Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control the 10 minutes on the amendment with the permission to yield.

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

I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for agreeing to the time limitation in the interest in getting all the Members home today.

I express my appreciation to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) for their support of this amendment.

I want to talk about why we are here and why I would urge Members to support the amendment. This is a project about deepening the Delaware River from its present 40-foot depth to a 45-foot depth. There has been intense controversy about this issue for a very long time. In June 2002, the General Accounting Office at the request of Members of this House and the other body released a study of this project which concluded that contrary to the legal requirement that there be at least a dollar of benefit for every dollar invested, that, in fact, in this project there are only 49 cents of value for every dollar that is invested. The GAO described the project as unsustainable under the rules that govern the Army Corps of Engineers.

Late in 2002, the Army Corps of Engineers recalculated its assessment of the project and not surprisingly concluded that the benefits did outweigh the costs. We have looked very carefully at that reassessment and commissioned an independent study by Dr. Sterns, who is the former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Civil Works of the Army, and his

Mr. Chairman, I yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.

We have great respect for our friends, but we have great respect for the facts. The fact is that GAO had the last word. They say the project is a waste of money. The fact is the environmental agencies of New Jersey and Delaware have not permitted this. The fact is with respect to the local match, the New Jersey people will not put up the match. The project should not be funded. We respectfully ask everyone to vote ``yes'' on the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume; and I thank my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), for yielding me this time. I assure my colleagues I will not personally take all 24 minutes; I will reserve the right to yield to other Members, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) should be here forthrightly and he will be yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the leadership of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) on our side of the aisle, the other committees of jurisdiction, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for bringing this very important legislation to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I think that history will reflect that this is our generation's version of the Manhattan Project. These are uncharted scientific waters. It is a world that we have not yet become accustomed to navigating.

It is the world of massive biological attack against the United States of America. I have supreme confidence that we will be able to meet and deter such an attack, but only if we are able to engage the machinery of the best minds in our universities and our companies, in our government, and throughout society.

I believe that is exactly what this legislation does. It brings to the forefront the abilities of our researchers, of our scientists, of our entrepreneurs, of our public officials to systematically identify the biological risks that our country faces, to methodically analyze the best opportunities for addressing those biological risks, and to use a process that will effectively meet those risks.

I commend the authors for properly balancing the mechanisms of money, market, and exclusivity. It is very important there be adequate resources for the companies who we are asking to engage in this so that they will in fact engage in it. It is important that we create a market, because it is our fervent wish that there will never be a market for these products. We hope they are never needed. But in the absence of that market, it is important the law contain a specific guarantee to move forward.

Finally, with respect to exclusivity and insulation from antitrust considerations, it is very important that those who are willing to risk their capital and their energy to come up with these agents are afforded the protection of the law.

I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I agree with the chairman. I think he is correct that bipartisanship cannot simply begin at the water's edge in a world where the battlefield is here. And there is a virtual battlefield that we are all, unfortunately, living in.

I would like to make two other points before I stop. The first is that I very much appreciate the inclusion into this bill, with the help of the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), language that I suggested with respect to making it clear that when there is a termination for reason of convenience by the government, that all of the normal cost recovery rights that would accrue to the vendor in fact accrue under this bill. I very much appreciate that inclusion.

I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Reclaiming my time once again, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman's cooperation in that regard.

Second, I would like to say it is very important that the chairman has very skillfully, along with the ranking member, assured that there will be continuing oversight by the Congress of the activities under this bill. We had to strike the proper balance here between a guaranteed funding stream so that the companies involved in this would know that their investment would in fact be recovered, but at the same time not yielding the important oversight function that this Congress should exercise. And I commend the chairman and the ranking member and all the authors for making that the case.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), who has had experience in State government with homeland security, who has had experience here on the Committee on Armed Services and now on the Select Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the point the gentleman is making. The BioShield Project is built on a foundation of accurate assessment of the threats that we face. For example, if there is an assessment that we face a significant threat from botulism, the full resources of this bill are applied to finding an antidote to botulism.

The gentleman's point is very well taken. If the threat assessment is flawed, then we run the risk of either spending money on a threat that is not very viable, or failing to spend energy and money on a threat that is viable that we have failed to detect.

So we can employ the very best resources of our scientists, our engineers, our researchers, our entrepreneurs, but have them working on the wrong problem if there is not an adequate intelligence-gathering capability and then an adequate response to that intelligence-gathering capability shared with the Department of Homeland Security. I think the gentleman's point is very well taken.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman for working with the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) on the issue of termination for convenience. We think it is a very important clarification that if there is a termination by the government for reasons of convenience, the companies involved in the project can recover their costs under the normal rules for that. I know that the gentleman's committee was involved in making that possible, and I wanted to thank him for his cooperation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) and that he may further allocate that time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the Slaughter amendment. I appreciate the gentlewoman offering this bipartisan amendment. One of the highlights for me of the last school year was watching my 10-year-old daughter, Jackie, who took flute lessons for the first time, excel in a school musical. At this hour as we speak, my 8-year-old daughter, Josie, is in a rehearsal for her role in community theater for ``Man of La Mancha.''

The arts are an important part of our family, and we are a privileged family to have that involvement. But without the NEA and the NEH, there are many families in many corners of America who never experience the delight of the arts. The NEA and the NEH are about the democratization of arts in our country.

Now, I have heard four arguments against amendments like that of my friend, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter). The first is it is too expensive to fund the NEA and the NEH. That is incorrect. The economic loss of withdrawal of support for the arts would be far greater than the modest cost of this amendment. Jobs that are created in tourism, in the hospitality industry, and directly through the arts themselves generate tax revenues that more than offset the very modest costs of this amendment.

The second argument I have heard against the arts is sometimes the NEA or NEH funds a particular work of art that some Members here do not like. Let me say for the record, I hope the NEA and NEH always fund arts that some politicians find objectionable. That is the nature of the artistic process. The power of the NEA and the NEH is its peer- driven mechanism, where decisions are made by people in the arts in consultation with their peers and not through the political process. May it always be that way. I commend the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for maintaining that tradition.

The third argument that I hear is that this is an elitist segment of the Federal budget, that by funding the arts we are somehow propagating an elitism. The exact opposite is true. There are so many people in urban and rural low-income areas around our country who would never get the chance to experience the delight of a piece of theater by Shakespeare, the grace of a ballet, the innate beauty of a painting or sculpture were it not for the extension of the arts that was provided by NEA and NEH. In my district at Camden, New Jersey, at the Leap Charter School this summer there is a program in the arts in Greek mythology and Greek drama for children, most of whom come from the very lowest echelon on the economic ladder. But they are experiencing the arts in a positive and creative way for the very first time.

Finally, we hear the argument that the amount of money is so modest that it really does not do arts organizations much good and that because there is so much money flowing into the coffers of arts organizations, they do not really need the money. Mr. Chairman, anybody who makes that argument has never been involved in a nonprofit arts organization. They have never known that that extra $10,000 or that extra $15,000 is make or break. It is the seed money that lets the organization get started so it can generate ticket revenues, so it can generate corporate and charitable contributions. It is the seed money that gives rise to the possibility of all the other revenues.

In a country that spends over $2 trillion for its governance, this is frankly an embarrassingly modest commitment to the arts and humanities. It is wise. It is just, and it is one that should enjoy the bipartisan support of this House. I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding me this time.

A few years ago, a friend of mine that I went to law school with called and told me that his 4-year-old son had been diagnosed with leukemia. He and his wife were obviously devastated by this news. They wondered what life would be like if this precious little boy were to be taken from their lives. That little boy will start third grade next September, in large part because of the huge advances that have been made in health care, in pharmaceutical products, and largely underwritten by the National Institutes of Health, an organization that has had bipartisan support in this body for a very long time.

How can we justify shutting down this miracle factory by increasing its funding by only 2\1/2\ percent, barely enough to keep up with inflation? What choice are we making by doing this? How could we pay for a more robust increase?

Here is what we could do. If we increase NIH funding to keep in line with what has been done by bipartisan majorities in the last 10 years, a 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 percent increase, we would have to reduce the tax cut this way: for every $1,000 worth of tax cut, we would have to take away $20. So we could still take the person with the $1,000 tax cut and make it $980 and keep the NIH doing the research, continuing the progress it has made so that more parents could hear the good news that their little son or daughter is in remission.

What an unwise choice. What a profoundly reckless judgment is being made in this bill. I would urge opposition to this bill for this reason, among many others.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Maine for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, when the majority in this House became the majority in this House, one of the first things that it brought to the floor was the idea of a Federal mandate-Federal pay rule and statute, and it passed with great enthusiasm from the other side of the aisle and from some of us on this side of the aisle.

Several years later, the majority and the minority working together passed the No Child Left Behind Act. It contains many mandates on schools around our country. Three of the most important ones are these:

Third-graders through eighth-graders in every school and every town in the country are going to be tested every year on various subjects. That is mandated.

Another mandate is that by the 2005-2006 school year, every classroom must have a highly qualified teacher in that classroom teaching in field. Mandated.

Another important mandate is that if a school fails to meet what is called adequate yearly progress, we are responsible for coming up with tutors and remedial programs, after-school programs, various tools to help those children learn. Mandated. Wise.

Another important mandate is that paraprofessionals must have at least an associate's degree or the equivalent thereof by some date certain, which will require a significant investment in the training and education of paraprofessionals. Mandated.

I support these standards and these improvements. I commend the majority and the President for writing them into the law. But the deal on No Child Left Behind was that if we are going to mandate these requirements, we would pay for them. The bill that is on the floor, by my count, is about $8 billion short of meeting those mandates.

What does this mean?

It means higher local school taxes around this country. In my State, it means higher property taxes to meet these mandates, number one. Number two, it means cuts in other services, because school districts with finite resources that must test these children every year, that must train teachers, that must train paraprofessionals, that must meet these other mandates are

not going to have an endless well of tax dollars from which they can go back and raise this money. So they are going to cut other programs, whether it is the school band or the preschool program or guidance counselors or what have you. That was not the agreement on No Child Left Behind.

The Allen amendment is very clear, and it is very wise. It says to this body, when you honor the agreement of No Child Left Behind, then the mandates will kick in. But if you dishonor that agreement, then they will not.

Now, if this were 1995, I would think that proposal would come from the other side of the aisle, because we heard it ad nauseam on environmental regulations, on land use regulations, on all kinds of things. The gentleman's principle is exactly right. We ought to support his amendment.

I would say to my federalist friends on the other side of the aisle, here is your chance to stand for the principles of local control and federalism.

I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me the time.

Under this rule, a person who makes $25,000 a year and works in the shoe department of a retail store who spends most of her day selling shoes, who is asked to watch two other people who also sell shoes and keep records on them, but not have the right to fire them, not have the right to supervise them, that woman making $25,000 a year will not get time and a half if the employer says she has to work more than 40 hours a week. That is wrong.

If my colleagues vote for the Obey-Miller amendment they stop that rule. The 40-hour workweek is a fundamental in this country, and we will not let you stop it.

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

Students in this era take laptops and hand-held computers to class, but they are very often being taught by teachers who started teaching when cable television was an innovation or even when color television was an innovation.

This is a very promising bill that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) has written, that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), and the others have brought to the floor. I am happy to support it and commend all those responsible for it.

My concern is that the promise of this bill may well turn out to be another unfulfilled promise when it comes to helping teachers catch up to the new realities of the world in which they are teaching. School districts across this country already understand that reality. When they look at the requirements under the No Child Left Behind Act, they understand that by the 2005-2006 school year, every classroom must have a highly qualified teacher in that classroom. The gap between getting to that point and where we are now is a very expensive one; and if we look at the education funding bill that the House will be considering tomorrow, there is an $8 billion difference between what is needed by school districts around our country and what is

provided by the majority in its bill to meet that need.

It does not make sense to raise standards and raise expectations and then fail to provide the funding and the money and the resources to meet those expectations. It is obvious that many of the teachers that are presently teaching around our country today are going to need sabbaticals, are going to need extra education, are going to need extra training in order to meet the new standards of being a highly qualified teacher.

I support raising those standards, but I do not support falsely raising expectations about what we are going to do for public education and then failing to meet those expectations. How are we in this predicament?

The budget forecast a few years ago said that this year for every $100 we are going to spend to run our government, we would have $125 worth of revenue coming in. Did not happen. Certainly the terrorist attack of 9/11 had a role in this. The recession has had a major role in this, but the two huge tax cuts enacted by the majority have also had a role in this. So, today, instead of having $125 of revenue for every $100 that we need to spend, we have about $80 of revenue for every $100 that we need to spend.

What gets cut? Environmental protection, health care, education. This is one more example of a choice the majority has made between the long- term fiscal health of the country by improving education and the short- term political gratification of enacting tax cuts.

This is the right bill. It makes a great promise, but the majority will fail to fulfill that promise because it continues to worship at the altar of irresponsible fiscal practices.

I urge support of the bill.

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

I also would like to congratulate the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson) on his outstanding work on this bill. I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for their great work in bringing this forward.

We are very much in favor of saying to teachers who teach math and science and special education in schools that are plagued with difficult challenges that they should get increased loan forgiveness. That is a great idea, and we are happy to support it.

We believe that that loan forgiveness should be extended further. Democrats offered amendments that would have extended that loan forgiveness to Head Start and other preschool teachers. It would have extended it to teachers in rural schools and some other areas.

The chairman of the full committee was on the floor a few minutes ago and said that we are here to make decisions and that the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. Implicit in his remarks, of course, are that there are trade-offs for decisions that we make. Let me explore the trade-off that I think the majority's unwisely making by excluding our amendments from this bill.

If we were to adopt the Democratic amendments that would provide this same loan forgiveness for teachers who teach in our preschool programs, who teach in our rural schools and in other areas that we raise as amendments, we could make the choice of reducing the tax cut that the majority passed in this House last month. If we were to do so, how much of a reduction in tax cut would we have to make? The answer is to fund additional loan forgiveness for Head Start teachers, for rural teachers, for these other teachers it makes reference to, for every $100 of the tax cut the majority passed, we would have to take away 30 cents. So for every $100 worth of tax cuts people would get, they would still get $99.70 of reduced taxes if we extended this benefit to those who teach our 3- and 4-year-olds prereading and premath, if those who go to rural districts worked especially hard to recruit teachers.

We commend the majority for bringing forth this bill, and we support it; but we must say, the benefits of extended loan forgiveness should not stop with this bill. What should stop is the raid on the Federal Treasury, as I said, the worshipping at the altar of fiscal irresponsibility. We support the bill, but we know that we could do more.

Mr. Speaker, 54 years ago, on June 27, 1949, President Harry Truman deployed the U.S. Navy's 7th Fleet to the Taiwan Strait to protect Taiwan against the possibility of an invasion by the People's Republic of China, PRC. Since then, we have committed ourselves to defending Taiwan, as enshrined in the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979. President Bush himself declared in 2001 that America would do whatever it takes to defend Taiwan. In light of the threat posed by the PRC's military buildup in Fukien, we must unequivocally stand by our promises to support Taiwan. America cannot afford to lose a democracy in such a volatile region--and the people of Taiwan cannot afford to lose their safety, security, and freedom.

I rise today to call attention to an important resolution that I introduced today concerning the safety and security of Taiwan, and the right of Taiwan's 23 million people to determine their own future. In the past 2 decades, Taiwan has undergone a remarkable transformation from a one party, martial law dictatorship to a full-fledged democracy that respects human rights and human freedoms. Time and again, Taiwan has proven herself one of America's staunchest allies, recently pledging her support for continued humanitarian aid to both Afghanistan and Iraq. At the same time, however, Taiwan's democracy faces a serious military threat from the People's Republic of China. The PRC continues to regard Taiwan as a renegade province, despite the fact that it has never exercised control over the island. The PRC continues to openly entertain the use of force against Taiwan, thereby jeopardizing the stability of the entire Asian Pacific region.

A Washington Post report of June 11, 2003, reveals the PRC's plans to build up its military for the purpose of ``unification with Taiwan.'' Already, the PRC has set up 400 short-range ballistic missiles in the province of Fukien, directly targeted at Taiwan, in addition to purchasing advanced weaponry systems, such as fighting aircrafts, submarines, and destroyers. The Washington Post reports that the PRC is accelerating its military acquisitions and notes that this buildup is ``intended to create a force capable of bullying Taiwan and thwarting U.S. intervention in any conflict between China and Taiwan.'' In other words, the PRC is preparing to use force and coercion to take over a territory it has no legal right to, and to impose its totalitarian ideology on a people who have fought long and hard for their freedom, and who have no wish to live under Communist rule.

The resolution I introduced today is a step towards protecting a fellow democracy from the threat of Chinese aggression. The resolution calls on the Bush administration to seek from the leaders of the PRC a public and immediate renunciation of any threat or use of force against Taiwan. This includes the dismantling of the Fukien missiles and other military apparatus designed to intimidate Taiwan. The administration must let the PRC government know that America will no longer tolerate the constant harassment targeted towards the people of Taiwan. If the PRC government refuses to dismantle the missiles, the administration should then authorize the release of the Aegis system to Taiwan, enabling Taiwan to defend itself against any Chinese attack.

Mr. Speaker, these PRC missiles in Fukien province are not conducive to a peaceful resolution of current Taiwanese-Chinese relations. We can not expect the people of Taiwan to live their daily lives under such threatening and uncertain conditions. In the name of democracy, we must ensure that the future of Taiwan is determined peacefully, and with the expressed consent of the Taiwanese people. Also, I urge both my colleagues and the administration to support Taiwanese efforts to hold a referendum vote on the issue of admittance into the World Health Organization,

WHO. The people of Taiwan deserve to have their voices heard in this ongoing debate, the outcome of which will have a monumental effect on their health and well-being. As the foremost promoter of freedom and democracy around the world, we can not in good faith deter the people of Taiwan from holding their referendum. There can be no double standard when it comes to exercising democracy.

Mr. Speaker, no group but the citizenry of Taiwan has the right to determine the future of Taiwan. I ask that my colleagues join me in supporting democracy for the Taiwanese people, and ensuring their safety and security. Let us ensure that it will never be necessary to send the 7th Fleet to the Taiwan Strait again.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for yielding me this time. I would like to congratulate and thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for their leadership in bringing the first of what I hope is a series of bipartisan bills to the floor that will improve our country's homeland security. There is much

work to be done. In each area that comprises homeland security, the work of this committee thus far has uncovered significant weaknesses and deficiencies that our country must resolve.

Homeland security first is the matter of knowing who is outside the fence of our home who is trying to do us harm, and that principally is a matter of diplomacy and intelligence. I frankly was dismayed to hear in recent weeks the testimony about the chaotic and dysfunctional relationship between the Department of Homeland Security and the various intelligence agencies. You cannot stop someone from attacking America if you do not know that they are trying to do it. This is an urgent problem that needs our attention.

The second aspect of homeland security is building the highest and strongest wall that we can build around our country. There is significant progress that has been made here. I especially commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), chairman of the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), who I think have very correctly focused on the risk to the country in the cybersecurity area.

But there are many more areas that need to be pursued. I would echo what the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) said a few minutes ago. The front line soldiers in making that wall as high and strong as possible are America's first responders, our police, our fire, our emergency services personnel. Later today, the House will consider a homeland security appropriations bill that does more for those first responders than has ever been done before in the history of the Federal Government. It is not nearly enough. It is not happening nearly soon enough. I know there will be some discussion under the appropriations bill about the wisdom of trading off over $2 trillion worth of tax cuts for more urgent and necessary help for these first responders. I think we should have chosen to help the first responders, and I think that is an area of debate that should be explored as the committee goes forward.

The third area of homeland security is the question of chain of command and allocation of responsibility when we have a terrorist attack that is imminent or ongoing. There is chaos and dysfunction in this area as well. Because everyone is in charge of an ongoing attack, no one is in charge of defending against an ongoing attack. The Select Committee on Homeland Security, working together with the Committee on Armed Services and other relevant committees, needs to think about who would be in charge in America this morning if, God forbid, our President received word that a terrorist attack was happening right now, who reports to whom, who is in charge of whom, and who is responsible for what. This is an area that is unexplored and dysfunctional at the present time.

Finally, homeland security is a matter of response. It is a matter of the immediate aftermath of an attack. One of the most impressive things about September 11 was how the first responders and other responders reacted to the tragedies in New York and in Virginia and Pennsylvania, because in many ways they were making it up as they went along. They did not have the contingency plans, they did not have the equipment, they did not have the training. They did a heroic and spectacular job. One of the least impressive things about our country's preparations in homeland security is how still relatively unprepared we are for that immediate aftermath. Questions about taxing the public health system, questions about evacuation plans, questions of coordination and joint services agreements among municipalities, counties and States still need to be worked out.

This is a bipartisan mission of national urgency. I am encouraged that the committee has worked together on this technical corrections bill. I fully support it. But if this is all we do and if this is as far as we go, then the deficiencies that I pointed out this morning will come back to haunt us. That benefits no one; that jeopardizes everyone. I hope that we will work together in the months and years to come to strengthen ourselves so we never again live another nightmare like this country did on the 11th of September, 2001.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill.

The chairman of the committee is precisely right, that the problem of massive amounts of people not having health insurance is the central problem in health care. Most of the 41 million

Americans who have no health care who are adults work for a living. And most of those adults who work for a living work for a small business, so there is an intuitive appeal to an argument that says let us help make it easier for small businesses to acquire health insurance.

In fact, the substitute that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and I will be offering later in this debate does that, and we would urge our colleagues to support that.

The reality, though, is that small businesses who do not provide health care for their employees do not do so because the gap between what they can afford to pay and what they have must pay is huge. It is immense. Even the most optimistic proponents of this bill admit that the premium savings that could be generated by this bill will slender indeed, usually in the single digits of percentage points, if that.

The reality is small businesses are not going to be able to afford to expand health care without significant public subsidies. That is a fact. The majority has drained well in excess of $2 trillion from the public Treasury with its insatiable appetite for tax cuts, and as a result, there is no money in the till. There is no money to provide those necessary subsidies. So this is the fig leaf. This is the shallow argument that says we can do something to help those small businesses.

Frankly, this bill belongs in the Orwellian hall of fame for misnomers of a piece of legislation. It is called the Small Business Health Care Fairness Act. With respect to small businesses, it provides nothing in subsidies for employers who cannot afford health insurance, not a dime. It provides for market reforms that offer an illusory and ultimately empty promise of lower premiums.

It is not a health care bill because what it does is supplant benefits that have been provided by State legislatures across this country by Republicans and Democrats, benefits that guarantee women breast cancer care, benefits that guarantee people with diabetes care for their illness, benefits that guarantee pregnant women and small children important care, benefits that protect consumers when they have been wronged by their HMO. Because this bill invalidates and wipes out those protections, the National Governors Association, Republicans and Democrats, oppose this bill. Because this bill invalidates those protections, the Attorneys General of a huge majority of the States oppose this bill. Because the bill eliminates protections for mammograms, for diabetes care, for well baby care, wipes them out, the insurance commissioners across this country oppose the bill.

It is not a health care bill. It is a political bill designed to paper over the fact that the majority already spent the money it needs to provide real relief.

Finally, it is called fairness. Where is the fairness in creating two sets of rules for those who attempt to buy health insurance for their employees? Because that is what this bill does. It sets up one set of rules where all the protections and regulations and safeguards that most people enjoy are wiped off the books for AHPs, and then another set of rules where the remaining insurance companies must compete on an unlevel playing field. Many of us who support the substitute believe in market competition, but we believe in market competition on a level playing field. That is not what this bill does.

One of the of the most respected health care analysis firms in this country, Madam Speaker, Certified Public Accountants and Associates, looked at this bill and that firm concluded that the chairman would have to change one of his charts because he started with a chart that says there are 41 million uninsured. If this bill is enacted, the chairman will have to change his chart and X out the 41 and put 42 uninsured, because that firm has concluded that the net effect of this bill will be to drive up the premiums for insurance companies who are not AHPs, drive them up so high that it will result in the loss of coverage for one million more Americans.

This bill is an illusion. It should be defeated. Later in this debate, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and I will be presenting a substitute which we believe truly addresses the real needs of small businesses in America's uninsured.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I think it is important to point out for the record that the gentleman did admit that the benefit protections like mammogram screenings are, in fact, wiped out by the bill before us.

The bill before us will take away health coverage for more than 1 million people and add to the uninsured.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), who has offered a plan that will actually decrease the number of uninsured, which we will talk about later.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the leader of our committee and one of the leading opponents of this plan that would take health care coverage away from 1 million people.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) who, as a former insurance commissioner from North Dakota, has direct experience with AHPs running out of money and not paying their claims.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. The gentleman is correct. At the end of the day, the question is whether one has health insurance or not. At the end of the day if this bill is enacted, 1 million more people will not have health insurance than do today because of the damage that this bill does. That is one of the reasons why State legislators across this country oppose this bill. Our next colleague is someone who served in the Minnesota State legislature, who fought for laws that protect women against discrimination. She will point out that this law does not do that.

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Madam Speaker, one of the Members who is opposed to expanding the ranks of the uninsured by 1 million people and, therefore, opposes this bill is the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) to whom I yield 3 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I want to again reemphasize that the objective analysis of this bill, contrary to what we have heard repeatedly today, is that it will increase the number of uninsured persons. It will do so because those who are not in AHPs who must still comply with the mandated benefits and other consumer protection laws will experience an escalation in premiums which will cause a reduction in coverage. We believe the record is clear, that the passage of this bill will increase the number of uninsured persons by 1 million people.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, for all the reasons we have stated, we oppose the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) for all the leadership he has shown on this, all the hard work he has done, and his usual, thoughtful approach to this problem.

Understand the desirability of the substitute versus the underlying bill. It would be helpful to think of a person who runs a tool and die shop with a dozen employees, or a cafe with 15 or 20 employees. Under the majority's Republican underlying bill, the most optimistic people believe there would be about a 15 percent premium savings for that employer. I think that is unduly optimistic, but let us give them the benefit of the doubt.

In my State, it costs about $6,000 to provide a health care package for an individual, and about $12,000 for family coverage. That means for that individual plan, the price would drop from $6,000 down to about $5,100. For the owner of that tool and die shop or that cafe, even if that price drop would occur, it is not nearly enough to afford the premiums that would be involved.

The majority's bill provides zero to the owner of that tool and die shop or that cafe to help them buy those premiums.

The substitute goes to the majority's budget resolution, identifies, as the majority did, $50 billion over 5 years, without any increase in taxes or revenues, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) just said, and uses that $50 billion creatively and wisely to provide subsidies to what we estimate would be 5 million employers and 16 million employees.

The person running the tool and die shop or the cafe, even if you are right, and we think you are wrong, meaning the majority, even if that person enjoys a reduction in premiums from $6,000 down to $5,100, it is not enough to increase coverage.

The plain fact is this: people who are employing people at the bottom of the wage ladder in low-margin businesses are not going to be able to afford the price of health insurance unless there is a significant subsidy. That is a fact. It is a fact the majority would choose to ignore, because the majority has taken over $2 trillion from the public Treasury that could be used to address the problem of 41 million uninsured people and flushed that money away. This substitute is an appropriate way to close that gap.

I also again want to reiterate that we believe you do not have to make this false choice between people being covered, as our various States would have them covered, with mammogram protection, with diabetes care, with prenatal and well-baby care. You do not have to make the choice between providing those vital benefits and no coverage at all.

The Mercer study shows that the underlying bill from the majority will result in an increase of 1 million people to the ranks of the uninsured. Eight million people, the CBO now tells us, will move from regular protected plans into these new unprotected, at-risk AHPs. We will get the worst of both worlds: eight million people for whom there is no guaranteed coverage against breast cancer, against diabetes, against the other diseases and conditions people worry about, and an increase in the number of uninsured.

The plan that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) has taken the lead on would do the opposite. It will address the real needs of the owner of that tool and die shop and the real needs of the owner of that cafe by providing him or her with a meaningful subsidy that would help purchase health insurance benefits for his or her employees. There is a 5 million person difference when it comes to employers, a 16 million person difference when it comes to employees, and all the difference in the world when it comes to the approach here.

The plan the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) has put forward will work. It will work within the contours of the majority's own budget resolution. It provides real help and real aid to those who need it, not the empty promise of the majority's bill.

I urge our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the Kind substitute.

Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman care to cite the source of that statistic?

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

I understand there are variations in plan costs around the country. I would once again say, however, that the most enthusiastic proponents of the AHP plan do not talk about a reduction of the magnitude that the chairman of the full committee just talked about; they talk, at best case, about a 15 or 16 percent premium reduction.

If you live in a market that has a $6,000-per-person premium, which I do, that is nowhere near a $2,700 reduction which the chairman's phone calls have uncovered.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, what premium benefit then would the chairman claim would result from this bill?

I yield to the chairman to tell us what premium benefit he predicts would result from the underlying bill.

Fifteen and 30 percent. That is a new number for us, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, would the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Speaker, and it is also true, is it not, like I said to my colleague from Minnesota, that in the underlying bill that the majority offered, that each one of those State protections that the gentlewoman just outlined would be invalidated?

Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman would further yield, what the gentlewoman is saying is that if the insurance industry chooses to keep these protections, it may; but if it chooses not to, the person who is covered under the plan does not get any of the coverage the gentlewoman just spoke of; is that correct?

Mr. Speaker, if the underlying bill becomes law, 4 million American women who presently are guaranteed breast cancer care will only have it if the insurance companies they move to decide to let them have it. We can change that by voting ``yes'' on this motion to recommit. The question is simple: Do we want our mothers and our sisters and our daughters and our

wives to rely upon the whims of the insurance industry or the power of our votes? If you want to guarantee that this care goes forward, the only way to do it is to vote ``yes'' on the motion of the gentlewoman from New York. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Alan Bray.

Alan Bray is well known throughout Maine as a talented artist who is able to capture the beauty of Maine in his paintings. Alan's art has been enjoyed by so many who appreciate his amazing works. He has studied art around the world and earned his degree in Italy. He has had his artwork displayed at museums in New York City and reviewed in some of the finest publications. He has been to the great bay of San Francisco and to the shores of Florida, yet Alan always chooses to return to that place from which he came.

Perhaps Alan Bray's greatest works, however, lie not within his art but within his soul. You see, Alan comes from Sangerville, a small town in central Maine where the people do not always enjoy many of the every-day advantages as those of us who have the opportunity to live in more populous and prosperous areas. Closing Mills, unemployment and lower wages place a strain on families and communities, but Alan Bray is a community's strength.

Alan has given his time and his talents to the local college, where he passes on his vast knowledge of art and artistic methods to students eager to absorb it, but who would otherwise be without the opportunity to learn from such life experiences. He has lead the effort to revive the local Grange, once a meeting place for farmers in the surrounding communities to discuss means to deliver their crops to the cities and ensure their earning a fair wage for their long, hard hours of work. Today, the Sangerville Grange is a center of culture and draws musical talent, poets, speakers and others with so much to offer and to teach, much as the town of Collingswood in my district has the Scottish Rite. Like the Rite, the Grange has become widely known for drawing some of the finest talent and sharpest minds to deliver music, art and culture to the small community of good, descent people who so deserve the wonderful offerings a civilized society has to give. It is a result of the vision, character and hard work of Alan Bray.

Alan is now being recognized as a recipient of the Jefferson Award, a prestigious award that honors community service and cooperative spirit, and he is here in Washington today to humbly accept that award for his good works, his good deeds, but mainly, for the good his good deeds, but mainly for the good content of his character. Alan Bray embodies the spirit of returning to one's community a hundred fold that which you have gained from it, and of unpaid public service that is an essential part of the spirit of America. He is a ray of hope to some who are in need of hope; a beacon of light to others who struggle to find their way, and a modern visionary of what otherwise ordinary people can do to make extraordinary things come to be. Congratulations, Alan. Your community, your state, and indeed your nation, thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the memory of Mr. William Still and to celebrate the upcoming National Underground Railroad Family Reunion Festival. Mr. Still, known as the ``Father of the Underground Railroad,'' was one of the primary architects of the legendary passage that assisted slaves in achieving their long sought freedom in the North.

From early childhood, William Still worked on his father's farm in Burlington County, New Jersey. When he was 23, he left the family farm for Philadelphia, arriving poor and friendless. But, as a testament to his determined nature and a foreshadowing of his future success, Mr. Still taught himself to read so by 1847, he was able to hold a secretarial position in the Pennsylvania Society for the Abolition of Slavery. While in this position, Mr. Still became directly involved in assisting African-Americans with their escape from the institution of slavery, and was able to provide boarding for many of the fugitives who rested in Philadelphia before continuing their journey to Canada.

William Still became well known for his hard work and dedication, and in 1951 when Philadelphia abolitionists organized the Vigilance Committee to assist fugitives traveling through the city, Mr. Still was elected chairman. During this time, Mr. Still used his house as one of the busiest stations on the Underground Railroad, being awoken endlessly and tirelessly throughout the night to provide fugitives with clothing and food. By some estimates, Mr. Still helped a total of 649 slaves obtain freedom. In addition, Mr. Still interviewed the fleeing slaves, including the famous conductor, Harriet Tubman, and kept careful records so that families and friends would be able to locate their relatives in the future. The result was his 1872 publication, The Underground Railroad; a seminal work documenting the perilous journeys slaves took for freedom.

In addition to his work on the Underground Railroad, Mr. Still, an active member of the Presbyterian Church, established a Mission School in North Philadelphia and organized one of the early YMCAs for black youth. Through these efforts, Mr. Still helped African-American youth embrace their newfound freedom, and it was with his strong leadership that the African-American community successfully made the difficult transition from the cruelty of slavery to the joys of emancipation.

In honor of his esteemed and gracious work, the William Still Underground Railroad Foundation, Inc., as requested by the Harriet Tubman Historical Society, is sponsoring the first annual National Underground Railroad Family Reunion Festival to take place in Camden, NJ and Philadelphia, PA from June 27-29, 2003. The three-day celebration will reunite descendants of conductors, abolitionists, stationmasters, fugitives, and all those whose ancestors were associated with the Underground Railroad in a public arena.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in honoring Mr. William Still, a man who dedicated his life to ensure the freedom and survival of others. In addition, I offer my sincere admiration and appreciation to the William Still Underground Railroad Foundation for planning and sponsoring the first annual National Underground Railroad Family Reunion Festival.

Mr. Speaker, I rise before you today in strong support of the recent actions taken by the Illinois state legislature regarding the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), a proposed amendment to the Constitution which would unequivocally guarantee equal gender rights under the law. As many of my colleagues are certainly aware, the Illinois State Assembly recently voted on and passed the ERA, clearing the way for their counterparts in the Senate to consider this crucial legislation at the conclusion of their current recess. If Illinois' State Senate agrees to ratify the ERA, then only two more state ratifications will be necessary for this long overdue amendment to be added to our Constitution.

Some people have argued that the addition of an ERA amendment to the Constitution would simply be a change in semantics and nothing more. I strongly disagree. Presently, on average, women receive only 76 percent of the pay that men receive for comparable full time positions. Inequities such as these are inexcusable; they are disastrously damaging not just to women, but also to their families. Through the ratification of an Equal Rights Amendment, women would have an expanded legal basis to call for equal compensation for equal work.

Although the Equal Rights Amendment may have faded from the public spotlight at times, the movement to include women in the Constitution never died, and it is growing vigorously once again. Women had to wait until 1920 to be granted the right to vote under the Constitution. While this was certainly a monumental development, it has not produced full gender equality. The 14th Amendment, granting ``equal protection of the laws,'' did not, and still does not, fully protect women from damaging gender discrimination. Only an Equal Rights Amendment would ensure the Constitutionally guaranteed full equality that women deserve.

The ERA was originally passed by Congress in 1972, along with a seven-year time limit for ratification. In 1979, Congress extended the time limit for three more years, leaving the deadline at 1982. Within a decade of the initial 1972 passage, the amendment had been ratified by 35 states, three short of the necessary 38. For many years after that, the ERA was, for technical reasons, generally considered ``dead.'' However, legal analyses indicate that with just three more state ratifications, the ERA may in fact meet the requirements to be added to the Constitution. As has been verified by several legal experts, the fact that the time limit appears in the proposing clause rather than the text of the legislation leaves this deadline open to adjustment. When Congress chose to extend the deadline in 1979, a precedent was set; subsequent sessions of Congress may adjust time limits placed in proposing clauses by their predecessors. These adjustments may include extensions of time, reductions, or elimination of the deadline altogether.

It is therefore possible for current or future sessions of Congress to eliminate the deadline originally placed on ratification of the ERA, thus allowing the amendment to be added to the Constitution once it is ratified by three more states. This ``three state strategy'' is a very real possibility, and I have introduced legislation into the House of Representatives, H. Res. 38, to ensure that action will be immediately considered by Congress once three more state legislatures ratify the

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow morning 1 million Americans will arise and have no jobs. They will go to the front doorstep and pick up the newspaper and look at the want ads.

The want ads will be filled with solicitations for jobs if you are a nuclear engineer or if you are ready to work for minimum wage with no benefits. And then they will go to their mailbox and even though they have no job, they will still have their mortgage bill and their car insurance bill and their utility bill and all the other expenses they need to support their families. And they will go out for their daily trek to try to find work and they will find that for every 3\1/2\ people in America looking for a job, there is one job. It is a measure of decency and equity how we treat these 1 million Americans.

Before we adjourn for the recess in the wee small hours of the morning, the majority will no doubt pass significant relief for the owners of the companies that laid off these million people. How tragic it is that we will not even get the opportunity to address the real needs of the 1 million Americans who will wake up tomorrow with no job, no prospects and no unemployment benefits. Let us measure the decency of this House and the capacity for compassion in this country by extending unemployment benefits for all the people of the country who need them, not simply those covered by this bill. Of course we will support this bill to help those who are helped, but it is a tragedy that we are leaving behind 1 million Americans who need work.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Also in this bill, 51,000 of my constituents will not receive the extension, either.

If the gentlewoman will yield, and they have exhausted those benefits and have no benefits now.

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

This is a strong and good bill on which there are points of serious disagreement. One of those points of disagreement is the extent to which environmental protection laws should be rolled back in the case of military operations. Many of us on our side and some on the other believe they should not be rolled back as much. There are those on the majority side who believe that this is the right way to go. What we are asking for is a chance to debate that question and take a vote.

In this bill, there is a serious disagreement about the rollback of the civil protective rights of civilian workers in the Department of Defense. We believe it goes far too far. Many on the other side believe it is the right thing to do. All we are asking for is the right to debate that question and take a vote.

It is the supreme and bitter irony that the world's greatest fighting force that defends democracy around the world with great skill and in whom we take great pride, that the bill that funds that fighting force is not being pursued under basic democratic principles. Our military force defends democracy around the world, but we do not have democracy on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Vote ``no'' on this rule.