John Tierney

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, clearly this morning when I spoke on the rule I think I made a point worth repeating here and that is that the majority did not want to have a rule that allowed for individual amendments to be made because that would allow us to set up each aspect of this bill side by side so that the public would have an education and an informed debate on the provisions of the respective bill versus the substitute bill. Frankly speaking, we have executive accountability in the Democratic substitute. The other bill does not. We have honest, accurate and timely information for employees provided in the substitute. The bill does not have adequate provisions for that. We provide for unbiased, independent investment advice. The main bill specifically allows for biased, conflicted advice. And there is no reason on the planet why that should ever be the case. There are more than ample resources out there to give unbiased, unconflicted advice. Employers only want to make sure that they are not held liable when they take the precautions to get proper advisors in there, and all bills can do that. But, simply, even after Enron's Ken Lay was advising people against their interests, when we see news articles as recently as yesterday about Merrill Lynch having a conflict of interest that works against employees' rights right on down the line, this bill still goes up and hails the fact that they are bringing in conflicted advice as if that is the only way they can get advice for employees, and that is simply not the case. The Democratic substitute takes care of lock-out restrictions and provisions. It lets employees know that if they are locked out, the executives will not be taking advantage of that period of time to their benefit. We give parity of benefits for executives and rank-and-file workers to make sure that everybody is treated fairly. The substitute gives employees control over their retirement savings in much greater degree than does the bill itself. And we have additional protections for workers' pension benefits and a representative of employees on the pension board; and history shows us that when that happens the pension itself does better. All of these things are lacking and found wanting in the Republican bill itself. That is why we do not have a rule that allows us to bring up individual motions. That is why we are not allowed to stand here and side by side, motion by motion sit here and tell the public why the provisions of the substitute are in fact much better than those provisions of the bill.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me time. The gentleman spoke on the other side for a minute and wanted to talk about politics and education. Well, the politics of this rule are very simple. They did not want to have a straight matchup of each part of this bill. We are not allowed to bring forward amendments and talk about the several aspects that you heard the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) talk about earlier, because when you stack them up one against the other, this side that is with the employees, with working people, would win hands down. It is only by putting them all together in the aggregate and then trying to put it through on a party- line vote that they stand to have any prospect of having a bill that favors employers and the well-to-do against people that work every day and need protection. I will associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) on the general aspects of the substitute, and that should pass. Thank God the rule at least allows that. But I had tried, Mr. Speaker, to get in an individual amendment speaking just to the issue of advice and was not allowed the opportunity to do that. That is why this rule is in essence an abomination. That issue and others are being excluded from a direct debate in a direct contradiction to what is in that major bill that the majority is putting forward. They claim this is a compromise between the two committees, the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Education. The only thing being compromised here is the retirement security of our working men and women. This bill hurts employees with respect to the advice situation. A year ago, my amendment was the only amendment on this floor that talked about having no conflicted advice. The majority would not let it on the floor, would not let it come to a vote, and they passed a bill that went through and allowed for conflicted advice. Again we see a bill here saying, gee, as long as we tell you we are conflicted, as long as we tell you we might hurt you, we can have that kind of advice. Well, the fact of the matter is, Enron is coming between that; Ken Lay and his chat room advice to employees to hang on to the stock while he was dumping it off at a profit has come in between that. We have had investigations in the industry which every day reveal new conflicts, new scandals, more losses for working people. Mr. Speaker, I will include my remarks from the Congressional Record from last year for the record, because they are still pertinent. We only have to look at a recent newspaper headline from the Washington Post, April 9: ``Merrill Lynch e-mail shows firm pushed bad investments on client, chief New York prosecutor says.'' The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, the industry is admitting they are totally conflicted. The U.S. Attorney's Office and the New York State Attorney's Office in New York have shown that that happens day in and day out. The American public and the working people need to know they have advice that is not conflicted. Employers can be protected on the advice that they give, but there is no excuse to not protect the employees and to make sure advice they get is absolutely not conflicted. It is just one more way in which this bill does not favor employees and does more for the executives than it does for the working people. Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding me this time. Like many Members, I represent people who have worked hard and whose entire hope for a secure retirement may well rest on the success of their 401(k): leather workers, jet engine assemblers, teachers, nurses, and other hard-working, intelligent folks who are bright and able, but many of whom have little experience in understanding investment fundamentals. They may lack the time or even the knowledge to work through a mountain of financial information. They need advice that is given by a provider that meets at least minimum standards, one who is qualified and one who is subject to the laws of ERISA's fidicuary standards, standards of trust, and one who is free from financial conflict, free from divided loyalties; and they need an advisor who will put the worker's or investor's interests firs,t above profit. Consider this following example: two mutual funds, each posting annual gains of 12 percent consistently for 30 years. One fund has an expense fee of 1 percent, the other an expense fee of 2 percent. If you invested $10,000 in each fund, the fund with the lower expense fee at the end of 30 years would earn $229,000, but the one with the higher expense fee of 2 percent would have only $174,000. The mutual fund would pocket the difference of $55,000. Obviously, there may be little incentive for the advisor connected to the mutual fund to highlight the significance of this conflict, of his or her potential gain in steering someone to the higher fee investment. Why should we allow such a conflict of interest to exist when it is not necessary? Perhaps that is why the fund industry is lobbying so hard for this bill, but workers and retirees are not asking for its passage. These hard-working people, like other investors, need and want good, sound advice; but allowing money managers to make recommendations that will generate more income for themselvess hardly falls into the realm of independent advice. In 1974, Congress chose to ban transactions between pension plans and parties with a conflict of interest, except under very narrow circumstsances; and they did that for a simple reason. There is too great a danger that a party with a conflict of interest will act in its own best interests rather than exclusively for the benefit of the workers. That concern is not less valid today. Studies by the financial industry itself have found broker conflicts have harmed advice received by individuals, audit conflicts have undercut the value of audits on financial firms, analyst reports have shown significant evidence of bias in comparing ratings. The law, ERISA, was designed to protect against just these types of issues. Our shared goal should be to increase access to investment advice for individual account plan participants. We need not obliterate long-standing protections for plan participants in order to do that. Surveys show that the most important reason advice may not now be offered is that employers have fears that they may be held liable for advice gone bad. The remedy for that, and it is in the bill, is that Congress should encourage more employers to provide independent advice by addressing employer liability. It should clarify that an employer would not be liable for specific advice if it undertook due diligence selecting and monitorinng the advice provided. It is as simple as that. There is no need for conflicted advice. Many plans already provide for investment education. Many plans now provide independent investment advice through financial institutions and other firms without conflict. Clarifying that employers would not be liable if they undertake due diligence with respect to advice providers would further increase advice as necessary. Disclosure alone will not mitigate potential problems. The alternative bill in adding some protections and mandating a choice of alternative advice that is not conflicted is a better ideaa, but the best idea remains a prohibiting against conflicted advice. Congress, by clearing up the liability issue, can encourage independent, unbiased investment advice that will better enable employers to improve their long-term retirement security, while minimizing the potential for employee dissatisfaction and possible litigation. This is what is in the best interests of the plan participants and, in fact, the best interests of the plan; and certainly is in the best interests of the hard-working people in my district who need to know that their retirement is secure.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of the 181st anniversary of Greek independence that will take place on March 25th. As a member of the Congressional Caucus on Hellenic Issues, I once again join my colleagues in paying tribute to the Greek nation and its people. As we all know, ancient Greece was the fountain of democratic ideals and values for the rest of the world, and on the day of her Independence, we are again reminded of our duty to strive for and defend freedom. We are also reminded of the debt of gratitude we owe to the country upon which our democratic process is founded, while also recognizing the strong support modern day Greece has given us in our battle with terror. Indeed, the people of Greece and all Greek Americans have cause to celebrate their achievements on this day of Independence. On behalf of the people of the Sixth Congressional district of Massachusetts, I wish to extend congratulations to the people of Greece and all people of Greek heritage in the United States on this important holiday.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker. I understand that my colleagues on the other side do not want us to dwell on the budget comparisons and on those issues, and so I will try again to confine my remarks to the rule, understanding how assiduously they have worked to make sure we do not get into an extended debate about the economic and social security of our country and the comparison with tax breaks and acceleration of tax breaks for the wealthy. Continuing on this rule, Mr. Speaker, this rule gives us plenty of time, as I said before, to discuss in fact an issue that is not in great contention, and it is remarkable that we have so much time to discuss a bill that comes under a great deal of agreement and so little time to discuss other bills that, in fact, have a great deal of disagreement and issues of very significant importance to this country. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this Rule because it denies the American people a full and fair debate to the fiscal year 2003 budget resolution, and denies America's First Responders a full and fair debate over whether this budget will assist them as they assist us in fighting terrorism. As we all know, our nation's first responders rose to the occasion in recent months, answering the call to protect and stabilize our communities after the terrorist attacks of September 11th and the anthrax attacks of October 2001. Communities incurred over a billion dollars in overtime costs for police, fire and medical personnel--and stand to incur similar unreimbursed expenses as the war on terrorism continues. This Amendment--which the Majority refused to allow to come up for a vote--calls for Congress to include some relief for America's First Responders who have so ably served our country. It addresses FEMA's State and Local Terrorism Preparedness Initiative which requires local first responders to put up a burdensome (and for many, unaffordable) 25% local ``match'' in order to receive ANY assistance. The Amendment concludes that ``Government should assist local communities who stand ready to participate in FEMA's Local Terrorism Preparedness Initiative by waiving the 25 percent local match prerequisite or by reducing the percentage as much as practicable.'' This amendment, the substance of which was communicated to the Budget Committee last week by 114 Members of Congress--Democrats and Republicans from urban and rural districts across the country--is a budget neutral remedy to a problem faced by first responders in my district and across the country. The letter was signed by Representatives Abercrombie, Ackerman, Andrews, Baca, Baldacci, Baldwin, Becerra, Berkley, Berman, Blagojevich, Blumenauer, Bonior, Boswell, S. Brown, Capps, Capuano, Cardin, B. Carson, Christensen, Clayton, Clement, Clyburn, Coyne, Crowley, Cummings, D. Davis, Delahunt, DeLauro, Doggett, Edwards, Farr, Filner, Frank, Gordon, G. Green, Graham, Harman, Hinchey, Hoeffel, Holt, Honda, Houghton, Hyde, Jackson, Tubbs Jones, W. Jones, Kildee, Kind, Kucinich, LaFalce, Lampson, Langevin, Lantos, Larsen, Larson, B. Lee, Jackson Lee, J. Lewis, LoBiondo, Lofgren, Lynch, Maloney, Markey, Matsui, McCarthy, McGovern, McKinney, McNulty, Meeks, Menendez, Millender-McDonald, G. Miller, Moore, Nadler, Neal, Norton, Olver, Pallone, Pascrell, Pastor, Payne, Pelosi, Phelps, Quinn, Rahall, Rivers, Rodriguez, Ross, Sandlin, Sawyer, Schakowsky, Schiff, Scott, Shows, Skelton, Slaughter, Snyder, Solis, Stupak, Sweeney, M. Thompson, Thurman, Tierney, Towns, Turner, M. Udall, T. Udall, Wamp, Watson, Waxman, Weldon, Woolsey, Wu, and Wynn, all of whom share a commitment to ensuring that local first responders receive our support and resources to fight terrorism. This Amendment is co-sponsored by a number of my colleagues who simply want the opportunity to show our First Responders that our budget includes resources for them to protect and defend our communities. I thank Representatives John Baldacci, Tammy Baldwin, Rod Blagojevich, Sherrod Brown, Michael Capuano, Steve Lynch, Bob Matsui, Nancy Pelosi, Ciro Rodriguez, Lucille Roybal-Allard, Max Sandlin, and Tom Sawyer for their support in this important effort. Our Local Terrorism Preparedness Initiative Amendment will allow creativity and flexibility in shaping policy, so that lawmakers may either waive the match for fiscal year 2003, reduce the 25% percentage, and/or explore a ``soft match'' whereby communities that have together incurred over a billion dollars in overtime costs for police, fire and medical personnel can individually designate the expenses incurred after September 11th as part of their match--at no additional cost to the taxpayers. Congress has an historic opportunity to assist local communities: by relieving them of this unfunded mandate; by rewarding the entrepreneurial and patriotic spirit in so many districts like my own in Massachusetts where first responders have put aside turf issues and worked cooperatively to create Local Emergency Planning Committees and other cross-jurisdictional response strategies to serve the American people; and by ensuring that local first responders may continue to serve as America's first line of defense. Our nation's first responders are in desperate need of assistance from the Federal government for homeland security efforts and they deserve a full and fair debate over whether Congress is prepared to respond to their urgent needs in this year's budget. Because the Majority refused to allow this debate, I urge my colleagues to stand up for America's First Responders and against this unfair rule. This Amendment to H. Con. Res. 353, the FY 2003 Budget Resolution, calls for Congress to include some relief for America's First Responders who have so ably served our country after the terrorist attacks of September 11th and the anthrax attacks of October, 2001. It addresses FEMA's proposed $3.5 billion State and Local Terrorism Preparedness Initiative--$2.625 billion of which will be directed toward local communities--which requires local first responders to put up a burdensome (and for many, unaffordable) 25% local ``match'' in order to receive ANY assistance. The Amendment concludes that ``Government should assist local communities who stand ready to participate in FEMA's Local Terrorism Preparedness Initiative by waiving the 25 percent local match prerequisite or by reducing the percentage as much as practicable.'' This bipartisan effort includes a letter signed by 114 Members-- Democrats and Republicans from urban and rural districts across the country--seeking a budget neutral means to relieve local police, fire and emergency responders of this unfunded mandate and to ensure that local first responders may continue to serve as America's first line of defense. (Please see an attached copy of the letter with a list of signatories.) If passed, the Amendment will allow flexibility in shaping policy, so that lawmakers may either waive the match for FY 2003, reduce the 25% percentage, and/or explore a ``soft match'' whereby communities that have together incurred over a billion dollars in overtime costs for police, fire and medical personnel can individually designate the expenses incurred after September 11th as part of their match. At the end, add the following new section:

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker because it is difficult to maintain a nexus, but we do have to take opportunity that we can to make sure that we are at least heard to some degree on this budget that is coming up and make sure that we use whatever time we can to make sure people understand that there is a difference between the parties when it comes to dealing with the social and economic security of this country. We can talk under the rules all we want about being able to step out and protect our Nation and there is no disagreement, but there ought to be a debate as between accelerating tax cuts and accelerating the tax cuts for the wealthy versus doing things for the economic security of this country. point of order

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I would just suggest to the Chair that my memory being fine, I was discussing and comparing the rule under the telecommunications bill with the rule for the budget, and I think that if I am talking about the rule and making a comparison I am in fact speaking germanely and on the Record, and while my colleagues have tried, the majority, to stifle that debate on the budget and stifle our debate on the budget rule, I do not think it is permissible to stifle our debate on this rule where we are drawing that kind of comparison.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address this rule on the suspension today and indicate that I suspect that this particular bill is going to meet with a great deal of agreement on both sides of the House. I do regret, however, that this rule probably has more time allotted to discussion and debate than the rule on the budget will and the rule on the budget being in comparison so much more important in dealing with such a large part of what it is that we do here and what we do for the American people and at their behest. I would have to say that there is no difference between the Republican-Democratic stand when it comes to making sure that our national security is taken care of and that our homeland security is taken care of. We stand together. We stand united. We support the protection of this country at all times. There is, however, a significant amount of difference, and if we had ample time on the rules to discuss that and on the bill itself to discuss it between what our beliefs are and the right way to proceed with the economic and social security of people in this country. Everybody understands the financial commitment that we will have to make toward our national security and toward homeland security, but there is a great deal of disagreement as to whether we should be accelerating tax breaks for very wealthy individuals when we should be standing united as a country and putting some investment into the education and to the health care and to the building of roads and bridges and to protection of our homeland, and that is where the debate, if we had time on the rule and if we had time on the bill itself, would come into play. Very frankly speaking, this is a situation where this rule does not allow enough time in comparison. This rule gives more time than is needed for a bill and the other rule does not. points of order

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, let me proceed to talk on the rule for a second. I think one of the reasons that we are speaking here is that while this rule on this particular bill by suspension allows more than adequate time to talk about that rule, the rule on the budget does not allow enough time to talk about that rule nor does the budget debate allow for enough time on that. point of order

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I did not hear what the Chair had to say on that. I did not hear anything when the other speaker was speaking, and I cannot hear the Chair now either.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I will make a note on that, that as the last speaker was speaking about the process of the Committee on Rules last night, not pertaining to this bill, the Chair was completely silent on that, and I would like some fair treatment as this moves forward and would expect it from my colleague from New York, who has been known in the past to be a person of fairness, and I would expect that to apply here.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman that just spoke was not discussing it either.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, today we are here to vote on the fate of mourning doves. That may be a serious matter, and people may in fact cherish the opportunity to go and shoot these birds, and that would be appropriate at some other time, I might suspect. However, there are people mourning in America today because they are working families who have suffered record layoffs since the tragic terrorist attacks of September 11 and prior to that time. From September 11, the date after which people exhausted their benefits, the date they would get additional benefits under the bipartisan legislation passed in the Senate 100 to nothing through January of this year, more than 1.3 million people will have exhausted their regular employment benefits, and we are here talking about doves. In nine States, including my home State of Massachusetts, the number of unemployed workers exhausting their unemployment benefits from November to January more than doubled from the comparable period a year ago. On April 15, just a month from now, unemployed workers across this country will be paying their taxes, filing their returns to pay taxes for the money they made before September 11. Those tax dollars go to pay our salaries here in Congress. They expect us to work, and they expect us to set priorities. Long before the priority of shooting doves, we should be doing something about the unemployment insurance for people who are out of work. We were able to work to bail out the airlines. We promised to help the laid-off workers then, and we still have not done it. Instead, we have a tax package to help corporations. The majority in this House tried first to give a 15-year break of $25 billion back to Enron and other megacorporations, but did not do anything about unemployment insurance. They still are now trying to undermine that by taking that 100 to zero proposal from the Senate that would extend unemployment insurance and add another poison pill, this time shifting from the employer to the employee the cost of their basic health insurance, trying to undermine our employer-based health insurance system as the price for having unemployment insurance. Well, we have suspension of the rules for mourning doves, Mr. Speaker, and we should have suspension of the rules to deal with the unemployment insurance. Oppose the motion on the previous question, bring forward that Senate bill. No more poison pills. Let us get our business done for America's working families.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for the gentleman from Tennessee and believe that he is not bringing this amendment for any ill purposes and may genuinely believe that he is doing a good thing here. But I think logic, if we can talk for a second, argues otherwise. The fact of the matter is, as others have mentioned here, the underlying bill is trying to get money out of politics. We take target on the soft money and move that along. The fact of the matter, it seems incongruous and contradictory to take a look and say now, on the hard money, we are going to increase the amount on that. If you can get access, if you can play in this political game at $1,000, you can certainly play at $2,000. For those in our American system who have not been able to play at the $1,000 level, you will be even further excluded and feel even more remote from the process. There are already too many people participating in this system, too few people registering and too few a percentage of those registered people voting; and a great part of it is because they think people that have money in the system have access. And that does not matter whether it is soft money or hard money. If you double the hard-money limits, then people that do not have $1,000 to throw in a pie and do not have $2,000 think you are just making it more and more difficult for them to have a voice.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding me this time. Like many Members, I represent people who have worked hard and whose entire hope for a secure retirement may well rest on the success of their 401(k): leather workers, jet engine assemblers, teachers, nurses, and other hard-working, intelligent folks who are bright and able, but many of whom have little experience in understanding investment fundamentals. They may lack the time or even the knowledge to work through a mountain of financial information. They need advice that is given by a provider that meets at least minimum standards, one who is qualified and one who is subject to the laws of ERISA's fiduciary standards, standards of trust, and one who is free from financial conflict, free from divided loyalties; and they need an advisor who will put the worker's or investor's interests first, above profit. Consider this following example: two mutual funds, each posting annual gains of 12 percent consistently for 30 years. One fund has an expense fee of 1 percent, the other an expense fee of 2 percent. If you invested $10,000 in each fund, the fund with the lower expense fee at the end of 30 years would earn $229,000, but the one with the higher expense fee of 2 percent would have only $174,000. The mutual fund would pocket the difference of $55,000. Obviously, there may be little incentive for the advisor connected to the mutual fund to highlight the significance of this conflict, of his or her potential gain in steering someone to the higher fee investment. Why should we allow such a conflict of interest to exist when it is not necessary? Perhaps that is why the fund industry is lobbying so hard for this bill, but workers and retirees are not asking for its passage. These hard-working people, like other investors, need and want good, sound advice; but allowing money managers to make recommendations that will generate more income for themselves hardly falls into the realm of independent advice. In 1974, Congress chose to ban transactions between pension plans and parties with a conflict of interest, except under very narrow circumstances; and they did that for a simple reason. There is too great a danger that a party with a conflict of interest will act in its own best interests rather than exclusively for the benefit of the workers. That concern is no less valid today. Studies by the financial industry itself have found broker conflicts have harmed advice received by individuals, audit conflicts have undercut the value of audits on financial firms, analyst reports have shown significant evidence of bias in comparing ratings. The law, ERISA, was designed to protect against just these types of issues. Our shared goal should be to increase access to investment advice for individual account plan participants. We need not obliterate long- standing protections for plan participants in order to do that. Surveys show that the most important reason advice may not now be offered is that employers have fears that they may be held liable for advice gone bad. The remedy for that, and it is in the bill, is that Congress should encourage more employers to provide independent advice by addressing employer liability. It should clarify that an employer would not be liable for specific advice if it undertook due diligence selecting and monitoring the advice provided. It is as simple as that. There is no need for conflicted advice. Many plans already provide for investment education. Many plans now provide independent investment advice through financial institutions and other firms without conflict. Clarifying that employers would not be liable if they undertake due diligence with respect to advice providers would further increase advice as necessary. Disclosure alone will not mitigate potential problems. The alternative bill in adding some protections and mandating a choice of alternative advice that is not conflicted is a better idea, but the best idea remains a prohibition against conflicted advice. Congress, by clearing up the liability issue, can encourage independent, unbiased investment advice that will better enable employers to improve their long-term retirement security, while minimizing the potential for employee dissatisfaction and possible litigation. This is what is in the best interests of the plan participants and, in fact, the best interests of the plan; and it certainly is in the best interests of the hard-working people in my district who need to know that their retirement is secure.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, yesterday United Airlines and Argenbright Security were embarrassed to admit that they cleared a man through Chicago O'Hare Airport with seven knives and a stun gun. After enormous public outcry and international media exposure, they vowed to immediately take corrective action. Yet only a couple of hours ago, they failed again. A woman named Marianne went to Dulles Airport this afternoon to board a United Airlines flight to San Francisco. Marianne checked in at the United ticket counter, showed her ID, and cashed in miles from her account for an upgrade. United issued the upgrade, checked her luggage and issued Marianne a boarding pass. From the United ticket counter Marianne proceeded to the Argenbright security checkpoint. She presented her ID and her boarding pass for inspection. Argenbright checked her through security. Marianne arrived at the United gate. Again she was asked to show her ID and her boarding pass. Again she was cleared through security. Marianne boarded the plane and sat in her seat. A few minutes later, a man boarded the plane and said, ``you are sitting in my seat.'' Turns out, United had issued them both the same boarding pass--2 passes with the same name--HIS name--Lester. United took Marianne off the plane, and told her that United had no record of her name in the system despite the fact that she had used miles from her account to get the upgrade; that there were 2 boarding passes issued to Lester and no seat listing for Marianne. Moreover, Marianne's luggage was checked in Lester's name and still headed to San Francisco. United booked Marianne on a later flight to San Francisco. When her 3:30 flight lands in a few minutes from now, she will not only suffer the inconvenience of being several hours late through no fault of her own, but Marianne will have to go searching for her luggage under Lester's name. And who knows what will happen to her miles? If the people in San Francisco pay as little attention as those at Dulles, that won't be a problem. But if they actually look at the name on her ID and the name on her baggage tags; if they actually deduce that Marianne, a female, is not Lester, a male, then she will have a lot of explaining to do. The truth is, it's United and Argenbright who have a lot of explaining to do. It's the Republican majority, who voted last week to continue the status quo of contracting out airport security checkpoint work to the lowest bidder, who have some explaining to do.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to my colleague who is presenting this motion that, in fact, he has already done well what he purports to represent. He has increased the amount of his package well over what it was last year. The base bill does that, and he can feel that he has had an accomplishment there. But when we talk about priorities, and I understand that is a priority of his, and as I said he has addressed it, America's priority right now is security. If you walk down any street, any main street in my district or anyone else's district, people are talking about security. They want to make sure that they are safe in their homes, safe in their neighborhoods, their children are safe in their schools, that our water is safe, that our transportation is safe. They are also talking about security of their income. Thousands and thousands of people have lost their employment as a result of what went on September 11; and those are issues which should, in fact, be a priority of this country. We have done nothing about them since September 11. We had an opportunity when we bailed out the airline industry, excessively in my opinion, when they could only identify $2 billion worth of losses occasioned by the activities of September 11, but got $5 billion. We had an opportunity then to do something for people that became unemployed, to make sure they had health care for their families, to make sure they had an adequate income so they could sustain themselves and their families and their communities. We had an opportunity then to do something about security on our airlines, in particular, as well as other places. The CDC does need money so it can make sure we are safe from anthrax and other problems like that. We need to know that the pilots are secure in their cockpit and that our luggage is getting checked. We need to know our water is safe and that we are being protected. These are going to be costly matters. When you talk about the American people's priorities, rather than be debating on what we have been debating here, excessively over this bill's base amounts, we would better spend our time addressing what people want, a job or employment security or income security, a way to know they will have health care coverage for their family in a time of need, and a way to know that when they travel they will be safe. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that that is what this Congress should have been doing over the past several weeks. It is a disgrace that we have not been doing it. We should get on to that business now. That is America's priority.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Speaker, I again thank the ranking member of our subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), for yielding me the time. I just wanted to briefly address this 12-hour rule situation. I think it is interesting to note, I do not think anybody disagrees that that rule needs to be looked at; that it needs to be revised; that 12 hours is not necessarily the measure of the value of quality of an education. However, I am a bit disturbed, as I think we all should be, that the suggested replacement for that is a sort of vague or incomplete standard of 1 day which, in essence, could be read and could, in fact, be the simple logging on in some part of some day on to a computer Internet program and then qualifying as a full-time student for purposes of financial aid. It fails to address the standard, fails to address what is the quality of a program for which that student would be receiving financial aid and ostensibly working toward a degree. One of the real criteria here we ought to be looking at is whether or not we are going to be adequate stewards for the way we distribute a very limited amount of money; and while financial aid, as the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) said, will be available, there is only so much available. As more and more people may sign up for these courses, that money is going to be spread across a larger universe. That is fine if the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) wanted an original 5-year demonstration program and is now satisfied with one and satisfied with the preliminary results, when I suggest that many of us may not be satisfied with the preliminary results. We want answers to questions like what specifically makes this rule of 1 day, which could be construed as logging in for part of 1 day, an adequate standard. There was no testimony at the committee hearings that we were at that addressed just what would be the proper replacement for the 12-hour rule. I agree we heard people say that it ought to be changed and that we needed a new standard so that distance learning could be encouraged; but I did not hear any testimony, have not seen any reports that have addressed what, in fact, is the adequate amount. Accreditation agencies have not caught up with this concept. As I mentioned earlier, while some schools may have set good, rigorous standards for a good-quality education, many have not; and many accrediting institutions have not caught up with where this concept ought to be and how it ought to be measured that, in fact, there is a right amount of time of contact with a faculty member or contact with their peers in the classroom. It would not really address, as we heard evidence on, and got a good and convincing idea of whether or not there should be no visual experience, whether there should be no contact with classmates. Are we saying in essence that we are stepping ahead of those accrediting agencies and deciding that there is no value to interchange and exchange in a classroom with other people in their life experiences and no value to having an exchange with a faculty member and all of their valuable experiences and what they bring to the table? I think that we can wait for those demonstration programs to be completed as we reauthorize the Higher Education Act. I think we can look at the data and the information that comes forward and that we can then replace this 12-hour rule with a clearer concept of what should be in place. Must we have face time in order for it to be a good-quality education program? If not, why not? If, in fact, we should have some, how much would be the adequate amount? I think again that we need not be precipitous here; that we have distance learning programs going on in institutions all over this country, whether they be State schools or whether they be private institutions; and nobody wants to interfere with that, and everybody that I know in this Congress supports that concept. I would hope that everybody in this Congress also supports the establishment of sound standards to make sure that if we give the right to people to use this financial aid, which is limited in the truest sense, that we do it only toward programs where there are standards set that are sufficient so that those students will know that they have been ensured a quality education; and so that Americans, whose taxpayers' money go for those financial aid obligations, know that they are going for people who are going to get a quality educational experience that they can use to enhance their ability to support themselves and their families and their communities.

Mr. TIERNEY. I thank my colleague and ranking member of the subcommittee for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, this is not an argument about whether we will move forward or not. This is an argument of just how we will move forward. Everybody seems to understand what the purpose of the two rules, the 12-hour rule and the 50 percent provision, are. The question is how are we going to deal with those issues as we move forward. How are we going to assure that there are standards adequate to ensure our students a good quality education and protect the financial aid money over which we are the stewards. Nobody really disagrees with the fact that the 12-hour rule and the 50 percent provision need to be addressed. Some time ago, in 1998, when the Higher Education Act was being reauthorized, the now chairman of our subcommittee showed his leadership by saying we should have a demonstration program. Now he has changed that and his leadership is taking us in a different direction, but some of us would like to stay the course. As the stewards of this financial aid money, it made sense that 25 institutions would start on a demonstration program and gather the data and the information we would need to determine what would replace the 12-hour rule, what would replace the 50 percent provision, what is it that we would have there as a standard that our students would always feel comfortable they were getting a quality education, and just how is it that we would know as a Congress that we were wisely spending this money going forward. It is one thing to say that the protection is that these moneys are only going to accredited schools, that would be great, because some schools truly do set strong quality controls in distant learning courses. But unfortunately not all of them do. And, in fact, most accreditation bodies have not addressed this issue, have not determined and laid out quality and standards for what would constitute a good distance learning course over the Internet. So as Congress, that is not our job. We generally look at those accrediting agencies and look at their guidance. They have not set it yet. I would suggest that they are waiting for the demonstration program results of the Department of Education's program that was supposed to gather this data and gather the information so that we could protect that money and protect the students. Distance learning is not standing still while we debate this issue and while we wait for that demonstration to give us results and information. It is continuing on at many colleges and universities, some in my own district and in the State for sure, but the fact of the matter is having learned once in our history of what can happen when you have correspondence courses that get out of control and find out too late that money that is very scarce, money that students who do not have the resources of other wealthy students need in order to get their education, if that is gone by the time we correct this problem, we will have wished that we stayed and got the results of those demonstration programs and moved forward only on that basis. Is no face time, face-to-face interaction with instructors or with other learners the best idea? Does the age and life experiences of the type of materials being taught have any impact on whether or not some class time is needed traditionally, or whether it can all go over the Internet? Is there no role for visual and verbal interactions in a social setting as part of the learning environment? Those are questions that have yet to be addressed and need to be addressed at many of the institutions that want to offer these types of courses. We have these demonstration programs out there. We have a reauthorization coming up in just a couple of years. It was originally the intent of this Congress that we allow those 25 institutions to provide that demonstration, to give us the information and data upon which we could make sound and reasoned judgments. While the commission has attempted to point us in the direction saying these issues need attention, we know that. And while the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) and others, I think, are doing a noble thing in trying to move forward, speed is not always the best process. I say nothing is stopping people from offering these courses, but what is happening is we are being stopped from basing our decisions on what the quality of those courses will be and what the protection for scarce resources and financial aid will be if we move forward precipitously. Madam Speaker, we need to know that we are doing the right thing. Let us wait for the results of those demonstration programs and let us move forward on the substitute amendment that the gentlewoman from Hawaii is putting forward.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, the safety of our food supply is one of our Nation's top priorities obviously, but increasingly, Americans are becoming concerned about the genetically engineered ingredients that are in their food. Because of that concern, I have introduced this reasonable amendment that provides for a National Academy of Sciences study to examine three important health-related aspects of genetically engineered foods. First, that the tests being performed on genetically engineered foods to ensure their health safety are adequate and relevant. Second, what type of monitoring system is needed to assess future health consequences from genetically engineered foods. And third, what type of regulatory structure should be in place to approve genetically engineered foods for humans to eat. Genetically engineered crops can be found in many of the foods we eat every day. Potato chips, soda, baby food, they all contain genetically engineered ingredients. Last year, many Americans became aware of the pervasiveness of these ingredients in our food when Starlink corn that was genetically engineered wound up in human food, and not just the animal feed for which it was approved. We need to address this issue before we have more unexpected incidents like this. Mr. Chairman, this issue is not going to be resolved on its own. Several States, including my home State of Massachusetts, are considering legislation that would impose a moratorium on the planting of genetically engineered crops. In the meantime, the number of genetically engineered crops planted by farmers is continuing to grow. In the year 2000, more than 100 million acres of land around the world were planted with genetically engineered crops. This is 25 times as much as was planted just 4 years before. If we do not make an effort to ensure the best testing, monitoring and regulatory structures are in place now, our farmers are going to suffer the consequences of any future lack of public confidence in genetically engineered foods. This effort has been endorsed by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, an organization devoted to improving the safety and nutritional quality of our food supply, and I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this common sense amendment to protect our farmers and our families.

Mr. TIERNEY. I thank the chairman.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, listening as this debate goes on to both the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), who eloquently set forth his position, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), who also did the same, I think they make convincing arguments about why, as much as many of us feel this does not go nearly as far as it should go, it may in this instance be all that we can get, as sad as that is to say. It is important that we spend the money on intelligence and that we spend it on antiterrorism and counterterrorism and consequence management. It is just amazing sometimes to some of us that we do not think to do that without extracting a price of overspending on a system that has not been tested, and starting to deploy a system that, I think, in many ways will work to our disadvantage; that we will have $2.9 billion, or 55 percent of an increase over current spending on this. That we would have initial deployment that would lead to the breaching of the ABM treaty is somewhat beyond comprehension. As I mentioned earlier, for $1.6 to $2 billion, we could secure Americans in their air travel. Yet we will put $2.9 billion instead on getting way ahead of ourselves, starting to build something before it is adequately tested, pursuant to the Pentagon's own operations and testing and evaluation firm. We are risking the stability internationally that this might present in unilaterally breaking that treaty. We are certainly going well beyond this Congress' intention, who said we should move forward only if it ever proved feasible. We are certainly failing to put our priorities in proper order. Where it is clear we are spending some $60 billion to $100 billion on an item that has not been proven to work and our own intelligence services say falls well behind the needs for security against terrorism, it just does not seem to make sense. But I do want to commend the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for the work they have done on this. I was with them at the $920 million mark. I was a little beyond that, as were many, because that is what we really ought to be doing, being sensible. But I join in congratulating them for getting at least something from folks that do not seem to want to take a really objective look at this and see where we are going. I say that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) is probably right. Let us see what we get for a reciprocal response. Let us hope that this administration can evaluate the entire situation and understand that this would not be the time to unilaterally violate this treaty. This would be the time to show good faith, and we can be responsible partners in cooperating with people as we ask for their cooperation internationally. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 45 seconds. First, we will have national insecurity, not national security if we start down the path of deploying and actually building and producing a system that is not yet workable. I do not think anybody can make a logical argument that this system is ready to work. I understand everybody would love to have it, but it just does not work that way. Our testing is not there. That is simply the argument here. Are we going to give in this budget so much money that it goes beyond testing and starts with building when it is not ready, therefore giving us national insecurity? Are we going to give ourselves just the amount that we need for testing and continue to do that until testing shows that we have something that is workable, or are we going to waste resources by building something and then have to go back to the beginning at far more expense, at possibly the expense of lives, because we relied on something that does not work? For $1.6 billion, we can put money into airline security that we choose to put it in this way, and that is wrong.