Melissa Hart

Ms. HART

Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be the sponsor of H.R. 5542, the Black Lung Consolidation of Administrative Responsibilities Act, on behalf of the administration and on behalf of the Department of Labor. Initially outlined in the President's 2003 budget for the Department of Labor, this legislation will consolidate, as was said earlier, all of the responsibility for the administration of black lung benefits under one agency. The black lung benefits program was enacted as part of the Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, the first comprehensive Federal legislation to regulate health and safety in the coal industry. The law created a temporary system to compensate victims of dust exposure in the mines with public funds administered by the Social Security Administration. In 1972, the Coal Mine Health and Safety Act was amended to require the use of simplified interim eligibility for all claims filed with the Social Security Administration and to transfer new claims to the Department of Labor in 1973. The Office of Workers' Compensation Programs in the Department of Labor assumed responsibility for the processing and the paying of these new claims on July 1, 1973. Most of the claims filed prior to that date remained in the jurisdiction of the Social Security Administration until 1997. On September 26, 1997, officials from the Social Security Administration and the Department of Labor signed a memorandum of understanding transferring the responsibility for managing all active Social Security Administration black lung claims to the Department of Labor. This change was aimed at eliminating any confusion about which Federal agency should handle the claims and also enhancing customer service to all black lung beneficiaries. At present, the Department of Labor manages all Federal black lung claims, while formal appeals on Part B claims are referred to the Social Security Administration. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of people who are beneficiaries of this program, a number in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and States surrounding mine. In fact, I am a descendant of coal miners, as are many of my constituents in Western Pennsylvania. The goal for us is to make sure that this program continues to be administered in a very efficient way. The Black Lung Consolidation of Administrative Responsibilities Act would simply transfer all of the responsibilities for the administration of claims under Part B of the Act to the Department of Labor, while retaining all regulations currently applicable to the beneficiaries' entitlements. Besides improving administrative efficiency, this transfer of responsibilities will ensure the continuation of a high level of customer service to beneficiaries. Joint audits by the Office of the Inspector General of the Social Security Administration and the Department of Labor, as the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) stated, have confirmed the high quality of claims-related services provided by the Department of Labor. It only makes sense to consolidate these services under the Department of Labor. Last year, in fact, the University of Michigan released the results of a customer satisfaction survey of beneficiaries receiving the services under the DOL and found the highest level of customer satisfaction of any Federal benefits program surveyed. Finally, the legislation implements a long-standing recommendation by the Inspectors General of the Department of Labor and the Social Security Administration that the administrative responsibility for the Black Lung Benefits Act should be consolidated within the Department of Labor. This change would ensure the continuation of this high level of service to program beneficiaries, many of whom are elderly and unwell. While eliminating confusion and duplication of administration functions, it will also make sure that these beneficiaries continue to receive a high level of service. The Black Lung Consolidation of Administrative Responsibility Act is simply common sense and good government. In times like these when we find our budget is tight and we need to be very careful about our spending, this measure will continue to help us achieve that. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. HART

Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to sponsor legislation, on behalf of the Administration, which would consolidate all of the responsibility for the administration of the Black Lung Benefits Program under a single agency. This proposal was initially outlined in the President's FY 2003 Budget for the Department of Labor. The Black Lung Benefits Program was enacted as part of the Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, the first comprehensive Federal legislation to regulate health and safety conditions in the coal industry. The law created a temporary system to compensate victims of dust exposure in the mines with public funds administered by the Social Security Administration (SSA). In 1972, the Act was amended to require the use of simplified interim eligibility for all claims filed with SSA and to transfer new claims to the Department of Labor (DOL) in 1973. The Office of Workers' Compensation Programs in DOL assumed responsibility for the processing and paying of new claims on July 1, 1973. Most of the claims filed prior to that date remained within the jurisdiction of SSA until 1997. On September 26, 1997, officials from SSA and DOL signed a Memorandum of Understanding transferring responsibility for managing all active SSA Black Lung claims to DOL. This change was aimed at eliminating any confusion about which Federal agency handles the claims and enhancing customer service to all Black Lung beneficiaries. At present, DOL manages all Federal black lung claims, while formal appeals on Part B claims are referred to SSA. The Black Lung Consolidation of Administrative Responsibilities Act would simply transfer all of the responsibilities for the administration of claims under Part B of the Act to DOL, while retaining all regulations currently applicable to the beneficiaries' entitlements. Besides improving administrative efficiency, this transfer of responsibilities will ensure the continuation of a high level of customer service to beneficiaries. Joint audits by the Office of the Inspector General of SSA and DOL have confirmed the high quality of claims-related services being provided by DOL. Last year, the University of Michigan released the results of a customer satisfaction survey of beneficiaries receiving services from DOL and found the highest level of customer satisfaction of any of the Federal benefits programs surveyed. Finally, the legislation implements a longstanding recommendation by the Inspector Generals at DOL and SSA that the administrative responsibility for the Black Lung Benefits Act should be consolidated within DOL. This change would ensure the continuation of a high level of service to program beneficiaries, while eliminating confusion and duplication of administrative functions between the two agencies. The Black Lung Consolidation of Administrative Responsibilities Act is simply common sense and good government. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. HART

Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation. Many of my colleagues today have made claims that this bill is bad, as we just heard, that this is just what the insurance companies order. Actually, if my colleagues will look at this map, they will see it is actually just what the doctors ordered. The States in red, my home State of Pennsylvania, are the States where we are in a crisis. Doctors are leaving my State in droves, leaving patients with nowhere to go for health care. Those in opposition say they dislike caps on damages and limits on lawyers' contingency fees. Let us start with that cap on damages. It is a $250,000 cap, and it is on punitive damages. It has nothing to do with the actual recovery that the injured plaintiff is due. It is the additional damages that are being limited. Let us talk about the limit on lawyer contingency fees. The lawyer who actually suffered no injury at all is being limited on how much in fees he can take from that plaintiff's award. That is the award that is due to the plaintiff because of the actual injury. The bill helps the injured person retain more of the award that she is due. The lawyer would be limited to, listen, 40 percent of the first $50,000; one-third of the second $50,000; one-fourth of the next $500,000; and 15 percent of any amount over $600,000. Do the math. The lawyer gets plenty of money under this plan. I do not believe we will have a shortage of lawyers taking on cases as a result of this; but if we do not get this, we will continue to have a shortage of doctors who are willing to take on patients. Without this rule, we will continue the mass exodus in these States in red, and the States that are not in red are soon to follow. This past weekend I visited with a physician friend of mine. Both she and her husband are practicing medicine in my home State of Pennsylvania. She gave me the bad news of her firsthand experience and how she and her husband are interviewing out of State to practice medicine out of State because they can no longer afford the insurance that they need to be able to continue to practice to provide good service to their patients. In Pennsylvania over the last 4 years, rates have increased 125 percent, according to the ``Medical Liability Monitor.'' The American Medical Association has statistics that are similar. If we do not pass this HEALTH act, we are saying to the people of America we are not concerned about their health. I believe that we are, and I believe that the majority of us will support the HEALTH act, a wonderful bill by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and a bill that we should all support to make sure that our constituents get the health care they need.

Ms. HART

Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, for many individuals, opposition to abortion is not just a matter of choice but it has been a matter of conscience and faith. Many individuals so moved to oppose abortion are the health care providers who at one time under Federal law found themselves in the difficult position of objecting to the procedure but being forced to perform it. Fortunately in 1996 Congress recognized that those who choose to oppose abortions should not be forced to administer the procedure and passed legislation protecting those, as they called them, health care entities from being forced by the government to perform those abortions. Since the passage of that law, though, those who do not want to respect the right of individuals to conscientiously object to performing this procedure and want to ignore the will of Congress have fought this provision nationwide. The attack has been successful in cases such as in Alaska where courts have decided that they can force private hospitals to provide abortions as a condition of fully participating in their health care system. The ignorance of the faith and conscientious objection of American health care professionals and organizations is unacceptable. That is why I support this legislation. It simply clarifies language in the law so that all health care entities, including Catholic hospitals and individual health care professionals other than physicians, are covered and can freely object to performing abortions on the basis of their conscientious decision. Opponents of the bill have argued that this legislation will block access to emergency care for poor women or that it will interfere with a State's right to enforce abortion laws. None of this is true. The bill simply protects the conscientious objection of health care providers who oppose abortion. Mr. Speaker, this is a simple and very direct bill. It does not expand or change any rights of women. What it does is it allows for the free exercise of a conscientious objection of a health care provider.

Ms. HART

Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, in 1802 a small lot of 200 acres was established as a borough in western Pennsylvania. At the time, it was home to little more than 30 houses, but over the next two centuries, it blossomed into the strong, vibrant community that it is today. The Borough of Beaver is currently celebrating its bicentennial, and on Saturday, September 21st, its residents will take to the streets in a beautiful parade to conclude their yearlong festivities. The Borough of Beaver has a proud history and has produced some of the most dedicated public servants in Pennsylvania's history, including Daniel Agnew (1808-1902), a Chief Justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and Matthew S. Quay (1833-1904), a U.S. Senator. The Borough was once described as the `the seat of justice,' and it has remained true to this name. Beaver is a community where people pride themselves in their dedication to family, faith, work and their fellow neighbors. It is a place where you could barely walk down the street without running into a friend. Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to join me today in wishing this strong, resilient community our best wishes as they celebrate their 200th birthday. They helped build America into the great nation that we all cherish so dearly, and they continue today as a model for all communities to look up to. Borough of Beaver, happy bicentennial, and we wish you another 200 years of growth and prosperity!

Ms. HART

Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, on this fateful day last year, the cowardly acts of terrorists tried to divide this Nation and destroy the American way of life. Instead they united us, and Americans rose above the ashes to show the indomitable spirit that makes this Nation so great. Thousands of lives were lost that day, but millions of us answered the call of a nation under attack. The volunteers who helped the victims and families, the outpouring of donations--these are the shining examples of what we are capable of when our country needs us most. President Bush asks us to honor the memory of those lost ``by pursuing peace and justice in the world and security at home.'' While September 11 was a tragic day, we must also acknowledge the historic outpouring of charity and sacrifice by all Americans to those in need. The war on terrorism is not concluding; it has only just begun. President Bush made it very clear that whenever there is terrorism in the world, the United States cannot rest. This is a war that we must remain united in--united and prepared for the challenge to defeat those who use terror and fear to oppress and destroy. Those who perished on September 11 will forever remain in our memories and in our hearts. It is up to us to protect liberty and freedom for all future generations. God Bless America.

Ms. HART

Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. The House's decision to bring this bill to a conference with the Senate was much derided, especially by those on the other side of the aisle. But I am here to support this conference report and bring up a couple of points that are very important in the bill that would not have been included but for the decision of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and others to bring this bill to a conference. The most important is that many people lose money when these corporate criminals steal money. Those people are the investors, the employees of those companies. The Senate bill did not include any provision for those people to recover their money. That was placed into the bill in conference placed in by the Republican House. This is one of the most important issues to those who have invested in 401(k)s for their retirement, and those saving money for their children's education. Those people will be able to recover monies as a result of a decision by the House to go to conference as a result of this fine conference report that we will vote on today. Mr. Speaker, the adoption of real-time disclosure will help people make better decisions, and as a result of this conference report, we will have much better enforcement.

Ms. HART

Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4965, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. My constituents in western Pennsylvania and a majority of the public in general have urged us as a Congress to end partial-birth abortion. Congress has tried to end this unnecessary and horrific procedure, and instead we have entered into a debate of semantics about what this procedure should be called, or if it is ever necessary. No matter what one calls it, the fact is that this is a horrific procedure that is tantamount to murder. It is a tremendously violent procedure. During a partial-birth abortion, the abortionist pulls a living baby, feet first, out of the womb and into the birth canal, except for the head. He then punctures the base of the baby's skull with surgical scissors, inserts a tube into that wound, removes the brain, causing the skull to collapse at which time the now-dead baby is then delivered. This procedure actually co-opts the birth process to take the child's life. This procedure that we are voting to ban today, no matter what we want to label it, is unconscionable and must be ended. Critics of the bill have attempted to cloud the issue of the gruesome murder of children by saying the bill fails women because it does not permit an exception for the health of the woman. The findings of the bill clearly note, after extensive hearings on the issue, substantial evidence exists that the preservation of the health of the mother is never cited as a factor for partial-birth abortions. No studies of this procedure have been done. It is not a medically accepted procedure. Neither the plaintiff in Stenberg v. Carhart, Dr. Leroy Carhart, nor the experts who testified on his behalf have identified a single circumstance during which a partial-birth abortion is necessary to preserve the health of a woman. In fact, the opposite is true; and this creates a health risk for the woman, this procedure of partial-birth abortion. It is imperative for us to act and ban partial-birth abortion once and for all. As the civilized and compassionate country that we are or hope to be, it is imperative that we act now.

Ms. HART

Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill and stand here at a loss as to why anyone would not support this bill. In light of the news that we have heard lately about corporate fraud and cries from the general public that people go to jail, this bill provides for that. This bill provides for up to a 25-year maximum prison term for securities fraud. It provides an increase from 5 years of a prison term. Now, I am not sure, but it seems to me that 25 years is a lot more of a deterrent than 5. We are given a wonderful, very clear, to-the-point bill by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), supported by the Committee on Financial Services. We are telling the general public that we mean business when it comes to punishing people who defraud our investors and people who work for these corporations in the United States. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. It certainly is clear. It will certainly provide a good sentence, a reasonable serious sentence, to send a message to corporate officers in America that we mean business.

Ms. HART

Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 292, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Ms. HART

Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and urge Members to also support the bill. The Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services did a poll checking out this bill. They estimated that virtually all of the Medicare beneficiaries, that is at least 95 percent of them, would opt for this drug coverage. I doubt that 95 percent of Medicare recipients would be interested in their proposal, but this proposal provides seniors with coverage for prescription drugs that they cannot get today. That means the choice they currently make of leaving that prescription drug bag on the counter because they cannot afford it or paying for it and taking it home is no longer a choice they have to make. They pay for it because they have coverage, they take it home, and their health improves. All of the senior citizens that I have met with in my district have been asking me to please help them get the coverage for the prescription drugs they need to stay healthy and out of the hospital. That is all they ask. The women and the men. That is what we give them in our bill. I urge support.

Ms. HART

Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher) for spending time on this issue. People around the country are learning what our plan is all about. They are beginning to understand that we are responding to the concerns they have discussed with us, our principles: that we lower the cost of prescription drugs for every senior; that we guarantee that the prescription drug coverage will be available to them under the Medicare plan they are so used to receiving their health care through; that we improve Medicare, the whole plan, with more choices for them and more savings for them; and also that down the road Medicare will still be there, that we make sure we strengthen it for the future. But the prescription drug issue is one that is new to Medicare, and it is one that as I know in the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher) traveling in his district and those of us who have had an opportunity to speak today have all experienced the discussions with our constituents about this issue. I am from Pennsylvania, where we actually currently have a State prescription drug plan. It is a very good plan, but it does not cover every senior. The concerns that I heard while I served in the State senate before I came here to Washington included the concerns that said, ``You know, I am a senior citizen. I am not poor, but my prescription drug costs are so high that they are making us poor.'' It is couples that basically were very comfortable until one of them was stricken with a more serious illness and was hospitalized, and then went out of the hospital to maintain his or her health and found that the cost of $1,000 a month or so was going to break them. It is something that was not really helped by the State of Pennsylvania's PACE program, because it is strictly a benefit available only to people who qualify by income. I think it is important that we note that. Although Pennsylvania's plan has helped a lot of folks and continues to help a lot of folks, our plan is more comprehensive. I recently held a roundtable discussion at home, and a gentleman who was with us that day talked to us about the maintenance and the prescription drugs that his wife needed to take for an ailment that she had and how they were making the choices that you do not want anyone to say they are making between some level of sustenance and the prescription drugs they needed to keep their health. It was clear to me that no matter whether a person in our roundtable was someone with very low income or someone with more moderate or higher means, that they believed that the Medicare system should certainly address the issue of prescription drugs. That is why we have gone in that direction. It is important for us to do that. People have come to rely on Medicare as their health coverage once they reach retirement. It is something that gives them peace of mind. They know they will be taken care of if they go to the hospital, if they see their doctor. Those issues that take a little bit of that concern away from them also, I think, help with their health. Unfortunately, now the worry that many of them have faced as a result of not knowing how to pay for their prescription drugs has caused a lot more problems for them. Our plan will make sure that that worry goes away. It provides 100 percent coverage for low-income seniors and a small premium for coverage for higher-income seniors. The whole point is to make sure that people know they will be taken care of. Our roundtable discussion gave me the opportunity to talk to the senior citizens in my district about what they really want to see. They said they like the idea we will make the coverage available to everyone, but please do not force them to avail themselves of that coverage, because if they have a good pension, and a lot of people in my district are doing okay, have a decent pension from their retirement that gives them some drug coverage, and they like what they have, they want to keep it. So it is a voluntary plan. That is one of the other important things. We do not force anybody into a plan they are not interested in being part of, but it is available to everyone. So that is the key. The group wanted to know if it would cover every senior, not just the low-income seniors that were covered under Pennsylvania's current plan. I said, of course. The plan was to look at what was working well in the States that have those kinds of plans, but beef them up with other coverage for those who may not be covered by some of the States that have plans, like ours. It is called the PACE program. Like I said earlier, it is based on income only. As you see, if you have a certain low level of income, under our Medicare prescription drug coverage plan, you will be covered for free. It will be very similar to our program at home. But what is better about the Medicare drug coverage plan that we have, that the Republicans have proposed, is that it does not stop here. It would provide prescription drug coverage for those who are higher income so that part of their costs would be covered. I think the average senior citizen, some statistics we found show that the average senior who pays $2,100 in prescription drugs would save over 50 percent under our plan. That is a lot of money. All the seniors I met with urged me to ensure that those coverages would be available. They also said they wanted to make sure that if someone has extremely high costs, that they will be helped as well, even if they have a higher income. Like I said, it is available to every senior. Our plan addresses people who are in a dire financial situation, and it does not force them to make a choice between sustenance, between food and their prescription drugs; between paying the rent or paying that mortgage, if they still have one; or other expenses and prescription drugs. They should not have to make that choice. These are a lot of the World War II generation, people who have served their communities all their lives. The least we can do now is to provide them with really what is an updated Medicare coverage. It is a good plan. It is voluntary. It reduces costs for every senior. Prescription drugs are what people need as they age and they face illnesses to keep them healthy and out of the hospital. Our goal is to try to keep people as healthy as possible, so our Medicare prescription drug coverage is certainly something that is going to help them, keep them healthy and active, as they are today, so many seniors. If we can keep them healthy and active, in the long run Medicare is going to save money, because they will be out and working and being active and out of the hospital, which is the key. I think it will be better for them, their families, and obviously for their peace of mind. I thank the gentleman for allowing me to be part of tonight's discussion.

Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I was going to add to that that his physician would have sat him down and told him exactly what he needed to do to maintain his health. He probably has every intention of doing that. All we need to do is help him do it, because he is perfectly willing, I am sure, to take the medications that he needs to maintain his health. We just need to give him the wherewithal to get those medications.

Ms. HART

Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support, obviously, of the Consumer Product Protection Act of 2002. I am pleased that the committee has chosen to take action on it so quickly. Protecting consumers has always been an important issue for the Congress. It is also an issue I worked on as a State senator. I am pleased today to continue that important work. This act addresses an issue that is a result of a shortfall of the current Federal anti-tampering act. Under that act, it is a crime for an individual to alter the label of a product or harm the safety of a consumer. It is not, however, a crime to place an unwanted item in or on a product without causing harm to that product. For example, a message on a piece of paper placed inside a cereal box but outside of that product's inner bag is not a violation of current law. Someone could walk into your local market, slip pornographic material into the packaging of a food product without actually opening that package, and not be charged with a crime. To any consumer, the package would look perfectly fine without any evidence of tampering. The fact that this is not a crime seems ludicrous. That is why we are here today, to close this loophole in the law. Imagine opening a box of cake mix, finding a piece of literature with hate-filled messages and racial slurs; even worse, imagine if your child opened the package, finding such material. That is just the story we heard in our hearings from Tracey Weaver about her 10-year-old son. The flyer in the box that he opened read that he had won a free vacation, but on the back it contained racial hate material. Incidents such as this happen all too often. Kraft Foods, for example, had stated that there had been more than 100 reported incidents in the past 5 years. This accounts for only one company and only the incidents that were reported. Perhaps the greatest injustice here is that when consumers such as Mrs. Weaver contact those manufacturers, the manufacturers as well as law enforcement were unable to respond in any way because it was not against the law. The authorities could not trace the source of the problem because they had no authority to do so under the Federal Anti-Tampering Act because it was not a crime, again, to place such material in a box. This bill would criminalize those actions. It clearly states that placing unauthorized material in or on a product is a crime under the Anti-Tampering Act. The legislation accomplishes three things: First, it ensures that law enforcement has the ability to pursue and prosecute the perpetrator by designating this activity as criminal under the statute. Second, it empowers the offended manufacturer to address the complaints and concerns of their customers and regain the confidence of those consumers which they could lose through no fault of their own. And finally, it provides for punishment for those who commit these acts and puts others on notice that this type of behavior will not be tolerated. I again thank my colleagues, the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), for joining me in sponsoring this important legislation, and especially the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for helping us bring it to the floor. I urge my colleagues to support it as well.

Ms. HART

Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 184 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Ms. HART

Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, we have the opportunity now to reauthorize one of the most successful pieces of legislation this House has ever passed, the welfare reform legislation. I think it is important to focus on one point that has come to be a part of this reauthorization, improvement in this bill. It is one that will be so very helpful to families across the United States who are struggling to move from welfare to work, welfare to independence, welfare to hope for the future. And one of those situations that we have identified that we are improving greatly in this bill is the opportunity for moms to go to work, and that is because we are adding significant amounts of resources for them to get good safe child care for their children. There have been so many children elevated from poverty because of the welfare reform. We are only going to improve those figures by doing what we are doing here today. And one of the best parts, one that I am very proud to have been part of, is where we will now give more moms the opportunity to move into the independence of work because we are going to help them with safe and competent child care.

Ms. HART

Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the gentleman is doing this, bringing people's attention to the realities of how much we can do to help children learn more just by opening up some opportunities, different ideas, opportunities like Pennsylvania is now providing. I was a State senator there for 10 years. We did work long and hard to get somebody to get something to happen, and shortly after I came to Congress actually they passed a wonderful tax credit plan that allows for these foundations to collect money from corporations, money, every dollar of which will go to educational scholarships, every dollar. There is not money wasted in this plan. So many different organizations have started foundations. They are not all for religious education. They are not all for nonreligious. It is just very different. It gives everybody an opportunity to have all kinds of different options for their children, and it is something we have worked on long and hard in Pennsylvania. We have tried the voucher system. The Senate passed the plan. The House did not. That happens over and over again. But the general theme of it has always been to bring a more dynamic atmosphere to education, to make sure that our students all have the opportunity to get the best education they can. In Pennsylvania now, as was mentioned, there are, I do not know how many foundations, but there are a lot of folks taking advantage of this tax credit.

Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, in general, people are not happy with one system, and I think the reality of the tax credit, the voucher, whatever we are talking about, changing the system as it is, we improve each sector of it, and I think that is one of the arguments that has always been made for either a tax credit or school choice. What people tell me, and unfortunately too many people have told me, is that they cannot afford to send their kid to the school they want to. The individual tax credit that we consider here on the Federal level for parents who send their children to schools that require tuition is a wonderful thing, and it only makes sense for us to do that. Ultimately, a parent that chooses to send his or her child to a public school will end up getting a better education there as well. I think this is one of the things for many, many years that has been sort of talked about by a lot of people involved in public education. I am not really sure why a lot of them oppose this, because it does give them a number of different things. One, it gives them more opportunity to ease overcrowding which has become a huge burden and, of course, comes to us here in the Congress in the form of requests for dollars for new school construction. We could avoid a lot of that if we would spend much fewer dollars on a tax credit. We would find that we would not need those new school buildings. We probably would not need a lot of things that we are convinced that we need because we are so wedded to a certain system.

Ms. HART. If the gentleman would yield, in a community that is truly growing and that is a necessity, I think that is wonderful. However, there are a lot of communities that have convinced themselves that they do need new buildings when they actually do not. One of the examples we always look at is the city of Philadelphia where they have had a spike in young children, which is going to drop again, and the question is do we need to build a whole bunch of new elementary schools or should we allow more options in education, and if we would allow more options in education and now we do, we will find that they do not have that pressure, and they can spend the money directly on the classroom, having the best quality teachers in that classroom and then ultimately having those children be served better. The thing is, like the gentleman asked me, what parents say in my District, I am out in the District all the time as are my colleagues, and I think we probably hear a lot of the same things. All parents really want is to make sure that their child is going to be able to succeed down the road. That means he or she needs tools. How do they get those tools? The parents teach them as well as they can at home right from wrong and all the other kinds of things, but they need quality education. How do they get that? We are part of the cog in the wheel providing it, but we need to provide more freedoms for them, especially on the State, to do what they want, and that has been I think our mantra for a long time in Pennsylvania. It took a long time to get to that point. I know Arizona has been doing a lot of creative things for a long time. What we will see in Pennsylvania, I think we will see results in other places, not just tax credits where it helps families to afford it, but the tax credits for businesses like we have in Pennsylvania where it helps more families to make a decision they were not even considering before because they just did not have the wherewithal to do it. Then ultimately that competition in the system, where there are options, there is always a more dynamic system. That helps if we expect our kids to do better in a dynamic future and a dynamic economy in the United States and in the world. We certainly better get them adjusted to it all their lives, that way I think they will be comfortable with it. They will be more likely to succeed, and these kinds of programs certainly present to them more of a real world opportunity for them early, to get used to it, to like the competition, to strive harder, which is exactly what we want them to do.

Ms. HART. The whole situation of labeling a child has become, I think, a big problem in a lot of our government schools. If a child is told at a young age there is something wrong with him or her, then that child is going to believe it. I think the ultimate solution is, as the gentleman suggests and as Joe Ray pointed out, every child who is given an opportunity to excel and encouraged to excel will. They will to the degree that they are able, instead of to the degree someone told them they can. One of the opportunities tax credits would also gives us is the opportunity for children who would not be able to afford some of the institutions that might believe specialize and be able to help them through a difficulty, whether it is a speech difficulty or some other kind of behavioral problem, that they will have access. I think it is important for their parents to be the ones who can make the choice of which type of educational institution is going to be best for the child. Unfortunately, right now, cost prohibits them from doing that in a lot of cases and they only have one option. And sometimes that works for the student, but a lot of times it does not. We find some wonderful institutions closing their doors because the parents who would love to send their children there just cannot find the resources to do it. So this is another way to help those unique and diverse institutions that can help a lot of kids to continue to provide those services.

Ms. HART. Unfortunately, yes. And I think a lot of us have sort of two different opinions of people involved in the education system. We all know that there are some fantastic educators out there. Some of them we would count probably as our best friends, spouses, family. But there is also this behemoth structure of sort of protecting the bureaucracy folks, and that is a big problem. Obviously, they have gotten involved in a lot of races, and I am sure they have been involved in the gentleman's as well as they have been involved in mine. The concern I hear from parents has nothing to do with preservation of the education bureaucracy. I never hear them saying, oh, please, can you make sure we still have this very strong bureaucracy in my school district so that we spend more money on the administration than in the classroom. No one ever asks me that. They always say how can we get more dollars to go to directly help the kids. Well, let us get that bureaucracy to work with us on that goal, and then we will all be on the same page.

Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I actually represent a school district that has been termed academically bankrupt. Any student who goes to that school district is sentenced to not learning anything, and it is not right. A lot of money is spent, and we are getting no results. We do need to change the sytem.

Ms. HART

Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, recently a local economic development group-- the Pittsburgh Regional Alliance (PRA)--was selected as one of the top groups in the Nation. Each year, the editorial staff of Site Selection selects the Top 10 Economic Development Groups for their role in bringing large-scale corporate expansion projects to their respective communities. These standards used to make their decisions included: Capital investment in the service area during 2001; new jobs created in the service area; capital investment per capita; and new jobs created per 100,000 population. The PRA is an outstanding source of research and advocacy for regional development in western Pennsylvania, and I would like to submit to the Record Site Selection's explanation of why they were awarded this great honor: Pittsburgh has been the manufacturing home of big steel, but much of that industry has closed and moved out of the country. The Three Rivers area has suffered through a downturn and repositioned itself as a city of the future. Building on the historic strengths of the area's energy traditions, the Pittsburgh Regional Alliance (PRA) helped Siemens Westinghouse Power choose a 22-acre site as the location for its $122-million, state-of-the-art fuel cell manufacturing plant. After the passage of Greenhouse Legislation by the state legislature, the PRA has begun to pursue an area Pittsburgh Bio/Venture Life Sciences Greenhouse approach to attract new industry. With cooperation with various academic institutions, the Bio Greenhouse hopes to position the area as a leader in biological research and development. ``The Greenhouse will be the centerpiece of technology commercialization and economic development efforts,'' says D. Lansing Taylor, president and Chief Executive Officer of Cellomics. ``It will also be the single organization to exploit synergies among university research strengths and facilities, and coordinate those efforts with economic development.'' The PRA, in conjunction with the Pennsylvania Dept. of Community and Economic Development, helped bring the world's largest producer of medical devices, Lake Region Medical, to the area. The facility will manufacture guide wires used for diagnostics and machine products used in the medical field, and will create at least 140 new jobs. The facility has qualified for a state financial package, including an Opportunity Grant and Jobs Creation Tax Credits. I congratulate the PRA on this great award, and look forward to continue working with them as we bring back new growth and opportunity to western Pennsylvania.

Ms. HART

Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, a recent USO/NFL tour to U.S. Army bases throughout Germany served as a fresh reminder of the invaluable service the men and women of the U.S. armed forces are providing to our nation. NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue, Pittsburgh Steelers running back Jerome Bettis and Tennessee Titans running back Eddie George met with U.S. troops to convey America's gratitude for all of the their service. May is National Military Appreciation Month. This is a time when we recognize and honor our nation's 1.4 million highly-trained, active duty soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. These brave Americans voluntarily put their lives on the line so you and I can live in peace and freedom. We owe these heroes our active appreciation and support as they fight to preserve democracy. We share the sentiments Commissioner Tagliabue conveyed to our armed forces: ``So long as [our troops] are on the from lines, [we should] make sure [they] remain on the front page.'' Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to insert in the Record several news accounts of this important and noteworthy event. [From USA Today, Apr. 26, 2002] Bettis Salutes USA's Real Heroes (By Jon Saraceno) While wondering how Cleveland Browns fans will ease the pain now that cult hero Ben Gay is gone. . . . Jerome Bettis is better known as the Bus, but this week he was into tanks and heavy artillery. The Pittsburgh Steelers' rumbling running back accompanied NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue on Thursday to Germany, where they visited with U.S. forces on two military bases. Bettis flew in a black-hawk helicopter and spent time inside an M1- A1 Abrams tank. Tennessee's Eddie George will join them Friday as part of the league's Armed Forces Weekend, which includes an NFL Europe game. ``I want our servicemen to understand we care,'' Bettis said from overseas. ``We appreciate what they're doing to guarantee our freedoms.'' The trio will visit Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, where U.S. troops hurt in Afghanistan recuperate. ``It puts my job into perspective,'' Bettis said. ``I guess I'm considered a hero of sorts, but I'm only a football player. The guys on the front lines are the real heroes. This is not some commercial you see where guys are jumping out of helicopters doing pretty stuff. This is real.'' . . .

Ms. HART

Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to the amendment. Despite what some of my colleagues have argued, American women in overseas military bases are not in danger if they cannot receive an abortion at a military facility. Pregnancy is not a disease. Those facilities are to treat illness and disease and provide normal health care. First, let us make clear what the United States policy is regarding overseas bases. For countries where abortion is banned, this amendment would do nothing to allow women stationed in these countries to have an abortion at a military facility. Why? Because U.S. military adheres to a country's local laws regarding abortions. For example, South Korea bans abortions, meaning they will always be banned on military bases located in South Korea. This amendment will do nothing to change that policy. Further, in countries where abortion is legal, such as Germany, women may travel off base to receive an abortion, if they choose. While I would hope these women would not choose to have an abortion, they are not denied transportation, and the procedure can be done in a sanitary facility. According to the Congressional Research Service, it is estimated that 1,500 women have left military facilities to have abortions since 1993. That could have been translated into an average of about 150 abortions a year at taxpayer-funded medical facilities. This amendment would not do what its proponents claim. It is not about whether or not we want to permit our overseas military hospitals and facilities to perform abortions only; it is about spending taxpayer monies to do so.