Brian Baird

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, these costs were unanticipated. The Federal Government has a responsibility to help these schools that had no way of paying for these in advance. The reductions elsewhere in the bill we believe are reasonable and sound, and we believe this would go a long way towards helping schools. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chair of the Committee on Appropriations for his courtesy. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of a supplemental appropriation is to help out when our planning from last year did not adequately anticipate the needs of this current fiscal year. This is a situation we face on the West Coast and elsewhere in the country as we contemplate the tremendous rise in energy prices. In my district alone we are facing million dollar increases for some school districts. The Vancouver School District and Evergreen School District anticipate almost a $1.5 million increase for their energy. Other school districts are facing similar problems, not because of error or a factor they could control, but largely because of failed government policies. Mr. Chairman, what I offer today is a $100 million appropriation to provide Federal support for schools which have done several things. First, they must lower their energy consumption by 10 percent on an average per capita basis from the previous year. Secondly, they must see a power increase of 20 percent over the previous year, so it must be a substantial increase, something they could not normally be expected to absorb. And let me state that schools do not have funding flexibility from year to year. They are based on levies or appropriations from the legislature. In addition, this bill does not give a full Federal handout to the schools. They must carry half the load, and then the Federal Government would help out. This is a reasonable and fair bill. We recognize and respect the $6.5 million cap, and we have proposed three cuts. One, the aforementioned $30 million spent on the IRS letter. Secondly, a reduction in funds for repair and maintenance of business jets essentially for top brass in the military. That money was not actually requested by the Department of Defense, but was introduced by the House. In addition, a cut in the unrequested money for the air-based laser program. We believe if the choice is between letting our children have decent books, warm classrooms, and adequate light, this Committee and Congress should make the proper choice. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. It is my great privilege to represent the part of Washington State that borders on the southern part of our coastline and the Columbia River. I have had the opportunity to join our Coast Guard crewmen as they go out in the motor lifeboat school on one of the most dangerous river bars in the world, the Columbia River Bar. That is why I am so proud today to join with the Chair and the ranking member in supporting this critical authorization bill. Our Coast Guard Members save American lives every single day, and they deserve our support. They currently operate what would otherwise be one of the oldest navys in the world, and that should not be so. We need to make sure we give them support when they perform their critical life-saving needs when they work on environmental protection, when they enforce our fisheries laws, and when they patrol our coastline for whatever need they may be called upon to serve. I am proud to join with the members of this committee and urge passage of this critical legislation.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I would invite the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, to engage in a brief colloquy. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Ohio knows, part D, section 5401 of this legislation deals with elementary and secondary school counseling programs and authorizes grants for local school boards to establish or expand counseling programs in the school. Before coming to Congress, I spent 23 years as a practicing clinical psychologist; and I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and members of the Committee on Education and the Workforce for including this element of the bill. Our kids deserve to get high quality counseling, and this bill provides the means for more schools to reach these children more easily. However, I am concerned that this important and well-meaning provision could be misunderstood by States and local school boards with respect to clinical psychologists. While the distinction between a school psychologist and a clinical psychologist is subtle, it is an important difference. Clearly there are cases that would be better handled by a school psychologist, and there are others in which a clinical psychologist may be better suited to counsel a particular child. But as I read the bill now, it may not be apparent that a school could utilize the services of a clinical psychologist. I would hate to see a child who needed a certain level of care was unable to receive that level of care. Would the gentleman agree to seek to include the words ``clinical psychologist,'' to insert those words in this section once the bill goes to conference?

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express a number of serious reservations about the testing provisions of HR 1. I commend the committee chair, the ranking member, and all those who have worked in a truly bipartisan basis to bring this legislation to the floor today, but I am afraid that some provisions of the bill as written have the potential to harm, rather than improve, our educational system. The problem to which I am referring is the mandate for annual testing. I know that many of those who support annual testing do so because they believe we must set high standards in order to motivate our students, faculty, and administrators to achieve. I strongly agree with that goal, but I also disagree with how this legislation seeks to accomplish it. As a licensed clinical psychologist before coming to Congress, I may bring a unique perspective to this debate. In addition to administering, scoring and interpreting hundreds of tests in my own professional career, I also taught graduate level courses dealing with the design, uses, and potential abuses of tests and test results. So I know something about the matter of testing. Based on that experience, and a careful reading of this legislation, let me raise the following concerns: First, this legislation represents an enormous unfunded mandate with absolutely no information provided regarding the cost of implementation or the benefits as compared to other options. I find it surprising that those who so often complain about unfunded federal mandates and bureaucracy elsewhere in our government so enthusiastically support legislation that even by a conservative estimate will require hundreds of millions of dollars of expenditures every year. It is true that this legislation authorizes money to help states design their testing, but the legislation before us includes nothing to fund the actual annual testing that it requires. Since there is no money in this bill or in the budget to fund the testing process itself, we must ask ourselves how those costs will be borne by our states and local school districts. How many teachers or teachers aides could be paid for with the money to be spent on testing? What level of school repair or numbers of textbooks will go unrenewed because of the money spent on testing? How might those alternative expenditures benefit students more than the money to be spent on testing? And, finally, what is the opportunity cost to our system as teachers and students spend time and resources preparing for the tests rather than engaging in other valuable educational activities? Secondly, while the legislation purports to require standards, it is clear that there really is no consistent or common standard required. In fact, by leaving the proposed achievement standards up to the states, albeit with some level of federal review, it is quite possible that schools in some states will meet their internal standards while others will fail, but the standards that are met may be entirely different from state to state. This leaves open the possibility that federal dollars will be restricted from some schools where there is actually higher achievement but given to others where achievement is lower but the state standards are also lower. As I read this legislation, there will be every incentive for schools to set low standards on their tests in order to meet the federal requirements and not lose funding. Isn't this precisely what the authors of the legislation hoped to avoid? And isn't the alternative--the micro- management of state testing by the federal government--equally undesirable? Third, an additional problem with the standards referred to in the bill is that it seems to be legislating the so-called Lake Wobegon effect, in which all the students are above average. The legislation requires all students to meet or exceed the ``State's proficient level of academic performance.'' But the legislation apparently fails to recognize that proficiency standards can be set in several ways. For example, a standard could be a bare minimum level of competency, or it could be a level set by the average student of a given grade. If the average level of proficiency is taken as the standard, by definition of average, not all students can meet that level. Conversely, if proficiency is to be set at a relatively high level, which it should be if the term ``proficient'' is to mean anything important, then we can expect that the natural variations in student skills and development will leave many students coming close to, but not reaching full proficiency. Like it or not, Congress cannot legislate the repeal of the laws of statistics, and the normal distribution of abilities will be with us regardless of how appealing a law may sound on the surface. This fundamental ambiguity alone should be reason enough to withhold the testing requirement until we have clear answers to the question of what exactly is meant by the requirement of the legislation. Fourth, even if the questions addressed above could be answered, the logic of using annual testing to evaluate school performance and compare districts is severely flawed. In my Congressional district some districts have turnover rates higher than 40% per year. In many districts there are literally dozens of different non-English languages spoken in the homes. Still other districts have not passed funding levys in years. How can any comparison between these schools and schools with more homogenous or stable populations of students or with greater funding resources be meaningful? And how can the yearly progress or lack of progress of a school be meaningful if 40% of the students turnover every year? One of the most important lessons I used to teach my graduate students was this--tests, per se, cannot be said to be valid or invalid in and of themselves. Rather, validity is a relative term whose meaning depends on the usage to be made of the test. The point made here is that there will be inherent limitations on the meaning of the scores across schools or across years. In other words, tests of individual student achievement may be designed to fairly and accurately assess the achievements of those individual students and to monitor individual student progress, but use of aggregate data to determine overall educational efficacy of a school, in the face of the other variables that influence aggregate scores, is not a valid use. It would not be unlike mixing together the blood samples from many different patients to measure average health. The mixing of samples defeats the purpose and vitiates the meaning of the findings. As many of the students I have taught will attest, I believe with all my heart in setting high standards for students and faculty and then providing the resources and opportunities to help them succeed. I also believe that when standards are not met, there should be consequences. But the testing provision in the legislation before us today, however positive its intent, proposes the wrong solution to the right problem. It will be tremendously costly to local schools to implement, it provides no funding for the annual testing itself, it offers a false premise as a basis for comparing schools and allocating funding, it includes inherent ambiguities in meaning that will produce unintended and paradoxical consequences, and it may well impede rather than enhance the ability of teachers and schools to help students achieve our overall educational goals.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill) for yielding the time to me. Mr. Chairman, I want to also thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for their support of this initiative, and I rise in strong support of the amendment. This amendment allows local school districts to use innovative funds authorized to create smaller learning communities in their schools. When I was growing up, as with other Members of this body, our schools were a manageable size where you knew the teachers, the teachers knew who the kids were, and we all knew each other. Communities were proud of their schools. The schools brought people together and helped keep their towns strong and vital places to live. But the Nationwide trends towards consolidation in larger schools has brought ever-increasing problems. Since 1930, the number of high schools in the U.S. has declined 70 percent from 262,000 schools to 88,000 in 1996. In 1930, the average school had 100 students. In 1996, the average school had 510 students. It is unbelievable that America's grown by 100 million people, yet the number of schools has declined by almost two-thirds. I will say it again, too many schools are simply too big today. Yet, research tells us from many studies that smaller schools are more personalized, less bureaucratic, show fewer inequities in student achievement, have higher attendance rates, higher participation in school activities, and violence and criminality are significantly reduced. In addition, students in smaller schools perform better in the core subjects of reading, math, history, and science. Think about it for just a second. No matter how big or small your school is, there are only nine folks who play on the baseball team. Kids in smaller schools have more opportunities to participate and more opportunities to be involved, and that makes better schools and better education. Shortly after the Columbine tragedy, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill) and I talked about that and what could be done. We discussed bullying and we discussed this problem of school size. We talked about what could be done, and I commend with all of my heart the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill) for his initiative and the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) in proposing this amendment. It is the right thing to do to move from these massive schools to smaller schools where faculty know the kids and families know the faculty. This amendment will improve our schools.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New Jersey and the gentleman from Ohio, and I commend them for their leadership on this issue and thank them for their consideration for children in need.

Mr. BAIRD. I yield to the gentlewoman from New Jersey.

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

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. Last week, the House was kept in session until 3:00 a.m. waiting to vote on a budget that our side had not even seen and had no part in creating. That is bipartisanship, according to the Republican model. Then we could not consider the bill until this week because of two missing pages. Since then, those two pages have apparently been found, but there are three more important elements missing: Those are honesty, common sense and fairness. The resolution we are considering tonight is missing honesty. It does not include resources necessary to offer seniors a universal voluntary prescription drug benefit under Medicare. In fact, the budget resolution shortens the solvency of the Medicare program. George Bush and his allies in the majority party promised to include prescription drug benefits under Medicare over and over in ad after ad, yet this budget falls woefully and embarrassingly short. This budget is missing common sense. The budget proposes large increases in defense spending but the budget they put forward does not pay for them. In some instances, like paying our soldiers a decent wage, I fully support defense increases. But when it comes to $100 billion missile defense systems, that is not common sense, it is uncommon foolishness. Finally, the resolution is missing fairness. I have written the Tax Deduction Fairness Act of 2001 which would allow taxpayers in States like ours the option to deduct either their State income taxes or their State sales taxes. This would restore fairness to the Tax Code for residents in my State and in the States of Tennessee, Texas, Nevada, Wyoming, Florida and South Dakota. Such proposals as this were not included in this budget. This budget demands that our States subsidize the rest of the tax cuts for the rest of the country. This body deserves better. We deserve true bipartisanship, true discussion, true common sense, and the seniors and children of this country deserve true health care reform. This budget does not provide it. We deserve better.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today as a strong supporter of reforming estate tax. In the past 2\1/2\ years, I have voted for estate tax reform almost every time it was offered on this floor. I even voted to override President Clinton's veto of the bill. But since then there have been significant changes in our economy and in the tax proposals before this body. This administration, the Bush administration, has put all of its political muscle behind a $1.6 trillion tax cut. The House has already used $958 billion of this amount by approving income tax rate cuts, and we have used an additional $399 billion to fix the marriage penalty and phase in an increase in the child tax credit. Together, these bills have chewed up more than $1.36 trillion, 84 percent of the total tax cut proposed by the President. Mr. Speaker, I will say right now that I think the administration's overall proposal is too large. It is too large because we do not know whether today's surpluses will be there tomorrow, and there are other tax changes which are sure to come before this body which will cost billions more. What are we going to do to correct the problems associated with the alternative minimum tax? What are we going to do about making permanent the R&D tax credit? What do we do about fixing other unfair aspects of the Tax Code, like reinstating the sales tax deduction? If we want to talk about real unfairness, let us reinstate sales tax deductibility to establish fairness for Washington State residents and the residents of six other States who have no income tax but pay sales taxes and cannot deduct them from their Federal return. Today's bill should also be about fairness. The estate tax should not burden small business, small farms and individuals who have accumulated sizable assets through years of hard work. I am frustrated that some in Congress are playing numbers games because this bill that we passed today does not solve the problem quickly enough for many folks in my district. The bulk of the estate tax bill that we passed today will not be felt for 10 years. Then what happens in 10 years? The baby boom generation retires, and we have increases in our needs for Social Security and Medicare. It is unclear to me why the majority has not and will not look at other legislative proposals to solve the estate tax problems. I am frustrated with the ``my way or the highway'' approach that they have taken. That is why earlier today I voted against the rule on this bill. We should have had more and better options to choose from. It should not just be a coin toss. The Democrats put forward a bill that would take care of the estate problem today for more than 99 percent of all Americans. I do not think that bill was perfect, but I think it contained some good ideas. And I do think if we took the best parts of the Republican bill, the best parts of the Democratic bill, cleaned up some problems, we could have had something we all supported. But that does not seem to be the way we do business around here these days. When I came to this body, we elected a Speaker who pledged bipartisan; we elected a President recently who pledged bipartisanship, but we are not seeing it. Here was an opportunity for true bipartisanship, to get together, draw the best of both bills from both parties and come up with a real solution. Mr. Speaker, this takes a personal note for me. A month and a half ago my father passed away. One of the last things he said to me, quite literally one of the last things, was, ``Son, I'm concerned about repealing the estate tax. I worry that we risk concentrating wealth too heavily in this country.'' Two days ago I met with the owners of a Toyota dealership who told me, ``Congressman, we are concerned that if we have too exorbitant an estate tax, we won't be able to pass our dealership on to our kids and their families.'' I met with George and Peggy Thoeni, family farmers in my district, who have worked their whole life to build a family farm, and they want to pass that on to their children. Mr. Speaker, my father was right. So are George and Peggy Thoeni, and so are Marvin and Shirley McChord. We desperately need to reform the estate tax, but we must not do so in a way that concentrates wealth inordinately in our country and jeopardizes our financial future. Today, I voted for both the Democratic alternative and for final passage on the final bill, but we could have done better, Mr. Speaker. In true bipartisanship we could have come together, before the bills came here, and we could have crafted something that protects family businesses and small farms today, not 10 years down the road; that does not add new burdensome regulatory complications to the Tax Code; that does not allow the very, very wealthiest people in this country to pass their estates on with no tax burden whatsoever. We could have done that, but we did not. I would hope that before this bill finally becomes law, we do come together in genuine bipartisanship. In so doing we would honor the wishes of both my father, of George and Peggy Thoeni and the McChords. Let us do this together, and let us do it right. The people deserve our doing so.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Madam Speaker, I rise today to take a moment to observe the 180th anniversary of Greek Independence Day. March 25th, 1821, marked the beginning of the revolution that freed the Greek people from the Ottoman Empire. Indeed, today should be a international celebration not just of Greek freedom and independence, but it should be a celebration democracy throughout the world. History tells us that it was the ancient Greeks who developed the concept of democracy. In itself, democracy was a revolutionary ideal, placing the power to govern in the hands of the people. After 2,500 years, mankind is only beginning to grasp the magnitude of what the ancient Greeks achieved. Through dozens of generations, through the rise and fall of great empires, through wars and plagues, through depressions and economic revolutions, through the triumphs and travails of human affairs, one thing has endured: the dream of democracy. Greek-Americans have enriched our country enormously, in every profession, in every region, in every walk of life. Cities across America take their names from such places as Athens and Corinth and Delphi and Sparta. And of course, our country would not exist if the ancient Greek city- states had not developed the world's most revolutionary idea-- democracy. Our founding fathers studied history closely and revered deeply the works of the ancient Greeks. Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, once observed, ``Greece was the first of civilized nations, presenting examples of what man should be.'' Although democracy is a significant common value that strengthens the bond between the United States and Greece, we must realize there is more to this relationship. Greece's major role in World War II provided tremendous setbacks to the Axis offensive. Furthermore, Greece remained an important ally throughout the Cold War and the struggle to promote our democratic values around the globe. Today, the United States and Greece are leaders in the pursuit to promote democracy, human rights, freedom, and peace. President Clinton referred to Greece as ``a beacon of democracy, a regional leader for stability, prosperity and freedom.'' Greece has been a friend and ally for more than the last century and we will stand by her to peacefully resolve the situation in Cyprus and other challenges that the twenty-first century may bring. So today, I am proud to join with Greek Americans and the Greek people in celebration of Greek Independence Day, reaffirming the democratic principles from which our two nations were born and which have shaped our world. America and Greece have special responsibilities in this quest--the United States as the world's strongest democracy, Greece as the world's first. But if we engage fully in the changing world beyond our borders, we can build a future in which all nations enjoy prosperity, democracy, and peace.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with mixed feelings about the President's tax bill. Make no mistake, I am in favor of cutting taxes; and I support making our Federal tax code more fair. In fact, I have written legislation to reinstate sales tax deductibility. I support elimination of the marriage penalty and reform of estate taxes. While it is important that we provide a tax cut, that tax cut must be passed within the context of a balanced budget. We must pay down the national debt. We must honor our commitment to Social Security and Medicare, and we must make important investments in education, health and defense. Those priorities must not be sacrificed in the name of a tax cut. Under the President's plan, vital programs will have to be cut back, and let me give you a couple of examples: The Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Small Business Administration are right now in my district in Washington State helping people recover from a terrible, devastating earthquake. We must not cut programs to FEMA, to SBA and other critical investments. How many small businesses will not get support if we pass this excessively large tax cut. I support tax cuts, but the President's plan does not do the job the proper way. Support the Democratic alternative. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with mixed feelings about the President's tax relief bill. Make no mistake--I am in favor of cutting taxes and I support making our federal tax code more fair. I not only favor tax cuts and tax fairness, I have written legislation that will reinstate the sales tax deduction for citizens of states that do not have an income tax. I support relief for those penalized by the marriage tax. I support estate tax relief. I support tax cuts that will benefit each and every American. However, we in Congress have a duty to have an honest, thoughtful debate on the consequences of a tax cut as large as the one we are considering today, and that has not happened. While it's important that we provide a tax cut, I feel strongly that such tax relief must be passed within the context of a balanced budget--we must be able to pay down the national debt, we must be able to honor and strengthen our commitment to Social Security and Medicare, and we must be able to make important investments in education, health, conservation, and defense. These priorities cannot be sacrificed. I also believe it is unwise for the House to pass a large tax cut before we pass a budget. It just doesn't make sense to talk about spending trillions of dollars on a tax cut before we have established a budget that takes into account both spending and revenues. No small business could operate that way; no family could sustain that kind of spending--and we in Congress shouldn't do it either. As I said before, I support eliminating the marriage tax. I support changing the estate tax system. I want to restore fairness to the tax code by restoring the sales tax deduction. But the bill before us makes none of those changes. And worse, I am afraid that passage of this bill will cause serious hardships for residents of my home state. Under the President's plan, the Commerce Department, the Transportation Department, the Corps of Engineers and the Small Business Administration will all have to be cut back--some drastically--to pay for this tax bill. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which was sent into action just last week in my district following a devastating earthquake, is one of those agencies slated for a number of deep cuts. Let me tell you, we cannot afford to strip down agencies like FEMA, because if your home or business is wiped out in an earthquake, I don't care how big a tax cut you get, you're going to need agencies like FEMA and SBA to be there to help you rebuild your neighborhood and to rebuild your life. How many small businesses won't get the SBA loan they need to stay in business? How many construction projects will the Corps of Engineers have to defer or abandon because they don't have adequate funding to move forward? How many roads and bridges will fall into disrepair because we could not fund transportation projects? For these reasons, although I support fair and reasonable tax cuts that would stimulate the economy, I must oppose the tax bill before us today. Mr. Speaker, when we make a rush to judgment, we can place vital programs at-risk. When we spend $1.6 trillion or more without a budget to show us the impact of that spending, we place our nation's future at risk. Vote no on this bill today and let's bring up a tax relief bill that we can all stand behind.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this legislation. It is bad for workers. It is bad for America. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Disapproval Resolution for OSHA Ergonomics Rule, which threatens the health and safety of our nation's workforce. Each year, more than 650,000 American workers suffer from work related musculoskeletal disorders caused by repetitive motion and overexertion. These are hardly minor aches and pains. These are serious, disabling conditions that have extensive impacts on workers' lives, and are estimated to cost the American public something in the realm of $40-$50 billion a year. The lives of workers who suffer from carpal tunnel syndrome, tendinitis, back injuries or other similar injuries, as a result of unsafe workplace conditions, are changed forever. Frequently, they lose their jobs, become permanently unemployed, or are forced to take severe pay cuts to continue working. These injuries destroy lives and they destroy families--and it's simply unacceptable. I want to emphasize to my colleagues that, as a scientist and a clinician, I am dogged in demanding strong, peer-reviewed science in making important public health decisions. OSHA's ergonomics standard, issued on November 14, 2000, is critically important to working men and women. The standard is based on voluminous evidence, sound science and good employer practices and should not be repealed. This rule may not be perfect, but I can tell you that this rule is far better than the alternative. This is a common sense measure to help prevent the suffering of American workers, while at the same time saving the American taxpayers billions of dollars. I urge my colleagues to resist efforts to repeal this vital worker safety rule--and to oppose this resolution that prevents OSHA from implementing an ergonomic standard.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that will help restore tax fairness to millions of people in my State of Washington and throughout the country. Joining me in this effort today is the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement), my good friend and colleague, who has been instrumental in helping draft this legislation. The problem we are referring today to, Mr. Speaker, is a basic unfairness in the current Tax Code. In my home State of Washington and in other States, such as Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming, a State sales tax takes the place of a State income tax as the primary means for raising revenue. Every year in April, taxpayers send their tax returns to the IRS. It is a ritual to which all Americans have become accustomed. Although we do not always like it, we realize it is part of our duties to the country. But the ritual brings added frustration for taxpayers in my State who feel cheated by what they pay into the Federal Treasury. A taxpayer of identical income and expense in almost any other State would be able to deduct the amount that they pay their State in income tax; but in Washington, we cannot do that. Folks in my State have the same amount withheld from their paychecks; but when they itemize their taxes, they deduct a significantly lesser amount. Because of the tax reforms of 1986 when lawmakers decided to remove the deduction for sales tax, Washingtonians were shortchanged. In fact, the Congressional Research Service estimates that Washington State taxpayers are penalized to the tune of $450 million every year when compared to their neighbors. Should residents of Washington and the other States with sales taxes pay hundreds of dollars more to the Federal Treasury than States which choose to tax residents through income taxes? Of course not. Federal taxes should be levied on all of our Nation's citizens in a fair and equitable manner that does not give preference to one State or another. That is why, along with the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement), I am introducing today legislation to correct this inequity. Our bill, the Tax Deduction Fairness Act of 2001, would reinstate the sales tax deduction and direct the IRS to develop tables of average sales tax liabilities for taxpayers in every State. It would then give the taxpayer the option to deduct either their State sales tax or their State income tax when they file their Federal return. The bill will not make the State or the Federal Income Tax Code more complicated. In fact, it will add one simple line and take about 60 seconds to complete. I do not know about my colleagues, but taking 60 seconds to look on a simple chart in a way that would save me $400 to $500 a year is a pretty good investment in time. Adding that line will save hundreds of millions of dollars for American taxpayers every year, and it is all about fundamental fairness. Let me give my colleagues a couple of very real human examples. Brian and Cathy Lux and their three kids, Carissa, Devon and Tristian, live in Brush Prairie, just outside my home town of Vancouver, Washington. Brian is a finance manager for a local auto dealership, and his wife, Cathy, is a licensed home care provider. All told, the Luxes make between $70,000 to $80,000 a year, not a huge amount for a family of five. Working with the IRS, my office estimates that the Luxes paid an average of about $1,700 in sales taxes last year, but they were able to deduct none of it from their Federal return. However, under our bill, they would get nearly $500 of their tax money back. For Brian and Cathy, that $500 would be nearly a month's worth of groceries; or when their kids get a little older, it would be a semester of tuition at the local community college. Mr. Speaker, now is the time to fix this inequity in the Federal Tax Code for all Brian and Cathy Luxes and for all of the similar families throughout the country. The new administration campaigned on fair and just tax relief, and I support that promise. But I cannot think of anything more fair than the bill that the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement) and I are introducing today. If we penalize people for being married, so too it must be unjust to penalize people for living in States that opt to tax their citizens through a sales tax. I welcome the bipartisan spirit of the new administration, and I urge members to support this legislation that is all about fairness and simplicity and will help working families throughout this country. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement).

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee, and I want to commend him for his efforts on this bill and for his fight for fairness for his citizens. It really is this simple. What we propose is to have the IRS create simple tables. A person will not have to save their receipts in a shoe box or keep track of all their expenditures. They will simply look on a simple table. On the left column is their income, the top row is the family size. They will find where that intersects and that is the amount they put on their tax form. Literally, 30 seconds to a minute for fundamental fairness, for a bill that will save the average working family, who itemizes their deductions, between $300 to $500 every year. The $500 million that Washington State taxpayers paid to the Federal treasury could have been spent on their families, their kids' educations, and in a lot of other ways. I am sure it is true in Tennessee as well.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for his leadership on this, and my colleagues who are here to speak to this. Mr. Speaker, I did not come to the health care issue as a new Member of Congress because it polled well. I came to Congress as a member of the health care profession because we have a health care crisis. For 23 years before serving in this body, I worked with patients. I was a clinical psychologist. I worked with cancer patients, with head injury patients, with folks with severe mental illness. I can tell my colleagues that, when we talk about 44 million uninsured Americans, 11 million uninsured children, those are not just numbers, those translate into real human lives. I have worked with patients who put off needed health care. By the time they came to us, their disease had progressed so far, there was nothing more we could do. I have been by their bedside as they died. This is not a political issue. It is not something for rhetorical flourish. It is a day-to-day matter of life and death for American people. This Congress has named post offices. This Congress has passed resolutions on this and that. But this Congress has yet to pass a real Patients' Bill of Rights, a Patients' Bill of Rights that lets one choose one's health care provider, puts medical decisions in the hands of medical professionals, and holds insurance companies accountable when they deny one care. This Congress has not passed that bill. Part of the reason we have not passed that bill is we have also not passed campaign finance reform. We have had a chance, but it has been held up again, two critical bills that could have passed. The reason we cannot pass the Patients' Bill of Rights is the special interests who do not want to see that pass, who make money off other people suffering, have so heavily invested in certain campaigns that we will not even bring it to a serious discussion in the conference committee. This Congress has not addressed pharmaceutical costs. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) talked about the Republican plan as the Marie Antoinette plan, very apt prescription. I call it the placebo plan. Placebos, as my colleagues know, are medications or pseudo- medications designed to make one feel better if one believes they work, but they have no real effect. They are sugar pills. Congress should not be passing sugar pills. The American people deserve better than placebos. The only bill we have managed to bring up is a placebo bill that resulted from polling that said the following: you have got to do something because the American people think there is a need for pharmaceutical benefits. But it does not matter what you do, so long as you say you care. Saying you care and showing you care are different things. This body is in session still. We have set a record, I understand, one of the longest sessions of Congress in an election year. But in that time we have taken, that extended time, we have passed no Patients' Bill of Rights, no real pharmaceutical benefits. We have not done anything substantive to reduce the numbers of uninsured children and uninsured seniors in this country. Our rural hospitals, Mr. Speaker, are suffering. There is a little bitty hospital named Morton General in a little mountain town, a timber town that has been pretty hard hit over the years. The winter weather is hitting Washington State right now up in the Cascades. That town is an hour away from any trauma center. If a woman has a complicated pregnancy, or a logger sustains a serious ailment, that is the only hospital within an hour they can get to. With that winter weather, one is not going to be able to get a life flight up there. This week we passed a bill before this Congress that will not do what we need to do to protect our rural hospitals. It will not do what we need to do to protect our urban and suburban hospitals. It will not do what we need to do to protect our home health agencies. We passed it for the same reason we passed the placebo prescription medication bill, for political purposes, not for health care purposes. That, Mr. Speaker, is wrong. We are in the richest country in the history of the world, the richest country in the history of the world; and 44 million Americans, 11 million children have no health insurance. Senior citizens choose every week whether or not to take their medication or pay their rent. Doctors are leaving our suburban and rural hospitals because they cannot afford to pay back their student loans. It is a disgrace. Mr. Speaker, almost every weekend for the past 2 years, I have flown home to be with my constituents. I have had 103 town meetings. At every one of those, someone has brought me their prescription medication bill and said, please help us with this. I would like to be home in my district right now, not so much because there is an election, but because I would like to be home and listen to my constituents. But if we are here, for goodness sakes let us do something that matters. Let us do something that matters. We are not going to do that. We are going to pass CR after CR after CR. We are not going to do it. It is a shame. The 106th Congress is going to go down as the longest Congress to have done the least in American history. I applaud the leadership of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner). I applaud my Democratic colleagues who have tried to do something really substantive for the American people. I would appeal to this body, in the few days left, let us take a chance and work together and solve at least some of these problems, a Patients' Bill of Rights, a pharmaceutical benefit, real help for our rural hospitals, not a give-back to HMOs, but real help for our hospitals.

Mr. BAIRD. I will be fairly briefly. Most Americans do not realize it, but there is a tremendous inequity in Medicare compensation in our country today and it works like this: all Americans pay the exact same amount of money into Medicare as a percentage of their salary. But not all Americans receive the same benefit. Depending on where you live in this country, you may receive pharmaceutical benefits, eyeglasses, hearing aids in one part of the country under Medicare, but in another part of the country you may receive none of those benefits and pay a supplemental premium and have to pay copays. This inequity, more than anything else I believe is what we should be correcting in these so- called BBA fixes that we have been trying to pass in the last week, but this bill that came before us this week did not adequately address it. It was painful for many of us who know the desperate straits of our hospitals, who know the desperate straits of our rural health care communities and who also would like to see a minimum wage increase passed to have to vote against that bill because it did not do enough to restore fundamental fairness and equity to the Medicare compensation system. Neither did it do enough to protect our home health agencies, nor did it protect and promise that the money that went to the HMOs would actually get to our hospitals. I applaud the leadership of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) in raising these issues and thank him for his efforts and leadership on this.

Mr. BAIRD

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

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3312, the Merit System Protection Board Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1999. This bipartisan legislation would establish a 3-year alternative dispute resolution pilot program. Under the terms of the bill, Federal agencies and employees would be given assistance in voluntarily resolving personnel action and disputes in administrative agencies through mediation, arbitration and mini trials or combinations of these procedures. Although formal hearings and litigation are available to both Federal agencies and employees, these methods are often expensive and lengthy. By contrast, the voluntary dispute resolution process offers a potentially less costly alternative system that can encourage examine compromise and settlement. Under the legislation, matters such as removals, suspensions, reduction in pay and pay grade, furlough and performance actions may all be addressed outside the formal court system. This legislation would not replace litigation but simply offer a voluntary early intervention program. It is the intent of the legislation to provide ADR on a voluntary basis and not compromise or modify contractual or collective bargaining rights of Federal employees. This bipartisan bill is an excellent example of a method that will relieve the burdened legal system of matters that may be more easily and more effectively resolved using a nonadversarial approach. I would also note that, under the manager's amendment, administrative judges of the Merit Systems Protection Board will receive an increase in compensation to account for their expanded duties under this bill. This is designed to help ensure that we can recruit and retain these highly qualified judicial officials. I strongly support H.R. 3312 and urge my fellow Members to vote yes on this legislation.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be here today on the floor of the House as we take up this important legislation to provide tax fairness for thousands of hard-working Americans in my home State of Washington and throughout this Nation. While most interstate transportation workers are exempt from taxation by States other than that of their residence, those working on vessels operating on interstate waterways are subject to contradictory laws that are difficult to apply. Consequently, a number of waterway employees who are residents of Washington have been sent notices from other States seeking to collect thousands of dollars in presumably delinquent taxes for which they may not be responsible under Federal law. I am speaking today about river pilots, I am talking about men and women who work on barges, and I am talking about hard-working boat crew members who do an honest day's work and want a fair shake when it comes to paying their taxes. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned that, under current tax law, a significant number of interstate waterway employees who are employed on vessels that operate on the Columbia River or the Snake River and many other inland waterways throughout this Nation are being unfairly taxed for their labor. When truck drivers, railway workers, or aviation employees go about their jobs, all of which require them to conduct work in States other than their home States, Congress has seen fit to grant them an exemption for this type of unfair taxation unless a majority of the work is performed in another State. Interstate transportation workers, including those employed by interstate railway carriers, motor carriers, water carriers, and air carriers who are engaged in interstate commerce, were first protected from unfair taxation by multiple States in 1970. In 1990, Congress took additional steps to prohibit States from taxing the income of interstate rail and motor carrier workers, except those States where the employee resides. A similar limitation exists on States' rights to tax employees of interstate air carriers engaged in interstate transportation duties. An airline pilot, for example, is subject to taxation by the State in which the pilot resides, period. This restriction, for all practical purposes, exempts airline employees from multiple taxation. However, interstate water carriers, bargemen, tug boat operators, river boat pilots, ferry operators, et cetera, for some reason, these folks have been treated differently. Mr. Speaker, we can fix this problem today. Over the past 30 years, Congress has addressed inequities in the Tax Code when it dealt with interstate transportation employees. I am asking my colleagues today to again take action to correct this problem. The legislation we put forward is not complex legislation. It is very straightforward. It is not lengthy. It is a two-page bill. But it is good legislation, and it is needed legislation. As we consider the legislation today, there is another voice I would like to bring to the floor, and that is the voice of Captain Robert Nelson. In late 1998, Captain Nelson got some bad news. He got several pieces of bad news. First, his wife was seriously injured in a car wreck. Then a couple months later, Captain Nelson himself was diagnosed with terminal lung and brain cancer. He was given, at the time, 3 months to live. That is a heavy enough load. But on his way to the mailbox, he then received a letter from the Oregon Department of Revenue that he was to pay a $78,000 back tax bill to a State that he had not really set foot in the course of his work. Captain Nelson was assessed those costs, not because he lived or worked in Oregon, but because he worked in a river system. I would ask Members of this body to put themselves in that family's shoes for just a minute, to ask themselves how they would feel if, on top of worrying about their wife, their family, their own health, they had to then pay an exorbitant tax bill to a State they did not work in. Things like that should not happen in America. Mr. Speaker, with my colleagues help, we can do something about it. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this bipartisan bill to ensure tax fairness for transportation workers. I am proud of the steps we have taken to get here today. This is a bipartisan bill. It is a fair and needed bill. I would like to thank those who have been involved. Senator Gorton in the other body introduced legislation shortly after I dropped the bill in the House. Our bill also received a committee hearing from the Committee on the Judiciary, and I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Gekas) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), ranking member, for their support and assistance, as well as the able staff, Rob Tracci and the committee's minority staffer, Dave Lachman. They also did a very good job of putting the hearing together, and I want to say thanks for their efforts. I would like to thank the chairmen and ranking members of both full committees and subcommittees to which the bill was referred: the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) of the Committee on the Judiciary; and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. I would like to also particularly thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrist) also Mr. Ward McCarragher of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for his work and Mr. Turton and Mr. Boyle for their work. Today we have an opportunity to restore simple fairness to our Tax Code. I urge passage of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I rise very briefly to commend the sponsor of the legislation. Before coming to Congress, I was a clinical psychologist. In psychology we make extensive use of chimpanzees and other primates in research, and it is incumbent upon us to care for the animals that serve us well in providing research and critical data to advance human health. I want to commend the sponsor of the bill and other cosponsors of this critical piece of legislation, and I urge its passage.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, school-based health centers provide a valuable service for the youth of America. Students across this country rely on their parents for critical advice, judgement and emotional support. However, for the small percentage of children who are not fortunate enough to have an involved parent, school-based health centers become vital for the welfare of those kids and the community they serve. We have to admit to ourselves that some parents do not live up to their responsibility. Far too many children today are the product of neglect, bad parenting, and broken homes. Therefore, many local communities have decided to play a positive role in the lives of these students by offering them an opportunity to seek help from school-based health centers. Mr. Coburn's motion prohibits any federal funding for emergency contraception provided to elementary and secondary school-based health clinics. Contrary to our shared national goal of reducing unintended pregnancies, this motion tries to confuse abortion with preventative contraception. Emergency contraception can be used after having unprotected sex or if a method of birth control fails and a woman does not want to become pregnant. This procedure, which has been deemed safe and effective by the Food and Drug Administration, prevents pregnancy. It does not abort pregnancy. Mr. Speaker, I would like to note one thing for the record. I do not advocate the federal government funding these programs at the elementary school level. But because this motion overreaches and includes secondary schools as well, I can not support the Coburn amendment in its current form. Local school-based health centers were established by community representatives, parents, youth and family organizations to address the needs within their community. These centers provide a confidential, safe place for teens to receive health-care services and related counseling. Although pregnancy is a serious mater which should be dealt with in a family environment, I feel school-based health clinics offer a necessary option to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, it is right that this body address the problem of prescription medications. It is far past time. I have worked on this issue since I came to this Congress. But as we do so, we must not make the mistake of perpetuating and exacerbating a fundamental inequity in the Medicare system right now. That inequity is this: although every single American pays into the rate at the same payroll rate, we actually receive differential benefits depending upon where we live, such that small urban, suburban and rural hospitals in my district are closing; people are doing without benefits while beneficiaries elsewhere in the country are receiving prescription drug benefits already. This is wrong. The Republican bill is a placebo bill. It makes one feel good if they believe in it, but it does nothing of substance. We must redress the inequities in the AAPCC rates.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon). My concern is this: I appreciate the sincere effort to reduce the damage to the existing areas, but there are, however, very precious and unique lands that are currently left out of this legislation and that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) would address. My fear is we do not address that. And my other fear, as I understand the legislation proposed, is it would manage areas at current management levels, but not at more potentially restrictive designations. Mr. Chairman, I think we need to make sure that two things happen: we restrain and restrict and stop the destruction currently caused by ORVs in the existing and proposed areas and that we expand those areas recognized for their unique features. It is indeed the area that the gentleman represents, and I respect that very much. But it is also an area cherished and regarded by the entire country as a unique national resource. That is why we are here today to speak on their behalf, the U.S. Congress speaking on behalf of that.