John Tierney

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding the time. Mr. Speaker, I understand the levity in which we all rise here today; and I think in the best of spiritedness, the question for us that this would be a time for the House of Representatives to pass a resolution congratulating just a single baseball team. Major league baseball is currently in the midst of a play-off series including the Yankees as well as seven other teams that are worthy of our praise and our congratulations. In the middle of the baseball play-offs, I think we will all be rooting for our own respective teams and promoting team unity and sportsmanship. There are many other baseball teams that deserve our praise and congratulations, in particular the Boston Red Sox. In fact, this year the Red Sox are celebrating the 100th anniversary of their victory in the first-ever World Series. Red Sox history is peppered with record- setting victories, triumph over adversity, and the dedication of Red Sox players, coaches, and fans. Now, it is true, Mr. Speaker, it is very true that in the long tradition of buying their way to the top, the Yankees were bought 100 years ago; but if we are to recognize any team for its 100th anniversary, we ought to congratulate the Red Sox for their World Series, not just congratulate a team simply for being acquired. I have prepared an amendment to offer to this resolution to include congratulations to the Red Sox on the 100th anniversary of their victory in the first World Series; but I understand that since the bill was brought to the floor on the suspension calendar, that cannot be done. So I instead, Mr. Speaker, I will enter the amendment text in the Record at this point. Amendment to H. Res. 306, Offered by Mr. Tierney of Massachusetts: After ``Congratulating the New York Yankees on the occasion of their 100th anniversary'' insert ``and the Boston Red Sox on the 100th anniversary of their victory in the first ever World Series; Whereas the Boston Pilgrims (who would become the Boston Red Sox in 1907), in 1903 met the Pittsburgh Pirates in the first ever World Series in 1903 after winning the American league pennant by an unprecedented 14\1/2\ games; Whereas Denton True ``Cy'' Young pitched a dramatic 11-2 win in Game 5 of the best-of-nine series, yielding only six hits and himself driving in three runs; Whereas Bill Dinneen struck out Honus Wagner, widely considered the best player in the game at the time, to win the 1903 World Series; Whereas Denton True ``Cy'' Young played for Boston from 1901 until 1908, beginning at age 34, and finished his eight years in Boston with a 192-112 record. In his first year with the Pilgrims, Young posted a 33-10 record, a 1.62 ERA, 5 shutouts and 158 K's, walking a mere 37 batters in 371 innings. In addition, Young was the only pitcher in baseball's first 100 years to win 500 games, including three no-hit shutouts and a perfect game on May 5, 1904; Whereas in 1908 the Red Sox acquired from Kansas City ``Smokey'' Joe Wood, who was known as the successor to the great Cy Young. By the 1911 season, Wood was smoking and he showed his golden arm for the baseball world to see. His 23- 17 record that year included a no-hitter against the St. Louis Browns on July 29. He also recorded 15 strikeouts in one game--a record that wouldn't be broken until Boston's Bill Monbouquette fanned 17 in 1961. In 1912, Wood's 34-5 record was the best in the league; Whereas ``Smokey'' Joe's most memorable game came on September 6, 1912. Carrying a 13-game winning streak, the Washington Senators came to town and challenged the Red Sox to throw their bright, young talent a day ahead of his scheduled start against their staff's ace: Walter ``Big Train'' Johnson. Johnson's record-setting 16-game consecutive win streak had just been snapped. Wood accepted the challenge and the newspapers went wild. They compared the two hurlers to prize fighters. In the sixth inning, Tris Speaker and Duffy Lewis traded doubles off of Johnson and scored a run. It would be the only time either team crossed the plate that afternoon as Wood won his 14th straight. Wood went on to notch two more wins, tying Johnson's 16-game record, before losing; Whereas in 1912 the Boston Red Sox moved from the Huntington Avenue Grounds to Fenway Park, the new stadium built specifically for the Red Sox. The season opener against the New York Highlanders (later known as the Yankees) was delayed two days by rain, but 27,000 ``Fenway Faithful'' showed up on April 20 to watch what turned into a three hour and 20 minute game that went into the 11th inning, when Red Sox player Tris Speaker knocked in second baseman Steve Yerkes to win the game 7-6. The spectacular win was kept off the front page due to the sinking of the Titanic; Whereas the 1912 Red Sox went on to post their best record ever: 105-47, (a mark which stands today). They also beat the New York Giants that year in the first ``true'' World Series match of the National and American League champions; Whereas the Red Sox acquired Lefty Grove from the Philadelphia Athletics in 1934. He led the American League in strikeouts for seven consecutive years (1925-1931). Nine times he led AL pitchers with his stingy ERA in his 17- year career. Only two other pitchers led the league in ERA as many as five times. After a year plagued by arm problems that led him to pitch an 8-8 record, the first time he failed to win 20 wins since 1926, Grove was back to form in 1935, posting a 20-12 mark and a league-leading 2.70 ERA. Grove went 17-12 in 1936 for Boston 17-9 in 1937, 14-4 in 1938 and 15-4 in 1939. In four of his eight years with the Red Sox he led the league in ERA. On July 25, 1941, at 41 years old, Lefty Grove put the finishing touches on his spectacular career. Pitching through nine innings and 90-degree heat, Grove notched his 300th win in a 10-6 win over Cleveland and became the fifth all-time winningest pitcher in baseball history; Whereas in just his third year, at only 23 years of age, Ted Williams went into the last day of the 1941 season hitting .3996, an average that officially rounds up to .400. The last major leaguer to hit over .400 was Bill Terry in 1930 and the last American League player was Harry Heilmann in 1923; Whereas on June 18, 1953, the Red Sox scored 17 runs in one inning against the Detroit Tigers with 14 hits and six walks in the record-setting inning. The Red Sox broke or tied 17 major league records that day, including the most runs in one inning (17) and the most hits in a game (27); Whereas on September 28, 1960 Ted Williams ended his Hall of Fame career when he sent 10,454 fans into a frenzy by launching a 1-1 pitch from Baltimore Orioles' pitcher Jack Fisher high into the damp gray sky and into the Red Sox bullpen for his 521st home run; Whereas in 1961 Carl Michael Yastrzemski, later known simply as ``Yaz,'' joined the Red Sox, replacing Ted Williams in left field. Yastrzemski tops the Red Sox charts for runs batted in, hits, games, at-bats, runs scored, extra base hits and total bases. He holds a top-ten rank in eight of baseball's offensive categories and became the first American Leaguer to reach the 3,000-hit and 400-home run milestone; Whereas in 1967 Yastrzemski led ``The Impossible Dream,'' He took a Red Sox team that led the majors in losses the previous season and guided it on one of sport's most engaging turnarounds. A .326 average, 44 home runs and 121 RBI gave ``Yaz'' the American League Triple Crown; Whereas Carl Yastrzemski, at age 40, notched his 3,000th hit on September 12, 1979; Whereas in 1964 Tony Conigliaro, known as ``Tony C'' to his fans, burst onto the baseball scene in Fenway Park, taking 24 homers over the ``Green Monster'' in 111 games while batting .290. In his second year with the Sox, Conigliaro belted 32 homes runs, leading the American League. At 20 years old, Conigliaro became the youngest home-run leader in baseball history. He followed that effort in 1966 with 28 home runs; Whereas on August 18, 1967, Conigliaro was gravely injured by a rising, inside fastball from California's Jack Hamilton. After missing the remainder of the 1967 season and all of 1968, Conigliaro surpassed remarkable odds and returned in 1969. He batted .255, hit 20 homers and won the ``Comeback Player of the Year'' award. He improved in 1970 when he belted 36 home runs and 116 RBI; Whereas the Fenway Park fans showed great passion and sensitivity by avoiding wearing light-colored clothing in the center field bleachers to help Conigliaro see pitches; Whereas Carlton Fisk, known as ``Pudge,'' joined the Red Sox in 1972. In his rookie year he batted .293, hit 22 home runs and finished tied for the league lead with nine triples, marks which earned him the season's ``Rookie of the Year'' award. His most memorable moment turned into a scene that encompasses the tradition and faith of all Red Sox fans. The dominating catcher stepped to the plate in the bottom of the 12th inning of World Series Game Six in 1975. After Bernie Carbo's three-run pinch hit homer tied the game in the eighth and Dwight Evans' stunning catch gave the team life in the eleventh, Fisk was ready to close the door on a night of heroes. The catcher jumped on the second offering from Pat Darcy and lifted a high blast down the left field line that seemed to turn one of baseball's greatest games into a slow motion dream. Fisk stood at home plate, waving the ball fair like a man controlling the winds and leaped in elation as the game winning home run bounced off the foul pole, opening the gates for a wild celebration guided by a home run dance around the bases. It was a moment that typified a great career; Whereas through 10-plus seasons in Boston, Fisk accumulated 162 home runs while compiling a .481 slugging percentage-- tenth in club history. Fisk is among the leaders in three other offensive categories and is remembered for his uncanny stature in the field. For his career, Fisk caught more games (2,226) and hit more home runs (351 of his career 376) than any player at his position ever; Whereas in 1975, a rookie named Fred Lynn made baseball history by earning both the 1975 Rookie of the Year and Most Valuable Player Awards, an accomplishment that had neither been done before. Lynn also earned a batting championship and four gold gloves, played in six All-Star games and led the league in slugging percentage twice and doubles once; Whereas outfielder Dwight ``Dewey'' Evans entered the big leagues in 1972 with the Red Sox and at the end of his career placed in the top five of ten offensive categories in the club's records, the most notable being the 379 home runs and 1,346 RBI that put him fourth, behind Ted Williams, Carl Yastrzemski, and Jim Rice. Evans also finished his career with the second most games played and at-bats in Boston history; Whereas Jim Rice joined the Red Sox in 1974 after securing the International League's triple crown and in his first full year with the team batted .309 with 22 home runs and 102 RBI, leading the Sox to the American League pennant and the 1975 World Series. In 1978 he was named the A.L.'s MVP after setting staggering marks including major league leading totals of 46 homers, 139 RBI, 15 triples, 406 total bases, 213 hits and a .600 slugging percentage; Whereas Roger Clemens warmed up a cannon before a Tuesday night game in April of 1986 and shot down 20 Seattle Mariners by night's end to break the Major League record for strikeouts in a nine inning game. It was an exhibition of sheer power and by the time the smoke cleared, the ``Rocket'' had fanned the side three times and during one stretch sat down eight Mariners in a row. He looked unhitable. Seventy percent of his pitches were strikes, many of which topped the radar gun at 95 mph and higher; Whereas in 1997 the Red Sox were treated to the arrival of a rookie named Nomar Garciaparra, who immediately turned into a superstar. The dynamic shortstop won ``Rookie of the Year'' honors by hitting .306 with 122 runs, 209 hits, 44 doubles, 11 triples, 30 homers, 98 RBIs and 22 stolen bases; Whereas in 1998, after acquiring star right-hander Pedro Martinez, the Red Sox produced their first 90-win season since 1996. The 92-70 finish was good enough to vault them into the playoffs as the AL Wild Card. Nomar Garciaparra finished second in AL MVP balloting. The Red Sox snapped their postseason losing streak of 13 games by beating the Indians 11-3 in Game 1; Whereas in 2000 Nomar Garciaparra earned his second consecutive batting title and Pedro Martinez earned his third Cy Young award in four years. Garciaparra's .372 batting average was the best batting average for a right-handed hitter in the past 50 years; Whereas in 2001 the Red Sox signed superstar slugger Manny Ramirez off the free agent market, who clubbed a three-run homer in the first pitch he saw in a home uniform at Fenway Park; Whereas on April 4, 2001, Hideo Nomo pitched Boston's first no-hitter since 1965. The start against the Orioles at Camden Yards was Nomo's first in a Boston uniform; Whereas in 2002 the Red Sox began a new era, as the ownership group led by John Henry, Tom Werner and Larry Lucchino officially took over on Feb. 27. The Red Sox went 93-69 under new manager Grady Little, but missed the playoffs for the third straight year. Pedro Martinez and Derek Lowe gave the Sox their first 20-win tandem since 1949. The highlight of the season was Lowe's no-hitter at Fenway on April 27 against the Devil Rays. Manny Ramirez, despite missing six weeks with a fractured left index finger, won his first batting title; Whereas Red Sox have appeared in the post-season seven times (1986, 1988, 1990, 1995, 1998, 1999 and 2003) since 1986;'' After ``Resolved, That the House of Representatives and the American people extend heartfelt congratulations to the New York Yankees on the occasion of its 100th anniversary, and express the sincerest gratitude to the entire organization.'' Insert ``Resolved, That the House of Representatives and the American people extend heartfelt congratulations to the Boston Red Sox on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of its victory in the first World Series and express the sincerest gratitude to the entire organization.'' So I join, Mr. Speaker, the Red Sox nation in congratulating the Red Sox on the 100th anniversary of their victory in the first World Series and for their recent wild-card victory in the 2003 play-offs. On behalf of the Red Sox fans across the country and the world, I hope that the 85th time is a charm and it is this year. Good luck for all the teams in the play-offs and the Red Sox in particular, as well as the Yankees.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to add a word of caution to my colleagues about this legislation and to support the Democratic substitute. Everybody in this body supposedly supports charities and the important work that they do. At the same time, however, the Federal Government is currently projected to run the largest deficits in history. The need for assistance in education and health care and housing among low and moderate income Americans is great, and unfortunately, there is little evidence that this bill is going to do anything to address those needs. I fear that larger deficits are going to occur and the result of this bill is going to serve as an excuse to cut programs already inadequately funded. At a minimum, this bill should contain an offset. In analysis of a similar bill that is in the Senate, the Congressional Research Service report estimated that the charitable deduction for nonitemizers would yield only 12 cents of additional giving for every dollar of revenue lost to the Treasury, 12 cents. CRS concluded that the vast majority of the cost of the deduction would go to subsidizing existing donations rather than generating new gifts. The charitable donations generated by this bill will support many good causes, but that same Budget and Policy Priorities report indicated that no more than 10 percent of all charitable giving will directly benefit the poor. The largest recipient of the funds by far would be religious institutions, and while religious giving is commendable, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities also reported that only 6 percent of donations to religious institutions end up in services to the poor. My point is that this bill proposes to reduce Federal revenues by $13 billion over the next 10 years. Yet only a few cents of each dollar will actually translate into charitable works to help the neediest Americans. Given the projected $500 billion deficit next year and well over $3.3 trillion debt over the next 10 years, I think colleagues need to decide whether or not this is the best way to spend $13 billion rare dollars. This country has tremendous needs. America's charities can obviously help, but it is unrealistic to think that America's charities are going to feed the hungry, house the homeless and heal the sick left behind by this Congress. No Child Left Behind, underfunded by $8 billion; housing assistance that served 20,000 less families for the first time in 30 years; Head Start only serves 60 percent of the children who need it and only 3 percent of the children who need early Head Start; and Americans without health care number 42 million. We are in a tough fiscal time, Mr. Speaker, as a result of the failed economic policies of this administration. The need is great. We have to decide if this is the best way to spend $13 billion.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Saugus American Little League team for their outstanding achievement in the 2003 Little League World Series. From their district championship to the U.S. Championship game, this terrific team captured the hearts of the town of Saugus and, over the past few weeks of summer, all of New England. This is a team whose unique skill was equaled only by their flair for the dramatic. Saugus' first four victories in the Series were by one run. We will long remember their epic victory against Texas East's Lamar National, when Saugus rallied, scoring four runs in the bottom of the seventh inning, to advance to the U.S. championship. These boys were only the second team in Massachusetts' Little League history to advance to the U.S. title game. Most impressive is the manner in which this team conducted themselves throughout their time in Williamsport, Pennsylvania. They acted with maturity beyond their years. Working hard, playing fair, and never, ever giving-up, the Saugus Americans--Ryan Bateman, Tyler Calla, Craig Cole, Anthony DiSciscio, David Ferreira, Tyler Grillo, Joseph Kasabuski, Matthew Muldoon, Sebestiano ``Yano'' Petruzzelli, Dario Pizzano, Mark Sacco, and Michael Scuzzarella--were a model team and excellent representatives of their hometown. Saugus Manager Rob Rochenski and coaches, Mike Ferreira, Rob Calla, and Charlie Bilton must also be commended for their professionalism, their positive rapport with the players, and the countless hours they invested in this team. They rightfully recognize that Little League baseball should be about having fun, and it is clear they instilled that in this Saugus team. A special thanks needs to be extended to the parents, family members, and friends of this team, many of whom traveled to Williamsport, donned orange jerseys, and vocally supported their Saugus Americans. It is appropriate that the House recognize the remarkable performance of the Saugus Americans. I am proud of their accomplishments, and wish them the best of luck in the future.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, on September 14, the City of Peabody, Massachusetts, will celebrate its Twentieth Annual International Festival, and I will be among the more than 65,000 people who will stroll around Peabody Square enjoying the vibrant array of arts, entertainment and foods of the diverse ethnic groups that enliven civic life in Peabody today. The International Festival was envisioned by former Mayor Peter Torigian, who initiated and continued the event as a way to celebrate the ethnic and cultural diversity of the city known historically for its important role in the leather tanning industry that was so much a part of the 19th and early 20th century economic history of our region. Under Mayor Torigian's hands-on leadership, the Festival grew exponentially over the years and has now been warmly embraced and fostered by current Mayor Michael Bonfanti, who serves as the International Festival's Honorary Chairman. Throughout these two decades of growth and change in Peabody, there has been one very constant presence involved in the International Festival--City Councilor Judy Selesnick, who has served with great skill and enthusiasm as Chairwoman and number one volunteer for the International Festival since its beginning. This Twentieth Anniversary year will be Judy's last at the helm; she has decided to retire from the chairmanship, though few doubt that she will continue to cheer from the sidelines as each year's festivities unfold. To Judy Selesnick, Mayor Bonfanti and Mayor Torigian, and to all of the citizens of Peabody who celebrate their diversity on this day and every day, my congratulations and best wishes for a most successful International Festival this year and my thanks to you all for your dedication to Peabody's rich heritage and hopeful future.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this issue of safety is nothing more than a red herring, and to the American people it is another example of big corporate interest and big government joining together against the interest of the American people. Tonight we are going to learn who here in this body represents PhRMA and who here represent the interests of the American people. We will find out who here refuse to be swayed by the prescription drug companies who have tried everything, from 650 lobbyists to millions of dollars in campaign contributions, to false and misleading advertisements, to company letters threatening they will do no more research, and to threats to their employees that they have to write us letters because they are afraid they will lose their jobs. Greed, fear, lies, and ignorance are their weapons and their tools. But tonight we are going to find out that those supporting this bill can defeat it with the truth, with the facts, with common sense, and with an abiding commitment to serving those people who sent them here to represent them and an abiding commitment to fulfill their responsibilities to this institution. This is about hope. This is about renewal. This is about hope that the American people can finally overcome a large corporate interest and an overwhelming government that too often does not listen to them. And this is about the renewal of this institution, of people standing up for the integrity of this institution and for the American voice.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time. We have heard talk tonight about people saying that everybody on this side of the aisle wants to have things stay the same, and that frankly is not so. We worked quite hard together to make changes and improvements in the first section of this bill, as we have made changes and improvements on the bill in previous years, continually improving it and continually reducing the gap in readiness for school. The problem comes in the second part of this bill. And the fact of the matter is that those proponents of the change in the block grant cannot show a single stitch of evidence that this would improve the situation. When the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) was asked at the Committee on Rules to give an example of one parent group, one child group, one educational group, one social advocacy group that supported the block grant section of the bill, he could not do it. When all the editorialists and all those are people are dead set against this, somehow the Republicans still think that they are right. Other people would have some pause for thought on it. The fact of the matter is that the block grant does do damage to the Head Start program. It would not require performance standards. It would allow States to weaken educational standards by increasing class size, increasing child/teacher ratio, shortening the program duration, cutting off 3-year-olds, using unproven curricula. States can, under their provisions, gut comprehensive services, eliminate parent classroom involvement, eliminate health and mental health screenings and services, eliminate adult literacy services, eliminate vision and dental services, eliminate health and nutrition education. And, yes, under this they can take block grant money and supplant other Federal funds. And CRS, Congressional Research Service, an independent group, says that that is so, despite the protestations of the other side. We also leave too many children behind. For one-fourth of what we are spending in a month in Iraq, we could add another 87,000 children to this program that already underserves America's children.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I think the theme of this particular bill seems to be ``promises made and promises broken.'' The fact of the matter is that this theme is true with respect to K through 12 education, where President Bush's own education bill, the No Child Left Behind bill, the promise was a deal. The deal was that there would be more accountability and more requirements in there that would be imposed or mandated on local communities to meet that cost, and, in return, the Federal Government would step up to the plate and put some more resources towards meeting those mandates. The broken part of the promise, of course, is this appropriations bill is $8 billion short on the promised full funding. Yes, it is a little over 1 percent more than the current funding, but that is essentially a freeze when you consider the increased number of students involved and the inflationary factor. The fact of the matter is it does not at all address the increased mandates of local communities to meet the requirements in that bill. This theme is also true with respect to IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the promise of over 25 years ago that the Federal Government would try to come up with 40 percent of the excess cost of educating a child with disabilities. Now, we know that that high cost for a free and appropriate education of disabled students was not being met by the States, and the Federal Government stepped forward with that promise. The States now have relied on that promise. In 2004, 6.4 million 3- to 21-year-olds depend in part on the Federal Government to step forward and help out. Promise number two in the area of IDEA is in 1994 the Republicans in their Contract on America said they would fully fund IDEA, but both of these promises have been broken. Both the 25-year-old goal and the decade-old political statement have not been met. The third promise is the majority's 2004 budget resolution. It promised an increase of $2.2 billion over the last year's grants for school districts. Another promise was the majority's reauthorization bill passed in April, again promising an additional $2.2 billion for IDEA. The fact of the matter is this appropriations bill falls $1.2 billion short on IDEA. Under the Republican plan, the State of Massachusetts will lose over $29 million on grants that it otherwise would have gotten if the authorization bill's goals were met. But that is the way it is, Mr. Chairman, with this House. The majority says when it comes to giving tax cuts to millionaires, they can take the check to the bank; but when it comes to funding educational needs for children and their families, that check is written in disappearing ink. When it comes to millionaires getting a break, deficits do not seem to matter; but when it comes to funding education for disabled kids in Massachusetts and throughout this country, deficits all of a sudden do seem to matter, and there is no money left to help. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) offered an amendment to just make those millionaire tax cuts a few thousand dollars less so we could meet this obligation and add that $1.2 billion back into IDEA, but the majority voted it down in committee. Yesterday the Committee on Rules made sure we could not debate it on the floor of the House. So, in this body millionaires get the huge tax cuts they make, they do not have any shared sacrifice, they do not offer back to help out, but families and children and school districts, they do not get it. They get the check written in disappearing ink.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding me time. I want to join him in thanking the chairman for the work on this bill, as well as the ranking member, and it is a bill that will be supported for those good things that are in it. But as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) mentioned, there are other good things that could have and should have been in this bill that unfortunately have been set aside because of the self-inflicted situation where the majority in this House has chosen to take money and throw it out the door to people who are already wealthy and decide not to invest in the children of this country. If we want to talk about future productivity, if we want to talk about a way of improving our education system in this country, then we would try to make sure that our early childhood programs and Head Start in particular would have every opportunity for success. Instead, the Committee on Education and the Workforce get a budget that is so small that they have to then work within those constraints and come back and tell us, gee, we do not have enough money to do all the right things that we need to do. So we can look at math teachers and science teachers and special education teachers, all of which have a serious need for loan forgiveness, but we cannot go to those other areas that also evidence a strong need for loan forgiveness so we can attract in good people and keep good people in those fields and improve our education system. And we cannot do that because the Republicans, the majority in this House, decided to take that money that could be made in that investment, and instead of, because of ideology, give it to people who already have a significant amount of money in their lives. I think that is short-sighted. We should be encouraging people to enter and stay in these fields where it is going to make a difference. There has been a national review of some 36 studies dealing with early childhood programs, and what they found is that children who participate in these early childhood programs are less likely to be held back in school, less likely to be placed in special education, more likely to succeed in school, more likely to graduate, more likely to behave well, and better able to adjust to the educational process as they go through it in school. For all of those reasons, we need to make sure that we concentrate on getting them the best teachers because those are the children that will benefit tremendously from having that right kind of guidance. The median debt right now for somebody with a bachelor's degree from a public institution, not a private institution, but a public institution, is $15,375. That is more than double what it was 10 years ago. We deserve to have those qualified teachers. In fact, right now we require that all teachers have a child development credential and half have to have an associate's degree, and we have met that by the end of 2002; but this bill rightfully raises the bar to say that by 2008 at least half have to have a bachelor's degree. Where are the people going to get the money to do that? We have well-deserving people who have that $15,000-plus debt as they come out. They are making half of what a kindergarten teacher makes if they get a job in early childhood education, and the fear here is that they are going to be attracted into other areas, not because they do not want to teach and not because they will not make sacrifices, but because they have that burden that is so substantial that they have to go seek employment somewhere else where they can then afford to pay back that loan. This is a disturbing feature on this. We have a bill that is a significantly good bill that comes up short because of this ideology, because we are so focused on the Republican side on tax cuts for the already wealthy. We could have had tax cuts. We could have distributed them fairly amongst a lot of people, and we could have taken some of money that was in that phenomenal surplus that we had at the beginning of this administration's term of $5.6 trillion over 10 years. We could have taken some small part of that to invest in America, to invest in our children; and, yes, we would have invested in science teachers and mathematics teachers and special education teachers, but I suggest to my colleagues we also would have invested in reading teachers and children teachers for 3- and 4-year-olds in early education. That is critical, Mr. Speaker, and I think that we have fallen short as a Congress here by putting those self-inflicted constraints on the House, and I think we have to start looking at that. The American people should know that this is an area where the Republicans do not want to vote on this issue because they know in their hearts this is something we should be doing. So rather than be forced to take a tough vote because I doubt that this amendment, if it had been allowed to come for a vote, would have failed, I think clearly it would have passed. I think far and wide the majority of people, the Members of this House, know that we have to attract early childhood teachers, that loan forgiveness expansion has to be a part of that. Rather than face the embarrassment of having the majority of this House, including their own Republican Members, tell them that they are at fault when we have that self-inflicted limitation, they chose to use the rules process to once again say that we are going to have a very restricted rule, that all of these amendments that Members should have an opportunity to raise their voices on will not even get the chance to be heard and debated and deliberated upon and voted upon. That is the great disgrace of this 108th Congress, is manipulation through the Committee on Rules and the shutting down of debate so that the American people's voices cannot be heard so that their concerns cannot be reach and so that this country does not have the opportunity to have their Members who represent them stand up and say we want to invest in America, we want to invest in our children, we want to set the right ideological tone, and that is, inclusiveness for everyone; and the Committee on Rules has failed us here, and this rule has failed us.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, which is not modernization of Medicare. It ends it, it does not mend it. And there is no choice here for doctors, only for insurance companies. It is going to put a lot of seniors who have good retirement plans back into the Medicare system without the care and the prescription drugs they need. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I am proud cosponsor of this legislation here today, a bill to commemorate the remarkable life and tremendous achievements of a woman who served with great distinction in the House of Representatives. To Patsy's friends, to her husband John, her daughter Wendy, and her brother Eugene, I offer my condolences as we remember her today. Over the past few months, we have all missed the presence of her in our lives, and we know if she was still with us today, Patsy would be fighting for the rights of women and girls through Title 9, and fighting to see that this country lives up to its responsibilities to provide economic opportunity for all Americans, and she would be promoting democratic values and human rights and international cooperation abroad in Iraq and throughout the world. She leaves a powerful legacy, and I will leave it to others to go on, item by item, but we know she broke down many, many barriers, first for herself and then for others. She left a legacy for millions of working families that she helped lift out of poverty with education and job training programs, ranging from the war on poverty to welfare reform. And she helped a whole generation of female student athletes for whom she drafted and implemented title IX. I was proud to serve with Patsy on both the Committee on Education and the Workforce and on the Committee on Government Reform where she gave voice to the voiceless every day that she served. Patsy provided vision, courage and leadership, speaking out on all of the vital issues of the day and inspiring those of us who served with her with her fiery oration and a mastery of education, economic, and labor issues. Mr. Speaker, she mixed her persuasive powers with the chocolate macadamia nuts that she used to pass out to all. Her memory will long remain here and in Hawaii for another generation of young women and Americans for the work she did.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I have introduced the Build America Act Amendment, which is a step towards ensuring that the United States defense jobs are performed by United States defense workers. American defense workers are 100 percent committed to our Armed Forces and to ensuring that America has the best-trained, best-equipped, and best-led forces in the world. Unfortunately, over the past 15 years, defense-related employment has fallen by 67 percent. That translates into over 1 million jobs lost. We need to do more to reverse this disturbing trend, and we must do more on their behalf. Just as we in Congress continue to fulfill our patriotic promise to our men and women in uniform, we must also demonstrate our equal commitment to those men and women who wear a different kind of uniform, those who build, repair, and operate the machines that sustain and strengthen our security here at home. The Build America Amendment, which expands the scope of the United States defense Industrial Base Assessment Program, seeks information on why contracts are transferred outside this country and mandates an action plan on how this critical sector can be revitalized and restored. The amendment stands in solidarity with our workers, finding out where jobs have gone and fighting to keep them in this country. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their fine work on this bill and this section in particular.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this bill, the so-called Pension Security Act. I cannot help but be struck by a sense of deja vu, because it was just about a year ago today that the majority brought a similar bill to the floor with the same inadequate, harmful political fig leaf for their dismal record, just covering that dismal record on their retirement security. Republicans have ignored the problems brought to light by last year's scandals and by all the scandals in the 13 months since that period of time. This legislation does address those dangers and challenges and uncertainties that threaten the retirement security of America's workers. In some cases it actually rolls back those protections. For example, the bill opens up a whole new dangerous loophole that allows for self-interested investment advice to be provided to employees. For the first time since ERISA was enacted almost three decades ago, investment firms can be permitted to serve as both the principal financial adviser and the investment managers to employees. The bill would permit investment advisers to recommend their firm's products and earn additional fees on those recommended products if they just disclose the fact that they are in conflict. It does not require access to independent advice, nor does it assure any independent oversight. Conflicts between the adviser's profits and the fiduciary duty to the worker would be explicitly authorized. The rollback of these critical protections to workers is an act that flies in the face of the past year and a half of corporate scandals. On April 27, the Securities and Exchange Commission and New York Attorney General's office reached a $1.4 billion settlement with the 10 largest Wall Street firms. Among other things, it will, for the first time, require independent investment research to be provided to investors. This settlement was based on mountains of evidence that the investment advice that major firms were providing to investors was corrupted by conflicts of interest. This costs investors billions of dollars through poor decisions tainted by their adviser's self-dealing. The very same firms covered by this settlement have demonstrated that they felt no responsibility to the investing company, only to their profit margins. They are the same firms who have demonstrated that if a conflict is possible, they will exploit it, and even if a conflict is illegal, they will exploit it, and they will be explicitly authorized to have that conflicted advice presented under this bill. There are other problems with this bill. It allows for the conversion of defined benefit plans to less generous cash balance plans, as just mentioned by my colleague from California. The majority actually voted down an amendment in committee to add protections for workers on that aspect. Further, this legislation leaves in place practices that Enron and WorldCom and other companies that caused unwitting workers to lose billions of dollars benefited from. There are three examples. The bill continues to lock employees into company-matched stock for 3 years after the contributions have been made; it fails to require companies to provide notice to employees that executives are dumping the company's stock, which should be a key indicator to workers that may wish to divest; and it also continues special treatment to company executive pensions at the expense of rank- and-file members. Mr. Speaker, we should put what is happening today into context. This debate today is not just about pension security, just like last week's debate was not just about taxes. This is about an arrogance of power by this majority. While our economy struggles, and while families across America watch helplessly as their retirement savings dwindle away as a result of corporate greed and mismanagement, while health care costs soar to ever higher rates, while prescription drug prices rise at five times the rate of inflation, the Republican leadership in this House can still be counted on to protect the interest of corporate moguls and wealthy special interests at the expense of hard-working American families. There is something wrong when a party uses Enron and investment scandals of Wall Street as justification for rolling back pension protections for American workers. There is something wrong when a party uses the economic misery of regular Americans to cut the taxes of the super-rich. And there is something wrong when the majority uses the crisis of skyrocketing prescription drug prices to privatize Medicare as a favor to the insurance industry. This bill exploits the suffering of many to reward the few. It is a pattern in this House, Mr. Speaker, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, for the past 2\1/2\ years the Bush administration, with help from a Republican majority in Congress, has pursued a policy of shifting this country's tax burden from corporate giants and their super-wealthy friends onto average Americans. Each tax cut proposed had a minimum of relief for families that masked huge breaks for the favored few. The results of earlier such cuts are in: 2,200,000 jobs lost and a downward spiraling economy. This administration has had the worst private-sector job growth performance of the 14 administrations since World War II. Besides the current occupant, no White House except that of the second Eisenhower term lost jobs. Now as concern for the economy rises, the President has again proposed huge cuts for a narrow few, with small cuts for families sprinkled in for ``cover.'' Given the past failure of this approach, and the seemingly endless bleeding of jobs from our economy, the Bush tax cut plan has been re-titled the ``Jobs and Economic Growth'' Plan. Let's pray it doesn't repeat the damage done by the last initiative. By mentioning the word jobs with every breath and having the media breathlessly repeat such pronouncements, the President believes people will think the problem is being addressed. He claims his plan will create 1.4 million jobs. Unfortunately for him, and us, Alan Greenspan of the Fed disagrees, as does the former Presidential Economic Advisory Council member and now Director of the Congressional Budget Office. Neither would or could tout this de ja vu, his father called it voo doo, economic policy. There is a better way to respond to the obvious needs of America's families; a previously tried and successful path that would address the painful situations too many are now experiencing. The President and Congress can provide help, and do so without raising taxes. We must, however, forego those tax cuts that the President is trying to direct almost exclusively to the already extremely well-off, i.e., the reduction of taxes on Corporate dividends. It's not too much to ask. At every other juncture when this nation has met simultaneous foreign and domestic challenges, we have asked for, and received, shared sacrifices. This circumstance calls for the same response. With common sense, fairness and decency as our guide, we can implement a plan far less costly than the President's that actually will create over a million jobs this year alone, and grow the economy. Taking this course will not saddle our children with hundreds of billion or trillions of dollars in debt, as would the President's plan. We should forego the President's special tax favors, and instead: Provide a decent extension of unemployment insurance benefits for those still out of work and those expected to lose their jobs in the coming months. Provide states with funds to avoid their cuts in local aid that are resulting in teacher, fire and police lay offs and losses of other critical services. Also, by providing assistance with a larger federal share of Medicaid to stop plans to end coverage for thousands. Fulfill the federal government's promises to states and local governments to fund homeland security, road and bridge repair and construction, disability education and `No Child Left Behind' mandates, and with one-time assistance to help those hurt most by unemployment and a stagnant economy. Focus any tax relief on families that work-not just those benefiting from ``coupon clipping'' and toward small business incentives for new investments and jobs actually created in 2003. Finally, as the World Trade Organization forces the United States to end its tax subsidies to Corporations that manufacture overseas, we should defeat the Republican effort to repackage that same idea and stop policies that move jobs off-shore. Stopping the economic slide and easing workers' and small business' pain in this economy is entirely possible if we do the sensible, fair things. It is ironic that those looking to give money primarily to the very well-off expect to spend billions building Iraqi schools and roads, providing health care for Iraqi citizens, and rebuilding that country, but somehow lack the will and common sense to build America and help its struggling families. We are morally obligated to assist in Iraq, where so much devastation was caused. Still, I believe we are morally bound--and guided by fair play and common sense--to do the right thing for our citizens and economy as well. It is my hope that the Senate will refocus attention on the needs of the American people and craft a Jobs and Growth Act worthy of its name.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed in the legislation that we are debating today, because this could have been much better. We are only days after depressing job reports, the most depressing reports in decades, released by the Department of Labor showing we lost half a million jobs in the last 3 months. Instead, what the majority brings to this floor is an eviscerated, underfunded job training and workforce development bill. Tomorrow, the majority will bring to the floor a bloated tax bill, overwhelmingly weighted to the wealthiest Americans; and combined, this is what you are going to call a jobs program. Since January 2001, when the current President took office, this economy has lost 2.7 million jobs that are private sector jobs. It is a net loss of more than 74,000 jobs a month. The President is on track to have the worst job creation record for any President since World War II. Workers desperately need relief, the economy desperately needs a boost, and this bill does not provide it. The House majority missed a tremendous opportunity to continue the 30-year record that we have had of bipartisan cooperation on the workforce investment program. But even before the House began to authorize this process, the administration and this Congress had a terrible record on job training. Despite the rising unemployment numbers under this administration, the programs under the Workforce Investment Act have been dramatically underfunded. In fiscal year 2002, the Republican majority adopted a $300 million rescission of WIA funds; in fiscal year 2003, they cut WIA by $440 million; and they project 2004 to cut it by $265 million. This warrants concern that the rhetoric of support for these programs is not matched by the conduct. This legislation does nothing to restore those cuts in critically needed training dollars, and it does nothing to restore working families as a priority. There are at least 5 problems with this bill as it is reauthorized. Instead of restoring needed funding, it actually block grants the money, including the adult dislocated worker and employment services programs. Make no mistake, block granting these programs is nothing more than a precursor to further reducing funding for job training in the future. Combined with the history of the cuts that I just discussed, the history of block grant programs tried elsewhere that result in cuts and the history of the administration putting no money in for extension of unemployment benefits, we start to see the attitude of the majority and of this administration towards unemployed Americans and people that need to get back to work. The block grants ignore important differences between the various types of jobs and job seekers that are currently served by the WIA programs, and they pit one group of underemployed against the unemployed trying to receive assistance. Second, the bill will also largely replace the unemployment service program whose central mission is to facilitate the match between job seekers and employers and the Federal-State partnership that consists of more than 1,800 local offices. This approach will undermine the principle of an unbiased, nonpartisan agency to administer job referrals and assist in the payment of unemployment insurance benefits. Thirdly, the bill denies services to in-school youth under the Youth programs title of WIA. The bill has been changed to allow 30 percent of local funding for in-school youth. I strongly support the concept that young people who leave school before finishing should be given a second chance, but I also believe it makes sense to catch as many as we can before they leave the classroom. This legislation restricts the ability of local communities to respond to their needs and it flies in the face of the kinds of effective programs that are currently being implemented. Fourth, State governors will be allowed to take unspecified amounts of funding presently used to provide critical veterans employment, adult education, vocational rehabilitation, and other services and instead use that money for administrative costs in the one-stop centers. Federal organizations projected a $61.3 million shortfall in their outreach and job counseling and placement programs already. Vocational organizations can only service 5 percent of those who need their services already. Finally, the bill rolls back the critical civil rights protections. Mr. Chairman, we have again missed an opportunity to come together in a bipartisan fashion. This legislation is the worse for it, and I urge its rejection.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1350 in its present form. As proposed, it is designed to dramatically undermine the ideals of IDEA, and doing so in the name of reauthorizing it. In response to the previous speaker's question about funding over a period of time, from 1980 to 1992, we had a Republican in the White House. So we had a division between the leadership in the White House and in Congress, and that may explain some reason why things were not funded. But this year we had a Republican majority in the House, one in the Senate, and in the White House. If they have the will, they certainly have the way to move forward for full funding. I am joined in my position of opposition to this bill in its present form by parents, educators, and advocates for the disability community, all making clear that this bill is not responsive to the needs of the true consumers of the law, and that is children. The majority is asserting something is better than nothing, and in this case I am afraid that is wrong. These counterproductive changes in the bill mean that the children would be better served by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in its current form. The civil rights of these children and the due process rights of their parents are not being quality protected in the legislation. Foremost, as has been mentioned, this bill fails to fully fund that 40 percent of the average per-pupil expenditure that Members have been promising for 30 years to fund in order to help our States and local governments as they try to educate children who, before 1975, and before the courts stepped in to make it, otherwise were ignored or mistreated. We cannot afford to rely on promises from the majority that some day we are going to fully fund it. We have to make it positive and firm right now. As our President rather inarticulately tried to say some time ago, Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, and I did it just like he did. The problem is that we cannot do that. We cannot just rely on their promises. Nobody can rely on that statement as inarticulately set forth. The fact of the matter is that their promises have fallen behind on the education bill; their promises have fallen behind on this bill; their promises have fallen behind on civil rights, due process rights and on funding. I ask Members to not support the bill.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of the 182nd anniversary of Greek independence. 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. Today in the Congress of the United States we commemorate not only the independence achieved by the Greeks in 1821, but the freedom, civil liberties and self-determination sought by people everywhere. Today is also a day to mark the longstanding special relationship between our two countries. We Americans owe a special debt of gratitude to the country upon which our democratic process is founded. Greece was the cradle of democracy, birthplace of ideals and values that shaped human history. Whenever we promote participatory democracy, public service, and equal rights, we pay testament to our shared heritage. In the aftermath of the September 11th attacks, modern day Greece was one of the first nations to offer its support to America in the struggle against terrorism so that we could create a safer world where future generations grow up in a free and open society. And during these days of war, cherished democratic principles are more vital than ever. In my district in Massachusetts, thousands of Greek American families will participate in political, religious and cultural festivities, expressing pride in their Greek heritage and patriotism in their American citizenship. I extend congratulations to them, to all the people of Greek heritage in the United States, and to the people of Greece on this important holiday.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the face of mounting evidence of a national crisis in retiree health care, and I want to announce the reintroduction yesterday of the Emergency Retiree Health Benefits Protection Act, known as H.R. 1322. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1322 will stem the tide of post-retirement cutbacks or elimination of health care benefits that have victimized millions of American retirees. Now, Mr. Speaker, one would think that businesses and business values and basic fairness and, in fact, the law would ensure that retirees could rely on health benefits promised to them by employers. But the case is that increasingly, large profitable employers, even those who enticed employees into early retirement, have now changed and are reneging on their commitment. These corporate cutbacks in retiree health care have reached intolerable proportions. For too long, working people have been denied health care benefits that were promised upon retirement to the lack of strong laws in this area. The retirees lived up to their end of the bargain, Mr. Speaker, and now the companies must live up to their end. To renege on these promises jeopardizes the life savings of people who are forced to absorb the precipitous decline in their standard of living and dip into their savings in order to make up for a cut or a cancellation in health benefits. Even worse, retirees with preexisting medical conditions may not be able to obtain or afford any new health coverage at all. As a result, their health declines rapidly and, in some cases, needlessly. A recent study by the Employment Benefit Research Institute found that a 65-year-old retiree without employment-based insurance may require up to nearly $1.5 million to fund lifetime medical expenses. That is assuming death at the age of 100 and medical inflation of 14 percent annually. All of this is happening against a precipitous drop in personal savings. According to the AARP, which published ``How Americans Save,'' the United States savings rate has been steadily declining over the last 25 years. The Economic Policy Institute reports that in September and October of 1998, personal savings rates for Americans consisting of contributions to individual savings accounts, as well as employer and personal contributions to 401(k)s and IRAs and similar pension plans, dipped below zero for the first time since the Great Depression. The United States Department of Commerce reports that at the beginning of the 1990s, households saved on average about 8 percent of their disposable income. By 2001, the proportion of income set aside for savings had fallen below 2 percent. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1322, the Emergency Retiree Health Benefits Protection Act, would reverse these recent trends and bring common sense and fairness back to retiree health. With certain limited exceptions, the bill would prohibit employers from making post- retirement cancellations or reductions of health benefits that retirees were entitled to when they retired. In addition, the bill would obligate employers to restore benefits taken away after retirement, unless the employer can demonstrate substantial business hardship if compelled to restore the benefits. Boosting a profitable bottom line would not qualify as a substantial hardship. While many employers are crying hardship today, Mr. Speaker, the hard truth is that many were aggressively cutting employee benefits in the midst of the economic boom of the 1990s when profits were high. Basic fairness dictates that we ensure that the promises that have been made to those whose life's efforts have contributed to the great economic prosperity of our Nation are kept. We can ill afford the collapse of private sector retiree health initiatives because retirees no longer have faith in their employers' promises. Last Congress, this bill garnered national support from retirees across the country. My office received hundreds of testimonials from people affected by these cutbacks, and tonight I want to share three. From my own district in Massachusetts: Leo Murphy of Ipswich, who is the regional Vice President of the National Association of Retired Sears Employees, which represents 154,000 retirees nationally, has this to say: ``H.R. 1322 will ensure that companies don't sell out their retirees whose hard work grew the companies in the first place. We all made plans anticipating our retirement years, and those plans have all been torn apart. Enactment of H.R. 1322 will restore credibility to private sector health care plans and assure that retirees and their families continue to have the health coverage they were promised and worked for all their lives.'' From a retiree in Morristown, New Jersey: ``What a hardship it has been to see the health coverage I retired with, and fully expected to continue as is, be constantly whittled away. It just isn't fair. Not only is it eating into my pension every year, but my pension has not received a cost of living increase for the past 10 years. Please help us; we are counting on you. And thank you again for caring about us.'' And from Wellington, Florida: ``I am writing you concerning retiree benefits. I retired in 1991. Since that time, the company has reneged on promised retiree life insurance. The company has also made the retiree medical plan almost unaffordable by raising premiums far beyond the normal type increase. They have cut averages and cut coverages, they have raised deductibles, and made it pretty obvious that retirees are a liability, and please go away is the preferred method of handling retirees. Legislation is needed to protect retirees from vigilante actions of companies and protect retirees from unscrupulous company executives. Since many companies can no longer act in a trustworthy manner towards retirees, it will take Federal legislation to protect retirees when those retirees are the most vulnerable and least able to provide replacement benefits.'' Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their courtesy, because I have received hundreds of testimonials from these people. Congress should act, and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting H.R. 1322.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for the time, and with due respect to our colleagues that have spoken on the other side of this issue, I want to say that we all understand the issues that are here and we understand the impact that premiums have on doctors, but it is a shame that we have to choose a vehicle in this bill that pits doctors against victims of malpractice. The doctors that come into my office understand that if there is an error made they want the patient to be compensated. There is no offer in this bill to give us a system better than the jury system. There is an arbitrary amount set that even doctors, when they look at it, understand that there is not nearly enough to fully compensate people. This is simply an insurance company bill, an HMO bill, a prescription drug manufacturing bill that will limit their liability, and in order to try to push it through, pits doctors, well-intended doctors, against patients, victims. The fact of the matter is this legislation should be looking at ways to weed out undeserving suits so that doctors are not exposed to them, while making sure that we preserve a way for people that are injured to get their full compensation in a fair manner. We have to also add into that premium control because the insurance companies simply are not a well-run organization, and that is where the answer is for doctors, improve that with insurance reform.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. I just want to thank the gentleman for taking the time this evening to allow for some debate, probably much more than we will get tomorrow on this, so we could have a full discourse on what is going on and what the content of the bill is and what the effects are going to be on people. I think tomorrow we will hear a lot of the standard positions that people are taking, one side or another. This discourse hopefully allowed us to broaden that out a little bit and talk about some the specifics. I thank the gentleman again for taking the time to do it and showing his leadership.

Mr. TIERNEY. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey and ask that he stay nearby because I want to have a conversation with him if I can eventually on this. I have had some very interesting conversations with constituents in my office for a period of time now about this issue, ever since the bill was filed. Primarily the concept was that people come in and they are upset because of what they think are the consequences of this bill from whatever perspective they come. Consumer groups come in on behalf of patients and talk about how unjust it is for the limitations that it puts on patients. Lawyers come in because they are concerned. They, of course, believe that they are doing the right thing in representing victims of malpractice. They believe that part of what they do that is noble and right is that they try to get people recovery so that they can continue on with their lives in some sort of respectable manner after some consequence or some disaster has happened to them. And doctors come in because they think that the bill may be helpful to them because they do not want to bear the unlimited exposure to lawsuit damages and do not want their premiums rising through the roof. So we have those three groups sort of pitting against themselves, or some combination. But when you sit people down and talk to them, it is really easy to see that this bill is not about doctors, it is not about lawyers, it is not about patients, it is about insurance companies. It is about insurance companies and those others that you mentioned at the end of your remarks who somehow managed to get into a bill that they are billing as being a limitation on premiums for malpractice but managed to sneak in there immunity for themselves and total absolution from any liability for their malfeasance or their mistakes or their negligence or their wrongful acts even if they are deliberate. The fact of the matter is that that does not serve the American public at all. It does not serve any of those other three groups that we talked about. I have any number, as I am sure you do, a number of friends that are doctors, physicians in different fields, ranging from those that have a very high risk factor to those that have a very small risk factor. There is not a one of them that when I engage them in conversation that does not have compassion for their patient. When you say to someone, as I did just the other day to a doctor, this particular doctor deals with people with cerebral palsy, an absolutely dedicated physician. I said to him, if one of your patients by virtue of your mistake was injured at a very young age and the consequences were that they were going to have this disaster for the rest of their lives, do you think that $250,000 would fairly compensate them? They say, well, no, of course not. I ask if they realize that in this bill that is the limitation that is put on that. And that women that get injured that may not be working, may be bringing up a family in a household, they do not have economic earnings from which they can then generate a recovery but they have the rest of their lives to go forward when they may then have to go out and try and earn a living and they may be stopped from doing that, do you think for someone in that consequence, that $250,000 is enough? Well, of course not, was the answer. And right on down the line, example after example. I came in late, but I know you were giving some examples earlier. Their answer back to me was, why don't you engage and try to do something that is reasonable? If you don't think $250,000 is reasonable, why don't you engage them in that? I tell them that the simple fact of the matter is that this is not about a conversation. We are more than willing to sit down and talk about what is fair and what is just. The problem is that the insurance industry and the HMOs and the others that are driving this piece of legislation and I think using the doctors as a tool in this by trying to get them to believe that their premiums will go down when they will not, and history shows that they have not and studies indicate that they are not intended to by this bill, that they try to get them involved in that instead of realizing that this is all about the insurance industry, all about the HMOs, all about those other manufacturers that want to be absolved from liability and they do not want a discussion. They want to try to generate the heat high enough so that you are either for it or against it. There seems to be a lot of that going on around here these days. They make a bill very difficult and absolutely without any compromise. You will find out that when the bill comes to the floor tomorrow, they will not be asking for amendments to make it better or to improve it. They will not be asking for any prolonged debate to talk about all the aspects of this, not just premiums but how do we protect doctors from unlimited liability, how do we protect patients to make sure they get their just due without putting doctors out of business. None of that will be open for debate. It will simply be a vehicle for people to make a case, perhaps in the next election in 2004 or whatever or to show themselves to their benefactors that they are out there waving the flag on their behalf. That is unfair. It is unfair to patients, it is unfair to doctors, it is unfair to lawyers and it is unfair to the American public at large. The fact of the matter is that if you couch it in terms that this is all about keeping premiums down, it is something interesting to note that in California, where this is supposedly the model for this whole program, in the 1970s when they put in a cap on recovery, the fact of the matter is premiums did not go down. The next 4 years they went up considerably, and since that point in time, they have been pretty much running the average of around the rest of the country. So that is a fallacy. In Florida, when the Florida legislation said to the insurance industry, well, then if we are going to pass a bill like this, you have to certify to us that premiums will go down, the insurance industry said, no, we won't do that. In Nevada the same thing happened out there where they talked about enacting severe damage caps. The insurance industry came out and said very clearly that they would still not lower premiums. The studies indicate and history indicates that the insurance industry makes its money primarily not from premiums so much as from the investment of those premiums into other vehicles, whether they are bonds and to a lesser extent stocks and other vehicles and generate income from that. When the market is down, as it is now, and they are not paying off as they are, when it goes down, then they have to jack up the premiums to get the profits to which they think they need to go on with their company. Then they have to tell somebody that it is not about insurance companies and profit because they know that will not be extremely profitable because everybody wants people to have a profit but they do not want necessarily to be gouged. So they cannot go out and tell people that we just want to get a higher profit and we are going to do anything, we are not going to take any decrease in our profits, but instead we are going to go out and get the doctors, they cannot say that. They turn around and they say, you know what the problem is here? The people that are subject to malpractice, the people that have lost something in their lives, they are the problem. They are getting too high a recovery. Obviously because they are represented by lawyers helping them get that recovery, then lawyers are bad people, too. The fact of the matter is many times these are complicated cases. Something happens, and if a doctor makes a mistake, it is complicated, and it is difficult sometimes to find out just where that mistake occurred, which part of the process, which doctor or other health care person was involved in that. A suit might be filed to find out, to discover where that was. Then the people that are not involved are let out or the person who is responsible, their insurance company gets engaged in the situation. You would hope that this is a system we have structured to give that person a fair recompense for their injuries. That is the way that it is supposed to work. The problem is of course that now they are putting up there, they are saying that this whole idea of somebody recovering is where the culprit is. There has not been any great increase in huge recoveries across this country. They cannot point to statistics showing that all of a sudden we have had a spike in incredibly high recoveries for people. And those few high recoveries are generally knocked down by appeals courts to a much more realistic number. It just happens that there was something in the course of that case that the jury got upset with, whether it was somebody trying to cover up something that was done or an insurance company failing to pay off on time, or something that caused them to get an award up there and courts generally ratchet that back. But if we are not going to proceed on the basis that we have done in the past of having a system where somebody who through no fault of their own is seriously injured, looks to the person who was negligent, to the person who conducted the malpractice for a contribution, which they then in return insure against, then we have to find out what else it is that we are going to put in place for a system. If we think that we want somebody else to decide other than a jury as to what somebody's fair recovery is, then let us hear what it is. Let us have a debate about that. Who should replace a jury of your peers in deciding that? If you think there should be a cap on the amount of money that people recover, let us have some experts as well as the general public engaged in the debate about what would a fair amount be, because you certainly need to take care of these people. We have decided as a society that the innocent part of that should not be the one that suffers the burden and goes without having any ability to sustain the rest of their lives. We have decided that we have to try and share that blame by making the person who has been negligent responsible and letting them insure for it. Society has to have a replacement. We can complain about the system that we have all we want, but we should be having a debate instead about what changes in it we are going to make if we think that parts in it are not working. As I said in the beginning of my remarks, I have great sympathy for the doctors who feel they have to practice defensively, for the doctors who feel that their exposure is unlimited, for the doctors who insurance companies abuse by raising their premiums on the false pretense that it is the situation where people are getting too much for their injury. We have to sit down with people and say, what else are we going to put in place, how else are we going to make these decisions in a fair way so that people get fairly compensated for their injuries and so that we understand that doctors have to remain in practice and they have to remain in practice without the fear of being put out of business either financially or because they were constantly engaged in litigation. I do not hear that kind of conversation coming from the other side of the aisle, from the majority. I frankly do not hear anybody saying we are going to sit down and try to iron this out. Did it go to committee? It went to committee, but people should not feel that there was an open dialogue in committee, that there was any deliberation and honest debate and suggestions about what changes might be made. It went to committee so that the majority who put forward the bill could ram it through on a straight party line vote and get it to the next level so we could do the same thing so that they would have some talking points to go back to their benefactors with and to campaign against and say like, oh my God, other people that don't vote for this bill want to put the doctors out of business, and we are the ones who want to save the doctors when in fact the premiums will not go down a stitch, the insurance companies will not allow the bill to be amended to put a requirement that if the recoveries go down, the premiums go down, and the fact of the matter really is it is all about the insurance companies, the HMOs and the others that are going to be shielded from liability and it is not about the doctors, not about the lawyers and, shamefully, it is least about the people that are really the ones that we should be focusing on here, the people that are injured through malpractice. The best thing these insurance companies could do, one of the best things they could do is help doctors put in place some way to police those 5 percent of the medical profession that are responsible for 54 percent of the claims. It seems to me and I think others that that is one area to look at that would take care of a large part of the problem of legal actions and a large part of the problem with that small percentage of the premium increase that may be attributable to claims. My recollection of reports and data shows that it is about half a percentage point on those premiums. But that would make sense. Find ways to hold accountable that 5 percent of doctors that have 54 percent of the claims, and make sure they are either reeducated so they are no longer guilty of malpractice, or move them out of the profession to someplace else where they are happy, to a less risky end of the business. Then let us make sure we take a look at the insurance companies. If they are going to jack up prices every time their investment returns go down, then we have to look at the company industry and say something is wrong here. Doctors should not be subjected to these spikes in premiums just because the economy has gone down and that is where you invested all of your eggs, and now you are suffering a loss and you want to maintain your high profits, you are not satisfied with a lesser profit. Then we have to find a way to deal with that through insurance regulation. Short of that, and if they are going to insist on putting that bill through, we would at least hope they would have provided some discussion about what is a fair amount; and $250,000, even by doctors accounts, is not a fair amount of a cap. We would have had some discussion about what are we going to do about policing those 5 percent of the medical profession that create 54 percent of the incidents that end up in lawsuits. And we would have done something with the fact of trying to work our way around so that doctors did not feel they were subject to legal suit in order for people to get discovery as to who is responsible, find some way earlier in the process for the facts to be known so that people could move forward, and have a good public debate about this so that everybody's interests were resolved. That is not happening, my colleague from New Jersey, you know that very well; and I would just say to you that I would be happy to have a conversation with you on it if you want, but I think you would agree that we could have done a much better job sitting down as a full House, with a full complement of the committee, with all three parties, the Independents, the Republicans and the Democrats, and people representing the consumers, patients, the doctors, and the insurance companies, and talked about what is needed to be done in order for this to really be done correctly. I think it is shameful we started out with this yelling and screaming contest, that it is all or nothing, there cannot be any reasonable conversation. Doctors feel they are put in the position of, gee, in order to save ourselves, we have to go along with this low cap, and we have to go along with the provisions of the bill that effectively make it difficult for people injured to even find legal representation, because it is going to be so expensive to proceed on that suit; and there will not be any compensation because the amounts have been capped and lawyers will not come on, and they will be without a lawyer. Only one in eight people that are subject to malpractice now file a claim anyway, and I guess the insurance companies would like to collect those premiums from the doctors and have that one in eight number be even less. Their profits would be that much higher, but society would not benefit from it. People that were injured would still have to go through their lives with those egregious situations and without help; and I think that we should focus on making the situation better, not having a political battle here that does not allow for debate.

Mr. TIERNEY. If the gentleman will yield, I think you take it back a step further. If you remember the debates about the Patients' Bill of Rights, where doctors and consumer-patients, consumer groups and others were together on this issue, understood that we needed to have protections against HMOs and the like, needed to be able to file an appeal to an egregious situation, I think a lot of it stemmed from the insurance companies and HMOs at that point in time saying we have to get back the equation here, and the way we will do it is we will improve our financial situation, and we will try to drive a wedge between those patients and their doctors. Where they finally have come together and have focused the light on us and we are losing ground on the Patients' Bill of Rights, we have to again drive that wedge, and the way we will do it is by telling doctors that their premiums are going up, because patients that are subject to malpractice are getting too much compensation for their injuries, which they cannot justify and cannot move in that direction. It is shameful. As I say, the doctors, in my view, are good people with the right mind, the right heart on this thing. When you sit down and talk with them, they understand that they are being used. Their first comment always is, well, why do the Members of Congress not talk about what would be the right amount, if any amount, to talk about fair compensation? Why do they not talk about what should have to happen before a claim is filed? Why do they not talk about reining in the insurance companies? I said we are perfectly willing, but conversation needs two parties, and there is one party here. We are listening. We would be more than willing to talk. The other side is not willing to have anybody listen, and they are only willing to ram things through; and unfortunately, that is what you are going to see tomorrow, and I do not think anybody is going to be served by it. Hopefully, the other body in this institution will have the wisdom to stop that and force it back; and then maybe, maybe if there is enough pressure from other groups, we can have a conversation trying to improve the situation for everybody's benefit.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his hard work in putting this time together. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss President Bush's 2004 budget which, unfortunately, and I think disturbingly, at a time of continued economic insecurity and global instability, fails to put America's priorities ahead of politics and idealogy. The President continues to pursue an irresponsible economic policy that focuses solely on multiyear tax cuts for our wealthiest citizens, while offering little assistance to countless working individuals and families that need it the most. One of my colleagues said it best earlier today: This is the most irresponsible fiscal situation of an administration since the days of Nero. All this is going on while the same wealthy individuals and corporations that have already pocketed the lion's share, the disproportionate share of $1.6 trillion in tax cuts for 2001 and 2002, are out there, while the number of unemployed workers, white-collar and blue-collar, are higher than they have ever been in decades. Further, although the President says he supports education, homeland security, prescription drugs for seniors, and a myriad of other responsible needs, his budget reflects otherwise. There is a clear disconnect between what the President promises and what he produces. His rhetorical support for many critical domestic processes is simply not reflected in the budget's numbers and figures. The reality is that children will be left behind. Our first responders, those that protect our borders and ports, will not be adequately funded; and our senior citizens will be short-changed. On top of all of this, we are having the biggest defense buildup in the past 20 years. The costs of disarmament or a potential war with Iraq are not even included within the President's budget or within those Department of Defense numbers. While the White House speaks of little else besides Iraq these days, the one place they are conspicuously silent is in the budget. Today's report in the Washington Post says the President is going to request a supplemental spending bill of as much as $95 billion to pay for any military action in Iraq. Why is that not in the 2004 budget? Why is it not being talked about with the American people today as the cost of what we are looking at here? They have already offered $26 billion to Turkey for the use of our bases on their northern front against Iraq. All of this, the $95 billion, the $26 billion to Turkey, God knows how much else to other countries whose silence or participation is being bought with respect to the invasion of Iraq, is in addition to the $400 billion in the fiscal year 2004 budget already proposed for the Department of Defense for our military, and there is no end in sight. Estimates for the cost of war, even if it is successful in military terms, and Iraq's reconstruction are between $50 billion to $200 billion. At the same time, we are continuing to spend 650 to $750 million a month in Afghanistan to try to rebuild that country. We are going to continue to do that for the foreseeable future. We have to put this budget in perspective. When we add all of that up, without the cost of Iraq, this $5.6 trillion budget surplus we looked at at the beginning of this Presidential term has already been replaced by a $2.1 trillion deficit. This is close to an $8 trillion turnaround in just 2 years, and the numbers are staggering. At the same time, there are record job losses and poor economic growth. Two million jobs have been lost since January of 2001. The stock market has gone down while the unemployment rate has gone up. Consumer confidence is at its lowest level in nearly 10 years. Meanwhile, in response to all of this, all this administration can do is to continue to promote and advance the narrow economic plan of tax cuts for the few without regard to the plight of the many. There are consequences for this flawed fiscal policy, and our vital domestic programs on which many people depend are what are going to suffer. They were underfunded even before we started talking about what is going to happen in Iraq, and they are going to be even more severely underfunded after that. No Child Left Behind will leave many children behind. It is $9 billion beneath the amount that the President promised. After-school programs, a cut. Two million children will be left without the benefit of those programs. In April of 2002, the President went to New Mexico and told us all about his support for Even Start, but he cuts that program; and he cuts the Head Start program, as well. The President cuts vocational and technical funding. Even though 34 percent of our children are all that go on to higher education for 4 years, he is cutting money from vocational and technical programs that might give other children the chance to go on and have a well-prepared background for a life that gets them ready for the future. I could go on and on, but I know other Members want to speak. I would simply say this budget is totally irresponsible, and it has yet to put in the amount of money we are going to be spending in Iraq and in occupying Iraq. I think the President owes the American people an explanation of just what that amount is and what are the costs, not only in terms of human life of Iraqis and United States individuals, and others, but what is the cost in treasure, and what are we giving up for his decision not to go ahead and contain this country, and not to go through the United States Security Council to bring that matter to a resolution, but rather to go in unilaterally and peremptorily invade at a significant cost. That is what the American people have to know and debate.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. I thank the gentlewoman for California for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have simply put a new number on last year's bill without any apparent attempt to address the new realities of this worsening economy. That bill is, in terms, harsh and seems to be divorced from today's reality. As written, the legislation will impact some 48,000 families in my State of Massachusetts alone, which is now in its toughest economy in a decade. It would cost the State, which is already drowning in red ink, some $222 million over the next 5 years in order to implement what essentially are unfunded mandates. Health care and housing assistance are already being cut back, and in my district the unemployment rate is now 7.3 percent. In this type of an economy, we should be helping States, not putting a further strain on the safety net for America's families. Obviously, first we need a better policy to create jobs than the one being offered by this administration and the majority. But then we need this measure to be crafted so that it will actually help people qualify and enable them to fill jobs and to lift them out of poverty to self- sustainability. In the current economic climate, we have to look at the principles that really work. Education and training have to count towards the work requirement more than the bill on the floor allows for. Common sense, educators and countless examples concur with that opinion. People have to be able to make contacts, develop skills and find careers, not just jobs, but jobs that bring them out of poverty. Working parents need child care. Our alternative keeps up with inflation and increased work habits and addresses that situation. The opponents' bill does not, adding $1 billion; and a $1 billion promise does not meet the $11 billion that we are told is going to be impacted on the States and cost them to meet these requirements. We cannot be forcing parents to choose between leaving their children home alone and working to put food on the table or staying home with their children who are hungry. And we have to allow State flexibility. States like Massachusetts have effectively used those waivers, Mr. Chairman, to design their own versions of welfare, and they have worked in their economies. Those are the principles that have to underlie this bill. Those are the changes that have to be made. If they are not made, I would recommend that we vote against the bill, but for the alternative.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, as the previous colleague just said, the decision of whether or not to send our young men and women to danger and to possibly kill or harm others is certainly the most solemn and serious decision the Members of Congress will have to make. There was no ambiguity between Congress and the President with respect to our response to the events of September 11, 2001, but now the issue is how to deal with a nation under control of an undeniably dangerous and treacherous individual, Saddam Hussein. The administration seeks to go it alone, seeks a resolution that would allow the President alone to decide and determine whether or not it is necessary to attack Iraq. It also seeks authorization to act for reasons beyond Iraq's failure to disarm after inspections. I believe there is a better way, a way recommended by other past commanders and present, names like Admiral Clark, Zinni and others. We should work within the international framework to create a consensus to impose inspections and disarmament and authorize the United States to participate in that U.N. Security Council effort to enforce those inspections and disarmament. That resolution should also say that if efforts are honestly and diligently pursued and they prove unsuccessful, then the administration should return to Congress for the determination of what appropriate action the United States, and other countries choosing to act with it, should then take. If Iraq were attacking the United States now, Congress would undoubtedly act with the same speed it did on September 14, 2001. If Iraq were doing that, we would act, but it is not attacking the United States at this point in time. The administration presents the case that, as the world's remaining superpower, it is justified in using its global military superiority to preempt perceived threats before they occur. We all know that America always knows that it can act to prevent disaster, but elevation of that unilateral preemptive policy to a new norm would mean that any militarily stronger nation may perceive a not-yet-established imminent threat and act preemptively. That would conjure up thoughts of India and Pakistan, Russia and Chechnya, and China and Taiwan. This would turn decades of international law and norms on their head, years in which the United States was a leader in establishing international entities and laws, just so that nations would not act presumptuously and attack others, and instead we set up an international system within which differences could be resolved without preemptive attacks being the first resort. The administration says that Hussein is bad, and no one disagrees, nor do we disagree with the notion that the U.N. resolutions must be enforced by the U.N. Security Council action. The administration, though, asserts that the United States must act peremptorily and right now because Iraq is an imminent threat, but the truth be told, it has not met the burden of proof with respect for that claim. Yes, Iraq has biological and chemical weapons and has had them for some time. Yes, they may have been trying unsuccessfully to get nuclear capabilities, but we have stopped them from doing that. In fact, the inspections were successful in inhibiting those attempts, and Iraq does not have nuclear capability nor does it have the means to deliver weapons of mass destruction against the United States. We have kept those materials from Iraq and from terrorists. And the irony is that, while the administration cavalierly talks about a $100 to $200 billion cost of attack and rebuilding Iraq, it fails to come to this body and push for legislation that would be far less costly under the Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction to safeguard weapons of mass destruction materials from getting into the hands of terrorists or Iraq or anyone else; and that simply is the path we should take. There is currently insufficient evidence of Iraq's complicity with terrorists, and today we learned through declassified CIA reports that Iraq is not likely to use biological/chemical weapons against the United States unless we send people in and provoke it in that region, and a number of reports so indicate. Given the absence of a direct threat to the United States and the absence of an imminent threat to the United States, we should proceed, but first, the United States, as a founder and a leader of the Security Council, should lead the international council to enforce inspection and disarmament, and we should seek further to get rid of weapons of mass destruction throughout that Middle East region and not stop with just Iraq. We should also use our diplomatic efforts to do that for every country, particularly in that region. We should also use the time that we would have by going the international route to disclose fully to the United States the cost of action, if it is necessary, in people and in treasuries. As the senior Senator from Massachusetts said, what casualties would there be if we fight in the desert or if we fight door to door in the city or biological/chemical weapons are used on our troops? What will happen with Iraqi civilian victims and what are our intentions to minimize those victims' problems? What about the sacrifice in terms of our economy? What will people be asked to forego in terms of education and health care and prescription drugs and infrastructure and getting people back to work? What about our plans for reoccupying and restabilizing Iraq? Mr. Speaker, as I close, if we go it alone, how will we deal with maintaining the cooperation of other nations, especially Arab and Muslim countries, and our number one threat of terrorism, should we lose our leadership? Countries look to us for that.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my condolences on the death of the Honorable Patsy Mink. Mr. Speaker. I rise this evening to join my colleagues in commemoration of the remarkable life and tremendous achievements of the woman who served with great distinction in the House of Representatives, Patsy Mink. I offer my condolences to the Mink family, especially her husband John and daughter Wendy, and to the people of her district who have lost a leader and a friend. From age 4 when she insisted on joining her brother at school to her service as the first Asian-American woman to practice law in Hawaii, and to her election as the first woman of color to Congress, Patsy broke down barriers--first for herself, and then for others. Patsy left a legacy for millions of working families she helped lift out of poverty with education and job training programs ranging from the War on Poverty to Welfare Reform, and the generation of female student athletes for whom she drafted, passed and implemented Title IX, the 30 year anniversary of which we just commemorated this June. I was proud to serve with Patsy on both the House Education and the Workforce Committee and the Government Reform Committee, where she gave a voice to the voiceless every day that she served. Patsy provided vision, courage and leadership--speaking out on all the vital issues of the day and inspiring us, her colleagues, with here fiery oratory on the House Floor and policy negotiations that combined her mastery of education, labor and economic issues with the persuasive power of Hawaiian chocolate-covered macadamia nuts. Mr. Speaker, the Members and staff of this great institution mourn the loss of a valued friend and colleague whose distinguished service to the House made a difference in the lives of millions of Americans. We will miss her dearly.