Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, due to an illness yesterday I was unable to vote for the following rollcall votes and I have listed how I would have voted on them if I had been present.

Rollcall 569: ``Yes;'' rollcall 570: ``yes;'' rollcall 571: ``no;'' rollcall 572: ``no;'' and rollcall 573: ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), and I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz- Balart), and I thank the members of the conference committee, and I particularly thank the chairman.

There were some difficulties following the conference committee meeting when I was there and others were there. There was a conference committee meeting and there was some argument over the 69 towers, and the bill before us today corrects that argument.

Now, what I would like to correct for a second are two facts or two statements that I have just heard.

First of all, this bill is about the safety of the American people and a failure to adopt this conference committee would be turning the back on the safety of the American people. That is number one.

Number two is about if you represent a major airport in this country, an airport that is gone through the trauma of the post 9/11 period, an airport that is now working with the CX 9000 equipment and the other equipment we are mandating. This bill puts into statute the conference committee report, the reimbursements in law that those airports will receive. It removes us from last-minute supplemental appropriations with cries for needs of money from airports and the moving of the shell game.

This conference committee report addresses the rural and smaller airports in this country. This conference committee report is all about safety, notwithstanding what one's policy may have been on the issue that took us to the controversy that caused the bringing back of this conference report and for it to be rewritten.

The fact of the matter is it is obfuscation if someone stands here in this House and says that this bill continues what has been corrected. This bill corrects the deficiency. This bill is an investment in the safety of the American people that fly; and a vote against this rule or against this bill would be a vote against their safety. So I commend the chairman. I commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), and I commend all the Members of this House who care about the safety of the American people, the safety and security of our airports, and the continued great aviation industry we have. I urge Members to vote for the rule and for the final report.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and chairman of our subcommittee for yielding me this time. I rise to pay tribute, first of all, to our committee chairman and for his willingness to recommit this bill and deal with the issue, part of which is being discussed today. Secondly, I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) for his willingness to support this bill and addressing the fact that the committee, after the difficulties we had with the first report, addressed the concerns that were expressed.

I want to now express my opinion for a second. I have heard far too often statements made that directly or indirectly seemed to accuse Members of this House of quibbling with the security of the American flying, traveling public. I know that is not really intended, because this bill and this conference report is all about the safety and security of the American traveling public. I respect differences on the tower issue. I respect that. But I know our President and I know no member of our subcommittee and I know every Member of this House is committed to seeing that air travel in this country is safe, which is why the issues that are never talked about in this debate are so important for me to bring out.

The fact that we have codified and put into statute with this law the reimbursement to our airports and our airlines for the mandated security that is the responsibility to be put in, to see to it that the money is spent, the security is there. We no longer deal with situations like last year where we have emergency supplementals with billions of dollars and people arguing about who should have really paid what. We have issued deadlines for installation of security, for baggage inspection, for all the other things that we are doing. And now through this bill, we are providing the mechanisms and ensuring the framework in which that takes place.

So while I respect the differences that are debated and understand the points on both sides with regard to the towers, you should not throw the baby out with the bath water. This bill is about the safety of the American people and the flying public. This bill is about codifying that which since 9/11 we have grappled with regarding airport security and the installation of additional security. This is about the AIP. This is about the safety of the flying public. This is about an industry that is essential to the economy of the United States of America. I, like the gentleman from Ohio, will vote for this in its final passage because it is about the safety and security of the Americans and the Georgians that I represent flying safely in and out of one of the largest airports in the world, Hartsfield International.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my support for the Pence amendment to H.R. 3289, the Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 2004. Representative Pence's amendment would make the first 50 percent of Iraq Reconstruction funding available immediately as a grant, and would prioritize that money for the emergency purposes of security, electric sector infrastructure, oil infrastructure, public works, water resources, and transportation and telecommunication infrastructures. The balance of the funding would be made available in the form of loans from the United States Government, under terms determined by the President, once a democratically elected government has been established in Iraq and certified by the Administration. I support the goals of Mr. Pence's amendment, and am disappointed that it will not be ruled in order.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time, and I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the chairman, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking member, for the outstanding work they have done on a bill that is critical to American business and enterprise and American consumers.

I want to particularly thank the chairman for incorporating within the

manager's amendment a provision that directs the FTC and the Treasury to promulgate rules and regulations for an orderly implementation and transition to the free credit reports called for in section 501.

Mr. Chairman, the Fair Credit Reporting Act is critical to business in America. Identity theft and the protection of consumers from identity theft is critical, but time is also critical.

By allowing the provision of free credit reports without an orderly transition for their seeking and a safe way for them to be sought could spike demand on the crediting reporting agencies and delay the reports of credit on those consumers seeking credit. For example, 2 weeks ago when home loans spiked in one day by a half a percent, a delay in the receipt of a credit report by a prospective home buyer seeking a mortgage could have cost them 10, 20, $50,000 over the life of the loan.

I encourage the chairman to continue work with the Members and then later as this is implemented with the FTC to ensure that we have a safe way for the free credit report to be sought specifically either by the Internet or in writing, and secondly, for us to manage the flow so that the spikes in those requests do not damage the timeliness with which paying customers seeking credit in this country can receive an orderly report on their credit.

The committee is doing America's consumers and the consistency of credit reporting in this country a great service by the bill. I commend the chairman for the manager's amendment, and I intend to support the bill fully.

Mr. Speaker, I rise quickly to make a couple of points. Sometimes we change legislation through impassioned speeches on the floor of this House. Sometimes, in the quiet of committees, members offer amendments that make substantial changes in law. Sometimes you can make substantial change in our practices through change in the way we do business.

Yesterday, I introduced a change to the rules of House as a bill introduced in this House, which I would like to ask everybody to be a part of, that simply says this: Whenever a conference committee appropriates new moneys, expands a program or adds a program that was not incorporated within the House and Senate bills as they went through their normal procedure in this House, that those programs be delineated on the surface of that conference report, and that that conference report lie on the Members' desks for 24 hours before its vote.

When the sun shines in on the knowledge of last-minute appropriations and deals that are made, then we in Congress will make more intelligent votes on the bills that come before us than the late night and late hours of the conference committee reports and votes.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) for his work as a governor and as a leader, for his work on this committee and for his hard work on this bill.

When I was a little boy, and I heard something that I was not quite sure was correct, I used to always go to my daddy and I would say, Pop, is this right? Being the kind of guy that wanted me to learn how to find out for myself, he would say, Son, why do you not go look it up? So tonight I have heard that we are going to serve less people with demonstration grants, that the standards are not being held to as in title I. I heard there were not any new things. I heard it was an experiment.

So I decided to go look it up, and just for a second, please indulge me.

I want to read on page 66, subparagraph (g), the required services of the block grant. With the funds under this section, the States shall provide services described in Section 641(a) which is every required service, standard and audit of title I, and at least as extensive as were provided previously and to at least as many low-income children, families in each fiscal year. And then, further, it adds a page of new requirements and new standards which I guess are the experiments.

I do not think a 4-year-old pre-kindergartener is an experiment. I do not think physical development, health and nutrition is an experiment, and I do not think social development is an experiment. I do not think parental engagement and involvement is an experiment.

I think what we need to look at here tonight is what is really trying to be done.

Title II allows States, on their own volition, to apply for grants in such cases only when they already offer a 4-year-old pre-kindergarten program and other services. It requires them to invest more money, not less; serve at least as many children, not less; and meet every standard that existed under 641(a). That is what it says. I looked it up in the book.

Let me tell my colleagues what else it does. Out in America today somewhere there are 3-year-olds soon to be eligible or currently eligible for Head Start named Jose and Maria, Willy and Bob. There is probably a little Johnny who cannot read somewhere out there, and if they could write, which they cannot because they are three and they are impoverished, or if they could call you, but they really cannot because their parents do not have the money for a phone, I will tell you what they would tell us.

They would say, gosh, if you could, take all the benefits of Head Start in title I and add to it a dimension of things like Even Start, where my mom and I can learn to read together, and a 4-year-old prekindergarten program that has, as this bill requires, an early reading, early cognitive skill, and early language development requirement aligned with the State requirements for criteria and for curriculum in grades K through 12.

Now, it is not a block grant because it does not waive the standards of 641(a), which is what is required on title I. If that is true, then title I is a block grant. It is not an experiment. Education is not an experiment. It is the great enabler. It is the great empowerer.

Yes, I do know that all those children that it needs to serve are those who started out with a disadvantage far worse than the ones that I did. But the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) in his original remarks said that this bill turned back the clock. Well, if it turned back the clock, that means it went to the year preceding Head Start, which was 1964, where there were very few publicly funded kindergartens much less prekindergartens, where nutrition programs were just beginning to develop, where in my part of the country Brown v. Board of Education and its promise of equal access to education had just really begun.

This bill does not turn back the clock. It addresses the challenges of the 21st century. It is permissive for challenging our States to reach for the stars, to help those most impoverished to do better, and to see to it that we take a program that has proven it can do well and give States that want a chance to improve it through academic enrichment and collaboration.

I close with this. My State developed a 4-year-old prekindergarten 10 years ago under Governor Zel Miller. Today, 600,000 4-year-olds have gone through that program, and 68,000 will enter this August. We have an Office of School Readiness where we collaborate with the Atlanta Symphony that has an inner-city and minority classical musical program for 3- and 4-year-olds based on the scientifically based brain research to enrich the cognitive skills of children.

Should we not say to those States that want that opportunity that they have the chance, just as long as they spend more money, meet every standard as required in 641(a), serve every child, or at least every one they did before? I think we want to say that. And I say we say ``no'' to the substitute and ``yes'' to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1472.

Mr. Speaker, due to thunderstorms in Atlanta yesterday my plane was delayed and I missed the following votes: Roll call no. 354, roll call no. 355, roll call no. 356, and roll call no. 357. Had I been present I would have voted no on all of these votes.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for their hard work on this legislation.

I came to the floor, though, because of some comments I heard in other speeches. I think there is unanimity that this is a great bill. There are some people who talk of its inadequacies and how it could do more, and there have been some who say we are not doing

enough because we have given tax breaks to rich people and we have not prioritized education, and I have to address that briefly.

Public education in America is paid for in my State and in most States, about 67 percent of the property tax bill that is paid in my State goes to education. About two-thirds of every dime that taxpayers pay goes to public education. Our State's budget for public education is $6 billion. The Federal Government in IDEA and title I puts about 7 percent in, and all those monies come from these taxpayers.

The fact that we gave a tax break to create jobs, growth and opportunity in this country inures itself to the benefit of education as much or more than what we are doing in this legislation because those taxpayers are school teachers. The tax break for a family of two or four making $44,000 a year, which ends up being $11,000 a year, can go to help pay that student loan off rather than send it to the government.

The corporation that takes benefits for expenses or takes benefits for advanced depreciation that is a partner in education is also somebody that is employing someone else who can buy a home and pay taxes to finance the schools. So I understand the argument, but to me it hurts that we take a bill that is quality and that is good and that everybody here would like to make a little better, and all of a sudden blame the very people who are funding education, who are paying for our teachers, who make it possible for us to have a nationwide public education system, end up being criticized that we cannot broaden the scope of the benefit we are offering in the forgiveness of the first $17,500 of those who go into 40 percent title I schools and teach math or science or special education.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to come to the floor to say the American taxpayer is the reason we have quality public schools. America's school teachers are taxpayers, and the fact that our tax policy is for them to keep more of their money is just as much of an incentive to help them in the job that they perform to pay the taxes they pay as the forgiveness of a loan might have been. I enjoy working with every member of our committee, and I am proud to join with the other Members here today to see that we focus on our title I schools, we focus on quality teachers, and we focus on leaving no child behind.

Mr. Speaker, I have not had any time to make any phone calls. I did not read the think tank studies. I did, however, for 22 years prior to coming to Congress, manage a company. When we left, we had 220 employees covered by an ERISA-qualified

group medical insurance coverage. And their salaries was paid and my salary was paid by the proceeds of sales made by independent contractors of which 90 percent were women.

Under the independent contractor law and IRS requirements, we could not offer them group medical insurance and they had no ERISA protection. They were at the mercy of what was available.

Now, those 220 for whom we provided group medical insurance, I would have to resent the fact that the illusion was made that an employer who had that many women as a percentage of their workforce would not provide gynecological benefits and other reproductive benefits available to women. Of course you would.

Now what this bill does it does not preclude a mandated 48-hour stay any more than it precludes any other benefit. It offers the employer the option of offering it. It is true there is an exemption from the State requirement. It is untrue that it necessarily, on its face, takes that benefit away from a company.

Who in here would believe for a moment that an employer who wants to offer a benefit to his employees would take away the very benefit that is most important to those employees? Facts are stubborn things.

The fact of the matter is, 41 million Americans do not have health insurance. Now there are contributing reasons to that. But one of the main contributing reasons are those independent contractors, small business people, laborers, people who make the money that pay the taxes who have no accessibility to health insurance.

Now, I have lobbied on both sides about this and I care about this very deeply. I have a campaign staff right now and I am providing insurance to those few individuals I have employed because I know how important it is to have it, and I know how expensive it is to go out and get it on an individual basis, even though they are basically young. But understand this, this bill does not preclude a health care benefit for women that is mandated in State law from being offered.

It gives the choice for companies to put together a cafeteria-type of plan which may or may not include it, but do not sell those employers short that they would not offer a benefit that the very basis of their employees have to have.

Secondly, as I understand it, the cost of this is about $354 million in terms of CBO's estimate of H.R. 660 and $50 billion in terms of the substitute. I would say this, if we can make an investment that is $49,442,000,000 less expensive to offer insurance to 41 million Americans or a lot of them, we estimate 8 to 10, to provide benefits to give them health care that they do not have, then we should vote for the underlying bill. We should reject the substitute, and we should reject any false perception that this is taking away the integrity of a business in offering a qualified plan to their qualified employees.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is absolutely correct, and if I may take the remainder of the time to tell the gentleman that in that exact scenario, since I could not offer those benefits because they were independent contractors, but because I cared very deeply about my independent contractors and the quality of life they had, I tried to scratch and find those.

What this bill does, it opens up an opportunity for employers who have independent contractors as their employees, to take the benefits of pooling and provide for those independent contractors the benefit that ERISA guarantees the opportunity to provide in terms of the employees that company has. This is an important step forward for 41 million Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge Lake Allatoona Awareness Week as proclaimed by Governor Sonny Perdue of Georgia.

Lake Allatoona is located in the foothills of north Georgia. The lake provides drinking water for over 500,000 Georgians and recreation activities for millions, and its watershed provides habitat for a number of endangered species, including the American Bald Eagle.

The counties of Cobb, Bartow, and Cherokee that surround the lake are some of the fastest growing in the country--making the preservation and restoration of this vital resource extremely important. In 1999, the Lake Allatoona Preservation Authority was formed to provide stewardship and education to the surrounding communities about the Lake Allatoona Watershed.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize this week of May 12, 2003, as Lake Allatoona Awareness Week to acknowledge the ongoing

efforts to keep Lake Allatoona stable and healthy so that Georgians may enjoy its beauty for many, many generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Rabbi Shalom Lewis on his 25th Anniversary at Congregation Etz Chaim in Cobb County.

Rabbi Lewis was installed as the first full-time Rabbi of Congregation Etz Chaim in September of 1978, and during his years of service has grown the membership to more than 800 families.

Rabbi Lewis has served not only his Synagogue and Congregation with distinction, but also the entire Cobb County Community. It has been my personal privilege to participate with Rabbi Lewis at numerous Baccalaureate Services for the graduating seniors of Cobb County High Schools. He is a positive influence on the youth of our county.

The Churches and Synagogues of Cobb County contribute to the fabric of our community, and the quality of life of all our citizens. To that end, no one offers more personal enthusiasm and spiritual leadership than Rabbi Lewis.

It is my pleasure to recognize Rabbi Shalom Lewis on this the 25th year of his service to Congregation Etz Chaim and the Cobb County Community.

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

I want to clear something up, and I would appreciate if the ranking member, the distinguished gentleman from California, would look this way.

In rising to take my 2 minutes, I want to clear something up. I am on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and I have great regard for the gentleman's work in the Committee on Ways and Means, but is it not true that the legislation includes both the Boehner and the Portman provision that allows an individual employee to choose their professional adviser and to deduct as a deduction the cost of that advice on their tax forms? Is that not true?

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Let me answer that part, too. If the employer provides the advice, the adviser is liable. They are liable under the Boehner bill and the one that came out of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. If the employer provides it, they are liable.

If that had been true under Enron's case, if it had been true under WorldCom's case, I doubt we would be sitting here today. We would be reading stories about those advisers who were in jail.

Secondly, if the employee chooses not to want the advice of the adviser that is liable from the company, then they are free to choose their professional adviser and use the cost as a legitimate deduction on their taxes.

The point I want to make is we can argue about executive compensation. We can argue about health plans, which are not even in this legislation. We can argue about anything, but the fact of the matter is with the passage of this bill, an individual is encouraged to seek independent advice. If it is not independent advice, the dependent adviser is liable to them if they do anything not in the interest of the employee, and if they seek advice independent, they are allowed to use as a legitimate deduction the cost of that individual they choose for the advice they got.

I would submit to my colleague it would not have taken a whistle- blower at Enron to blow it sky high. Under this bill we would have had an employee getting legitimate advice who would have understood long before that there was a problem, and millions of dollars would have been saved in the pensions of employees.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Chairman McKeon) for introducing me, but also in particular for his leadership and work on this legislation, as well as the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner).

I am particularly pleased to rise in support of H.R. 1261 because of the great additional support it gives to the youth of America. This bill provides a targeted approach to serving America's youth. Specifically, it emphasizes the need to provide WIA youth funds for

out-of-school young adults. Under current law, funds for the WIA youth program are spread too thinly. Out-of-school youth are currently underserved and face significant challenges to successful employment and careers. This bill addresses the problem and provides adequate funding to alleviate the problem.

Furthermore, this bill provides that youth eligible for services under State and local programs must be of the ages between 16 and 21. A focus on this age group will provide States with the flexibility to address both in- and out-of-school youth, as well as promote dropout prevention for our Nation's youth. However, services for in-school youth must be provided during nonschool hours, which may include before and after school programs. This bill promotes more productive development programs, while ensuring these training and employment programs are not substituted for school curriculum. The purpose is to enhance and supplement education, in addition to traditional schooling, to better prepare them for the jobs of the future.

Additionally, the bill makes Youth Councils optional rather than mandatory. In many areas, local Youth Councils have proven to be inefficient or ineffective in enhancing the local system's efforts to provide programs and services that successfully address youth issues. However, local boards retain the authority to create such councils if they are needed and prove effective in this area.

Finally, this important legislation provides challenge grants to cities and rural areas that have effective partnerships with education, business, and community organizations in providing youth programs and services. These areas will have the ability to compete for challenge grant targeted funding, which will further result in greater and more effective services for our youth population.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1261, the Workforce Reinvestment Act and Adult Education Act of 2003, is crucial to a successful and productive workforce and especially crucial to the youth of America. I am pleased to rise in support, and I encourage this House to adopt the legislation.