Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hyde/Lantos amendment, which would authorize the establishment of the Millennium Challenge Account and support the doubling of the number of Peace Corps volunteers to 14,000 by the year 2007.

I served as a Peace Corps volunteer in Somalia for two years, which was a meaningful experience for me. The Peace Corps has proven to be a very cost-effective mechanism for disseminating foreign assistance-- from the bottom up. Doubling the number of Peace Corps volunteers will only make these efforts more effective, and allow more U.S. citizens to serve our country on the international level.

The Hyde/Lantos amendment also provides for the establishment of a new and innovative foreign aid initiative, the Millennium Challenge Account.

This initiative shows great promise as it would fund programs which already have shown impressive rates of performance. U.S. foreign aid would then be invested in those programs that actually work, not just those that promise to work.

Expanding the Peace Corps and establishing the Millennium Challenge Account will make U.S. foreign aid more accountable and effective. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Higher Education For Freedom Act. This legislation establishes a competitive grant program making available funds to institutions of higher education, centers within such institutions, and associated nonprofit foundations to promote programs focused on the teaching and study of traditional American history, free institutions, and the history and achievements of Western Civilization at both the graduate and undergraduate level, including those that serve students enrolled in K-12 teacher education programs.

Several years ago I was involved in a congressional effort to highlight the decline in historical and civic literacy among American college students. This effort led to the unanimous, bicameral passage of a concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 129, which stated, in part, that ``the historical illiteracy of America's college and university graduates is a serious problem that should be addressed by the Nation's higher education community.''

Given the increased threat to American ideals in the trying times in which we live, it is easy to see how the lack of historical and civic literacy among today's college students has become a more pressing issue. Nevertheless, most of the Nation's colleges and universities no longer require U.S. history or systematic study of Western civilization and free institutions as a general prerequisite to graduation, or for completing a teacher education program.

I believe it is time for Congress to take a more active role in addressing this matter. Our country's higher education system must do a better job of providing the basic knowledge that is essential to full and informed participation in civic life and to the larger vibrancy of the American experiment in self-government, binding together a diverse people into a single Nation with common purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 166) expressing the sense of Congress in support of Buckle Up America Week.

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

This week is Buckle Up America Week. The legislation before us, House Concurrent Resolution 166, expresses the sense of Congress in support of Buckle Up America Week.

This national campaign is dedicated to increasing the proper use of seat belts and child safety seats. For the first time in several years, highway fatalities increased from the previous year. Nearly 43,000 people died and over 3 million were injured on our Nation's highways last year. This is the highest number of highway fatalities since 1990.

According to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration research, in the past 26 years safety belts prevented 135,000 and 3.8 million injuries, saving $585 billion in medical and other costs. If all vehicle occupants had used safety belts during that period, nearly 315,000 deaths and 5.2 million injuries could have been prevented and $913 billion in costs saved.

We have made significant headway recently. Seat belt use has increased dramatically over the last 20 years. In 1984, seat belt use was only 15 percent. Today, the national average is 75 percent. But more needs to be done.

Most vehicle occupants killed in motor vehicle crashes in recent years were not wearing seat belts. Even more disturbing is the fact that traffic crashes are the leading cause of death for children between the ages of 6 and 14. About half of children ages 4 to 7 who are fatally injured in motor vehicle accidents were completely unrestrained.

Child safety seats save thousands of children's lives during motor vehicle crashes each year. This resolution draws much-needed attention to the pressing issue of increasing seat belt and child safety seat use. I applaud the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) for introducing this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 186, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Stated against:

Mr. Speaker, today with my colleague from Wisconsin, Ron Kind, I am introducing the Teacher Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Act.

It is a common practice across the country for school districts to provide senior employees an opportunity or incentive to voluntarily retire before the age at which they could receive Medicare coverage and full retirement benefits from a state or municipal retirement system. These early retirement incentive plans, ERIPs, are truly a win-win proposition for school districts and employees. School districts are able to lower overall payroll costs and pass the savings on to early retirees in the form of greater retirement options and supplemental benefits. In a profession where many experience ``burnout'' before full retirement age, ERIPs are a highly valued option among teachers, retirees, and school boards.

Despite the popularity and mutual benefits of these plans, school districts in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa over the past several years have been threatened with age discrimination charges by the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission for their voluntary early retirement incentive plans, and many school districts in other states may be at risk for similar action. We do not believe that it was the intent of Congress that voluntary benefits, negotiated between unions and employers and offered to all employees who reach a certain age, should come under the definition of age discrimination. The Petri-Kind Teacher Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Act of 2003 would clarify the Congress' intent by carving out an exemption in federal age discrimination law for voluntary early retirement plans offered to elementary and secondary school teachers, similar to the exemption that already exists for teachers in colleges and universities.

This bill will go a long way in clearing up the legal uncertainty surrounding voluntary ERIPs, thus making available greater retirement options for teachers and giving school districts more flexibility in managing their workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1119.

Mr. Chairman, I rise this evening in support of the Kind amendment to H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2003.

This amendment will strike title II of Division C of this bill. This title addresses various aspects of oil and gas production from Federal lease lands, both onshore and offshore. It reportedly seeks to provide greater incentives and royalty relief to oil and gas producers to encourage exploration and development in these areas.

However, these incentives are far too generous. They are not in the public interest. they will not provide for a secure energy future.

Because of this, I urge my colleagues to support the Kind amendment.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing the Securing Consumers' Assurance in Moving Act of 2003 (the SCAM Act) in order to put more cops on the beat in policing the interstate household goods industry and to provide more information for consumers facing an interstate move.

While the vast and overwhelming majority of moving companies operate in a fair, open and honest way, I am sure all Members are aware of the increasing problem with so-called "rogue" movers who prey upon consumers. Since the ICC was abolished in 1996, there have been fewer resources available for consumer protection enforcement at the Department of Transportation which now oversees the moving industry. Over the course of the last several years, this issue has been the subject of hearings and continuing oversight by the Subcommittee on Highways, Transit and Pipelines, and I believe it is now time to act.

We have all heard the horror stories of moves gone wrong. One of the most egregious practices is the "hostage goods" situation, where a mover low-balls an estimate, loads the consumer's goods onto his truck, drives off, and then refuses to deliver the goods until paid an amount in cash that can be up to 4 or 5 times the amount of the original estimate--in strict violation of Federal regulation. I have heard from some who have gone months without knowing where their goods are located. And yet there is little the consumer can do.

A major issue which has emerged is the authority of states to take action, since various courts have ruled that they have no jurisdiction over interstate moves--citing primarily the Carmack amendment. This policy was enacted in 1906 and simply sets forth a uniform liability scheme for loss and damage to avoid uncertainties over differing state laws.

A lot has changed since 1906 and Congress has never really had a debate on what role states or individuals should have regarding consumer protection and the moving industry. I understand that the moving industry has concerns regarding the application of consumer protection laws, claiming that it will be difficult to operate with 50 different state laws. However, states have been enforcing consumer protection laws--which are aimed at those businesses engaged in fraud and deceptive practices--for many years now and somehow other businesses which are not exempt have survived and thrived.

Certainly within the trucking industry, the movement of an individual's household goods is unique from commercial shipments. A consumer may utilize a moving company once or twice in a lifetime and entrusts virtually all his worldly goods to a mover--which gives a lot of leverage to the moving company. Although the President has requested funds for another 7 personnel to oversee household goods, I believe it will never be possible for the federal government to provide adequate oversight over those who take advantage of consumers--it is more appropriate that the states also be able to get involved against those who operate now with near immunity from effective oversight.

The bill I am introducing has three major goals--allowing for Federal-State partnerships to enhance enforcement; establishing new fines for certain behavior; and increasing opportunities for consumer education for those contemplating a move,

Specifically, the bill would: Clarify that an individual or states can use consumer protection laws against interstate movers; require DOT to establish a working group of state attorneys general, consumer protection administrators and law enforcement to coordinate information and enforcement efforts; require DOT to establish a database of consumer complaints with a procedure for public access to the database; require DOT to review current federal regulations regarding insurance coverage and determine whether revisions are necessary to provide adequate protection to consumers; establish a civil penalty of $10,000 and potential 6-month suspension of operating authority, and create criminal penalties, for movers who hold goods hostage in violation of the 110 % rule; create a $25,000 civil penalty for brokers or movers operating without authority; and establish a $10,000 civil penalty for a broker who provides an estimate before entering into an agreement with a carrier; require that movers and brokers include additional information regarding DOT registration numbers, consumer rights and responsibilities, and broker-carrier relationships on Web sites; and increase disclosure requirements for brokers who arrange for the shipment of household goods.

Mr. Speaker, it is an unfortunate but necessary step that I am taking today in introducing this legislation. For too long the scales have been tipped in favor of those few within the moving industry who abuse consumers--it is time to even the scales.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words this afternoon about how important the Peace Corps has become to the United States' foreign relations since its inception in 1961 by President John F. Kennedy. I served as a Peace Corps volunteer in Mogadishu, Somalia from 1966-67, so I can attest to not just the great work done by my fellow volunteers, but more importantly how Peace Corps volunteers have grown into wonderful ambassadors to their host communities and countries on the United States' behalf.

Volunteers have worked in 136 countries over the past 42 years, with nearly 7,000 volunteers serving in 70 countries today. The work these dedicated men and women do is often hard, but always rewarding. They can be stationed in a city on the African coast, like I was, or a remote village in South America. Ranging from teaching school to agricultural development to health care, Peace Corps volunteers are trained to assist a community in almost every way possible and have become an invaluable part of the communities they serve.

After four decades of participating and teaching in communities on 6 continents, it is obvious that the Peace Corps has been successful beyond any expectations, helping countless communities realize the benefits of peace, freedom and economic prosperity. On its forty-second anniversary, I would like to commend the Corps and all of its volunteers for the unmatched education and service they have provided abroad and at home. I'm excited to see how far we will go in the next 42 years.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Representative Bill Lipinski, the Ranking Democratic Member of the Subcommittee on Highways, Transit and Pipelines, Representative Don Young, the Chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and Representative Jim Oberstar, the Committee's Ranking Democratic Member, I would like to outline the Subcommittee's procedure for identifying items of concern to Members as we take up the reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21). This legislation authorized $218 billion for our Nation's highway, transit, motor carrier, highway safety and research programs for 6 years and is due to expire on September 30, 2003.

The importance of the surface transportation systems to our Nation's economic health cannot be overstated. Highway and transit investments stimulate economic activity. These investments increase productivity by decreasing time spent on the road, encouraging new economic development, and increasing property values. Transportation investment generates a 6-to-1 net return on investment. The linchpin of economic vitality is free movement of people and goods. In the U.S., more than 75 percent of the Nation's freight moves on highways--an annual value to the economy of more than $5 trillion. And, for every $1 billion in federal highway and transit spending, more than 42,000 jobs are created or sustained.

Despite the gains of TEA 21, transportation investment has fallen short of what is needed. The Department of Transportation estimates that the cost to improve highway and transit conditions to optimal levels would require more than doubling our current combined federal program size to $74 billion per year. Meeting these needs will require a variety of strategies, including better use of existing systems, application of advanced technology, innovative financing, and public- private partnerships. It is our goal to develop a bill that increases transportation investment to improve and maintain this world-class system.

Reauthorization is the top priority of the Subcommittee on Highways, Transit and Pipelines. In the second session of the 107th Congress, the Subcommittee held a series of 17 TEA 21 oversight hearings and received testimony from 140 witnesses. The hearings gave many interested Members, the Administration and affected groups the opportunity to testify and present their views. We would be happy to make copies of these hearing transcripts available to any interested Members.

We anticipate that the bipartisan legislation we develop this year will be based largely on the information obtained at last year's extensive programmatic hearings. As we begin the process this year, we would like to encourage Members to inform the Subcommittee about any policy initiatives that they want the Subcommittee to consider in the reauthorization of TEA 21. Members having such specific policy requests should inform the Subcommittee in writing no later than March 14, 2003.

Many Members have already contacted the Subcommittee to inquire about, or to request, specific funding for critical transportation needs in their districts. On January 8, 2003, Transportation Committee Chairman Don Young and Ranking Member Jim Oberstar sent a Dear Colleague that included a 21-question evaluation form for consideration of projects of importance to members. This form is reprinted in its entirety below. All project requests should be submitted no later than March 14, 2003. (Please note that this is a 2-week extension beyond the original deadline of February 28th.) Such submissions should be transmitted to us via the intranet website, http://ushrtrans.house.gov, and in writing, attached to a signed letter on the letterhead of the sponsoring Member.

We will also be holding a series of Subcommittee hearings in March and April, at which time Members and local officials will have an opportunity to testify on behalf of those requests. While these hearings are intended to give Members an opportunity to present information about specific project needs and policy requests, it is not necessary for Members to testify.

We look forward to working with all Members of the House as we prepare this important legislation that will set the course for our nation's surface transportation programs.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this bill, which will build upon the tremendous successes of the 1996 welfare reforms. When those reforms were enacted, opponents predicted apocalyptic scenes of poverty and suffering among America's low-income families. Time has proven, however, that those reforms were right. Child poverty is at its lowest level in 25 years and poverty among African-American children is at its lowest level in history. By requiring welfare beneficiaries to work and engage in productive activities, Congress helped change society. Former welfare beneficiaries now testify that by being pushed into work activities, they are now better members of society and better parents to their children.

Although we have moved millions of families off welfare and into work, the road to advancement and self-sufficiency remains a difficult challenge. For a long time I have been concerned by the disincentives to working hard, earning more money, and getting married that we have created over time. The lack of coordination between federal programs directed toward low-income families has resulted in what I call the ``Poverty Trap.'' As the earnings of low-income families increase, most of their benefits, such as housing, food stamps, child-care co- payments, and the Earned Income Tax Credit, phase-out in a manner that discourages working harder and advancing in a job. In some cases a pay raise of a dollar an hour can mean the loss of benefits at a rate that exceeds that raise. This effective marginal tax can exceed 100 percent and trap families in poverty. I am pleased that this bill requires the General Accounting Office to undertake a comprehensive study of the obstacles created by the combined phase-outs of low-income support programs and recommend ways to coordinate and reform these programs.

Because of this ``Poverty Trap,'' I also enthusiastically support provisions within this bill which provide states and local governments with the flexibility to implement demonstration projects that coordinate multiple low-income support programs. Under these provisions states can integrate eligible programs as long as those projects serve the populations and achieve the purposes of the underlying programs. This requirement further ensures that beneficiaries of these underlying programs are going to gain, not lose, as a result of these demonstration projects. While I wish these flexibility provisions went further, they are an important step that will enable needed innovation at the state and local level to help families escape poverty. The states have proven to be laboratories for successful change in our welfare system, and this flexibility will enhance their capabilities.

I urge all my colleagues who want to help low-income families leave welfare and achieve self-sufficiency to support this bill and the state and local flexibility provisions within it.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing legislation, the Higher Education Accrediting Agency Responsibility Act of 2003, that will remove the requirement that institutions of higher education be accredited in order to be eligible for federal funds. The system of accreditation of colleges and universities that has developed in the United States does not serve its avowed purpose of ensuring that institutions of higher education have good academic programs and standards, and it fails to provide hardly any benefit at all to our higher education system. Additionally, more effective and less costly mechanisms are already in place to protect students. For example, no institution can receive federal funds until the Department of Education certifies its financial and administrative capacity, and institutions also must meet various state licensing and oversight requirements related to quality.

Accreditation these days has little to do with academic rigor or educational outcomes; rather, it serves only to show that a school has the right set of inputs, and virtually every college and university in the nation is able to comply with these standards. Because federal law makes eligibility to receive federal student loan funds conditional upon retaining accredited status from an accrediting association recognized by the Department of Education, schools have a rather large incentive to maintain their accreditation status. This places an enormous amount of influence in the hands of the accrediting agencies, which oftentimes force schools to reallocate resources or even adopt policies at odds with a school's individual mission in order to comply with accreditation requirements and recommendations.

As we continue to pursue policies of accountability for our education institutions and strive to do our part in making higher education affordable for more Americans, we must examine ways that the accreditation process can be changed to play a more useful role--one that provides meaningful information about a school to students and parents. I believe the Higher Education Accrediting Agency Responsibility Act of 2003 is the necessary first step to achieve this goal.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the Committee for setting an obligation limit of $31.6 billion for the federal highway program in 2003. As we are facing a struggling economy and overwhelming transportation challenges, it is essential that we continue to invest now to preserve jobs, save lives, and provide the basic infrastructure we need to get back on the road to economic growth. The Trust Fund can support this spending as we have a $16 billion balance and, at a time when we are looking at an economic stimulus package, it does not make sense to shortchange a program that helps grow the economy and provide good, well-paying jobs.

That being said, I am disappointed that once again the Committee has changed the way the program functions and, in essence, amended TEA 21 in the process. Once again funds--$269 million worth--which would otherwise go to the states are held back in order to expand earmarking opportunities, and at a 100% federal share. In addition, $285 million is appropriated from the Highway Trust Fund and $90 million is appropriated from the General Fund for further earmarking. And it appears that obligation authority is distributed in a way that favors program earmarked by appropriators at the expense of other apportioned or allocated programs. As last year, contract authority distributed to the states under the core programs is rescinded. It is only in the last two years that these types of activities have been approved by the appropriators, and it is a trend that should end with this bill.

I again want to praise the overall level of highway spending provided in this conference report. Now that we are finally finished with fiscal year 2003, and begin the 2004 appropriations process, I hope we can return to a process that respects the jurisdiction of the authorizing committees, that does not take funds away from the states, and that we can work together to advance the transportation agenda of our nation.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Poverty Trap Study Act of 2003. Although we have moved millions of families off welfare and into work, the road to advancement and self-sufficiency remains a difficult challenge. For a long time I have been concerned by the disincentives to working hard, earning more money, and even getting married, that we have created over time through the many support programs that provide assistance to lower income families. Too often a low-income household will find that, despite a rise in earnings, the family is actually worse off than it was beforehand.

One by one over the decades we have created programs to help the poor as we have perceived needs for housing assistance, nutritional assistance, health care, etc. At some income level these programs had to be eliminated or phased out. Unfortunately, as each program was designed individually without regard for the cumulative effects, we ended up phasing out all of them over the same income range, generally just above the poverty level. Tax liability also begins around the same income level. As a result, many working families in the income range of about $12,000-$30,000 lose a dollar or close to it in taxes and lost welfare benefits for each additional dollar income they earn--a combined marginal tax rate over 100 percent! Specifically, a family with two children in this income range pays 30 percent of income as rent if they are in subsidized housing, loses 21 percent of additional income to the EITC phaseout, 24 percent to the food stamp phaseout, 15 percent to the federal income tax, 7.65 percent to the employee share of FICA and, depending on the state, around 3 percent state income tax.

It's time for Congress to look at welfare and tax policy for low income families in a coherent fashion instead of the hit or miss piecemeal approach we have been employing. My legislation would create a commission to examine the cumulative effective marginal tax rates for low income families with children in a cross section of states, measure the effects, and make recommendations to fix the problem.

Mr. Speaker, it is a shame and a scandal that many anti- poverty programs actually keep people poor by making it too expensive for them to work their way out of poverty. Our many anti-poverty programs were individually designed without regard for each other and without regard for the fact that if several benefits phase out simultaneously a poor person who works hard may find himself or herself worse off than if he or she stayed home or had done the minimum necessary to maintain the maximum level of benefits. I call this the poverty trap.

Able-bodied people will work their way out of poverty if they can clearly see the benefit. Accordingly, today I am introducing the Poverty Trap Study Act, to create a commission to examine the way benefit phase-outs and tax increases can sap the incentive of poor beneficiaries. It is a hard problem to tackle, but we must get started. This is an issue that liberals, conservatives, and moderates should all find of compelling importance, and I solicit my colleagues' support.