Brian Baird

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, my second question deals with Section 17 that requires the Director, 24 months after the date of enactment of this act, to submit a report to Congress reviewing this act to ensure that awards under the act are made to individuals and institutions that are in compliance with the Immigration and Nationality Act. I assume this is a simple reporting requirement similar to other reports to Congress by the NSF and that it is not meant to require the Director to enforce our Nation's immigration laws?

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that clarification, and thank the gentleman for his leadership on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) for his leadership on this issue and on so many issues on the Committee on Science. He has been one of those voices that sees problems before they present themselves to the rest of the country and has been an outstanding leader on this and many other issues. I also want to reiterate my thanks to Chairman Boehlert, Ranking Member Hall, the committee staff and my own staff member, Chris Schloesser, for their good work on this. Coincidentally, a few weeks ago I was messing around with my own computer system and I took the hardware firewall off that I have. I also have a software firewall. During a brief 15-minute period, five attacks from outside were recorded. I say that to mention that it is not just government doing its part to provide increased funds, the general public will need to increase their level of security and awareness that if they have permanent on-line connections and as broadband becomes more readily available, the general public has an important role to play because those who wish to do our country harm will try to get to our secure infrastructure through just average citizens' systems and through the network there. I also want to underscore what the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) said about the cost of this legislation. It may sound expensive, and indeed it is, but the cost of a coordinated attack on our information infrastructure would be vast indeed. I would ask people to entertain the possibility of what might happen were there to be not only an attack from terrorists such as we saw on September 11 but if that were coordinated with a cyber attack on our air traffic control system or on our emergency communication systems. In an instance like that where information flow would be critical and would mean the life or death of thousands of Americans, a cyber attack would amplify exponentially the cost of a more traditional terrorist kind of attack. This money will be well spent. By spending it today, we will prepare our country for the kinds of risks we may face tomorrow. I again urge passage of H.R. 3394. I commend those who have worked so hard to achieve this point. I thank the gentleman for his leadership. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, the Constitution of the United States reserves to the Congress of the United States the authority to declare war. That is as it should be, for no more weighty matter confronts a nation, and it is fitting in a Republic that a decision such as this be made by the people's representatives. Let us be clear. Saddam Hussein is a dangerous, malicious dictator. He has committed multiple atrocities, both towards his own people and others in the Middle East. He has refused to comply with U.N. resolutions or to allow weapons inspectors to fully identify and destroy his arsenal of chemical, biological and potential nuclear weapons. He has circumvented economic sanctions and has spent money from oil sales on weapons systems and personal luxuries for himself and his political cronies, rather than on the Iraqi people. Given those facts, I believe we must increase the pressure on Iraq and insist on expanded weapons inspections with much greater resources and no restrictions. This should be done through a multinational effort coordinated through the United Nations and with the support of allies and other nations throughout the world. The United States is absolutely right to insist on this and to take the lead in this effort. With international support, the United States stands the greatest chance for a successful outcome; and if military intervention is necessary, the number of casualties will be reduced and the regional repercussions will be lessened. That is why I will support the Spratt amendment authorizing the President to seek international support for expanded inspections; and if Saddam Hussein refuses to comply with such inspections and an international coalition exists, the President would be authorized to commit U.S. military resources under U.S. command. If, however, it is not possible to achieve a multinational coalition, in those circumstances the risks, the costs, and the international implications of a unilateral attack will be far more severe. Such an attack may be necessary, but before taking that step, the President should return to the Congress, explain why agreements have not been reached. And if in his judgment force is still necessary, he should, consistent with Article I of the Constitution, seek the authorization of the Congress for military force. Throughout the discussions of war with Iraq, I have asked fundamental questions: What threat is posed by Iraq now and in the future? What is the military strategy for reducing that threat? What will the cost of that strategy be in human casualties on all sides? What are the international implications and potential regional scenarios that might be developed, and what is our long term strategy for the region? I believe the first question has been answered. It is apparent that, while the threat to our own Nation may not be imminent, if allowed to go on Saddam Hussein will eventually develop even more dangerous weapons. Beyond that, however, the remaining questions have not been fully addressed. For each of the issues I have raised, and many others have as well, the potential risks and costs would be dramatically greater if the U.S. acts unilaterally rather than in a multinational effort. Even some of our strongest allies have indicated they would not support us militarily or financially if we go it alone. Yet the risks, costs and consequences of unilateral action have not been adequately explained to the American people. Whatever course is chosen, I believe we will not solve the problem of international terrorism or weapons of mass destruction solely by attacking Saddam Hussein or solely through the broad use of military force. I understand well the impulse and the desire to do something and do it now to reduce the threat and fear created by September 11, and I believe it may yet be necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein, but we must all recognize that there is no course of action without risk or that we will eliminate all risk in the future. Ultimately, we must look at the source of international conflicts; and we must work to reduce the perceptions and the real conditions that allow terrorists and others to foment hatred toward our Nation. If we do not understand and deal with how our actions are perceived internationally, we will run the risk of defeating Saddam Hussein only to foster new threats and new hatreds elsewhere. We can and must dedicate ourselves to the battle against terrorism, and we can and must hope the pressure applied to the Iraqi regime will bring about change and greater security. But as we seek that end, we must not neglect the challenges we face here at home; and we must not neglect our responsibility to address those challenges with honesty, forthrightness, and a sense of justice, fairness and a sense of shared sacrifice befitting a truly great Nation in times such as these. The President of the United States and all Members of Congress have dedicated their hearts, minds and souls to protecting the safety and well-being of the American people. There are legitimate differences about how to achieve that in these times; but whatever the result of this vote, let no one question the motives, the courage, or the patriotism of those who will make this fateful decision.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I neglected to mention two people who were tremendously helpful: the Pierce County auditor Cathy Pearsall-Stipek, and the Cowlitz County auditor Chris Swanstron. These folks helped us understand that even in optimal circumstances, a special election would probably take at least 60 days, or more like 90. In Washington State, for example, we mail our ballots out 3 weeks before the election. If we are going to get an election done in 2 months, we have essentially got about a week to run for office, and then the ballots would have to be printed, distributed, counted, there would be one more week to run for office after the primary, and then we would have to have the special election. I want to follow up on something my colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana, said. He has offered such great, thoughtful insights to this. This is a first step, but we need to make sure, I believe, that there is a mechanism for quick replacement in some fashion to occupy the position in the House of Representatives and get the body's work done in the interim while these special elections are conducted. We simply cannot say that there will be no House of Representatives for the period of 60 days or more while special elections take place. Declarations of war, appropriations of funds, approval of Vice- Presidential nominees, election of the Speaker of the House and a host of other tasks must be accomplished, and we must have the representation of the States in that process, and we must have the constitutional checks and balances which are so critical. In a time of catastrophe, it is indeed, I believe, likely that the Presidential position would be occupied by a Cabinet member who was never elected; which is fine, that is under the Succession Act, and we accept that; but for an unelected Cabinet member to serve as the President of the United States with no checks and balances by the legislative branch as represented through the House of Representatives I believe imperils a fundamental principle of the Constitution. So while I absolutely and unequivocally urge strong sponsoring of this legislation and recognize its importance, it is indeed a first step, and we must move forward, as the working group will do, and as I hope and trust all my colleagues will do, to consider further mechanisms to make sure this great body and the Constitution it represents will continue to function.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague, and I want to thank also the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) for his outstanding leadership. In the time I have been privileged to serve here, I have never had such great satisfaction from working with a group of talented, bright, dedicated individuals. The Parliamentarian, the staff of the Committee on the Judiciary have been outstanding. Hopefully, we will never need this legislation; but if it is ever needed, it may be one of the most important things we will ever do in our lifetime and during our service to this Congress. This is a start. This is an effort to say to the States that you too need to think about what we have come to have to face on a daily basis, almost: the prospect that some terrorist organization could strike suddenly, without warning, and eliminate this body that we hold so dear; and we must have preparations to replace us in the event that that should happen. I also want to thank the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), as well as the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), for their valuable and invaluable contributions to this process. Mr. Speaker, this is the start in working with the States to make sure that they have a mechanism for replacing us if the time arises, but we also have other tasks before us. We are addressing some ambiguities in the Presidential succession law that are important to close certain ambiguities there. We are looking at the House rules, particularly what would constitute a quorum and how this body would reconvene in the event of a catastrophe. We are also looking at mechanisms for possibly replacing Members in the short term, pending the outcome of special elections. Every one of us in this body holds very dear and proud the tradition of direct elections, but we also hold dear and proud to the principle of election and representation by our States in this great body, and the principle of checks and balances on the executive. So we are working on a host of fronts. A year or so ago, my father passed away. Before he died, he sat my sister and brother and I down and walked through all of his files. He said, Son and daughter, when I die, this is what you need to know about, how to carry on the finances, how to deal with my estate, et cetera. Because of his forethought, his death, regardless of how tremendously painful it was, was nevertheless handled in a manner that allowed us to go on, taking care of his affairs responsibly and in an efficient manner. We owe it to this Nation to show no less forethought. We owe it to this Nation to make sure that if something horrific happens to us, the business of this great Republic will carry on, uninterrupted, unimpeded. We need to tell our adversaries that even if they destroy us and kill every one of us, others will rise up, carry that torch of liberty forward, and the Republic will stand and will persevere. Mr. Speaker, I thank again the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) for their leadership.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2099, legislation that would increase by $10 million the authorization for federal spending on preserving and rehabilitating the Vancouver National Historic Reserve. Fort Vancouver, located on the banks of the Columbia River, is perhaps the most significant historic site in the Pacific Northwest. It is rich in national historic and cultural significance, pre-dating the arrival of Lewis and Clark through the mid-20th century. Before the arrival of the American traders and well before the Lewis and Clark expedition arrived, this site on the shore of the Columbia River was home to a variety of Native American Indian tribes for over 10,000 years, including the Cascades, Chehalis, Chinook, Clallam, Cowlitz, Klickitat, Nisqually, Tillamook, and Shasta tribes. Fort Vancouver was also headquarters for the Hudson's Bay Company's Columbia Department, embracing present- day British Columbia, Washington, Oregon and Idaho. The trading post, which was the center of the region's fur trading enterprise, represented Britain's business and governmental interests in competition with the United States. The 1846 treaty between Great Britain and the United States established today's northern-most boundary at the 49th parallel. The Vancouver Barracks was established in 1849 when the first contingent of U.S. Army troops arrived in the newly acquired American lands. From 1849 until World War I, during which time some of the Army's most promising officers (including Ulysses S. Grant, Phillip Sheridan, George McClellan and George C. Marshall) were stationed at Vancouver, the barracks was the principal military headquarters for the Pacific Northwest. As a result of its national significance, the site was designated by Congress as a National Historic Monument in 1948, and later as a National Historic Site. The 55-acre Vancouver Barracks contains 32 structures, many of which have been determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, including several rare examples of military architecture. The Vancouver National Historic Reserve was designated by Congress in 1996 for the coordinated preservation, public use and management of historic sites within the Vancouver area. The Reserve was established as a partnership among the landowners in the Reserve, which include the National Park Service, the City of Vancouver, the U.S. Army and the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. The 366 acre Historic Reserve contains the Fort Vancouver National Historic Site, Vancouver Barracks, Officers Row, Pearson Field, the Water Resources Center and portions of the Columbia river waterfront. H.R. 2099 seeks to preserve the Vancouver Barracks for future generations. The 1996 Act that created the Historic Reserve provided an initial $5 million authorization for capital projects, which has been fully appropriated. It is important to note that a provision was included in the Fiscal Year 2002 Interior Appropriations bill which essentially says there would be no further federal appropriations for capital projects within the Vancouver National Historic Reserve unless and until a new ``authorization'' for capital projects is approved by Congress. Of great importance to my congressional district, to the Pacific Northwest and our nation, H.R. 2099, as amended by the House Resources Committee, would increase from $5 million to $15 million the authorization of appropriations for development costs associated with capital projects at the Vancouver National Historic Reserve. For over half a century local, state and federal government agencies, along with numerous private individuals and organizations, have been collaborating to preserve and interpret the history of the Vancouver area and the region. During the past 15 years, in excess of $30 million has been invested in property improvements and projects within the present Historic Reserve boundaries. The federal government has provided approximately 25% of the capital funds for these efforts. The remaining 75% has been provided by local and state governments, foundations such as the locally based Vancouver National Historic Trust, and numerous other individuals businesses and not-for-profit organizations. The Vancouver Barracks adaptive Reuse and Economic Analysis completed in early 2000 determined the need for additional rehabilitation of buildings and adaptations necessary for new uses in the West Barracks area. The City of Vancouver has committed $6 million for infrastructure improvements, the state of Washington has committed $6 million for educational uses, and private donations will make up an additional $8 million for building preservation efforts. The increase in federal authorization of $10 million that is contained in H.R. 2099 will be used to match non-federal funding for the West Barracks project. This federal funding has been deemed key to successful private fund-raising efforts, securing tenants for the property, minimizing the impact of inflation and avoiding additional serious property deterioration. Finally, I would like to give a word of thanks to our partners who have helped us get to this point. I would be remiss if I did not thank Chairmen Hansen and Radanovich and Representatives Rahall and Christensen for their assistance in bringing this bill to the House floor for consideration. On behalf of all the community leaders who have worked on this project, I want to especially thank Vancouver Mayor Royce Pollard and Bruce Hagensen, the former Mayor and current Board Member of the Vancouver National Historic Reserve Trust. Mr. Speaker, I encourage passage of H.R. 2099.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, on September 17, 2002, I was in my Congressional District in Washington and consequently I missed three votes. For the record, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 388, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 389 and ``yea'' on rollcall vote 390.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, yesterday our Nation and this House paid a fitting tribute to those who lost their lives on September 11, to the heroic rescuers, and to their families. Today, I would like to take just a moment to honor another group of people who serve this Nation in a less dramatic way, but who are heroes in their own right and in their own quiet ways. Last year, just 1 day after our Nation came under attack, and this very building was among the targets, the men and women who work here in this building, in our offices and in countless other government offices throughout this land, came right back in to work to serve this great Nation. When they came in to work on that September 12 morning, they knew then and they have known each and every day since then that they work in a potential target. Scarcely a month later, they then faced a new challenge when anthrax entered our buildings, and for some of our staff, entered their bodies. The Capitol Police, the janitors and maintenance workers, the grounds crews, the people who serve food, the secretaries, the Parliamentarians, the clerks, the young pages, our legislative and our committee staff, our field and caseworkers, and all the other dedicated and courageous people who make this place and our government run all deserve our thanks and our praise. With tears in their eyes, with sadness and with fear in their hearts, but with indomitable courage they came right back to work to serve this country we all love. A year has passed now, and the immediate danger may have been diminished; but it remains in our awareness. Still, our staffs and the rest of the employees come to work, and in doing so, they serve our country. In these times, this takes courage. So, and for that courage, I am grateful and this country is deeply fortunate.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to honor my colleague, Representative Tony Hall, as he embarks on a new path in a long journey. Ambassador Hall has worked diligently for years to curtail the hunger that plagues the people of our country and the world. Hunger is an evil that strikes at the very core of our needs as human beings. Its causes must be addressed and suffering eradicated. My wife, Dr. Rachel Nugent, has worked with the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization. We both believe that Ambassador Hall will be an outstanding ambassador on behalf of the United States. His perspective and experience will complement the UN food and agriculture organization and help them to carry on the difficult work of alleviating hunger and promoting justice. I wish Ambassador Hall much continued success in his new position and know that he will bring relief and comfort to those in need. It has been an honor to serve with him in this body. His example and selflessness will remain with me throughout my tenure and beyond.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Co-Chairs of the Hellenic Caucus, Representatives Michael Bilirakis and Carolyn Maloney for organizing this special orders on Cyprus and for their leadership on this important issue. Twenty-eight years ago, on July 20, 1974, Turkish troops advanced into the Republic of Cyprus and forcefully occupied the island. Today, Cyprus remains divided with heavily armed Turkish troops occupying approximately 37 percent of the Island. Over the past twenty-eight years there have been signs of hope only to be shattered by statements or displays of aggression resulting in increased tensions and little progress toward resolving the conflict over Cyprus. In 1999, the U.N. Security Council passed resolution 1251 calling for ``. . . all States to respect the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of the Republic of Cyprus, and requesting them, along with the parties concerned, to refrain from any actions which might prejudice that sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity, as well as from any attempt at partition of the island or its unification with any other country.'' The Republic of Cyprus has on many occasions offered an olive branch to end this conflict. The Republic of Cyprus has offered to demilitarize the entire island, and has canceled an order of a surface- to-air missile system. Turkey has rejected these overtures and in fact continues to upgrade its military presence on Cyprus. Mr. Speaker, throughout its history the United States has stood firmly against the forces of oppression and aggression across the globe. We should continue to advocate and support a peaceful resolution to the problem in Cyprus. As a cosponsor of both H. Con. Res. 164 and 269, I urge the President to take steps to end the restrictions of freedoms on the enclaved people of Cyprus by the Turkish-Cypriots and to work with our allies to support Cyprus' efforts of accession to the European Union (EU). It is my sincere hope that we will see significant progress toward a unified Cyprus obtained by peaceful means. This can only improve the economic and political stability of the region, which is undoubtedly in the national security and economic interests of the United States. Mr. Speaker, let me close by thanking my colleagues in the Hellenic Caucus for their exceptional work. I look forward to working with all of them to ensure that some day soon, the unification, not the division of Cyprus, will be commemorated by this body.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Oregon (Mr. Wu) for working to ensure that Southwest Washington will play a role in the Lewis and Clark commemoration through this legislation. I also want to thank the chair and the ranking member of the committee, and particularly the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) for his strong support of this bill and for his strong support of the National Park System in general. The bicentennial commemoration of Lewis and Clark's expedition is just a year away. They began their journey back in 1803. And in 2003 communities across our Nation will begin commemorating the Corps of Discovery and the promises they back with their journey. It is my hope that during this commemoration Americans will visit important stops along the journey of discovery, including Station Camp and Fort Canby along with Fort Clatsop. On November 18 in 1805, William Clark stopped at Station Camp, sometimes referred to as Megler's Rest, stopped and proclaimed, ``I am in full view now of the ocean.'' It is hard to imagine what that must have felt like for the Corps, having traveled clear across the country in lands no American had seen before. But there in Washington State that is what he said and that is what they saw. It was also at this historic site that they took a critical vote, 100 years before suffrage, 60 years before the Emancipation Proclamation. The Corps of Discovery voted where they would spend the winter. In that vote they included Sacagawea, and York, who was Clark's black slave, 100 years before suffrage and 60 years before emancipation, the entire Corps voted on the critical matter of where they would winter at my good friend's district at Fort Clatsop. Today I welcome the opportunity to express my strong support for this legislation which seeks to expand Fort Clatsop National Monument, the only unit in the National Park system that is solely dedicated to the amazing journey of Lewis and Clark. And of great importance to my district is the legislation's inclusion of study language to authorize study for the inclusion of Station Camp and Fort Canby within the Fort Clatsop National Memorial. Although Station Camp is considered the end of the voyage, it is also true that the Northwestern part of the journey included what is now Fort Canby where Lewis and Clark led a small team to the actual coast. And you can only imagine what it must have been like to stand there on what is now called Cape Disappointment, look out over the ocean, and hoping that a ship would be there to take you home, but seeing none, you realize that you would spend the winter in that wonderful but also cold and wet environment, and then trudge by foot, boat and horseback all the way down the journey you had just traced. This legislation calls for the Park Service to work collaboratively with the States of Oregon and Washington, the Indian tribes and the others in the local communities on the expansion of Fort Clatsop and a study including new sites before the start of the bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark expedition which is planned to take place between 2003 and 2006. Companion legislation has already passed the Senate. I want to thank our Senate colleagues in both Oregon and Washington for their leadership. I want to thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) for his leadership, and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and the committee chair and the ranking member. Mr. Speaker, I encourage passage for this important piece of legislation.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to add also that another individual who has worked tremendously hard on this is Dave Micandri, head of the Washington State Historical Society. It was his vision and persistence and tireless effort to make sure Station Camp was included in this legislation. He has done a marvelous job, and I also want to commend the good people of Long Beach and Ilwaco, Washington, who have worked tirelessly to ensure that their part of the story gets told, along with the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu). This is a tremendous opportunity. In addition to recognizing, hopefully, these expanded national park areas, we should note that Mia Lin is developing a series of sculptures, part of a confluence project at a series of installations that will take place at four different locations along the confluence of rivers reflecting the cultural integration, symbolized by the rivers merging. It should be a profound and exciting piece of work and something that will be a treasure for many years to come.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4664, to authorize funds for the National Science Foundation. As a proud cosponsor of this legislation, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert) and the ranking members for their excellent work on this; but I also want to reinforce my strong support for the $50 million funding for the Advanced Technological Education Program in FY 2002 and $55 million for the program in 2003. The Advanced Technological Education Program is an NSF program designed to help community colleges train high-tech workers. It is the only NSF program focused solely on community colleges. This program provides funds for both existing and new ATE programs. These programs will become increasingly important as our economy becomes more dependent on technologically skilled workers. In fact, every single one of the top 10 fastest-growing occupations identified by the Department of Labor will require specialized knowledge in the fields of math and science. ATE programs will fund technology, math and science programs that will directly contribute to student success in those fields. A few weeks ago my colleague the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) and I introduced H.R. 4680, the Science Undergraduate Community College Education Enhancement Act, or, as we call it, SUCCEED. This bill will further direct ATE money to important science, math and technology two-year education programs. Almost half of all college students in America are enrolled in community colleges, but many of the core math and science programs at these institutions are now severely underfunded. This is unacceptable, especially at a time when our knowledge-based economy depends on a workforce with a solid grounding in math and science. The SUCCEED Act will function in several areas. First of all, it will expand the scope of existing grant programs to not only focus on the advanced upper division courses, but on the basics in math and technology skills and science skills that are necessary for success in more advanced course work. In addition and importantly, it will expand partnerships between 2- year and 4-year institutions. Increasingly, our 2-year community colleges are partnering with 4-year institutions, and the SUCCEED Act will provide funding for integrated research between community and 4- year colleges. This bill will also provide access to state-of-the-art equipment for our classrooms. We cannot expect our students in the community colleges to learn the kind of advanced skills they need if we do not have the fundamental infrastructure and equipment for them to learn those skills. Finally, this bill will establish an external advisory committee to study how the effectiveness of this legislation is proceeding and to disseminate critical information to share that with other 2-year institutions. Again, I want to thank the staff of the Committee on Science for their outstanding work, and my own staff member, Ms. Kate Sinner, for her work on this. Thanks again to the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert).

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago the gentleman from Florida spoke with great flourish suggesting that the debate on the rules are manufactured and unimportant. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, rules are the way a civilized society governs its conduct. We teach our children to play by the rules. We teach them fairness. Mr. Jefferson saw the rules as a way of protecting the views of the minority against the abuses which the wantonness of power is too often apt to suggest to large and successful majorities, protecting the views of the minority for the good of the democracy against the wantonness of power which suggests itself to the majority. This may not be a sexy or glamourous topic for the American people, but it has to do with how your government functions. It has to do with the free exchange of ideas. Jefferson did not say the purpose of the rules is to allow the majority party to work its will without resistance. He said the purpose of the rules is to also protect the minority opinion against the wantonness of power of the majority. For too long, for too long this body has witnessed the wantonness of power manifested in the rules exercised by the majority. You may have the right to do that, but is it right to do that? Is it good for the country? Mr. Jefferson also asked the following: He asked if it makes sense for one generation to charge the next with a debt, because if it does charge the next generation with a debt larger than it can repay, than the Earth belongs to the dead, not the living. The rule question today was are we charging the next generation with a debt and thereby giving the Earth to the dead, not the living? Your rule is designed to stop that debate.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the clarification, and concur with the gentleman's position. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) for his outstanding work on this bill and his leadership of our committee. I also thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) for his work. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BAIRD. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 64, a bill that will strengthen the use of science at the Environmental Protection Agency. I am proud to cosponsor this legislation. The chairman has done a great job of describing the bill. I would like to make just a few additional points. H.R. 64 will ensure that science plays its proper role at the EPA, providing the basis for sound regulations that do not unduly impede economic development while protecting our environment. The bill creates the new position of Deputy Administrator for Science and Technology. It also makes the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Research and Development a 5-year position, much like the directors of the NIH and the National Science Foundation. There is another important section that clarifies that research is integral to the mission of EPA to protect human health and the environment. Mr. Speaker, the bill is supported by a wide array of business and scientific organizations. I believe the Committee on Science has crafted a good bill that will help ensure that the best and most recent science is considered when the administrator makes regulatory decisions. Ultimately, it will be up to the EPA administrator to listen to the scientists, but this bill will provide the experts with an opportunity to present their findings in a timely fashion. There are concerns both from the administration and environmental groups that this bill might create yet another layer of bureaucracy at the agency. This conceivably could occur by giving the deputy administrator a veto over regulations. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) whether he agrees or disagrees with that view, and whether he would be willing to work with me and others to address continuing concerns within the bill?

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, thousands of workers of Portland General Electric lost their entire life's savings when Enron collapsed. I praise the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) for introducing legislation that would have prevented that tragedy. I am particularly concerned about a provision in the Republican majority bill which does not allow State boards of accountancy to know if there have been irregularities and penalties imposed. Let me refer Members to a letter from James Caley, a CPA from Vancouver, Washington, who called for precisely such notification. Mr. Caley wrote, ``A system which encourages cooperation between State and Federal regulatory agencies increases the overall effectiveness of both entities, ensuring maximum protection to the public.'' State agencies need to know if there have been irregularities recognized by Federal entities. The Republican bill, the majority bill, does not provide that notification. The substitute of the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) does. I commend the gentleman for including that.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, while I am a cosponsor of the Investment Advice Act and agree that workers should be allowed access to professional investment advice, I can not support the Republican pension legislation that is before us today. Unfortunately, the bill offered by the majority fails to include basic reforms that are necessary to ensure that future employees do not suffer the same fate of Enron employees. The flawed Republican bill fails to provide for diversification of stock plans, fails to give notice when executives are dumping company stock and continues to jeopardize employee savings. Thousands of workers at Portland General Electric lost their life savings when their pension plans evaporated in the Enron collapse. Throughout the last six months, I have heard their horror stories, many of whom are my constituents. They tell me about their worthless retirement plans, shattered dreams and uncertain futures because of the undeniable corporate mismanagement that was pervasive at Enron. I can not in good faith support legislation that does not address the concerns of these employees and will not prevent future Enrons from happening. Mr. Speaker, I support the Democratic alternative that offers a real change in the protections afforded to employees. The Democratic pension reform bill provides new stiff criminal penalties for executives and pension plan managers who engage in illegal insider trading or provide misinformation to employees. The bill requires that notice be given to employees when CEOs and executives decide to dump their company's stock and the Democratic alternative offers employees a voice, on pension boards, where they can gain timely and accurate information about their pensions. I encourage all Members to vote against the Republican pension reform bill and vote to protect the savings of our nation's workers.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, Members of the House know it, Senator McCain knows it, Granny Dee knows it, and most importantly, our constituents know it. Money and campaign financing are having a corrosive influence on the political process today. I personally reject the charge that it is corrupting Members of this august body, but Members all know with absolute certainty that the process of raising money is taking precious, precious time away from the matters that are before us. We know with equal certainty that many Members of this body pause at least once to ask themselves how a vote will affect their contributions when they should be asking solely how it will affect this great Nation. In this debate we have heard the majority party assert that passage of Shays-Meehan and McCain-Feingold will harm their political fund- raising. That is symptomatic of the problem. We should not be asking is this good for one party or another. Members should be asking solely and simply: Is it good for the United States of America and the people we represent? Shays-Meehan is good. Pass this bill. Reject the poison pills and send it to the President.