John Tierney

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, On this somber anniversary of the terrible attacks on our country last September, we pause in remembrance of all those who died, and we stand in solidarity with the many families here in our communities and elsewhere who continue to live every day with the grief and pain of their unspeakable loss. Their lives and ours will never be the same, but we come together today in communities large and small across our nation not only to comfort one another and remember but to proclaim anew our values as Americans—values that we as a nation have rediscovered in ourselves and each other since last September 11th; values that challenge us to live better, nurture our relationships, and serve our community; values that command us to respond to tragedy as all of these brave families have—with courage and resolve, undaunted by acts of cowardice and hatred. This gathering today is yet another step that we as a community, indeed we as a nation, are taking together to win this battle against the assault on innocent civilians living in a free society. While we continue to experience competing emotions of sorrow, anger and frustration, we refuse to allow these acts to rob us of our values and our spirit. My colleagues and I will continue to work together with the President to bring about the end of terrorism. We have the ability and the wherewithal to confront this challenge as we have met so many others in the past so that when future generations pause in remembrance of this day in our history, they will do so in the shelter of a just and free and united country.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, there has been much debate on how the United States should proceed with Iraq. I rise to draw attention to an issue that is critical to this decision-making process. As we debate how and whether to take military action in Iraq, I should hope that we could all agree to take economic action against Saddam Hussein. Now, it is clear that the United States is overly dependent on foreign oil. The United States presently imports 48 percent of the 19.7 million barrels of oil it consumes each day. Of that total, approximately half a million barrels come from Iraq. Now is the opportunity to pursue a policy of making America independent of Middle Eastern oil. To do this, we have to aggressively pursue new technologies and development of renewable energy, biomass, geothermal, hydropower, solar and wind. A renewed effort toward policies that encourage reduced reliance on fossil fuels and more secure sources of dependable energy would mean the creation of jobs that would strengthen our economy and better serve our national interests. Now is the precise moment for the United States to shed its dependency on any Iraqi oil and work toward a future when our domestic energy policy plays a role in how we implement strategic initiatives. Already we are told that Saddam Hussein does not use the proceeds from the sale of oil to feed his population or to provide medical needs for his people. We are told instead that the profits from these sales are going to his own personal needs, to his aggrandizement with palaces and other monuments that he builds to himself, and to embellishing his Republican Guard. Especially if that is the case, then we ought to be talking about not buying Iraqi oil so that he has the proceeds with which to act in that manner, and we ought to be talking about convincing our allies in the international community to do the same. This will not be easy, but the fact of the matter is we have a capable State Department and a capable Secretary of State who ought to go about the hard work of working diplomatically to convince our international community that that is one way to enforce inspections and enforce disarmament, one tool to use to get the attention of Saddam Hussein, knowing there is a hammer at the other end that can be effective, and we ought to do it. In the long range, we ought to make sure that we have an energy policy in place that allows us not only to back off of any use of Iraqi oil, but to eventually overcome any need to rely on Middle Eastern oil. It is a relatively small portion of the fossil fuel that we use in this country; and over a period of a reasonable number of years, a concerted and wise energy policy will allow us to strategically pull out of that area and resolve many of the crises we may have in the future dealing with Middle Eastern problems and situations, politically and otherwise. Mr. Speaker, I think that this is a policy that would be wise. I think we have international resolutions for inspections and disarmament that need international enforcement. We ought to call upon the United Nations to do everything in its power to work within the international community to make sure that they in fact enforce those resolutions and have inspections and make sure that we have disarmament in Iraq. But that is hard work, as I said before; and it is not as easy sometimes as taking an overpowering military force and attacking. But there is no imminency to any attack on the interests of the United States at this time, and we have an international body and we have an international means to act; and we have the time to do that and try that. We should exhaust all avenues before going to the extreme avenue of an unprovoked, in the sense of any action against the United States directly, action. We should make sure that we use our resources, work within the international community, understand that we can embargo oil to Iraq as an opening step, and get our allies to do the same as a way of enforcing provisions for inspections and disarmament. We ought to move in that direction. Mr. Speaker, I hope that we can get some agreement on this, and I hope that we can work within the international community to do just that.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I suppose that the gentleman who just spoke up understands that the constituents in his State have lost about $5.25 billion of their hard-earned nest egg due to a poor economy, corporate scandal, and weak pension laws, and in fact, what is amazing is all of the things that he talked about at that hearing were true. That was what the hearing told us. Nothing in the bill that passed this House would address any of those issues. That poor employee still would never have gotten information from the employer, from the CEOs and the other high corporate officers saying that they had bailed out on their stock and left the employees holding the bag. The bill that passed the House does not resolve that. Nothing puts those people on the board of directors so that they can be aware of situations like that and help them. The fact of the matter is once again we are here in this House talking about a sense of the House, which makes no sense because it does not do anything. We are instructing the other body on how to do its business instead of doing our business. Do we want to help people in this country? What they need is an extension of their unemployment benefits. They are out. But we are not talking that action. We are talking about a sense of the House resolution. Let us talk about people who do not have health insurance. There are almost 40 million of them now. We are not doing anything on that. Let us talk about education. We have a ``no child left behind'' bill that the President ran around the country touting, but he is afraid to have the majority bring it up in the House because we are $7 billion short on it. And that is money to help people get their children an opportunity in the future. We could be talking about job training for people that need to get back into work, except the budget put forward by the majority and the administration, cuts those funds way back so that people that are displaced cannot have the resources they need to move forward. The fact of the matter is this economy continues to struggle. Families across America watch helplessly while their retirement savings dwindle because of corporate greed. We watch their health care costs rise. Small businesses cannot meet those, and yet there is no help going out in that direction because we are not dealing with any business of import to American families in the House. We are dealing with senses of the House, senses of Congress, telling the other body of the Congress what it should be doing. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, there is much we could be doing, much that we should be doing. I say let us get down to business and let us do it.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thought we might take a minute this morning to talk about the fact that 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, and while prescription drug prices rise at 5 times the rate of inflation, the leadership in this House can still be counted on to protect the interests of corporate moguls and wealthy special interests at the expense of hard-working American families. A case in point. With the startling news that 401(k) and other defined contribution plans lost $210 billion last year, and IRAs lost $230 billion, the majority in this House still thinks it perfectly all right for companies to provide conflicted investment advice to their employees, advice from analysts who have a stake in the very stocks that they are touting, analysts who receive financial benefits from promoting certain stocks, even if they know they are of questionable value. Some of us tried to do something about that and correct the inequity when we considered the so-called pension reform bill last spring. My amendment would have provided truly unconflicted advice to investors, and that is the direction we ought to go. The bills that are in front of the House later on today, Mr. Speaker, do not move in that direction, and we need to stand up for the American people whose investments are dwindling and do the right thing.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a clarification? The gentleman has a great memory, but I do not think he can remember that I was here in 1996 when I was not.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, my friend, the gentleman from Georgia, was talking about facts being stubborn. I think he is right, but the one stubborn fact that we cannot avoid here this afternoon is that this bill does nothing. It is a very stubborn fact that this is a resolution of the House attempting somehow to tell the other body when and how they should act. I think it is probably inappropriate to do that, but it is also a waste of our time and effort, because it is, obviously, going to go on its own schedule. Another fact that is very stubborn that will not go away is the fact that this is filler. We are standing here doing this on this resolution because the majority in this House will not go forward with the rest of the business that needs to get done before the end of this fiscal year: eight spending bills that they are failing to move forward. I know my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), has done the work in his committee. The bill which is the subject matter of this particular resolution before us now was passed through his committee and passed through the House and is gone. But the stubborn fact of the matter is there are eight spending bills that have not gone through the appropriations process and gone through the House and been passed along. We could be dealing with that instead of talking about this resolution that is essentially meaningless. Another stubborn fact is we could be dealing in particular with the education spending bill, because American families want to know how we are going to improve their school and education system for their children. We could be talking about smaller classroom sizes. We could be talking about well-prepared teachers with good, professional development. We could be talking about after-school programs to help families deal with the situation that they are working and their children have a need for a place to go, and further structures to help them pass the rigid exams that are now given as part of the accountability aspect. All of these the President's budget underfunds, despite his high rhetoric on the Leave No Child Behind Act. In fact, it is all part of the $7 billion they are coming up short on their budget for their promises during that authorization bill. We could be talking about prescription drugs for our seniors and doing something about the price for all Americans; but apparently the majority does not have a way to get that matter before us, or chooses not to, because they will not be telling the story that the American people want to hear. We could be talking about small businesses, which their budget proposes to cut by billions of dollars, in fact taking away the very popular 7(a) loan program, which helps many businesses start up and expand and stay in business. There is a lot of rhetoric about how we all ought to support small business, but nothing coming forward in this House where we have the opportunity to do it. We could be talking about health for the unemployed, because the economy has turned around since this administration has taken over. It is going straight downhill. We have gone from a surplus situation to a deficit matter. We have families in my district and other districts who are out of work occasioned by September 11 circumstances. The economy turned down before and after that. They have exhausted their unemployment benefits. We have had to have a discharge petition, signed by virtually everyone on this side of the aisle, trying to get that matter before the House's attention so we can do something about extending people's unemployment benefits, so we can do something about helping them maintain health care for their family at this trying time. We have seen nothing coming forward at this opportune time. We could be doing something about job training, to get people back to work. We need that, but this administration and the majority only wants to talk about taking away resources. Mr. Speaker, there is business to be done in this House. That business is not telling the other body what to do with their time; the business of this House is to take up an agenda of items that by law we should be dealing with before the end of this fiscal year. We should be dealing with America's issues, with the people's problems, the ones they want to deal with and that they want to hear us talk about: how we are going to educate their children and give them assistance to do that; how we are going to make sure we are not taking money out of the Pell grant program, or increasing the cost of loans for college students at a time when they are really pressed; how we are going to give those displaced people the tools to get back to work; how we are going to make sure that people have health care; what are we going to do about prescription drug benefits, and the high cost in an industry that makes outrageous profits, but fails to acknowledge the fact that the taxpayers' money assists them with research and development, so the prices should be fairer. Those are the issues that we should be dealing with in these ending days of this session. This should be a shameful matter, for our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to bring forward this resolution that does absolutely nothing; that may express good intentions that we all want a welfare bill to pass through; but the fact of the matter is, this body has finished its work. We have much more work to do in other areas, and it is a disgrace that that is not what is before this House at this particular time. I would hope and think that the leadership on the other side of the aisle might understand that that is what America wants, and get down to that business, and get down to it soon. We do not mind working; they may. We can be in on Mondays and Fridays. We can be in all day Tuesdays and Thursdays. We do not need to be ending at 3 o'clock on Wednesday and Thursday. Let us get to the business of this House, Mr. Speaker. Let us do that so we can let America know that we want to deal with the issues that they are confronted with every day. They take the responsibility to get up. People go to work. People do all they can do to support their families, all they can do to give them an opportunity. We have the obligation to make sure that the government does its part.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I just wonder how many times Members of this side of the aisle are going to have to be bringing up issues like education and money for prescription drugs to get the other side focused on the business of this House, and not the other body, so that they can be addressed. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, many would take issue with some of the broad terminology in the so-called ``whereas clauses'' in this resolution, but I do not really think that is quite the issue here. I do not think there are too many who would argue with the desire, mutually felt by everyone in this Chamber, and I assume in the other Chamber, for completion of the conference's work. The real fact of the matter is it seems a little disingenuous to be standing here talking about a rather meaningless resolution, as we have here today, filling up time that could be used to get the business of the House done. I would think that the Republican majority should be more than a little bit embarrassed that this is the best that they can do at this particular time of the year. We have, what, eight more spending bills to finish before this year that apparently the leadership on the other side cannot muster and move the agenda on, so we sit here talking about a resolution that everybody is well intentioned to get the conferees' work done. You can say that in about one-half a minute. But we will be out of here in a little while today. We are not staying to complete the work of the House. We were out of here yesterday by about 3:00 or 3:30. We did not come in Monday. We are not going to be here Friday. We are not coming in next Monday. So you talk about the time left to pass this particular bill out of the other House. Well, perhaps it is better than spending all of our time instructing the other House how to do their business, we could talk about how this House might do its business. After all, we could do a lot that would change people's lives better for their welfare. We could bring forward the health and human services and education bill. Would that not be a marvelous factor. If we want to talk about things that would help people's lives and really matter, we could bring up that bill. But the problem is that the majority knows that their budget of last year does not allow for that. This administration put out a budget and went around the country with my colleague from Ohio as part of the group doing a real ceremonious occasion talking about the Leave No Child Behind Act. Well, the fact of the matter is their budget leaves many children behind, because if they brought up the education spending bill, on that budget they would be about $7 billion short. We have November 5 coming up; and between now and November 5, there are not too many people on the other side of the aisle who want to make it clear to the American people that they are coming up short on their promises. So instead of bringing forward the spending bills before the end of the fiscal year and before November 5, we are sitting here banging back and forth on a resolution that has no import and no meaning except for great intentions, which we all share. We could do a lot for people. We could do something about education; we could do something about Head Start. People that are on welfare and people that are not on welfare need to have their children get an education and get a start in school and be ready for school at an early age. We could bring forward bills that would allow us to put more resources into that program, which has proven to be successful. We could do more for child care. Certainly the welfare bill that passed the House does not do enough. That is one of the reasons I perceive why it is a bit tied up on the other side, because people want to try to reach some nonpartisan or bipartisan resolve as to how that bill might improve its education piece and its job training piece and in fact its child care piece. But this is a very partisan group that we see bringing forward things, and that is why the House bill does not do it, and that is why there is difficulty getting it done in the other body. Mr. Speaker, we can bring forward matters that talk about school programs and after-school programs that would help many families in this country. But the House does not do that. They are busy talking about this inane legislation before us now. Mr. Speaker, last year when the House passed its budget, it was the administration's budget, and they had a $1.7 trillion tax cut, there were many like myself and others who argued that that tax cut was way too big and it did not distribute any tax breaks fairly across a broad spectrum. But whatever that debate is, that debate is by the board. Things have happened since then: September 11, a change in the economy, many more reasons to spend. The CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, is telling us that that tax cut is probably responsible for almost half of the decline in our surplus. We are no longer in a surplus; we are going into a deficit for some unforeseeable future period of time. All of these things have changed, and what we need to do as the House, Mr. Speaker, is come back and revisit that budget. I understand why the other side is embarrassed to come forward and tell the American public they cannot deal with the health and human services and education spending bill because their budget would be $7 billion short. So let us deal with that. Let us have a conference and sit down in a bipartisan or nonpartisan way and try to work through that to find out how we can help American families, how we can provide for public schools, where 90 percent of our children go, and give them the kind of investments they need and not leave them $7 billion short of the President's promise. Let us talk about what we can do for Head Start and Early Head Start and child care programs so the people can get to work. Let us talk about job training programs that this administration intends to cut and talk about filling them properly when people are in fact being unemployed at higher rates than was anticipated, and let us talk about doing something for those in terms of unemployment compensation, and healthcare for those unemployed, matters which, for some reason, are not being brought up in front of this House now with the small amount of remaining time that we have. There are many, many things that we could do that would better fill our time than taking up a resolution that is going to have no impact and has no business telling the other side on this Hill what to be doing. So, Mr. Speaker, with that in mind, I would just say that I am going to reserve the balance of my time and let some other speakers go, but I think this time could be much better spent doing the real business of this House. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague who, as usual, is doing a great job on this for his colleague and for the entire delegation over there. Mr. Speaker, I am a member of the House Committee on Government Reform and I am pleased to join the gentleman in the consideration of H.R. 4102 which names that post office in Fallon, Nevada, for the late Rollan D. Melton. Mr. Speaker, As a member of the House Committee on Government Reform, I am pleased to join my colleagues in the consideration of H.R. 4102, which names a post office in Fallon, Nevada, after the late Rollon D. Melton, H.R. 4102, which enjoys the support and cosponsorship of the entire Nevada delegation, was introduced by the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons (R-NV)) on April 9, 2002. Mr. Rollon Melton graduated from the University of Nevada in 1955. A journalism major, Rollon served as the sports editor of the campus paper, ``Sagebrush'' and worked as the city editor of a Nevada weekly. In 1957, he joined the Reno Evening Gazette as a reporter, eventually rising to the position of editor and publisher. As Chairman and CEO of Speidel Newspapers, Mr. Melton negotiated the Speidel merger with Gannett in 1977, and served on the Gannett board for two years. In 1979, he was chosen as a Distinguished Nevadan. An avid supporter of a sound college education, Mr. Melton served as an interim dean of the Reynolds School of Journalism. He was also a member of the advisory board for the Reynolds School of Journalism, Sigma Delta Chi Journalism Society and the College of Arts and Science. Active in fine arts and educational programs, Mr. Melton continued to remain a columnist for the Reno Gazette-Journal until his death on January 13, 2002. Mr. Speaker, I comment the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) for seeking to honor Rollon D. Melton by naming a post office after him in his adopted city of Fallon, Nevada and urge the swift passage of this bill.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is, in fact, a bill that was presented by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and cosponsored by all of the Members from that delegation. Mr. Early has, in fact, served a distinguished career in Massachusetts. It was mentioned by my colleague from Utah (Mr. Cannon), he was a Worcester, Massachusetts native, born in 1933. He went through the schools in Worcester and the College of the Holy Cross. He graduated from there in 1955. He served in the United States Navy and after that was a teacher and a coach. He has been a member of the Massachusetts House. He was a staunch Democrat. He was also a delegate to many conventions and elected to this House in the 94th Congress and served in eight successive Congresses after that. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, our colleague from Oklahoma spoke a few moments ago about civil service laws meaning it would take 5 months for a response. It did not take the first responders in New York and Pennsylvania and Virginia 5 months to respond on September 11. It took minutes to respond. It has taken this administration 5 months, or more than 5 months to fulfill its promises to close up the cockpits of airplanes securely and to screen luggage and baggage for passengers. Civil service protections are not the issue in this homeland security bill. We need to encourage good employees, not treat them as second- class employees. We need to give people an understanding that they are important. This administration and the majority, we should have great concern that they choose a homeland security bill to take on an ideological effort against employees.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in support of this amendment that was, as was said, to make a plan regarding the consolidation of officers and the crosstraining of Federal employees that ought to be consolidated into the new Department of Homeland Security. I want to thank and commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) with whom I serve in the Committee of Government Reform Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs. As he stated, we have had the opportunity to work together in a bipartisan way to suggest improvements to the bill, and I thank him for his leadership. In the course of this debate we must keep the focus where it truly belongs: on marshaling our country's best ideas and resources and skills to coordinate our fight against terrorism, streamline government, and make Americans safer. We need to do this for the families who lost loved ones on September 11 and in the October anthrax attacks, for the American people who expect us to protect them, and for our children so that future generations may grow up in a free and open society. Nowhere is it felt more keenly than our local communities. All acts of terrorism are, as we know, local; and each community has to be prepared for crisis response and catastrophe management. Since September 11, we have heard from our local first responders from across the country who have risen to the occasion, protecting communities as the first line of defense against terrorism. In my own district, as across America, they have marshaled their resources to track down leads of potential terrorist threats and buy more equipment, from upgraded weapons to technology to biohazard masks and suits. They have increased hazmat training for handling suspicious packages and stepped up patrols around potential terrorist targets like water and gas supplies, nuclear power plants, harbors and airports. They want the government to work with them, to train with them, to communicate with them, and to respond with them to any potential attack. And now it is time for us to step up and help them. We must respond with cooperation, with communication, and with coordination at all levels of government. But before we can work with the local first responders, we have to be confident that the Federal agencies can work with one another. Coleen Rowley's bureaucratic nightmare was a cautionary tale. We simply must train personnel within different agencies that have different cultures and different skills to talk to one another, to share information before disaster strikes. That is why I join Mr. Ose in introducing this ``good government'' amendment, to ensure that local first responders have a primary point of contact and coordination within the Federal Government and to ensure that these field officers work together. No matter how Congress resolves the issue of who is in and who is out of this agency, and I frankly hope that we will end up with a leaner 21st century response rather than a bloated 19th century structure, we are not going to effectively fight terrorism from Washington, D.C. Any respected Department should consist of agencies that can work together, Mr. Chairman. And, again, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) for helping to work with this problem.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Vermont for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker made an indication that many companies have switched over or converted to cash balance plans and employees have been made whole. That simply is not the fact. It is not what is happening. A large number of older Americans, people 40 years and older, have in fact lost up to 50 percent of the value of their plans. This is not some substantive change in the law that is being asked for here. The gentleman from Vermont, much to his credit, has come forward and said we will just make sure that the IRS is not adding insult to injury, and that in fact, when people stand that risk of having their pension that they worked long and hard to secure taken away from them by a conversion, the IRS will not allow any monies to go to doing that. They will in fact have to enforce the law. The law says we cannot discriminate in such situations. The Inspector General at the Department of Labor has found out that discrimination is going on when you shift to a cash balance plan. Over 20 percent of the 60 plans that were audited resulted in those employees not getting what they were entitled to. If we extrapolate that number out, we find out the damage is $185 million to $190 million annually.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise only to say that we thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for bringing this matter before the House; and we, of course, agree that Mr. Carrier has a long and distinguished career and a great invention; and we obviously would support this resolution. I add only in his memory the one thing we might concentrate on doing is concentrating more on research and develop to improve efficiencies. Through smart public policy we can reduce energy consumption by improving the energy standards and efficiency standards required of common appliances like air conditioners as well as refrigerators, photo copiers and fax machines. I think that would be a great testament to Mr. Carrier's life and his hard work. If we just applied those standards already on the books in this country, we would be estimated to save consumers some $150 billion in energy costs by 2020. In fact, if we really looked at our research and development monies, we will know and realize that they have decreased from $6.55 billion in 1978 to some $2 billion now in 1998. In 1998 the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology recommended that our research and development costs over 5 years be increased because right now they are not commensurate in scope or scale with the energy challenges and opportunities of the 21st century and those that they will present. Again, I also add our voice to the congratulations of Dr. Carrier. I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for bringing this forward and say we look forward to improving the efficiencies of technology like this so we continue to do better and better by our energy consumption. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise to also support House Resolution 452 for consideration this afternoon. Obviously, all the things that the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) has already mentioned are on my list of comments to make here on behalf of the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick) and the other members of the Michigan delegation who, unfortunately, could not be here this afternoon to bring this matter forward and speak to it. I do think it takes note again for the young people that are here that this is not just about winning and losing a hockey game, but more about the hard work and determination and teamsmanship that goes into a championship effort; and for that, the Red Wings are certainly to be congratulated for the skill, tenacity, and dominance with which they finished the regular season and then clinched the President's trophy. They have done a great job. They deserve all the credit. For a Boston Bruins fan like myself, it is always difficult to understand that once again the Stanley Cup slipped away, but it went to a team who had a great year, was a very deserving; and we want to make sure that everybody acknowledges this important feat as well as the hard work of Mr. Bowman as the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) said, the team captain and other players there. Their whole delegation, I am sure all of Michigan, take great pride in the work that this team and the effort that they have made. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), and we are honored to have in this body today a member of this body who takes great pride in being from Michigan.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, we have no other speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to just reiterate some of the points that my esteemed colleague from Connecticut made, who has to travel a little bit further to Fenway Park than some of us who live in Massachusetts. The points he made are worth noting, but we also have a number of young people in the House today observing this particular proceeding, and I hope that what they take away from this even more so than the feats accomplished on Fenway Park and on the baseball fields around this country are the facts that Ted Williams served his country in the military, as the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) said, on two occasions. When he left the baseball field first was for World War II and, secondly, for the Korean Conflict. He served his country nobly there and was a hero and continued on beyond that. Even after he finished his baseball career, he provided invaluable assistance to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and to others through his work and service for the Jimmy Fund, helping to eradicate cancer in children. So for all the good deeds he did in baseball, he was a rounded individual who served this country, who has continued to serve his fellow man in a humanitarian way, with very serious issues of health. Besides that, he had some fantastic eyesight, a great athletic ability, was a terrific fishermen, and probably was the greatest hitter to ever live. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), an individual who is better known around the House of Representatives for his fowl shooting percentage, more so than his batting average, the dean of the Massachusetts delegation, and a great baseball fan.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as a member of Committee on Government Reform, I am pleased to join my colleague in consideration of H.R. 4755, a bill in fact to designate a facility of the United States Postal Service after Clarence Miller. Obviously the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) has introduced this bill. It enjoys great support, from my understanding, from the entire Ohio delegation. Not having been a Member of Congress when Mr. Miller was in fact serving, I do know that by reputation he served from 1966 until January of 1993. I am also informed that the former Representative Miller served on the Committee on Agriculture, Committee on Public Works and Transportation, and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, on the 3 subcommittees of that group. He was well known as a budget watchdog because of his fierce dedication to fiscal responsibility. Former Representative Miller is now retired but he is also active in his Lancaster community. He is a member of the First United Methodist Church, the recipient of numerous awards and honors in recognition of his untiring efforts to serve his fellow Ohioans. Mr. Speaker, I urge the swift passage of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.