Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Michigan for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, these are very troubling days in the Congress of the United States of America, because we are engaging virtually every day in the easy part of government. It is really easy to come to this floor and spend more money on things that people like, whether it is defense contracts that put people to work, or highway projects that make the traffic flow more easily, or cleanup of toxic waste dumps or more financial aid for colleges and universities. It is easy to do that, and it is great to go home and take credit for it.

It is even easier to stand on the floor of the House and vote to lower people's taxes. There is not a constituent in America that I can think of that does not like to hear us come home and say we just lowered their taxes.

What we are engaging in here is an act of economic malpractice against the people of this country. I heard my friend from Nevada talk about his friend holding his newborn baby. Well, I have two children, and I am going to vote against this bill, because I do not want to send them the bill for the money that we are borrowing to pay for our increased spending and tax cut after tax cut after tax cut.

For every $100 dollars that this government spends, we borrow $30. We borrow $30 for every $100 we spend around here. We borrow it from the Social Security trust fund that is going to run out of money in the next decade, and we borrow it from future taxpayers of this country.

Now, it is very easy to vote for these things today and hand the bill to our children in the future, but it is very wrong. And I hear all this talk about ``job creation.'' We have had tax cuts since 2001. We have lost a net 2.2 million jobs since 2001. I do not think they have worked.

I will tell you what will work. There is a tried and true formula in America. The more money the Federal Government borrows, the higher the interest rates eventually go. The higher the interest rates go, the less economic growth you have. The less economic growth you have, the more jobs you kill. The more deficits you create, the more communities you hurt. We have seen this before. It happened in the 1980s and it was a disaster, and we are doing it again.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to listen to a Republican voice in the wilderness from the other body, Senator McCain, who said yesterday, referring to our Speaker, ``The Speaker is correct that nothing we are called upon to do comes close to matching the heroism of our troops.''

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I would then paraphrase what the good Senator says.

I can certainly understand why the Speaker does not want this quote characterized.

Mr. Speaker, this Member of the House believes, and shares this belief with many people in both parties across the country, that it

is reckless and irresponsible at a time of war to be borrowing money to pay to reduce anybody's taxes.

There used to be a time in this country when we had to sacrifice as a country, that everybody was part of that sacrifice. It is shameful that for the purpose of going home and delivering good news, we are borrowing money from our children.

We should oppose this bill and we should support the substitute of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), because it is paid for; and we should stop this economic malpractice against the people of this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, this budget does not just deepen the fiscal deficit, it deepens the moral deficit of cynicism that Americans feel increasingly towards this government, because this budget is built upon a misrepresentation. It is built upon the misrepresentation that we can have it all and never make a tough choice. It says you can keep raising what you spend, you can continue to reduce taxes, you can continue to borrow massive sums of money, and nothing bad will ever happen.

Something very bad is going to happen if this budget should become law. We are going to borrow more money, drive up interest rates, dry up capital for the private sector, and kill jobs in this country for many, many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I think the majority has a point when they put forward a 1-year budget resolution. Maybe there is intuitive wisdom in that, because if they follow this policy next year, they will not be writing the budget resolution, a new President and a new majority will.

We welcome and look forward to that day.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New Jersey for his generous compliment and for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the motives of my friend from Georgia who brought this legislation to the floor. I know he does everything he does out of goodness of spirit and intention, and my remarks are not meant to be critical of his intention. I do oppose his bill, however, for three important reasons.

The first is the bill is reminiscent, to me, of American history from the 1930s, when President Franklin Roosevelt was unhappy with some of the results he was getting from the U.S. Supreme Court, so he decided to try to change the number of people on the U.S. Supreme Court. The history books called this a ``court-packing'' scheme.

I have to wonder if what this legislation is really about is about changing some of the results on this commission by changing the number of commissioners. I have heard the concerns about quorums. I think that is something that is a problem that could be cited in a number of different Federal agencies.

I would say to my friends on the other side, Mr. Speaker, if you want to change the substance of what the commission is doing, then change the statute. Bring it to this floor and let us have an open and fair debate. But changing the number of commissioners, I think is an inappropriate way to do that.

The second concern that I have about the emphasis, as my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) talked about, on people with legal training serving on this commission, I actually think that the President of either party ought to have the broadest discretion to determine what is a suitable background for service on this commission.

I would raise a question as to this point. Since many people who are active in the labor movement do not have a legal background, I only have to wonder if one of the ideas behind this provision is to make it more difficult for a President to appoint a labor leader to this commission, which would be unfortunate.

The third reason I oppose this, frankly, goes to the relatively narrow nature of this bill at a time when there are so many other major problems the country is facing. The country is embroiled in a very serious policy problem. I know a lot of tomorrow is going to be devoted to that debate. I am not sure we are going to have enough time for all of the Members to come to this floor and express their concerns about what is happening in the Middle East to our country right now.

There are 45 million Americans without health insurance. We had a bill on the floor last week that purported to speak to that. There are a lot of other ideas we could be debating on this floor that we are not.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans have seen their unemployment insurance expire in the last few months, and we have yet to see brought to the floor a bill that would give us a chance to debate and vote on the extension of unemployment benefits.

I think when there are such immense questions facing the country, to be taking up the time of the House on the very narrow question of whether there should be five members on this commission or three is an unfortunate allocation of time.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge opposition to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's kind remarks. I did want to make one follow-up point about the legal requirement to be appointed.

My understanding is that to be a commissioner on the Securities and Exchange Commission, which certainly involves tremendous issues of adjudication, you do not need to have, necessarily, a legal background to do that. I would just ask the gentleman to reconsider that important point, that directing any President to appoint a person only with a legal background here, I think, is a serious mistake that we did not make on the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New York for yielding me this time and for his leadership in pointing out the flaws in these bills that are on the floor today. It is a thankless and sometimes tedious job, but the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) does it exceedingly well, and we thank him for his hard work.

I rise in opposition to this bill, Mr. Speaker, because I believe it does result in a structure that the Administrative Procedures Act has set in place that works. And although OSHA is not a perfect agency, it is a functional agency that has done much to protect many, as my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), just talked about.

The Administrative Procedures Act sets up a balance where when this Congress creates a law and delegates to an administrator in the executive branch the responsibility of enforcing that law, the courts give that administrator significant deference in studying what the law means and how it should be enforced. That is a principle that should apply, and I believe does apply, to OSHA. This bill would create an exception to that principle that I believe is nothing more than a fifth wheel.

The bill purports to set up two centers of decision-making within the Department of Labor, one is the Secretary of Labor herself, and the other is the commission that oversees OSHA. It falsely and artificially divides responsibility for understanding and interpreting OSHA standards on the one hand and then enforcing them on the other hand. This just does not make any sense to me.

When Congress legislates in an area of policy importance, whether it is transportation or health or the environment, we frequently create an executive branch person to oversee the enforcement of that law. We then vest that executive branch person with the responsibility of learning about that substantive area and writing the rules that govern that substantive area. The Administrative Procedures Act requires that the courts give significant deference to the decisions made by that executive branch officer.

This works with the EPA, it works in the financial services industry, it works with respect to transportation, and I believe it works in the field of worker safety.

This bill upsets that balance by directing the courts to give deference in two areas. One area is the Secretary of Labor when it comes to writing the rules, but the other is to the commission when it comes to interpreting the rules.

Putting aside for a minute the confusion over what writing the rules means versus what interpreting the rules means and how the court would have to sort that out, I believe what we will be passing today, should this bill pass, will be a breeder of litigation that would call every standard and every regulation of OSHA into question, very often for the purpose of prolonging the period of time before the regulation is enforced.

The Administrative Procedures Act is, frankly, a work of legal genius in this country. It properly balances the scales among the Congress, the executive branch, and the courts. By creating a fourth scale to be balanced by saying that there are two administrative agencies within the Department of Labor that must be taken into account, I believe we create a disruption.

This is more than just a theoretical problem. The ultimate result of this bill would be to delay and dilute worker safety standards from being enforced, to delay them because there would be one more litigation hurdle that would have to be jumped over before the law could be enforced, and dilute them because it, frankly, is the nature of things that the longer a process takes, the more compromise there is. Compromise is sometimes a good thing, but when we are compromising an important value like worker safety, it is not a good thing.

I would urge Members to oppose this bill because it defers and dilutes worker safety standards that the workers of this country so strongly need.

I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) for his leadership in fighting against these bills.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) who said that any Member here who does not support the working families who run small businesses should be ashamed of themselves, the gentleman is right. We all should support such individuals, and that is what the law does now.

The law says if someone owns a business and OSHA brings a specious or frivolous claim, that they can recover their attorney's fees now. That is the law. What this bill does is go far beyond the law, and it says to OSHA, if you are not sure you are going to win the case, you better not bring it. If you are not certain you are going to win the case, you are going to have to pay the attorney's fees of the person you are suing.

So if I were the person running OSHA, Mr. Speaker, and my personnel came to me and said there is a claim we want to file against a company that digs trenches that are sometimes unsafe and there was a collapse of a trench last year and a guy died, I would ask them, Are you sure you are going to win the case? And if they are competent and honest attorneys, their answer would be we are not sure because it may be the defense that the trench was constructed properly, or it may be a defense that the worker acted in a fashion that contributed to the accident, or there may be some other defense.

The law today says if OSHA brings a frivolous and unsubstantiated claim and loses, then OSHA must pay the counsel fees of the company that they sue.

Now the majority has said that law is insufficient to get the job done because very few claims have been paid out. I wonder if the reason very few claims have been paid out is because the huge majority of claims that OSHA has brought have been justified, have been heard by a court and have been determined not to be substantially unjustified.

I would respectfully suggest to the majority that if the majority wishes to make the standard easier for a business that is sued to get over, they should look at amending that statute or perhaps look at the definition of ``substantially unjustified.'' What this says is if OSHA sues and loses, it pays. So the only cases that OSHA is going to bring are the ones that they are certain they are going to win. This is effectively and functionally a repeal of the OSHA statute because if the agency brings a claim that it is not sure that it is going to win and if it loses that claim, it has to pay fees that will eventually dwarf and overwhelm its budget, and it will not pursue the claims at all.

The twisted logic of this bill is if OSHA makes a misjudgment and files a case that it loses on a close call, it loses not only the case, but it loses its ability to go after dozens or hundreds of other cases because the resources that it would have devoted to investigating and prosecuting those cases would be otherwise spent.

If OSHA brings a frivolous or unjustified case against a small business, it should pay the counsel fees of the small business. That is the law today. This bill goes far beyond that and says to OSHA you can only bring the cases you are sure you are going to win. That will radically cut back on the ability of this agency to protect the American worker. I fear that is what the bill is intended to do, and that is why we ought to oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate the fifth and sixth grade students and teachers in Camden County, NJ who participated in the Second Annual Battle of the Books. Battle of the Books is a nationwide program designed to foster and encourage a devotion to reading. Through this program, librarians and reading teachers select several books that each participating student is then required to read. Each week students meet to discuss the material they read and, in early spring, a competition is held to test the knowledge that the students have amassed as a result of their voracious reading.

The Battle of the Books is a worthwhile program which greatly enhances the educational experiences of all who choose to participate. I ask that my colleagues join me in commending all of the participating students (including my daughter, Jacquelyn) for their devotion to reading, as well as the teachers and advisors for all that they do to educate our nation's youth.

Participants were, from Atlantic Avenue School in Haddon Heights, NJ: Jacquelyn Andrews, Ben Huber, Kate Quinn, Michael Wasienko, and Samantha Wentz. From Bell Oaks School in Bellmawr, NJ: Ryan Campanella, Courtney Clark, Valentina Covalenco, Robert O'Donnell, Vidhi Patel and Ryan Carney. From Glenview Avenue School in Haddon Heights, NJ: Jason Jenson, Zachary Andrews, Matthew Capula, Robbie Migliaccio, Christopher McKane, and Nick Sabota. From Kershaw School in Mount Ephraim, NJ: Kristina Marioni, Joe Benigno, Ben Donia, Nicole Fisher, Jessica Lanchang, Nicole West, Chris Fehr, Melissa Jost, Rhea Keith, Amanda Monteleone, Brianna Ingram, and Sarah Myers. From Pine Hill Middle School in Pine Hill, NJ: Shelby Cubbler, Chris Harris, Kori Lok, Emily Oriente, Monica Thompson, and Jackie Springer. From Seventh Avenue School in Haddon Heights, NJ: Beth Packi, Matthew Deeney, Rebbecca Baron, Megan Hall, Marc Delmonico, and Nathaniel Harshaw. From Mary Volz School in Runnemede, NJ: Michael Bieg, Carly Drebit, Sean Fredhoff, Brian Kissam, Andrea Lowe, Rachel McKelvy, Michael Cook, Andrea Farino, Jennifer Koss, Amanda McAnally, Brianna Rodriguez, and Evan Prims. From Woodland School in Barrington, NJ: Jill Costello, Alexa Diedrich, Alyssa Jarmusik, Megan Roney, Amanda Woodward, Tyler Franceschini, Edwin Gross, Donny Lang, Mike Muniz, Erik Tate, and Matt Waite. And, from Yellin School in Stratford, NJ: Amanda Hubler, Jeffrey Abbott, Jesse Debes, Sarah Price, Rachel Overpeck, David Calber, Katie Keen, Maryann Baxler, Joshua Forrest, Katelyn Sullivan, Vincent Carpinelli, and Ryan Cooper. The librarians and reading teachers who served as advisors for the students were Mrs. Nancy Healy, Mrs. Jo Ann Burns, Ms. Nancy Clark, Mrs. Susie Leon, Mrs. Susan Mosebrook, Mrs. Diane Drayer Beler, Mrs. Sue Milon, Mrs. Julie LaRubbio, and Mrs. Debbie Reinholt.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the Democratic leader of our committee.

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

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. My friend, the chairman, went through a series of numbers about this bill a few minutes ago, and I would respectfully suggest that he got some numbers wrong.

I think the most important numbers about this bill are 1 million, zero, and 50. There will be an addition of 1 million people to the roll of the uninsured should this bill become law, and here is why. The chairman argues that the provisions of this bill would limit the ability of association health plans to choose only the youngest and the most healthy would be affected. I think the evidence is strongly to the contrary. I think there are loopholes in this law that are wide enough to drive an ambulance through that would allow association health plans to refuse to insure, or raise the premiums to insure people who are older or more infirm.

Mercer & Associates, a respected, nonpartisan study group on health care is the source of this number. They believe that when we add up the number of people who will gain health insurance as a result of AHPs and we subtract from that that number of people who will lose health insurance because of rising premiums in plans that are more traditional, that we will add 1 million people to the ranks of the uninsured.

The second number is zero. That is the number of consumer protections that the law will guarantee if this bill became law. Legislators across this country, Republican and Democrat, have fought for the right of women to have guaranteed mammograms and OB-GYN care, the right of people dealing with the difficulties of substance abuse or mental health problems to have guaranteed coverage, the right of couples who wish to have children to have infertility coverage, the rights for diabetic care, for mental health care. These are rights that people have fought for and won in State legislatures across the country. Every single one of those protections is repealed should this bill become law. There will be zero consumer protections guaranteed to our constituents should this happen.

The final number that we should take into consideration is 50 because that is the number of State Attorneys General who oppose this bill. That is the number of insurance commissioners, Republican and Democrat, who oppose this bill. The National Governors Association, Republicans, Democrats and Independents across the country oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is customary on the floor of the House for us to have our partisan differences, that happens; but do not listen to the partisan differences here. Listen to the experts of both parties who spent their careers out in the several States regulating health care. Republican Governors and Democratic Governors, Republican Attorneys General and Democratic Attorneys General, Republican insurance commissioners and Democratic insurance commissioners oppose this bill because it opens the door for the possibility of fraud and loss in these plans.

There is a better way; and later this afternoon my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), and I will be offering a plan which truly will reduce premiums for small businesses, which truly will expand health care opportunities for the uninsured and will do so without risking or jeopardizing the important protections that people presently enjoy under the law.

I would urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, to support our substitute.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), one of our Members who has extensive experience as a State legislator in achievement in this area.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the senior Member and the dean of the House of Representatives, my very dear friend.

(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

My friend said that the opposition is evidence of distrust of the private sector. It is odd, because 66 local chambers of commerce have mounted an objection to the bill and the Republican Governors Association. I guess they share our distrust for the private sector.

Mr. Speaker, I am submitting a list of over 1,050 organizations that oppose this bill for the Record.

Organizations and Public Officials Opposed to Federal AHP Legislation,

April 23, 2004

Over 1,050 Organizations Have Expressed Opposition:

state officials

National Groups

National Governors Association

Republican Governors Association

Democratic Governors Association

Attorneys General Representing 41 States

National Association of Insurance Commissioners

National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors

National Conference of Insurance Legislators

National Conference of State Legislatures

chambers of commerce

Albuquerque (NM) Chamber

Arapahoe Chamber of Commerce (Nebraska)

Ashland Chamber of Commerce (Nebraska)

Black Chamber of Commerce of Greater Kansas City

Blanding Chamber of Commerce (Utah)

Bloomfield Chamber of Commerce (Nebraska)

Boise Metro Chamber of Commerce (Idaho)

Boston Chamber

Broken Bow Chamber of Commerce (Nebraska)

Buffalo-Niagara Partnership (New York)

Carey Area Chamber of Commerce (Ohio)

Cherry Creek Chamber (Colorado)

Colorado Black Chamber of Commerce

Colorado Hispanic Chamber of Commerce

Council of Smaller Enterprises/Greater Cleveland Growth

Association (COSE)

Denver Metro

Detroit

Draper Chamber of Commerce (Utah)

Duchesne Chamber of Commerce (Utah)

Evans Chamber of Commerce (Colorado)

Florence, Colorado

Grand Raids Area Chamber of Commerce

Greater Akron Chamber (Ohio)

Greater Cincinnati Chamber

Greater Columbus Chamber (Ohio)

Greater Des Moines Partnership (Iowa)

Greater Indianapolis Chamber (Indiana)

Greater Louisville, Inc. (Louisville, Kentucky Chamber of

Commerce)

Greater Manchester, New Hampshire

Greater North Dakota Association

Greater Seattle Chamber

Heber Valley Economic Development (Utah)

Herington Chamber of Commerce (Kansas)

Hiawatha Chamber of Commerce (Kansas)

Holton Area Chamber of Commerce (Kansas)

Lake City Chamber of Commerce (Colorado)

Lansing Regional Chamber (Michigan)

Lehi Chamber of Commerce (Utah)

Merrimack Valley Chamber of Commerce

Metro Jackson, Mississippi

Michigan Chamber of Commerce

Midvale Chamber of Commerce (Utah)

New Hampshire Business and Industry Association

North Central Massachusetts Chamber of Commerce

North Park Chamber (Colorado)

Northern Kentucky Chamber of Commerce

Northern Ohio Chamber of Commerce

Oklahoma City

Oklahoma State

Oregon Association of Industries (Oregon State Chamber of

Commerce)

Palisade Chamber (Colorado)

Paola Chamber of Commerce (Kansas)

Ravenna Area Chamber of Commerce (Ohio)

Salem Economic Development (Utah)

Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce (New York)

Spanish Fork Area Chamber of Commerce (Utah)

Springfield Chamber of Commerce (Colorado)

Springville Area Chamber of Commerce (Utah)

Tacoma-Pierce County Chamber of Commerce

Toledo Area Chamber of Commerce

Tulsa, Oklahoma

Washington State (Association of Washington Business)

West Jordan Chamber (Utah)

Woodson County Chamber of Commerce (Kansas)

Worland Chamber of Commerce (Wyoming)

Youngstown-Warren Chamber (Ohio)

farm bureaus:

Alabama Farmers Association (ALFA)

Mississippi Farm Bureau

Tennessee Farm Bureau Federation--Tennessee Rural Health

Virginia Farm Bureau

small business associations

Alaska Coalition of Small Business

Arizona Small Business Association

4D Industries (Oregon)

Indiana Association of Community and Economic Development

Indiana Manufacturers' Association

Fargo-Moorhead Homebuilders' Association

Ohio/Kentucky Concrete Pavement Association

National Small Business Association (Represents over 150,000

small businesses nationwide)

New England Council

New Hampshire Business Council

New Hampshire High Tech Council

Oregon Business Alliance

Professional Musicians Of Arizona

Rhode Island Small Business Association

SMC Business Councils (Pennsylvania)

Santaquin Economic Development Agency (Utah)

Small Business Association of Michigan

Utah Small Business Development Center--Utah Valley State

College

labor unions

AFL-CIO--American Federation of Labor and Congress of

Industrial Organizations

With additional letters from: Alabama AFL-CIO, Alaska AFL-

CIO, Arkansas AFL-CIO, Arizona AFL-CIO, California AFL-CIO,

Indiana AFL-CIO, Kansas AFL-CIO, Louisiana AFL-CIO, Maine

AFL-CIO, Minnesota AFL-CIO, Missouri AFL-CIO, Montana State

AFL-CIO, Nebraska AFL-CIO, Nevada State AFL-CIO, New Mexico

Federation of Labor, North Carolina State AFL-CIO, Northern

Nevada Central Labor Council, Nevada State AFL-CIO, District

2, Ohio AFL-CIO, Oregon AFL-CIO, Rhode Island AFL-CIO,

Southern Nevada Central Labor Council, Nevada State AFL-CIO,

District 3, Tennessee Labor Council, Utah State AFL-CIO,

Virginia AFL-CIO, Washington State Labor Council

Alabama Education Retirees Association

Alabama Retired State Employees Association

Alabama Teacher's Union (AEA)

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees

(AFSCME)

With additional letters from: Alabama, Colorado, Indiana,

Kansas Council 72 (Local 1715--Chapter 3371), Louisiana

AFSCME Council 17, Nebraska, New Mexico, Ohio AFSCME United,

AFSCME Local 4, AFSCME Council 8, Ohio Local 11 OCSEA, AFSCME

Local 11, Rhode Island Council 94, Utah Local 1004, Virginia

Local 27

American Federation of Teachers (AFT)

With additional letters from: Albuquerque, New Mexico

Federation of Teachers, Arkansas Federation of Teachers,

Colorado Federation of Teachers, Kansas Southwest and

Mountain States Region for the AFT, Louisiana Federation of

Teachers, Oregon Federation of Teachers, Rapides (Louisiana),

Utah American Federation of Teachers

Atlanta Labor Council

Boilermaker's Lodge 101 (Colorado)

Cement Masons Local 577 (Colorado)

Central Georgia Federation of Trades and Labor Council

Colorado Federation of Public Employees

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW)

With additional letters from: Cleveland, Ohio Local 1377,

Dayton, Ohio Local 82, Kansas Local 304, Milan, Ohio Local

1194, Oak Harbor, Ohio Local 1432, Ohio Local 2331, Oregon

International Union, United Auto Workers (UAW)

With additional letters from: Indiana UAW--Region 3

(Indiana and Kentucky), Kansas Local 31

International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers

Kansas Association of Public Employees

Kansas Postal Workers Union

Labor Federation of Central Kansas

Laborers' International Union--Local 149--Aurora, Illinois

Maine Teacher's Union/Maine Educational Association

Middle Georgia Central Labor Council

Missouri Steelworkers Union

Montana Progressive Labor Caucus

National Education Association--Rhode Island

Nebraska State Education Association

Ocean State Action (AFT--Rhode Island)

Ohio AFSCME Retiree Chapter 1184

Ohio Association of Public School Employees

Oregon Federation of Nurses

Paper Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers

International Union (PACE)

Providence (Rhode Island) Central Federation of Labor

Service Employees International Union (SEIU)

With additional letters from: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado,

Georgia, Local 1985, Kansas, Missouri, Local 2000, New

Hampshire, Local 1984, Ohio, District 1199, Oregon, Local

503, Rhode Island, Washington

Shipbuilders and Boilermakers International Union--Virginia

Chapter

Teamsters Union--Maine

Teamsters' 190--Montana

Teamsters Local 407--Ohio

United Food and Commercial Workers Union--Nebraska (Local 22)

United Food and Commercial Workers Union--Washington

United Teachers of Wichita, Kansas

United Transportation Union--Louisiana

consumer/advocacy groups

National Groups

Alliance for Children and Families

American Agricultural Movement, Inc.

American Association of Pastoral Counselors

American Association of People with Disabilities

American Association of University Women--Oregon Chapter

American Cancer Society

American Congress of Community Supports and Employment

Services

American Corn Growers Association

American Diabetes Association

With additional letters from: Alabama Chapter, Arkansas

Chapter, Central Ohio Chapter, Cleveland Ohio Chapter,

Colorado Chapter, Indiana Chapter, Kansas Chapter, Louisiana

Chapter, Maine Chapter, Minnesota Chapter, Montana Chapter,

Nebraska Chapter, Nevada Chapter, New Hampshire Chapter, New

Mexico Chapter, North Carolina Chapter, Northeast Ohio

Chapter, Oregon Chapter, Utah Chapter, Seattle, Washington

Chapter, Southwest Ohio & Northern Kentucky Chapter,

Washington Chapter

American Family Foundation

American Homeowners Grassroots Alliance

Americans for a Balanced Budget

Anxiety Disorders Association of America

Association for the Advancement of Psychology

Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law

Center on Disability and Health

Child Welfare League of America

Children & Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity

Disorder

With additional letters from: Ohio Chapter

Children's Defense Fund--With additional letters from: Ohio

Chapter

Coalition Against Insurance Fraud

Consumer Federation of America

Consumers Union

Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance

With additional letters from: Depression and Bi-Polar

Support Alliance of Ohio, Depression and Bi-Polar Support

Alliance of Columbus, Ohio, Depression and Bi-Polar Support

Alliance of Dayton, Ohio, Depression and Bi-Polar Support

Alliance of Medina, Ohio

Families USA

Federation of Families for Children's Mental Health

Federation of Southern Cooperatives

Friends Committee on National Legislation

International Certification and Reciprocity Consortium

League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC)--With

additional letters from: Arkansas Chapter

Maternal and Child Health Coalition for Healthy Families

National Alliance for the Mentally Ill

With additional letters from: Arkansas Chapter, Colorado

Chapter, Georgia Chapter, Kansas Chapter, Louisiana Chapter,

Maine Chapter, Montana Chapter, Nebraska Chapter, New

Hampshire Chapter, New Mexico Chapter, North Carolina

Chapter.

Ohio Chapter: Allen, Auglaize & Hardin Counties, Adams

County, Butler County, Clark County, Clermont County,

Cleveland Metro, Fairfield County, Franklin County,

Licking County, Logan & Champaign County, Richland County,

Ross/Pickaway Counties, Seneca, Sandusky and Wyandot

Counties, Stark County, Warren County.

Oregon Chapter, Rhode Island Chapter, St. Louis Chapter,

Utah Chapter, Washington Chapter

National Association for Children's Behavioral Health

National Association for Rural Mental Health

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People

(NAACP) North Carolina Chapter

National Association of Anorexia Nervosa and Associated

Disorders

National Association of Farmer Elected Committees

National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems

National Coalition for the Homeless

National Council of La Raza

National Farmers Organization

National Foundation for Depressive Illness

National Mental Health Association

With additional letters from: California Chapter, Colorado

Chapter, Franklin County (Ohio), Georgia Chapter, Greater St.

Louis Chapter (Missouri), Illinois Chapter, Indiana Chapter,

Knox County (Ohio), Licking County (Ohio), Louisiana Chapter,

Lucas County (Ohio), Miami County (Ohio), Minnesota Chapter,

Montana Chapter, New Mexico Chapter, Nebraska Chapter, North

Carolina, Oregon Chapter (Mental Health Association of

Oregon--MHAO), Ottawa County (Ohio), Stillwater-Sweetgrass

Counties (Montana), Summit County (Ohio), Union County

(Ohio), Utah Chapter, Wyoming Chapter

National Partnership for Women & Families

National Patient Advocate Foundation

Planned Parenthood Federation of America

Research Institute for Independent Living

Soybean Producers of America

Suicide Prevention Action Network

Tourette Syndrome Association

United Cerebral Palsy Association

USAction

Women Involved in Farm Economics

Local Groups

9 to 5 National Working Women's Association (Colorado)

AIDS Alliance Service (North Carolina)

AIDS Prevention ACTION Network (California)

AIDS Project Rhode Island

AIDS Response Seacoast--New Hampshire

AIDS Survival Project (Georgia)

ARC of Alabama

ARC of Colorado

ARC of Indiana

ARC of Norfolk, Nebraska

ARC of Ohio

ARC of Oregon

ARC of Utah

Access Utah Network

Adoption Options (Colorado)

Advocacy Coalition of Seniors and People with Disabilities

(Oregon)

Alabama Council on Substance Abuse

Alabama Watch

Alaskans for Tax Reform

Alliance Against Family Violence (Kansas)

Allies With Families (Utah)

American Agricultural Movement of Arkansas, Inc.

American Association of University Women--Oregon Chapter

American Lung Association--Alaska Chapter

American Lung Association--Colorado Chapter

Arkansas Interfaith Conference

Arizona Association of Community Mental Health Centers

Assistive Technology Through Action in Indiana (ATTAIN)

Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now

(California)

Bethpage Omaha (Nebraska)

Best Buddies International--Indiana Chapter

Big Brother and Big Sister--Illinois

Bosom Buddies of Georgia, Inc.

Brain Injury Association of Colorado

Brain Injury Association of Utah

Buckeye Art Therapy Association of Ohio

California Coalition for Mental Health

California Pan-Ethnic Health Network

Campaign for Better Health Care (Illinois)

Campaign for Health Security (Oregon)

Cancer World (Oregon)

Catholic Charities of Colorado

Catholic Charities of Colorado Springs

Catholic Charities of Omaha, Nebraska

Catholic Charities Pueblo (Colorado)

Catholic Community Services of Utah

Catholic Conference of Kentucky

Center for Policy Analysis (California)

Central Ohio Diabetes Association

Centro Legal (Minnesota Minority Support Group)

Child Connect (Nebraska)

Children's Defense Fund--Ohio Chapter

Children's Diabetes Foundation--Denver Chapter

Children's First of Oregon

Citizen Action of Arizona

Citizen Action of Illinois

Citizen Action of New York

Citizen Action Network of Iowa

Coalition for Accountable Government (Utah)

Coalition for Independence (Kansas)

Coalition of New Hampshire Taxpayers

Colorado Classified School Employees Association

Colorado Forum on Community

Colorado Developmental Disabilities Planning Council

Colorado Programs for Children with Disabilities

Colorado Progress Coalition

Colorado Women's Agenda

Columbus Ohio Chapter of N.O.W.

Community Action Directors of Oregon

Community Connection (Utah)

Community Connections (Nebraska)

Community Harvest Food Bank of Northeast Indiana

Community Humanitarian Resource Center (Nebraska)

Community Pharmacists of Indiana

Community Support Services (Oregon)

Concerned Christian Americans--Illinois

Congress of California Seniors

Connecticut Citizen Action Group

Damien Center--Indiana

Day At A Time Club (Colorado)

Denver, Adams and Arapahoe County (CO) CARES

Diocese of Salt Lake City (Utah)

Durango Ltd. (Illinois)

Eagle Forum (Illinois)

East Liverpool (Ohio) Breast Cancer Support Group

Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon

El Comite--Colorado

Electric League (Missouri)

EMPOWER Colorado

Families First (Georgia)

Family Planning Association of Maine

Family Planning Association of Northeast Ohio

Family Ties Adoption Center of Colorado

Federation of Families for Children's Mental Health--Colorado

Future Coalition (Ohio)

Gathering Place (Nebraska)

Georgia Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League

(GARAL)

Georgia Rural--Urban Summit

Georgia Watch

Georgians for Healthcare

Good Faith Fund (Arkansas)

Granite State Independent Living Foundation (New Hampshire)

Gray Panthers California

Gray Panthers of Oregon

Gray Panthers of Rhode Island

Health Action New Mexico

Health Care for All (Massachusetts)

Health Law Advocates (Massachusetts)

Healthy Kids Learn Better (Oregon)

Healthy Mothers/Healthy Babies (Montana)

Helena Indian Alliance--Montana

Hispanic Community Center (Nebraska)

Hispanic Contractors Association (Colorado)

Human Services Coalition of Oregon

Illinois Caucus for Adolescent Health

Indiana Association of Area Agencies on Aging

Indiana Central Association of Diabetes Educators (ICADE)

Indiana Coalition on Housing and Homeless Issues

Indiana Pharmacy Alliance

Individual and Family Counseling--Illinois

Insure the Uninsured Project (California)

Interfaith Service Bureau (California)

Iowa Christian Coalition

Jewish Community Relations Council--Indiana

Kansas Alcohol & Drug Services Providers Association

Kansas Association of Middle School Administrators

Kansas United School Administrators

Kentuckians for Health Care Reform

Kentucky Minority Farmers Association

Latin American Research and Service Agency (Colorado)

Louisiana Maternal and Children's Health Coalition

Maine Consumers for Affordable Healthcare

Maine Women's Lobby

Maine Women's Policy Center

Mental Health Consumer Advocates of Rhode Island

MESA (Moving to End Sexual Assault) Administrative Office

(Colorado)

Minnesota AIDS Project 10

Minnesota Lawsuit Abuse Watch (M-LAW)

Minnesota State Council on Disability

Montana Children's Initiative

Montana Coalition for Competitive Choices

Montana Council for Families

Montana March of Dimes

Montana NARAL

Montana Peoples Action

Montana Senior Citizens Association

Montana's Child Project

Multiple Sclerosis Society of Indiana

Mutual Ground--Illinois

National Barter and Commodity Association (Formerly the

Colorado Citizens for an Alternative Tax System)

National Kidney Foundation of Georgia

Navajo County Arizona Special Public Health District

Nebraska Arthritis Foundation

Nebraska Tax Research Council

Nebraskans for Equal Taxation

Neighborhood Activists Inter-Linked Empowerment Movement

(NAILEM)--Arizona

Nevada Alliance for Retired Americans

Nevada Cancer Institute

Nevada Diabetes Assocaition for Children and Adults

Nevadans for Affordable Health Care

New Mexico Voices for Children (formerly--New Mexico

Advocates for Children and Families)

New Mexico Teen Pregnancy Coalition

New Hampshire Commission on the Status of Women

New Hampshire Developmental Disabilities Commission

New Hampshire for Health Care

Noble/ARC of Central Indiana

Noble/ARC of Greater Indianapolis

North Carolina Committee to Defend Healthcare

Ohio AIDS Coalition

Ohio Advocates for Mental Health

Ohio Association of Mental Retardation

Ohio Citizen Advocates for Chemical Dependency, Prevention

and Treatment

Ohioans for Diabetes Control

Oregon Alliance of Retired Americans

Oregon Association of Retired Persons (AARP Chapter)

Oregon Council of Senior Citizens

Oregon Disabilities Commission

Oregon Health Action Campaign

Oregon Heart and Lung Association

Oregon Law Center

Oregon Special Concerns Ministry

Oregonians for Health Security

Paola Foster Grandparent Program (Kansas)

People First of Nebraska

People Living Through Cancer--New Mexico

Planned Parenthood of Alaska

Planned Parenthood of Georgia

Planned Parenthood of Greater Indiana

Planned Parenthood of Mid/East Tennessee

Planned Parenthood of Northern New England

Precita Park Democratic Club (California)

Protectmontanakids.org

Pulaski County Democratic Women (Arkansas)

Pulaski County Young Democrats (Arkansas)

Quality Care for Children (Georgia)

Redemptorist Social Services Center (Missouri)

Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism

Rhode Island Kids Count

Rhode Island Poverty Institute

Rhode Island Public Health Association

Safe Kids--Safe Communities--Montana

Self-Determination Resources (Oregon)

Small Business Lobby (Virginia)

Special Concerns Ministry (Oregon)

Sudden Arrhythmia Death Syndrome (Utah)

Support Oregon Services Alliance

Tennessee Association of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Services

United Cerebral Palsy Association--Colorado

United Cerebral Palsy Association--Nebraska

United Cerebral Palsy Association--Utah

United Seniors of Oregon

Universal Health Care Action Network of Ohio

University Village Association (Illinois)

Utah Association of Counties

Utah Center for Persons With Disabilities

Utah Coalition Against Sexual Assault

Utah Hispanic Advisory Council

Utah State University

Victim Assistance Team of Grand County Colorado

Virginia Coalition of Police and Deputy Sheriffs

Washington Citizen Action

Wisconsin Citizen Action

Wisdom of Wellness Foundation (Georgia)

WISE Foundation (Tennessee)

Women's Association of Northshore Democrats--Louisiana

Women's Policy Group (Georgia)

Women's Rights Organization (Oregon)

Working for Equality and Economic Liberation (WEEL)--Montana

Physician Groups

National Groups

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

American Academy of Neurology

American Academy of Pediatrics

With additional letters from: Alabama Chapter, Illinois

Chapter, Indiana Chapter, Iowa Chapter, Louisiana Chapter,

Minnesota Chapter, Montana Chapter, Nebraska Chapter, New

Hampshire Chapter, New Mexico Chapter, Ohio Chapter,

Oregon Chapter, Rhode Island Chapter, Tennessee Chapter,

Utah Chapter

American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry

American College of Foot & Ankle Surgeons

American Psychiatric Association

With additional letters from: Colorado Chapter, Kansas

Chapter, Louisiana Chapter, New Hampshire Chapter, New Mexico

Chapter, Ohio Chapter, Tennessee Chapter, Utah Chapter

National Alliance of Medical Researchers and Teaching

Physicians

National Hispanic Medical Association

Pediatrix Medical Group

The Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine

Local Groups

Alabama Academy of Family Physicians

Alabama Medical Association

American Academy of Physicians--Nebraska Chapter

American College of Cardiology--Alabama Chapter

American College of Emergency Physicians--Alabama Chapter

American College of Surgeons--Rhode Island Chapter

Arkansas Medical Society

Bellevue Pediatric Center (Nebraska)

Bennett Breast Cancer Center (Maine)

Colorado Medical Society

Family Medicine Specialists of St. George (Utah)

Internal Medicine and Pediatric Medicine (Utah)

Missouri State Medical Association

Nebraska Academy of Family Physicians

Nebraska Academy of Physicians

Nebraska Medical Association

New Hampshire Health Care Association

New Mexico Medical Society

Rhode Island Medical Association

Rhode Island Neurological Society

Rose Breast Center (Colorado)

Utah Optometric Physicians

Utah Valley Pediatrics

Virginia Medical Society

Washington Healthcare Forum

Provider Groups

National Groups

American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy

American Association for Psychosocial Rehabilitation

American Association on Mental Retardation

American Chiropractic Association

With additional letters from: Alabama Chapter, Arkansas

Chapter, Indiana Chapter, Kansas Chapter, Kentucky Chapter,

Louisiana Chapter, Maine Chapter, Minnesota Chapter, Montana

Chapter, New Hampshire Chapter, New Mexico Chapter, North

Carolina Chapter, Oregon Chapter, Rhode Island Chapter,

Tennessee Chapter, Washington Chapter

American College of Nurse-Midwives

American Counseling Association

American Group Psychotherapy Association

American Mental Health Counselors Association

American Nurses Association

With additional letters from: Alabama Chapter, Arkansas

Chapter, California Chapter, Colorado Chapter, Illinois

Chapter, Kansas Chapter, Maine Chapter, Minnesota Chapter,

Montana Chapter, Nebraska Chapter, Nevada Chapter, New

Hampshire Chapter, New Mexico Chapter, Ohio Chapter, Oregon

Chapter, Rhode Island Chapter, Tennessee Chapter, Utah

Chapter, Virginia Chapter, Wyoming Chapter

American Optometric Association

With additional letters from: Alabama Chapter, Arizona

Chapter, Arkansas Chapter, Indiana Chapter, Iowa Chapter,

Kentucky Chapter, Louisiana Chapter, Montana Chapter,

Nebraska Chapter, Nevada Chapter, New Hampshire Chapter,

New Mexico Chapter, Tennessee Chapter, Utah Chapter,

Virginia Chapter, Wyoming Chapter

American Podiatric Medical Association

American Psychiatric Nurses Association

American Psychological Association

With additional letters from: Arkansas Chapter, Colorado

Chapter, Illinois Chapter, Indiana Chapter, Iowa Chapter,

Kansas Chapter, Kentucky Chapter, Louisiana Chapter,

Minnesota Chapter, Montana Chapter, Nebraska Chapter, Nevada

Chapter, North Carolina Chapter, Ohio Chapter, Oregon

Chapter, Rhode Island Chapter, Tennessee Chapter, Utah

Chapter, Wyoming Chapter

American Psychotherapy Association

American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology, Inc.

Association for Ambulatory Behavioral Healthcare

Association of Women's Health, Obstetrics and Neonatal Nurses

Clinical Social Work Federation

Employee Assistance Professionals Association

Federation of Behavioral, Psychological and Cognitive

Sciences

National Association of County Behavioral Health Directors

National Association of School Psychologists

National Association of Social Workers

With additional letters from: Alabama Chapter, Arkansas

Chapter, Iowa Chapter, Kansas Chapter, Louisiana Chapter,

Maine Chapter, Nebraska Chapter, New Hampshire Chapter, New

Mexico Chapter, North Carolina Chapter, Ohio Chapter, Rhode

Island Chapter, Utah Chapter

National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare

Local Groups

AAC Association (Nebraska)

Access Utah Network

Act Now Counseling (Utah)

Action Counseling (Colorado)

Acupuncture Association of Colorado

Acupuncture Association of Utah

Acupuncture Association of Washington

Addiction and Behavioral Health Center (Nebraska)

Advance Women's Health Care (Utah)

Advantage Eye Care (Utah)

AIM Institute (Nebraska)

Affiliates in Psychology (Nebraska)

Alabama Association of Home Health Agencies

Alabama Association of State & Provincial Psychology Boards

Alabama Council for Community Mental Health Boards

Alabama Family Practitioners Rural Health

Alaska Ophthalmological Society

Alegent Health Psychiatric (Nebraska)

Alternative Health Center (Utah)

Alternative Pathways (Colorado)

Alzheimer's Association of Oregon and Greater Idaho

Alzheimer's Association of Utah

American Society of Addictive Medicine--Kansas Chapter

American Society of Addictive Medicine--Utah Chapter

Andrus Vision Center (Utah)

Arden Courts (Illinois)

Arkansas Association for Marriage and Family Therapy

Arkansas Chiropractic Legislative Council

Arkansas Independent Living Council

Arkansas Mental Health Counselors Association

Aspen Therapy (Utah)

Association of Community Service Agencies (California)

Association of Oregon Community Mental Health Programs

Association of School Based Health Centers (Oregon)

Asthma and Allergy Clinic (Utah)

Autism Coalition of Indiana

Autism Society of Arkansas

Autism Society of Nebraska

Autism Society of Ohio

Avenues to New Horizons (Nebraska)

Avera St. Anthony's Hospital (Nebraska)

A.W.A.R.E. Inc. (Mental Health Provider--Montana)

Bear River Medical Arts (Utah)

Bear River Mental Health Services (Utah)

Beaver Valley Hospital (Utah)

Behavioral Health Specialists (Nebraska)

Bergan Mercy Child Development Center (Nebraska)

Berner Eye Clinic (Utah)

Black River Mental Health Services (Utah)

Blue Valley Mental Health Center (Nebraska)

Boulder County Partners (Colorado)

Boulder Valley Women's Health Center (Colorado)

Broadway Counseling Services (Colorado)

Bungalow Care Center (Utah)

California Council of Community Mental Health Agencies

California Society for Clinical Social Work

Care Oregon

Cedar Springs Behavioral Health (Colorado)

Centennial Mental Health Center (Colorado)

Center for Counseling and Consultation (Kansas)

Center for Human Development (Kansas)

Center for Independent Living (Kansas)

Center for Psychological Services (Nebraska)

Central District Health Center (Nebraska)

Central Iowa Psychological Services

Central Kansas Psychological

Children and Adults with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity

Disorder (Ohio)

Chiropractic and Spinal Rehabilitation (Colorado)

City of Geneva Mental Health Board (Illinois)

Clarian Health (Methodist Hospital, Indiana University

Hospital, Riley's Children's Hospital) (Indiana)

Collidge Mental Health Center (Nebraska)

Colorado Association of Surgical Technicians

Colorado Dental Association

Colorado Health and Hospital Association

Colorado Osteopathic Society

Colorado Podiatric Medical Society

Community Adolescent Counseling (Colorado)

Community Access Services (Oregon)

Community Counseling Center of Fox Valley (Illinois)

Community Nursing Services (Utah)

Community Pharmacists of Indiana

Community Providers Association of Oregon

Conway Regional Health Systems (Arkansas)

Council of Volunteers and Organizations for Hoosiers with

Disabilities (Indiana)

Council on Substance Abuse (Alabama)

Counseling Associates (Utah)

Counseling Center for the Rockies (Colorado)

Coventry Group (Kansas)

Crawford County Health Department (Kansas)

Danville Services Corporation (Utah)

Delta Resource Independent Living Center (Arkansas)

Denver Naturopathic Clinic--Colorado

DPF Counseling Services (Kansas)

Dignity Health & Home Care (Utah)

Direct Benefits (Minnesota)

Elgin Mental Health Facility (Illinois)

Family Counseling Service of Aurora, Illinois

Family Life Center (Kansas)

Family Medicine Specialists of St. George (Utah)

Fetzer OB-GYN (Illinois)

First Call For Help (Nebraska)

First Plan in Two Harbors (Minnesota)

Fore Chiropractic Clinic (Kansas)

Four Corners Community Behavioral Health (Utah)

Four County Mental Health Center (Kansas)

Franklin County Memorial Hospital (Nebraska)

Full Circle Alternative Center (Colorado)

Gabriel Chiropractic Office (Colorado)

Geneva Mental Health (Illinois)

Gordon Memorial Hospital (Nebraska)

Greenwood Health Center (Utah)

Gynecology, Obstetrics & Infertility (Colorado)

Healthy Mothers--Healthy Babies (Montana)

Heartland Counseling and Consulting (Nebraska)

Higgins Center for Natural Health (Colorado)

Highland Family Eye Care (Utah)

Highland Ridge Hospital (Utah)

Holladay Family and Child Guidance Clinic (Utah)

Home Health Services and Staffing Association of New Jersey

Hutchinson Psychological & Family Services (Kansas)

Idaho Hospital Association

Independent Living Resource Center (New Mexico)

Indiana Association of Rehabilitation Facilities

Indiana Pharmacy Alliance

Institute for Alcohol Awareness (Fort Collins, Colorado)

Institute for Alcohol Awareness (Greeley, Colorado)

Intermountain Health Care (Utah)

Intermountain Health Care Diabetes Education (Utah)

Iowa Breast Cancer Education-Action (IBCE)

Iowa Dental Association

Iowa Podiatric Medical Society

Jane Phillips Nowata Health Center (Oklahoma)

Johnson County Hospital (Nebraska)

Josephine County Mental Health (Oregon)

Kane County Hospital (Utah)

KANZA--Mental Health and Guidance Center (Kansas)

Kelly Roybal-Sanchez Pediatric Clinic (Colorado)

Kentucky Dental Association

Kentucky Mental Health Coalition

Lane Independent Living Alliance (Oregon)

Larimer Center for Mental Health (Colorado)

Legislative Coalition of Virginia Nurses

Leo Pocha Clinic (Montana)

Leukemia Lymphoma Society of Oregon

LifeWise Health Plan of Oregon

Lincoln/Lancaster County Human Services Federation (Nebraska)

Longmont Psychiatric Associates (Colorado)

Louisiana Academy of Medical Psychologists

Louisiana Association of Ambulatory Healthcare

Louisiana Association for the Advancement of Psychology

Louisiana Healthcare Commission

Louisiana Mental Health Consortium

LTC Resolutions (Indiana)

Maine Association of Mental Health Services

Maine Association of Substance Abuse Programs

Maine Nurse Practitioners Association

Medical Weight Management (California)

Melham Medical Center (Nebraska)

Mental Health and Guidance Center (Kansas)

Mental Health Associates (Kansas)

Mental Health Care Associates (Nebraska)

Mental Health Corporation (Colorado)

Mental Health Liaison Group

Mesability (Colorado)

Metro Chiropractic (Nebraska)

Midwest Parkinson's Awareness of Northeast Ohio

Minnesota Association of Community Mental Health Programs

Minnesota Council of Health Plans

Missouri Ambulance Association

Montana Academy of Ophthalmology

Montana Academy of Otolaryngology

Montana Association of Ambulatory Surgery Centers

Montana Association of Independent Disability Services

Montana Council of Community Mental Health Centers

Montana Podiatric Medical Association

Nebraska Chiropractic Physicians Association

Nebraska Dental Association

Nebraska Health Care Association

Nebraska Methodist Hospital

Neighborhood Health Plan of Rhode Island

Nemaha County Breast Cancer Support Group (Nebraska)

Nevada Dental Hygienists Association

New Hampshire Mental Health Coalition

New Hampshire Mental Health Counselors Association

New Hampshire Pastoral Psychotherapists Association

New Mexico Podiatric Medical Association

New West Health Services (Montana)

Niobrara Valley Hospital (Nebraska)

Norfolk Psychological Service (Nebraska)

Northstar Mental Health Services (Nebraska)

Northwest Alzheimer's Association (Nebraska)

Norton Health Care (Kentucky)

Nurse Practitioners of Oregon

Ogallala Counseling Center (Nebraska)

Ohio Ambulatory Behavioral Healthcare Association

Ohio Association of Women's Health, Obstetrics and Neonatal

Nurses

Ohio Clinical Social Work Society

Ohio Counseling Association

Ohio Council of Behavioral Healthcare Providers

Ohio Dietetic Association

Old Mill Counseling (Nebraska)

Omni Behavioral Health (Nebraska)

One Source (Nevada)

Oregon Advocates for the Mentally Ill

Oregon Association of Physicians' Assistants

Oregon Centers for Mental Health and Addiction

Oregon Dental Association

Oregon Health Sciences University

Oregon Optometric Physicians Association

Oregon State Denturists' Association

Oriental Medical Association of New Mexico

Palmer Chiropractic College (Iowa)

Park City Family Health and Urgent Care Center (Utah)

Parkview Medical Center Department of Pathology (Colorado)

Pediatric Pathways (Colorado)

Phelps Memorial Health Center (Nebraska)

Phoenix Rising Center (Utah)

Polk County Mental Health (Oregon)

Professional Christian Counseling Services (Nebraska)

Providence Medical Center (Nebraska)

Pueblo Women's Center--Obstetrics and Gynecology (Colorado)

Rainbow Center (Nebraska)

Region VI Behavioral Healthcare (Nebraska)

Rhode Island Association of Health Centers

Rhode Island Autism Project

Rhode Island Council of Community Mental Health Organizations

Rhode Island Dental Society

Richard H. Young Hospital (Nebraska)

River Park Psychology Services (Kansas)

Riverton Eye Care (Utah)

Rock County Hospital (Nebraska)

Rural Counties Program, Spanish Peaks Mental Health Center

(Colorado)

Rural Health Management (Utah)

Rural Hospital Coalition (Louisiana)

Saint Francis Memorial Hospital (Nebraska)

Sanpete Valley Hospital (Utah)

Saunders County (Nebraska) Health Services

Serenity Place (Nebraska)

Shopko Eyecare Center

Southwest Kansas Independent Living Resources Center

Southwest Utah Community Health Center

Spa Area Independent Living Services (Arkansas)

St. Mary's Health Network--Oregon

Stoney Ridge Day Treatment Center (Nebraska)

Sundance Women's Healthcare (Utah)

Sweetgrass-Stillwater Mental Health Association (Montana)

Swope Parkway Health Center (Missouri)

Tennessee Academy of Ophthalmology

The Home Team of Kansas

The Psychology Clinic (Louisiana)

Three Rivers Independent Living (Kansas)

Topeka Independent Living Resource Center (Kansas)

Town Center Chiropractic (Montana)

Tri-County Hospital (Nebraska)

Tri-County Mental Health Services--Maine

Tulane University Health Sciences Center (Louisiana)

United Healthcare--Alabama

Utah Society of Pathologists

Valley Community Clinic (California)

Valley Counseling Services (Ohio)

Valley County Hospital (Nebraska)

Valley View Medical Center (Utah)

Van WYK Family Chiropractic Center (Colorado)

Virginia Academy of School Psychologists

Virginia Association of Community Services Boards

Virginia Association of Free Clinics

Virginia Association of Hospices

Vision Health Center (Utah)

Wasatch Canyon Mental Health (Utah)

Washington Massage Therapy Association

West Holt Memorial Hospital (Nebraska)

Wills Chiropractic Clinic (Nebraska)

Willowbrook Mental Health Center (Nebraska)

Wiseman Chiropractic Wellness Center (Nebraska)

Workman Chiropractic Clinic (Nebraska)

Wyoming Counseling Association

health insurance trade associations

Alabama Associated Life Insurance Companies

America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP)

With additional letters from: Alabama Association of Health

Plans, California Association of Health Plans, Georgia

Association of Health Plans, Indiana Association of Health

Plans, Kansas Association of Health Plans, Kentucky

Association of Health Plans, Nebraska Association of Health

Plans, Nevada Association of Health Plans, New Jersey

Association of Health Plans, North Carolina Association of

Health Plans, Ohio Association of Health Plans, Virginia

Association of Health Plans, Association of Washington

Healthcare Plans, American Managed Behavioral Healthcare

Association, American Republic Insurance Company (Iowa)

Association of Health Insurance Advisors/National Association

of Insurance and Financial Advisors

With additional letters from: Indiana Chapter, Maine

Chapter, Nebraska Chapter, Ohio Chapter, Utah Chapter

Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association

Delta Dental Plans Association

With additional letters from: Delta Dental Plan of

Arkansas, Delta Dental Plan of Indiana, Delta Dental Plan of

Iowa, Delta Dental Plan of Kentucky, Delta Dental Plan of

Minnesota, Delta Dental Plan of New Mexico, Delta Dental Plan

of North Carolina, Delta Dental Plan of Virginia

Christiana Care Health Plans

Cimarron Healthcare (New Mexico)

Federation of Iowa Insurers

Health Net (Oregon)

Louisiana Pest Control Insurance Company (LIPCA)

Lovelace Health Systems (New Mexico)

Magellan Health Services

National Association of Health Underwriters

With additional letters from: Alabama Chapter, Arkansas

Chapter, Central Arkansas Chapter, Georgia Chapter, Indiana

Chapter, Maine Chapter, Minnesota Chapter, Nevada Chapter,

New Hampshire, New Mexico Chapter, North Carolina Chapter,

Ohio Chapter, Oregon Chapter, Rhode Island Chapter, Virginia

Chapter

Nebraska Association of Professional Insurance Agents

Nevada Hometown Health

NevadaCare

PacifiCare of Nevada

Principal Financial Group--with additional letters from: Iowa

Office

Sierra Health Services (Nevada)

Tufts Health Plan

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he might consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

(Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), for whom I have the most profound respect, the ranking Democrat member of the Committee on Small Business.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on our side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

My friend from Maryland, whom I respect very much, when they talk about the number of people who would gain insurance with AHPs, the Congressional Budget Office drew the conclusion that the vast majority of members of AHPs would not be newly-insured people. They would be people shifted from existing plans into the AHPs.

I think the better authority is that one million people, net, one million more people would be uninsured as a result of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I assume the gentleman's question was not rhetorical. What we have to fear, we should listen to the advice of attorneys general and Governors and insurance commissioners from around the country who say we have to fear this: we have to fear a poorly regulated or unregulated structure that is not properly accountable under fiduciary standards and has no experience in running insurance companies, which is why they oppose the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), another voice who joins the coalition of AFL-CIO, 66 chambers of commerce and the National Governors Association, a gentleman who has brought great honor to this House during his Presidential campaign.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, we certainly take up the challenge to present a better idea, which the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and I will be doing in a few minutes under the alternative. We understand that the American Academy of Actuaries, a group with no vested interest in this debate, has concluded that 1 million people will be added to the roles of the uninsured by this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), who had a career in State government in insurance regulation and, frankly, I think knows more about this subject than any other Member of the House.

Mr. Speaker I yield myself the balance of my time.

I agree completely with the chairman that the number one issue on the health care agenda of this country is finding insurance for the 43, 44 million uninsured. I agree with him completely that it is a worthy project for this House to pursue. Long overdue. Usually it does not persuade me when you submit a list of people who are against a bill or for a bill, because I think each one of us has the obligation to make our own judgment about these matters, as each one of us should here.

At this point in the Record, by the way, I include the Mercer study to which I referred, the actuarial study to which I referred, and the letter from the Congressional Budget Office to which I referred.

[Prepared for: National Small Business United, June 2003]

Impact of Association Health Plan Legislation on Premiums and Coverage

for Small Employers

(By Beth Fritchen, FSA, MAAA; and Karen Bender, FCA, ASA, MAAA, Mercer

Risk, Finance & Insurance)

executive summary

National Small Business United (NSBU) engaged Mercer Risk,

Finance & Insurance (Mercer) to analyze the ``Small Business

Health Fairness Act of 2003'' (H.R. 660 and S. 545). This

legislation would encourage the formation of federally

certified Association Health Plans (AHPs) by exempting these

plans from various state laws that govern health insurance

sold to small employers today.

Proponents of H.R. 660 and S. 545 argue that federally

certified AHPs would expand access to affordable health

insurance for small employers and reduce the number of

uninsured. Opponents believe the legislation would have the

exact opposite effect--that is, it would cause premiums to

rise and the number of uninsured to increase.

Mercer developed an actuarial model to assess how this

legislation would affect premiums for small firms that

purchase state-regulated coverage and firms that enroll in

AHPs over a four year period as well as the impact on the

number of uninsured.

The analysis concludes that federal AHP legislation would

not alleviate the health insurance cost pressures faced by

small employers. Rather, the proposed AHP legislation would

have a detrimental impact on small employer premiums,

especially for firms with high-cost workers, and would cause

a significant number of small employers to drop coverage,

thereby increasing the nation's uninsured population.

In brief, we found that once federal AHP legislation was

fully implemented:

Health insurance costs would increase significantly for

small businesses in the state-regulated insurance market.

Health insurance premiums would increase by 23% for small

employers that continued to purchase state-regulated coverage

This increase would result from AHPs' ability to attract

healthier-than-average firms out of the state-regulated

market. AHPs' exemption from mandated benefits would allow

them to tailor products attractive to healthier populations.

Moreover, exemption from sate limits on premiums and

marketing standards would allow AHPs to enroll healthier-

than-average groups and encourage firms with high cost

workers to switch back to the state-regulated market.

As AHPs attract small employers whose perceived health

status is good, firms with greater expected health care

utilization would remain in the state-regulated market, where

they have the protection of mandated benefits and other

requirements. The resulting outflow of low-cost groups from

the state-regulated market and the remaining concentration of

high-cost groups would start an adverse selection spiral that

would accelerate premium increases for employers in the

state-regulated market.

AHP legislation would increase, not decrease, the number of

uninsured. The number of uninsured would increase by over 1

million as a result of coverage losses among workers in small

firms and their dependents. As premiums for small employers

in the sate-regulated market increased, some firms would drop

coverage and not switch to an AHP. Coverage declines would

also result when groups covered by AHPs drop their coverage

when their rates increase because someone in the group gets

sick. While some of these groups would switch back to the

state-regulated market, others would drop coverage entirely.

Federal AHPs would gain a pricing advantage through risk-

selection, not greater administrative efficiency. The

modeling predicts that after four years premiums for AHPs

would average 10% below that of the existing small group

market. However, we expect these price reductions to result

from favorable risk selection and exclusion of benefits

rather than improved purchasing efficiency or lower

administrative costs. AHPs could use a variety of techniques

to select healthier-than-average firms--techniques available

to AHPs because the legislation preempts key provisions of

state law designed to prevent risk selection.

Specifically, under H.R. 660 and S. 545 AHPs could: charge

firms with high-cost workers much higher premiums than

permitted under state law; experience rate each association

based on the risk of only their members; and offer pared-down

products without benefits that would be needed or desired by

higher-risk small employers. Together, these strategies would

allow AHPs to offer the most attractive rates to healthy

groups and avoid the cross-subsidies that state small

employer health insurance reforms require.

Federal AHPs would insure the healthiest small employers.

The modeling estimates that the average morbidity (a measure

of whether a firm is ``sick'' or ``healthy'') of firms

enrolling in AHPs would be 21% lower than the average

morbidity of small employers in the market today. Further, as

higher-cost small employers dropped coverage in response to

rate increases resulting from the movement of healthy

employers out of the state-regulated market, the average

morbidity of the uninsured population would increase by

12.3%. AHPs would appeal most to firms with younger workers

given the close correlation between age and health status.

Small employers would face higher premiums overall. Average

small employer premiums (considering both cost increases for

the state-regulated market and premium reductions for AHPs)

would increase by 6%. Average premiums would increase because

the size of the average premium increase for the population

remaining in the state-regulated market (23%) would outweigh

the smaller average premium decrease for those covered by

AHPs (10%).

These results indicate that AHP legislation is not a

solution to rising health care costs for small employers.

While some firms obtaining coverage through AHPs may see

lower premiums, firms with higher-cost employees would see

their premiums increase. Overall, small employers would pay

higher premiums and the uninsured population would increase

if this legislation were enacted.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my coauthor, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), for what has now been more than a year of hard work on this effort, a very practical, commonsense solution that would not have been possible without him; and I thank him for his effort.

It is important to understand how this proposal works. If a small employer, and we define that as an employer with 100 or fewer employees, chooses, only if he or she chooses, they may enroll their employees in a plan that would operate similarly to the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan. It would create the largest purchasing pool of small businesses ever in the history of the country. It would achieve the economies of scale that the majority attempts to achieve in the underlying bill. But there are some important differences.

The first difference is that we believe our plan would in fact save money for that employer. In my home State, a small business pays about $12,000 or $13,000 a year to insure an employee and his or her family. The average cost under the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan is slightly over $9,000. We believe a similar price reduction would occur by the option of joining this plan.

Secondly, under our plan, for very small employers, those with 25 and under, they would receive a 5 percent premium discount. That is to say, their premium would only be 95 percent of the premium paid by the others in the pool.

Thirdly, very small employers with a lot of low-income employees, those who are most likely to be uninsured, are offered additional subsidies that are drawn from the budget resolution passed by the majority. This fits within the majority's budget resolution.

So the first important difference is our version, our plan, would add to the rolls of the insured rather than subtracting from it the way the majority's plan would.

Second, under our plan, none of the protections that people enjoy, the right to a mammogram, the right to women's health services, the right to mental health services, guaranteed under State laws around the country, none of those rights would be lost or forfeited under our plan.

Third, the risks of insolvency, unpaid creditors, uninsured insurers that the majority's plan proposes, would be avoided here, because you would have a large plan under the regulatory jurisdiction of the Federal Government that would be solvent and would be prepared to meet its obligations because it is properly regulated.

This is a commonsense idea. We believe in pooling as well. Frankly, I think that the majority has half of a good idea. The idea of permitting small employers to pool their employees to get a better deal from the health insurance marketplace is a very good idea. The problem is that the majority's plan also includes the repeal and forfeiture of protections like mammogram coverage, like diabetic care, like women's health services; and that is both unnecessary and undesirable.

Second, the majority's plan does not include any subsidies or special incentives for small business. A lot of small businesses in my State, even if you dropped the price of the coverage from $12,000 to $11,000 or $10,000, could still not afford it. It does not do them any good.

Our plan, unlike the majority plan, puts some subsidy into this in the form of premium discounts for very small employers and even deeper discounts for small employers who hire many, many lower-compensated employees.

We have said a lot of critical things about the majority's plan because we believe they are right; but we also understand, Mr. Speaker, it is our responsibility to put forward a positive alternative. The work that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) has done, that I am proud to join in, is such a positive alternative. It would offer real benefits in a meaningful way for the small business community of the country.

I would urge my colleagues to vote for its adoption.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Friedreich's Ataxia Awareness Day, which is recognized each year on the third Saturday in May.

Friedreich's ataxia is a life-shortening neurological disorder that is usually diagnosed in childhood. It causes muscle weakness and loss of coordination in the arms and legs; impairment of vision, hearing and speech; scoliosis, diabetes; and a life-threatening heart condition. Most patients need a wheelchair full-time by their twenties. Life expectancy is reduced to early adulthood. There is currently no effective treatment or cure for Friedreich's ataxia.

Although there is no effective treatment or cure available, Friedreich's ataxia patients and families have more and more reason for real hope. An extraordinary explosion of research insights has followed the identification of the Friedreich's ataxia gene in 1996. Since that discovery, research scientists have learned a great deal about the disorder. We now know what defects in the gene cause the disease, what protein the gene is supposed to produce, what that protein is supposed to accomplish, and why a shortage of the protein results in the cell death that leads to the disease symptoms. Investigators are increasingly optimistic that they are drawing closer to understanding more fully the causes of Friedreich's ataxia and to developing effective treatments. In fact, they have recently declared that, ``in Friedreich's ataxia, we have entered the treatment era.''

At the National Institutes of Health and around the world, clinical trials for Friedreich's ataxia are being conducted on drugs that hold real promise. Growing cooperation among organizations supporting the research and the multidisciplinary efforts of thousands of scientists and health care professionals provide powerful evidence of the increasing hope and determination to conquer Friedreich's ataxia. There is also a growing conviction that treatments can and will be developed for this disease and that the resulting insights will be broadly applicable across a wide range of neurological disorders such as Parkinson's, Huntington's and Alzheimer's.

On the third Saturday of May, events will be held across our country to increase public awareness of Friedreich's ataxia and to raise funds to support the research that promises treatments for this disease. I applaud the Friedreich's Ataxia Research Alliance (FARA) for its contributions to these efforts and ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing May 15, 2004, as Friedreich's Ataxia Awareness Day to show our concern for all those families affected by this disorder and to express our support and encouragement for their efforts to achieve treatments and a cure. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the somber occasion of the 89th Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, and to call upon the Administration to finally recognize this horrible crime for what it truly was, systematic and deliberate murder.

The Armenian Genocide began on April 24, 1915, and within eight years one and a half million Armenians were tortured and killed. Tortures that the Armenians were forced to endure included forced labor, rape, kidnapping, and death marches under the guise of ``temporary relocation.'' A grave injustice was intentionally committed by the Ottoman Empire during these years, and it is imperative that we now stand up and demand that this injustice be officially recognized by Turkey, the United States, and the World.

The senseless crime of genocide is one of the most reprehensible acts that can be committed by man. To attempt eradication of an entire population based on a misguided prejudice is absolutely vile, and the United States should do everything in its power to try and prevent such atrocities from happening in the future. Only by explicitly defining genocide and ensuring that all cases of genocide throughout history are appropriately identified can we effectively deter this crime. Particularly at this time of heightened vigilance around the world, it is absolutely imperative that America take a strong stance against the most troubling of all terrorist acts, mass killings.

We can not forget Adolph Hitler's haunting remark to his military staff prior to launching the Holocaust: ``who, after all, remembers the annihilation of the Armenians.'' Let us stand up as a country and let the world know that we do remember.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my continued support for the Republic of Cyprus, and to urge the Administration and the international community to continue working towards an agreeable solution to the division of the island.

While it is certainly disappointing that the UN brokered negotiations on reunification were not successful, it is important that the responsibility for this lack of success not be placed squarely on one party. It was determined by the Greek-Cypriot community that the final version of the Annan plan was not an acceptable solution to the division of the island, and they therefore chose to reject the plan through the democratic process. The Greek-Cypriots have made it clear that while they did have objections to the plan that was presented through the referendum, they are still very much in favor of reunification. Given the expressed willingness of both sides to work towards an agreeable solution to the division of the island, it would be a mistake for the international community to abandon these efforts.

The final version of the Annan plan, which was brought before both Cypriot communities for a referendum, was not in the best interest

of the Greek-Cypriot citizenry. The plan placed severe restrictions on the number of Greek-Cypriot refugees that would be permitted to return to the North, restricted property rights for the Greek-Cypriots in the North, and would have required that the Greek-Cypriots essentially compensate themselves for the properties they lost as a result of the Turkish invasion of 1974. While the plan did significantly reduce the number of Turkish troops on the island, it did not provide for full demilitarization. In essence, this plan did more to solidify the status quo on the island than it did to unify the two communities.

As Cyprus prepares to officially enter the European Union next month, I urge my colleagues to voice their support for full, meaningful membership within the EU for our Cypriot allies, as well as continued efforts towards an equitable reunification of the island.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to United States Marine Corps Staff Sergeant Dennis W. Hammond who was captured by the Viet Cong on February 8, 1968 and died in a Prisoner of War camp in March, 1970. Staff Sergeant Hammond was one of several American POWs who were held at a camp in Quang Nam Province numbered ST18. He attempted escape with the other POWs in the spring of 1968 and was shot in the leg by Montagnards in a nearby village. After 36 long years, the Department of Defense has positively identified Staff Sergeant Hammond's remains and will lay him to rest with full military honors in Bremond, Texas on May 22, 2004.

Staff Sergeant Hammond's story was brought to my attention by a patriotic and thoughtful newspaper reporter for the Gloucester County Times named Jim Six. Mr. Six has collected more than 400 dog tags from Vietnam and has spent over ten years trying to return these identification tags to their rightful owner or next of kin. As part of this statement, I am submitting three columns published by Jim Six to be included as part of the Record.

[From the Gloucester County Times, Feb. 4, 2004]

Marine's Lengthy Journey Nears End

(By Jim Six)

They found him! After 36 years, U.S. Marine Sgt. Dennis

Wayne Hammond is on his way home from Vietnam.

You may remember a story I wrote back in 2001. I have more

than 400 dog tags that I gave a friend a hundred bucks to buy

from a street vender in Vietnam in 1993. The dog tags may or

may not have belonged to American servicemen. The jury is

still out on that.

But one of the dog tags matched a real person.

Denny Hammond was captured by the Viet Cong on Feb. 8,

1968, almost exactly 36 years ago. He was shot trying to

escape and never quite recovered. By March 1970, the once-

strapping Marine weighed about 89 pounds. He died, some say,

while reciting the military oath of allegiance.

Previous efforts by the U.S. government to find Denny's

body had been unsuccessful. In 1995, a former POW who had

helped bury Denny was able to lead searchers to the grave,

but it was empty.

On Jan. 20, 2001, in Mexia, Texas, I handed Carlene Tackitt

a dog tag bearing the name of her brother, Denny Hammond.

Carlene's mother, Opal, had died in 1981, out of her mind

with grief for the son who had been captured in the jungles

of Vietnam. Before Carlene's dad died, he said it was

probably the not knowing that had killed Opal, the not

knowing where her boy was.

My visit to Mexia was brief, just long enough to be the

recipient of Carlene's Texas hospitality and to hand her a

donated jewelry box containing that old dog tag.

She clasped that little piece of metal tightly, not wanting

to let go of something that might have been her

brother's. ``Keep that next to me . . . I ain't never

giving that up,'' Carlene said back then. ``You don't know

how much we appreciate this. You have no idea.''

The story about the dog tag and the man it might have

belonged to was probably one of the most important things I

have written. Denny Hammond, for some reason, became part of

my life. I have a POW bracelet with his name on it. His high

school graduation picture is somewhere on my desk at home. I

have an ancient arrowhead Denny's nephew gave me. I think

about Denny Hammond a lot.

Last week, Carlene Tackitt was notified by the government

that her brother's remains had been located and were now in

Hawaii. I got the news Sunday in an e-mail from Carlene's

daughter-in-law. ``We wanted you to know this because you had

played a part in finding a piece of him and thought you might

want to know how his story ends finally . . . his family has

gotten the peace we need.'' When I got the news, I cried,

then wanted to smoke a cigar, drink some champagne, dance,

sing. I hope to talk to Carlene soon. Dennis Wayne Hammond's

long journey is almost at an end. He will be buried in Texas,

next to his mother and father, sometime in March. Boy, I'd

like to be there for that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do want to begin by thanking the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) who very ably and fairly chaired this conference and for all the participants and staff who worked very hard in the conference and did yeomen's work on both sides of the Capitol and both sides of the aisle.

As the chair of the Committee on Ways and Means said a minute ago, this bill solves a problem. I think he is correct, that there is a problem. I think he is correct that it solves the problem for some people who suffer that problem, but I would respectfully say he is most decidedly incorrect when he says it solves the entire problem.

The problem here is that people running pension plans, defined benefit plans, have suffered an unusual series of economic circumstances, declining stock prices, very low interest rates, which have given them great fiscal distress in their plans.

Under the existing law, it is necessary for the employers who pay into those plans to make huge increases in their contributions in the very near future. This translates, in my view, into lost jobs, slower growth, and significant economic problems for many industries. Commendably, this conference tried to address that problem and has, in fact, done so for many of our employers, but the conference report fails miserably to help a number of employers who need this help, and those are the employers in what is called the multi-employer plans.

Now multi-employer plan is a very antiseptic term. Who are we talking about? We are talking about air conditioning contracting companies. We are talking about people who build houses. We are talking about people that do plumbing repairs and heating repairs, that do sheet metal contracting. We are talking about 60,000 small businesses across this country affected by this change.

Now, the experts in the field have told us that about one in five of those small businesses is going to experience a significant problem in their pension plan within the next 5 years. Twenty percent of these air conditioning repair companies and plumbing companies and home builders are going to experience a problem in the next 5 years. So about 20 percent of these small businesses and their employees need help right now.

This bill helps about 3 or 4 percent of these small businesses in the country. Think about this. The experts tell us that 20 percent of these small businesses and their employees need help. This bill steps forward and helps 3 or 4 percent.

Now one might be inclined, Mr. Speaker, to think that this is a technical oversight or it is a problem that cannot be fixed because of some fiscal or budgetary reason. Nothing could be further from the truth. This bill represents a deliberate choice to exclude thousands of small businesses and their employees from the relief that they need to continue creating jobs, and I believe that deliberate choice is made because these plans are all affiliated with organized labor. That is what this is about.

There are a bunch of people that fell off the boat and they are drowning and need a life preserver and we are standing on the deck of the rescue ship throwing out life preservers so people can survive. And that is commendable. But we will not throw the life preservers for union plans and union workers. That is wrong. There is no substantive basis for that judgment. There is no fair basis for that judgment. And it is wrong.

We will have an opportunity to fix this injustice in the motion to recommit to conference that I will be offering. Under the rules of the House, there will be no debate on that motion, so I want to bring it up now.

What the motion will permit us to do is to reconvene the conference with the instructions that the small businesses adversely affected by this bill will have the chance to be included. We will go back to the bargaining table and say, as the experts have told us, that the 20 percent of small businesses who are drowning out there in the sea will also get thrown a life preserver.

To make a judgment based on dollars is reasonable. To make a judgment based upon technical disagreement is reasonable. But to make a judgment based upon ideological opposition to a certain segment of the American business community, those who employ unionized workers and against a segment of American workers, those who happen to exercise their right to collectively bargain, is wrong.

That is why the motion that I will submit is supported by, and final passage is opposed by, the Teamsters, the IBEW, the building and construction trades of the AFL/CIO, the bricklayers, the boilermakers, the roofers, the asbestos workers, the carpenters, the iron workers, the operating engineers, the laborers, the sheet metal workers, the plasterers, the plumbers and pipe fitters, the elevator trades and the painters.

The small businesses that employ these Americans should not be excluded from this bill, irrespective of

who they support in the election, irrespective of how they view things politically. It is wrong to throw a life preserver only to the favored few.

I would urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit that will be offered and oppose final passage of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), who is really one of our leading voices on pension reform in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I would just point out that the argument from the other side, we keep hearing the bill is not everything, that we cannot do everything all at once.

It seems like the things that we never quite get around to are the ones that most benefit the working people of the country. We never quite get around to extending unemployment benefits. We never quite get around to consideration of raising the minimum wage. We never quite get around to including pension relief for employees of small businesses, 60,000 small businesses across the country. We never quite get around to debating legislation that would help the 45 million people without health insurance in the country. We never quite get around to that.

We always do get around to helping very powerful players in our economy and our political system who, in fact, deserve help in this circumstance. I do not dispute that; but I hope one of these days, Mr. Speaker, we get around to helping the rest.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I consume, and I know that there are elements of the union movement who support this bill. I understand that, but I want to reiterate, the Teamsters, the IBEW, the building trades, the bricklayers, the boilermakers, the roofers, the asbestos workers, the carpenters, the iron workers, the operating engineers, the laborers, the sheet metal workers, the plasterers and cement masons, the plumbers and the pipefitters, the elevator trades and the painters all oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), who is a leading voice on pension issues.

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

I also want to echo the comments of the chairman regarding the staff on both sides, here in the House and the other body. Staff put in innumerable hours, did very high-quality work on both sides, and we are very grateful to each of these ladies and gentlemen.

I have listened to the arguments from the other side, and I certainly respect their intent, but I want to clarify the record.

We have heard that the bill that is in front of us really does help the multi-employer plans, the small business plans who need help, and that it only excludes those who do not. I again state that The Segal Company, which is widely recognized as an objective and authoritative source in this field, has concluded that over the course of the next 5 years 20 percent of the multi-employer plans will experience grave trouble. As I understand their analysis of this bill, this bill will help fewer than 4 percent of those plans. So a lot of plans in distress are going to have further distress.

Another argument we hear is that not that many people are really left out. My friend from Ohio talked about the relatively tiny percentage of small businesses affected by this. But it is important that we understand that these businesses employ nine and a half

million people. Now, not all those nine and a half million people are in plans that are in distress, but a significant portion of them are. So it is nine and a half million workers who are affected and, I believe, left out of this important consideration.

We hear that this is only a temporary fix and we will come back and fix it later in 2 years. I hope that is true, and I have no doubt that is the intention of the majority. But we sometimes do not move very quickly in these areas. If someone is in trouble, and again I think the record shows about a fifth of these plans are in trouble, telling them they have to tread water for another 2 years until the life preserver comes is a rather unhelpful answer.

We have heard that no one in the House brought up multi-employer relief the first time this came through. That is true. The bill was brought up under a unanimous consent agreement in which no amendments were permitted, by agreement of both sides. Frankly, our side entered that agreement because we wanted the bill to move quickly and because I think we made a rather reasonable forecast, based upon our experience, that Democratic amendments that alter decisions by the majority are very often not considered under the rules passed by this House.

So the idea we could have come to the floor and offered an amendment that would have included the multi plans is rather at variance with the record.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate that. I also appreciate the fact that the record of this House is that Democratic amendments to bills very often do not get fairly considered.

Finally, we are told the President will not go any further than what is in this bill. Well, I certainly respect the Office of the Presidency and the man who holds it now, but we are a coequal branch of government. Our job here is not to limit our expression of what we think the right answer is to what the people at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue think. We have both the right and the responsibility to stand up and be counted for what we think.

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

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

I again would like to express my appreciation to the majority for the fair and evenhanded way in which the conference was handled. I dispute its result and disagree with its result. I do look forward to our cooperation over the next number of years in addressing the long-term problems.

I would urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the motion to recommit because I do not believe, as the distinguished chairman just said, it kills the chance for relief. I think it improves relief. I think this is a legislative body that is capable of producing a better product. I think that indisputably we have a situation here in which a number of small businesses who contribute to multi-employer pension plans are going to not receive the relief that they need in order to continue to generate and create jobs.

One of the ritualistic things that we say around here is that everyone loves small business, that they create three-quarters of the jobs created in the private sector in America, and we regularly have contests between each other to see who can be most in love with small business. The issue in front of us is 60,000 small businesses who pay into multi-employer pension plans. The record reflects that the best judgment of objective analysts concludes that 20 percent of the plans are at risk of being in financial jeopardy in the next 5 years. The bill in front of us helps only a tiny fraction of that group that is going to be in such trouble. It subjects thousands of those employers to difficult situations where they are going to have to steeply increase their contributions to their pension plans and thereby jeopardize their ability to keep handing out paychecks, which is so very, very important.

I would urge my colleagues to join the very broad and strong coalition of working men and women in supporting the motion to recommit and opposing final passage of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am, in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Army Specialist Adam Froehlich who was killed while serving our country in Baqubah, Iraq on March 25, 2004. He was a member of 2nd Platoon, Charlie Battery, 1st Battalion, 6th Field Artillery, a part of the 1st Infantry Division and stationed in Bamberg, Germany.

Specialist Froehlich was a true patriot who, deeply moved by the attacks of September 11th, joined the Army after graduating from Overbrook High School in Pine Hill, New Jersey. At Overbrook High School he was a varsity wrestler. After fulfilling his commitment to the Army, Specialist Froehlich planned to use the GI bill to attend college and become a gym teacher.

Specialist Froehlich's love of his country predated his enlistment in the Army. His decision to serve his country was a natural path for him to take. Even at his young age, he understood the connection between the freedom that we all enjoy and the historical sacrifices of those in uniform.

Specialist Froehlich is survived by his parents Stephen and Rosemarie, his brothers Steve and Jeff, his sister April and his grandfather John, all of South Jersey. He will be laid to rest with full military honors on Saturday April 3, 2004 in Berlin, New Jersey.

I extend my deepest sympathy to the Froehlich family and express my immense gratitude for the heroic service of Specialist Adam Froehlich.

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from New York for yielding me the time.

I would like to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner), the gentleman from Michigan (Ranking Member Conyers), and especially the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) for the outstanding efforts in including in this worthy piece of legislation a provision that has been called the Koby Mandell Act.

Koby Mandell was a 13-year-old boy in May of 2001 who until he was in fourth grade had lived in the United States in Maryland and his family moved to Israel. In May of 2001, Kolbe and a friend of his went hiking, and they were never to return.

During their youthful enjoyment of a hiking outing, Kolbe and his friend were stoned to death by Palestinian terrorists. Now, when an American citizen leaves this country for purposes of living somewhere else, he or she certainly should not leave behind the protection of justice.

Unfortunately for Koby Mandell and his family, the concept that passes for justice in the occupied territories did not protect him. Because since the time of his murder, there has been no meaningful investigation or prosecution to bring to justice those who committed this murder. When our citizens travel around the world and are not protected by the law of other places, it is our responsibility to step forward and protect them. That is what this language does.

I especially want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), without whose active participation this would not have happened. He used his considerable legislative skills to shepherd through the committee, with the cooperation of the chairman and ranking member, this language.

Here is what it means. The Department of Justice will set up an office that will offer and enforce rewards for those who murder Americans when they are on foreign soil, irrespective of where they are on foreign soil. This office will monitor the outcome of any prosecution or incarceration of a person who has murdered an American citizen. If such a person is released from a prison in another land or is not properly dealt with in another land, this office will have responsibility to extradite and bring to trial in this country a person who has committed a crime against an American citizen, to the extent that our laws would permit such a prosecution.

This office will be, further, responsible for making sure that if any official authorities that may have been complicit in the murder of the American are still in place, that is to say, if people who are security agents or police officers responsible for the murder of an American citizen are still in place, that appropriate diplomatic and economic actions would be taken against the government that sponsors those authorities. Sadly, in many parts of the world, those who wear the cloak of authority are responsible for criminal acts, murderous acts against Americans and other innocent people.

This provision will by no means stop the murder of innocent Americans when they travel abroad, but it will provide us with a new and meaningful tool that will bring to justice those who would commit such heinous acts against innocent people. It is sad that a 13-year-old boy had to give his life, but it is inspiring that his sacrifice of his life has led this institution to consider this very worthy provision.

Again, I am very grateful to the chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), to the

ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and especially to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) for their skill in including this measure in the underlying legislation. I hope that we will continue to work together as Republicans and Democrats to see that this newly created office will be properly funded so that it may do the job I just talked about.

No American should be without the protection of justice, irrespective of where he or she travels in the world. I believe this is an important provision to help ensure that promise. Once again, I thank the leaders for including it in the bill.