Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring my colleagues attention to a provision included in the Fiscal Year 2005 Appropriations Omnibus bill, H.R. 4818, titled, ``Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Salaries and Expenses.'' The language included in this section declares that it is the intent of Congress for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to have exclusive jurisdiction over the siting and approval of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) terminals. This language seems to target a pending lawsuit by the State of California challenging the placement of a LNG facility. Although the language is non-binding, I am concerned with the possible repercussions of this provision, as well as the method in which it was added to the bill.

My home state of Rhode Island is currently examining a proposal regarding a LNG terminal in Providence. Members of the Rhode Island Congressional delegation and state officials have been in active discussions with all federal and local agencies that would be affected by this terminal to ensure that the region is properly informed of the hazards of a potentially expanded or new LNG facility. Rhode Island's unique geography and narrow waterways would force the LNG tanker ships to travel through densely populated areas to reach the terminal. The citizens of Rhode Island and our Congressional delegation have justly requested that all safety concerns are addressed before the facility is considered due to the ships close proximity to residential and businesses areas. There is also an increased potential for environmental damage due to dredging, as well as concerns for how increased tanker traffic will affect the commercial fishing industry, which is already under tremendous stress. Further, the U.S. Coast Guard recently responded in a letter to my office that the security of the LNG ships would be a shared Federal, State, local, and industry responsibility.

I understand the FERC's assessment that the shipment of LNG is engaged in foreign commerce, however, this statement severely limits the process and dangers involved with shipping LNG. The delivery of LNG, especially in populated areas such as Rhode Island, greatly impacts the lives of those who live near the transport route. Also, the state and local law enforcement agencies that will be called upon to ensure the public's safety will continue to be stretched thin. Excluding the involvement of the state from the consideration of a LNG terminal is inconsistent with all the information my office has received from various inquiries that unequivocally proves that state and local agencies would be greatly impacted by the construction of a large facility. The federal government is also ignoring the critical expertise and knowledge that can be gained by including state and local experts in this process.

I am also extremely disappointed with the closed-door method that was used to add this

language to the omnibus. Supporting the FERC's exclusive jurisdiction over the siting and approval of LNG terminals is an extremely important decision that is worthy of a full debate in Congress. By including controversial language in an omnibus at the end of the 108th session of Congress, there is no opportunity to amend or strip the bill of this or other, harmful provisions. I hope that my colleagues will join me in more closely examining the full impact of this issue on every state in the next Congress. I look forward to an open debate that will include the input of those citizens and local officials who are most affected by the inclusion of this language in the omnibus. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation.

Earlier this year, in October, I voted to pass H.R. 10, despite realizing how that bill violated the bipartisan and unanimous spirit of the 9/11 Commission.

It was a bill crafted solely by the House Republican leadership. H.R. 10 failed to give sufficient budgetary authority to the National Director of Intelligence, and perpetuated fragmented management of our national intelligence structure. Barriers to crucial joint intelligence were left unaddressed, while controversial extraneous ``poison-pill'' provisions were included.

I supported that flawed legislation then because it was absolutely imperative that the process continue to move forward. I was hopeful that this bill would be improved in conference and the controversial provisions removed, because I was hopeful that the will of the American people would be able to make its influence felt even behind the closed doors of a conference negotiation.

The American people have won today, and that victory was spearheaded by a group of average, every-day American citizens who tragically know all too well the threats to our national security.

The conference report we have before us today was made possible through the steadfast determination of the families of the 9/11 victims. They stood in candlelight vigil outside the White House, evoking the memory of their lost loved ones, demanding action and intervention by the President. The President heard them, and the country thanks them.

We all cried and grieved with those families that tragic day 3 years ago, and today we will take action in honor of them.

I applaud the efforts of the conference negotiators who fought for the safety and security of all Americans against the forces who wanted to protect the status quo. They were willing to compromise where they could, but held their ground where they had to.

We finally have a National Director of Intelligence with sufficient budgetary and personnel authority to coordinate our intelligence efforts, and a National Counter-Terrorism Center able to unify all elements of counter-terrorism intelligence operations planning. To protect civil liberties and address privacy concerns, we have an independent Privacy and Civil Liberties Board empowered to have access to information from departments and agencies. Transportation and border security are addressed, and the sharing of terrorism threat information among Federal, State, local, and tribal entities is improved.

We have much to praise about what is included in this conference report, but also extremely significant is what was kept out.

Before, the House-passed H.R. 10 sadly included provisions that eased restrictions against deportation to countries that practice torture; a violation of the Convention Against Torture, an international treaty to which this country is a party. I opposed that provision before and I applaud the successful efforts of conference negotiators in removing these egregious provisions.

Before, there were sections of legislation that undermined the fundamental due process rights of immigrants in the courts. These sections would make it harder for refugees fleeing religious and political persecution and for victims of sex trafficking to seek asylum in the United States. These sections did nothing to make America safer and were in direct contravention of the 9/11 Commissions recommendations that urge our nations immigration system should send a message of welcome, tolerance, and justice. Those provisions are now removed.

Certainly, there are remaining immigration issues that deserve continued debate and discussion, but they should not be used to delay or derail such crucial legislation.

In waging the war against radical Islamic totalitarianism, we have taken an important step towards making victory ours. But the work before us must continue.

The battle against terror rightly must involve the improved coordination of intelligence. Also, efforts to secure our ports, railways, chemical plants, and airliners to keep us safe at home.

Homeland security rightfully begins at home, but cannot end at our shores. Our soldiers, Marines, airmen, sailors, intelligence analysts and operatives, F.B.I. agents, and law enforcement agents can only do such much. Fundamentally, what we must win is the battle of ideas.

In winning the struggle against radical Islamic totalitarianism, the 9/11 Commission and many others urge our nation to offer an example of moral leadership in the world, to treat people humanely, to abide by the rule of law.

The people of the Muslim world must never be misled about what this country believes in, what it fights for, and what it defends. Public diplomacy that repair our relations and image, funding international education to counter the rise of hateful madrassas, and protecting the rights of women must be part of our efforts.

Committing the necessary resources to help the economic development and political democratization of the Middle East must be part of the equation. To combat the rise of radical Islamic totalitarianism, foreign aid and nation-building can no longer be avoided.

Today, as we commit ourselves to strengthening our intelligence agencies and protecting our homeland, let us be ready tomorrow and the days ahead to continue the remaining work before us.

Mr. Speaker, on the evening of October 4, I was delayed and missed rollcall votes 487, 488, 489. I respectfully request the opportunity to record my position on rollcall votes 487, 488, 489. It was my intention to vote: ``yea'' on rollcall 487; ``yea'' on rollcall 488; and ``yea'' on rollcall 489.

Mr. Speaker, this week is Mental Health Awareness Week and still the mental health parity legislation supported by 249 representatives, 70 Senators and 369 national organizations is bottled up.

The leadership of this House, which refuses to bring up this popular legislation for a vote, is sentencing millions of Americans to joblessness and underemployment. Mental illnesses are treatable and individuals with mental illnesses are frequently able to hold down good jobs as productive members of society, but only if they are treated.

As the Chicago Tribune reported several years ago, employees who are depressed are twice as likely to take time off for health reasons as employees who are not depressed and are seven times more likely to be less productive on the job.

President Bush's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health found a shocking 90 percent unemployment rate among individuals with serious mental illnesses, while also finding that most of them could work with just modest supports.

The American Dream is not just for those lucky enough to live free of disease and disability. During this mental health awareness week, I call on this House to finally at long last pass mental health parity.

{time} 1030

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her kind words and her leadership on this issue as well. I thank the chairman as well for his work on this legislation.

I just wanted an opportunity to speak on this for a moment or two. It is true that, this week, we are celebrating the Mental Health Awareness Month, and it is appropriate as we celebrate it, to reflect on what we are doing as a Nation to address mental illness in this country. We have 271 cosponsors of mental health parity legislation in this House. We have 71 cosponsors in the United States Senate for mental health parity. We have 368 sponsors by national organizations endorsing mental health parity, and yet, mental health parity legislation is bottled up in committee.

Mental health parity legislation is very basic. It simply says that mental illness is treated as every other physical illness. And if anyone had a doubt that mental illness is not a physical illness, if their common sense did not tell them this, well, we have reams of evidence and knowledge supporting it. Even the Surgeon General Carmona and the former Surgeon General Satcher have released very extensive reports about the need to address the problem of mental illness in this country.

I say all of this because, today, we are addressing a bill that is designed to meet the needs of those who are incarcerated in this country by developing a stronger mental health network for those prisoners either coming out of prison or those juveniles before they end up in prison. But, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that we would not have the problems in this country, where in our prison system we have 2 million people in this country incarcerated,

more people incarcerated in this country than any other industrialized Nation on the face of the earth.

That is an indictment, an indictment on our society that we as a country are picking up the broken pieces of people's lives because we as a country have not done what we are supposed to do in providing those support services, providing that counseling, making sure that our health care system treats the health care needs of those with mental illness.

It is discriminatory for someone with a chemical imbalance in their brain not to be given the same services and health care that someone suffering diabetes would be given. It is a shame and a violation that we are spending less money on mental health care research than many, many other diseases that do not even reflect a fraction of the burden of the disease that mental illness does in this country.

The biggest mental health hospital in this country is Los Angeles County Jail. The biggest mental health hospital is Los Angeles County Jail. Our prisons represent the unmet need of this country when it comes to those with mental illness.

So, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to S. 1194, I want to come down here and say this is the kind of legislation we need. We need to do more of this. But I might add we ought to do this in a comprehensive fashion, and that means we ought to pass mental health parity legislation. I hope we get a chance, if not in this Congress, in next Congress to finally pass mental health parity legislation. Not is it only a matter of failure in our health care system, but it is a matter of civil rights and human rights for those who suffer from mental illness because, indeed,their illness is the only illness that is being discriminated against in this country.

We spend money for every other illness, but we do not spend the money on this illness because somehow our country has not recognized that this is a real physical illness and as such we as a Nation are continuing the discrimination, the stigma that exists against people with mental illness. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this and many other bills that have to do with juvenile justice and mental illness.

Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the gentleman. The big problem here is a lot of these kids do not get anyone to pay attention to them until it starts to be too late. They commit so many crimes. They do not have the people intervene early when they show the predisposition to having a proclivity to commit crimes where they might just be calling out for help. And so the kind of grants that are going to be provided under this legislation ideally will be used as they are designed to be used in the prevention of kids getting into trouble. Because at the very outset, those children, if identified with mental illness, will get the treatment they need.

I have talked to both family court judges in Rhode Island and State court judges. The family court is very excited about the chance to have a mental health court where the child can be brought in and the family can be brought in and they can be given a treatment plan.

In the State court situations, the judges can talk about bail and say, listen, you have a chance. If you go to this treatment program you can avoid perhaps getting sentenced, if it is a minor petty crime.

So these things make sense not only for those who are caught up in our prison system, but of course it makes sense for all of us as a society to try to do the right thing early on, and I think this legislation goes in that direction. That is why I support it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend and colleague, the minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for his leadership and thank him for his friendship to my Aunt Eunice and my Uncle Sarge Shriver. Growing up, I recall many times when I saw him in the house, and now I enjoy serving with him in this House.

To Majority Whip Blunt, I want to thank him as well for his spearheading this effort. It means a lot to so many millions of Americans, but it means a lot to me and my family that he would do such a thing and take his leadership position to help those who are often the most vulnerable in our society. It says a lot about him. I respect him for it.

As the gentleman from Maryland said, the motto of Special Olympics is, ``Let me win. But if I cannot win, let me be brave in the attempt.'' These inspiring words have really been the hallmark of Special Olympics, and I am proud to stand with my colleagues in support of H.R. 5131, the Special Olympics Empowerment Act.

When my Aunt Eunice created the Special Olympics over 36 years ago from a grant by my family's foundation, the Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr., Foundation which was named after my uncle who died in World War II, she had hoped to create an opportunity for those with intellectual disabilities like my Aunt Rosemary. She hoped to create a forum in which not only her sister Rosemary but others could dispel the myths associated with their disabilities.

The creation of Special Olympics has allowed over 1.5 million persons around the globe the opportunity to compete athletically in over 25 sports. The Special Olympics has become a vehicle and a platform to break down artificial barriers, improve public health, change negative attitudes in education and help athletes overcome the intolerance held against them due merely to their intellectual disability.

This act will provide funds to the Special Olympics in order to carry out an expansion of the organization and increase the participation of potential athletes. The funding would also permit Special Olympics to increase the

activity of the organization well beyond our borders and further awareness outside the United States of the contributions that individuals with intellectual disabilities can make in their society.

I had the opportunity with many of my colleagues to travel over to Iraq several months ago. I was asked by the liaison for the military what were some of the things that I would be interested in learning when I went over there. My Aunt Eunice always was after us to make sure we asked, wherever we were, how people with intellectual disabilities were being treated. Especially traveling around the world, I thought this was something that was important for me to follow through, so I asked the liaison to find out for me whether I could not meet the Special Olympics team of Iraq which had just competed in the international games in Ireland. I was in Saddam Hussein's palace, surrounded by thousands and thousands of both military and civilian workers helping to reconstruct that country. I was with my colleagues and someone came and touched me on the shoulder and said, ``Congressman Kennedy, your group is here to meet with you.'' Of course, I was excited about going down the hall and seeing the Special Olympics team of Iraq. I went down the hall, and there was the Special Olympics team of Iraq and surrounding them were practically every worker in Saddam Hussein's palace, all there with smiles on their faces. It had melted the place. These are people who were consumed with war, and on the sight of the inspirational Special Olympics, they just smiled. I think that says so much about the power of Special Olympics; it shows our common humanity. No matter where we are in the world, we are all members of the same human family. Nothing drives that message home more than the Special Olympics. I think that is what is really the power behind it. I am convinced that the power of this legislation is that we can have our international diplomacy moved forward tremendously just by expanding the Special Olympics program, because who is going to want to do war if they see the power of peace and love that the Special Olympics embodies.

I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri and the gentleman from Maryland for their leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the lead Democratic cosponsor of the ASTHMA Act of 2003, and I want to acknowledge my good friend and partner, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), for his excellent leadership on this matter. As my colleagues have just heard him speak, he has spoken very eloquently to the case that we are making through this legislation.

I think he illustrated better than anything else the reason why we are pushing this legislation when he talked about the story of Catrina Lewis. We in Rhode Island, and those stories are happening all over the country; in Rhode Island, we have a family, the father, Walter Stone, and the mother, Lynn Stone, lost their daughter, Morgan. She was a mild asthmatic. She was attending college and was killed when her asthma overcame her and she was not able to gain access to her medications.

This is a life-and-death issue. Unfortunately, many States have made it a liability for those students to carry their inhalers to school when those students need their medications. If

they have not registered them in the nurse's office, for example, they are subject to all kinds of punishment. Then again, if they need their medication, as those of us who have asthma, like myself, know very well, it can come on you very quickly; and if you do not have your medication available, you can have a much worse time of it. Tragically, as we have seen in Catrina Lewis's case and in Morgan Stone's case, it can be fatal.

The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), my good colleague, was talking about the fact that we have 5,000 people die every year of asthma. This is quite extraordinary when people consider that asthma must not be that big a deal because when people suffer from asthma, it does not look like they are suffering. That is the biggest impediment for people in this country when approaching asthma, the fact that most people, when seeing an asthmatic, do not see the suffering that an asthmatic goes through when they are having an asthma attack, or do not see the suffering that someone is going through when they have an anaphylactic shock attack because of allergies to food.

Many times people do not take this seriously, and it is for just that reason that we need to pass this legislation. It is because many school districts do not take this seriously that we have had the situation where too many young people have had to go through unspeakable suffering as a result of an asthma attack that could have been treated, or they have even suffered death because of the fact that they did not have access to their medications. That is why we need to pass this legislation.

We have heard eloquently from the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) about the statistics. But the fact remains, with all of the statistics, it is important that people keep in mind that asthma is the single leading cause of missed school days in this country.

Unfortunately, more and more children suffering from asthma are uninsured and do not have access to medications, so we also need to talk about that. Unfortunately, that cannot be incorporated in this legislation, but I know the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) and I both will work hard to make sure that asthma medication is available to our children who are not otherwise covered by health insurance. And the reason for that is simple: Our children are making the emergency room their primary source of medical care when they have asthma attacks and, as any physician or parent can tell us, this is the worst kind of health care policy we can have in this country.

We need to do more through the Centers for Disease Control to alert families about asthma and to educate families about how to help them manage their child's asthma if their children have asthma. These things can make an enormous difference in a family's life, and certainly those are also objectives that we need to follow as well.

Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) and I both owe a special debt of gratitude to Nancy Sanders, who is President and founder of the Allergy and Asthma Network of Mothers of Asthmatics. She has really encapsulated all of these issues through her advocacy, and she speaks on behalf of all mothers of asthmatics when she testifies as she does, and her partner in this effort, Marissa Magnetti, who has also worked very hard to get this bill to the floor. I want to thank both of them for their good work in getting this bill to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank once again my colleagues in the Congress who have been helping us, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) for his work in passing this in the committee; and of course, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) for his good work and partnership on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.

She is working, as all of us are, on a number of these other agenda items in helping to assist those who suffer from asthma and allergy attacks. We have worked on more notification for families when purchasing food products to know what is in those food products so that they can be alerted to any food type that may trigger anaphylactic shock. And I know that these and many other issues are ones that we are going to need to continue to work for in the years ahead.

I thank my colleague for his effort on this and many others of these issues.

Mr. Speaker, on the evening of September 13 and the morning of September 14, I was attending the funeral services of Richard Langevin, the father of our colleague Congressman James Langevin, and was unable to vote on rollcall votes 441-450.

I respectfully request the opportunity to record my position on rollcall votes Nos. 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449, and 450.

It was my intention to vote ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 441, ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 442, ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 443, ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 444, ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 445, ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 446, ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 447, ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 448, ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 449, and ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 450.

Mr. Speaker, I never could have thought I would see it, a House that is run by a conservative majority that is bent on imposing its will on the minority.

We have seen it many times, but, Mr. Speaker, it is so interesting to see that, this morning, we are taking up an issue, we are enforcing our will upon the people of this District of Columbia. Whereas, we would not even allow any other State or this Congress to dictate its will against the interests of our own local communities, we are prepared to do that to the District of Columbia.

It should not be any surprise, I suppose, to our delegate, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton). She has seen it too many times where she represents a populace here in Washington, D.C., that does not have the vote, does not have the vote here in the Halls of Congress. It does have a vote, however, on the local management of the city, not until today.

Today, the Congress says, not only will you not have a vote in the Halls of the Congress, not only as United States citizens will you be denied the right to vote, but you will also be denied in your own local government to decide what is in the best interests of your people.

We look at Washington, D.C., and see one of the most murderous capitals in this country, where every single day mothers worry about whether their children are going to get home at the end of the day, whether their children are going to be killed in drive-by shootings, whether their children are going to be safe.

To the mothers in the District of Columbia, terrorism means drive-by shootings, not Osama bin Laden. To the people of Washington, D.C., terrorism is defined by semi-automatic weapons and unrestricted access to all kinds of guns.

Mr. Speaker, this rule and this bill says terrorism is all right. Terrorism for the people of this city, who now will have to wonder how many guns are staring them down when they go outside every single day of the week, are going to have to wonder, when they see all of the complement of anti-terrorist measures in this town and know that those anti-terrorist measures are for everyone else but them, the inhabitants of Washington, D.C.

Mr. Speaker, this rule and this bill eliminate all of those laws that the people of this city have determined are in their best interest in defending their people, and it says, no, we are going to make you an example to the NRA that, whatever they want, they will get. When it comes to the repeal of the assault weapons ban, not only will this President not have fallen through on his commitment, but furthermore, they will have retreated on their commitment to defend the people of this Capital City and the Capitol Police of this Capital City. They ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Mr. Speaker, the National Mall is home to memorials in honor of our founding fathers, our nation's veterans and leaders who have shaped the course of the United States. The Mall is also home to wonderful museums that explore subjects from our natural history here on Earth, to travels to the moon and beyond. However, even with the diverse exhibits, there was always a piece of our history missing from the Mall, and on September 21, 2004, that hole was finally filled.

It is my honor to celebrate the long awaited opening of the National Museum of the American Indian on the National Mall. This museum stands as a monument not only to the past generations of Native Americans, but to the present and the future. I am hopeful that the prominent placement of this museum will help to educate our nation on the true history of Native Americans, told by their perspective and through their eyes. The museum will be home to artifacts and exhibits, but will also serve as a classroom with live performances and demonstrations. It truly is a magnificent addition to the Mall, and I look forward to visiting the museum often.

As we celebrate this joyous occasion, and visit with the thousands of Native Americans who have traveled from across the country to join in this event, Members of Congress must not forget that our relationship with Native Americans goes far beyond the museum. Preserving the past and ensuring the future of Native Americans is celebrated in the museum, but it is only through the adequate funding of education, healthcare, and other initiatives critical to our Native American communities that illustrates our true commitment. I will continue to work with several of my colleagues to fight for essential programs to give Native Americans the resources they need.

I am proud to have the opportunity to welcome so many Native Americans to Washington, D.C. this week, and to welcome the National Museum of the American Indian.

Mr. Speaker, on the evening of September 13 and the morning of September 14, I was attending the funeral services of the Richard Langevin, the father of our colleague Congressman James Langevin, and was unable to vote on rollcall votes Nos. 441-450.

I respectfully request the opportunity to record my position on rollcall votes Nos. 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449, 450.

It was my intention to vote ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 441, ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 442, ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 443, ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 444, ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 445, ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 446, ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 447, ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 448, ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 449, and ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 450.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to join my colleagues today who have expressed outrage at the fact that these overtime regulations have been changed such that workers in this country who work overtime are not compensated for that time that they are working.

Millions of American workers count on this overtime pay as part of their basic income. They do not simply make it in this country based upon the 40 hour week and the money that they make then. They make ends meet because they are able to add the time and a half that comes from them having to work overtime.

Now, let us take this in this context. I often hear friends tell me, it could not be. No one would do that, not anybody that wants to grow this economy.

Well, I have to say to them, in fact, it is true. The Republican majority is taking away overtime pay from working Americans while they are giving the richest of Americans huge, huge tax breaks; tax breaks on capital gains, on estate taxes and dividend taxes. Well, how could this be? The idea is maybe if we give people with $1 million or more of income a year, we are giving them $100,000 in tax cuts, that will grow our economy.

What I find so interesting is when Republicans talk about tax cuts, they never seem to mention that the sales taxes are going up, they never seem to mention that the property taxes are going up, they never seem to talk about cutting taxes on income for those on unemployment insurance.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, unemployment insurance is taxed, but you never hear about Republicans cutting those taxes, do you?

Mr. Chairman, I have found this a very interesting few years that I have been in the Congress. I have seen proposals to make Medicaid a block grant, so that entitlements are written at the State level, not the national level, so that people's health care will be determined on where they live in this country, not based upon whether they are in need.

I have seen all kinds of proposals on labor law, just as there is in this case, where workers are being punished for joining unions. I have seen where there are bills like the TEAM Act, which essentially decides what the manager is doing when they choose who they are going to negotiate with. That is their idea of TEAM Act: workers will be without a voice.

Then I see other bills, like OSHA reform, another ``sounds good'' reform, except you find out that really it is a voluntary program. No one will even know whether an employer will comply with it or not; and, hence, we have something that takes away from the protection and safety of workers on the job.

And in just this last budget, Mr. Chairman, we saw the President of the United States cut, cut the money for inspection of child labor. Get that. This Republican budget cut the inspection for companies around the world that may be using children in the course of their labor.

So it is interesting, because many people think we have left those days well behind us when there was child labor. Maybe we left those days long behind us where workers did not have a pension. Maybe we left those days behind us where workers could not have a 40-hour workweek and work overtime and be compensated time and a half. Maybe they think all of these things are back in the thirties or forties or maybe fifties.

What I am here to say is my experience being in a Republican-led Congress the last 10 years that I have been in the House of Representatives has led me to believe that the same battles for economic justice that people were fighting for over a generation ago are the same battles that we are having to fight all over again in the 2004.

This is what we are dealing with, my friends; and this, my friends, is the reason why we need to make a choice in this next campaign as to who we want leading our country. This is a perfect example of the fact that elections have consequences. If you vote for Republicans, you are voting to eliminate time and a half for workers who work more than 40 hours a week. If you vote for Republicans, you are voting to eliminate the entitlement for Medicaid. If you vote for Republicans, you are voting to roll back in this country all of the progressive legislation that has been put forth that protects our workers in this country.

Let us support the Obey-Miller substitute.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank my colleague from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for yielding me this time.

I find it very interesting that we hear a lot from the other side today about sovereignty, and they are all very excited about it, as if they have just discovered it. It is interesting to hear about sovereignty from the other side, because where were they when we were trying to get sovereignty included in homeland security? Where were they when we were trying to get sovereignty included into all of the other issues, like the environment? Where were they when we tried to get sovereignty into the welfare reform bill, and tribes had to go through States rather than have that money disbursed to them directly, as they should under the trust responsibility?

There have been many votes that have been cast on this floor, and I would venture to say most of these votes, because they are brought up by the majority, I think give the true explanation as to what this debate is all about. We have seen more votes that are antisovereignty votes on this floor in the last several years than the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), who has been here for over 20 years, has ever recalled.

So when some of my friends on the other side call into question the commitment of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), when it was that gentleman who was the author of the IGRA legislation that provided for sovereignty, I find that suspect. When people talk about, oh, it is sovereignty, and yet where were they when it came to the meetings that took place so that we could get a resolution of this issue?

My colleagues, I do not think this is so much about sovereignty as it is election-year politics. That is what this is about, make no mistake about it. If there was a true interest in getting this issue resolved, this issue could be resolved.

Mr. Chairman, I think we have before us a choice between science and stigma. Stigma is the biggest barrier to us making sure millions of Americans gain access to what is fundamentally a physical illness. You do not need to take my word for it. You have every Nobel Laureate, the Surgeon Generals of the United States, all saying this is a physiologically, biologically based illness. So the notion that we are going to shut kids out from being screened so that we can intervene and make a difference in their lives, I do not understand.

I would add one more thing: our colleagues have learned the hard way. Three of our colleagues have lost their children in the last couple of years alone as a result of suicide. We voted on one of those bills on suicide prevention on Senator Smith's son, who died a year ago yesterday as a result of suicide. We know of many others whose tragedies we do not want to go into.

But to think that suicide and mental illness are not scientifically based is to look back and think we are still living in the Stone Age.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard on the point of order.

I believe that this is an important point that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) brought up. I thought it was brought up very poignantly because of the importance of this issue, and I wanted to join him in addressing this issue and to ask my colleagues to acknowledge the real champion on these issues with alcoholism and substance abuse that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) speaks so eloquently about and is such a leader on.

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully request the opportunity to record my position on rollcall vote 406. It was my intention to vote ``yes'' on rollca11 No. 406.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues Congressmen Ford, Petri, and English in introducing the ASPIRE Act, which presents new hope for extending the American dream.

The ASPIRE Act--or America Saving for Personal Investment, Retirement, and Education--renews our commitment to ensuring opportunity for every child. This Act is in keeping with our government's long-standing tradition of expanding opportunities for each generation of citizens. It upholds the tradition of the Homestead Act, which in the nineteenth century sought to create opportunity through land ownership. It is in the same spirit that, in the twentieth century, we created universal public education--and then opened up access to higher education through the GI Bill and Pell grants.

Living up to our goal of ensuring opportunity requires a new strategy, one tailored to the information age. In the twenty-first century, opportunity is tied to ownership. And yet we see today glaring disparities in the distribution of assets. A huge gulf exists between those who have ready access to asset-building tools, and those who do not.

If we are to make good on our promise to America's youth, we need an honest new effort to broaden ownership of assets. We need to make savings incentives universal, rather than reserving them exclusively for the wealthy and middle class. The tax deductions we currently use to incentivize savings disproportionately benefit those in the highest tax brackets, not those who need the most help.

By creating universal ``KIDS accounts,'' the ASPIRE Act will give every child born in this country a real stake in the future. Under the program, every child's account will be credited with an automatic $500 seed contribution at birth, supplemented by up to an additional $500 for children living below the median income.

These accounts will be invested in a system like the Thrift Savings Plan for federal employees, giving kids and their parents a range of indexed investment options, from government bonds to international stocks. The accounts will be able to receive up to $1,000 each year in private voluntary contributions. Children in lower income families will receive dollar-for-dollar government matches for annual contributions of up to $500. As in Roth IRAs, the growth of account balances will be tax-free.

When children turn 18, thanks to compound interest, they will have a real nest egg that they can use for higher education costs, save for future home-ownership, or save for retirement. They can then chose to maintain their accounts within the ASPIRE Fund, or roll them over to private financial institutions.

Some will criticize universal savings accounts as too ``big government'' or too expensive. But let me tell you, we subsidize asset- building in a very big way already--70 billion dollars each year for the homeowner's mortgage interest deduction and 150 billion for retirement accounts like IRAs, just to name two. Contrast this with the seven billion dollars per year it would take to bring savings to every American. That's less than 3 percent of what we currently spend subsidizing savings and investment for middle class and wealthy Americans.

Universal KIDS accounts will go a long way toward the creation of a true stakeholder society. They will enable millions of young Americans to gain access to higher education. They will put homeownership--the cornerstone of Americans' financial stability--within reach of millions more families. And they will put every young American on track for developing retirement savings.

Consider that a child receiving the full $1,000 seed contribution, contributing as little as $250 per year to an account earning 7 percent, would hold an account worth $21,480 by her 18th birthday. By the time this individual reaches age 65, the account balance would grow to over half a million dollars.

We know from experience that incentives like matching contributions can help lower-income families save. Evidence provided by individual development accounts as well as 401(k) plans clearly points to the success of these strategies. In addition, international models demonstrate the feasibility of a universal accounts program. This is the so-called baby bonds idea that Tony Blair has instituted in Great Britain, and if they can do it there, we can do it here in the United States.

Think about the way that universal accounts would transform the outlook of young Americans. A new generation, assured savings accounts at birth, would cultivate a savings habit from a young age. These kids would grow up knowing that they own something, getting quarterly statements. KIDS Accounts would encourage a new culture of increased financial literacy, which is critical for enhancing one's prospects in a society where ownership equates with opportunity. Your lot in life shouldn't depend on your parents' paycheck. KIDS accounts would give every child in the United States a real stake in the future, and a reason to dream.

I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that this bill is both bipartisan and bicameral, with Senators Santorum and Corzine introducing a companion in the other body. I hope that the breadth of our initial supporters will foreshadow a wider embrace of this legislation that truly transcends party lines.

I want to thank my colleagues from both parties and both chambers for the hard work that has gone into thinking through details of this effort. And special thanks are due Ray Boshara and Reid Cramer at the New America Foundation, who have provided much of the intellectual foundation underlying this important step forward.

Mr. Speaker, too often our policy innovation falls victim to our partisan acrimony. If we are to preserve the universal opportunity that has been the hallmark of America for two centuries, we need to get beyond stale ideas and ideological blinders and embrace new ideas for a new age. I'm proud to join my friends today in introducing the ASPIRE Act and look forward to working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reinvigorate the American dream.