Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding the time.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the levity in which we all rise here today; and I think in the best of spiritedness, the question for us that this would be a time for the House of Representatives to pass a resolution congratulating just a single baseball team. Major league baseball is currently in the midst of a play-off series including the Yankees as well as seven other teams that are worthy of our praise and our congratulations. In the middle of the baseball play-offs, I think we will all be rooting for our own respective teams and promoting team unity and sportsmanship.

There are many other baseball teams that deserve our praise and congratulations, in particular the Boston Red Sox. In fact, this year the Red Sox are celebrating the 100th anniversary of their victory in the first-ever World Series. Red Sox history is peppered with record- setting victories, triumph over adversity, and the dedication of Red Sox players, coaches, and fans.

Now, it is true, Mr. Speaker, it is very true that in the long tradition of buying their way to the top, the Yankees were bought 100 years ago; but if we are to recognize any team for its 100th anniversary, we ought to congratulate the Red Sox for their World Series, not just congratulate a team simply for being acquired.

I have prepared an amendment to offer to this resolution to include congratulations to the Red Sox on the 100th anniversary of their victory in the first World Series; but I understand that since the bill was brought to the floor on the suspension calendar, that cannot be done. So I instead, Mr. Speaker, I will enter the amendment text in the Record at this point.

Amendment to H. Res. 306, Offered by Mr. Tierney of Massachusetts:

After ``Congratulating the New York Yankees on the occasion

of their 100th anniversary'' insert ``and the Boston Red Sox

on the 100th anniversary of their victory in the first ever

World Series;

Whereas the Boston Pilgrims (who would become the Boston

Red Sox in 1907), in 1903 met the Pittsburgh Pirates in the

first ever World Series in 1903 after winning the American

league pennant by an unprecedented 14\1/2\ games;

Whereas Denton True ``Cy'' Young pitched a dramatic 11-2

win in Game 5 of the best-of-nine series, yielding only six

hits and himself driving in three runs;

Whereas Bill Dinneen struck out Honus Wagner, widely

considered the best player in the game at the time, to win

the 1903 World Series;

Whereas Denton True ``Cy'' Young played for Boston from

1901 until 1908, beginning at age 34, and finished his eight

years in Boston with a 192-112 record. In his first year with

the Pilgrims, Young posted a 33-10 record, a 1.62 ERA, 5

shutouts and 158 K's, walking a mere 37 batters in 371

innings. In addition, Young was the only pitcher in

baseball's first 100 years to win 500 games, including three

no-hit shutouts and a perfect game on May 5, 1904;

Whereas in 1908 the Red Sox acquired from Kansas City

``Smokey'' Joe Wood, who was known as the successor to the

great Cy Young. By the 1911 season, Wood was smoking and he

showed his golden arm for the baseball world to see. His 23-

17 record that year included a no-hitter against the St.

Louis Browns on July 29. He also recorded 15 strikeouts in

one game--a record that wouldn't be broken until Boston's

Bill Monbouquette fanned 17 in 1961. In 1912, Wood's 34-5

record was the best in the league;

Whereas ``Smokey'' Joe's most memorable game came on

September 6, 1912. Carrying a 13-game winning streak, the

Washington Senators came to town and challenged the Red Sox

to throw their bright, young talent a day ahead of his

scheduled start against their staff's ace: Walter ``Big

Train'' Johnson. Johnson's record-setting 16-game consecutive

win streak had just been snapped. Wood accepted the challenge

and the newspapers went wild. They compared the two hurlers

to prize fighters. In the sixth inning, Tris Speaker and

Duffy Lewis traded doubles off of Johnson and scored a run.

It would be the only time either team crossed the plate that

afternoon as Wood won his 14th straight. Wood went on to

notch two more wins, tying Johnson's 16-game record, before

losing;

Whereas in 1912 the Boston Red Sox moved from the

Huntington Avenue Grounds to Fenway Park, the new stadium

built specifically for the Red Sox. The season opener against

the New York Highlanders (later known as the Yankees) was

delayed two days by rain, but 27,000 ``Fenway Faithful''

showed up on April 20 to watch what turned into a three hour

and 20 minute game that went into the 11th inning, when Red

Sox player Tris Speaker knocked in second baseman Steve

Yerkes to win the game 7-6. The spectacular win was kept off

the front page due to the sinking of the Titanic;

Whereas the 1912 Red Sox went on to post their best record

ever: 105-47, (a mark which stands today). They also beat the

New York Giants that year in the first ``true'' World Series

match of the National and American League champions;

Whereas the Red Sox acquired Lefty Grove from the

Philadelphia Athletics in 1934. He led the American League in

strikeouts for seven consecutive years (1925-1931). Nine

times he led AL pitchers with his stingy ERA in his 17-

year career. Only two other pitchers led the league in ERA

as many as five times. After a year plagued by arm

problems that led him to pitch an 8-8 record, the first

time he failed to win 20 wins since 1926, Grove was back

to form in 1935, posting a 20-12 mark and a league-leading

2.70 ERA. Grove went 17-12 in 1936 for Boston 17-9 in

1937, 14-4 in 1938 and 15-4 in 1939. In four of his eight

years with the Red Sox he led the league in ERA. On July

25, 1941, at 41 years old, Lefty Grove put the finishing

touches on his spectacular career. Pitching through nine

innings and 90-degree heat, Grove notched his 300th win in

a 10-6 win over Cleveland and became the fifth all-time

winningest pitcher in baseball history;

Whereas in just his third year, at only 23 years of age,

Ted Williams went into the last day of the 1941 season

hitting .3996, an average that officially rounds up to .400.

The last major leaguer to hit over .400 was Bill Terry in

1930 and the last American League player was Harry Heilmann

in 1923;

Whereas on June 18, 1953, the Red Sox scored 17 runs in one

inning against the Detroit Tigers with 14 hits and six walks

in the record-setting inning. The Red Sox broke or tied 17

major league records that day, including the most runs in one

inning (17) and the most hits in a game (27);

Whereas on September 28, 1960 Ted Williams ended his Hall

of Fame career when he sent 10,454 fans into a frenzy by

launching a 1-1 pitch from Baltimore Orioles' pitcher Jack

Fisher high into the damp gray sky and into the Red Sox

bullpen for his 521st home run;

Whereas in 1961 Carl Michael Yastrzemski, later known

simply as ``Yaz,'' joined the Red Sox, replacing Ted Williams

in left field. Yastrzemski tops the Red Sox charts for runs

batted in, hits, games, at-bats, runs scored, extra base hits

and total bases. He holds a top-ten rank in eight of

baseball's offensive categories and became the first American

Leaguer to reach the 3,000-hit and 400-home run milestone;

Whereas in 1967 Yastrzemski led ``The Impossible Dream,''

He took a Red Sox team that led the majors in losses the

previous season and guided it on one of sport's most engaging

turnarounds. A .326 average, 44 home runs and 121 RBI gave

``Yaz'' the American League Triple Crown;

Whereas Carl Yastrzemski, at age 40, notched his 3,000th

hit on September 12, 1979;

Whereas in 1964 Tony Conigliaro, known as ``Tony C'' to his

fans, burst onto the baseball scene in Fenway Park, taking 24

homers over the ``Green Monster'' in 111 games while batting

.290. In his second year with the Sox, Conigliaro belted 32

homes runs, leading the American League. At 20 years old,

Conigliaro became the youngest home-run leader in baseball

history. He followed that effort in 1966 with 28 home runs;

Whereas on August 18, 1967, Conigliaro was gravely injured

by a rising, inside fastball from California's Jack Hamilton.

After missing the remainder of the 1967 season and all of

1968, Conigliaro surpassed remarkable odds and returned in

1969. He batted .255, hit 20 homers and won the ``Comeback

Player of the Year'' award. He improved in 1970 when he

belted 36 home runs and 116 RBI;

Whereas the Fenway Park fans showed great passion and

sensitivity by avoiding wearing light-colored clothing in the

center field bleachers to help Conigliaro see pitches;

Whereas Carlton Fisk, known as ``Pudge,'' joined the Red

Sox in 1972. In his rookie year he batted .293, hit 22 home

runs and finished tied for the league lead with nine triples,

marks which earned him the season's ``Rookie of the Year''

award. His most memorable moment turned into a scene that

encompasses the tradition and faith of all Red Sox fans. The

dominating catcher stepped to the plate in the bottom of the

12th inning of World Series Game Six in 1975. After Bernie

Carbo's three-run pinch hit homer tied the game in the eighth

and Dwight Evans' stunning catch gave the team life in the

eleventh, Fisk was ready to close the door on a night of

heroes. The catcher jumped on the second offering from Pat

Darcy and lifted a high blast down the left field line that

seemed to turn one of baseball's greatest games into a slow

motion dream. Fisk stood at home plate, waving the ball fair

like a man controlling the winds and leaped in elation as the

game winning home run bounced off the foul pole, opening the

gates for a wild celebration guided by a home run dance

around the bases. It was a moment that typified a great

career;

Whereas through 10-plus seasons in Boston, Fisk accumulated

162 home runs while compiling a .481 slugging percentage--

tenth in club history. Fisk is among the leaders in three

other offensive categories and is remembered for his uncanny

stature in the field. For his career, Fisk caught more games

(2,226) and hit more home runs (351 of his career 376) than

any player at his position ever;

Whereas in 1975, a rookie named Fred Lynn made baseball

history by earning both the 1975 Rookie of the Year and Most

Valuable Player Awards, an accomplishment that had neither

been done before. Lynn also earned a batting championship and

four gold gloves, played in six All-Star games and led the

league in slugging percentage twice and doubles once;

Whereas outfielder Dwight ``Dewey'' Evans entered the big

leagues in 1972 with the Red Sox and at the end of his career

placed in the top five of ten offensive categories in the

club's records, the most notable being the 379 home runs and

1,346 RBI that put him fourth, behind Ted Williams, Carl

Yastrzemski, and Jim Rice. Evans also finished his career

with the second most games played and at-bats in Boston

history;

Whereas Jim Rice joined the Red Sox in 1974 after securing

the International League's triple crown and in his first full

year with the team batted .309 with 22 home runs and 102 RBI,

leading the Sox to the American League pennant and the 1975

World Series. In 1978 he was named the A.L.'s MVP after

setting staggering marks including major league leading

totals of 46 homers, 139 RBI, 15 triples, 406 total bases,

213 hits and a .600 slugging percentage;

Whereas Roger Clemens warmed up a cannon before a Tuesday

night game in April of 1986 and shot down 20 Seattle Mariners

by night's end to break the Major League record for

strikeouts in a nine inning game. It was an exhibition of

sheer power and by the time the smoke cleared, the ``Rocket''

had fanned the side three times and during one stretch sat

down eight Mariners in a row. He looked unhitable. Seventy

percent of his pitches were strikes, many of which topped the

radar gun at 95 mph and higher;

Whereas in 1997 the Red Sox were treated to the arrival of

a rookie named Nomar Garciaparra, who immediately turned into

a superstar. The dynamic shortstop won ``Rookie of the Year''

honors by hitting .306

with 122 runs, 209 hits, 44 doubles, 11 triples, 30 homers,

98 RBIs and 22 stolen bases;

Whereas in 1998, after acquiring star right-hander Pedro

Martinez, the Red Sox produced their first 90-win season

since 1996. The 92-70 finish was good enough to vault them

into the playoffs as the AL Wild Card. Nomar Garciaparra

finished second in AL MVP balloting. The Red Sox snapped

their postseason losing streak of 13 games by beating the

Indians 11-3 in Game 1;

Whereas in 2000 Nomar Garciaparra earned his second

consecutive batting title and Pedro Martinez earned his third

Cy Young award in four years. Garciaparra's .372 batting

average was the best batting average for a right-handed

hitter in the past 50 years;

Whereas in 2001 the Red Sox signed superstar slugger Manny

Ramirez off the free agent market, who clubbed a three-run

homer in the first pitch he saw in a home uniform at Fenway

Park;

Whereas on April 4, 2001, Hideo Nomo pitched Boston's first

no-hitter since 1965. The start against the Orioles at Camden

Yards was Nomo's first in a Boston uniform;

Whereas in 2002 the Red Sox began a new era, as the

ownership group led by John Henry, Tom Werner and Larry

Lucchino officially took over on Feb. 27. The Red Sox went

93-69 under new manager Grady Little, but missed the playoffs

for the third straight year. Pedro Martinez and Derek Lowe

gave the Sox their first 20-win tandem since 1949. The

highlight of the season was Lowe's no-hitter at Fenway on

April 27 against the Devil Rays. Manny Ramirez, despite

missing six weeks with a fractured left index finger, won his

first batting title;

Whereas Red Sox have appeared in the post-season seven

times (1986, 1988, 1990, 1995, 1998, 1999 and 2003) since

1986;''

After ``Resolved, That the House of Representatives and the

American people extend heartfelt congratulations to the New

York Yankees on the occasion of its 100th anniversary, and

express the sincerest gratitude to the entire organization.''

Insert ``Resolved, That the House of Representatives and the

American people extend heartfelt congratulations to the

Boston Red Sox on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of

its victory in the first World Series and express the

sincerest gratitude to the entire organization.''

So I join, Mr. Speaker, the Red Sox nation in congratulating the Red Sox on the 100th anniversary of their victory in the first World Series and for their recent wild-card victory in the 2003 play-offs. On behalf of the Red Sox fans across the country and the world, I hope that the 85th time is a charm and it is this year. Good luck for all the teams in the play-offs and the Red Sox in particular, as well as the Yankees.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to add a word of caution to my colleagues about this legislation and to support the Democratic substitute. Everybody in this body supposedly supports charities and the important work that they do.

At the same time, however, the Federal Government is currently projected to run the largest deficits in history. The need for assistance in education and health care and housing among low and moderate income Americans is great, and unfortunately, there is little evidence that this bill is going to do anything to address those needs. I fear that larger deficits are going to occur and the result of this bill is going to serve as an excuse to cut programs already inadequately funded.

At a minimum, this bill should contain an offset. In analysis of a similar bill that is in the Senate, the Congressional Research Service report estimated that the charitable deduction for nonitemizers would yield only 12 cents of additional giving for every dollar of revenue lost to the Treasury, 12 cents. CRS concluded that the vast majority of the cost of the deduction would go to subsidizing existing donations rather than generating new gifts.

The charitable donations generated by this bill will support many good causes, but that same Budget and Policy Priorities report indicated that no more than 10 percent of all charitable giving will directly benefit the poor. The largest recipient of the funds by far would be religious institutions, and while religious giving is commendable, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities also reported that only 6 percent of donations to religious institutions end up in services to the poor.

My point is that this bill proposes to reduce Federal revenues by $13 billion over the next 10 years. Yet only a few cents of each dollar will actually translate into charitable works to help the neediest Americans. Given the projected $500 billion deficit next year and well over $3.3 trillion debt over the next 10 years, I think colleagues need to decide whether or not this is the best way to spend $13 billion rare dollars.

This country has tremendous needs. America's charities can obviously help, but it is unrealistic to think that America's charities are going to feed the hungry, house the homeless and heal the sick left behind by this Congress. No Child Left Behind, underfunded by $8 billion; housing assistance that served 20,000 less families for the first time in 30 years; Head Start only serves 60 percent of the children who need it and only 3 percent of the children who need early Head Start; and Americans without health care number 42 million.

We are in a tough fiscal time, Mr. Speaker, as a result of the failed economic policies of this administration. The need is great. We have to decide if this is the best way to spend $13 billion.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Saugus American Little League team for their outstanding achievement in the 2003 Little League World Series. From their district championship to the U.S. Championship game, this terrific team captured the hearts of the town of Saugus and, over the past few weeks of summer, all of New England.

This is a team whose unique skill was equaled only by their flair for the dramatic. Saugus' first four victories in the Series were by one run. We will long remember their epic victory against Texas East's Lamar National, when Saugus rallied, scoring four runs in the bottom of the seventh inning, to advance to the U.S. championship. These boys were only the second team in Massachusetts' Little League history to advance to the U.S. title game.

Most impressive is the manner in which this team conducted themselves throughout their time in Williamsport, Pennsylvania. They acted with maturity beyond their years. Working hard, playing fair, and never, ever giving-up, the Saugus Americans--Ryan Bateman, Tyler Calla, Craig Cole, Anthony DiSciscio, David Ferreira, Tyler Grillo, Joseph Kasabuski, Matthew Muldoon, Sebestiano ``Yano'' Petruzzelli, Dario Pizzano, Mark Sacco, and Michael Scuzzarella--were a model team and excellent representatives of their hometown.

Saugus Manager Rob Rochenski and coaches, Mike Ferreira, Rob Calla, and Charlie Bilton must also be commended for their professionalism, their positive rapport with the players, and the countless hours they invested in this team. They rightfully recognize that Little League baseball should be about having fun, and it is clear they instilled that in this Saugus team.

A special thanks needs to be extended to the parents, family members, and friends of this team, many of whom traveled to Williamsport, donned orange jerseys, and vocally supported their Saugus Americans.

It is appropriate that the House recognize the remarkable performance of the Saugus Americans. I am proud of their accomplishments, and wish them the best of luck in the future.

Mr. Speaker, on September 14, the City of Peabody, Massachusetts, will celebrate its Twentieth Annual International Festival, and I will be among the more than 65,000 people who will stroll around Peabody Square enjoying the vibrant array of arts, entertainment and foods of the diverse ethnic groups that enliven civic life in Peabody today.

The International Festival was envisioned by former Mayor Peter Torigian, who initiated and continued the event as a way to celebrate the ethnic and cultural diversity of the city known historically for its important role in the leather tanning industry that was so much a part of the 19th and early 20th century economic history of our region. Under Mayor Torigian's hands-on leadership, the Festival grew exponentially over the years and has now been warmly embraced and fostered by current Mayor Michael Bonfanti, who serves as the International Festival's Honorary Chairman.

Throughout these two decades of growth and change in Peabody, there has been one very constant presence involved in the International Festival--City Councilor Judy Selesnick, who has served with great skill and enthusiasm as Chairwoman and number one volunteer for the International Festival since its beginning. This Twentieth Anniversary year will be Judy's last at the helm; she has decided to retire from the chairmanship, though few doubt that she will continue to cheer from the sidelines as each year's festivities unfold.

To Judy Selesnick, Mayor Bonfanti and Mayor Torigian, and to all of the citizens of Peabody who celebrate their diversity on this day and every day, my congratulations and best wishes for a most successful International Festival this year and my thanks to you all for your dedication to Peabody's rich heritage and hopeful future.

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

Mr. Speaker, this issue of safety is nothing more than a red herring, and to the American people it is another example of big corporate interest and big government joining together against the interest of the American people.

Tonight we are going to learn who here in this body represents PhRMA and who here represent the interests of the American people. We will find out who here refuse to be swayed by the prescription drug companies who have tried everything, from 650 lobbyists to millions of dollars in campaign contributions, to false and misleading advertisements, to company letters threatening they will do no more research, and to threats to their employees that they have to write us letters because they are afraid they will lose their jobs.

Greed, fear, lies, and ignorance are their weapons and their tools. But tonight we are going to find out that those supporting this bill can defeat it with the truth, with the facts, with common sense, and with an abiding commitment to serving those people who sent them here to represent them and an abiding commitment to fulfill their responsibilities to this institution.

This is about hope. This is about renewal. This is about hope that the American people can finally overcome a large corporate interest and an overwhelming government that too often does not listen to them. And this is about the renewal of this institution, of people standing up for the integrity of this institution and for the American voice.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time.

We have heard talk tonight about people saying that everybody on this side of the aisle wants to have things stay the same, and that frankly is not so. We worked quite hard together to make changes and improvements in the first section of this bill, as we have made changes and improvements on the bill in previous years, continually improving it and continually reducing the gap in readiness for school.

The problem comes in the second part of this bill. And the fact of the matter is that those proponents of the change in the block grant cannot show a single stitch of evidence that this would improve the situation. When the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) was asked at the Committee on Rules to give an example of one parent group, one child group, one educational group, one social advocacy group that supported the block grant section of the bill, he could not do it. When all the editorialists and all those are people are dead set against this, somehow the Republicans still think that they are right. Other people would have some pause for thought on it.

The fact of the matter is that the block grant does do damage to the Head Start program. It would not require performance standards. It would allow States to weaken educational standards by increasing class size, increasing child/teacher ratio, shortening

the program duration, cutting off 3-year-olds, using unproven curricula. States can, under their provisions, gut comprehensive services, eliminate parent classroom involvement, eliminate health and mental health screenings and services, eliminate adult literacy services, eliminate vision and dental services, eliminate health and nutrition education. And, yes, under this they can take block grant money and supplant other Federal funds. And CRS, Congressional Research Service, an independent group, says that that is so, despite the protestations of the other side.

We also leave too many children behind. For one-fourth of what we are spending in a month in Iraq, we could add another 87,000 children to this program that already underserves America's children.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I think the theme of this particular bill seems to be ``promises made and promises broken.'' The fact of the matter is that this theme is true with respect to K through 12 education, where President Bush's own education bill, the No Child Left Behind bill, the promise was a deal. The deal was that there would be more accountability and more requirements in there that would be imposed or mandated on local communities to meet that cost, and, in return, the Federal Government would step up to the plate and put some more resources towards meeting those mandates.

The broken part of the promise, of course, is this appropriations bill is $8 billion short on the promised full funding. Yes, it is a little over 1 percent more than the current funding, but that is essentially a freeze when you consider the increased number of students involved and the inflationary factor.

The fact of the matter is it does not at all address the increased mandates of local communities to meet the requirements in that bill.

This theme is also true with respect to IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the promise of over 25 years ago that the Federal Government would try to come up with 40 percent of the excess cost of educating a child with disabilities. Now, we know that that high cost for a free and appropriate education of disabled students was not being met by the States, and the Federal Government stepped forward with that promise. The States now have relied on that promise. In 2004, 6.4 million 3- to 21-year-olds depend in part on the Federal Government to step forward and help out.

Promise number two in the area of IDEA is in 1994 the Republicans in their Contract on America said they would fully fund IDEA, but both of these promises have been broken. Both the 25-year-old goal and the decade-old political statement have not been met.

The third promise is the majority's 2004 budget resolution. It promised an increase of $2.2 billion over the last year's grants for school districts.

Another promise was the majority's reauthorization bill passed in April, again promising an additional $2.2 billion for IDEA.

The fact of the matter is this appropriations bill falls $1.2 billion short on IDEA. Under the Republican plan, the State of Massachusetts will lose over $29 million on grants that it otherwise would have gotten if the authorization bill's goals were met.

But that is the way it is, Mr. Chairman, with this House. The majority says when it comes to giving tax cuts to millionaires, they can take the check to the bank; but when it comes to funding educational needs for children and their families, that check is written in disappearing ink.

When it comes to millionaires getting a break, deficits do not seem to matter; but when it comes to funding education for disabled kids in Massachusetts and throughout this country, deficits all of a sudden do seem to matter, and there is no money left to help.

The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) offered an amendment to just make those millionaire tax cuts a few thousand dollars less so we could meet this obligation and add that $1.2 billion back into IDEA, but the majority voted it down in committee. Yesterday the Committee on Rules made sure we could not debate it on the floor of the House.

So, in this body millionaires get the huge tax cuts they make, they do not have any shared sacrifice, they do not offer back to help out, but families and children and school districts, they do not get it. They get the check written in disappearing ink.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding me time.

I want to join him in thanking the chairman for the work on this bill, as well as the ranking member, and it is a bill that will be supported for those good things that are in it. But as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) mentioned, there are other good things that could have and should have been in this bill that unfortunately have been set aside because of the self-inflicted situation where the majority in this House has chosen to take money and throw it out the door to people who are already wealthy and decide not to invest in the children of this country.

If we want to talk about future productivity, if we want to talk about a way of improving our education system in this country, then we would try to make sure that our early childhood programs and Head Start in particular would have every opportunity for success. Instead, the Committee on Education and the Workforce get a budget that is so small that they have to then work within those constraints and come back and tell us, gee, we do not have enough money to do all the right things that we need to do. So we can look at math teachers and science teachers and special education teachers, all of which have a serious need for loan forgiveness, but we cannot go to those other areas that also evidence a strong need for loan forgiveness so we can attract in good people and keep good people in those fields and improve our education system. And we cannot do that because the Republicans, the majority in this House, decided to take that money that could be made in that investment, and instead of, because of ideology, give it to people who already have a significant amount of money in their lives.

I think that is short-sighted. We should be encouraging people to enter and stay in these fields where it is going to make a difference. There has been a national review of some 36 studies dealing with early childhood programs, and what they found is that children who participate in these early childhood programs are less likely to be held back in school, less likely to be placed in special education, more likely to succeed in school, more likely to graduate, more likely to behave well, and better able to adjust to the educational process as they go through it in school.

For all of those reasons, we need to make sure that we concentrate on getting them the best teachers because those are the children that will benefit tremendously from having that right kind of guidance.

The median debt right now for somebody with a bachelor's degree from a public institution, not a private institution, but a public institution, is $15,375. That is more than double what it was 10 years ago.

We deserve to have those qualified teachers. In fact, right now we require that all teachers have a child development credential and half have to have an associate's degree, and we have met that by the end of 2002; but this bill rightfully raises the bar to say that by 2008 at least half have to have a bachelor's degree. Where are the people going to get the money to do that?

We have well-deserving people who have that $15,000-plus debt as they come out. They are making half of what a kindergarten teacher makes if they get a job in early childhood education, and the fear here is that they are going to be attracted into other areas, not because they do not want to teach and not because they will not make sacrifices, but because they have that burden that is so substantial that they have to go seek employment somewhere else where they can then afford to pay back that loan.

This is a disturbing feature on this. We have a bill that is a significantly good bill that comes up short because of this ideology, because we are so focused on the Republican side on tax cuts for the already wealthy. We could have had tax cuts. We could have distributed them fairly amongst a lot of people, and we could have taken some of money that was in that phenomenal surplus that we had at the beginning of this administration's term of $5.6 trillion over 10 years. We could have taken some small part of that to invest in America, to invest in our children; and, yes, we would have invested in science teachers and mathematics teachers and special education teachers, but I suggest to my colleagues we also would have invested in reading teachers and children teachers for 3- and 4-year-olds in early education.

That is critical, Mr. Speaker, and I think that we have fallen short as a Congress here by putting those self-inflicted constraints on the House, and I think we have to start looking at that. The American people should know that this is an area where the Republicans do not want to vote on this issue because they know in their hearts this is something we should be doing.

So rather than be forced to take a tough vote because I doubt that this amendment, if it had been allowed to come for a vote, would have failed, I think clearly it would have passed. I think far and wide the majority of people, the Members of this House, know that we have to attract early childhood teachers, that loan forgiveness expansion has to be a part of that.

Rather than face the embarrassment of having the majority of this House, including their own Republican Members, tell them that they are at fault when we have that self-inflicted limitation, they chose to use the rules process to once again say that we are going to have a very restricted rule, that all of these amendments that Members should have an opportunity to raise their voices on will not even get the chance to be heard and debated and deliberated upon and voted upon.

That is the great disgrace of this 108th Congress, is manipulation through the Committee on Rules and the shutting down of debate so that the American people's voices cannot be heard so that their concerns cannot be reach and so that this country does not have the opportunity to have their Members who represent them stand up and say we want to invest in America, we want to invest in our children, we want to set the right ideological tone, and that is, inclusiveness for everyone; and the Committee on Rules has failed us here, and this rule has failed us.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, which is not modernization of Medicare. It ends it, it does not mend it. And there is no choice here for doctors, only for insurance companies. It is going to put a lot of seniors who have good retirement plans back into the Medicare system without the care and the prescription drugs they need.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I am proud cosponsor of this legislation here today, a bill to commemorate the remarkable life and tremendous achievements of a woman who served with great distinction in the House of Representatives. To Patsy's friends, to her husband John, her daughter Wendy, and her brother Eugene, I offer my condolences as we remember her today.

Over the past few months, we have all missed the presence of her in our lives, and we know if she was still with us today, Patsy would be fighting for the rights of women and girls through Title 9, and fighting to see that this country lives up to its responsibilities to provide economic opportunity for all Americans, and she would be promoting democratic values and human rights and international cooperation abroad in Iraq and throughout the world.

She leaves a powerful legacy, and I will leave it to others to go on, item by item, but we know she broke down many, many barriers, first for herself and then for others. She left a legacy for millions of working families that she helped lift out of poverty with education and job training programs, ranging from the war on poverty to welfare reform. And she helped a whole generation of female student athletes for whom she drafted and implemented title IX.

I was proud to serve with Patsy on both the Committee on Education and the Workforce and on the Committee on Government Reform where she gave voice to the voiceless every day that she served. Patsy provided vision, courage and leadership, speaking out on all of the vital issues of the day and inspiring those of us who served with her with her fiery oration and a mastery of education, economic, and labor issues.

Mr. Speaker, she mixed her persuasive powers with the chocolate macadamia nuts that she used to pass out to all. Her memory will long remain here and in Hawaii for another generation of young women and Americans for the work she did.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.

Mr. Chairman, I have introduced the Build America Act Amendment, which is a step towards ensuring that the United States defense jobs are performed by United States defense workers. American defense workers are 100 percent committed to our Armed Forces and to ensuring that America has the best-trained, best-equipped, and best-led forces in the world.

Unfortunately, over the past 15 years, defense-related employment has fallen by 67 percent. That translates into over 1 million jobs lost. We need to do more to reverse this disturbing trend, and we must do more on their behalf.

Just as we in Congress continue to fulfill our patriotic promise to our men and women in uniform, we must also demonstrate our equal commitment to those men and women who wear a different kind of uniform, those who build, repair, and operate the machines that sustain and strengthen our security here at home.

The Build America Amendment, which expands the scope of the United States defense Industrial Base Assessment Program, seeks information on why contracts are transferred outside this country and mandates an action plan on how this critical sector can be revitalized and restored.

The amendment stands in solidarity with our workers, finding out where jobs have gone and fighting to keep them in this country.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their fine work on this bill and this section in particular.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this bill, the so-called Pension Security Act. I cannot help but be struck by a sense of deja vu, because it was just about a year ago today that the majority brought a similar bill to the floor with the same inadequate, harmful political fig leaf for their dismal record, just covering that dismal record on their retirement security.

Republicans have ignored the problems brought to light by last year's scandals and by all the scandals in the 13 months since that period of time. This legislation does address those dangers and challenges and uncertainties that threaten the retirement security of America's workers. In some cases it actually rolls back those protections.

For example, the bill opens up a whole new dangerous loophole that allows for self-interested investment advice to be provided to employees. For the first time since ERISA was enacted almost three decades ago, investment firms can be permitted to serve as both the principal financial adviser and the investment managers to employees.

The bill would permit investment advisers to recommend their firm's products and earn additional fees on those recommended products if they just disclose the fact that they are in conflict. It does not require access to independent advice, nor does it assure any independent oversight. Conflicts between the adviser's profits and the fiduciary duty to the worker would be explicitly authorized.

The rollback of these critical protections to workers is an act that flies in the face of the past year and a half of corporate scandals. On April 27, the Securities and Exchange Commission and New York Attorney General's office reached a $1.4 billion settlement with the 10 largest Wall Street firms. Among other things, it will, for the first time, require independent investment research to be provided to investors.

This settlement was based on mountains of evidence that the investment advice that major firms were providing to investors was corrupted by conflicts of interest. This costs investors billions of dollars through poor decisions tainted by their adviser's self-dealing.

The very same firms covered by this settlement have demonstrated that they felt no responsibility to the investing company, only to their profit margins. They are the same firms who have demonstrated that if a conflict is possible, they will exploit it, and even if a conflict is illegal, they will exploit it, and they will be explicitly authorized to have that conflicted advice presented under this bill.

There are other problems with this bill. It allows for the conversion of defined benefit plans to less generous cash balance plans, as just mentioned by my colleague from California. The majority actually voted down an amendment in committee to add protections for workers on that aspect.

Further, this legislation leaves in place practices that Enron and WorldCom and other companies that caused unwitting workers to lose billions of dollars benefited from.

There are three examples. The bill continues to lock employees into company-matched stock for 3 years after the contributions have been made; it fails to require companies to provide notice to employees that executives are dumping the company's stock, which should be a key indicator to workers that may wish to divest; and it also continues special treatment to company executive pensions at the expense of rank- and-file members.

Mr. Speaker, we should put what is happening today into context. This debate today is not just about pension security, just like last week's debate was not just about taxes. This is about an arrogance of power by this majority. While our economy struggles, and while families across America watch helplessly as their retirement savings dwindle away as a result of corporate greed and mismanagement, while health care costs soar to ever higher rates, while prescription drug prices rise at five times the rate of inflation, the

Republican leadership in this House can still be counted on to protect the interest of corporate moguls and wealthy special interests at the expense of hard-working American families.

There is something wrong when a party uses Enron and investment scandals of Wall Street as justification for rolling back pension protections for American workers. There is something wrong when a party uses the economic misery of regular Americans to cut the taxes of the super-rich. And there is something wrong when the majority uses the crisis of skyrocketing prescription drug prices to privatize Medicare as a favor to the insurance industry.

This bill exploits the suffering of many to reward the few. It is a pattern in this House, Mr. Speaker, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, for the past 2\1/2\ years the Bush administration, with help from a Republican majority in Congress, has pursued a policy of shifting this country's tax burden from corporate giants and their super-wealthy friends onto average Americans. Each tax cut proposed had a minimum of relief for families that masked huge breaks for the favored few.

The results of earlier such cuts are in: 2,200,000 jobs lost and a downward spiraling economy. This administration has had the worst private-sector job growth performance of the 14 administrations since World War II. Besides the current occupant, no White House except that of the second Eisenhower term lost jobs.

Now as concern for the economy rises, the President has again proposed huge cuts for a narrow few, with small cuts for families sprinkled in for ``cover.'' Given the past failure of this approach, and the seemingly endless bleeding of jobs from our economy, the Bush tax cut plan has been re-titled the ``Jobs and Economic Growth'' Plan. Let's pray it doesn't repeat the damage done by the last initiative.

By mentioning the word jobs with every breath and having the media breathlessly repeat such pronouncements, the President believes people will think the problem is being addressed. He claims his plan will create 1.4 million jobs. Unfortunately for him, and us, Alan Greenspan of the Fed disagrees, as does the former Presidential Economic Advisory Council member and now Director of the Congressional Budget Office. Neither would or could tout this de ja vu, his father called it voo doo, economic policy.

There is a better way to respond to the obvious needs of America's families; a previously tried and successful path that would address the painful situations too many are now experiencing. The President and Congress can provide help, and do so without raising taxes.

We must, however, forego those tax cuts that the President is trying to direct almost exclusively to the already extremely well-off, i.e., the reduction of taxes on Corporate dividends. It's not too much to ask. At every other juncture when this nation has met simultaneous foreign and domestic challenges, we have asked for, and received, shared sacrifices. This circumstance calls for the same response.

With common sense, fairness and decency as our guide, we can implement a plan far less costly than the President's that actually will create over a million jobs this year alone, and grow the economy. Taking this course will not saddle our children with hundreds of billion or trillions of dollars in debt, as would the President's plan.

We should forego the President's special tax favors, and instead:

Provide a decent extension of unemployment insurance benefits for those still out of work and those expected to lose their jobs in the coming months.

Provide states with funds to avoid their cuts in local aid that are resulting in teacher, fire and police lay offs and losses of other critical services. Also, by providing assistance with a larger federal share of Medicaid to stop plans to end coverage for thousands.

Fulfill the federal government's promises to states and local governments to fund homeland security, road and bridge repair and construction, disability education and `No Child Left Behind' mandates, and with one-time assistance to help those hurt most by unemployment and a stagnant economy.

Focus any tax relief on families that work-not just those benefiting from ``coupon clipping'' and toward small business incentives for new investments and jobs actually created in 2003.

Finally, as the World Trade Organization forces the United States to end its tax subsidies to Corporations that manufacture overseas, we should defeat the Republican effort to repackage that same idea and stop policies that move jobs off-shore.

Stopping the economic slide and easing workers' and small business' pain in this economy is entirely possible if we do the sensible, fair things.

It is ironic that those looking to give money primarily to the very well-off expect to spend billions building Iraqi schools and roads, providing health care for Iraqi citizens, and rebuilding that country, but somehow lack the will and common sense to build America and help its struggling families. We are morally obligated to assist in Iraq, where so much devastation was caused. Still, I believe we are morally bound--and guided by fair play and common sense--to do the right thing for our citizens and economy as well.

It is my hope that the Senate will refocus attention on the needs of the American people and craft a Jobs and Growth Act worthy of its name.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed in the legislation that we are debating today, because this could have been much better. We are only days after depressing job reports, the most depressing reports in decades, released by the Department of Labor showing we lost half a million jobs in the last 3 months. Instead, what the majority brings to this floor is an eviscerated, underfunded job training and workforce development bill.

Tomorrow, the majority will bring to the floor a bloated tax bill, overwhelmingly weighted to the wealthiest Americans; and combined, this is what you are going to call a jobs program.

Since January 2001, when the current President took office, this economy has lost 2.7 million jobs that are private sector jobs. It is a net loss of more than 74,000 jobs a month. The President is on track to have the worst job creation record for any President since World War II. Workers desperately need relief, the economy desperately needs a boost, and this bill does not provide it.

The House majority missed a tremendous opportunity to continue the 30-year record that we have had of bipartisan cooperation on the workforce investment program. But even before the House began to authorize this process, the administration and this Congress had a terrible record on job training.

Despite the rising unemployment numbers under this administration, the programs under the Workforce Investment Act have been dramatically underfunded. In fiscal year 2002, the Republican majority adopted a $300 million rescission of WIA funds; in fiscal year 2003, they cut WIA by $440 million; and they project 2004 to cut it by $265 million. This warrants concern that the rhetoric of support for these programs is not matched by the conduct.

This legislation does nothing to restore those cuts in critically needed training dollars, and it does nothing to restore working families as a priority.

There are at least 5 problems with this bill as it is reauthorized. Instead of restoring needed funding, it actually block grants the money, including the adult dislocated worker and employment services programs. Make no mistake, block granting these programs is nothing more than a precursor to further reducing funding for job training in the future. Combined with the history of the cuts that I just discussed, the history of block grant programs tried elsewhere that result in cuts and the history of the administration putting no money in for extension of unemployment benefits, we start to see the attitude of the majority and of this administration towards unemployed Americans and people that need to get back to work.

The block grants ignore important differences between the various types of jobs and job seekers that are currently served by the WIA programs, and they pit one group of underemployed against the unemployed trying to receive assistance.

Second, the bill will also largely replace the unemployment service program whose central mission is to facilitate the match between job seekers and employers and the Federal-State partnership that consists of more than 1,800 local offices. This approach will undermine the principle of an unbiased, nonpartisan agency to administer job referrals and assist in the payment of unemployment insurance benefits.

Thirdly, the bill denies services to in-school youth under the Youth programs title of WIA. The bill has been changed to allow 30 percent of local funding for in-school youth. I strongly support the concept that young people who leave school before finishing should be given a second chance, but I also believe it makes sense to catch as many as we can before they leave the classroom. This legislation restricts the ability of local communities to respond to their needs and it flies in the face of the kinds of effective programs that are currently being implemented.

Fourth, State governors will be allowed to take unspecified amounts of funding presently used to provide critical veterans employment, adult education, vocational rehabilitation, and other services and instead use that money for administrative costs in the one-stop centers. Federal organizations projected a $61.3 million shortfall in their outreach and job counseling and placement programs already. Vocational organizations can only service 5 percent of those who need their services already.

Finally, the bill rolls back the critical civil rights protections.

Mr. Chairman, we have again missed an opportunity to come together in a bipartisan fashion. This legislation is the worse for it, and I urge its rejection.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1350 in its present form. As proposed, it is designed to dramatically undermine the ideals of IDEA, and doing so in the name of reauthorizing it.

In response to the previous speaker's question about funding over a period of time, from 1980 to 1992, we had a Republican in the White House. So we had a division between the leadership in the White House and in Congress, and that may explain some reason why things were not funded. But this year we had a Republican majority in the House, one in the Senate, and in the White House. If they have the will, they certainly have the way to move forward for full funding.

I am joined in my position of opposition to this bill in its present form by parents, educators, and advocates for the disability community, all making clear that this bill is not responsive to the needs of the true consumers of the law, and that is children.

The majority is asserting something is better than nothing, and in this case I am afraid that is wrong. These counterproductive changes in the bill mean that the children would be better served by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in its current form. The civil rights of these children and the due process rights of their parents are not being quality protected in the legislation. Foremost, as has been mentioned, this bill fails to fully fund that 40 percent of the average per-pupil expenditure that Members have been promising for 30 years to fund in order to help our States and local governments as they try to educate children who, before 1975, and before the courts stepped in to make it, otherwise were ignored or mistreated.

We cannot afford to rely on promises from the majority that some day we are going to fully fund it. We have to make it positive and firm right now. As our President rather inarticulately tried to say some time ago, Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, and I did it just like he did.

The problem is that we cannot do that. We cannot just rely on their promises. Nobody can rely on that statement as inarticulately set forth. The fact of the matter is that their promises have fallen behind on the education bill; their promises have fallen behind on this bill; their promises have fallen behind on civil rights, due process rights and on funding. I ask Members to not support the bill.