Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. If this was a debate about military policy, this would be like us ignoring the People's Republic of China and declaring war on the British Virgin Islands. We are here today to discuss a problem that has largely been solved; at the same time, we are ignoring some very real problems in America's classrooms. The chairman of the committee and the distinguished subcommittee chairman wrote to the General Accounting Office who calls them as they see them. And they said, we have heard all of these concerns that too many dollars are being kept in Washington and spent by the Washington bureaucrats and not getting back to the classroom. Tell us what the facts are. And the GAO did a study of it and the GAO came to this conclusion: in fiscal year 1996, the Department of Education distributed over 99 percent of its appropriations for the 10 programs to the States, the States in turn collectively distributed 94 percent of that money to the local districts. Then we hear that, well, all the money is really being spent by the local districts in filling out papers and complying with all of these rules. The GAO sent investigators to nine school districts, they did in-depth evaluation and discussion with the personnel in those districts and here is what they concluded: this is not the Democratic Party concluding this or the Republican Party concluding this, this is the GAO, which I think has, as their motto is on the front page, a reputation for dependability and integrity, and here is what they said: we found that school level staff spent very little time administering the programs and the district office staff also generally spend little time administering them. So it seems to me that we are here discussing, in large part, a problem that exists only in the minds of the majority. Title I, less than 1 percent of the funds spent in Washington. IDEA, less than 1 percent of the funds spent in Washington. The Perkins loan program, nothing spent in Washington. Safe and drug-free schools which the majority tried to eliminate a few years ago, less than 1 percent spent in Washington. Goals 2000, that terrible Federal takeover of our schools that they resisted so violently, less than 1 percent spent in Washington. The school-to-work program, maybe we should take a look at this, 7 percent spent in Washington, 93 in the States; the Eisenhower program, less than 1 percent spent in Washington. Innovative education, nothing spent in Washington, bilingual education, 1 percent; Even Start, 1 percent. Now, I say to my colleagues, there are some real problems that we ought to be discussing. In my State of New Jersey, children today in over 50 schools went to schools that are more than 100 years old. Children went to 1,000 that were more than 50 years old that are falling apart, yet the majority has not seen fit to bring a school construction bill to this floor. My colleagues may disagree in the majority with school construction, but, Mr. Speaker, let us bring it to the floor and have an honest debate and a vote. We are discussing the issue of class size reduction. There are children going to kindergarten, first and second grade, in schools with 36 and 37 children. They can learn successfully, but every valid piece of educational research we know says that children tend to do better when they are in with 17 or 18 children in the primary grades. Bring to the floor legislation that will fund, not just talk about but fund, a class size reduction. The majority's Committee on Appropriations is apparently about to propose an across-the-board cut in the Labor-HHS appropriation bills that will cut across-the-board Title I, IDEA, Perkins, Safe and Drug- Free Schools, Goals 2000, School-to-Work, Eisenhower, Innovative Education, bilingual, Even Start, and all the rest. So they want 95 percent of a smaller number, I would guess. Mr. Speaker, this is a well-intentioned amendment, but it talks about a problem that largely has already been solved. I would suggest that we get to work solving one that really exists. Let us put our workers to work in this country building and repairing schools, let us put qualified teachers in every classroom, and let us put ourselves to work on the real issues of education.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate President Clinton and Turkish Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit on the significant progress made on the subject of Cyrpus during their recent talks in Washington. I have always felt that Cyprus presents an exceptional opportunity for the United States to facilitate a successful solution because a settlement on this island is within reach. Cyprus is small in size and population, has clearly discreet borders as an island nation, and the international community is committed to the removal of Turkish forces and return of Cypriot sovereignty. Many United Nations and United States Congressional resolutions have been passed over the years expressing the internal community's and United States' commitment to a just and peaceful resolution to this conflict. Failure to secure a solution in Cyprus would undermine international law and UN resolutions, as well as contradicting official U.S. foreign policy, and our national interest in deterring aggressor states. Failure to solve this problem also bolsters the false notion that ethnic conflicts are unsolvable and that their use as a pretext for international aggression is acceptable. However, over the past decade in Northern Ireland, in the Middle East, and in the former Yugoslavia, have proven that the international community, led by the United States, can and should negotiate and work for peace and an end to ethnic division and conflict. Late last year, I urged President Clinton to get personally involved in resolving the Cyprus conflict by sending a special envoy, as he did in the Middle East and Northern Ireland. This past summer, I also asked the new Turkish Prime Minister to accept such an offer. I am extremely gratified by recent reports that these events have indeed taken place. During their recent talks in Washington, Prime Minister Ecevit accepted President Clinton's offer to dispatch a special envoy to work toward a settlement of this quarter-century-old dispute. Indeed, special envoy Al Moses has already been appointed and soon will be beginning his work in this troubled region. Again, I applaud the leadership of both President Clinton and Prime Minister Ecevit. The time has come for all efforts to be dedicated to resolving the abhorrent injustice of the division of Cyprus. We must all now redouble our efforts to bring peace and justice to the Mediterranean.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Boehner substitute. The key questions here are who decides who gets care and on what basis. The Boehner substitute says the managed care plan decides who gets care on any basis they find economically viable. When a Member of our family, when someone we love has to see an oncologist or a cardiologist or a speech therapist, the reason we are here today is that too many people have been told no, that that is not something that is appropriate under their plan. The underlying Norwood- Dingell bill says that decisions about who will get that care will be made by qualified, independent medical professionals. The Boehner bill says the plan will decide, and when the plan decides on the basis of its own economic motivation, its own definition of what is best for the plan, no one is held accountable. The Boehner substitute fails the two most critical tests that are before us today in protecting the rights of patients. When it comes to the issue of whether decision-makers are held accountable, the Boehner substitute says, they are not held accountable in the same way that delicatessens and fast food restaurants and homebuilders and everyone else in America is held accountable. When it comes to the issue of the standard on that decision, the Boehner bill says the plan sets the standard. We say the medical professionals acting in consultation with the families should set that standard. Reject the Boehner substitute; stand for the Norwood-Dingell bill.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I believe that these are more than technical flaws. I believe they are substantive blockages which preclude the right of people to pursue remedies in the Federal courts. For these reasons, I strongly oppose the amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this well- intentioned but, I think, flawed substitute. There are three deficiencies in the substitute which I believe compel its rejection and the adoption of the underlying Norwood-Dingell-Ganske bill. First is that this substitute usurps States' rights and States' causes of action with respect to tort law. One of the pieces of wisdom of the regulatory system in the United States is that different States have the authority to set different standards of care and different causes of action according to their State law. Each of our several States is very different. There are different needs of the people, there are different legal problems, and we recognize this by recognizing the fact that tort law causes of action typically, and sometimes exclusively, come from State law. This substitute creates one single Federal cause of action, and I believe that one-size-fits-all approach is inappropriate to solving the problem that is before us. The second defect is that this substitute does not provide full relief for people who are wronged. The limitation on damages is a very meaningful limitation on damages. For example, by tying the limitation to a multiple of economic damages, what about the case of a person who is a stay-at-home parent who does not have a job that pays in remuneration, but pays in psychic rewards, and that person is severely harmed by the actions of a managed care company. The damages that person would be able to recover would be significantly limited by this amendment, and I believe that is another reason for its rejection. Finally, the cause of action has some technical flaws in it which could exclude some managed care decision-makers from accountability. By creating the requirement that the decision-maker both have the authority to make the final decision and exercise that authority, there are certain decision-makers and certain decisions which would be exempt from accountability under this process. So although I congratulate the author for frankly offering a substitute that moves much closer in the direction of the underlying bill, I believe for these three reasons it should be rejected; and I urge the defeat of the substitute. Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. This amendment provides the illusion of accountability, but there is a serious flaw blocking the right of people to get to the courts, and that flaw has to do with apparently the unilateral right of managed care industries to refer findings of fact and conclusions of law on whether there was substantial harm and whether that substantial harm was proximately caused by the decisions of the managed care plans to a private, corporate, nonjudicial body, which can act in an ex parte way; which can act in a way without regard to the Rules of Procedure or evidence. Mr. Chairman, I include a letter from Dean Rand Rosenblatt of Rutgers Law School and Professor Rosenbaum of George Washington University which outlines these concerns. The George Washington University, Washington, DC, October 6, 1999. Re: Analysis of the amendment in the nature of a substitute, to be offered by Mr. Coburn to H.R. 2723, The Health Care Quality and Choice Act of 1999. Hon. John Dingell, Ranking Member, Committee on Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Dingell: This letter responds to your request for a legal analysis of the amendment that Mr. Coburn will offer to H.R. 2723 (hereinafter referred to as the Coburn amendment). The Coburn amendment purports to add a federal remedy to the current range of judicial remedies under both ERISA and state law in cases involving patient injury. In fact, however, the amendment appears to be a legislative attempt to preempt all available medical malpractice remedies under state law as applied to managed care companies. In other words, the amendment appears to give companies a complete shield against any further medical malpractice cases under state law in which they would be a named defendant. As such, this amendment, which to the best of my knowledge has received no careful analysis and has not been subject to any prior debate, appears to reverse the leading case in the field, Dukes versus U.S. Healthcare Inc. this federal legislative attempt to sweep away two centuries of state malpractice law in favor of a new and untested federal remedy appears to fly directly in the face of recent Supreme Court decisions regarding the limitations of Congressional authority to displace state law in areas historically committed to the powers of the states. The creation of remedies for personal injuries is the epitome of historic state powers to protect the health and welfare of their citizens. Finally, close scrutiny of the ``remedy'' created in the Coburn amendment so tips the scales in favor of managed care companies that the amendment, even if not an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional powers in an area of law reserved to the states, may violate basic principles of constitutional due process. Our analysis follows. The amendment appears to preempt all state law remedies for medical malpractice cases involving managed care companies. Section 502(n)(15) as added by the Coburn amendment purports to ``save'' malpractice remedies available under state law. However, the amendment is very carefully worded to limit the types of actions that would in fact be ``saved:'' Protection of medical malpractice and similar actions under state law--This subsection shall not be construed to preclude any action under State law * * * not otherwise preempted under this title with respect to the duty (if any) under state law imposed on any person to exercise a specified standard of care when making a health care treatment decision in any case in which medical services are provided by such person, or in any case in which such decision affects the quality of care or treatment provided or received. At first blush, the amendment appears to save both actions aimed at persons who provide medical care as well as persons who make decisions that affect the quality of the care. But a closer look reveals that these actions are saved only to the extent that they are ``not otherwise preempted under this title.'' In fact, the new federal remedy is squarely aimed at persons whose decisions affect the quality of care. Specifically, the remedy would allow a right of action against substandard decision making by health benefit plan fiduciaries. It is their failure to ``exercise ordinary care in making an incorrect determination'' regarding the medical necessity or availability of a treatment that would be the subject of the new federal remedy. As a result, this new remedy would appear to preempt existing remedies grounded in state malpractice theory, that are aimed at the companies themselves. This attempt to preempt the application of medical malpractice principles to managed care companies should come as no surprise. This is a critical juncture in the development of judicial theory regarding the conduct of managed care companies. In recent years, a growing number of courts have specifically have held that under various theories of direct and vicarious liability, managed care companies themselves--not just the doctors who work for them--can be liable for injuries caused by substandard decisions that affect the quality of care. These courts have distinguished for ERISA preemption purposes between state law-governed actions for damages as a result of injuries arising out of negligent coverage decisions (which are preempted) and state law actions alleging injuries as a result of the poor quality of medical care (which are not). By appearing to ``save'' malpractice actions while at the same time creating a new federal right of action for injuries caused by substandard treatment decisions made by fiduciaries, the amendment thus appears to reverse these recent decisions and shields companies from the effects of state law. The amendment appears to violate recent Supreme Court decisions regarding the limits of Congressional authority to legislate in areas historically left to the powers of the states. The process envisioned in the new federal remedy appears to run headlong into the Constitution. There are so many deficiencies in the procedures set forth in the amendment that it is impossible to enumerate all of them. Most fundamentally in our view, the amendment appears to give defendants (e.g., health plans and health insurance issuers) the right to seek an ex parte determination from any qualified external appeal entity regarding whether the plaintiff actually sustained a personal injury, and/or whether the defendant's conduct was the proximate cause of the injury. Giving a private corporation the power to halt a federal judicial action through the use of non-judicial procedures, and with no statutory requirement of notice to the plaintiff or other due process rights, is unprecedented in American civil law. The provisions of the amendment are simply extraordinary. The bill provides that even after an individual has exhausted the internal and external review process and filed an action in federal court, a managed care company is empowered to nullify the jurisdiction of that court by unilaterally deciding that the action will be heard before a private entity with no clearly relevant legal expertise and with no provision for a right to counsel, a jury trial or any other due process protections for the plaintiff. Private companies would have the power to obtain a definitive ruling against patients without patients ever having the opportunity to be heard before the entity making the certification decision. And a federal court with Constitutional authority to hear a case would be stripped of its Constitutional authority and directed to dismiss the case with prejudice based on a ruling by a non-judicial entity. Nothing in the bill would prohibit a defendant from consulting entity after entity until it finds one that will decide in its favor. Fundamental questions of fact and law would be definitively determined by employees of an external review entity who could theoretically consist entirely of physicians with no judicial training. The measure grants neither discovery nor cross examination rights as part of the certification procedure. Moreover, unlike a jury, employees of the external review entity would make critical findings of fact, not pursuant to a set of instructions from a legally trained and constitutionally impartial judge, but based on their own legally unguided impressions. Finally, these findings of fact would not be subject to challenge or appeal by a judicial body, but rather would become legally binding in all judicial venues. Under the amendment, it appears that even the United States Supreme Court could not overturn the certification of an external review entity that the cause of the plaintiff's injury was not the negligence of the defendant. Between the apparent ex parte nature of the certification process and the granting of sweeping judicial powers to private medical review bodies, the bill violates all notions of Constitutional due process. Apart from its basic Constitutional problems, the right of action created by the bill contains additional serious shortcomings. The measure permits actions only against persons who have the authority to make the final determination of coverage. Such a provision could shield from liability a utilization review company under subcontract to the managed care organization, thereby undercutting any incentive to ensure better utilization review procedures. Furthermore, the bill would condition the new right of action on exhaustion of the internal and external review process even when the injury already has occurred and exhaustion is futile. This rigid requirement is contrary to current law, which permits individuals to proceed directly to court under ERISA Sec. 502 in situations in which exhaustion would serve no purpose. Furthermore, in cases in which a plaintiff has commenced both an action for damages under state law, as well as an action under this new federal remedy, the commencement of the federal action would immediately supercede ``any action authorized under state law'' against any person based on the same substantial harm.'' Section 502(n)(16)(B), as added. In other words, even if the amendment does not completely preempt actions against managed care companies that are grounded in state malpractice theory, it would effectively halt malpractice actions once an action under this new federal remedy is filed. Not only does the filing of a federal action stop a state malpractice action, but the resolution of the federal case would fundamentally determine the course of the state case, as well. Under normal principles of collateral estoppel, when faced with a successful affirmative defense to the new federal right of action, a court with a malpractice action before it that turns on the same facts would inevitably dismiss the malpractice action. Rather than allowing state law regarding malpractice liability in managed care to evolve, the bill would impose a radical, unnecessary, and untested remedy on state governments in an area traditionally committed to state discretion. The question of when and under what circumstances insurers' liability for damages arising from negligent coverage decisions should be recognized under the law is a complex matter. State courts began to address this issue in the early 1970s and the theory of insurer liability has slowly evolved. The application of ERIS to liability claims against insurers that sold products to employee benefit plans seriously affected the application of such laws to injured employees. In recent years, as ERISA preemption law has been refined and narrowed by the courts, states once again have begun to carefully approach this issue in the context of employee benefits. In our view, this is not the time to create a new federal remedy, especially one as controversial as this. In light of the evolutionary nature of American health law, and the limits on Constitutional authority to displace state law, we believe that it is far more advisable to permit states to move the matter forward through legislation that best meets the needs of the residents of their states, particularly since the evidence to date indicates that the growth of such state laws has not resulted in either major cost increases in health insurance or a withdrawal of insurers from the market. Sincerely, Sara Rosenbaum, Harold and Jane Hirsh Professor of Health Law and Policy, The George Washington University Medical Center, School of Public Health and Health Services. Rand Rosenblatt, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law, Rutgers University Law School--Camden.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Norwood-Dingell-Ganske bill and in opposition to the other substitutes. I believe it is important to point out the strengths that the real Patients' Bill of Rights, the Norwood-Dingell-Ganske bill, has. There are two of them. The first is that the key aspect of liability is not simply the claims on which people can prevail in court and make their specific case winnable. It is the behavioral change that liability will introduce throughout the managed care system. It is a decision that will be made with people understanding that there are real consequences. The key to the Norwood-Dingell bill is not the suits that will be brought. It is the suits that will not be brought because the right decisions will be made in the first place. The second advantage of this bill is its medical necessity standard. It is very important for us to lay out very clearly, as the Norwood- Dingell bill does, that disputes will be resolved under an objective standard of medical necessity defined by the best practices of those who practice in a given medical field, not by the arbitrary economic discretion of the insurance carrier. For reasons of medical necessity and the benefits of liability on corporate behavior, it is important that we reject the other substitutes and strongly support the Norwood-Dingell-Ganske bill.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule. Republicans and Democrats came together behind the Norwood-Dingell bill and a clear majority of this House supports it. Virtually a unanimous vote of this House supports the idea that the cost of that bill should be paid for without raiding Social Security money. Now, common sense would tell us we would, therefore, have on the floor the Norwood-Dingell bill with offsetting provisions to make sure it is paid for without touching Social Security. That is what common sense would tell us. But that is not what we are permitted to do here today, and that is what is wrong with this rule. This rule is a conscious attempt to subvert the will of the majority. It is the tyranny of the minority. In urging my colleagues to oppose this rule, I am not certain that we are going to succeed, and perhaps the minority will succeed in having its views prevail today; but I assure my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, the majority of the American public will prevail in the end and this bill will become law despite their best efforts.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to this bill. Mr. Speaker, this bill provides taxpayer subsidized access to people who largely do not need it, who already have it, and does virtually nothing for those who have nothing. We heard some talk on the floor earlier about the typical uninsured person, and that is the person I want to focus on for a few minutes this afternoon. She is usually a working person. She makes $20,000 or $21,000 a year. She has children, and she is working 40 hours a week. I want us to examine how little this bill does for that person. The first thing she is supposed to do under this bill is, if she is self- employed, is to have a sped-up deduction from her income tax return, which is worth the princely sum of $300 a year, when fully phased in, toward her $6,000 that she would have to pay in premiums or more. That is nothing more than superficial help for someone. The next thing she is supposed to hope for is that her employer, if she is employed by someone else, will join an association health plan. The most optimistic projections I have ever heard about these things say they might lower the cost to small business by 15 or 20 percent. Now, that is nothing to sneer at. That is nothing to sneer at, but she has to keep her fingers crossed that maybe her employer will do such a thing and she will get lucky. Of course, once she gets into such a plan, all the protections of State law, the mandatory stay if she has a C-section, the mandatory coverage for breast or cervical cancer, the mandatory coverage for immunization for her kids are not subject to these plans. So she can wind up with a health insurance plan that is not worth the paper it is written on. Finally, this bill gives her the tremendous opportunity to contribute to her medical savings account. After she has paid her rent and her utility bills and her groceries and her auto insurance and her car payment and her child care and all the other things she has to do, this enormous amount of money that she has left over she can now put into an MSA. This is a cruel hoax. It should be defeated because it does not provide access.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend and thank those who have dedicated a portion of their lives to ensuring that our young people throughout the First Congressional District of New Jersey are provided safe journey to and from school. Each day crossing guards put their lives in harms way to protect our children from the dangers they may face on the way to school, whether that be a speeding car ignoring posted school-zone speed limits or a drug dealer pushing poison on our young people. In September, I held a ceremony back in my district to honor 20 crossing guards for their exemplary service to the children of their communities. As a parent of two young girls, I commend them for taking time from their lives, for little compensation, to assure us as parents, that our children will have a responsible adult looking over them literally every step of the way from the time they leave the house in the morning until they sit at their desks to begin their school day. Through torrential downpours, driving snowstorms, blistering heat and frigid cold, our children can count on crossing guards to be there providing a familiar face to guide them on their trip to and from school. On behalf of the 106th Congress of the United States of America, I thank the following crossing guards for keeping our children safe every day. The following crossing guards were honored at a ceremony at Camden County Community College on September 13, 1999: Mrs. Angelina Esposito, Burlington Twp, Mrs. Carmella Caruso, City of Burlington Schools, Mrs. Barbara Laute, Oak Vally Elem-Deptford Twp, Mrs. Marie Snyder, Shady Lane Elem-Deptford Twp, Mrs. Janette Multanski, Brooklawn, Mrs. Cynthia Peaker, Willingboro, Mrs. Maureen Saia, Washington Twp, Mrs. Mary Ann Wurst, Woodbury Heights, Mrs. Sue Hynes, Woodlynne, Mrs. Tina Castelli, Principal--Good Intent Elementary--Deptford Twp, Mrs. Ruth Rosenblatt, Somerdale, Mr. Darwin Branch, Camden, Mrs. Frances Oliveri, Mount Laurel, Mr. Robert Bobo, Brooklawn, Mrs. Alice Watson, Runnemede, Mr. Robert Kelly, Laurel Springs, Mrs. Theresa Keehfuss, Maple Shade, Mr. David Pressler, Maple Shade, Mrs. Anne Sprague, Bordentown, and Mrs. Carol Robinson, Audabon.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the birthday of a dear friend of mine. On Saturday, October 2, 1999, Mrs. Fran Banmiller, celebrated her 50th birthday. Fran was born in South West Philadelphia and moved to Gloucester City, N.J. She attended Rutgers- Camden School of Finance where she earned her CPA and later went on to earn her masters in tax accounting. Fran, and her husband Jerry, are the proud parents of three beautiful children, Liz, Sarah and Rachel. I would like to wish her a happy and healthy 50th birthday.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I first wanted to thank and congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for their leadership in bringing this legislation to the floor. It is worthy of unanimous support of the House, and I enthusiastically support the bill. My amendment speaks to a very traditional value and a new technology. The traditional value is enlightened consumer choice. When we buy a toaster or an automobile or a house, we have all kinds of information available to us about the quality of the product that we are buying. There are government and private for-profit and private nonprofit sources of such information readily available. So should such information be available with respect to health care plans; and that is where this traditional value is combined with a new technology, the World Wide Web. The purpose of my amendment is to call on the AHCPR to make available on a web site on the World Wide Web a collection of information offered by nonprofit and public groups that evaluate and give information about the quality of health care plans to consumers. If this amendment is included, consumers will be able to visit the web site and click on information from groups such as the National Committee for Quality Assurance and other institutions that provide independent, verifiable, valuable information to consumers about the quality of health insurance choices available to them. I believe that by bringing together the traditional concept of consumer empowerment and the relatively new technology of the World Wide Web that we help more American decision makers make better decisions about the health care choices before them. Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that slight technical modifications to the underlying amendment be considered in order.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I want to first thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) for their cooperation in bringing this amendment forward. It calls for the Secretary of Energy to designate $2 million for the development of iris and other biometric technology for identification. The amendment, I believe, has three virtues: First, it will significantly enhance security at our labs and other facilities in the short run; second, it will have the results of that successful technology shared with our military, with our other federal agencies such as aviation; and third, it is a further investment in the new economy of this country that is generating new products, new jobs and new opportunities. I very much appreciate the cooperation we have received, and I would urge the amendment's adoption.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the legislation and in opposition to the motion to recommit. There are serious problems with the management and security of energy labs, and they need to be addressed and they are in this bill, perhaps not perfectly. But those who would support the motion to recommit say that we should wait on the rest of this bill to work those problems out. I respectfully and strongly disagree. We should not wait to reverse the unfounded, and, I think, ill-advised trend in the decline of defense spending. We should reverse that trend and increase it as this bill does. We should not wait to restore the spare parts in the airplanes and equipment that our men and women in uniform are using. We should certainly not wait to give the long overdue pay and retention benefit increases to those who serve their country. There are serious issues that need to be worked out. There will be opportunities to work those issues out. The wise course today is to defeat the motion to recommit and enthusiastically approve the underlying legislation.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of both the rule and the bill because I appreciate the work that Chairman Kolbe and ranking member Hoyer have done. I do want to note for the record my objections to one very unfortunate decision the conference made with respect to the issue of children's sleepwear. In 1972, the Consumer Product Safety Commission adopted a rule which required clear understandable labeling for children's sleepwear, so before you put your infant to bed, you would have to know if the sleepwear was flame retardant or not. That is a standard that was lauded by emergency room physicians, nurses, arson investigators, firefighters around our country for a long time. It worked. In 1996, for inexplicable reasons, that standard was loosened and weakened by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Working with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), I was able to have included in the House version of this bill an amendment which effectively banned the import of children's sleepwear that did not have that safe labeling provision. I appreciate the efforts of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) to cooperate with us in that respect and their efforts in conference. I regret the fact that the result of the conference was not satisfactory on that. I will support this bill, nevertheless, because of its basic merits, but I would call upon the Speaker and others in leadership in this House to permit us to bring to the floor a freestanding bill that lets us have a fair debate as to whether or not this important children's sleepwear standard should, once again, become the law. That is the proper forum for this. Just as strongly as I would urge passage of this bill, I would urge a fair procedure so that America's firefighters and arson investigators and nurses and emergency room physicians can be heard, and so that America's children can once again be protected.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that the Rutgers University-Camden community is informed about the passing of Wilbur ``Pony'' Wilson. Pony Wilson served the Rutgers-Camden campus as athletic director for almost 30 years. He passed away this past Saturday evening. Few will deny Pony's true legacy is his commitment to encouraging students to pursue their studies and their dreams. He believed that education, not sports, was the driving force for young men and women who competed in athletics at Rutgers-Camden. In an interview prior to his retirement, Pony noted ``What's most rewarding is that kids now--since the late 60's and early 70's--are graduating. When you talk about the percentage of the kids that played [sports], we had a high rate on the basketball teams who got their degrees.'' To many, Pony was not only a colleague or a coach, he was a friend to professors and students alike who passed through the Rutgers-Camden campus. The current Athletic Director, Ed Cialella, who was Pony's first hire in 1969 when he joined the college as an Assistant Instructor of Physical Education, reflects, ``We lost a friend of athletics, and an athlete's friend.'' During his tenure at Rutgers-Camden, Pony developed the athletic department from a five-sport program--with no on-campus facilities and no women's teams--to one that boasts as many as 14 teams with ample competition for both genders. He was known throughout the NCAA Division III conference for his belief that education, not sports, was the priority of the men and women at Rutgers-Camden. Pony believed that ``student athletes are students first.'' On behalf of all those lives that Pony Wilson touched, I would like to convey my most sincere condolences to his family. May his unfailing commitment to university athletics and education continue to live on in every one of us.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, today millions of Americans will go to work and conduct business on the World Wide Web. Millions of Americans will send e-mail messages to each other. Millions of consumers will buy goods and services over the Internet. But next month, millions of American children will go back to schools that are out of the 1950s where they get half an hour a week on a computer if they are lucky. What is worse than that, there will be students going to schools that were built during the Civil War. There will be children taking gym class in the hallway, children taking reading classes in broom closets. America's schools need to be modernized. We certainly can take just a piece of the largess of the Federal surplus and invest it back into a quality public school system. I stand before my colleagues as one of the proud cosponsors of the Democratic school construction legislation. I just signed a petition which said bring that bill to the floor. Give us a vote so we can modernize and improve America's schools.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong opposition to this bill. There is something attractive about the argument that we should just wait and listen for more science. But that was the argument that was made prior to 1990 when Secretary of Labor Elizabeth Dole said, ``It's time to do this.'' And that was the argument that was made prior to 1992 and Secretary of Labor Lynn Martin said, ``No, it's time to do this.'' Mr. Chairman, this is not about more science or when we do this because, I assure you, there will be another attempt later on to stop this regulation. This debate is about the merits of this regulation. I would ask my Republican friends, Mr. Chairman, to think about doing what comes naturally to them and, that is, trusting the marketplace. This regulation reminds me of the furor that took place in the late 1960s and early 1970s about unleaded gasoline. There was a proposal to have a Federal law that would eventually bar the use of leaded gasoline by making us make cars that could not use it. We were told at that time it would be the end of the auto industry, the end of the gasoline industry, it would cripple domestic producers of automobiles. It would raise costs. It would be a disaster. But we went forward and did it, anyway. What happened? The marketplace responded. People throughout American industry built a better mousetrap. The amount of ambient lead in our air dropped dramatically and so did the price of gasoline, in real terms. I believe here as well, if we set a clear standard that says you shall protect your workers from repetitive stress syndrome, it will say to a whole class of inventors and entrepreneurs and good businesspeople, there is profit in finding ways to do that. Different kind of chairs, different kind of screens, different kind of keyboards on computers. The market will respond. Trust the market. Let entrepreneurs get to work in finding safer working conditions to help workers stay safer. Mr. Chairman, this is going to be a very close vote. I would urge Members to consider the merits and reject this bill.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. I listened intently to my friend from New York, a member of the Committee on Rules who spoke about this rule a few minutes ago, and I wanted to make several points about the rule. We are operating here under the facade that this will give, as the chairman of the Committee on Rules just said, a free-flowing and open debate about worker safety. I want to point something out: There are many of us who believe that OSHA is understaffed, that OSHA does not have enough inspectors to go find workplace violations and do something about them. But, if I am not mistaken, and my friend from the Committee on Rules can correct me, an amendment that would add inspectors to OSHA's inspection force would be ruled out of order because it is not germane. There are many of us who are concerned about sick building syndrome, about people going to work, day after day, in buildings where the heating and air conditioning systems do not work properly and they cannot breathe properly and their asthma is aggravated or their other breathing related disabilities are aggravated, and many of us believe OSHA should do something about that. An amendment that would address that problem would be out of order because it would not be germane. In fact, it is almost impossible to think of any amendment that could be offered under this bill that would do anything other than kill this regulation or delay this regulation that would be germane. So let us get the record straight here. There are dozens of important worker safety issues that confront this country. None of them, none of them, are in order for debate under this rule on the floor. The only thing we can do is either accept or reject this attempt to delay, and I think ultimately defeat, the new ergonomic standard by OSHA. So let us be very clear about this, that this is an open rule in form only. Every other consideration in worker safety is not in order. That is why the rule should be defeated.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Burton amendment. There is no higher priority in U.S. foreign policy than checking the potential of aggression by the People's Republic of China. There is no greater interest in checking that potential aggression than the promotion of a stable, secure, and democratic India. As the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) just said, no, India is not perfect. No one is. But India is essential to the future long-term interests of the United States. This amendment takes us in the wrong direction. It should be defeated.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I appreciate the opportunity to summarize our point of view in the debate. I share with my friend from Illinois a real desire to develop Africa and other less developed areas. I just think we should do it openly and directly and not through the Trojan horse of corporate welfare which I believe is what OPIC is. Here is what OPIC really says. If someone wants to build a plant or a factory in New Jersey or Oregon or Texas, they are on their own, they have to go to a bank and take a risk and borrow the money themselves. But if they want to build the plant in a foreign country, another continent, then the United States taxpayers, if they are big enough and powerful enough, will have to reach into our pockets and subsidize it. The idea of us subsidizing these operations is wrong. Let us end corporate welfare as we know it and support this amendment.