Harold Ford

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank both the gentlemen. I would just close by simply saying that I hope perhaps we can work this out in the interim here. And I would hope if we cannot, I say to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), I do not think anything is wrong with asking these local school districts that want this authority to rise up to the occasion and to be able to live up to these standards today. I would close by merely saying to all my colleagues in the Congress, particularly on the majority side, the $100 billion infrastructure problem we have in America, the Federal Government did not cause that problem; the 2 million teacher shortage we have in America, the Federal Government did not cause that problem. Let us work together to get the job done. Support the Miller-Kildee amendment.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to several accomplished young men and women from Tennessee's Ninth Congressional District who are in Washington this week to participate in two prestigious youth conferences. Natalie Fant of Whitehaven High School, William Smith and LaToya Amos of Hillcrest High School are participating in the Congressional Youth Leadership Council. This national program brings together students from throughout the United States and foreign countries who have demonstrated exceptional leadership, academic and citizenship qualities. The theme of this year's conference is The Leaders of Tomorrow Meeting the Leaders of Today. They are meeting with some of our nation's most prominent public officials and are participating in uniquely designed group discussions on the most pressing issues of the day. The following students from St. Mary's Episcopal School are also in Washington participating in the Close Up Foundation's educational program: Sara Dike, Jennifer Hirsch, Kathleen Holladay, Lauren Jacks, Nishta Mehra, Mary Rochelle, Jay Tamboli and Mrs. Sheila Patrick. Like the Congressional Youth Leadership Council, the Close Up Foundation brings extraordinary young people to Washington in order to help them become even better citizens. The philosophy of the Close Up Foundation: ``democracy is not a spectator sport--it requires the active participation of citizens,'' says it best. These programs are so crucial today because political participation among America's youth is dangerously low. According to a survey on youth attitudes by the National Association of Secretaries of State, since 18 year olds were first given the chance to exercise their right to vote in the 1972 elections, the voter turnout rate of 18 to 24 year olds has steadily declined. In 1972, 50% of 18 to 24 years olds exercised their right to vote. By the 1996 elections, only 32% of 18 to 24 year olds turned out at the polls. Turnout among this age group in 1998 is projected to have been below 20%, perhaps the lowest in our nation's history. Moreover, this is a generation divided about the country's future and wary of other people. Barely half (51%) of today's 15 to 24 year olds believe that America's best years are ahead of us, while fully 39% worry that our best years may already be behind us. Asked whether they generally believe that most people can be trusted (32%) or whether most people should be approached with caution (65%), young people take the more cautious posture by more than a two to one margin. Mr. Speaker, these young people deserve our recognition and support not only for their personal achievements, but also for their commitment to their fellow citizens and the nation. Please join me today in honoring them.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), people in Tennessee have not been irresponsible in spending education funds. I would recommend to him that he ought to look at the problems in Atlanta and other places in Georgia in keeping up with some of the rising demands in our schools. The reality is that some 14 million of our students, of the 52.7 which are enrolled in public schools around the Nation today, go to school each and every day with some major infrastructure problem. We can argue Republican and Democrat, we can argue State and Federal, but the reality is, 14 million kids day in and day out have to worry about a roof falling in. Maybe it is me, but I think we have a role in ensuring our kids can go to school in safe and clean and learner-friendly environments. Maybe it is me, in thinking that the Federal Government, if we can build prisons, that we ought to be able to build schools. It is my hope that we can get beyond this partisan and inflammatory rhetoric that seems to, quite frankly, come on both sides, and do what is right for our children. We support tax relief, we support strengthening defense. But let us be honest, they did not support school modernization last year. With a new day here in the Congress, we have moved beyond all the partisan bickering and division that separated us last year. Let us do what is right. I say to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), I will support marriage tax relief if he will support building new schools in Illinois and Tennessee.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I also extend my prayers to the Brown family, as we all do. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 800, as my friend just did, the Ed-Flex Partnership Act of 1999. I support this bill because it gives States and local school districts the flexibility to tailor Federal programs to meet their local needs. But with flexibility also comes accountability. Ed-Flex works to require States to identify specific and measurable goals they have for those students and groups affected by the waivers. In other words, Ed- Flex requires States to have accountability systems in place prior to granting them the authority to waive specific requirements. But Ed-Flex alone will not solve all of our problems. Our public schools still have pressing needs: Unmet school construction and modernization, a shrinking pool of qualified teachers, and a lack of technology in the classroom. At a time when children are being promoted to successive grades based on age and not achievement, social promotion is an issue that should concern us all. It must stop. That is why I urge my colleagues, cosponsors of Ed-Flex, to not only cosponsor Ed-Flex, but to support the Democrats' plan to reward those school districts who end social promotion and close underperforming schools by providing them with additional funds to build new schools and hire new teachers. Ed-Flex is good, but alone it will not solve all our problems.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the Superintendent of Memphis City Schools, Dr. N. Gerry House. On February 19, 1999, Dr. House was named the National Superintendent of the Year by the American Association of School Administrators. Dr. House's commitment to education placed her at the top of a distinguished list of national superintendent finalists, a list which also included nominees from Brazil and Germany. I might add that Dr. House is the first African-American woman to receive this prestigious award. Dr. House's success may be attributed to many factors: hard work, perseverance and leadership skills. But perhaps most instrumental to her success is Dr. House's dedication to education reform. As Daniel Domenech, the President of the American Association of School Administrators (AASA) stated: ``America needs leaders who will guide our schools into the next millennium--strong visionaries who will help shape the future of generations to come.'' Dr. House has that vision. Under the leadership of Dr. House, Memphis has received a substantial grant from the National Science Foundation; a $3.6 million grant for after-school learning centers in eight schools; and was selected as one of 11 districts to implement the new American Schools redesign models. A recent study of the first 25 schools to undergo school wide reform found that the reform schools boasted a 7.5% greater achievement gain on state standardized tests than students nationwide, and 14.5% more than comparable Memphis City Schools. These outstanding results serve as a testimony to Dr. House's vision and commitment to education. Dr. House serves on various national and state educational improvement boards, including the executive board of the Council of the Great City Schools, the Board of Directors of NEA's National Foundation for the Improvement of Education, and the National Science Foundation's Directorate for Education and Human Resources. America needs more leaders like Dr. House, men and women committed to academic excellence. Please join me in honoring Dr. House and all of the other educational leaders in the country for their commitment to improving education for all Americans.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, our Nation's governors are in town this week; and many of them are here with their hands out and their minds closed. I am referring to several governors who have taken aim at the President's budget proposals for education reform. The President has proposed an ambitious education agenda based on accountability, performance, competition and competency. He proposes to give States and school districts the resources they will need to modernize their schools, hire qualified teachers and reach higher standards. What are the governors saying about these proposals? The governor of Arkansas says that he wants the dough without the strings. The governor of Mississippi called the administration's proposals Federal baloney. These statements betray an alarming ideological shift among these State executives. Fundamentally, what they are saying is that they would like to spend tax dollars with impunity. They should know, as most citizens do, that just as the private sector cannot spend money without accountability, neither can government. Let us give the States the resources they need but let us do it in a sound and sensible way, with accountability. That means ending social promotions, but giving those kids and schools the extra help they need to improve. That means making sure that all teachers are qualified. That means giving parents annual report cards on student performance. Federal baloney, Mr. Speaker? Hardly. Let us end the rhetoric and embrace the national leadership to turn around our Nation's schools.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the committee, I certainly join with Mr. McIntosh and others in echoing what the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and others have said, and certainly the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), in supporting paperwork reduction and making it possible for businesses to operate in a competitive way without onerous regulations. Nonetheless, I cannot help but wonder how so many organizations could be wrong in their assessment of this legislation, which is why I support the Kucinich amendment so forcefully. I would just quote from two attorney generals, which was really the turning point for me and I hope for some of my colleagues on the other side. The Attorney General of the State of California, in regards to the McIntosh legislation, says, ``In fact, the effect of the legislation would deprive States and local authorities of the ability to regulate matters which present potential harm to the public for violation of local laws, even in situations where the violator may act with the knowledge of and intent to evade local laws and regulations.'' I think that my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), said it best when he talked about putting businesses in an unfair advantage, particularly those who seek to comply with the law, in allowing those who know the law to intentionally evade the law knowing they will not be penalized. I am hopeful we can find some agreement. On a personal note, this committee has certainly been riddled with a lot of divisions along partisan lines. Hopefully, this is one time we can come together and help bring this House together on this important piece of legislation. I would ask for Members to support the Kucinich amendment and do the right thing.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues on the left here do not like this President or his policies. But their feelings about him or what he stands for are irrelevant this evening, for impeachment has standards, for as Richard Davis, who testified before the committee so eloquently said, cases cannot be brought simply to make a point, to express a sense of moral outrage. Kat Sunstate from the University of Chicago said so eloquently, impeachment is reserved for a narrow category of cases, for this case does not rise to that standard. I intend to vote against impeachment because as sinful and as stupid as the President's conduct was, it is not impeachable. But I will not get that chance. I will not get the chance to vote for censure because my colleagues over here do not believe we ought to have that chance. Finally, Mr. Speaker, my prayers go to Mr. Livingston and his family as they seek to heal and rebuild. I say to my friends in all of this Congress, when is this going to end? When is this going to end? God help this Congress. When will we find our dignity, our vision, and our wisdom? Give us a vote on censure. Give America the vote they want on censure. This is not impeachable. It is stupid. It is sinful. It deserves censure.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call World Population Awareness Week 1998 to the attention of my colleagues. October 24-31 marks the 13th annual celebration of World Population Awareness Week. More than 300 family planning, environmental, educational, community and service organizations in 61 countries are co-sponsoring the week in an effort to raise awareness of the need for universal voluntary family planning. I call Governor Don Sundquist's proclamation to the attention of my colleagues and ask that it be submitted for the Record. The State of Tennessee Proclamation Whereas, more than half of the world's population will live in urban agglomerations by the turn of the century; and Whereas, the growth of cities provides opportunities, but also portends risks that could intensify poverty, pollution, disease, social disintegration, violence and human misery; and Whereas, urban poverty is already as high as 60 percent in some metropolitan areas, more than one-third of the urban population has substandard housing, and 40 percent lack access to safe drinking water of adequate sanitation; and Whereas, in all regions of the world--north and south, rich and poor--rabid urbanization has spawned a number of common problems including unemployment, a shortage of adequate housing, traffic congestion, declining infrastructure, and lack of funds to provide for basic services; and Whereas, urban crises, stemming from high population density and activity is expected to be among the major challenges of the 21st century, Now therefor, I Don Sundquist, Governor of the State of Tennessee, do hearby proclaim the week of October 24-31, 1998, as World Population Awareness Week in Tennessee and urge all citizens to join me in recognizing this worthy observance.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, at its core, the issue we are discussing today--the astronomically high prices seniors pay for prescription drugs--is about fairness. Anyone in America who has older relatives or friends who are living on a fixed income and taking prescriptions drugs, understands first- hand the devastating impact that the high cost of medication can have on the health and well-being of seniors. As we all know, with age comes a greater susceptibility to health problems. As such, it is no surprise that: on average Americans over the age of 65 spend three times as much of their income (over 20%) on health care than Americans under the age of 65; 75% of Americans 65 and older take prescription drugs; on average older Americans take 2.4 prescription drugs at any one time; and even though older Americans only comprise 12% of the population, they take 33% of the nation's prescription drugs. One would think that since older Americans make-up such a large segment of the market for prescription drugs that they would pay reasonable prices for their medication. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Rather due to a pharmaceutical industry practice known as ``cost-shifting'' and the limited powers of seniors, they get the short end of the stick compared to HMO's and other ``most favored customers'' when it comes to the cost of drugs. For example, studies conducted by the Government Reform & Oversight Committee of Congressional districts across the nation (see Attachment ``Prescription Drug Pricing in the 9th Congressional District in Tennessee, Drug Companies Profit at the Expense of Older Americans'') shows that for commonly prescribed drugs, seniors on average pay between 96%-104% more than ``most favored customers.'' Back home in my Congressional District, seniors who have suffered a stroke or have high blood pressure or depression, can pay anywhere from $110-$275 for their prescription medication. For the senior in my District that is taking the national average of 2.4 prescription drugs, that means a medication bill of: at least $264 a month or $3,168 a year; or at most $633 a month or $7,600 a year. No matter how you cut it, these prices and the discrepancy in cost between what seniors and HMOs pay is fundamentally unfair and must come to an end. In my view, if anything, seniors and not HMOs should be the ``most favored customers'' of pharmaceutical companies. Fortunately, thanks to the leadership of my colleagues Jim Turner and Tom Allen, we now have legislation--the Prescription Drug Fairness Act and the Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act--designed to help level the playing field when it comes to the cost of prescription drugs. Under these measures, the price of medication for seniors will be reduced, among other ways, by: providing Medicare beneficiaries with a drug benefit card that will entitle the holder to purchase drugs at reduced prices from participating pharmacies; and allowing pharmacies to purchase drugs at the same lower price as the Federal Government, thus allowing pharmacies to pass the savings on to seniors. As Congress continues in the weeks and months ahead to discuss and debate the scope and nature of health care reform, it is critically important that we take the time to confront issues like this--issues that affect the ability of millions of Americans to receive quality health care in an efficient and cost effective manner. As a public policy maker at the federal level, I believe Congress has a responsibility to help protect seniors--who because of their pressing health needs and limited incomes are particularly vulnerable--from the unreasonably high costs of prescription drugs. The Prescription Drug Fairness Act and the Prescription Drug Fairness for Senior Act are designed to accomplish just that. Prescription Drug Pricing in the 9th Congressional District in Tennessee Drug Companies Profit at the Expense of Older Americans

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2560, a bill to award the Congressional Medal of Honor to Jean Brown Trickey, Carlotta Walls Lanier, Melba Patillo Beals, Terrence Roberts, Gloria Ray Karlmark, Thelma Mothershed Wair, Ernest Green, Elizabeth Eckford, and Jefferson Thomas--better known to the nation as the Little Rock Nine. When I read, hear, and think about the personal sacrifices that these young men and women were forced to make in the struggle to give real meaning to our nation's founding principles of freedom, opportunity, liberty, equality, and justice for all, I am humbled and forever thankful. With a display of honor, dignity, and integrity well beyond their years, each one of these pioneers for progress endured and overcame unthinkable emotional, verbal, and physical abuse as they fought to breakdown an entire nation's legacy of prejudice and racial hatred at the schoolhouse door. Mr. Speaker, as we seek to begin paying America's debt of gratitude to these heros and heroines--known as the Little Rock Nine--by awarding them the Congressional Medal of Honor, let us not forget that we stand on the brink of a new millennium with the chance to learn from the lessons and legacies of our past and contemplate the challenges and choices that lie ahead. As we recognize the contributions of the Little Rock Nine and consider how their lives have made the future brighter for today's young people, I am reminded of the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, that: ``we are all caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. What affects one directly affects all indirectly.'' Mr. Speaker, bearing in mind this undeniable principle, I believe if America is to fulfill the legacy of the Little Rock Nine and move from what has been in the 20th century to what can be in the new millennium, then--as a nation--we must strive to acknowledge, embrace, and realize our diversity to its fullest.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, some of my colleague on that side of the aisle do not like our President. Some of my colleagues on this side of the aisle may not like the Speaker. Some of my colleagues on that side of the aisle may not like other colleagues of theirs, and those on this side the same. But that does not give us the grounds to launch an impeachment inquiry. Let us do the fair thing, I say to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). Let us do the right thing. We all want an inquiry. We all think it is the fair thing to do. But put some time limits, some scope limits. Do the right thing for America. We did it for the Speaker. Do it for this President

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report and to pay tribute to the leadership of this giant Lou Stokes, this gentleman and giant. The gentleman from Ohio deserves special praise for helping to produce today what will be his final VA-HUD appropriations bill. He was able to work with both the administration and his very able and amiable friend and chairman of the committee the gentleman from California to produce and craft a bill that includes a landmark housing reform package that provides opportunities, responsibilities, is less onerous and gives more autonomy to local public housing authorities. The gentleman from Ohio is leaving a great legacy to this Congress. He has done so much to honor our veterans, to improve the lives of millions of Americans by expanding affordable housing, cleaning up our environment and advancing medical research in my district and districts around the Nation. On a personal note, Mr. Stokes and Mr. Clay and Mr. Dellums and Mr. Rangel are like fathers to me. I have known them since I was a child. Aunt Jay and certainly Judge Stokes, and Chuck and Shelley and Lorie are like cousins. He will be missed not only by those of us in this House but those throughout this Nation. He is one that has provided me with great counsel and advice since being in the Congress and just on a very personal note, I want to say to my friend and uncle and father figure Mr. Lou Stokes, thank you for what you have meant to me, thank you for what you have meant to this Congress and thank you for what you have meant to this Nation. You are indeed a true patriot and you will be missed.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) thank you for the opportunity to say a few words. And I share the same concerns that the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) expressed so eloquently. As a Member of the Subcommittee on Civil Service of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, there are a lot of things that we have done this year that people have complained about that the full committee has done. And I would say that a lot of things that the subcommittee has done under the leadership of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) that we have been applauded for. Some of the problems that have been expressed and raised by both of my dear friends probably could have been addressed and rectified and their concerns could have been assuaged at a minimum, if not altogether eliminated, had we on this committee had an opportunity to address some of those concerns. Mr. Chairman, I would like to reemphasize three points that have been raised. Current law already provides sufficient authority for an agency to conduct a demonstration project. And the different retirement and insurance programs could create undesirable inequities in the compensation programs if Federal employees moved in and out of the system. I am certain that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle could understand that concern that not only we on this side of the aisle have, but workers would have as well. And finally, employee organization will not have any input in the development of the demonstration project. Again, it is my hope that my colleagues will oppose H.R. 4259 and support the substitute offered by the gentleman from Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Prescription Drug Fairness Act. Anyone in America who has older relatives or friends who are living on a fixed income and taking prescription drugs understand firsthand the devastating impact that the high cost of medication can have on the health and well-being of seniors. As we all know, with age comes a greater susceptibility to health problems. As such, it is no surprise that, on average, Americans over the age of 65 spend three times as much of their income, over 20 percent, on health care than Americans under the age of 65. Three- quarters of Americans 65 and older take prescription drugs. On average, Americans take 2.4 prescription drugs at any one time. One would think that since older Americans make up such a large segment of the market for prescription drugs that they would pay reasonable prices for their medication. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Due to cost shifting and the limited power of seniors, they get the short end of the stick compared to HMOs and other most-favored customers when it comes to the cost of drugs, which is why I rise in support of the Prescription Drug Fairness Act. Thanks to the leadership of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Jim Turner) and the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Tom Allen) we now have legislation which is designed to help level the playing field by; one, providing Medicare beneficiaries with a drug benefit card that will entitle the holder to purchase drugs at reduced prices from participating pharmacies; and, two, allowing pharmacies to purchase drugs at the same lower price as the Federal Government. As a public policymaker at the Federal level, I believe Congress has a responsibility to help protect seniors from the unreasonably high cost of prescription drugs. The Prescription Drug Fairness Act is designed to accomplish just that. I hope every one of my colleagues signs on and supports this legislation.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to the proposed rule for the Labor/HHS appropriations bill and voice my concerns over the myopia that appears to plague many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. As you may recall, Mr. Speaker, yesterday we agreed to go to conference with the Senate on juvenile crime legislation. And during the brief floor debate on this matter, several of my Republican colleagues expressed their belief that reducing juvenile crime requires a two-prong approach: punishment and prevention. Well, Mr. Speaker, I find it curious at best how Republicans honestly can contend that they believe prevention is a vital component in reducing juvenile crime, when they plan on bringing a Labor/HHS bill to the floor that drastically cuts funding for Summer Jobs, School-to- Work, and After School Learning Programs--all of which are designed to help young people on the front end, by providing them a chance to do the right thing. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, what kind of prevention strategy could be more counterproductive than: Summer Jobs--cutting funding by over $500 million, effectively denying 530,000 young people--over 1,500 in my district alone--the opportunity to work during the summer of 1999. School-to-Work--cutting funding by $250 million, effectively undermining the ability to provide work-based learning experiences to more than 1 million students in over 3,000 high schools. After-School Learning Programs--cutting funding to $140 million below the administration's request, effectively denying 3,000 communities the opportunity to provide after-school safe haven learning programs for nearly 400,000 school-age children. How, I ask, do my colleagues on the other side of the aisle realistically expect young people in America to develop an appreciation of the value and importance of education and work, if all they see is Congress appropriating money to build more jail cells, but not to improve their schools or provide them summer jobs. Mr. Speaker, I am also having a very difficult time understanding how the Republicans can reconcile their willingness to cut or eliminate funding for programs like Goals 2000, Star Schools, School-to-Work, and America Reads, with their professed commitment to education. In response to this criticism, I am sure many of my Republican colleagues will tout their Dollars-to-the-Classroom bill, which will block grant funding to states for education-related programs. Well, Mr. Speaker, if the funding levels in the Labor/HHS appropriations are any indication of what the Republicans plan on investing in, then America's young people and our Nation's public education system are in serious jeopardy. So, Mr. Speaker, I say to every single Member of this body, if you believe in giving young people a chance at success, and truly want to see the juvenile crime rate go down in America--as opposed to just looking tough on crime--then you cannot in good conscience support the rule or underlying Labor/HHS appropriations bill.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this conference report. Although this legislation doesn't contain the level of emergency funding the President requested, I believe it is critical that we provide some level of emergency assistance for farmers. As we all know, farmers throughout this nation are suffering from low prices, globalization and bad weather. The Mid-South region is no different. In my own State of Tennessee, corn farmers have been hurt by the aflatoxin fungus and drought and low prices in the Mississippi Delta have adversely affected cotton farmers. Equally important, Mr. Speaker, this measure includes $26 million to spur economic growth in the Lower Mississippi Delta region. The delta encompasses 219 counties in 7 States, and taken together, it is one of the poorest regions in the nation, with poverty rates exceeding 20 percent. This initiative will result in expanded agricultural exports, better schools and a modern infrastructure in the delta region. The Ninth Congressional District of Tennessee is the hub of the delta, and as such stands to benefit greatly from this funding. I would like to thank the chairmen and ranking Democrats of both the full committee and the agriculture appropriations subcommittee and also my colleague, Mr. Berry from Arkansas and Senator Bumpers, from the other body, who were also instrumental in ensuring these funds were included in the bill. I urge my colleagues to support the conference report.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2327, the Drive for Teen Employment Act, as amended. I want to begin by thanking the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), as well as my friend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Fawell), for all of their hard work and persistence in drafting this substitute amendment and for addressing many of the legitimate concerns raised by the Department of Labor, child labor advocacy groups, and many Democrats on the Committee on Education and Workforce. Because of their efforts, we are able to have a bipartisan bill before us today. As the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Fawell) so eloquently stated, under current law teenagers age 16 and 17 are significantly restricted in driving as part of their job responsibilities. In particular, teens may not spend more than 20 percent of their workday driving, and may not spend more than 5 percent of their workweek driving. The substitute amendment that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Fawell) is offering today would prohibit 16 year olds from driving and would permit 17 year olds with certain existing and new restrictions to drive as part of their job responsibilities for up to one-third of the workday and up to one-fifth of the workweek. In short, H.R. 2327 will allow thousands of teenagers, including those participating in the school-to-work programs, the ability to pursue a broader range of work opportunities, even including those involving driving. Although this legislation is a step forward, I and many of my colleagues had some concerns. Specifically, a high accident rate amongst teenagers, the fact that teens are young and inexperienced drivers, and our responsibility to protect teenagers from the dangers and perils in the workplace as we do other workers. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the death rate for 16 year olds has been on an upward trend, increasing from 19 per every 100,000 deaths in 1975, to 35 per 100,000 in 1996. Conversely, the death rate among older teens has declined slightly. In an effort total address these real concerns, H.R. 2327 provides greater protection than even current regulations in circumstances that are most likely to result in injury or even death to the minor and to others. Before a 17 year old may be employed to drive, the minor must have a valid license, must have completed an approved driver education course and must have a clean driving record at the time of hire. The vehicle the minor is driving must be limited in size and must be equipped with seat belts for all passengers. The minor must be instructed by the employer regarding the required use of seat belts. Driving is restricted to a 30 mile radius from a teenager's place of employment. Minors are prohibited from driving that involves the towing of vehicles, route sales or deliveries, transportation for hire of property, goods or passengers or urgent time sensitive deliveries. Finally, this legislation will ensure that driving only occurs occasionally by placing a limit of two trips per day on the number of times a minor may drive to deliver goods to a customer or transport non-employee passengers. The legislation would leave intact current requirements that encourage safe driving by teens and require them to be in compliance with all state laws governing driving. Although the intent and effect of this legislation is to increase the time a 17 year old is allowed to drive while working, it does so in a manner that is fully cognizant of the health and safety risks that come with driving. I do not wish to mislead my colleagues, however. As in any situation where one seeks to reconcile conflicting interests, the reconciliation will not please everyone. Some of my colleagues may continue to have concerns about this legislation and some child labor advocacy groups may still oppose H.R. 2327. However, like the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Fawell), I strongly believe that this legislation strikes a sensible balance, for it allows 17 year olds the ability and opportunity for more work opportunities and the ability to be more efficient and productive employees. It also improves upon existing safety and health protections for minors and the for public. Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of H.R. 2327. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. We are blessed to have two erudite Members on this side, Mr. Speaker; first, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), and secondly, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer). Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

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

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of tax cuts but certainly not in support of this irresponsible plan that has been offered by some of my colleagues on the other side. The money the Republicans plan to use to fund their tax bill is not their money, nor is it Democrats' money. For it was paid into the Social Security system through payroll contributions and should not be stolen away from that to fund other things, no matter how worthy they may be. Already young people, many in my generation, doubt whether the trust fund will be there for them. By introducing a tax bill paid for by taking money away from Social Security, they are pitting old against young and sowing conflict between generations. Democrats are interested in bringing people together across generations and social groups to work out a way to achieve long-term solvency for Social Security, for we agree with the Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, that the favored use for the surplus is not to spend it on domestic programs or tax cuts. At a time in which we are facing volatility in our world financial markets, I would hope that the fiscal responsibility that Republicans purport to pervade their party would finally take hold and they would do the right thing. Do not support the Archer tax plan. Support the Rangel substitute.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise with harboring deep concerns about the utter absence of any accountability in H.R. 3248 which is why I am in support of the amendment of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay). With 3248 I say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) who is my good friend that my major concern, and I would agree with him that more money is going to local school districts that make those decisions, this is the right thing to do. But here in the Congress we passed the Welfare Reform Act that made it clear that we wanted accountability from welfare recipients. I would ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle why would we stop or why that principle does not apply here. I have no problem giving money to local school districts. All I would like to see is that they demonstrate to us that indeed what they are getting, the moneys they are getting from the taxpayers, is actually resulting in improvement or increased through the performance, which is why the Clay amendment is so important. It provides money to reduce class size from 26 to 18, but the money will be taken away if the school districts cannot demonstrate that the reduced class sizes has resulted and increased student performance. 3248: Gone would be technology for education, gone would be the Eisenhower Professional Development program. In the private sector we spend anywhere from 6 to 10 percent training and training and retraining workers. Why it is we do not see that it is important to spend that type of money to train and retrain teachers is beyond me. Gone would be the magnet schools programs. Gone would be charter schools. Gone would be the 21st Century Community Learning Centers. New ideas, new approaches; fresh ideas, fresh approaches. Mr. Chairman, the Clay amendment is the right way to go for this reason: accountability, accountability, accountability. On this side of the aisle we constantly praise, and I must admit sometimes I am at odds with the Reagan legacy. But Ronald Reagan said something I think that even my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), would have to agree with: Trust but verify. That is all we are asking for on this side. If we are going to give money to these local agencies which are huge sums of money to Kentuckians, to Pennsylvania, to Alabama and to Tennessee, let us at least hold these agencies accountable for the students, for these 6-, 7-, 8-year-olds cannot vote, we can, their parents can. Let us hold them accountable and do the right thing. Mr. Chairman, I would urge us to do the right thing and support the amendment.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support and really I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich), I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) and I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) for the leadership as well as those others, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) and others who have supported this substitute offered by Mr. McCollum. But sections 201 and 204, striking them would not do violence to what the Speaker has just talked about. I even applaud his work in this area. But I would remind the Speaker, as he decried the fact that the administration has not been as supportive as he would like on these issues, I would remind him that the administration is also supporting using the surplus for Social Security, and the other side would like to use it for tax cuts, and that has not stopped the other side from pushing a tax cut bill. The Speaker has spoken so eloquently about education over the past several months. He has decried efforts in the public arena to educate kids. That did not stop him from pushing a voucher program because he thought that our public schools were not educating our kids. We have evidence, ample evidence, that much of the money that we are spending in these areas is not actually being used to fight drug trafficking. All of us on this side support all efforts, interdiction and domestic efforts, to fight at every point of entry in this Nation, every point of entry in all of our communities and neighborhoods. But we cannot continue going down a path where we are getting a door slammed in our face. It is clear that moneys we are spending now are being used by drug traffickers. It is clear that what we are doing now, moneys are being spent with agencies who are apparently purportedly out to attack drug traffickers who are actually complicit in working with drug traffickers. Let us do the right thing, strike 201 and 204, and let us pass this Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act and do something positive.