Brian Baird

Mr. BAIRD

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

Mr. BAIRD. I move to strike the requisite number of words, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this is an issue of profound importance to me. I actually grew up in the Slick Rock country of southwestern Colorado, a little tiny place called Fruita. There is also a Fruita, Utah, which I know well. I went to the University of Utah for undergraduate school, and the University of Wyoming for graduate school. I respect very much the efforts of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle today to try to resolve what is admittedly a complex and difficult issue. But I feel the need to put it into context. As we talk here on the floor of the House and as we look, if we walk back and forth from our offices with the cacaphony of noise, cars, taxis, whatnot, in southern Utah today there is profound silence. The areas we are talking about have a silence which most Americans cannot imagine. It is a silence that is breathtaking, a silence that is awe- inspiring, a silence which must be preserved. When we take someone, as I have on several occasions, for hikes there, they are profoundly moved, moved in ways that we cannot describe in the debate on the floor, moved in ways that we cannot put in words in the language of legislation, but moved in ways which we must protect and preserve, because they touch at the very heart of our souls. They touch at the heart of our being. They touch at the heart of what is great about America. This legislation we are talking about, the Udall amendment, is designed to do fundamentally this: to preserve that option for current generations, and to study ways in which it can be preserved for future generations. The other thing that is happening in southern Utah today, even as we speak, is that ORVs and other activities are, in some cases willfully, in some cases inadvertently, intruding upon areas that by rights, by qualifications, should be designated as wilderness. We need to stop that. There are places, Mr. Chairman, where we are not allowed to tread, because to tread on something would be to tread on sacred ground. To intrude the noise and the destruction that currently is happening in parts of this wilderness area or potential wilderness area should not be allowed. I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall). I would like to take every Member of this body on a 3- or 4- or 5-day trip to understand what happens, how transformational it is to go to those lands. Not everybody here can do that, but I would invite them to do that. And I strongly urge support for the Udall amendment.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I came before this body about a month ago to address the problem of prescription medications, which my colleagues were addressing. I pledged at that time to go back to my district and carry the voices of the people of my district back to this body. What we did was we visited senior citizen centers; and we asked the people there, please share with us your personal stories, your stories of what you are paying for prescription medications. We asked them to bring in their prescriptions, bring in their receipts. I can tell my colleagues the stories they told were tremendously moving. This pill bottle symbolizes the rising costs of prescription medication. Let me share with my colleagues a couple stories. A woman from Cinebar, Washington, who told me that they make just barely under $1,000 they receive in their Social Security and other benefits, but they pay well over $500, $500 in prescription medication costs. Another woman who had been monitoring the bimonthly bill she is paying for her medications for the last year, in one year, she saw a 20 percent increase, a 20 percent increase in one year in the drug costs. My own father who shared with me that a pill he took 8 years ago had cost $1 a pill at that time now costs $4 a pill. That is 400 percent inflation in 8 years. Mr. Speaker, this body has been in session now about 16, 17 months. We have named post offices. We have done some worthy things for sure. But we have not addressed this absolutely critical issue. While American citizens are doing without the medications that their physicians have prescribed, this body has not acted. It is time to act. We are capable of acting. We need to do two things. We need to cap the rising costs of prescription medications. It is just not right for our senior citizens to travel to Mexico or to Canada to buy medications that they cannot afford within their own country, even though those very medications were funded by their taxpayer dollars. It is even worse when seniors who cannot make that journey do without the medications they need, medications to improve the quality of their lives, medications to save their lives. But they are faced with that terrible choice between paying the rent or paying for their medication. The current policy is not acceptable. It is not acceptable to put American citizens in that condition. It is not effective because, when seniors do without their medication today, we will pay higher costs tomorrow. So the first thing we must do is cap the rising costs of prescription medication, and there are various ways to do it. But I call on this body today. Let us work together. This is not a partisan issue. It does not matter whether a senior citizen is a Democrat or a senior citizen is a Republican. They are entitled to be able to take the medication their doctor says they need. The second thing we must do is establish a meaningful and affordable prescription Medicare benefit so that senior citizens can pool their resources and have predictable manageable costs when it comes time to get a prescription filled by their doctor. This pill bottle is filled, not just with receipts, but with personal stories, stories of people who are suffering, stories of people who depend on medication to alleviate that suffering. Mr. Speaker, I call upon this body tonight and in the remaining months of this Congress to hear the pleas of the constituents of my district and the constituents throughout this country. Do not let prescription medications continue to grow larger as this pill bottle indicates. Let us work together; let us stop the rising escalation of prescription medication costs. Let us work together and establish a real and effective and affordable prescription medication benefit.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate one of the most significant geological events in the history of our country and in my home state, the eruption of Mount St. Helens. Twenty years ago today, on May 18, 1980, the peaceful northwest sky was rocked by an explosion comparable to that of 500 atomic bombs. The blast transformed more than 200 square miles of Pacific Northwest forest into a gray, lifeless landscape, and it triggered the largest known landslide in history, completely burying Spirit Lake and the Toutle River. Fifty-seven men and women lost their lives, hundreds of homes and cabins were destroyed, and our region incurred more than $3 billion in damage. If you ask folks today in the Pacific Northwest for a list of the most memorable events in their lifetime, there is no question that the eruption of Mount St. Helens would rank right at the top of many lists. For that reason, I am deeply honored to come before this body today to pass on this message and to participate in today's events commemorating the 20th anniversary of the eruption of what is now a national treasure. Mount St. Helens has always played a significant role in our region. Before the eruption, many families spent their summers at the recreation areas surrounding the mountain, where they would camp, hike and fish. In the year before the eruption, the Forest Service estimated more than half a million people visited the Mount St. Helens/Spirit Lake area. Few people at the time realized or could have predicted the awesome, majestic, primal and dreadful power that the eruption would soon provide. After the eruption of 1980, in 1982 the U.S. Congress created the 110,000 acre National Volcanic Monument to serve as a center for research, education and recreation. Inside the Mount St. Helens monument, the environment is left to respond naturally to the disturbance brought about by the eruption. Now, 20 years later, the land around the mountain is slowly healing itself. Nature is covering the scars of the eruption and the native plants and animals are beginning to thrive again. Mount St. Helens is now a place where tens of thousands of visitors flock every year from across the country and from around the world to witness both the destructive power and the healing power of nature. Local residents and businesses in Clark, Skamania, Lewis and Cowlitz Counties are all present and available for visitors to enjoy this wonderful facility, and they have really responded well and transformed this region to celebrate what is now, as I mentioned earlier, a treasure. People often ask me, what did we learn from the eruption of Mount St. Helens? Clearly, we have learned many scientific things, but I also think the eruption of Mount St. Helens has taught us two lessons that humankind too often forgets, the lessons of humility and of cooperation. No one that remembers the sight of 400 million tons of earth and rock being thrown into the sky can fail to understand man's small place in the universe, and everyone who visits Mount St. Helens Monument today soon realizes the level of dedication, hard work and cooperation it has taken to rebuild the area and the communities. Much of our State's growth and history, from its early exploration and settlement to the construction of the northern railroad and the massive hydroelectric system, to the creation of the national monument built on the blast site of volcanoes, are the result of a farsighted, courageous and cooperative thinking and working people. Citizens of the Pacific Northwest, who, in the words of Captain George Vancouver, ``Attempt to enrich nature by the industry of man,'' have set aside their differences and joined forces to make our region one of the most beautiful and welcoming places in America. I am confident that those who visit Mount St. Helens this year and all of those who visit the mountain in the next 20 years will make even greater strides in reawakening the beauty of Mount St. Helens, and will make Washington State an even greater place to live, work and visit. I invite people from throughout this country to come see what is an amazing geological marvel. You will find friendly, helpful local natives, willing to assist you, to make sure your visit is pleasurable and enjoyable, and you will see one of the most incredible sites in North America, Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, this week we celebrate National Teacher's Appreciation Day, and today I personally recognize some of the remarkable educators who have had a profound affect on the lives of children throughout my district. I have had the opportunity to visit over 200 classrooms in my district since my election to Congress, and I can tell you the teachers I recognize today are just a small sampling of the innovative teaching, academic leadership, energy, and enthusiasm I have seen from educators in so many of the schools in my Southwest Washington district. For educators, teaching at a small, rural, and often underfunded school poses particularly difficult challenges. In the case of 5th and 6th grade teacher Timothy Davis, he has worked tirelessly for sixteen years at Mount Pleasant School in Washougal to overcome the obstacles faced by the school district. During two years when the school district faced financial difficulties and could not afford to keep a full staff, Mr. Davis stepped forward to serve in a dual role of teacher, principal, and superintendent. Tim Davis never puts in less than 12 hours a day, devoting his free time to applying for grants and creating a challenging curriculum for his students. Mr. Davis is praised by his peers for his patience, consideration, and good judgment. Students at Centralia High School are truly lucky to have an enthusiastic science teacher by the name of Henri Weeks. After graduating from Centralia High School, Mr. Weeks returned in 1989 to take the job of his former science teacher. Since that time, Henri Weeks has worked tirelessly to make science fun and interesting for his students. In his spare time, Mr. Weeks has taken part in summer internships at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and has incorporated DNA testing in the schools science lab projects. His students are currently involved in the human genome project (DNA mapping) which is being coordinated by the University of Washington. Henri Weeks is described by his peers a self-less educator that cares a great deal about inspiring his students to achieve greatness. At South Bend High School, Mr. Steve Lazelle is credited for being an outstanding teacher who is in high demand as a presenter on his unique Aquaculture curriculum locally, regionally, and nationally. In 1990, the district was chosen as one of six test sites in the nation to pilot an aquaculture curriculum provided by the National Council for Agricultural Education. Mr. Lazelle is one of the original teaching team members to infuse aquaculture into Agricultural education beginning in a one-room facility with ten students. Today, thanks to Steve's leadership, the program is located at the Port of Willapa Harbor's Port Dock facility with Steve as the only instructor and manager whose enrollment topped out at 83 students. The program raises and sells tilapia fish to the markets of Seattle, and works with the local gill-netters association to raise and release salmon into the Willapa River. Steve Lazelle is acknowledged by his peers as a man who has changed the lives of many of the students who come into contact with him. Jim Van Fleet, a former skilled millwright who worked for Reynolds Aluminum Company in Longview for nearly twenty years, now devotes his life to school children. Mr. Van Fleet has been a volunteer coach for kids in various levels of softball and basketball for all of his life, but recently returned to school and earned a masters in teaching. In 1997, Jim began his teaching career at Caste Rock Middle School where he teaches math and science. Mr. Van Fleet is very popular with his students because of his innovative, stimulating lessons. He has Since 1972, George Simonsen has instilled a love of music in hundreds of students at all levels in the Kelso School District. Under George's direction, The Kelso High School Chamber Orchestra has won three gold medals at international music competitions. In addition, George's orchestras have performed at numerous competitions and events throughout the state and Northwest. Several years ago they performed before an audience of 20,000 school board members at a national convention in Anaheim, California. In addition to being a gifted teacher, Mr. Simonsen is the director of the Southwest Washington Symphony--one of the truly fine small symphony orchestras in the country. Mr. Simonsen is an important part of the Kelso team, using music as a tool to support learning, willingly accepting extra work, and bringing enthusiasm to all of the activities in which he participates. Mary Holmberg masterfully teaches a sixth grade classroom at Meadows Elementary School in Lacey. Besides her exceptional work in her own classroom with diverse students, Ms. Holmberg has been a key leader in implementing new math and science curriculums in the school district. Mary devotes numerous hours of her free time to working with math and science teachers throughout the school district and to helping lead after school programs for students. Mary teaches a double class of math students every day in order to help out a visually impaired teacher. Additionally, Ms. Holmberg is always available both before and after school hours to help students with their work. A teacher at Elma Elementary School for seventeen years, Carol Boyer believes in relevant, exciting, and fun learning experiences for her fifth grade students. A study of astronomy includes a sleep over to view the heavens. A study of the Oregon Trail includes the construction of a wagon train, formation of families, and a simulation of the life along the trail. To bring animal life close to her students, Carol is working with a master birder to create an environment that attracts species of birds at the school site. She is currently creating a unit of study on the Osprey for student research to answer the question, ``Why are the eggshells of the Osprey becoming thinner and how does it affect their survival?'' In the midst of school reforms, Carol teaches to the Essential Academic Learning Requirements in a way that is engaging, thought provoking, and hands-on. Mr. Speaker, I could go on for hours about the remarkable teachers who are impacting students throughout my district every day. Today, however, I can only highlight a few of the amazing, generous individuals who are giving selflessly of themselves to help our children succeed. As Teacher Appreciation Day comes to a close, I would implore residents in my district and parents throughout America to thank their child's teacher for providing the most valuable gift their child will ever receive, the gift of knowledge.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I come before the House today to talk about one of the most serious issues affecting senior citizens and families across the country. That is the skyrocketing cost of prescription drugs and the lack of affordable health coverage for seniors. Too many of our Nation's senior citizens are forced to make an impossible choice each month about whether they buy the food they need, pay to heat their homes, or pay for the prescription medication that will keep them alive and keep them healthy. Mr. Speaker, in the richest country in the history of the world, it is simply wrong to force our senior citizens to make that choice. I am sure Members have noticed this giant pill bottle. The size of this pill bottle reflects the escalating costs of prescription medications in our country. Mr. Speaker, next week I will travel throughout my district and invite senior citizens to bring to me their prescription medications, their prescriptions, and the bills they pay for them. Mr. Speaker, we are going to fill this prescription bottle with those medication receipts, and we are going to bring it back to this body and demand action. Mr. Speaker, too many senior citizens in this country are making a choice, a terrible choice that they should not have to make. This body has now been in session more than 15 months. We have talked about naming post offices, we have traveled back and forth across the country to vote on silly suspension bills, in some cases. What have we not voted on? We have not voted on any substantive legislation, not one piece of substantive legislation to lower the cost of prescription medications or to provide meaningful health insurance to our senior citizens. Mr. Speaker, we must not apply a placebo false fix to this problem. We must provide a real prescription on the House of Representatives to solve a real problem that is affecting our senior citizens' health and well-being every day. Mr. Speaker, when I am in my district next week, I want hundreds of senior citizens to come out. I want to share with Members a story. We asked many of our seniors to share with us what they are paying for prescription medication. I was particularly moved by the story of Ms. Gwen Blackman of Longview. This is what she wrote to me recently. She is receiving $650 per month for social security disability payments, but Mr. Speaker, she must pay $360 of that per month for prescription medications. How does she do that? Mr. Speaker, she does not do that. What she is forced to do is, on some months, go without her medication. The richest country in the history of the world, we have senior citizens not able to pay for the medication they need because we have done nothing to control the escalating costs of prescription medications, and we have done nothing substantive to provide meaningful, meaningful and real affordable health insurance that includes prescription medications for our seniors. This House has before it several bills. I am not taking a position tonight on exactly which bill we must pass. But, Mr. Speaker, we must have this debate, and we must not pass a placebo designed to make us feel like we have done something without doing something. I hope senior citizens from around this country will look at this giant prescription bottle and say I am going to follow the example of that Member of Congress, I am going to send my Member my prescription medication bottles. I am going to send them the receipts and say, ``Sir or Madam, what would you do if you were in my shoes, and what will you do as an elected Representative to solve this problem.''

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to an outstanding institution of higher education located in Washington's Third Congressional District. This month we celebrate the 75th anniversary of the founding of Centralia College in Centralia, Washington. Throughout its proud history as the oldest continuously operating community college in the State of Washington, Centralia College has consistently demonstrated a deep commitment to learning. I am proud of Centralia's novel programming and flexible learning options. These features reveal that at Centralia, scholarship is indeed a priority. In addition to its 44 associate degree and 14 certificate programs, Centralia offers several invaluable courses of study for the Southwest Washington community. The continuing Education Department provides community classes and business training classes, helping people learn new skills at any age. The workforce training and worker retraining courses teach essential job skills. These skills help the unemployed find new work and they help those facing the possibility of layoffs enhance their existing skills. Centralia also offers farm study and ranch and record keeping study to help our agricultural leaders of today and tomorrow. One of Centralia's most innovative programs targets gifted high school students. Participation in their ``Running Start'' program allows 11th and 12th grade students to get the opportunity to take college level classes for both high school and college credit. Not only does this program provide challenges to students to achieve, but it allows them to do so free of charge. Through school district and State payment plans, Centralia ensures that all students get an equal chance to participate. In addition to providing financial support, Centralia offers other areas to expand access to higher education. Their comprehensive distance learning campaign offers students all of the benefits of attending college, even if they cannot physically attend. From correspondence courses to videotape lectures or telecourses, to on-line classes, to interactive video programs, Centralia will find a way to teach eager students, regardless of their location. For the 3,000 students enrolled, Centralia's serious educational commitment translates into results. Recently, for example, 9 of the 11 Centralia graduates who interviewed at the Intel company earned positions on the staff. Recruiters of such technology firms regularly visit Centralia, saying they always look forward to seeing the high quality of candidates who come from that college. They go on to say that the students' capability is a reflection of both a high quality college and a high quality electronics department. As we move into the 21st Century, the superiority of Centralia's technology education can only serve to benefit both students and employers. Another benefit to students emphasized by the Centralia administration, faculty, and staff is diversity. Recognizing the need for students to interact with people of different cultures and backgrounds, Centralia strives to incorporate diversity into its student body and programs wherever possible. The college knows that exposing its students to diverse ideas and people will enhance their educational experience. In today's increasingly close-knit and diverse world, bringing together people from different backgrounds is a necessity, not a luxury. Mr. Speaker, education is a necessity for all Americans. It prepares young people to face the challenge of the future, and makes the lives of older Americans more fulfilling. For the past 75 years, Centralia College has prepared its students to be the leaders of tomorrow, and, for that, we all owe Centralia College our gratitude and our congratulations. I urge my colleagues in the 106th Congress to join me today in paying special tribute to this outstanding college, and may its next 75 years of service be every bit as successful as the first.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim my special order time now.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, we are a Nation of laws. Without a codified, uniform, and fairly administered systems of laws, American society would be harmed, lives would be ruined and businesses would falter and fail. I also know that our system is not perfect. Sometimes it is possible for existing laws to be misapplied or misinterpreted. Sometimes it is possible for reasonable men and women to look at the same set of facts and to simply draw different conclusions. And sometimes our very human and very American desire to side with the little guy overwhelms our objectivity and colors our view of the facts; that I believe is happening in the case of Microsoft versus the Department of Justice. Mr. Speaker, I believe that Microsoft is being unfairly judged, not only in the federal courtroom, but also in the court of public opinion, and I believe this good company stands a chance of being unfairly punished. That is why I am here today to do what I can to stop an injustice from occurring. Microsoft is the great American success story. Today, it is a company whose products have increased the efficiency of our work force immeasurably. It is a company whose products are used and respected worldwide. It is a company who has shared more of its wealth creation with its workers than any other business in this country. It is a company whose founder has made more charitable contributions than any other business leader in the entire world. And this American success story is under attack today, because it wanted to offer better products to its customers in order to stay competitive. That seems absurd to me. Even more absurd is the precedent that this decision would set for all of American business, because the attack on Microsoft is not simply an attack on a single very successful company. It is an attack on the very principles of business competition and technological innovation. It is an attack that threatens to undermine one of the most successful engines of economic growth and technological innovation in our Nation. One of the first rules of business is to anticipate changing markets, to predict what competitors will do, and try to do better. The way to win in a competitive marketplace is to produce better products more quickly and more economically. That is the basis of our free enterprise system. It is why our economy leads the world, and it is why we are the envy of the rest of the world. It is a terribly, terribly serious matter for the government to intrude in that process of healthy competition. And it is simply not acceptable or reasonable for our government to seek to destroy a fundamental engine of our economy. Microsoft is a generous and responsible corporate citizen, one of the most innovative and creative success stories in American history. Microsoft should not be attacked simply because they sought to provide more integrated, advanced, and efficient products to the marketplace, that is what consumers want companies to do. Far from harming consumers, that is what consumers want from products that and the companies that make them. The theory behind antitrust actions is to prevent monopolistic or anticompetitive practices that could stifle development or competition and thereby hurt the consumer. I understand that principle, but the key phrase is thereby hurt the consumer. And what is most important to consider here is not whether there is a specific level of competition, but whether consumers have, in fact, been harmed. It is equally important that we carefully, very carefully, examine the possibility that a proposed response, a proposed response could be more harmful to consumers, more harmful to competition. Let us be clear about something. It is perfectly acceptable to ensure the competition is not unfairly restrained by monopolistic entities. But it is not acceptable, it is not reasonable to use the antitrust process to penalize companies for trying to improve their products for the sake of competitive advantage. If protecting the consumer is the guiding principle behind antitrust proceedings, it is only fair to ask where the consumers have been in all of this. From the time this process began, right up to the present, there has not been an uprising of consumers demanding Microsoft being prosecuted or penalized. In fact, consumers use and benefit from Microsoft products every day. And when it comes to choices, consumers have a multitude of choices of various software systems and operating systems. Competition is alive and well in the software industry. Beyond the matter of choice in consumer satisfaction, it would be difficult to argue that prices have been driven up by Microsoft because every day the price of computer systems and more powerful systems are actually going down. What is really going on? The case against Microsoft is not fundamentally about protecting consumers, it is really about competing businesses in the States in which those businesses reside seeking to get the upper hand on one another by using litigation where innovation has failed, by using the power of the government to usurp the power of the marketplace. Our Federal Government should not be party to this, and our government must not stifle competition in the name of protecting consumers. Break up should not be an option. Mr. Speaker, I have visited Microsoft. I know well the fine work they do, and I know how essential it is for the success of that company that products be integrated. We must not allow break up to harm consumers in the name of protecting them.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my frustration with the fact that while this bill itself is worthy, an essential amendment was denied a hearing today, the amendment by my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett). For months, actually for years, we have heard the solution to campaign finance reform is disclosure. Yet when the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) introduces an amendment calling on disclosure of 527 funds, that amendment is denied consideration. If we asked the American people a couple of questions, although I think we know the answers, if we asked them, Do you think your representatives should spend more time on the phone or more time with constituents?, they would say more time with constituents. If we asked them, Do you think there should be unlimited, untraceable, unreported donations from whoever chooses?, the American people would say that is wrong. When we talk about a Taxpayers' Bill of Rights, my colleagues, it is a right of the taxpayers to know where this money is coming from that is influencing our political process, and this amendment should have been ruled in order. No organization which is granted section 527 status should be allowed to hide their list of donors or be less than forthright when it comes to telling citizens how they are spending their money. If these 527 organizations have the right and ability to influence campaigns, the people have a right to know where the money comes from. We need to address this issue and address it now. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my frustration with the fact that this important measure has been relegated to the suspension calendar rather than being given a chance to have a full and open debate. I am dismayed that the House Leadership continues to oppose any and all types of substantive campaign finance reform. They fought tooth and nail to keep the bipartisan Shays-Meehan legislation from coming to the House floor. They have resisted time and time again giving this debate the attention it deserves, maintaining that the American people don't care about this issue. They are simply wrong. If we ask American voters a couple of questions, we know the answers: Do you want your elected representatives to spend more time on the phone begging for dollars or more time with their constituents and studying issues? Do you want unlimited amounts of external money from untraceable sources to influence the outcome of your election or do you want the character, knowledge and ability of the candidates in competition to influence the outcome of the election? Do you want the legislative process to be skewed by big dollars or to be determined by the merits of the policy arguments? So why did the Rules Committee make out of order a sound amendment from my good friend from Texas, Lloyd Doggett, that would go a long way to making ``527 Stealth PAC organizations'' more accountable to the American people? Absolutely no organization which is granted ``Section 527'' status should be allowed to hide their list of donors, or be less than forthright when it comes to telling citizens how it is spending their money to influence the political process. If these ``Section 527'' organizations have the right and the ability to influence campaigns, then the American people have a right to know where the money is coming from and how that money is being spent. I want to be clear--I do not oppose the provisions of this bill; I don't have problems with the content of the bill. What I do have problems with is the tactical maneuvers surrounding today's action. What we're doing today is simply wrong and I urge the Members of this body to give this measure a sufficient amount of time for floor debate.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 60 on H. Res. 444, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' So the resolution was agreed to. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce legislation that will correct a long-standing historical inaccuracy dealing with the Lewis and Clark National Trail System. Currently, the Lewis and Clark National Trail designation reads that the expedition traveled ``from Wood River, Illinois to the mouth of the Columbia River in Oregon.'' My colleagues, unfortunately, this does not tell the whole story. My legislation would amend the designation to include Washington State along with Oregon as the end point of this important journey in American history. The journey of Lewis and Clark is one of the most important events in American history. That is why it is imperative not only that the story of Lewis and Clark be told, but that their story be told with accuracy and historical correctness. Unfortunately, the current Lewis and Clark Historic Trail designation fails to recognize the important events that took place in Washington State during the expedition. When President Thomas Jefferson sent Meriwether Lewis, and William Clark on their now famous expedition, he sent them with many goals in mind. Over the next four years, the Corps of Discovery would travel thousands of miles, experiencing lands, rivers and peoples that no Americans ever had before. But the single overriding imperative of the entire enterprise was to find a navigable water route to the Pacific Ocean. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that the Corps of Discovery accomplished that objective on November 15, 1805--and they did so in one of the most scenic places on earth, Pacific County, Washington. Theirs was not an easy journey; it took great skill, tremendous perseverance and immense dedication. There are hundreds of events that took place along the way that tested each of these attributes. One of the most important of these watershed events took place on the Washington State side of the Columbia River, on November 24, 1805. With little food, rotting clothes, and winter soon approaching, the group huddled to decide where to camp for the winter. The pressing question: should they stay on the north side of the river in what would later become my home state of Washington, or should they risk a tricky river crossing to find a more sheltered spot on the south side of the river? Because there were these two differing ideas about where to spend the winter, Captain Lewis and Captain Clark allowed the entire party to vote on where to camp. What is important to remember is that among those who were allowed to vote was York, a African-American slave, and Sacajawea, a young Native-American woman. This exercise of democracy took place more than 50 years before the abolition of slavery and the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, more than 100 years before the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment which gave women the right to vote, and nearly 160 years before the passage of the Voting Rights Act which extended these liberties to even more Americans Mr. Speaker, as I am sure you are aware, the bicentennial Lewis and Clark's famous journey is rapidly approaching. The bicentennial is going to be of great importance both culturally and economically to my home state, and those impacts will be felt in many small towns and big cities all along the Lewis and Clark trail. Knowing the important part that Southwest Washington played almost 200 years ago in this journey, I want to make sure that the National Park Service documents are historically accurate and complete. My legislation will help ensure that outcome. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this simple legislation, the Lewis and Clark Historic Trail Technical Corrections Act of 1999.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to just raise two simple points. We have heard briefly a minute ago, who is here to represent patients? Well, I am here to represent patients. Prior to coming to serve in the Congress, I worked for 23 years in the mental health field as a licensed clinical psychologist. Every major health care organization supports the Dingell-Norwood bill, every single one, bar none. If you are going to see a health care provider, be they a doctor, nurse, a clinical psychologist, a social worker, a physical therapist, occupational therapist, you name it, their professional occupation supports Dingell-Norwood. Those same professionals to whom we trust our health care would oppose this poison pill amendment. As a psychologist, I am particularly concerned about one provision of this bill, the exemption for liability claims when mental health is damaged. I personally had the experience of working with a patient who was suicidal. Twenty-three years of clinical experience said if this patient did not get additional care, they very likely might go out and kill themselves. This bill would exempt insurance companies from liability for mental health damage. That is wrong. We need to support Norwood-Dingell.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me, and those who have sponsored this critically important legislation. Mr. Chairman, I am here today to address one of the most ugly, horrific crimes and experiences that can befall children, physical and sexual abuse. Before coming to Congress I spent more than 23 years of my life working as a psychologist in the mental health field helping to heal and counsel people who were the victims of child abuse and other terrible experiences. I can tell Members that as ugly as it is, child abuse cannot be wished away. It is something we have to face square on, and the bill we are addressing today will help us do precisely that. Earlier today I spoke with folks back in my own district, back in Vancouver, Washington. They told me some very frightening and troubling statistics. Referrals for child abuse were actually up in 1998 by 2 percent from the previous year. In one year we had over 3,957 referrals. Those are not just numbers, those are children whose lives have been harmed and damaged, and who will perhaps pass that harm on to others if we do not help them and intervene early on. Some might say, what is the big deal, it is just a 1 or 2 percent increase? But this is happening in the best of economic times. We know that child abuse goes up when economic times go bad, but if we are having this many cases in good times, we have to act now to stop that before it gets worse. My home State actually does a very good job of trying to prevent child abuse. I have visited many of the treatment centers myself. They do an outstanding job. They make use of scarce resources, and they put together innovative and effective programs to combat the problem, but they need help. They need additional resources and they need H.R. 764. The legislation before us today puts more resources in the hands of the folks who need them most. This bill will expand the grant authority to provide funds to enhance services related to child abuse prevention programs. It will help fund the prevention and early intervention programs that have been shown to work, and it will help communities make sure those who commit these horrible crimes are prosecuted to the full extent of the law. We need to provide more opportunities to prevent, to investigate, and to prosecute child abuse and neglect cases. We need this bill, and I urge my colleagues to give it their full support.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this time to me. As my colleagues know, why do we think this bill is fundamentally an attack on choice? Because if the real effort is to protect women, we can do that in other ways, and we must do that in other ways, but if we really want to do that, we should pass the Violence Against Women's Act. This bill has not come up before on the floor of this House, but if we really want to protect women, pass the Violence Against Women Act. If we really want to protect or if we really want to provide more sincere and serious punishment should an assault on a woman result in the loss or damage to a pregnancy, we can do that by passing the Lofgren amendment. We can do those things, and we should do those things, but here is where I believe this bill is fundamentally disingenuous: As my colleagues know, a couple years ago I visited a women's shelter where they took women in after being victims of domestic or other violence. That women's shelter turned away 1,200 women a year because they did not have adequate funding, 1,200 women who had been the victims or believe they were about to be the victims of violence were turned away because that shelter did not have adequate funding. If we really care about women, if we really care about the well-being of children, we will pass the Violence Against Women Act, we will fully fund programs like women's shelters, we will fund programs to help children, to promote safe and secure births for children. But this act fundamentally is an assault on the constitutional right to choose. That is what it is about, make no mistake about it. If you support the right to a safe, legal abortion, you should reject this act, and you should support the Lofgren substitute, which is what I will surely do, and I encourage my colleagues to do as well.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as president of the freshman class and as a strong supporter of the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill. We need to get back to some common sense and to what folks are thinking back in their homes. When they watch their TV set and they see the unlimited independent expenditures and the so-called issue advocacy ads, when they open their mailbox and vicious propaganda comes spewing out, they know in their hearts that something is desperately wrong with the current system. If we ask our voters a couple of questions, we know what the answers should be: Do you want your elected representatives to spend more time on the phone begging for dollars or more time with their constituents and studying issues? Do you want unlimited amounts of external money from untraceable sources to influence the outcome of your election or do you want the character and the knowledge and the ability of the candidates in competition to influence the outcome of the election? Do you want the legislative process to be skewed by big dollars or to be determined by the merits of the argument? That is what is at stake here. It is that simple. Shays-Meehan may not be perfect, but it is pretty darn good, and it is the best we have had coming down the pipe in a long time. The American people know in their hearts it is time to fix this system. As President of the freshman class, I urge my colleagues to support Shays- Meehan.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today with very serious concerns about this legislation. Despite all of the rhetoric about being tough on crime, this bill cuts the program to put 100,000 police officers on the street by $1 billion. Despite all of the rhetoric by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle just last night about needing stronger science before instituting new regulations, this bill would make extensive cuts in science and technology programs. Despite our nearly unanimous claims that we support small business, this bill cuts SBA funding to a level that could lead to the elimination of up to 75 percent of current staff. And, here is the topper. Despite 200 years of advance warning on the need for conducting a census next year, this bill designates the decennial census as ``emergency spending.'' It does all of this at a time when Members of this body are finalizing a package of tax cuts totaling $792 billion that the people do not think is needed, when they think we really ought to be working on balancing the budget and reducing the debt. Mr. Chairman, this is a cynical, desperate approach to continue this appearance of this Congress is balancing its budget by staying in the caps while in reality, spending the surplus on tax breaks. Now, that being said, I do want to point out one area where we do agree, and that has to do with funding for methamphetamine programs. The other body provided less money, and I am grateful that this committee has chosen to include the full thirty-five million dollars requested by the President for the state and local methamphetamine grant program at the Department of Justice. But here is the problem. We need more. In my home State of Washington, the number of methamphetamine labs has increased by 400 percent in the first 6 months of 1999, a 400 percent increase. Methamphetamine is produced oftentimes in clandestine labs and oftentimes in our rural communities. This leads to huge problems in cleaning up the hazardous sites and, of course, in the use of the material itself. So far this year, the Washington State Department of Ecology has already identified 322 labs and dump sites, nearly passing the 349 that were identified in all of 1998. Law enforcement officials know of this problem. We need to fully support funding to solve this problem, and I will work with this committee to make sure we increase funding for methamphetamine treatment and prevention.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this irresponsible legislation, which threatens the health and safety of our Nation's work force. Each year, Mr. Chairman, more than 650,000 American workers suffer from work-related musculoskeletal disorders, 650,000. That is not just a number. That is working people, our constituents throughout our districts. It is nurses injured while they try to transfer patients from a bed to a wheelchair. It is machinists injured on the job. It is workers throughout our districts. I can tell my colleagues that 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 $20 billion a year. Mr. Chairman, those costs are not just economic. When a mother has carpal tunnel syndrome and cannot lift her child as a result, when a father injures his back on the workplace and cannot play ball with his daughter or son, those are also real impacts. We need to stop those impacts. This legislation would limit our ability to stop those impacts. People do not just lose time with their families, they lose their jobs. They sometimes become permanently unemployed or are forced to take severe pay cuts. I want to emphasize that as a scientist myself, as a teacher of the scientific method and as a practicing clinician, I am dogged in demanding a strong peer reviewed science in making important public health decisions. But my colleagues should know by now that the American Public Health Association, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, have all indicated the strong need for a standard. We have that draft standard. We need to implement it. This bill is not really about requiring science, because if it were, the people who have introduced it would have supported funding for scientific studies in the past, but in fact they have opposed it. It is not about science, because common sense tells us if we do the same repetitive motion for 8 hours a day, we are going to injure ourselves. We do not need more science, we need to implement the regulations we have put forward. There was a time, Mr. Chairman, when in our country workers were considered expendable. If they injured themselves on the job, tough luck, they were dismissed with no compensation, their family lost a breadwinner, they lost mobility, and they simply replaced them with whoever else was willing to work for the cheapest wage in the most dangerous conditions imaginable. That time was past, but this legislation would like to see us move back. This legislation is wrong. A very interesting thing just happened on the floor of this House. We saw a negotiation between the two parties, which was good. We said, folks, we are all tired. It has been a long day. It is going to be a long week. We have worked hard. Let us cut this debate a little short so we can go home to our families. I favor that negotiation. I am glad we supported it. But here is the problem. Working people, men and women in this country who work in unsafe conditions, or where they risk ergonomic injuries, do not always have that opportunity. They cannot go to their boss or their supervisor and say, I am getting injured on this job. We need to change the conditions. They do not have that right to negotiate, the very negotiation we just conducted here. They are forced to work in situations that injure them. We have an obligation to create standards that protect them from those injuries, to protect the mothers, fathers, and the working people throughout this country. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this anti-worker, anti-safety, anti-family legislation.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I have no more requests for time at this point, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Also, I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) for introducing this bill and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) for bringing this bill to the floor in such a timely manner. I rise in strong support of H.R. 211, a bill to designate the Federal building and courthouse located at 920 West Riverside Avenue in Spokane, Washington as the Thomas S. Foley United States Courthouse, and the plaza located at the south entrance as the Walter F. Horan Plaza. Mr. Speaker, as a new Member from Washington State, I know that we come here with big shoes to fill. We had Scoop Jackson, Warren Magnuson, and we had Speaker of the House Tom Foley. Tom Foley had an outstanding and distinguished public career and it is a career that continues to this day. As we all know, for 30 years he ably represented the Fifth Congressional District in Washington. During that time he served as the majority leader, the majority whip, chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture and was, of course, the 49th Speaker of the House. Mr. Foley continues to serve today as our country's Ambassador to Japan. During his time in Congress, Tom Foley's top legislative priorities included increasing the minimum wage, revising clean air standards and parental leave and child care measures. Tom was a Washington native. He was born in Spokane in 1929. He attended local school, graduated from Gonzaga High School and went on to attend the University of Washington in Seattle. He later graduated from the University of Washington Law School in 1957. Tom Foley's legacy is lasting and his reputation for fairness, for dignity and for openness is a model for all Members to follow. He is well respected, affable and a conciliatory person. Speaker Foley served to help make Congress the best forum for democracy in the entire world. It is with great pride that I support this bill. Mr. Speaker, as was mentioned, H.R. 211 also honors Walt F. Horan by designating the plaza at the south entrance to the building as the Walter F. Horan Plaza. As was mentioned earlier, Mr. Horan served his country in the House of Representatives for 22 years, from 1943 to 1965. He was proud of the fact, it was mentioned, that he was born in a log cabin on the banks of the Wenatchee River, truly a pioneer in our State and a pioneer in this legislative body. He attended local public schools. After graduating high school, he served in World War I as a gunner's mate third class. In 1925 he graduated from Washington State College in Pullman. Walter Horan served with dignity and diligence for over 20 years. It is fitting and proper to honor him with this designation. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 211. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I was watching TV last night as the debate occurred, and I did that because I wanted to ask myself how would the American people decide if they were watching this debate? And I can say, if someone lives in certain States, the decision should be absolutely clear. If someone lives in Washington, lives in Tennessee, Florida, Texas, Nevada, South Dakota, or Wyoming, the choice is clear: they will vote for the Democratic substitute. The reason is this: the Republican tax bill sells taxpayers in those States out. It sells them out so they can give tax breaks to other people but it forces those in Washington, in Tennessee, in Florida, in South Dakota, and Wyoming, it forces them to pay higher taxes because the Republicans refuse to let them deduct their sales tax, which should be their right, which the Republicans took away in 1986. If people care about tax fairness, which the Democrats do, and we talked to the Republicans, we went before the Committee on Ways and Means and we asked them, restore tax fairness for these States; let people deduct either their sales tax or their income tax. And the Republican Party refused. The Democrats put it in their substitute. The Democratic bill respects the rights of those people, and it is the right bill to support.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No 307, I was unavoidably detained, by traffic. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea''.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues, I want to insist that as we look towards tax changes and towards the budget, we set first and foremost the priority of paying down the debt and of protecting Social Security and Medicare. But, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to address tax cuts, there is one which we should address first and foremost, and that has to do with restoring fairness to the tax code. Currently, a small number of States subsidize the rest of the Federal Government. Those States in which we have sales tax but no income tax pay higher taxes than those in other States with an income tax. The reason is that those with sales taxes are not allowed to deduct their sales tax from their Federal income tax returns. Some of the States include Washington State, my own, Tennessee, Nevada, Texas, and Florida. Mr. Speaker, hard-working men and women and their families deserve the same tax break in those States as in the rest of the country. And if we are going to make changes to the tax code, let us begin by restoring fairness, by allowing a simple change to the code and allowing people to deduct either their State income tax or the amount they pay in State sales tax from their Federal tax return.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Madam Chairman, as a clinical psychologist myself and in the gentleman's role as a physician I know that we are both concerned about protecting the confidentiality of individual medical information. I also know of the gentleman's hard work to craft language that would limit the sharing of information between financial industry entities and their subsidy areas. However, it is my concern and the concern of other Members about the confidentiality of sensitive health and medical information under the listed exemptions of the current bill. To address those concerns I would like to ask my colleague and good friend if he would agree to support at conference inclusion of language to allow the exchange of general economic and clinical information but prohibit the exchange of personally identifying information such as the names, addresses, or social securities of specific patients.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleague from South Carolina in the introduction of legislation that will give owners of newly formed small businesses a new way to channel capital into the growth of those businesses. I am very excited to join my colleague, Mr. DeMint, in this effort. I'm pleased to serve alongside Mr. DeMint on the Small Business Committee and have found that we see eye-to-eye on so many issues of critical importance to small businesses in our respective states. I believe that we share a common interest of helping small businesses thrive in our nation, and this legislation is a step in that direction. Mr. Speaker, Small businesses are the economic foundation of southwest Washington. As my colleague mentioned, they account for nearly all new jobs in our economy. However, a majority of those new small businesses fail in the first few years of existence--largely due to lack of capital. As currently structured, the tax system seems to penalize capital retention. Certainly, it provides disincentives for small businesses to save, which I believe is misguided policy. As one who grew up with small business owners, I am aware of the struggles that one goes through in trying to build a business. My folks owned a small clothing store as I was growing up, and went on to run a small ice-cream and sandwich shop. They certainly had their good years, and their bad and tried desperately to make ends meet during those less profitable years. Mr. Speaker, this legislation, the Start-Up Success Accounts Act of 1999, would help our small businesses save for those rainy days; and it would allow them to take a more careful, considered approach to investing in the growth of their business. By allowing business owners to set aside up to 20 percent of their profits in more successful years and defer tax on those profits until later years, this bill would put another instrument in the toolbelt of new small business owners, who need all the help that we can provide. Giving small businesses a fighting chance to succeed isn't a Democratic issue or a Republican issue--it's an American issue. It's the common sense thing to do, and I am proud to join with my colleague in drafting and introducing this bill. I think that this straight- forward legislation will appeal to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle who see the simple benefits of promoting savings.