Melissa Hart

Ms. HART

Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of this immigration reform. It is a long overdue immigration reform. This, however, is the one reform that will work. The INS has a well-documented history of being an unworkable bureaucracy despite the fact that there have been billions of dollars poured into the agency in the name of reform over the last several years. On a regular basis, my district offices received more complaints for help on immigration issues than on health care issues or Social Security issues combined. Other congressional offices have found that the complaints about the INS outnumbered IRS complaints six to one. That is hard to believe. Everyone expects that we are going to get calls about the IRS, but the INS? Six to one. Backlogs are the issue, undocumented aliens are the issue, expired visas are the issue. In fact, everything is the issue. Still, it seems that the problems our constituents face are not unique regarding this troubled agency. It is just a troubled agency. In fact, the problem goes beyond the everyday operations of the INS and, as we know, has now risen to the level of national security. The INS currently has a massive backlog. The recent approval of visa extensions for two of the deceased September 11 hijackers only serves to highlight the severe nature of this problem. At the end of fiscal year 2001, the INS had a backlog of 4.9 million applications. That is 4.9 million people. That is a lot larger than a number of a dozen congressional districts put together. That is a lot of people. That is a lot of applications. These numbers represent families and hardworking individuals who are being torn apart because of these ridiculous administrative delays. Numerous commissions, notably the Commission on Immigration Reform, chaired by the late Barbara Jordan, have reviewed the INS and most agree the major problem is mission overload. The INS is tasked with dual missions. It is imperative that we support this INS reform. It separates the missions, and it will be a real reform. The AIA will consist of two separate bureaus--the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Bureau for Immigration Enforcement. The Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services will work to improve (1) effectiveness, (2) response time and (3) service to immigrants. The Bureau for Immigration Enforcement will solely focus on immigration security, ensuring it receives the level of attention and detail that it requires. Separating the two bureaus will ensure a proper focus and resource allocation to each mission. It will relieve the problem of having an agency with conflicting missions. In addition, the legislation creates an Associate Attorney General for Immigration. This new position answers directly to the Attorney General and ensures that immigration policy is given proper attention. The Associate Attorney General oversees the work of each bureau, supervises the bureaus directors, coordinates the administration of national policy and reconciles conflicting policies. Finally, the legislation addresses many of the problems with processing applications. First, the bill authorizes funding to process the entire current backlog. Second, the legislation mandates the creation of an Internet-based application process. Third, the legislation facilitates the sharing of information across all pertinent agencies. This legislation is a necessary step in fixing a broken immigration system. Efforts by prior administrations to make changes to the INS have failed because they did not separate the conflicting functions of the current agency. Congress has increased appropriations to the INS by $4 billion over the past 10 years with little to show for it as a result. This legislation mandates the necessary structural changes to reform our immigration system and protect our borders. It is imperative to our future--in our country of immigrants that we support this restructuring.

Ms. HART

Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the CARTA bill as it stands. The Committee on Financial Services did an extensive amount of research on these issues, especially in light of the concerns raised by the Enron debacle. Several disturbing aspects about corporate disclosures in financial statements were made very clear during this process, but one of the most alarming was the unequal treatment of employees and what they were and were not allowed to do with company stock that they received in their retirement plans. I have here what will happen as a result of the CARTA bill. Pre-Enron there was little disclosure. Financial information was all in legal jargon. People could not really understand it. There was insider auditing, as we saw in the Enron case, deals made among the auditors with the company which were really not fair or right or a true representation of the actual financial situation of the company. Also, insider trading during blackouts, those executives were allowed to sell their stock; those regular people, the employees, unfortunately were not, and ended up losing a lot of money because of the deceit involved with the financial statements. Post-Enron, under the CARTA bill we have full disclosure. We also have something very important, and that is the financial information that all investors get in plain English. No more games. Under CARTA, plain English so that everybody understands exactly what is going on with the company. Also something extremely important, the independent audit versus the insider audit. We need to make sure that Americans have confidence in financial statements and invest wisely. It will also close the loophole on insider trading during blackouts. This is one of the most important things that was revealed to us during Enron, and one thing that this bill handles very well. America's investors have changed significantly. It is important for us to protect them and provide them with the information that they need. More than half of American families, that is 90 million people, invest in the stock market, including mutual funds, pensions, and 401(k)s. This represents a growing trend. These people are investing in American companies that produce American jobs. In fact, a majority of these investors, 67 percent of them, are our average Americans with household income of $75,000 or less. Mr. Chairman, these are American families that we are talking about. We need to protect them with CARTA. According to the National Center for Employee Ownership, 10 million employees in the United States received stock options as part of their benefits in 2001. This is a 10- fold increase over 1992. This bill protects those employees and those Americans. It protects those American jobs. Finally, the benefits of the bipartisan corporate responsibility bill is greater confidence. Americans will continue to invest. We want them to invest. It is better for our future. There is more confidence for them to invest, there will be more corporate stability and the end result, which is what we all want, is more jobs and a stronger economy.

Ms. HART

Ms. HART. I thank my fellow former State Senator. I think we are really well equipped as those who worked on the State level to implement the 1996 welfare reform to do what we are as we are part of the working group on the reauthorization of the welfare reform on the Federal level. I thank the gentleman for his kind words and for his work on the task force and also for giving me a few moments to talk about some of the things that have been happening in my area regarding the success stories, as the sign says, replacing welfare checks with paychecks, but also replacing broken spirits with very strong spirits, a lot of moms who are going to be great leaders and examples to their children. Those reforms have helped so many men and women get off the welfare payroll. We hear the statistics, but it does help, as the gentleman before me said, to hear the real story. One example I have is a woman I met during our time during the district work period named Michelle who was unfortunately left alone by her husband with her two small children. Obviously she had been a stay-at-home mom but was forced to go and find a job and also a new home. If that did not present her with enough challenges, her parents were also diagnosed with serious illnesses. Michelle moved in with them to take care of them in addition to also caring for her own children. Welfare for her was the only lifeline she had to get her from day to day. But she had a greater future in mind for her family. Fortunately, she did what a lot of welfare recipients are now doing as a part of the normal regimen, taking classes, getting a job. She did both. That was 4 years ago. I am happy to report that today, Michelle does have full employment and she is helping others who are in a similar position to the position she was in. She is now a case manager for the Lawrence County Social Services Organization. She took her skills, those she knew from her daily experiences and also those she acquired as a student while still receiving welfare. She uses those skills daily to help others who are going through the same difficulties that she faced. She is one of the great success stories, and now Michelle is going to help create a lot more success stories. There are other organizations aside from those who are paid within the system that help us make a difference. Especially after the welfare reform law, there were a number of community organizations that stepped up to the plate. One I work with very closely called HEARTH, which stands for Homelessness Ends with Advocacy, Resources, Training and Housing, they have helped so many, mostly women, mostly victims of domestic violence, because they help provide some support via housing for these women as they again continue to struggle and move forward. The first one I would like to tell you about is Cindy, who came to HEARTH's facility called Benedictine Place with four small children. She wanted to provide a better life for them and for herself but she had been a victim of domestic violence and her self-esteem was certainly not at its highest. One of her sons did not want to live in a shelter. Unfortunately he did go to live with his father, but the other three stayed with Cindy and helped Cindy as she helped them to get a new view on life. While receiving her benefits, Cindy went back to school. She had some nurse's training from the past, but she knew she needed to update her skills. She took that opportunity, she finished her training and she was eager to get her children established. She got her degree, she got a job, she found a safe place to live. She is now working and is a supervisor at the hospital where she works as an RN. Her oldest daughter said it best to her recently. She said, ``Thank you for making anywhere we lived a home.'' That statement made the struggle worthwhile for Cindy because it could not have been easy. We all know that. But we know that for Cindy and for Cindy's children, there is a much better future. Not only is she a valuable and contributing member to society, but she is returning the favor to other members of her community by helping them as much as they helped her. Finally, the last example I want to share with you is of a woman named Jackie. Jackie was in a very poor situation. She did not have any transportation. She had small children as well and needed some support. Obviously the welfare system did help keep her going. But once again, she now said that it was a huge adjustment, but she has now moved into the workplace, she is making enough now to actually rent a house, purchase a car. She has a job with full benefits. Jackie says it is much better for her. She loves going to work each day. She has given back as much as she can. She is now very pleased to be a taxpayer, as she said, instead of a burden on all the other taxpayers. Granted, welfare has its place. Otherwise, we would not be considering reauthorizing welfare. But it is meant to be and has through these women been shown to be a very successful means for transitioning. These are women who have had hope. They have had influence from others who have maybe shown her an example, taken time with her as well as wonderful caseworkers who have done a wonderful job. Over the break, I had a round table meeting with a number of caseworkers and those who work in the system, as well as some who have gotten through the system and several who are currently on welfare and trying to work their way off, whether they are receiving education, working part-time and moving in the direction of independence. It was a really inspirational meeting, partially because the first woman I spoke of, Michelle, was part of the round table is now a caseworker with Lawrence County Social Services, but partially because I saw the faces of some very strong people whose spirits had once been broken but who are now very much recovered, very much moving forward, and very much an inspiration to the rest of us. They show us just how much people can do if we give them the right tools to move forward. I would like to thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson) for the opportunity to talk about these women and there are so many others. I have several other examples I am not going to go into, but they are examples of all the people and put faces on all the people across the country who have benefited because of the changes. I certainly am very happy to be here and to be here now at the Federal level when we can reauthorize welfare reform and encourage both education and work and make sure that these families are on the way to a very prosperous and successful future, along with a great example for their children.

Ms. HART

Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 476, the Child Custody Protection Act. Unfortunately, we are hearing lots of dramatic stories about young women who may be victims of incest and young women who may be victims of other terrible crimes as a motivator for us to prevent what so many States think is important and what so many people think is important, and that is, that children and their medical care and their guidance be in the hands of their parents. This bill would simply respect that. It would respect what 43 States have already done in requiring parental consent or notification before a young woman can receive an abortion. So this is not a dramatic change of any kind. In fact, this is something that would respect States' rights. This bill has nothing to do with consenting adults who have made a decision about what to do with a pregnancy. It solely focuses on young girls who are the most susceptible to confusion and difficulty of making a decision on their own health care and decision about ending a pregnancy. Most of these young women are not in situations that have been presented dramatically to us. As a State senator, I worked on legislation in Pennsylvania where parental consent requirements gained wide support, and I know that they have obviously gained wide support throughout the Nation because of those 43 States with such laws. The Child Custody Protection Act would make it a criminal offense to transport a child across a State line to avoid parental consent for the purpose of having an abortion. That means a person who is not the parent is taking a child that is a minor across a State line to violate the law basically. I am not sure why anyone would support that, but unfortunately, many here today are. It is important for us to stand up for families in the United States. It is important for us to stand up also for the rights of parents to be counselors to their children. Some of the opponents have argued that our approach is wrong and these young girls who are involved in these tremendous life-altering decisions should be taken away from their parents, transported across State lines for a very serious medical procedure, without their parents notification consent, without any necessarily records of their health in the past. This defies all logic. It usurps parents' vital role, and I think it is playing a dangerous game with the lives of young girls. These girls should not be whisked away from their problems. We should not be finding more ways for them to avoid getting help from their families. We should be focused on finding ways where we can help them and their families. This bill would certainly lead us in that direction as 43 of our 50 States have already gone. It is not for the Federal Government to change that.

Ms. HART

Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, in honor of Women's History Month, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the life and work of Susan B. Anthony, and to celebrate the 182nd anniversary of her birth, which took place last month. Susan B. Anthony is remembered as one of our greatest foremothers in the drive for women's rights. However, what many have forgotten, or chosen to ignore, is that she was amongst our Nation's first and most passionate pro-life advocates. For Anthony, the rights of the unborn were inseparable from the rights of women, and opposition to abortion was an essential part of the cause of women's rights. This month as we honor the women who have strived to improve the lives of women in America and throughout the world, let us remember the life and achievements of Susan B. Anthony and what she has done to guarantee full rights for both women and their unborn children.

Ms. HART

Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment and further request that such modification be considered as read.

Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The editorial that many have referred to today that appeared in last Saturday's Washington Post supporting the passage of H.R. 2341 did get it right. Too often our current class action system allows trial lawyers to enrich themselves without benefiting those that those lawyers represent. As presented, though, H.R. 2341 would have corrective influence on this problem, particularly by allowing the removal of more interstate class actions from the State courts to the Federal courts. Empirical data indicate that this problem of attorneys getting the biggest piece of class action settlements is fundamentally a State court problem. Our Federal courts have done a far better job of ensuring that that does not happen. Though I do support the bill in all its respect, I would like to add one modest piece to the legislation that I believe would aid in ensuring that these class actions do benefit to serve the class members, not just the attorneys. The amendment is a request by Congress that the Judicial Conference of the United States, our Federal judges, prepare for the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary a report on class action settlements. As envisioned by my amendment, that report would have several parts. First, it would contain the judges' recommendations on best practices that the court will use to ensure that these proposed class action settlements are fair to the class members, that is, the plaintiffs. After all, these class members are the people that the settlements are supposed to benefit, but as we have seen, have not been benefiting. We need to find ways to make sure that they are not forgotten when their claims are being settled. Second, this report will contain recommendations on best practices that the courts would use first to ensure that attorneys' fees in class settlements appropriately reflect the results that the attorneys get for the class members; and also the report would contain recommendations to ensure that class members, and not the lawyers, are the primary beneficiaries of a settlement. Finally, the report would indicate the Judicial Conference's plans for implementing the good practices recommendations. I believe that the value of this amendment is obvious, Mr. Chairman, but let me make two points about its purposes. First, I want to stress that this amendment is not intended in any way to be an intrusion on the judicial branch of our government. I offer this amendment because I have been advised that the Judicial Conference, particularly through its Advisory Committee on Civil Rules, is already devoting considerable time and energy to this important issue. The committee has held public hearings already, they have conducted research, they have drafted and proposed civil rules amendments, and these are all intended to bring more rationality to class settlements. I believe that we should applaud the efforts of our Federal judges in this regard. Thus, I offer this amendment not to give our diligent Federal judges a new homework assignment, but rather I offer it to recognize their effort and suggest that they continue their investigation in this arena and encourage them to complete this project. Second, Mr. Chairman, I wish to emphasize this amendment would not directly regulate attorneys' fee awards. I truly believe that the attorneys' fees lie at the root of the key problems in what the Washington Post editorial referred to as the ``sorry world of class action litigation here in the United States.'' I also recognize an effort by this body to regulate directly the award of such fees could be very divisive. The bill that we presently have before us is worthy of, and actually has, healthy bipartisan support. So my proposal on the fees issue is a very limited one. It would simply encourage the completion of the work that our Federal judges have undertaken to develop best practices on this issue, all within the current framework of the attorneys' fee awards. For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment.

Ms. HART. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).

Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. The debate, unfortunately, around this amendment has not really dealt with this amendment. I would like to clarify that this amendment has absolutely nothing to do with Enron, Mr. Chairman. This amendment has to do with doing what is right. It has to do with Congress requesting facts, requesting the Judicial Conference to prepare a report for us, for the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary, so that we know and we have better information about class action settlements. The report would contain recommendations from the judges on best practices to ensure that attorneys' fees in class settlements actually reflect the results of those class actions, that is, that the attorneys get appropriate fees, the class action members, the plaintiffs, actually get a settlement instead of 33 cents. It is a simple amendment that complements the work our Federal judges have already begun. It urges them to complete their report 12 months after the bill is passed so that we will make sure that we are not just paying lip service to our constituents who believe that class actions have become a joke in this country. It is to make sure that class action lawsuits are real and really provide a real answer to the concerns that were brought to the court. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment.

Ms. HART

Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I rise also in support of the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. The law would require that babies born alive be treated as babies. It seems simple. I agree with the gentleman that should be the way it is today. But, unfortunately, our society has blurred this issue and some have made it, one, an issue of the parents' interest, or in this case, lack of interest in a newborn. Babies now born at 23 weeks generally survive. Some born even earlier have survived. Some critics of the legislation argue it is not necessary because what was alleged by one of our witnesses and several others that we have spoken with does not happen. It currently does happen. It clearly does happen. We would not be dealing with this issue if it did not happen. Ms. Stanek was just one of the individuals we spoke with through the committee. She brought with her other people who had also witnessed this type of action in a hospital, no less; a place where people go to receive care. Unfortunately, babies involved in induced-labor abortions were left to die, even though those children were born alive. It is every instance that will be covered, however. A child born alive, whether the labor is induced or not, should be treated as a child. It seems like it should not be necessary for us to make this law. However, it was stated earlier today that viable, healthy infants are being permitted to die according to those of us who support this legislation. If we remove those adjectives, viable and healthy, that seems to except that infants who maybe are not healthy are being left to die. Is it okay for us to allow unhealthy or maybe even unviable infants to be left to die on a cold shelf abandoned in some kind of cart in a hospital? It is not. This society must stand up for those who are the weakest. It is our responsibility as Members of the House to do so. That is why we support the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it as well.

Ms. HART

Ms. HART. I thank the chairman of the Steel Caucus, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), for his great leadership on this issue and for actually having this administration be so well educated to actually file the 201 investigation and really to have gotten us to the point where we are today. It is an honor for me to speak here on behalf of those in my district and throughout this Nation who have made the steel industry what it was and what it should be today, very strong and a very highly mechanized, very technical and very much improved industry over the last many years. Unfortunately, we have not been reaping the benefits that that industry has earned over the last several years. As I know has been discussed by several other Members earlier this evening, we have not reaped the benefits because of foreign nations subsidizing their steel and dumping it at below market costs here in this country. I had the opportunity to speak with the President, as I know many of my colleagues have, about this issue. We were instrumental in making the decision to file that 201 investigation. I am pleased that once the ITC had the opportunity to review the issue that they did agree with us that foreign steel dumping, in a 6-0 decision, in fact, that those products being imported into the United States are being imported below cost and also in increased quantities, that they are the substantial cause of the injury to the United States steel industry, not the lack of mechanization and modernization of our industry. I want to say, I represent a part of western Pennsylvania that has been known for being very strong in the steel industry. Unfortunately, we have lost many, many jobs over the last several years. Not only did we have a very difficult time in the 1970s and 1980s, but once again, since 1986, for example, we have lost over 20,000 steelworker jobs and five major plants in Beaver County alone, Babcock & Wilcox, Crucible, LTV, Armco and American Bridge. The problems, though, did not get better once the industry did modernize and consolidate. It has gotten worse. Allegheny County, where I live, Butler County, Fayette County, Washington County in western Pennsylvania and Westmoreland County where I represent have all lost jobs, not again because of their lack of technology but because of steel dumping. It is the unfair trade that has caused these problems. I would urge everyone involved who has the opportunity to have some input now with the administration to encourage them to stand along with my colleagues in the Steel Caucus and our chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), and push for a very effective remedy. It appears that that will happen next week. We have the opportunity to actually help our steel industry survive. We need to have a serious and effective remedy. What we are asking for, what the industry has been asking for, is a strong remedy, 40 percent tariffs, something along that line, for a period of time that will allow our industry to recover, something that they have earned because of the good faith they have shown in modernizing and moving the industry forward. Unfortunately, for too long, the administrations that ran this country did not pay attention to the steel industry. It was completely ignored, in fact, under the previous administration. I must credit President Bush, I must credit his trade ambassador and some of the folks who work with him who have listened to us, who have discussed with us the issue and I believe understand that it is important for us to take this step now so that we will continue to have a steel industry in this country at all. Because otherwise I think we are in jeopardy of losing it completely. Between 1997 and 2000, steel imports from China increased by 212 percent. From the former Soviet Union area, they increased by 167 percent. That is mostly from the Ukraine. From Taiwan, by 558 percent. I do not think anybody could say with a straight face that the quality of the steel or the process that they used was that much better than ours, and in fact it probably was not better at all. So I stand here along with my colleagues and I ask that we together, and I ask the administration, to work with us together to make sure that our steel industry and those who have worked in it and built it and built a large part of this Nation be rewarded for their hard work, be given the opportunity to continue to be a strong industry, that they can rebuild themselves, that they only ask that they be given a level playing field with other countries that are steel producers, and that we make sure that given this opportunity now, that the ITC has given us a decision showing that they have been injured by dumping, that they get the opportunity again to get back on their feet. Because not only is it important to my region, the regions that many of my colleagues represent, it is important to our entire Nation that we have a strong steel industry, not only for the automobile industry, not only for the appliance industry, but for the defense industry, for the defense of this Nation, and for our future. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his leadership.

Ms. HART

Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to take this opportunity to honor the 90th anniversary of one of the Nation's leading organizations, Hadassah, the Women's Zionist Organization of America, paying special honor to the Greater Pittsburgh Chapter and the Aliquippa, Ohio Valley Group. In the past nine decades, Hadassah has become the largest women and largest Jewish membership organization in the United States with over 300,000 members and 1,500 chapters across the country. Founded in 1912 by educator Henrietta Szold, Hadassah has been dedicated to pursuing social justice, ensuring Jewish community, promoting a prosperous and peaceful Israel, and providing for the health, education, and well being of American Jewish women and their families. Of the many positive activities and humanitarian missions the members of Hadassah partake, their greatest achievement is their network of world-renowned medical and educational facilities in Israel. Their flagship project, the Hadassah Medical Organization, provides health care of the highest quality to numerous individuals from all areas of the Middle East, without regards to race, religion, or nationality. The Hadassah Medical Organization also provides training for health care professionals from all comers of the world. For 90 years, Hadassah has supported peace and stability in the Middle East. In addition, the members of the Hadassah Pittsburgh Chapter, and the Aliquippa, Ohio Valley Group have been involved with a number of issues concerning women and the Jewish community in the United States. They have advocated a program for breast cancer detection and awareness, sponsored Jewish family programs, and encouraged civic participation on public policy through their Government Relations Unit. This is included with local support of the Women's Center of Beaver County. Finally, I would like to congratulate Hadassah and its members within the Greater Pittsburgh Chapter and Aliquippa, Ohio Valley Group for their commitment to helping numerous individuals, and improving the quality of their lives in the Middle East and across America. May they continue to advocate for peace and well being domestically and abroad for another 90 years.

Ms. HART

Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the substitute. I rise in support of the substitute because the base bill is not perfect. Granted, no bill is perfect. This bill does one thing that it should not do, it continues to allow soft money participation in campaigns. When I speak with people in my district, they want us to clean up campaigns. They ask me to support Shays-Meehan. I discuss with them what they are really concerned about regarding campaigns, and they say they want us to eliminate soft money. That is what this substitute does. Many of us signed a Common Cause pledge when we ran a couple of years ago that said I will support a complete ban on soft money and will oppose any legislation that does not completely ban soft money. Now, many of those who are supporting the bill as it is written today, the Shays-Meehan bill, are not banning soft money and are violating the Common Cause pledge. I am going to stick with the pledge, support the bill that eliminates soft money, and also support the bill that makes sure that these changes take effect now.

Ms. HART

Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3394, the Cyber Security Research and Development Act. H.R. 3394, seeks to address the vulnerability of the computer systems and networks that have become part of all our daily lives. It is all to clear to us, that we must be proactive and defend these systems from simple hackers to coordinated terrorist attacks. At hearings on cyber security last year in the Science Committee, we heard updates on research and development in that field. The news was sobering. The information we were provided was that too little research being conducted in this area, too few researchers were prepared to meet the needs of securing our systems, too few students going into fields relating to cyber security, and there was inadequate coordination between government, academia and industry. This must change and we have great resources in western Pennsylvania to help deliver these changes. Carnegie Mellon University (CMU), just outside of my district, has been a leader in the field of cyber security. In 2001, the National Security Council named them as a ``Center of Excellence in Security Education.'' Also, the CERT Coordination Center, a government-funded computer emergency-response team at CMU, helps to track the risks and frequencies of cyber crimes. According to the Center, there were 52,658 security breaches and attacks last year, up 50 percent from the previous year. The Center also got reports of 2,437 computer vulnerabilities, more than double the figures from the previous year. While having success with students in the field of cyber security, they, too, have expressed that deficiencies exist for cyber security. This includes the lack of undergraduates and graduates who can provide the necessary research. The ``Cyber Security Research and Development Act'' provides help for these areas by making grants available under National Science Foundation (NSF) for: research in innovative computer and network security; establishment of Centers for Computer and Network Security research in partnership with other universities; enabling universities to offer fellowships; and research in industry and other opportunities for doctoral degrees. H.R. 3394 also provides grants to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for: support for high- risk, cutting edge research by academics working with industry; and for the establishment of a fellowship to increase its number of researchers in computer and network security. This important legislation will provide us with the necessary investment in cyber security and needed support of existing resources, so that we are not with out the necessary experts to protect our critical computer infrastructure from terrorist attacks. Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Pickering) having assumed the chair, Mr. Sununu, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3394) to authorize funding for computer and network security research and development and research fellowship programs, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 343, he reported the bill back to the House.

Ms. HART

Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I serve both on the Committee on Financial Services and on the Committee on the Judiciary and have certainly, like many Members who have spoken, spent some time on this issue and certainly understand the gravity of what we are doing here today, because in January, a little more than 30 days from now, 70 percent of the commercial insurance policies will be up for renewal. Not only has the Committee on Financial Services received quite a bit of testimony that without legislation, commercial insurers will be unwilling to provide significant terrorism coverage, newspapers have been full of stories about companies finding terrorism coverage impossible to buy. If businesses are unable to obtain insurance to cover their losses caused by future acts of terror, they will not only potentially be liable for significant damages any terrorist could cause, but they would also face significantly higher financing and other costs. This has the potential to wipe out any beneficial impact of an economic stimulus package that we hope will be passed and signed by the President. In order to attract capital, companies have to convince investors that their money will not be wiped out. We take steps through this legislation to make sure that that is the case. This is not a bailout. This is a backstop. This is legislation that will give confidence back in your economy, confidence to investors. It allows for exact pricing so that in the event of another terrorist attack, the government would not only collect the amount of money it needs in accordance with this law, it prevents the creation of another mammoth government agency. In other words, we help finance money temporarily. This is not giving money away. This is assistance to our economy. It is very important. Limiting the legal liability of these insurers by restricting punitive damages is a big part of it. It is very important. Terrorism is not the fault of insurers, it is the fault of the terrorists. It is important that we take into consideration the realities here. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the support of my colleagues, both the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner). I urge support of the bill as it is, H.R. 3210.

Ms. HART

Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, how can we forget the story of the teenager in New Jersey who delivered a baby in a restroom, abandoned the child in a trash can and returned to her high school prom? Or perhaps you recall the new story of an infant discovered in a back yard and the infant was mauled by a hungry dog. In fact, in my district alone, three abandoned infants have been found this year, including one this last week. Fortunately, he was found alive and is recovering. The Safe and Stable Families amendments include money to help inform young women that there are safe havens available. There are opportunities for them to avoid this tragedy, the death of an infant. It is impossible to know the exact number of infants who are abandoned each year, but media accounts remind us that this is a growing problem nationwide. Between 1991 and 1998, for example, the number of abandoned babies discovered nationwide almost doubled. These young women are often scared and they hide their pregnancies out of this fear, and then they abandon their children, hoping someone will find them; or just abandon them out of fear, not thinking clearly. But in response to this problem many States, in fact 30, beginning with the State of Texas, enacted Safe Haven laws. These laws provide for an alternative for these young women, that they can leave their children somewhere safe, whether it is a hospital or police station, without being prosecuted for abandonment. This legislation throughout these States saves two lives. It saves the baby, Mr. Speaker, and also the young woman who is afraid and alone and not thinking clearly. As of last week, as I mentioned, a total of 30 States have passed Safe Haven Laws as well, but many are considering Safe Haven laws as well. We must help on the Federal level to prevent this tragedy of newborn babies being abandoned or killed. Safe Haven laws encourage responsible behavior by these women, but these young women will not take advantage of them if they are not aware of them. The Promoting Safe and Stable Families amendments allow the State to use some of their block grant money to help solve the problem of infant abandonment. This amendment would allow these States to use their block grants to fund public information campaigns and provide education and training to assist the States as they implement these new laws. This is similar to my legislation, H.R. 2018, the Safe Haven Support Act which has 76 co-sponsors of both parties. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) and the members of the committee for their work on this important issue, because it means, again, saving the baby's life but also saving the life of a young mother.

Ms. HART

Ms. HART. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. It is an honor to be here. I want to add something that the gentleman from Illinois had said regarding the issue of technology. The fact that currently not all baggage is screened is a serious problem, but it is the way it is now. The fact that the House bill would require all baggage to be screened by a date certain is extremely important. But beyond that, one of the reasons that I think it is important that we maintain this mix of public and private involvement in the actual security is that we will encourage competition among those firms that wish to participate. I had a discussion in my district just last week with a gentleman who is the chairman of a company that produces high-technology optical devices and x-ray devices. I had spoken with him about what they use those x-ray devices for now. He said that some of it is comparable to the kinds of things we will need in baggage screening down the road. The more advanced optics of a company like this, every time we have competition and opportunity for a better product, it is going to only make us safer and everyone who flies safer. So I am pleased to join in the discussion with my colleagues, and I am pleased that the gentleman allowed me some time. I did want to shed some light on some of the issue of really why we are here in the first place. I am from Pittsburgh. The area that I represent is a hub. We have a lot of people who not only work for the airlines, but who live there because they fly often as a matter of their daily life, for their living, to support their families. This issue is, yes, about the things we have been discussing tonight. It is about why our plan is better. But the ultimate concern and what we are looking to address is the safety of the American public. Our interest, and the reason that we have spent this hour with America tonight, is to explain why what we are doing is better. It would certainly be much easier for us to take the path of least resistance and to support the bill that passed the Senate, but we know it is not the best we can do. That is why we are here. It has to do with safety, it has to do with concern for those people who fly every day as a matter of their living, for their families; and those people who want to take a vacation and fly on a plane; and also those on the ground who, as we saw on September 11, could all too easily be harmed or killed as a result of bad screening and bad safety precautions. Mr. Speaker, one of the things I want to talk about regarding that that is so much superior in the bill that the House has produced is the mobilization of the new security system. We all know as Federal Government employees how long it takes to get a new system up and running. If the Federal Government wants to start a new system that is completely federalized, it will take a while. Our goal is efficiency. Our goal is delivering that safety, conveying that safety to the public as soon as possible and have it be as safe as possible. Having a new Federal bureaucracy put into place and forcing that whole thing, with every employee to be a Federal employee, will take much longer than mobilizing a brand new system, yes, a brand new system, but with people who are highly trained, a combination of Federal, law enforcement people, Federal security people, and people in the private sector who do this, who compete with each other to do the best job. Otherwise they will not get the contract. That can be put into place much more quickly. In my opinion, the mobilization of the system is paramount, and we need to support the House bill, because it will get us there sooner. The House bill is also very organized. The way the system will work is so much better. It creates a new Transportation Security Administration within the Department of Transportation, because this is all about transportation. It is not just airplanes, it is also trains, it is other public modes of transportation that we need to keep safe. So there will be within the Federal Government under our bill, but not under the Senate bill, this center, this brain center of security. It is important for us to have that, because that will provide for us someone to go to, the accountability that we need to be secure that we will be safe.

Ms. HART. I think that is why we have a bicameral legislature. The Senate did a very good job and did it first, and usually, doing it first, you take a risk that someone will look at the bill and find things that can be done better. That is what we have done. The gentleman's point about the Department of Justice having some authority and the Department of Transportation having some authority is actually extremely important, because if we do not know who to go to to be ultimately accountable for the security on our transportation system, on our planes, on our trains, then we will not be able to enforce it, and enforcement is going to be extremely important. The other issue I wanted to touch on quickly was that we do get the best of both worlds by having a system. I mentioned earlier about competition. When we have the opportunity to bring in specialists from the private sector and have them offer their professionalism to us as a Federal agency, I think we will get the best of both worlds. Again, as I said, our concern is ultimately the safety of every passenger. In order to get that, I think we need to bring in a mix of the finest we have to offer: Federal agents and private specialists.

Ms. HART

Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, we have listened to a lot of comments about additional measures people would like to see in this antiterrorism initiative. I believe that further discussions on this initiative and ways to crack down on terrorism will be constructive. We are certainly most interested in making our Nation safer. But as a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, I believe that we cannot delay the bill simply because it is not everything to everyone. To delay the bill is to fail to move forward, to fail to move forward on critical reforms, including giving local, State, and Federal law enforcement badly needed tools to fight terrorism and protect Americans. It would be a failure to move forward on updating our wiretap and surveillance laws to recollect the advances in technology that have changed how terrorists communicate and giving them an advantage. It would be a failure to move forward on allowing the sharing of criminal information within the intelligence community, coordinating our resources, and making it harder for terrorists to bury their tracks in bureaucratic red tape. It would also prevent us from making the simple but critical change that makes harboring terrorists a crime. Mr. Speaker, failure to support this bill today is to ignore these critical and urgently needed changes. I commend the chairman of the committee, and I commend my colleagues to support them.

Ms. HART

Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, an amendment had been prepared to be offered to be the Labor HHS appropriations bill, an amendment that is very important, in fact, an amendment that had been planned for quite a few months. This same amendment was going to be offered to the education bill, but was withdrawn in the interest of making sure that that education bill was passed this past spring. An agreement was made that that amendment would be offered in the Labor HHS appropriation. The rule had originally included the protection of that amendment. However, as a sponsor of that amendment, I have agreed to withdraw it. I am not withdrawing it because it is not an important issue. I am not withdrawing it because of pressure by anyone in particular. The amendment is actually being withdrawn in the interest of the larger body and the passage of a bipartisan Labor HHS appropriation bill. The amendment is extremely important, and I need to make clear that we will see the issue again. The issue is regarding something that surprises and shocks a lot of people once they hear that it actually happens in this country, and that is, that we know of at least 180 schools in the United States that hand out the morning-after pill to minors. These same schools will not even give a child an aspirin for a headache. Yet our law permits them to hand out the morning-after pill to little girls. Mr. Speaker, as I said, it was a difficult decision to withdraw this amendment. Now my colleagues understand why. It is important for us as Members of Congress to protect our children. Protecting our children, in fact, is a large part of the things that are included in the Labor HHS appropriation bill. We are not certain of the safety of the morning-after pill, especially its impact on very young women, those who would now receive it in at least 180 of our schools. In fact, in Great Britain a 15-year- old girl suffered a stroke after she had taken the pill at the age of 14. The question, I think, that faces this body, and that will face this body again, is are we willing to go to the extent that we need to to protect our children? If a school cannot give a child an aspirin, why does this Congress permit a school to give a little girl a morning- after pill? That means, basically, that we are condoning, first of all, that that little girl has admitted to having been sexually active, likely at a very young age. Again, these are minors that are being handed out the morning-after pill. Concern has been raised with me ever since I became the sponsor of this amendment in the spring by parents, by teachers, by church leaders, by people I run into in the mall; and support for this amendment has been expressed from all sectors. In fact, it has been expressed by both pro-life and pro-choice people. That is an important point to make, Mr. Speaker, because we should not make this an abortion issue. This is an issue of little girls and giving parents and schools the ability to take care of them, to protect them, and to protect their health. Federal law currently permits the use of these Federal funds to distribute the morning-after pill to schoolchildren. Numerous courts have ruled that schools using Federal funds for family planning services are forbidden to notify parents, regardless of State parental consent notification laws. Therefore, the amendment would prevent that by doing the following: the amendment would have said that any school that distributes the morning-after pill to these children would, therefore, not be able to receive any Federal funding. That is the only way, Mr. Speaker, that we will prevent these schools from being social activists and encouraging, in a way, these young ladies to be sexually active without any protection, and, in fact, placing these children in danger of transmitting sexually transmitted diseases and contracting sexually transmitted diseases. Mr. Speaker, it is only sensible for us to consider this issue at another time. I have had meetings this morning with leadership and have been assured that I will be able to move this issue forward at another time as a freestanding bill through the Committee on Education and the Workforce. Hopefully, we will get the support of the members of that committee. But until we do, Mr. Speaker, I want everyone to understand that this Congress is continuing to allow the distribution of what is and can be a very dangerous drug to these young ladies when that same school cannot even give the girl an aspirin for a headache. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Ms. HART

Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I, as my colleagues do, rise with a heavy heart today. I extend my sympathy also to the victims, their families, those who are lost at this time; and pray that God will comfort them. I thank God, though, for those emergency workers. Mr. Speaker, 911, yesterday's date, 9-11, should mobilize all Americans to answer the emergency. The police, the firefighters, the medical personnel, and the rescue workers all responded yesterday with determination. They responded with focus, with compassion, and with dedication. We must do the same, because we must triumph as a Nation and as a people over this terrorist act. I support the President and his resolve to hunt down those who facilitated this act of war and bring them to justice. We will bring them to justice. We as Americans must remember that preservation of freedom is not easy. We are facing the toughest time in our history, but we will triumph.