Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Castle-Markey amendment to strike Section 320 of H.R. 6.

The bill that the Committee reported last week provides the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) the authority to approve LNG import terminals. Although this provision allows FERC to consult with state governments, this signals a departure from current law whereby states and localities play a significant role in siting decisions. Protecting the health, welfare, and safety of the surrounding communities--as well as preserving the environment and not disturbing commerce--are critical factors when determining where to site an LNG facility. Let me ask: who knows better than the local officials how a proposed facility will affect their area? To diminish their role in the process, as this provision will, only does a disservice to our constituents who trust us to act wisely on their behalf. At a time when there is a proliferation of onshore and offshore proposed LNG projects, and as there currently exists no framework to make sure that we are meeting our national demand for natural gas in a way that makes sense and best meets the regional needs of American communities, Congress should be strengthening the rights of those in our cities and towns and ensuring they have a vocal and viable role in the process. Section 320 does the opposite. I believe it should be struck from the bill, and urge my colleagues' support for the Castle-Markey amendment.

Section 320 is one of a number of provisions in H.R. 6 that tramples on the rights of states:

This bill provides unnecessary liability protections for manufacturers of MTBE, thus forcing the clean-up cost of drinking-water Contamination to states and localities instead of sending the bill where it belongs: to the polluters themselves. This legislation doesn't just reward polluters, it pays them--giving the MTBE production companies $1.75 billion in so-called ``transition costs'' as the pollutant is phased out by 2015. That is irresponsible and fundamentally unfair to the American taxpayers.

The bill also repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA). PUHCA limits the geographic size and types of subsidiaries energy companies can operate. The law is necessary to help states regulate large, multi-state electricity companies by keeping their corporate structures transparent. Without PUHCA, states will find themselves helpless to protect their consumers against the actions of scandalous energy companies like Enron.

This bill grants the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) jurisdiction over reliability standards for electricity transmission networks, allowing the FERC to approve new power lines over states' objections. It abolishes states' rights to meaningful input and participation in decisions over power lines and transmission networks.

The bill also fails to recognize and reflect successful practices being put into use at the state level. Initiatives like California's plan to limit carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles and New York's efforts to organize a consortium of Northeastern states to begin reducing power-plant emissions show promise and ought to be promoted on the federal level.

We had the chance to encourage state innovation with this bill, but its authors and GOP Leadership squandered that opportunity. I am a co- sponsor of Rep. Tom Udall's renewable portfolio standard bill (H.R. 983), which was offered as an amendment to the energy bill before the Rules Committee but was not made in order. This amendment would establish a state renewable energy account program along with setting guidelines for a renewable portfolio standard. Another missed opportunity here means another missed opportunity to enlist the states as our partners in promoting innovative energy programs to lead us toward a stable energy future instead of undermining states' rights.

This bill also deals a serious blow to the environment. Longstanding public health and environmental laws are under assault in this bill.

Saturday's New York Times reported that H.R. 6 includes a provision that, should it become enacted into law, would constitute one of the most sweeping changes to the Clean Air Act in 15 years. The provision would allow communities to delay cleaning up their dirty air, and complying with national air quality standards, if their pollution is derived from other heavily concentrated areas. This undermines the intent of the Clean Air Act and may lead to increased cases of asthma, which, according to the EPA, already afflicts 20 million Americans, including 6.3 million children.

Hydraulic fracturing, an invasive oil and gas recovery technique, that may contaminate drinking water has been removed from the Safe Drinking Water Act. News reports indicate that the Halliburton Corporation is the largest practitioner of hydraulic fracturing and has been lobbying for this provision.

Rather than seizing an opportunity to address skyrocketing gas prices (the average price is $2.28), reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and foreign oil, improve our fuel efficiency standards, and bolster the incentives to develop and utilize alternative energy sources, the energy bill before us today upholds the unacceptable status-quo and exacerbates our many current problems, as it:

Authorizes $8 billion in tax breaks for oil, gas, and nuclear companies, while directing less than $600 million to promote renewable energy and conservation-related initiatives;

Opens Alaska to oil drilling, although the U.S. Geological Survey projects that the Arctic Refuge has only approximately 3.2 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil, equivalent to what the U.S. consumes in less than 6 months, and would take between 10 and 12 years to introduce the oil into the marketplace; and

Exempts companies drilling on public lands from paying royalties for oil and natural gas

extracted from public lands, which is required under current law and has resulted in billions in additional revenue for states over the past five years.

The bottom-line with this bill, however, is that--as its previous incarnations have done--it reinforces the wrong priorities at the expense of consumers, the environment, and American taxpayers. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 6.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the North Shore Music Theatre at Dunham Woods in Beverly, Massachusetts, which this year is celebrating its fifty-year anniversary.

The North Shore Music Theatre has been entertaining local audiences and visitors since 1955, presenting both classic and innovative musicals in its unique theatre-in-the-round style. When the Theatre first presented Kiss Me Kate in the summer of 1955, the audience sat outdoors in canvas seats. Today, theater-goers are entertained in a modem 1,800 seat facility.

For nearly half of its existence, Artistic Director and Executive Producer Jon Kimball has been at the Theatre's helm. In partnership with his dedicated staff and Board of Trustees, Mr. Kimball has turned the North Shore Music Theatre into a nationally-recognized venue, both in terms of its size and the quality of its productions. The theatre was named by Boston Business Journal as the 2nd largest performing arts organization in the state for three consecutive years.

As a non-profit organization, the North Shore Music Theatre's mission is to increase the awareness, significance and celebration of musical theater and the performing arts through superb entertainment and educational programs. Each year, the Theatre welcomes 400,000 patrons to its six musical subscription series, an original musical production of A Christmas Carol and an acclaimed celebrity concert series. In addition, its award-winning Theatre Arts Academy reaches over 100,000 young people annually, through workshops, outreach and youth performances.

It is appropriate that the House recognize this half-century milestone for the North Shore Music Theatre, which has become one of the anchors of arts and culture in our region. Its contribution to the quality of life for the people of the North Shore and beyond cannot be underestimated.

Congratulations to the North Shore Music Theatre for fifty years of entertainment and education. I'm sure I can speak on behalf of my constituents and neighbors when I say that we all look forward to sharing in the Theatre's bright future.

Mr. Speaker, in partial response to my colleague's last statements, it is The Wall Street Journal that says, it is the odor. It is the Rocky Mountain News that says it is hypocrisy. The Christian Science Monitor calls it hubris, and the New York Times says it is autocratic behavior, and the San Diego Union Tribune simply calls it disgraceful.

It turns out that there are a lot of different ways to describe the House Republicans' ethical challenges. When the Republicans took over Congress in 1994, they promised to usher in a new era of politics. For years they had tried to make the case that Democrats were corrupt, and in a new Republican era they promised to clean house and change the rules to make Congress more accountable to the people that we represent.

Well, they changed the rules. This year they changed the rules to prevent the ethics committee from doing its job, and they tried and tried and unfortunately failed to change the rules of their own caucus to allow indicted Members to retain their leadership offices.

Mr. Speaker, it is time to reinstate the ethics rules in this House. It is time that Republicans join the Democrats in supporting the Mollohan resolution, so that people can get a fair hearing, but it is done within a body that is operating properly.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to register my opposition to the total repeal of the estate tax. If we want to talk about values, as so many people did in the last couple of months leading up to this, let us talk about the value of supporting one's family and supporting one's community. Let us talk about the values of responsibility and fairness. They dictate that everybody pay his or her or its corporate fair share.

Millionaires and multinational corporations benefit the most from our taxes. We talk about what our taxes go for. There are dues that belong to society. Eighty percent of court cases are commercial in nature. Businesses, mostly large ones. Air traffic controllers, paid for by our taxes, they mostly support business travel back and forth. Our Coast Guard, our Navy protecting our shipping lanes, bridges and highways, making products safe to go back and forth as well as people. The Securities and Exchange Commission is our tax money trying to make large corporations behave and treat each other well instead of cheating each other. Sometimes it actually works.

The fact of the matter is that this bill absolves the top three- tenths of 1 percent from their responsibility to pay their fair share. And I say the top three-tenths of 1 percent because the Democratic alternative would exclude the first $3.5 million, or $7 million for a couple. So much for the argument of small farms and small businesses. They would not pay a dime on the first $7 million and only pay a portion of anything above that.

The fact of the matter is that most of the money that is going to be taxed on that top three-tenths of 1 percent was not earned money. That is money they got from tax-free investments. It is money they got by appreciation, just the value of that property increasing over time. They did not earn it. To compensate for what these members of our society will not be paying as their fair share, small businesses, the people that go out and create payrolls, will have to pay more. The families that go out and work every day for a living, they will have to pay more than their fair share.

And all the while this is going on, we are not even paying America's bills. This tax is going to be $290 billion off the top at a time when our debt is larger than it has ever been. We are running annual deficits that are at historic proportions. No family and no small business would ever operate this way.

Mr. Speaker, let me just close by saying they are robbing us of opportunity and prosperity and community by attacking our education and our health, our clean water, and our clean air. All of this because they want to give America's princes and princesses a little break at the top three-tenths of 1 percent. Let us let everybody pay their fair share.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the Greek Revolution of 1821, which marked the beginning of a protracted struggle fought and eventually on by a people firmly committed to achieving freedom for themselves and liberation for their country.

It is a day that bears personal significance to--and instills pride in--generations of Greek Americans, who still feel a strong sense of nationalism toward Greece even though they or their ancestors may have moved away long ago.

Furthermore, irrespective of ethnicity, I believe it is a day of particular importance to all Americans, as we share a special kinship with the people of Greece. Whenever we promote democracy, civil liberties, and the principles of self-determination, we pay testament to our countries' shared values.

Mr. Speaker, on this occasion, I also rise to welcome the honorable Mayor of Messini, Messinia, Greece, Christos Christopoulos, to the City of Peabody. On March 23, 2005, in a gesture of solidarity, Mayor Christopoulos and Peabody's Mayor Michael Bonfanti signed a sister-city pact. I extend my congratulations to the mayors, the Saint Vasilios Greek Orthodox Church community, and all Greek Americans of Peabody, many of whom descend from Messinia, on this important event.

Mr. Chairman, throughout the year, Members often express support for certain policies and programs or advocate for fiscal discipline. However, during the consideration of the Budget Resolution our true commitment to those priorities comes to light.

What this Republican Budget Resolution reveals is that the Majority is more concerned with advancing a narrow ideological agenda. Carefully making sure to allow for a total of $106 billion in tax cuts over five years for high-end earners, this GOP Budget Resolution carelessly exacts severe cuts to critical services that benefit students of all ages, veterans, first responders, poor and working families, and communities interested in economic development.

What this Republican Budget Resolution reveals is that the Majority is more interested in

advancing a reckless, unsustainable economic policy than restoring fiscal responsibility. In fact, the Majority's proposal calls for a deficit of $376 billion in 2006--$78 billion more than the Congressional Budget Office's estimate. This budget, which only accounts for five years, never reaches balance.

The Republican Budget signifies a failure in honest accounting not just because of what is included, but also for what it disingenuously leaves out. Excluded from this Budget are the details of the President's estimated $754 billion 10-year Social Security privatization plan ($20 Billion over the next decade), the cost of the over $800 billion (and growing) Medicare drug bill, the longer term costs of the war in Iraq, the cost to stop the alternative minimum tax from penalizing regular families, and the implications of extending the tax cuts.

Feigning fiscal discipline and fundamentally at odds with what I believe are the real priorities and concerns of the American people, this GOP Budget Resolution also offers no 21st Century competitive strategy for our country and further shreds what is left of our ever- fraying safety net.

A much needed competitive strategy would start with education, which is the vehicle through which students of all ages can achieve and become what they may never have otherwise dreamed possible. Going to college and attaining a degree is, unfortunately, not a right of passage for the vast majority in our country. Achieving this goal must not be minimized. Each year, a young man or woman becomes the first member of his or her family to graduate from college. For them, and for all their relatives and loved ones, obtaining a diploma means progress and instills pride. A college degree translates into hard dollars: over their lifetime, college graduates will earn on average $1 million more than they would have if they did not attend post-secondary school.

Schools continue to serve as the source where we can view the promise of America in progress, and our country's legacy depends upon how well we educate our young people. For those not completing four years of college, higher job skills and technical abilities acquired through vocational and technological training and education are the path to the middle class.

The Majority's budget cuts education programs by $2.5 billion in 2006 and $38 billion over the next five years and completely eliminates 48 programs, including the $1.3 billion vocational education program, the $437 million Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program, the $306 million GEAR- UP program, and the $225 million Even Start family literacy program.

These cuts come at a time when the cost of attending a four-year public college has increased more than $2,300. In fact, according to the 2003 National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education survey, Massachusetts had the largest tuition increase in four-year public institutions (24 percent), and the second largest in community colleges (26 percent). They attack our increasingly successful community college and vocational-technical training programs.

These cuts come at a time when there is an increased need to college access programs, including GEAR-UP and TRIO, that help high school students prepare for, apply to, and find financial aid for college.

These cuts come at a time when many communities across the country are struggling with a growing methamphetamine and opiate problem. In Massachusetts, according to statistics from the state's Department of Public Health, the number of deaths from opiates has risen over 300%-- from 108 in 1991 to 468 in 2001, which is the most recent year for which statistics are available.

The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities State Grants program has assisted states and school districts in developing youth anti-drug education initiatives, which has, in turn, helped parents and teachers learn more about the prevalence of drugs in the community. The program has been a source through which Massachusetts has been successful in obtaining $40 million in funds over the past five years.

It is not just those who are looking to improve themselves through education that this GOP Budget Resolution betrays, but it also advances the Administration's all-out assault against those that depend on our longstanding safety net, those programs that assist the poor, children, elderly, and people with disabilities. Meanwhile, let me reiterate, the Republican proposal calls for $106 billion in additional tax cuts. According to the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, 46% of those who will benefit from these tax cuts in 2005 will be households who earn $1 million, which comprise only .2 percent of all households nationwide. The average tax cut for this income bracket was greater than $30,000 in 2003.

This GOP Budget Resolution finances its hundred billion-dollar tax cut for the highest income earners at the expense of the most vulnerable and least fortunate in society. That is wrong.

As required by the Republican Budget, the Agriculture Committee would be forced to cut spending by more than $5 billion over five years. With the general reluctance to alter or scale back farm subsidies, the food stamp program would bear the brunt of these cuts. This is not a program that has been riddled with so-called ``waste, fraud, and abuse.'' The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities calculates that ``over 95 percent of food stamp benefits go to households with income below the federal poverty level. Virtually all of the remainder goes to the elderly and people with disabilities.''

Further, their budget makes deeper cuts in Medicaid than the President's budget, directing the Ways and Means Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee to cut $19 and $20 billion respectively. It is expected that the bulk of such cuts will fall on low-income programs such as the Earned Income Tax Credit, the Child Tax Credit, unemployment benefits, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, foster care, and Medicaid.

According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, ``these Medicaid cuts are likely to push hard-pressed states to eliminate coverage for a substantial number of low income people, increasing the ranks of the uninsured and the underinsured.''

The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that, should these cuts affect all states proportionally, this would translate into a loss of over $117 million for Massachusetts.

This is not the direction in which this country should be headed. What is being proposed in the Republican Majority's Budget Resolution is not a blueprint for success.

Certainly, our constituents want to know that their tax dollars are being well spent. There is no question about that.

But parents also do not want to pass on huge amounts of debt to their children, which is what the GOP Budget Resolution does.

Parents do not want their children to be denied opportunities to learn and advance in ways beyond what they achieved in life. Moms and dads want to ensure that their kids are educated about drugs. They want their kids to know how to maximize their chances of gaining acceptance at a college and have programs available to help minimize the cost.

They want to know there are enough police and fire fighters on the street to be able to respond effectively to emergencies, they want our country's veterans to receive adequate care after they return home from service, and they want to protect the environment so their sons and daughters inherit cleaner air and safer drinking water.

At the same time, they take offense to denying food stamps or eliminating Medicaid coverage for those who depend on such services just to make room for another hundred billion dollar tax cut for the already well-off. That doesn't meet their standard of fundamental fairness.

Their Budget Resolution does nothing to improve upon our long-term fiscal outlook, fails students, and exploits the poor. We must do better. We implement solutions that honestly and effectively address the budget deficit, chart a course that allows our students to competitively excel, and adequately provide for those who need the most help.

A Better Way: The Democratic Budget is a more fiscally responsible approach to balancing the budget. It achieves balance by 2012, while accumulating less debt and wastes fewer resources on interest payments needed to service the national debt.

The Democratic alternative is based on essential two-sided pay-as- you-go budget enforcement rules that led to a balanced budget in the 1990's. The cost of any additional spending, or any new tax cut, must be paid for by curbing spending, offsetting spending cuts, or new revenues. The 1990 pay-as-you-go rules had bipartisan support, including the support of the first President Bush. Those rules turned record deficits into record surpluses in large part because they subjected all parts of the budget, discretionary and mandatory spending, as well as revenues, to budget discipline. The Republican budget contains no such enforcement provisions.

The Democratic budget provides $4.5 billion more for education and training programs than the Republican budget for 2006 and $41 billion more over the next five years. It rejects the $21 billion in cuts that the Republican budget requires the Education and the Workforce Committee to make over five years, increases the maximum Pell Grant by $100 in each of the next ten years--twice the Republican increase--and eliminates the program's current $4.3 billion funding shortfall.

The Democratic budget provides $2 billion more than the Republican budget for 2006 and $9 billion more over five years for community and regional development, blocking the President's proposal to eliminate the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). Cuts in food stamps, housing, elderly services and other safety-net protections would not be necessary.

The Democratic Budget works towards elimination of the deficit, paring it down dramatically in the next five years, and thus saving us from huge interest payments needed to service the national debt.

We pay for all this by not extending the tax cuts for those earning over $200,000. According to the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center this would provide $223.5 billion between calendar year 2005 and 2010.

The tax cuts were originally promoted as temporary--if extended, they will cost $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. Coupled with the costly challenges in Iraq and Afghanistan and the need to invest in our future, the tax cuts prove an unbalanced approach that creates huge deficits and shortchanges America's priorities.

It is time to seize the opportunity to restore sanity and candor to the budget process and to pass a budget that promotes the security and values of the American people without imposing increased social inequities and crushing debt to future generations.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment mirrors in most respects a bipartisan bill that has been filed by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and me.

It establishes a select committee of the House to investigate the awarding and carrying out of contracts to conduct activities in Afghanistan and Iraq and to fight terrorism.

The select committee is to be composed of 15 Members of the House, appointed by the Speaker, with seven being made upon the recommendation of the minority leader.

The select committee will make such recommendations to the House as it deems appropriate regarding the bidding, contracting, and auditing standards in the issuance of government contracts; oversight procedures; forms of payment and safeguards against money laundering; accountability of contractors and government officials involved in procurement; penalties for violations of law and abuses in the awarding and carrying out of government contracts; subcontracting under large, comprehensive contracts; inclusion and utilization of small businesses through subcontracts or otherwise; and such other matters as the select committee deems appropriate.

Mr. Chairman, according to the Congressional Research Service, the $81.9 billion that is before us today in the supplemental appropriations bill is in addition to the approximately $200 billion that has been spent so far since the 9/11/2001 attacks on combat operations, on the occupation and on the support of military personnel deployed or supporting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Congress has recognized that we must meet our operational, technical, and equipment needs of our troops; and we should acknowledge that the funds for those purposes, particularly those for the safety of our troops, remains paramount. But when it comes to ensuring that the funds are properly managed and monitored, we have been largely silent. Horror stories abound. We just heard some by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) as he was talking about yesterday's news about Halliburton, and there is ample cause to carefully scrutinize the procurement process.

Just in January, the special Inspector General for the Iraqi reconstruction reported that the Coalition Provisional Authority, CPA, could not account for $8.8 billion. The report said: ``Severe inefficiencies and poor management by the CPA have left auditors with no guarantees the money would be properly used.''

That same report indicated that auditors were unable to verify that the money for which they can account was spent for the intended purposes.

The report raises the possibility of so-called ``ghost'' employees, citing 8,206 guards identified as on the payroll at one ministry, although only 602 could be verified. At another ministry, payroll listed 1,471 security guards when only 642 were working.

A Center for Strategic and International Studies analysis, which was cited in an October 6 Washington Post story, indicated that as little as 27 cents of every dollar spent in the Iraqi reconstruction is actually filtered down to projects that benefit Iraqis.

According to the testimony of Steve Ellis of the Taxpayers for Common Sense, who was citing a KPMG study, the Commander's Emergency Response Program, which is in effect a program designed to allow United States military officers to quickly fund small reconstruction projects, maintained little documentation of how taxpayers' dollars were spent.

The study found that 42 cases were worth $13 million where there were no contracts on file and for 142 cases totaling $40 million where there was no proof that the work was even done.

Quoting former Coalition Provisional Authority official Frank Willis, a February 14 story in The Washington Post told us of how the United States officials in post-war Iraq paid a contractor by stuffing $2 million worth of crisp bills into his gunny sack and routinely making cash payments around Baghdad from a pick-up truck. Even if we accept one Member's argument that this was because there were no normal payment procedures, it certainly cries out for better monitoring and better oversight.

We all may have substantive differences about the merits of the military policy, but there should be unanimous agreement about the congressional role in ensuring that our constituents' tax dollars are being effectively and judiciously spent; and that is what this amendment does, Mr. Chairman.

It is modeled after the original Truman Committee that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) mentioned a minute ago.

As Members know, in February 1941, concerned about possible waste and favoritism, then-Senator Harry Truman introduced legislation creating a congressional committee to investigate how Defense contracts were being awarded and managed.

The Special Committee to Investigate the National Defense Program, as it became known, exposed deficiencies in the bureaucratic procurement process, advocating for more effective coordination among the involved agencies, and raised important questions regarding production and cost of specific war-related materials.

During its tenure from 1941 to 1948, the Truman Committee convened 432 public hearings and heard 1,800 witnesses testify. It is estimated their work saved taxpayers over $15 billion. Mr. Chairman, by successfully identifying and ferreting out other defective weapons and other war supplies, they saved thousands of lives.

The Truman Committee was unanimously respected for its focus on fact- finding and its refusal to succumb to partisanship; and, in fact, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and I share that view. The Congress has oversight responsibility that can be done without succumbing to partisanship. It is our responsibility in this institution, and we have to maintain this body's integrity by doing that job.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment adds $5 million to the operation and maintenance defense-wide account.

The Secretary of Defense, using existing transfer authority, may transfer that money to the legislative branch for the purpose of establishing a select committee, in essence along the outlines of the amendment that I just reviewed moments ago, and I will not belabor that point by going over all of that information, except to say that it would be a select committee for the purposes of investigating contracts and related materials with respect to things being spent in Iraq and Afghanistan and the issue of terrorism.

As I mentioned earlier, this is and should be a bipartisan effort. I think the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) should be commended for his leadership on this and for pointing out the fact that, in fact, when Harry Truman did it years ago, he was a Democrat and the President was a Democrat, and he still found it the patriotic and judicious thing to do with respect to the responsibilities of the House of Representatives; and if we are to maintain the integrity of this Congress and our responsibility of oversight of such huge sums of money, it would be the appropriate thing for us to do now in a bipartisan way.

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 done that, not exercised their institutional responsibilities to the extent they could in this particular Congress.

The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the Committee on Government Reform has tried, but the full Committee on Government Reform has only met four times on related hearings. Similarly, the House Committee on Armed Services has taken up this issue once in June of 2004 at a Readiness Subcommittee hearing, but beyond that it has not delved into the issue.

Mr. Chairman, there is certainly a need with the billions and billions of dollars being spent. The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) has been vocal about his attention to this matter. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) spoke earlier about the $100 million found in contracts that were questioned just yesterday, and the fact that report was kept from us at a time when our taxpayers, our constituents and our citizens want to know about these enormous sums of money, and want us to do our job.

There is a need. We in Congress have a responsibility. The institution's integrity demands it, and the American taxpayer and our troops deserve it. They deserve no less.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for taking this amendment to this point.

Just in response to the gentleman's comments a second ago and earlier, the reason for this amendment is that current law takes care of any State that wants to put a higher proportion of funds towards out-of-school youth. It has the flexibility for that. And if they want to move in that direction, they can.

It also allows States like Massachusetts, and at least 17 others, who have a greater need to serve in-school youth for job training purposes, to use their money for that.

What the H.R. 27 bill does is it takes away that flexibility and harms at least 27 States from being able to help the people that they want while it solves a problem that does not exist for the others. The others already can, in fact, serve as many of the people they want out of school.

With respect to this money that is a duplication for it because there are other funds going, none of those other programs have money left over for job training. They are already used up. Most of them are underfunded: Safe and Drug-Free Schools being slashed by the President. Title I, underfunded. You can go right on down the line.

So I hope my colleagues look at this and do not disadvantage those States that need to have the flexibility to serve more in-school youth, and at the same time realize that this amendment harms those who need more out-of-school youth served in no way at all.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman very much. This is an example of the collegiality of our Committee on Education and the Workforce. We do not agree often, but we at least have a good collegial time doing it.

I just want to stress the points that I made. And the fact of the matter is that having a mandate that every State put all their money toward out-of-school youth does not help those States that have an in- school youth issue. It also deprives a lot of programs that are working with our business community and in-school youth to get them better equipped to not only support themselves but their families to have them be more self-sufficient when they get out of school. Those programs would be slashed in many States if H.R. 27 were to go through as it is.

We have a great need for these in many States; programs like Girls Inc., Action Inc. and others work that way. I respect the chairman giving me this time to make that point, that this H.R. 27 change is a solution that does not have a problem.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) for yielding me time and also for the excellent work she did on this bill. I also want to add my congratulations to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), as well as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) who did do a good job and who went to conference and brought back a bill that I believe is going to get great support in this House.

While the final proposed version of IDEA does not meet 100 percent of the things that I and my constituents might have wanted if left to our own drafting devices, it does reach a reasonable compromise; and for that reason I support it.

Back in April of 2003, I spoke against this bill in the House version of H.R. 1350. Subsequently, I urged adoption of the bill that was a lot closer to the Senate version and, in fact, in committee I joined a number of colleagues on various proposed amendments that would have moved the House bill in that direction if they had passed. They did not. Those amendments were close votes and, sadly, they were along party lines; but I am glad to say that the conference report essentially incorporates the provisions that we sought in committee with at least one notable exception and that is the funding.

The heart of IDEA lies in the protection of children with disabilities and the individualization of their education to account for those disabilities. Therefore, the conferees were, I believe, wise to retain language requiring a determination of whether misbehavior was a manifestation of a child's disability or not. That ensures that no child is unfairly punished for their disabilities.

In addition to improving the House's version of discipline provisions, the conference report improves the monitoring and enforcement aspects to ensure the States actually comply with the law. It worked a fair compromise on early intervention. It does a much better job than existing law in addressing transition services for older students, a task I believe that we are going to have to pick up in the Workforce Investment Act as we reauthorize it in 2005, and I understand that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) has expressed a similar desire.

It sets standards for highly qualified teachers and focuses the resources on their professional development and preparing them for this specialized field. While it does not satisfy everyone, it does work out a compromise on these families and students' civil rights. That is a significant improvement over the House version of this bill.

So the major issue still remaining, of course, is the funding. We did take the gentleman from Ohio's (Mr. LaTourette) bill and my bill, which would close a loophole. The Spending Integrity Act would close that loophole that otherwise would have let districts use up to 20 percent of additional funding for noneducational purposes, and this is important to close that, but we are still falling short in that mandatory full funding is not provided.

We have a commitment to reach that goal by 2011, and I hope that everybody who is involved in making that commitment will be just as vigorous in making sure that it becomes an actuality. But given last night's vote on once again raising the debt ceiling of this Nation another $800 billion and realizing that the budgets that have been proposed by this administration continually fall short, there is no assurance that that is going to be met. We have a lot of work to do to make sure we move in that direction.

We authorize and appropriate too little this year and presumably in future years. It is a serious problem that mars an otherwise reasonable compromise, but, Mr. Speaker, with that reservation in mind, I will vote for this conference report.

Again, I want to thank all of the constituents that worked on this bill with us, as well as all the people in the committee and the leaders in conference.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to just address one part of this bill.

I feel strongly that we ought to go with the substitute amendment that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) will be presenting, and that this House ought to try, in a bipartisan fashion, to work within the Collins-Lieberman-McCain legislation, and that the surest way to do that and to get a bill now is to make sure that this House acts in a bipartisan way, and not in the manner that seems to be before us today, a poison pill that will tie this issue up and not allow us to have the kind of legislation we need to protect this country.

The 9/11 Commission, in its work, was very adamant about the idea that congressional oversight should be reinforced and strengthened, particularly if there is going to be some strengthening of the legislative and executive branch. Any executive power that is going to be enhanced ought to be met with commensurate increases in congressional oversight.

Section 5021 of this bill authorizes the President to essentially reorganize all of the work that Congress would do in establishing the intelligence regime under this bill. It would have the President be able to submit a reorganization plan with expedited approval, up or down, with no amendments; in essence, abrogating all of our responsibilities as legislators to the White House.

Now, I am surprised that this would get any support and, unfortunately, in the Committee on Government Reform, it did get enough support in a 20 to 21 vote. My amendment that would obliterate this recommendation was defeated. But it did pass. It was successful in the markup of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence community markup, but in the Committee on Rules, as is its penchant for rewriting the law, it reappears with us here today.

The fact of the matter is that allowing the process to just organize and bring us something to vote up or down is an absolute total abrogation of Congress's responsibilities. I am shocked that our colleagues would even consider that premise.

They should look at one another. They should determine whether or not they came here to just give our role to the White House or we came here to do what our constituents elected us to do, which is to deliberate, to debate, to decide, and to vote, and to vote on matters of this significance.

Yes, in one of the issues one of the Members brought up in the committee was that this would take time, we would go from committee to committee and House to House. The fact of the matter is, that is hard work as the President likes to say, but it is the hard work we are supposed to be doing. It is our responsibility to legislate. It is the executive branch's responsibility to give us a recommendation that we should consider. But in the end we need to do our job, and this bill should be done in such a way as to meet the Menendez substitute. We should all vote for that and not for the base bill.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) for yielding me time.

This amendment is, in fact, about fairness. It is fairness to the American workers. A Federal court ruled in 2003 in the IBM case a conversion to cash balance plan, in that instance, which would have reduced pensions for older workers by 47 percent was a violation of Federal age discrimination rules.

Now, even though that provision has become law, it has not stopped consultants from trying to convince the Treasury Department to issue new guidance that would overturn that rule and other Court rulings in favor of employees.

By prohibiting the Federal Government from assisting in overturning these judicial rulings, this amendment protects millions of people. Those people stand the risk of having their pensions from hard work and long hours taken away from them by the conversion. It is only right and fair and just that we pass this amendment. More than 8 million employees and retirees have lost $334 billion in benefits as a result of pension plans being shifted to cash balance plans inappropriately.

A large number of older Americans, in this case defined by people 40 years and older, have lost up to 50 percent of the values of their plans. So I think what is even worse about this is the fact that President Bush's administration has supported treating these workers unfairly by backing cash balance plans.

In December of 2002, the IRS proposed lifting the 1999 moratorium on cash balance plan conversion. This year, the administration's budget proposed to give corporations a green light to violate pension age discrimination laws, while providing inadequate protection to workers affected in the future. These threats by the administration to workers' pensions demonstrate the importance of passing this amendment.

By voting for this amendment, Congress will be taking another important step toward protecting the rights of workers. I urge my colleagues to do just that. Support this amendment and stand up for America's workers.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I do have to comment that I think this amendment does not want to shut down the process that the gentleman from Oklahoma talks about. In fact, he wants to revise the 2003 process to make improvements that have already been recommended by the General Accounting Office, that have been recommended by congressional lawmakers and, in fact, have been recommended by the Office of Management and Budget from the administration. It is an opportunity for them to get it right.

This amendment would give lawmakers in the OMB an opportunity to revise this privatization process along the lines that Congress has already done in the other instances that my colleague from Maryland has mentioned. So it is not a process of shutting it down, but it is a process of hoping that it will be done fairly and will get the taxpayers the best solution and also treats the Federal employees fairly on this.

This administration has been relaxing health and safety protections, has been scaling back overtime rules, and has been enacting new regulations designed to weaken unions. This administration has been, in fact, waging an all-out assault on the American worker. And now they are shifting it over, to make matters worse, and extending those attacks on the benefits and protections of workers who have chosen public service as a career.

Those people who pursue a career in Federal Government are one of the greatest resources that we have and they are some of the very best in this country. They make our system work and they do their job with skill and, many times, without any recognition. Mr. Chairman, there has been no good reason and no evidence of poor performance to lead this attack on the Federal workforce and no reason to have it come under assault on that basis.

We can have the competition people talk about if it is done properly and it is done on a level playing field. The President has already attempted to curtail the collective bargaining rights of some 180,000 workers in the Department of Justice and in the Department of Homeland Security and threatening to do it in the Department of Defense.

In addition to those legislative reforms, there are proposed revisions in the regulations about outsourcing to private contractors, even trying to redefine the type of work to be considered inherently governmental.

Without this amendment, the changes will affect too many people in an unfair way. Mr. Chairman, I suggest this is not pragmatic public policy. We ought to move and do what this amendment says we should do. I urge my colleagues to support the Van Hollen amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for the opportunity to discuss an issue that is critical to my constituents in Nahant, within the Sixth Congressional District of Massachusetts.

One hundred years ago, the Coast Guard seized land from the town of Nahant for the purpose of stationing military personnel. While some of that land was returned in 1954, the town has remained interested in reacquiring the remainder of the parcel located in the Castle Road, Goddard Drive and Gardner Road area. Recently, to address housing needs elsewhere in New England, the Coast Guard decided to sell this property through the General Services Administration. Unfortunately, despite over 50 years of positive relations and Nahant's express interest in purchasing the land, the Coast Guard did not inform the town of that decision.

I became involved to help facilitate a solution that was agreeable to all parties. After a series of meetings and discussions, the General Services Administration and the town of Nahant agreed in principle that the 12 housing units will be conveyed to the town for an amount of $2 million.

Since then, Nahant has convened a special town meeting and approved the $2 million for the purchase of the land. This agreement is moving toward a satisfactory conclusion, but specific legislative language is necessary to codify the sale.

That language, developed in collaboration with and which has the full support of GSA, the Coast Guard, the town

of Nahant and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), chairman of the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, was crafted and accepted in the version of this bill which this subcommittee and the Committee on Appropriations reported last month.

I thank Members for their support of this provision throughout the subcommittee's consideration of the bill. Additionally, I would like to point out, this sale generates $2 million in revenue for the Federal Government. I understand that we cannot get this in the UC list coming up, but I ask for Members' continued support for this as this bill goes to conference.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York, both for yielding me this time and for bringing this matter to the floor today.

It is obviously essential that we finally take some action on this legislation. We need to extend critical funding to women's business centers across the United States. In particular, the Center for Women and Enterprise in Boston serves many of the constituents in my district and throughout the State of Massachusetts. It has been long overdue, and many of these centers have already suffered because of Congress's inaction.

It is a bit disturbing to know that it has been 10 months since the Small Business Administration authorization bill has expired. And it continues to linger, and we need the majority to come forward and the White House to come forward at this point in time and bring it and put it on the agenda. Everybody has great rhetoric about how important small businesses are to our country, to our districts and to the economy. But now it is time to put that rhetoric into action and make sure we move on this bill.

We do not have to tell people or remind them about how this economy is suffering: almost 2 million jobs lost in the last several years and still not anywhere near back to where we were in January of 2001.

We know what a generator of jobs, what a booster of the economy small businesses can be, and we also know how important the Small Business Administration is in providing capital for these businesses. So if we could do the bill that is before us today but also bring forward the Small Business Administration reauthorization, we could deal with that issue of capital.

At a time when the economy is suffering as much as it is, many businesses are starting to fail. They need that capital so that they can retool. Some need it to grow. And we need some new businesses to fill in where others have left. That cannot happen without this bill coming forward.

The so-called 7(a) loans are by far the most critical capital vehicles that we have for small businesses: $11 billion in loans to small businesses every year. That aspect has to be assured to businesses. If we do nothing by the end of this month, fees for that will double, freezing out many businesses from the opportunity to get access to this money so that they can expand or they can start up.

Time after time, we hear on the floor and we hear in people's individual districts how much they feel for small business and how certain they are that small businesses add to the benefit of our country.

Mr. Speaker, we need to put our money where our mouth is. We need this measure to be brought forward. I support today's bill because it does a good thing, particularly with respect to the women's business centers across the country, but realize that we have to do more and move the Small Business Administration reauthorization forward.

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

Mr. Chairman, I think the American public would find it highly unbelievable that if, in fact, the rules proposed by the administration did all the things that are purported, that the advocates for working people and the advocates for families would oppose it. In fact, it is a rule that does not do the things that are professed here; and that is why advocates for families, for working people oppose them in such a loud and clear way.

The first rule ought to be do no harm when we are talking about amending rules. And the amendment that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) have here sticks to that creed. The administration's rules, on the other hand, are so ambiguous that the Department of Labor and potentially aggrieved workers will at best be involved in litigation from now to the end of time. At worst they are going to be interpreted to prevent possibly 6 million people from becoming eligible for overtime that are currently eligible under the existing rules.

The administration has had every opportunity to work into a rule that would be agreeable and understandable by everyone. The proper way to do that, of course, would have been to work with both Democrats and Republicans in the House, to go through the committee hearing process, to have a debate and deliberation, and to vote and to clarify those rules. That has not been the effort that has been taken here. Continually, the administration throws out their rules, gets feedback, and then tries to throw them out again, and this time, despite the numerous people that have objected to these rules, saying that the interpretations are inappropriate, are trying to plow this thing through. We can see that not only Democrats are objecting but a number of Republicans are; otherwise we would not have had to postpone last night's session until today so that some arms could be twisted on this measure.

What are Americans to believe of this administration other than it desires to deprive workers of overtime and allow employers to demand and get longer hours without more pay for workers and to work employees more instead of hiring additional workers? This, as our economy is being decimated by economic policies for rich millionaires, that are doing little, if anything, for the middle class and people that aspire to enter the middle class; 1.8 million jobs fewer today than we had in 2000; wages from last August to this August rising only 1.9 percent while the cost of living is up over 3.2 percent.

It is a squeeze. Essentially, wages are flat but tuition bills continue to rise, and our colleagues on the Republican side and the administration will not increase Pell grants, will not increase work study funds, are cutting Perkins loans funds so families are getting no help there. Health care premiums are rising. Employers are insisting that more and more employees pay a higher percentage of the premiums, more co-pays, and more deductibles. Gas prices are up. Food and milk and other prices are up.

All of this, while in my State, Mr. Chairman, in Massachusetts 86 percent of the taxpayers in 2006 will get less than $100 from the 2003 Bush tax cuts. So they are not getting any help from the tax cuts, and they are getting the squeeze from rising prices, and wages are stagnant. And now the administration proposes a plan, which, at best, is ambiguous and leaves people in confusion and in a state of litigation and, at worst, deprives almost 6 million people of overtime. The 40-hour rule is so that families can spend some time together and, when they cannot, that at least they get compensated so that they can pay some of the families' obligations and bills.

Some low-income workers will actually become eligible for overtime pay under the new rule, and that is a good thing and that is why the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from California's (Mr. George Miller) amendment does not affect that. It allows that to go into place. And we want those people to become eligible, and we would do that.

The other factor is that for years it has been pretty easy and pretty clear to determine who was eligible for overtime pay and who was not. If one was eligible, they got paid time and a half for every hour they worked more than 40 hours a week. People should know that workers who stand to lose their overtime pay because of these new rules include foremen, assistant managers, registered nurses, workers who perform relatively small amounts of supervisory or administrative work, salespeople who perform some amount of work outside the office, chefs, nursery school teachers, workers in the financial services industry, insurance claims adjusters, journalists, funeral directors and embalmers, law enforcement officers, athletic trainers, and others from all different parts of the workforce.

I have listened to the gentleman from Ohio. I wish he were still in the room here. And the fact is that what he says about there being no law going

into effect, I think, has been soundly defeated by the comments from the Congressional Research Service and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). The fact of the matter is that if they had the facts, they would argue the facts, and they do not. If they had the law, they would argue the law, and they do not. So obfuscation is the rule of the day, and that attempt has now been put to rest. The people that the new rule would help, this amendment allows it to help. The people that it would harm and the confusion there is, is set aside by this amendment. So the only true course and the fair course to take at this point in time is to bring us all back to the House to set a good set of rules that protect the American worker and try to help out in this economy when things are so difficult and people are experiencing a squeeze.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I stand in strong support of the Sanders amendment in this matter. Our international tax rules provide far too many incentives for United States companies to move jobs and operations offshore.

It is a growing trend. Corporations that have built their successes through the protection of the United States laws and contracts in this country are increasingly giving up their citizenship to move offshore and avoid paying United States taxes. Not only are they doing that, but they are costing hardworking Americans their jobs and are grossly abusing loopholes in the current tax system. These corporations should not then be able to take advantage of the taxpayers' generosity through the Ex-Im Bank.

Particularly at a time when our country is at war and we are running record budget deficits, Congress should take a firm stand and prevent taxpayer money from increasing the bottom line for profitable corporations who shirk their responsibilities here at home.

The Ex-Im Bank is intended to finance American services and products, not the export of American jobs and resources. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, today on June 17, 2004, the Holocaust Center of Boston North, Inc., located in Peabody, Massachusetts, and dedicated to the study of the Holocaust, Genocides, and Human Rights, will honor my constituent Sonia Schreiber Weitz with the Center's first Social Justice and Human Rights Award.

A Holocaust survivor who experienced the torture and degradation of five Nazi concentration camps and Hitler's Death March, Sonia Weitz has devoted her life to educating young people to the dangers of bystander behavior, the nature of hatred and power of one individual to create positive change. An accomplished author and poet, she is committed to fighting for human rights and sharing her experiences during the Holocaust with audiences of all ages.

Born in Krakow, Poland in 1928, young Sonia attended public schools

with both Jewish and non-Jewish friends. Only occasional whispers of anti-Semitism marred her early childhood, but in September of 1939, when Sonia was 11 years old, Germans invaded Poland and changed her life forever. Many of her relatives were murdered, the Gestapo took her mother, and she and her remaining family members were sent to a labor camp where they remained for more than a year. Sonia and her sister, Blanca, were then sent to Auschwitz, while their father and Blanca's husband were sent to Mauthausen in Austria. As liberating forces approached and the Nazis sought to destroy evidence of the camps, the inmates were sent on a death march through the snow and ice to Bergen- Belsen, in Germany, where the two sisters experienced the worst conditions of their enslavement. Finally liberated, they lived in a camp for displaced persons for 3 years before immigrating to the United States, where Sonia lives today, in Peabody, Massachusetts.

In her book, ``I Promised I Would Tell,'' Sonia Weitz shares memories of Nazi racism, dehumanization and mass murder. ``Who better to write about light after darkness than me,'' she says. A co-founder of the Holocaust Center North, Ms. Weitz has coordinated clergy conferences, media seminars, human rights awareness days, interfaith teen projects, and Holocaust survivors' workshops since 1982. She has been an appointee of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council. She is the recipient of an honorary Doctor of Humane Letters degree from Salem State College, the ADL Interfaith Award, the Facing History Human Rights Award, and countless other honors.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my constituents throughout Boston's North Shore in honoring this extraordinary human being, Sonia Schreiber Weitz, and I ask that my remarks unanimously be allowed to conform with the written remarks submitted on this day.