studies made an analysis and said as little as 27 cents of every dollar spent on Iraqi reconstruction has actually filtered down to projects benefiting Iraqis.

Taxpayers for Common Sense cited a KPMG study. It said that the Commander's Emergency Response Program, which is a program designed to allow U.S. military officers to quickly fund small reconstruction projects, maintain little documentation on how tax dollars were spent: 42 cases worth, $13 billion, where there were no contracts on file; 142 cases totaling $40 million, where there was no proof that the work was even done.

These are only a few of the examples. We have a situation where it is reported by BBC News that Transparency International warns that post- war Iraq reconstruction is in danger of becoming the biggest corruption scandal in history. They said there is evidence of high levels of corruption in post-war Iraq, and it is critical of the United States' handling of reconstruction programs. And they said they favor a small number of large firms who they awarded public contracts, and they were all too secretive.

We have report after report of Halliburton and other corporations not having enough oversight. The Wall Street Journal reports that the Pentagon auditors are questioning $212 million that Halliburton company billed Washington to deliver fuel to Iraq saying that it may well constitute overbilling. This criticism continues to go on about sole- source contracts and other issues that ought to be explored.

We can have substantive differences about the merits of the way we are conducting military policy. But there ought to be unanimous agreement in this Congress ensuring our role that taxpayer dollars are effectively and judiciously spent.

We should establish a select committee. That is why the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and I filed a Truman Commission measure that should be included as an amendment to this bill. It would put a select committee to study, among other things, the bidding, the contracting, the auditing standards, and issuance of government contracts, the oversight procedures, and the forms of payment and safeguards against money laundering, the accountability of contractors and government officials involved in procurement, and the allocation of contracts to foreign companies and small businesses.

Yes, we modelled it after the original Truman Commission. In 1941, that Truman Committee saved about $15 billion in taxpayer money; 432 public hearings; 1,800 witnesses.

Mr. Speaker, the American people have a right to have oversight done by this body. It is our job to do it. It is demanded by it. We should craft a rule that protects this amendment and ensures the public resources are safeguarded.

The Truman Committee was also unanimously respected for its focus on fact-finding and its refusal to succumb to partisan considerations. Mr. Leach and I share that view and believe that congressional oversight of these huge sums should not be a partisan issue. Critics may say that there is no need to create

a select committee when Congress has standing committees to perform this role. Regrettably, those standing committees have not vigorously exercised their institutional oversight role. While Mr. Shays's Subcommittee on National Security has attempted to draw attention to this issue, the full Government Reform Committee has convened only four hearings on the Iraq contracting process.

Similarly, the House Armed Services Committee touched on this issue during a June 2004 Readiness Subcommittee hearing, however--beyond that--they have not pursued the issue. To that point, highlighting the need for such a select committee, the Ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, Ike Skelton, has co-sponsored the bill from which this amendment is based.

Critics may disqualify this amendment on a technicality, suggesting it authorizes on an appropriations bill. To that, I would respectfully point out that there are other provisions of this bill--some of which strengthen the underlying text--that include authorizing language.

I would ask that this Committee craft a rule that protects this amendment and ensures that our ever-scarce public resources will be safeguarded.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) for yielding me this time, and I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), as well as the gentlewoman from California, for working to reauthorize the Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act.

I have to note, however, at the same time we are debating this reauthorization, we have the problem that the President's budget and the conference report to the budget resolution that we passed just last week eliminate this worthy program. I hope our debate and discussion of this today indicates our support of moving forward and making sure that we do not only authorize but fund this particular program.

As has been mentioned already, this is a law that provides quality vocational education at high schools and community colleges that teach and enhance workforce skills. We have a serious need for a skilled workforce in this evolving economy. We have a shortage of skilled workers in technical fields; so, obviously, the importance of quality education and career preparation in developing that skilled workforce should be imperative. Our support for this Perkins vocational opportunity ought to continue.

Perkins career and technical education provides programs, policies and resources for students to obtain education and training that they need for those high-wage, high-skilled jobs. I think we all agree that every student deserves a fair and equal opportunity for a quality education that meets the need for personal and academic career development. This program does that for millions of students.

The United States Department of Education Office of Vocational and Adult Education tells us that one-third of college students are involved in career and technical programs, and that over 40 million adult learners engage in short term, post-secondary educational opportunity and training.

Before I close, I would like to address one particular aspect of this bill, and that is that this bill merges the successful tech prep program into Perkins basic State grants. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and I tried to amend that in the committee and were not successful. We wanted to restore the separate authorization for tech prep. If we restore the separate authorization, we would block any potential loss of funds.

The General Accountability Office indicates when programs are block granted, they not only lose funding eventually, but the focus on the program is lost and accountability is lost. We hope to deliver these programs through the State-wide network of consortia of secondary schools, post-secondary institutions, employment and training providers, and business and industry groups so they can work collaboratively on this tech prep program. It is a seamless pathway for that type of education into high-tech fields, and it is important. Many groups are behind this. I ask hopefully the Senate version will prevail in the final bill, and that program will survive.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with my fellow members of the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues to commemorate the Armenian Genocide. Today, I stand with them and with Armenian-Americans in the 6th District of Massachusetts as we rightfully recognize and renounce the unpardonable horror that occurred 90 years ago.

What began in 1915 when Ottoman Empire officials forcibly led Armenians to their brutal death lasted until 1923. Those 8 long years saw the deaths of 1.5 million innocent victims, who were unsuspectingly led from their homes, their schools, their places of work and worship only to be systematically slaughtered at the hands of Turkish guards.

All the while, the world stood silent, failing to act despite the fact the number of unmarked graves multiplied exponentially throughout Armenia. The tremendous magnitude of this

genocide did not move prominent nations or their people to act. This is why, today, as we remember the victims of the Armenian genocide, we must also reject our collective unresponsiveness to this mass murder.

Regrettably, this pattern continued throughout the 20th century--in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s, in Rwanda in the 1990s, and elsewhere throughout the world. Another such tragic example has emerged in Sudan. It is estimated that 300,000 or more people have been massacred in Darfur. One million people have been displaced from their homes, and more than 200,000 refugees have been forced to flee to neighboring Chad. We must not continue to ignore the dire situation in Darfur. In fact, the lessons of the Armenian Genocide, among others, should teach us that we must take further action in Sudan.

Today, I honor the 90th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, offer my respects to those who were killed, and pay tribute to the commitment and perseverance of the Armenian-Americans who have tirelessly struggled to ensure that the great sorrow of their people becomes known to all people.