John Tierney

Mr. TIERNEY

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

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time. We are told over and over again in committee hearings from experts and scholars of all natures that we could close 50 percent of the achievement gap that we see in our country if we have effective preschool, prekindergarten programs. Head Start is just that kind of a program. We see over and over again the evidence showing us it has a positive economic and social impact across this Nation, particularly in its comprehensive nature, the fact that it deals with education, deals with health issues and social implications. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, my State, 80 percent of 3-year- olds are still not enrolled in prekindergarten or Head Start programs. We need to be expanding this program for all of the good things it does because we need to take advantage of that opportunity to close that gap. One of the ways that we are going to do that is to attract quality teachers. I am glad to see in this bill that Mr. Sestak has filed an amendment to provide up to $10,000 in loan forgiveness for college graduates who commit to teach in the Head Start field. We have raised the standard of the teachers that we want, requiring them to meet a certain grade. That means we are going to have to pay people in order to go into this profession because it is still going to cost them considerably to get that degree. If we are going to do that, we have to step forward. I think Mr. Sestak's idea, which we have been talking about in the higher education reauthorization bill for some time, is one way of doing that. Loan forgiveness for early education teachers over a period of years will allow us to have that program meet the pinnacle that we need it to reach. For this and many other reasons, I think this bill is a good bill and deserves our attention and our support. I ask my colleagues to join me in voting for it.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H. Res. 268.

Mr. TIERNEY

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

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, as we discussed already here, whistleblowers play a key role in holding government accountable, and this legislation takes the important and long-overdue step of providing whistleblower protections for Federal workers who specialize in national security issues. This amendment was carefully crafted to clarify the process by which national security whistleblower information, that is, information which may evidence a violation of law, rule or regulation of gross mismanagement, fraud, waste, or abuse is shared with executive branch officials and Members of Congress. It specifically addresses information possessed by whistleblowers involving intelligence sources and methods. And in those instances that is information that is customarily provided to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. It also makes clear that information of concern relating to the Department of Defense Special Access Programs, or SAPS as they are currently called, should be reported to the Armed Services Committee and the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. Overall, this clarifying amendment strengthens the bill by ensuring that current and former employees of the intelligence community, the FBI, the military and other national security elements that possess sensitive classified national security information receive adequate protections against reprisals under the law. Further, it will better ensure the protection of classified sensitive information at issue in many of these cases. So I urge my colleagues to support what I believe is a sensible amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I am not opposing the motion, but I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to accept this motion, and assume that means we will have unanimity on final passage. This appears to track President Clinton's executive order, and it is, in fact, current law. To that extent, we have no difficulty in accepting it. The motion to recommit seems to extend the coverage of the Whistleblower Protection Act to whistleblowers who report violations of President Clinton's guidelines of religious exercise and religious expression in the Federal workplace. The guidelines apply to all civilian executive branch agencies, officials, and employees of the Federal workforce, they specify which religious expressions by covered employees, and under what circumstances, are permitted or may be regulated or prohibited. The guidelines were issued by President Clinton to clarify how to address the sometimes difficult situations in the workplace where an agency must balance the free expression rights of Federal workers with the rights of other workers and the obligation of Federal authorities not to engage in the official promotion of religion. By providing greater clarity, the guidelines have helped to avoid conflicts in the Federal workplace over the balance between religious expression and the obligations of the Federal Government to the Constitution, other employees and the general public. With that, as I said, it seems to track that executive order; and if it does, we are happy to accept it.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to file a supplemental report to accompany H.R. 985, the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Chairman, it is the policy of the United States to encourage the practice and procedure of collective bargaining. It is the policy of the United States to protect the exercise of workers of full freedom of association. It is the policy of the United States to protect their self-organizing and their ability to designate representatives of their own choosing. You wouldn't think that were true to listen to what we are hearing from the other side. It is the best man-bite-dog story we have heard, and the irony is not lost when people stand up there professing to care about the workers on this, while all the while, the National Labor Relations Act, section 7, protects those rights, and section 8 prohibits a variety of practices, and is not doing a very good job of that. It would prohibit employers from interfering with or coercing or intimidating or discriminating against employees in the exercise of their rights. It has not been successful in that fact at all. These protections have not been enough. The reality is when employees want to try to organize a union, one out of every four get fired illegally. Fired. Twenty-five percent of the people for the union activity. Their remedy? Go to court for years and years, and then if you are successful, you might get rehired, you might get some back pay, but, of course, you would have to offset that with whatever you earned in the meantime. Too many employers think that is a pretty good deal, a risk worth taking. In 2005, 31,000 workers received back pay because of illegal employer discrimination. That should do away with any thought that this is just a minor problem. Over three-quarters, 78 percent of employers in organizing drives forced their employees to attend one-on-one meetings against the union with their own supervisors. There is no ``truth squad'' in there and nobody making sure what they say is fair and balanced. Ninety-two percent of employers force employees to attend mandatory captive audience meetings, again, the union, and three- quarters of employers in organizing drives hire consultants or union busting firms to fight the organizing drive. How naive would we have to be to think that those union busters are in there to make a fair and level playing ground? The fact of the matter is employers have also been notorious in dragging out the initial negotiations, for years. That is not good faith bargaining as it is supposed to be protected in that Act. They are making a mockery of the National Labor Relations Act, unless we have this bill take effect. If this were internationally, if we were looking at elections, we would expect that people would be able to have a playing field. We would expect there would be some protection against being pressured to support one particular position. We would expect that there would be some protection against a direction that you vote for a specific candidate. But that is not what is happening here. Madam Chairman, let me tell you that what we are doing here is simply altering the playing field a bit back to fairness. We have had, for years, the ability that you could either have an election, or you could have an ability to sign a majority of people that you wanted. At some point, a few decades ago, they changed that dynamic and said we are going to let the employer veto that choice. We are rebalancing this here. We are going to give the choice and the ability to balance back to the worker, so they can choose whether they want an election to indicate their ability to organize or whether they want a majority of people to sign a card. They want that fair process. We need it because their ability to do that protects them, and that is what we should be about.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Speaker, in just a few weeks, America will begin its fifth year in the Iraq conflict. In that time, 3,117 members of the United States military have died, and over 23,000 American soldiers have been injured. $532 billion has been appropriated by Congress or requested by the administration. You only need to talk or read letters from many of the returning military personnel or their families to understand that the mission in Iraq is unclear and the goals remain undefined. Our men and women are not certain if they are fighting Sunnis or Shiites, and often it depends on where they are in order to determine the answer to that dilemma. In essence, our military personnel are in the midst of a civil war, the flames of which were fanned by centuries-old animosities. This week Congress has been addressing a resolution that reiterates its support for the troops and states clearly its opposition to escalation. The first point could easily go unspoken. After all, we are exercising the very freedom of speech and debate that our Constitution requires, the public demands, and our men and women in uniform serve to protect. The second point of the resolution speaks to the clear determination, as evidenced on November 7, 2006, that America does not support the President's planned escalation of this conflict. Three previous troop buildups have already proven unsuccessful. In the first, from November 2004 to January 2005, troop levels in Iraq increased by about 18,000 troops. They did that in advance of the Iraqi elections held on January of 2005, and the number of daily attacks by insurgents rose to 61 from 52 the previous month, an increase of 17 percent. On the second troop buildup, from June 2005 to October 2005, troop levels increased by approximately 21,500, and the number of daily attacks by insurgents in October of 2005 rose to 90, from 70 just 2 months earlier, an increase of 29 percent. And the third troop buildup occurred from May 2006 to November 1 of 2006 when U.S. troop levels in Iraq increased by approximately 17,500 troops, and the number of daily attacks by insurgents in October of 2006 rose to 180, from 100 just 4 months earlier, an increase this time of 80 percent. Now the President says he want to change course, but once again he proposes to only stay the course as he seeks to send in more personnel, and we still wait for the Iraqi forces to stand up. Madam Speaker, 132 of my colleagues and I exercised the correct judgment in October of 2002 when we voted against the war in Iraq. We recognized then that this administration's claims that Saddam Hussein posed an imminent and direct threat to the United States were hyped up and many rightly foresaw that an American occupation of Iraq would, as one colleague recently said, be of undetermined length, of undetermined cost and undetermined consequences. Tragically, this administration was not deterred. It has been flat wrong on pretty much all of its pre-war and subsequent judgments with respect to Iraq, with its questionable use of intelligence, its failure to plan, and its failure for far too long to protect our troops once they were there. We knew then what has become painfully obvious since, that rather than open a new front and destabilize a new area in Iraq, we should have secured Afghanistan and addressed terrorism at its source as it was embodied by Osama bin Laden and others. The proposed escalation is not the answer. Why, after such a debacle and such a dismal record, would this administration even think to follow the advice of the same people that got us into this situation in the first place? The proposed surge or escalation is as baseless as was going into Iraq in the first place. The latest National Intelligence Estimate, even that part that is unclassified, which I would imagine or speculate certainly puts the administration's best foot forward, states that even if violence is diminished, Iraq's absence of unifying leaders makes a political reconciliation doubtful. Not enough capable Iraqi troops are showing up to fight. Not enough armed vehicles are available to protect the new American deployments. The State Department cannot recruit enough civil officials to manage the latest push to turn up the electricity in Iraq or to help with reconstruction. And so Congress must, and I think they are going to this week, pass a resolution that reiterates our support to our troops and opposes the escalation. That action, I sincerely hope, will be followed by action which will prohibit the use of Federal funds to increase the number of troops above the number existing in Iraq on January 9, 2007. The large majority of Americans are waiting for action by this Congress to insist that we begin redeploying our troops from Iraq and complete that redeployment as quickly as possible in a measure done in months, not years. In essence, this week's action should be the beginning of a relatively short process, culminating in the redeployment of American troops from Iraq, and energizing diplomatic efforts and international efforts to stabilize that nation and ensure its security, while it provides for a platform to redirect the necessary attention to the unfinished business of Afghanistan and focus, Madam Speaker, our efforts on terrorism, both short term and long term. I urge my colleagues, Madam Speaker, to support this resolution and take what I expect will be the first step in charting a new course in Iraq.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, some of us on this side of the aisle are not at all upset that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have chosen to debate this particular issue. We hope it goes on forever and that the American public is tuned in to watch just what motivates that side of the aisle. The fact of the matter is that the debate that they are having is between them and the White House. When people ask that the Speaker come down to present a case as to why there should be protection of the Speaker of the House, they miss the point that the people motivating that are the White House, who decided after 9/11 that the Speaker of the House, then a Republican, Mr. Hastert, should, in fact, have the kind of the security that Americans would expect for the person who is two heartbeats away from the Presidency of the United States and that the President in this instance is consistent in that, in believing that no matter what party is holding the Speaker of the House position ought to also have that protection. I don't think that they can propose a safer way to get the Speaker from Washington to California and back so that she can conduct the considerable responsibilities of her position and get back to do those in a timely fashion other than to fly back and forth. But because some of my friends on the other side of the aisle apparently still don't understand it and don't understand whom they are debating with, and I understand that sometimes it is difficult to understand what is coming out of the White House, but just one more time so that even they can get it, I would like to yield to my colleague from Tennessee and ask him to read once again the other side of the debate as presented by the President of the United States in his own words.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am not going to take too much longer except to say that I for one hope that they continue to debate this silly amendment that has already been accepted, that the American public tunes in so they understand exactly what is going on here and they reconfirm the reason why the majority has shifted to this party that is now in the majority of the House.

Mr. TIERNEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. TIERNEY. Yes, to the gentleman. We are operating under an open rule, which, I think, equals the number of times that the other majority of the last session had open rules during their entire session.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, based on that, I would say to my colleague from New York that that is exactly why I hope the conversation continues on this amendment that has been accepted so that we can drive home the point again that this is the choice. But in winding up, I would just say since we have accepted this amendment that perhaps if there is going to be more conversation, it ought to be focused on how Members suggest that they protect the Speaker of the House who has to get from Washington to California and back in some manner safely other than what the President proposes, and then they can put that information to the White House and continue the debate with the President.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding. Madam Speaker, in the last session, the Democrats did, in fact, file a bill that would have done a lot of things to make colleges more accountable and accessible. Unfortunately, that is not the bill that was moved through Congress, and very little of it got discussed or was paid attention to in the committee. This year, we hope to refile bills along that way and work in a bipartisan manner so those larger issues will have that opportunity, and we intend on doing that. In the meantime, this is a down payment. It is a down payment on the need to make college more affordable and accessible by cutting the interest rates on student loans, as has been described. We have more to do. We want to increase Pell Grants. Mr. Keller said that, and he is right. Last year, of course, the majority of then Republicans had a wonderful opportunity to do that. Instead, they decided to cut a net of $12 billion, basically to help the powerful and the privileged. They are busy trying to make sure that people have an incentive to get into a loan market for which no incentive is needed. In fact, there will be very little impact on lenders with the way they are paying for this particular bill. They will digest that very readily and still make a handsome profit. As Mr. Kind from Wisconsin said, there is every opportunity for us to do more direct loans and to recapture more money, to give further Pell Grants and campus-based aid like student work-study. We need to get States to reinvest more in education. They are falling off the cliff since 2001 in terms of their investment. We have a good bill that we will file and hopefully have the help of the Republicans. We will address that situation to get them back into the game. We need to allow more tax deductibility for tuition so that families have a break. And moving forward, if we are serious about how much education is required, given the nature of the workplace, given nature of the competitiveness of the international arena, we need more college students. There was a day when 8 years of school worked well for the agricultural era. Then it went to the industrial age where 12 years of school was necessary. We are beyond that now. For technology and other reasons, we need people to have more than 12 years; that means college, whether 2 years or 4 years. That means making sure that kids know they can get into college and afford to pay for it, with Pell Grants, with work-study, they still need loans. I don't know where the gentlewoman from North Carolina, what her college was, but if she knew the rest of the country, they need to borrow, they need a break in their loans. We are happy to provide that here today.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be able to rise today in support of this increase in the minimum wage. We should all be a bit ashamed of the fact that it has been 10 years since we have had the last increase. Every year low-wage workers are left behind while CEOs get more and more money. This is not some valid exercise of a well-oiled free enterprise system. This is a disgrace, and most Americans are repulsed by that fact. Some people here are trying to make the case today that there is some benefit of a full-time worker making $10,700 a year, leaving a family of three $6,000 below the poverty level. There can be no benefit, Mr. Speaker, in that condition. Let us be clear. Raising the minimum wage is going to dramatically improve the lives of millions of Americans, whether Milton Friedman agrees or not. When you make $4,400 more a year than you made in the past year, full-time year-round workers with a family of three can afford a year's worth of groceries. They can afford 1\1/2\ years of heat and electricity. They can afford 9 months of rent, and they can afford the full 2-year tuition for a community college degree for a parent or a child. That is how we get Americans on the prosperity ladder. That is how we give them opportunity. There are those that argue that the increase in the minimum wage is going to hurt the economy. I suggest that that is not true at all and that rhetoric doesn't comport with reality. 650 economists say otherwise; reality says otherwise. The fact of the matter is that the Fiscal Policy Institute reports that States with a higher minimum wage than that have added jobs to the retail industry. We have to move in the right direction with this bill.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California, and I associate myself with the remarks that she made at the beginning of this proceeding here this evening. Mr. Speaker, the President's warrantless wiretapping program should have been conducted under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act provisions. The threat of terrorism demands careful response. The government has to have strong powers, including the authority to carry out various forms of electronic surveillance. FISA, as was amended over 20 times, updated, provides those powers. People want to be protected, but they do not want their legislators in an election year to just start handing away their constitutional rights and privileges. I agree with the assessment of one of the witnesses before our committee: such a complex and proven statute as FISA should be amended only with great caution and only on the basis of a public showing of need. This administration's concerns about FISA were narrow and they were few and could have been resolved with clarifications. But we proposed bipartisan legislation that would take care of it. This majority chose not to take that legislation up. Instead, they have proposed this broad and sweeping and over-reaching bill that, regardless of what my colleagues may say on the other side, is a dream of the White House, and Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush. To protect the constitutional rights and to ensure the effective application of government powers, government surveillance should be focused. That focus can best be achieved through a system of checks and balances that are implemented through executive but also legislative and judicial review. The bill before us effectively eliminates review. The bill before us simply gives the executive carte blanche to intercept communications of United States citizens without making adequate attention to preserving the liberties and civil rights that are embedded in our Constitution. It is unnecessarily broad and it is harmful for the interests of Americans. In making sure that the government has all of the powers that it needs, we have to have a law that ensures citizens their rights will be adequately protected even as their safety is secure. Therefore, this bill fails because it does not allow for essential protections. Except in emergencies, there must be prior judicial approval. Congress should be fully informed of all surveillance activity and carefully oversee it. Any repeal of FISA's exclusivity provision is wrong, Mr. Speaker. It would turn back the clock 30 years. There is a reason FISA was passed into law, and those reasons exist today. It is clear, after having listened at classified and open hearings, that the President's program of warrantless wire tapping should have proceeded to intercept communications only under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act's, FISA's, provisions. The Threat of Terrorism demands a careful response. The Government must have strong powers, including the authority to carry out various forms of electronic surveillance. Still, to protect Constitutional rights and to ensure effective application of those powers, government surveillance must be focused. That focus can best be achieved through a system of checks and balances implemented through executive, legislative and judicial review. I agree with the assessment of one of our witnesses with a Policy and Technology background: Such a complex and proven statute as FISA should be amended only with great caution and only on the basis of a public showing of need. After all this time since the 12/05 disclosure of the program the Administration has made public only limited, quite narrow arguments that FISA is in need of further amendment: (1) The Attorney General's explanation of problems involving the timely invocation of FISA emergency exception. In other words, in some cases the process was making it difficult to get a warrant application processed within the 72 hours allowed by the statute after interception commenced . . . Those problems, evidence shows, are due in part to the paperwork burdens created by the Executive Branch and perpetuated by this Administration. That problem it is largely self-inflicted and is not due to any delay by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The remedy--direct the President to report to Congress on the need for more resources, Asst. AG's, etc., and make any legislative and procedural changes that are necessary (i.e. if more than 72 hours post- emergency intercept needed for warrant). The Harman-Conyers bill addresses these matters, though it is not even actually necessary to pass an amendment or a law to meet these goals. (2) A concern was put forth that a court order is necessary for the interception of foreign-to-foreign communications of non-U.S. persons that happen to pass through the U.S., where they can be more readily accessed by U.S. government agencies. In other words, some in the agency were interpreting the law to require a warrant even if U.S. persons weren't involved but the communication passed through the U.S. Many experts believe that to be the wrong interpretation. Still, The remedy--presumably a narrow clarification could be crafted. Clearly, any updating of FISA can be done in a way that is Constitutional and responsive to the Executive branch's needs. Measures before this body purporting to simply give the Executive carte blanch to intercept communications of U.S. citizens without making adequate attention to preserving the liberties and civil rights imbedded in our Constitution are unnecessarily broad and harmful to the interests of Americans. In ensuring that the government has all the powers it needs, we must have a law that assures citizens their rights will be adequately protected even as their safety is secured. Therefore, any amendment or bill must provide that: Except in emergencies--there must be prior judicial approval; Congress must be fully informed of all surveillance activity and carefully oversee it; Interceptions of contents of communications of U.S. persons must be focused on particular individuals suspected of being terrorists or particular physical or virtual addresses used by terrorists; The threshold should require that there is probable cause to believe the target is a terrorist and that the intercept will yield intelligence; and FISA must be the exclusive means to carry out intelligence surveillance within the U.S. Any repeal of FISA's exclusivity provision is wrong. It would turn the clock back 30 years and do away with legislative oversight and judicial review. There were valid reasons that FISA was passed. Those reasons still exist.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California. Mr. Speaker, many Members recently voted against the previous question on the rule. We did so because we wanted a substitute, a resolution that mirrored Senate Resolution 565, which was a measure which was bipartisan and which was designed to unite this Congress and the country. That is the way in fact that we wish to remember and honor those 9/11 victims. Unfortunately, the Speaker and the majority of the House have chosen division and partisanship. The gentleman from Michigan mentioned a moment ago that on Monday, September 11, the Nation took off a day from partisanship. We only wish that the Speaker had joined in that. But by proposing a resolution referring to issues that are partisan and divisive, once again, a chance for unity has been missed not in the Senate but here in the House. New York Times columnist Frank Rich this past Sunday recalled FDR's use of the phrase ``the warm courage of national unity in a time of challenge.'' That is exactly what we need in these times of challenge. FDR mentioned his realization of our interdependence on each other, that we cannot merely, take but that we must give as well; and that if we are going to move forward, we must move as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline. Since September 11, this Nation has not been called to that higher unity and shared sacrifice. Instead, we have seen divisive legislation and tax cuts favoring the few. We should instead honor the fallen victims of 9/11 and their families' sacrifices and the responders and our military and our intelligence communities for their bipartisan efforts. We should resolve to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Now, Chairmen Kean and Hamilton wrote on September 11, 2006, that their commission's December report card on limitation garnered 10 C's, 12 D's, and 4 F's. And they listed there still remain to be done at least 10 things, the acceptance of which and the completion of which would in fact honor the September 11 people. We should allocate our homeland security dollars wisely, because now they are being spread around like revenue sharing. States have to be held to create and practice emergency response plans. Congress shouldn't wait until 2009, three years from now, to give first responders a slice of the broadest spectrum for emergency communication. We still need to do a better job with information sharing among government agencies, particularly those at the State and local levels. The FBI reform needs to speed up even as it moves in the right direction. The privacy and civil liberties oversight board must be empowered as a strong voice on behalf of individual and civil liberties, especially as the executive gets stronger authorities. We need to better screen passengers against a comprehensive terrorist watch list before they board craft. We need to do a better job of reaching out to the Muslim world so that America can be seen as a source of hope and opportunity and not despair. Congress needs to reform itself. The oversight committees need stronger powers over budgets and jurisdictions. And the prevention of terrorists' access to nuclear weapons must be elevated above all other problems of national security. To do all this, we need the warm courage of unity, not partisanship, not divisive resolutions. Mr. Speaker, this would be an excellent time for the leadership of this House to match rhetoric with unifying actions.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference report for the Perkins vocational education program. I am pleased to see that Tech Prep was maintained as a separate authorization from the state grants program. Tech Prep is a program of study which begins in high school, continues at a postsecondary institution and culminates in an associate degree, two-year certificate, apprenticeship, or further postsecondary study in a career and technical field. Tech Prep in my home state of Massachusetts serves 12,865 secondary school students and 3,450 post-secondary students. One hundred and forty secondary schools, 45 post-secondary institutions and 180 business and industry members partner together to help provide a smooth transition from secondary school to post-secondary education. These are not idle statistics but real students who may transition into high-skill, high-wage technical fields for which there is an escalating labor market demand. These academically and technically prepared graduates of Tech Prep programs are critical to the economic growth, productivity and internal competitiveness of the United States. Regrettably, the House bill eliminated the separate funding stream for Tech Prep programs and merged the funding into the Basic State Grant. Such a move could have led to a loss of federal funding for--and reduction of congressional focus on--this important program. My democratic colleague Ron Kind and I sought to restore and retain the integrity of Tech Prep because we--and a number of concerned education groups--feared that the language in the House version would have led to a loss of funds for Perkins overall and could have impacted existing Tech Prep partnerships and innovation in career and technical education. I am pleased that the conference report rejects the House bill's position and maintains Tech Prep as a separate title in the law. I am also pleased that the Congress has stood up to the Administration and soundly rejected the President's proposal to eliminate vocational education. I would like to thank Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member Miller, as well as Senator Enzi and Senator Kennedy for their cooperative work on this bill. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill before us today. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting its passage.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I think that there are some provisions in this bill that merit our hesitation before we proceed forward on it here tonight. This will be the second bill that we have passed in this House on the same subject, and both of them have missed opportunities. This bill misses an opportunity to encourage companies to keep offering traditional pensions to their employees. As my colleague Mr. Neal from Massachusetts said earlier, it could be the demise of the defined contribution plan, defined benefit plan for employees, a plan that many, many people rely on and the best type of pension/retirement plan that people could have. This in the face of a majority of this body and a White House that are already intent on attacking and privatizing Social Security. This bill misses an opportunity to protect taxpayers from footing the bill for the bailout of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. The PBGC estimates that this bill will increase its deficit by $2 billion over the next 10 years. This bill misses an opportunity to prevent companies from using bankruptcy to dump workers' pension plans, and we have seen that happen too often in a number of instances very recently. We had every opportunity to put provisions in this bill that would force companies to try alternative means and other financing and ways to stop from having to dump their plan into bankruptcy and therefore hurt their retirees. We fail to do it in this bill. The bill misses an opportunity to save pension benefits for older workers by allowing conversion to cash balance plans without protecting those that are 45 years or older, and estimates are that they stand to lose up to half of the accumulated value in their pension plans. And the bill misses an opportunity to stop companies from awarding lavish retirement compensation packages to executives at the same time they cut workers' benefits. The fact of the matter is that the executives that are responsible for driving these plans into the ground ought to have their fate and their retirement hooked onto the fate of their employees so that they will make sure that these plans succeed every possible time. And the bill misses an opportunity to protect workers' pension assets. The investment advice exemptions in the bill don't adequately protect against conflicted investment advice. Mr. Speaker, they miss opportunity after opportunity. We can do better. Let it go back to conference, let's correct it, and let's come out with a good pension plan to protect America's workers.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight also to add my voice to this important issue of the need to raise the minimum wage. The fact that the Federal minimum wage remains $5.15 an hour is a disgrace. I think it was stated earlier by Mr. Owens that someone who works 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year at minimum wage, they will still be $2,000 below the poverty level for a family of two and $5,000 below the poverty level for a family of three. There are several million Americans who fall into that category working full time year around and living in poverty. We should be able to do better in America. It is a matter of fairness. The American people do not want this kind of situation to continue. We can pass legislation to raise minimum wage any time we wish, except that the Republican majority does not wish to bring forward the bill that could do just that. It has been 9 years since we last raised the minimum wage. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the real value of minimum wage is lower today than at any time since 1968. To have the purchasing power it had in 1968, the minimum wage would have to be increased to $7.54 an hour. If it were just to equal 50 percent of the average wage, as it did in the 1950s and 1960s, it would need to be increased to $8.20 an hour. If the minimum wage had grown at the same rate as chief executive officers' pay since 1990, the lowest paid worker in the United States would be earning $25 an hour. But since 1997, Congress has failed to raise that amount, relegating millions of hard-working Americans to poverty by freezing that rate at $5.15. Even The Economist, a notably conservative publication, is concerned about the fact that the gap in rich and poor exists. They are not concerned so much that the gap exists, but they are concerned that the way of bridging that gap is disappearing, and people no longer feel there are the rungs up on the ladder to get from one status in life to another. We should take notice that in States that have raised the minimum wage above the Federal level, jobs have been created faster than in States that have not raised that level. A case in point is Oregon. In 1998, when its raised its minimum wage above the Federal level, wages and job opportunities increased. We should get the message. I would like to hear what Mr. Miller has to say, but please add my voice to the fact that we need to act immediately to raise the minimum wage.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, regretfully this debate on America's role in this debate on Iraq has been converted into a debate on the war on terror. The Republican leadership has mimicked this divisive White House and sought a political squabble instead of a policy debate. The majority leader's memorandum that was circulated directing his Members to politicize and name call and obfuscate the issue is a disservice to this House and to the country as a whole. Nothing was gained when the administration first inflated the issue of Osama bin Laden and terrorism with Iraq, and nothing is gained here today by this bald attempt to avoid discussion of Iraq policy and again try to conflate the issue of international terror with Iraq's insurgency. Our country's democratic system requires the active involvement of Congress on key policy questions, particularly the issue of war. Its Members have a patriotic duty to hold the executive branch accountable, especially during a time of war. Troops as well as our citizens at home deserve and expect no less. Back in 2001 this entire Congress went into Afghanistan against al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, the Taliban and essentially every Member, Republican, Democrat or Independent, went with the international community, rallying to the side of Americans, rallying to our aid. Our intelligence personnel, special ops forces, military and our allies were there. But it was not in the case in Iraq where this President, President Bush, prematurely diverted troops and resources out of Afghanistan, before that mission was completed, before Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and Taliban leaders were captured, and before Afghanistan was stabilized. President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld chose to start the Iraqi conflict on selective and incomplete intelligence when there was no imminent threat to the United States, without letting the international inspections run their course, without building international support, without a plan to stabilize and rebuild the country and bring our troops home, and ignoring the advice of leading generals about troop strength and strategy. As a result of those failed judgments made over and over again, our troops have suffered in the field, not having adequate body armor and vehicle armor. They have been deployed an unreasonable number of times, and they are under unbelievable stress and danger. Our veterans have received inadequate care, some $3 billion short of what they should be having, and we have experienced a harmful lack of oversight and accountability. The Iraqi people, more than half of them, are without clean water, 85 percent lack electricity, oil production less than what it was before the war started, and unemployment of over 40 percent and billions of dollars of American taxpayer money being spent without getting it where it is supposed to go, our troops not getting the safety equipment, Iraqis not getting the reconstruction done, and the American taxpayer $360 billion out of pocket. The policy of the Bush administration has done more to harm our military strength and more to harm and misdirect resources away from terror. United States troops have done their jobs. They got rid of Saddam Hussein, they allowed for the constitution to be drawn and elections to be held, and they trained Iraqi security. The time has come for Iraqis to have the incentive to take control and responsibility for their own security. This idea of an open-ended commitment to stay the course just impedes this goal. The true presence of our country impedes and fuels the insurgency. Nine out of 10 Iraqis want a timeline for withdrawal. Seventy percent, including the Prime Minister, set a timeline for withdrawal. It appears that the Bush-Rumsfeld group wants to be more Iraqi than the Iraqis. It is time to shift the focus to political and diplomatic solutions. It is time we disavow any intention to permanently remain or to keep them on bases. It is time to revitalize our military, refocus on Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden and the Taliban, and secure our own country by fulfilling the 9/11 Commission's recommendations.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to spur a rational process for the siting of liquefied natural gas facilities in the northeast region. That region does need additional energy sources. That is not in dispute. But our homes and businesses depend on an adequate supply.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I regret that the point of order was raised. As I was mentioning, the purpose is for spurring a rational process for siting liquid natural gas facilities in the northeast region. That the region needs additional energy resources is not in dispute. Our homes and our businesses depend on adequate supplies to maintain our quality of life, but our quality of life also depends on having a rational process for determining how many facilities are reasonably needed in the region and where any new facilities will locate. Current policy only calls for evaluation and approval of new liquid natural gas facilities as they are proposed, independent of all other applications and without any regulation concern for overcapacity or overbuilding in any particular area. Important fishing, shipping, security and conservation interests are impacted by the sitings, particularly by multiple sitings. Yet the current law does not account for this. Already there are two proposals in one area known as block 125 off the Massachusetts coast. There are a total of 16 proposals that could be built along the northeast area. Those are all pending. Some people just say that the marketplace will sort it out, but in fact it is the responsibility of public policy officials to provide for a much more rational approach. Past energy construction situations that operated on the premises that the market would sort it out, for instance, that some applicants would eventually blink and not continue with their building, have proved out not to be true. Overcapacity and the attendant problems resulted from that. We can prevent an arbitrary intrusion into some of our Nation's most productive fishing grounds if we can prevent the unnecessary degradation of valuable ocean treasures. We can present the potential navigational problems and the possible excessive security costs if we plan, if we get it right, if we forego this ad hoc approach. In the end if we follow a rational and regional siting process, it will expedite the introduction of new energy in the area. Public support will be much more likely. Litigation will be less likely. And legislative intervention or administrative interruption may be obviated. Finally, Mr. Chairman, there are significant security concerns and risks that are associated with liquid natural gas offshore sites. The Coast Guard has informed us that no comprehensive assessment of security costs for LNG deep-water ports has been conducted. So what will it cost to protect one? What will it cost to protect 16? What will it cost to protect the related ships and crews, and who is going to pay or reimburse the taxpayers for all of this protection on the for-profit enterprise? Companies indicate that they have not ever been approached about this, nor have they broached the subject. It is our duty as policymakers to address these issues to ensure that the right facilities are built as they are needed, that precious resources are reasonably protected, and that the cost of security be known and properly assessed. Mr. Chairman, I hope that the point of order is not sustained so we can have these proper assessments of New England's energy needs and siting demands; and that we can also evaluate and apportion the cost of securing LNG facilities that are operating. Point of Order