Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I was detained on rollcall vote number 452, the Stearns amendment. If I had been here, I would have voted ``no.'' At a time when AmeriCorp is already underfunded by $100 million, this is no time to cut it further.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Nadler

Mr. Chairman, for almost 40 years Head Start has assisted low-income, preschool children and their families, establishing a comprehensive, early learning environment addressing a variety of social and medical needs. Certainly in my district, as in districts all over the country, Head Start has been a tremendous success: IQ gains, reading and writing and math skills improved, high school graduation, significantly greater; the need for special education, reduced; crime, reduced.

So if it is so good, why overhaul it? If one wants to improve it, we can do that. But one should review it in a bipartisan way. This is not bipartisan. There is nothing bipartisan here. And this is not a debate. No Member will be persuaded, no vote will be changed.

The Republicans are foisting a block grant program on the country on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. And you know what a block grant program is. It is a pot of money that goes to the State with the message ``This is for early education. You know what to do with it.''

Well, some States know what to do with it, and some States do not.

The block grant approach is flawed and it is illogical. It guts quality comprehensive services, primary health care, dental care, mental health services. The block grant approach weakens performance standards, it sets no minimum thresholds for school readiness standards, teacher-student ratios, classroom size or curriculum content. It weakens oversight and evaluation.

Rather than pursuing a bill that will lead to a partisan vote on Head Start legislation, we should reconsider the block grant approach for the sake of America's children.

Mr. Speaker, I am sad to say that for the second time during this Congress, the House has considered legislation offering a false promise to help for seniors struggling to pay for prescription medications.

Last month, the House passed a bill that purported to offer Medicare prescription drug coverage. I have long supported providing seniors with a reliable, comprehensive, and affordable drug benefit under Medicare. I could not in good conscience vote for the bill passed by the House, however, because it would provide only a meager benefit while quite possibly leading to the death of the traditional Medicare program that has served seniors in my district so well.

Congress has an obligation to help Americans who cannot afford the prescription drugs they need. Seniors need and deserve a voluntary, universal, prescription drug benefit under Medicare that can help lower prices using the collective buying power of the Medicare population. But making it easier to bring counterfeit, substandard medicines into the United States is not the way to help seniors get the drugs they need. H.R. 2427 poses a very serious danger--exposing American consumers to unsafe counterfeit drugs.

The evidence of this is well documented. The Food and Drug Administration, which has for nearly a century been responsible for certifying the safety and efficacy of medications sold in the United States, opposes reimportation. According to FDA Commissioner Mark McClellan, ``At a time when FDA faces more challenges than ever in keeping America's supply of prescription drugs safe and secure, H.R. 2427 would create new drug safety problems. H.R. 2427 creates a wide channel for large volumes of unapproved drugs and other products to enter the United States that are potentially injurious to public health and pose a threat to the security of our Nation's drug supply. The bill would do so by taking unprecedented steps that limit FDA's authority to assure the safety of prescription drug products to be used by U.S. consumers.

These sentiments are shared by eight former FDA Commissioners as well as current and former HHS Secretaries Tommy Thompson and Donna Shalala, who both refused to certify the safety of reimportation. The Nation's largest association of physicians, the AMA, also opposes this dangerous policy.

The dangers of reimportation were brought to life recently, when 19 people in Florida were arrested in charges of selling ``adultered'' drugs, including fake Lipitor pills imported illegally from England. We were lucky in this case. Sometimes the dangers of counterfeit imported pills don't become apparent until it's too late.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot vote to jeopardize the safety of our supply of medications. The United States is the envy of the world because its medicines are the safest. Opening our borders to the peril of counterfeit drugs is simply a foolish way to increase accessibility. We need a Medicare prescription drug benefit--not a flood of dangerous counterfeits. Do we really want to open our borders to let in drugs from other countries when the worldwide rate of counterfeit drugs is 8 percent.

I urge my colleagues to protect the safety of U.S. consumers and vote no on H.R. 2427.

Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of this appropriations bill and also to highlight the need for increased funding for basic science programs at the Department of Energy.

First, I would like to commend the chair and ranking member of the subcommittee for substantial efforts to add funds in nearly every category of basic energy research to the administration's budget requests.

In particular, I commend the committee for committing $268.1 million to fusion energy research; $10.8 million above the administration's budget request and an 8 percent increase over fiscal year 2003 appropriated levels--$246.9 million.

The $10.8 million increase this committee worked hard to secure is essential for allowing the United States to fulfill the President's directive of reengaging in the international burning plasma experiment (ITER) and to maintain a strong domestic fusion energy program.

The fusion energy program has made impressive--although generally unrecognized--progress in the past years despite being severely under funded. For example, the energy produced in fusion plasmas in large experiments around the world has outpaced the rate of advance in computer speed during the last 30 years. The people of New Jersey are proud of our leadership role in this important field of science through one of our Nation's premier research institutions, the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL).

However, substantial hurdles still must be addressed before fusion energy will become a viable commercial energy source, and solving these problems will take significant Federal support. It will be worth the effort and expense. Knowing a great deal about the subject, I am optimistic that the hurdles will be overcome and practical fusion energy will become a reality.

Before coming to Congress, I was the associate director of the PPPL. It is worth noting that during my tenure at the lab, the fusion energy budget reached a high of $352 million. The committee should be commended for taking a small step in reestablishing such funding levels.

Despite these important incremental increases, I must emphasize that our country's current investment in fusion energy science, and in basic energy research in general, is not nearly sufficient to realize the goal of a zero emissions energy economy, as outlined by Energy Secretary Abraham in introducing DOE's budget request.

Achieving energy independence and a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the energy sector will take a sustained investment in basic sciences that could lead to clean alternative energy sources.

Mr. Chairman, I commend the committee for making the best of an inadequate budget request, and I urge this committee to continue this trend toward increased support for our basic energy research programs in years to come.

I also want to commend Mr. Hobson and the committee for reducing funding for study of a new generation of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons on the battlefield would be a nightmare, and reasonable battlefield commanders say they would never want them. Nuclear ``bunker buster'' bombs are flawed in concept and we should not be spending money to pursue them.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.

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

Mr. Chairman, Yellowstone Park, our first national park, our premier national park, a symbol of America, is being loved to death. My colleagues and I today are offering this amendment to protect Yellowstone and Grand Teton parks, some of our Nation's most valuable treasures. The Park Service which is charged with protecting the natural resources of the parks unimpaired for the enjoyment of current and future generations has studied the state of these parks. In Yellowstone Park, they have determined that the use of snowmobiles is the principal insult to the park, an insult that can be corrected. What they say is that phasing out of snowmobile use in Yellowstone and Grand Teton is the best way to protect the parks, better than other alternatives, better than requiring new snowmobiles, better than requiring guided snowmobile tours, better than a cap on the number of machines entering the park daily. Snowmobiles produce significantly more noise and pollution than cars, presenting a health hazard to park rangers, to visitors and obscuring the visibility even around Old Faithful. Having been there myself in winter, I can tell you that snowmobile noise is clearly audible through much of the park most of the time, disturbing wildlife and disrupting visitors' experiences.

The Park Service in November 2000 issued an environmental impact statement that was the culmination of nearly 10 years of study. The statement said: ``Based on reduced impacts to human health and safety, to air quality, visitor access, the natural soundscape and to wildlife, the National Park Service has identified the snowmobile phaseout as the environmentally preferred alternative.''

The Bush administration did not like this conclusion. So they told the Park Service to study it again and issue another report, which they did, publishing a new environmental impact statement in February of this year. This time they considered the impacts of the administration's proposal to look at new machines, the four-cycle machines, and to cap the number of snowmobiles entering Yellowstone and Grand Teton. They came to the previous conclusion. The statement now reads: ``The snowmobile phaseout best attains the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation and risk of health or safety.''

Last month, the Environmental Protection Agency weighed in as well. Not only did they uphold the Park Service's conclusion that a phaseout would be best for the parks and for the visitors, they actually found that the Park Service had underestimated the impact of snowmobile emissions under the administration's proposal. For no good reason, Mr. Chairman, the Interior Department wants to roll back a regulation based on 10 years of careful study. They are the ones trying to undo the existing snowmobile phaseout. We are here to uphold what the Park Service has determined to be best for the parks.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), who has studied this and experienced it firsthand.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I reserve my remaining time.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Chair the time remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the co-sponsor of this amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I restore this picture of the park ranger with the respirator to make the point that this is not a stunt. The Park Service actually issues respirators to its rangers. It is that bad, and they use them.

Now to refer to a couple of points that were made with regard to the economic impact. That was part of these studies, and the Park Service included in the study the economic impact of this phaseout. Now it is worth noting that a few years ago, in 1995-1996, when west entrance visitations decreased by 13 percent over the previous year, resort tax collection increased by almost 10 percent. The point is that preservation of the environment is in the interest of the economy. The National Park Service has determined through extensive studies that phasing out snowmobiles and converting to snowcoaches would have a less than 1 percent effect on the five county economy, and many business owners are saying the protection of the Yellowstone is vital to their economic future.

Mr. Chairman, this has been studied over and over again. Every point that the opponents have raised here has been addressed multiple times. It is worth pointing out what the locals, the local people are saying. Let me refer to a couple of newspapers from Montana.

The Great Falls Tribune says, ``Sometimes politics replaces common sense, and it is happening now at Yellowstone Park. It is literally a dirty, stinking shame.''

The Helena Independent Record says, ``There remains something inherently out of kilter about letting snowmobiles roar through the pristine winter silence. It is not as if the West lacks places outside of Yellowstone.''

The Casper, Wyoming, Star Tribune says, ``Given the scientific evidence and the data of the degrading effects of snowmobiles, allowing their use in the parks violates the mission given to the National Park Service by Congress to manage the parks in such a manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of current and future generations.''

That is what our amendment seeks to do, Mr. Chairman.

May 20, 2003.

Hon. Gale Norton,

U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.

Dear Secretary Norton: It has been our privilege

collectively to serve nine presidents as stewards of

America's national parks. For each of us, this experience

underscored the pride and joy that Americans feel for their

common heritage and their desire to have national parks

vigorously preserved for their grandchildren. In this spirit,

we write to you about a final decision that is before you

regarding snowmobile use in Yellowstone National Park. There

can be no doubt that this decision is a defining moment for

America's national parks.

The choice over snowmobile use in Yellowstone is a choice

between upholding the founding principle of our national

parks--stewardship on behalf of all visitors and future

generations--or catering to a special interest in a manner

that would damage Yellowstone's resources and threaten public

health. The latter choice would set an entirely new course

for America's national parks.

It is our deep hope as this issue now moves to your final

review that you will ensure the highest protection for

Yellowstone. To do otherwise would be a radical departure

from the Interior Department's stewardship mission.

Yellowstone is an irreplaceable national treasure, a symbol

of our country, and a gathering place where Americans feel

justifiably proud that our country led the world by

establishing its first national park. A decision made on

behalf of the snowmobile industry and not for Yellowstone's

environment and the general public would be wrong.

On many occasions, President Bush has made laudable pledges

that members of his administration will always be fully

accountable to the public. In keeping with this, we are

mindful of your assertions regarding snowmobile use in

Yellowstone; they are as

important today as they were when you made them.

Two years ago, the Interior Department directed that a

supplemental environmental study be undertaken so that

additional information and wider public involvement could be

brought to bear in making the best possible decision about

Yellowstone's future. The Department asserted that this

information would be essential to a sound decision.

On the basis of the new data, the National Park Service

verified that phasing out snowmobile use would provide the

best protection of Yellowstone's environment and the health

of employees and visitors. The study concluded that ending

snowmobile use while providing visitors access on

snowcoaches:

``. . . best preserves the unique historic, cultural, and

natural resources associated with Yellowstone and Grand Teton

National Parks . . .'' and would ``. . . attain the widest

range of beneficial uses of the environment without

degradation and risk of health and safety.''--Final

supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, February 2003.

We hope that you will now embrace the central conclusion of

a study that your Department asserted to the American people

would shape a better decision. To ignore its conclusion would

clearly be to accept avoidable risks to health and safety, a

narrower range of beneficial uses, and weaker preservation of

Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks.

Your Department also called for wider public involvement

and the call was unquestionably answered. More Americans

submitted comments to the National Park Service than the

agency has received on any singe issue in its 87-year

history. While the volume of comment was unprecedented, its

reflection of public opinion was consistent with previous

comment periods over the past several years. By a 4-to-1

margin, Americans urged you to give Yellowstone the best

possible protection and said they believe--as the National

Park Service has confirmed--that this means replacing

snowmobiles with snowcoaches. We hope that after calling for

public comment, you will heed, not ignore, what the public

has told you.

Clearly we are in economic and budgetary times that require

us to be scrupulous with every tax dollar. This is another

reason why we urge you to adopt a phaseout of snowmobile use.

Your study demonstrated that continuing snowmobile use in

Yellowstone would result not only in higher levels of air and

noise pollution, harm to wildlife, and risks for employee and

visitor health; it would also cost taxpayers $1.3 million

more each year than replacing snowmobiles with snowcoaches.

Surely you will not ask the American taxpayer to pay more for

less protection, an annual transfer payment to the snowmobile

industry subsidizing ongoing damage to Yellowstone.

We would be remiss if we did not emphasize one final point.

Yellowstone's wintertime struggles with pollution, noise, and

traffic congestion fit into a larger context. Throughout the

National Park System, we have been striving for years to

develop more efficient transportation systems so that the

visitor's national park experience can be defined by each

park's special attributes and not by negative aspects of

traffic that most visitors hope to leave at home.

Zion National Park is an excellent example of the success

and popularity of this strategy. Where automobile traffic had

clogged Zion's once quiet canyons and the visitor's

experience was being defined by noise, exhaust, and

frustrations finding parking, the Park Service substituted

shuttle bus access. This change boosted gateway business,

earned accolades from visitors who today are enjoying a

better park experience, and reduced impacts to Zion's

resources.

In Yellowstone, the supplemental study that you requested

has demonstrated that replacing snowmobiles with an efficient

system of snowcoaches would bring similar benefits. In fact,

with wildlife under stress from Yellowstone's deep snows and

frigid temperatures, and employees and visitors breathing

snowmobile fumes often trapped by the park's inversions, the

benefits of reducing traffic and emissions would be even

greater than they have been in Zion.

In summary, we join as former public stewards of America's

national parks in urging you to place Yellowstone National

Park back on a path that gives the highest priority to

protecting its natural qualities for today's visitors and

future generations. To do otherwise would ignore sound

science, the public will, and responsibility to taxpayers.

And worst of all, it would erode a precious gift that this

country gave itself and the world, a gift that will only

become more valuable to our nation as our population grows.

Sincerely,

George B. Hartzog, Jr., National Park Service Director

(1964-1972); National P. Reed, Assistant Secretary of

the Interior (1971-1976); Russell E. Dickenson,

National Park Service Director (1980-1985); Denis P.

Galvin, National Park Service Deputy Director (1985-

1989 and 1998-2002); Roger G. Kennedy, National Park

Service Director (1993-1997); Robert Stanton, National

Park Service Director (1997-2001); Michael V. Finley,

Yellowstone National Park Superintendent (1994-2001);

Robert D. Barbee, Yellowstone National Park

Superintendent (1983-1994).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

The direction in which the administration has been leading our Nation on nuclear weapons is becoming increasingly dangerous. That is why I wrote to President Bush in April, a letter co-signed by 33 of my colleagues here, to underscore our concern that our Nation's leaders not adopt a mindset of viewing nuclear weapons as just an extension of the continuum of conventional military options available to the United States. It is important that we maintain the nuclear distinction.

I rise to support this motion because it gives us the opportunity to invoke at least one cautionary restraint on this dangerous path. Both the House and Senate versions of this bill eliminate the Spratt-Furse ban that has been in place since 1993. And this Senate language, especially, would allow Pandora's box to be opened to allow, in effect, unfettered research into low-yield nuclear weapons. As a scientist, I can talk about the studies that some of my scientific colleagues have prepared about why some of the newly conceived weapons like the bunker buster would not work as proposed, why they would be dirty, why they would be unwieldy; but I choose instead to focus for just a moment on the more important strategic and tactical questions.

We should be stepping away from using tactical nuclear weapons, not

moving in that direction. U.S. battlefield commanders have said over and over again that they have long recognized the folly of battlefield nukes. The weapons and especially these newly conceived weapons put our troops at risk and are not useful in advancing military campaigns. And very important, this work would be sending the wrong message to our allies and to potential adversaries around the world. They would view the adoption of this bad, particularly the bad Senate language as further evidence that America is bent upon developing and procuring a new generation of nuclear weapons. As we go to war around the world in part to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons, we should not be sending the signal that we are bent on developing and procuring a new generation of nuclear weapons.

So the Spratt motion is a very constructive step that provides, I think, an important safeguard that actually will help to make our country and our world more secure.

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

Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this bipartisan amendment to add the much-needed funds to the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. Our funding of the arts and humanities in the United States is meager indeed. It could be much greater. It should be much greater, but I would settle for at least the increase in the gentlewoman from New York's (Ms. Slaughter) amendment.

The National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities play crucial roles in American cultural life. We have all heard over and over again of the benefits they bring to individuals and communities, the National Endowment for the Arts and the NEH.

The funding of these institutions provide help to many organizations beyond those that directly receive the NEA and NEH grants. As a former teacher, I can tell my colleagues that arts education helps children be better students and helps them learn critical thinking skills. This is a long overdue and a modest funding increase to build programs that use the strength of the arts and our Nation's cultural life to enhance communities in every State and every county around America.

The arts and humanities are important for our growth and our well- being. The arts and humanities are among the best investments that we as a society can make. They help our children learn. They give the elderly sustenance. They power economic development in regions that are down and out. They tie our diverse society and country together.

The arts represent the future. The arts challenge us. The arts wake us up. The arts help us learn who we are as a society and as individuals.

Will the projects that would be sponsored by this increase in funding help defend our country? Probably not, but they will make our country more worth defending.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering today will provide $1 million to establish and develop the food biotechnology public education program that was authorized in the Farm Act, H.R. 2646, during the 107th Congress, but was never funded.

The use of biotechnology, such as to produce genetically engineered foods, has the potential to improve yields of nutritionally enhanced foods with less land, reduced use of pesticides and herbicides, can benefit farmers, consumers and the environment.

The history of agriculture has indeed been a history of progress. Now there is an immediate and critical need for accurate information, both on food production systems that have provided the American consumer with a diversified and healthful food supply, and on the role of this new technology in food production. It is only based on clear, accurate, and scientific information that consumers can make sense of the often sensational risk and benefit claims reported and rumored.

In 1999, for example, the journal ``Nature'' published a study suggesting that pollen from genetically modified corn would harm the monarch butterfly population. This sparked a worldwide controversy. Follow-up studies have shown since that the pollen presents no significant danger to monarchs, but the foundation of fear based on emotion had been set, and soon other nonscience-based allegations about biotechnology emerged.

I have been asked if this amendment is an anti-biotechnology or a pro-biotechnology amendment. I would argue that it is an anti-ignorance amendment. It is not to say that biotechnology is always benign under all circumstances; but consumers, researchers, and farmers will benefit from a public that is well informed and engaged in the debate about food biotechnology.

Although food biotechnology has immense potential, consumers and farmers have legitimate concerns regarding the safety of genetically engineered foods. No one, however, is served by assertions from ignorance. It is appropriate for the government to provide the public with clear evidence-based information that helps consumers, policymakers and others make informed choices about food.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, so that the Department of Agriculture will have the necessary funding to carry out this authorized program and so that the public will be best informed.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, my amendment actually is silent on exactly how the money would be allocated within the Department. Perhaps it could be through the Food Safety and Inspection Service. But the point is, this is authorized, and it is provided for under the authorization; and I think it will be easy to fit into the Department's public education activities.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, let me ask the chairman of the authorizing committee if he did not have in mind how this would be administered in the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield again.

With those assurances from both Chairs, recognizing that the public debate is raging on and the need for this public information is now, I would be willing to withdraw my amendment and to work with the chairman, with the expectation that we can work something out in the coming months in this session of Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Offered By: Mr. Holt

Amendment No. 2: At the end of the bill (before the short

title) insert the following section:

Sec. 3____. None of the funds made available in this Act

may be used to manage recreational snowmobile use in

Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks and the John D.

Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway, except in accordance with

National Park Service One-Year Delay Rule published November

18, 2002 (36 CFR part 7, RIN 1024-AD06).

Mr. Chairman, on May 30th the Administration quietly issued a new regulation

that will put an additional financial squeeze on millions of college students and their families by cutting their deduction for state and local taxes in the student financial aid eligibility formula.

This new rule, which was finalized by the Department of Education without review or approval by the Congress, will effectively eliminate Pell Grant eligibility for some needy students and reduce Pell Grant awards and subsidized loans for other students.

The Pell Grant program is the cornerstone of federal student financial aid, providing assistance to nearly 4 million students. These grants are the foundation of their financial aid packages. Without them, it is likely that these students will not have enough money to go to school. And in our new highly-skilled work environment, a college education is more important than ever.

College is the best investment of a lifetime. We must take steps to ensure that higher education is within the reach of all Americans so that they are prepared to meet the challenges they will face in our increasingly competitive world.

This new rule, will force students to mortgage their futures by going further into debt to attend college.

For example, a family of four living in Pennsylvania, earning $63,000 a year, with one child attending college full time, would have to pay about $800 per year more toward college expenses.

A family of four living in New Jersey earning $45,000 a year with one child in college, attending full time, get an estimated $1,600 Pell Grant under the Bush regulation compared to a $1,700 Pell Grant under current regulations. For a middle class family, working hard to make ends meet in a poor economy, these are big differences.

This is happening just as attending college gets more expensive every month, with states and private institutions raising tuition and other costs.

The Labor, Health Human Services and Education appropriations bill before us does nothing to remedy this problem.

The new student aid state tax allowances created under this rule will reduce the state tax percentage deduction for nearly all students at a time when the state and local tax burden is going up, not down, for many families.

The Department's new state tax rates, however, are based on outdated data from 2000.

Since then, our economy has spiraled downward, and many states and local communities have had to increase taxes in order to offset budget shortfalls.

Nationwide, the Administration's regulation could result in the loss of hundreds of millions of federal assistance to students and families.

The Department of Education estimates that 84,000 students would lose Pell Grant eligibility altogether as a result of the regulation.

As the legislative process continues, I hope my colleagues will address this problem, which is making college less accessible to middle-class families.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor a memorable figure in our Nation's labor history and to recognize the role of my district in history. Today, we commemorate the accomplishments of Mother Mary Harris Jones, a pioneer in the courageous battle to protect society's most vulnerable. I would like to commend the New Jersey State AFL-CIO, particularly President Charles Wowkanech and Secretary-Treasurer Laurel Brennan, for preparing the public recognition of a woman of tremendous fortitude. Their leadership on behalf of working people in this State follows in the tradition of Mother Jones. If she were here today she would be proud that her legacy is being so well served by two of New Jersey's most respected leaders.

The dawn of the 20th century was a bright time for many in America, as our industrial and economic strength leapt forward to meet a new era. For too many, though, it was a dreary, dangerous, and disheartening time. Simply by virtue of the circumstances of their birth, thousands of this Nation's poorest children were forced to work in dangerous conditions in mining and textile industries. Many were robbed of life. Those who survived often suffered a lifetime of chronic maladies.

This inequity had no place in Mother Jones's vision of America, and Jones fought vigorously for justice. In the spring of 1903, this fight brought her to Princeton, New Jersey, with an army of 100,000 textile workers that included 16,000 children, who had left their jobs in the Philadelphia area so that a nation might recognize their plight. Mother Jones stood before a crowd of professors, students, and citizens at Princeton University, bringing to the gates of higher education those children who were robbed of even the chance to read or write. Children at this demonstration carried signs saying, ``I want to go to school.'' She showed them James Ashworth, whose ten-year-old spine was contorted from carrying 75-pound bundles of yarn, 10 hours each day, earning $3 per week. She spoke, and a generation was given the hope that a better day would come and the courage to take action against more powerful forces.

Mother Jones sparked the Nation's consciousness that day in Princeton. Her army took the first steps toward equity for workers and the abolition of child labor in America. One hundred years later, we should remember her fight, and I hope that all Americans learn from this woman's moral strength and her concern for our poorest children. As we reenact the events of that day and dedicate a memorial to honor Mother Jones, we must continue to speak out for those whose voices are unheard. In so doing we must defend the right to organize, earn a decent living, work in a safe environment, and ensure that all in America share in the progress of this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, in light of yesterday's consideration of a bill to ensure that federal retirees will not lose their prescription drug coverage under the Republican leadership's Medicare prescription drug legislation, I have a question for Mr. Davis.

Chairman Davis, I applaud you and the Government Reform Committee for looking out for the interests of retired federal employees. I must ask, however, why you do not see an inconsistency here.

With this bill, you have acknowledged that the Medicare drug legislation passed by this House could give Congress an incentive to drop prescription drug coverage for federal retirees because they will get prescription drug coverage under Medicare.

Will you also acknowledge that under the Medicare bill passed by the Republican leadership, nearly one-third of employers currently offering retiree drug benefits--covering 11 million seniors--would drop that coverage, according to the CBO? If federal retirees are to

be protected from having to rely on what would be inadequate prescription coverage under Medicare, shouldn't all retirees with such coverage be protected? The truth is that the bill passed last month ostensibly to provide prescription medicine to seniors not only undermines Medicare as a program it also undermines private employer- based coverage of retirees.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I commend him and the chairman and the other senior members of this subcommittee for this bipartisan legislation, which will not only help recruit and retain highly qualified teachers but also provide professional development. I certainly hope, as others have said, that the majority and the appropriators will see fit to fund this program fully, unlike the labor and education bill which, as it now stands, underfunds the No Child Left Behind by $8 billion.

I am pleased that the committee has accepted two of my amendments in this bill. The first amendment would ensure that teacher-recruitment programs could assist people who want to make the transition into teaching from a career outside of the field of education.

The second amendment will allow school districts to form partnerships with universities and businesses. This will allow opportunities for teachers to get clinical experience and training in areas related to science, mathematics and technology, including opportunities in laboratories and businesses. I think teachers with real-world experience are more able to show applications of science to the student, which is a more inspiring way to teach.

Investing in improved math and science education in this country is directly linked to the strength of our national security. I believe if we, as a Nation, fail to make a new national commitment to science and math education, we are facilitating the gradual erosion of America's physical and economic security, and do not just take my word for it.

The United States Commission on National Security in the 21st Century headed by former Senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman said, ``The inadequacies of our systems of research and education pose a greater threat to the U.S. national security over the next quarter century than any potential conventional war that we might imagine. If we do not invest heavily and wisely in rebuilding these two core strengths, America will be incapable of maintaining its global position long into the 21st century.''

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for working with me on these amendments, and I ask my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from Michigan for yielding me this time, and I am pleased to follow my other friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers). I want thank the chairman for his kind words, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) and I, I am sure, will continue to persist in seeing that science and math education are well represented in our legislative activities.

Over the next 10 years, as you have heard, Mr. Speaker, we will have to hire nationally more than 2.2 million teachers just to stay even, to make up for the number of people leaving the teaching force, even without making efforts to bring down the class sizes. The problem is especially acute in special education, where there is a chronic annual shortage of tens of thousands of teachers nationwide.

This bill will create incentives to help ensure that we have enough teachers, especially in the areas of math, science, and special education. Loan forgiveness is one of the most effective incentives available to us. In the subcommittee I offered an amendment to provide loan forgiveness incrementally over 5 years of teaching service, as opposed to the original bill that provided loan forgiveness only after a full 5 years. I am pleased that the committee included this incremental loan forgiveness in the final version of the bill. I think it will help with teacher recruitment and retention.

Many teachers, especially in the math and sciences field, leave in the first few years. By spreading this incentive, this loan forgiveness, over 5 years, I think it will provide an incentive for teachers to stay instead of leaving the profession or moving to school districts that can afford to pay more. And while I would have liked the bill to cover teachers working in more districts and teaching in other subjects beyond math and science and special education, I still support this legislation.

Now, I must say to the chairman, who said that to cover other districts or other subjects or to help with Head Start teachers, the money just was not available, please, I never want to hear that argument again this year. We have just been told by the majority over the last 2 years that there are several trillion dollars that they found, that are more than we know what to do with, and they have to be given back. It has to go back in the form of tax cuts. Well, that is several trillion dollars, with a T, that we are talking about.

Now, perhaps the majority thinks that the people who receive these tax cuts will pay to recruit teachers and will pay for their professional development, will pay for Head Start competitive salaries, will pay for special education, because, as the majority says, it is their money, they know how to use it better. And if I sound a little sarcastic, it is because I get very impatient with this argument. Trust me, we will not see these tax cuts end up in the hands of the Head Start teachers, we will not see these tax cuts coming back to provide for the training and professional development of teachers or for the recruitment of teachers.

This bill will, however, help, and, Mr. Speaker, I do support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton).

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I submitted an amendment to the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act bill to provide $7 million to revive the Office of Technology Assessment as authorized by the Technology Assessment Act of 1972. During its 23 years of existence, OTA provided Congress with highly respected, impartial analysis of complex scientific and technological issues and their impacts on current legislation. When OTA's funding was eliminated in 1995, Congress lost a valuable and unique resource.

Although my amendment was not ruled in order, I would like to use this opportunity to discuss with the chairman the need for more scientific advice in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, science and technology have pervaded almost every aspect of

our society. Most, if not all, of the bills that come to the floor of the House include technological components. Technology has played and will continue to play an important role in many of the issues such as economic development, homeland security, and environmental stewardship, which this body has dedicated so much time and money to address.

Mr. Speaker, if the OTA were still in existence, it is likely we would have received I think in a timely way reports that address the importance of research in early childhood development as it relates to Head Start or technology needed to ensure intraoperability of first responder communication devices in high-rise buildings, scientific evidence regarding the safety of genetically engineered food, or a comprehensive assessment of the technology available to ensure the safety of our airlines and shipping ports.

Would my colleagues, the ranking member on this committee and the chairman and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), agree that many issues such as these that we deal with on a daily basis are highly technical and that we could use more help in evaluating the merits of such legislation dealing with such matters?

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their efforts in directing the GAO to conduct three pilot technology assessments, and I am sure they would agree with me that three reports is not nearly sufficient to meet the needs of Congress.

I would suggest that we need a capacity to conduct upwards of 40 reports a year. Now, whether housed in the GAO or in a re-funded OTA, we need to provide the support to ensure a sustained capacity in-house to conduct a significant number of studies and maintain a professional staff to accomplish this objective. Currently, we are not providing the GAO with sufficient funds to achieve this objective.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would like to thank the three gentleman for agreeing to enter into this discussion on the importance of providing balanced bipartisan technology assessment, an approach to begin the process that will allow this Congress and our successors to utilize more of the empirical, fact-based, scientific and technical expertise needed to shape a sound public policy.