John Tierney

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concern for the victims of Hurricane Katrina. Our thoughts are with all those who have been stranded by the storm, separated from their family and friends, and have suffered from tremendous personal and emotional losses. Worst of all is that it was the least among us--the poor, elderly, and infirm--who appeared to suffer the most. Television broadcasts beamed poignant images of those that could not leave, who were now forced to survive in an inhabitable city seemingly overcome with the presence of death and overtaken by depravity. Adding to our grief and inflaming our outrage is that the Federal Government was woefully unprepared for this disaster. As the world watched, we responded in a way that was completely unacceptable. Despite assurance by FEMA Director Michael Brown that his organization was taking steps to ensure that disaster teams could respond within 12 hours and that disaster relief supplies could be delivered anywhere in the country in 24 hours, stranded residents in New Orleans reportedly went 4 days without deliveries of food and water. Inaction, mismanagement, and the inability to put the appropriate personnel and resources in the right place at the right time exacerbated an already grave natural disaster. The scope of the tragedy we have seen in the Gulf Coast was not only anticipated but could have been minimized if the appropriate steps were taken. Multiple studies had identified the potentially devastating effects of a hurricane striking New Orleans. The Army Corps of Engineers requested funds for critical reinforcements to the levees in New Orleans but those calls have been unanswered. Further, as has been widely reported, since its transfer to the Department of Homeland Security, FEMA has been significantly diminished and undervalued. However, after these sorrowful pictures that now seem so permanently seared on our conscience begin to fade, after the appropriate investigations occur on what went so tragically wrong, and after the devastated areas start to rebuild, we must take more from Hurricane Katrina than how to better plan, prepare, and respond for a potential natural disaster. We must finally begin to recognize and remember that the Federal Government can help Americans live better lives. For too long now, the Federal Government has catered to those who can well take care of themselves. It's about time we started to care and demonstrate compassion for those being left behind not just in New Orleans but throughout America.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, this so-called Small Business Health Fairness Act is a bill that is attractive to a few, seems to be sufficient for none, and is going to be harmful for many. The Congressional Budget Office did an estimate of the proposed bill. It estimated that only 600,000 of the 45 million uninsured will be provided new insurance coverage by these AHPs. In fact, the respected 2003 Mercer Consultant Study that was done for the National Small Business Association found that the number of uninsured will increase by 1 million, as increased nonassociated market costs force small employers to drop coverage. The fact of the matter is there is not going to be the dramatic savings proposed here. That is not going to materialize. The Congressional Budget Office found that these premiums for AHPs would only be marginally less than traditional premiums for health care plans. In fact, the 2003 Mercer Study found that premiums would increase by 23 percent for those outside the AHP market. It also found that there would be an increase in the number of uninsured workers in small firms, an increase of 1 million people as a result of this plan being implemented. Again, the fact of the matter is that Americans would also lose their right to vital medical coverage, like OB-GYN and pediatrician services, cervical, colon, mammography and prostate cancer screening, maternity benefits, well-care child services, and diabetes treatment. Mr. Speaker, this bill is going to disallow a lot of State protections. In fact, that is how you get cheaper insurance. If you want to lower the price, you just do not give people the coverage that they need and deserve. Almost all of the States that we talk about have protections for people with coverage. Almost every Member of this House voted for the Federal Patient Bill of Rights that would have recognized these State protections that are in place for insurance programs; yet this bill would take those out carte blanche. As a person in small business for over 22 years, and having represented a lot of small businesses, I can tell you from personal experience that small business employers do not want inferior coverage for their employees. We cannot allow it to happen again here. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that AHPs really already exist. They are called the multiple employer welfare arrangements, the MEWAs. The public record is filled with stories of failed MEWAs that left employers and employees alike with unpaid medical bills. From 1988 to 1991, dozens of MEWAs failed, leaving 400,000 individuals with over $123 million of unpaid medical claims. Small business owners and their families and their employees deserve protections. They deserve to go to the emergency room. Women in small businesses deserve to go to gynecologists without referral from another doctor. Why should we treat small business owners and employees as second-class citizens and give them second-class health care? Instead of extending the patient protections to all Americans, this AHP bill would actually roll them back and roll back the limited protections that they get today. Plainly speaking, Mr. Speaker, this bill eliminates all those protections. For this reason and for the other reasons I have mentioned, and the fact that over 1,000 different organizations oppose this bill, the National Governors Association, the Republican Governors Association, 41 State attorneys general, the National Small Business Administration, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, as well as a dozen other labor, business and consumer groups think that this is not a good bill, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and vote for the substitute. Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Boston Yacht Club (BYC) of Marblehead, Massachusetts, which this year is celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Marblehead-to-Halifax Ocean Race. The race began in 1905 as an informal competition among sailors from the Boston, Eastern and New York Yacht Clubs. In 1939, the Boston Yacht Club joined with the Royal Nova Scotia Yacht Squadron to formalize this biennial event. The race is run on alternate years from the Newport Bermuda Race, as one of the preeminent ocean races of the North Atlantic. The course runs 360 nautical miles from Marblehead through the Gulf of Maine, across the Bay of Fundy and up to Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. There are few sailing sights as thrilling as the Marblehead-to- Halifax Ocean Race, which traditionally begins the second week in July. More than 100 spectator boats look on as over 100 racing yachts maneuver for starting position. The race committee is assisted by dozens of official boats and by both the United States and Canadian Coast Guard. The Boston Yacht Club was founded in 1866, and at one time operated from five different locations in Massachusetts and one in Maine. Today the club operates from a single station in Marblehead, with 400 yachts flying the BYC burgee. It is appropriate that the House recognize the Boston Yacht Club for continuing the tradition of the Marblehead-to-Halifax Ocean Race, which is part of the rich seafaring history of Marblehead. In closing, I would like to acknowledge that many Boston Yacht Club members are running the race in memory of their comrade Paul Simon of Marblehead, who had intended to race this year, but was tragically killed with his wife Sanda in an automobile accident last March.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I think that this budget as well as these spending bills are clear expressions of the values of the majority party and the White House, but they are clearly not the expression of the values of this country. This country believes in moving forward and investing in its future. It believes in having education for its children, opportunity for everyone, health care. We are cutting to the bone. This is not a debate about cutting waste and fraud. This is a decision that has been made to give enormous amounts of money back to people that are already very, very wealthy; and the choice was to get that money to cut into education, not to fund No Child Left Behind, not to fund community health clinics, not to fund job training programs, not to fund those things that make this country strong and give us a promise for opportunity and prosperity. This is the wrong way for us to go. The American people understand that this majority is not talking to the issues that matter most to them. The issues that matter for them are the future of this country and not just arbitrarily giving money back to people who, frankly, have not asked for it and do not need it. At a time when our country is stretched, there is a need of making sure that we have a competitive strategy. Other countries are moving forward. We need to get even, move ahead, and do what this country is capable of doing, and that is lead.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. Regrettably, although the Rules Committee apparently found it in order to allow in the continuity of Congress aspect, it did not make in order an amendment that I offered to establish a special commission, a committee, to investigate the awarding and carrying out of contracts to conduct activities in Afghanistan and Iraq. This amendment is critical toward ensuring that we effectively exercise our congressional oversight responsibilities. Congress has already appropriated some $277 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and that does not include the $45 billion in so-called bridge funding which was part of the defense appropriations bill which passed the House on Monday. We have repeatedly and rightfully recognized that we have to meet the operational, technical, and equipment needs of our troops that are stationed over in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is paramount. However, the fact of the matter is that when it comes to ensuring that those funds that we have appropriated for that purpose are properly managed and monitored, Congress has been largely silent. I am heartened the gentleman from Connecticut's (Mr. Shays) subcommittee held a hearing yesterday, and I am heartened that the Committee on Armed Services held a hearing in a subcommittee back in 2004. But that is not nearly the amount of activity this Congress should be taking. We must do much better. Every single dollar that is wasted or lost in Iraq and Afghanistan because of mismanagement or fraud in contracting is one less dollar that can go to protect our troops, one less dollar for body armor, and one less dollar for protective equipment that can save lives. To that point, on Monday the Boston Globe cited the Marine Corps Inspector General's report and reported that the estimated 30,000 Marines in Iraq need twice as many heavy machine guns, more fully protected armored vehicles, and more communications equipment to operate in a region the size of Utah. One of the functions of this select committee that is proposed would be to see that our soldiers are properly equipped to carry out their mission. In fact, the original Truman Committee that was put in place during World War II is believed to have saved thousands of lives as the result of its success in cutting through the bureaucracy and making sure that effective weapons and other war supplies were not a part of the problem in that enterprise. The bottom line in this Congress, however, is that we have not lived up to our oversight responsibilities. We have abdicated them. We have relied on the administration to perform that role for us, and they have not done it, and we have shunned our responsibilities. Here is their most recent record: In March and early April, we learned that the Pentagon auditors found that $212 million was paid to Kuwaiti and Turkish subcontractors for fuel that the Pentagon auditors concluded was exorbitantly priced. Halliburton then passed those payments on to the taxpayer. In late April, according to the Washington Post, the Government Accountability Office found that officials from the Departments of Defense and Interior who were charged with overseeing a contract to provide interrogators at Abu Ghraib ``did not fully carry out their roles and responsibilities, the contractor was allowed to play a role in the procurement process normally performed by the government.'' In May, the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction found that out of $119.9 million allocated for rebuilding projects, $96.6 million could not be sufficiently documented or fully accounted for at all. In June, a Committee on Government Reform report, prepared by the gentleman from California's (Mr. Waxman) staff, cited an instance of $600 million in cash being shipped from Baghdad to four regions in Iraq to allow commanders flexibility to fund local reconstruction projects. An audit of one of the four regions found that more than 80 percent of the funds could not be properly accounted for and that over $7 million was simply missing. A pattern exists here, whether it is revenues from the Iraqi oil sales or whether it is funds from the pockets of the American taxpayers. We are not taking our responsibility, and flagrant lack of contractor and bureaucratic accountability is taking place under our eyes. If we do not sufficiently account for these measures and have vigorous congressional oversight, how can we assure that our troops are going to get sufficient protection and that our taxpayers' interests will be protected? My colleagues know that this is not the first time that we have had this amendment on the floor. They have now had at least four opportunities to stand up and be accountable to the American taxpayer, to make sure that our troops are protected. In every instance it has been essentially a party-line vote, with only two Members of the majority standing up for the rights of the taxpayer and the rights of our troops in this instance. It is difficult to fathom that tomorrow this majority is going to bring on the floor of this House a bill for Health and Human Services and Education where they are going to cut to the bone, saying that there is no money. There will be less money for Pell grants for kids that want to go to college. There will be less money for elementary and secondary schools. We will fall further behind in our commitments to No Child Left Behind. We will not fund appropriate health care costs, like health clinics. We will not even fund the President's own commitment to high school reform and to community colleges. All, ostensibly, because there is no money. And yet the majority in this Congress refuses to do the oversight on over almost $300 billion where we know there have been flagrant abuses. We need to do the right thing in this Congress. This is time for us to take the previous question, defeat it, make sure that this amendment comes on the floor. We will give them yet another opportunity to show that this House will live up to its responsibilities and protect the integrity of this fine institution. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I rise to discuss H.R. 2475. It is a bill that, as people have said, takes a number of steps to strengthen our intelligence capabilities and, for those reasons, is supportable. Nevertheless, like most bills, it has parts that need to be moved on and worked on still. As was mentioned, I am new to this committee, so first I want to recognize the efforts of all of my colleagues on the committee and the staff who did incredible work on this. I also want to acknowledge the fact that my minority colleagues have been outspoken during the past couple of years on a number of issues, and I want to thank them and my majority colleagues for incorporating those issues in this bill and, of course, the majority adding their own approval. On the plus side, as has been mentioned, 100 percent funding for counterterrorism in the base budget is a huge step forward. We need to make sure we build on that. The White House proposal to fund 60 percent of that in a supplemental budget would have undermined our plans and operations, so 100 percent is a big step in the right direction. The bipartisan willingness to keenly scrutinize architectural programs for the quality, for the program management, for the budget responsibility, for cost is also important. It is helpful to allow for investments in human intelligence, and it can bring more public confidence to the work we do in this area. I think it would be well-placed to put that kind of scrutiny on the whole budget at large, and I think we should consider making more of the Select Committee on Intelligence budget process public, to the extent possible, including at least the aggregate amount of money being spent so that the public will be able to focus on that and have more confidence. The best intelligence oversight begins with looking at the 9/11 Commission's recommendations for reform of Congress's intelligence committees. We still need to do a considerable amount of work there concerning how those committees will be formulated and what budgetary appropriation aspect will be within what body. We need renewed oversight, and the Subcommittee on Oversight that has been formed and mentioned earlier is an improvement. Its time would be well spent if we ensure that the DNI and the DNI office is set up largely in line with Commission recommendations. We do not need another sprawling bureaucracy. It will be well-served to have a streamlined executive staff that utilizes existing agencies and moves forward on that basis. And it has to have the authority to ensure that the network agencies are reformed, coordinated, and effective. It also needs the authority to make sure that we have the appropriate budgetary and personnel powers within the DNI to work. The DNI should follow the recommendation of the blue ribbon commission to establish a Civil Liberties Board and ensure that it effectively protects the civil liberties, even as we make sure aggressive intelligence measures are pursued. This too is essential to maintain public trust. It is as important as it is to require that we use taxpayer money wisely, and it is every bit as essential that our intelligence operate within the law.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), and thank the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) as well for your leadership on this issue, and for convening this e-hearing and also taking this time on the floor tonight. I think it is imperative to read as many of these e-mails as possible into the Record and express the voice of so many people that earned their pensions, that worked their long work lives and took as a form of deferred compensation the rights to these pension benefits. They sacrificed pay raises and sacrificed other benefits in exchange for what they thought was a promise from the company that they were going to get this pension when they retired. One UAL person wrote in and said, ``I joined UAL with stars in my eyes believing the promise of opportunity, a secure benefit package and the enthusiasm of being part of something great.'' Well, it really has not been something great for them. As the gentleman mentioned, in every way the employees tried to work it out with the company. I am so used, as the gentleman is, from hearing executives tell us, oh, the employees will not cooperate, the employees and their high costs are driving this company down. Well, it was the employees at UAL that actually went into an ESOP program, an employee stock option program, that turned out to be near worthless for them in the long run. Some lost hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to help the company out. They underwent cuts in pay, they forewent benefits, and all of this to find the company surreptitiously sneaks into bankruptcy for 2\1/2\ years and then slides their benefits into bankruptcy and they end up going into the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation and getting about 30 to 40 percent of the benefits, if they are lucky. These letters, these e-mails, are written about feelings of betrayal, absolute feelings of betrayal. They say it is a sign of what they think is happening to the moral fiber of this country. They wonder on a philosophical level how this is going to impact the values that they have been brought up with and they have been instilling in their children. Jacob Acker said not too long ago that in 1938 FDR talked about the last great unconquered frontier of America was the frontier of uncertainty and insecurity. And then as a country we set out to do something about it. We worked with corporations, with employee groups, we worked with private groups and our government and we put in Social Security, we put in pensions, we put in health care benefits, the minimum wage, the GI Bill. We put in structures and security so people in this country would no longer feel that they were confronting that frontier of insecurity and uncertainty. But here we are in 2005, we find out executives and management of a company can turn it around and take their promises and turn them into dust and take their employees and put them into sheer desperation, so that again in 2005 we are again facing a frontier of uncertainty and insecurity. And it is incumbent on this Congress to finally act. I say to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), as ranking member of this Committee on Education and Workforce, and the members on the minority side who have been banging away for some time now saying this is an impending problem that has to be addressed, where is Congress on this matter? Where is the White House on this matter? They are dealing with issues the American public does not even care about. You look at what has happened so far this year on the agenda of this Congress and the White House. It is not about jobs, it is not about health care, it is not about education for people's children, and it is not about pension protection and retirement. The closest the President comes is trying to privatize Social Security, which would put these people in further jeopardy. And that is what I hear often from the people at United. Boy, if they ever realized about the guaranteed benefit of Social Security being important, they now realize it, because what they thought was a benefit due them from their employment has gone out the window. As I said, these stories are touching. But they are more than touching; they are tragic. For many of the people here, it is too late to start over. I think in one of the letters that either the gentleman or the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) read, they talked about dedicating their life to the company for a promise and now being faced with decisions that they never thought they would have to face and making choices they never thought they would have to make. What about their health care? Are they going to be able to afford it for themselves, for their loved ones, particularly for their children? There are 120,000 employees that face these deep benefit cuts. It is going to make a serious impact, and many of them are concerned for themselves, but, even more so, for what happens if other companies follow in the footsteps of United. What happens if this Congress under Republican leadership continues to fail to act to shore up these defined benefit pensions, to shore up the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation system so that it takes care of people, to make sure that every corporation does not decide to slide into bankruptcy and dump its responsibilities onto the PBGC and to hurt their employees and leave them no recourse. We need to act. Let me read one letter, if I can, from my district, Kevin P. Creighan and Cathy J. Hampton from Lynn, Massachusetts. They e-mailed in: ``We know that approximately 120,000 current and former employees will suffer if United Airlines is allowed to hand its pensions over to the PBGC. I will address the concerns of two of those current employees, my wife Cathy and myself, as examples of the upcoming devastation. ``Cathy has been with United for 27 years, and I have been there for 29, a combined 56 years of working hard, earning a living, and all along expecting a pension in 7 years' time when we planned to retire. At our retirement, between us we expected to have 70 years of loyal service to our employer, single employer; and we each expected to receive monthly pension checks of about $2,500 per month. ``If United is allowed to break its promise to pay our pensions, our actuaries tell us we would each probably receive less than $1,000 per month. We are already told that we could work an additional 15 years and we might get closer to our current pension, but that is predicated upon a very strong stock market and successful investments. Work 15 more years, and only to get closer to something else. ``Our retirement income would drop by 60 percent unless we choose to work beyond 70 years of age. This is not the American way. We thank you for considering how dreadful this situation is, not only for the two of us, but for our 120,000 colleagues who have worked every bit as hard.'' We have letter after letter from Massachusetts residents and people in my district that show, exactly as the gentleman's have, this is a tragic failure of Congress to respond and a tragic action by a corporation that should know better and should have acted differently.

Mr. TIERNEY. If the gentleman will yield further, one of the things not true is most of these executives have not worked anywhere near the number of years that these employees have worked for that company. Many of them come on as directors of the board or in high-level positions for a much shorter period of time, qualify for some pretty extravagant pension rights of their own, solidify them by putting them in a trust that cannot be touched in a bankruptcy proceeding, and go out merrily into the sunset having destroyed a company, or at least their employees' chances to have a decent, dignified retirement.

Mr. TIERNEY. If the gentleman will yield further, compare that to John Lagadinos from Billerica, Massachusetts. He is a retired aircraft mechanic with 42 years of service with United Airlines, 35 years were spent working the nightshift, afternoons, midnights, working most weekends, Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, with, as he says, no social life to speak of. He says, ``We also worked in rain, sleet and cold, heat and cold. The executives didn't. So cold in the winter our hands would be cracked and bleeding from working on the aircraft outside. ``Contractually our monthly medical insurance for my wife and I was $22 per month pre-65 years of age and $24 per month post-65. But, recently, that has been increased to $214 per month, with a decrease in coverage and an increase in out-of-pocket cost. So it is not bad enough that their pension rights are being shaved down to less than 15 percent but that they are heaped on with additional medical expenses, another promise that was made to them that is not being kept by corporations, as more and more companies are starting to default on their retirement health benefits as well. So it is a double whammy. The prescription drug costs have increased from the $5 generic, $10 name brand to $19 generic, $51 name brand. His wife and he use four name brand drugs costing $204, that used to cost them $40. Then he talks about what the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) talked about earlier. These same employees went into an employee stock option plan at the request of the company to try to save the company. They were not allowed to contribute to the 401(k) that they paid on their own. The company never contributed to the 401(k). In lieu of wages, they were given useless stocks and ended up selling on the employees for about a dollar a share. For this individual, it was costing about $160,000, which he lost. He says, with all of these losses and losing a portion of our pension, too, I do not know how we will make it. They do not want this to become a precedent for other companies. Thank you for your concern and action. Concern is something that we have here. Action is what this Congress needs to do and which it has not been doing.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I do not have to remind the gentleman from California about his efforts to have the committee go to the administration and get that information about where does the rest of the employment situation lie, where are the rest of these pensions in terms of their viability. The fact of the matter is we have been unable to get that information until very recently. We got some of it. But what is the problem with disclosing that to the American public? What is the problem with the Congress knowing the full extent and the public knowing the full extent, how many companies are in this precarious situation? That, if anything, would force Congress hopefully to get up and act. Something that we have known, something that the gentleman has led the way in writing to the committee, speaking to the committee and the administration on this issue and now trying to get the information that will compel them to act on it. Because it is devastating to learn just how many companies are in a situation that are near default or problematic.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. TIERNEY. I am in its present form.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, my motion to recommit is simple and straightforward and deserves the support of every Member of this body. It would amend the criminal code to prohibit defrauding the government in connection with the reconstruction efforts in Iraq. My motion would make it clear that these outrageous and unpatriotic activities would be subject to prison time and monetary penalties. Every single dollar that is wasted because of corporate fraud or abuse in Iraq is one less dollar that can go to protect our troops, one less dollar for body armor, one less dollar for protective equipment that can save lives. It is an unfortunate fact of life that, today, in Iraq, taxpayer funds are being routinely wasted by organized corporate criminals. The American taxpayer is being defrauded by a system of distributing funds that is totally unaccountable. This not only demeans and cheapens the sacrifices that our military and civilian personnel are making in Iraq, it endangers their lives. Mr. Speaker, just last week, the House spent another $82 billion of taxpayer funds on the war. The cost of the war had already been over $200 billion. We also learned this week that the Pentagon auditors found that $212 million was paid to Kuwaiti and Turkish subcontractors for fuel the Pentagon auditors concluded was exorbitantly priced. Halliburton passed these payments onto the taxpayer. That may be just the tip of the iceberg, as billions of dollars are being expended in Iraq with precious little accountability. While there are fraud statutes to protect against wasted tax dollars at home, none expressly prohibit war profiteering, and none expressly confer extraterritorial jurisdiction overseas, as my motion would do. Against this backdrop, it is imperative that this Congress send a strong signal that we will not tolerate taxpayer rip-offs at the expense of our troops. I offer this amendment now because this bill before us is open ended as a crime bill. It not only deals with gangs but it amends the criminal laws on matters concerning hearsay, venues, statute of limitations and sentencing. It also authorizes new grants and databases, among other things. If we are going to do all of this, it certainly is appropriate that we also amend the criminal laws to combat blatant contract fraud in Iraq to protect our brave troops. When concerns about wartime fraud were raised during World War II, President Roosevelt declared it was our duty to ensure that a few do not gain from the sacrifices of the many. Then, as now, our government cannot in good faith ask its people to sacrifice for reconstruction efforts that allow so many others to unfairly profit. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this commonsense motion to recommit.

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

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose any rule that does not allow for consideration of an amendment to investigate the government contracts with regard to our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. This supplemental that we are talking about under the rule is $82 billion in additional spending, bringing it to almost $300 billion for spending on combat operations, occupation and support for our military personnel. Congress rightfully is trying to meet its operational and technical and equipment needs of our troops. But it also has to ensure that these funds are properly managed and that they are monitored, and in that regard, we have been largely silent in this Congress. We should make no mistake about it, there is more than enough reasons to be careful and to scrutinize the procurement process. The Center for Strategic and International Studies made an analysis and said as little as 27 cents of every dollar spent on Iraqi reconstruction has actually filtered down to projects benefiting Iraqis. Taxpayers for Common Sense cited a KPMG study. It said that the Commander's Emergency Response Program, which is a program designed to allow U.S. military officers to quickly fund small reconstruction projects, maintain little documentation on how tax dollars were spent: 42 cases worth, $13 billion, where there were no contracts on file; 142 cases totaling $40 million, where there was no proof that the work was even done. These are only a few of the examples. We have a situation where it is reported by BBC News that Transparency International warns that post- war Iraq reconstruction is in danger of becoming the biggest corruption scandal in history. They said there is evidence of high levels of corruption in post-war Iraq, and it is critical of the United States' handling of reconstruction programs. And they said they favor a small number of large firms who they awarded public contracts, and they were all too secretive. We have report after report of Halliburton and other corporations not having enough oversight. The Wall Street Journal reports that the Pentagon auditors are questioning $212 million that Halliburton company billed Washington to deliver fuel to Iraq saying that it may well constitute overbilling. This criticism continues to go on about sole- source contracts and other issues that ought to be explored. We can have substantive differences about the merits of the way we are conducting military policy. But there ought to be unanimous agreement in this Congress ensuring our role that taxpayer dollars are effectively and judiciously spent. We should establish a select committee. That is why the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and I filed a Truman Commission measure that should be included as an amendment to this bill. It would put a select committee to study, among other things, the bidding, the contracting, the auditing standards, and issuance of government contracts, the oversight procedures, and the forms of payment and safeguards against money laundering, the accountability of contractors and government officials involved in procurement, and the allocation of contracts to foreign companies and small businesses. Yes, we modelled it after the original Truman Commission. In 1941, that Truman Committee saved about $15 billion in taxpayer money; 432 public hearings; 1,800 witnesses. Mr. Speaker, the American people have a right to have oversight done by this body. It is our job to do it. It is demanded by it. We should craft a rule that protects this amendment and ensures the public resources are safeguarded. The Truman Committee was also unanimously respected for its focus on fact-finding and its refusal to succumb to partisan considerations. Mr. Leach and I share that view and believe that congressional oversight of these huge sums should not be a partisan issue. Critics may say that there is no need to create a select committee when Congress has standing committees to perform this role. Regrettably, those standing committees have not vigorously exercised their institutional oversight role. While Mr. Shays's Subcommittee on National Security has attempted to draw attention to this issue, the full Government Reform Committee has convened only four hearings on the Iraq contracting process. Similarly, the House Armed Services Committee touched on this issue during a June 2004 Readiness Subcommittee hearing, however--beyond that--they have not pursued the issue. To that point, highlighting the need for such a select committee, the Ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, Ike Skelton, has co-sponsored the bill from which this amendment is based. Critics may disqualify this amendment on a technicality, suggesting it authorizes on an appropriations bill. To that, I would respectfully point out that there are other provisions of this bill--some of which strengthen the underlying text--that include authorizing language. I would ask that this Committee craft a rule that protects this amendment and ensures that our ever-scarce public resources will be safeguarded.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) for yielding me this time, and I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), as well as the gentlewoman from California, for working to reauthorize the Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act. I have to note, however, at the same time we are debating this reauthorization, we have the problem that the President's budget and the conference report to the budget resolution that we passed just last week eliminate this worthy program. I hope our debate and discussion of this today indicates our support of moving forward and making sure that we do not only authorize but fund this particular program. As has been mentioned already, this is a law that provides quality vocational education at high schools and community colleges that teach and enhance workforce skills. We have a serious need for a skilled workforce in this evolving economy. We have a shortage of skilled workers in technical fields; so, obviously, the importance of quality education and career preparation in developing that skilled workforce should be imperative. Our support for this Perkins vocational opportunity ought to continue. Perkins career and technical education provides programs, policies and resources for students to obtain education and training that they need for those high-wage, high-skilled jobs. I think we all agree that every student deserves a fair and equal opportunity for a quality education that meets the need for personal and academic career development. This program does that for millions of students. The United States Department of Education Office of Vocational and Adult Education tells us that one-third of college students are involved in career and technical programs, and that over 40 million adult learners engage in short term, post-secondary educational opportunity and training. Before I close, I would like to address one particular aspect of this bill, and that is that this bill merges the successful tech prep program into Perkins basic State grants. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and I tried to amend that in the committee and were not successful. We wanted to restore the separate authorization for tech prep. If we restore the separate authorization, we would block any potential loss of funds. The General Accountability Office indicates when programs are block granted, they not only lose funding eventually, but the focus on the program is lost and accountability is lost. We hope to deliver these programs through the State-wide network of consortia of secondary schools, post-secondary institutions, employment and training providers, and business and industry groups so they can work collaboratively on this tech prep program. It is a seamless pathway for that type of education into high-tech fields, and it is important. Many groups are behind this. I ask hopefully the Senate version will prevail in the final bill, and that program will survive.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise with my fellow members of the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues to commemorate the Armenian Genocide. Today, I stand with them and with Armenian-Americans in the 6th District of Massachusetts as we rightfully recognize and renounce the unpardonable horror that occurred 90 years ago. What began in 1915 when Ottoman Empire officials forcibly led Armenians to their brutal death lasted until 1923. Those 8 long years saw the deaths of 1.5 million innocent victims, who were unsuspectingly led from their homes, their schools, their places of work and worship only to be systematically slaughtered at the hands of Turkish guards. All the while, the world stood silent, failing to act despite the fact the number of unmarked graves multiplied exponentially throughout Armenia. The tremendous magnitude of this genocide did not move prominent nations or their people to act. This is why, today, as we remember the victims of the Armenian genocide, we must also reject our collective unresponsiveness to this mass murder. Regrettably, this pattern continued throughout the 20th century--in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s, in Rwanda in the 1990s, and elsewhere throughout the world. Another such tragic example has emerged in Sudan. It is estimated that 300,000 or more people have been massacred in Darfur. One million people have been displaced from their homes, and more than 200,000 refugees have been forced to flee to neighboring Chad. We must not continue to ignore the dire situation in Darfur. In fact, the lessons of the Armenian Genocide, among others, should teach us that we must take further action in Sudan. Today, I honor the 90th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, offer my respects to those who were killed, and pay tribute to the commitment and perseverance of the Armenian-Americans who have tirelessly struggled to ensure that the great sorrow of their people becomes known to all people.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Castle-Markey amendment to strike Section 320 of H.R. 6. The bill that the Committee reported last week provides the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) the authority to approve LNG import terminals. Although this provision allows FERC to consult with state governments, this signals a departure from current law whereby states and localities play a significant role in siting decisions. Protecting the health, welfare, and safety of the surrounding communities--as well as preserving the environment and not disturbing commerce--are critical factors when determining where to site an LNG facility. Let me ask: who knows better than the local officials how a proposed facility will affect their area? To diminish their role in the process, as this provision will, only does a disservice to our constituents who trust us to act wisely on their behalf. At a time when there is a proliferation of onshore and offshore proposed LNG projects, and as there currently exists no framework to make sure that we are meeting our national demand for natural gas in a way that makes sense and best meets the regional needs of American communities, Congress should be strengthening the rights of those in our cities and towns and ensuring they have a vocal and viable role in the process. Section 320 does the opposite. I believe it should be struck from the bill, and urge my colleagues' support for the Castle-Markey amendment. Section 320 is one of a number of provisions in H.R. 6 that tramples on the rights of states: This bill provides unnecessary liability protections for manufacturers of MTBE, thus forcing the clean-up cost of drinking-water Contamination to states and localities instead of sending the bill where it belongs: to the polluters themselves. This legislation doesn't just reward polluters, it pays them--giving the MTBE production companies $1.75 billion in so-called ``transition costs'' as the pollutant is phased out by 2015. That is irresponsible and fundamentally unfair to the American taxpayers. The bill also repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA). PUHCA limits the geographic size and types of subsidiaries energy companies can operate. The law is necessary to help states regulate large, multi-state electricity companies by keeping their corporate structures transparent. Without PUHCA, states will find themselves helpless to protect their consumers against the actions of scandalous energy companies like Enron. This bill grants the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) jurisdiction over reliability standards for electricity transmission networks, allowing the FERC to approve new power lines over states' objections. It abolishes states' rights to meaningful input and participation in decisions over power lines and transmission networks. The bill also fails to recognize and reflect successful practices being put into use at the state level. Initiatives like California's plan to limit carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles and New York's efforts to organize a consortium of Northeastern states to begin reducing power-plant emissions show promise and ought to be promoted on the federal level. We had the chance to encourage state innovation with this bill, but its authors and GOP Leadership squandered that opportunity. I am a co- sponsor of Rep. Tom Udall's renewable portfolio standard bill (H.R. 983), which was offered as an amendment to the energy bill before the Rules Committee but was not made in order. This amendment would establish a state renewable energy account program along with setting guidelines for a renewable portfolio standard. Another missed opportunity here means another missed opportunity to enlist the states as our partners in promoting innovative energy programs to lead us toward a stable energy future instead of undermining states' rights. This bill also deals a serious blow to the environment. Longstanding public health and environmental laws are under assault in this bill. Saturday's New York Times reported that H.R. 6 includes a provision that, should it become enacted into law, would constitute one of the most sweeping changes to the Clean Air Act in 15 years. The provision would allow communities to delay cleaning up their dirty air, and complying with national air quality standards, if their pollution is derived from other heavily concentrated areas. This undermines the intent of the Clean Air Act and may lead to increased cases of asthma, which, according to the EPA, already afflicts 20 million Americans, including 6.3 million children. Hydraulic fracturing, an invasive oil and gas recovery technique, that may contaminate drinking water has been removed from the Safe Drinking Water Act. News reports indicate that the Halliburton Corporation is the largest practitioner of hydraulic fracturing and has been lobbying for this provision. Rather than seizing an opportunity to address skyrocketing gas prices (the average price is $2.28), reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and foreign oil, improve our fuel efficiency standards, and bolster the incentives to develop and utilize alternative energy sources, the energy bill before us today upholds the unacceptable status-quo and exacerbates our many current problems, as it: Authorizes $8 billion in tax breaks for oil, gas, and nuclear companies, while directing less than $600 million to promote renewable energy and conservation-related initiatives; Opens Alaska to oil drilling, although the U.S. Geological Survey projects that the Arctic Refuge has only approximately 3.2 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil, equivalent to what the U.S. consumes in less than 6 months, and would take between 10 and 12 years to introduce the oil into the marketplace; and Exempts companies drilling on public lands from paying royalties for oil and natural gas extracted from public lands, which is required under current law and has resulted in billions in additional revenue for states over the past five years. The bottom-line with this bill, however, is that--as its previous incarnations have done--it reinforces the wrong priorities at the expense of consumers, the environment, and American taxpayers. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 6.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the North Shore Music Theatre at Dunham Woods in Beverly, Massachusetts, which this year is celebrating its fifty-year anniversary. The North Shore Music Theatre has been entertaining local audiences and visitors since 1955, presenting both classic and innovative musicals in its unique theatre-in-the-round style. When the Theatre first presented Kiss Me Kate in the summer of 1955, the audience sat outdoors in canvas seats. Today, theater-goers are entertained in a modem 1,800 seat facility. For nearly half of its existence, Artistic Director and Executive Producer Jon Kimball has been at the Theatre's helm. In partnership with his dedicated staff and Board of Trustees, Mr. Kimball has turned the North Shore Music Theatre into a nationally-recognized venue, both in terms of its size and the quality of its productions. The theatre was named by Boston Business Journal as the 2nd largest performing arts organization in the state for three consecutive years. As a non-profit organization, the North Shore Music Theatre's mission is to increase the awareness, significance and celebration of musical theater and the performing arts through superb entertainment and educational programs. Each year, the Theatre welcomes 400,000 patrons to its six musical subscription series, an original musical production of A Christmas Carol and an acclaimed celebrity concert series. In addition, its award-winning Theatre Arts Academy reaches over 100,000 young people annually, through workshops, outreach and youth performances. It is appropriate that the House recognize this half-century milestone for the North Shore Music Theatre, which has become one of the anchors of arts and culture in our region. Its contribution to the quality of life for the people of the North Shore and beyond cannot be underestimated. Congratulations to the North Shore Music Theatre for fifty years of entertainment and education. I'm sure I can speak on behalf of my constituents and neighbors when I say that we all look forward to sharing in the Theatre's bright future.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, in partial response to my colleague's last statements, it is The Wall Street Journal that says, it is the odor. It is the Rocky Mountain News that says it is hypocrisy. The Christian Science Monitor calls it hubris, and the New York Times says it is autocratic behavior, and the San Diego Union Tribune simply calls it disgraceful. It turns out that there are a lot of different ways to describe the House Republicans' ethical challenges. When the Republicans took over Congress in 1994, they promised to usher in a new era of politics. For years they had tried to make the case that Democrats were corrupt, and in a new Republican era they promised to clean house and change the rules to make Congress more accountable to the people that we represent. Well, they changed the rules. This year they changed the rules to prevent the ethics committee from doing its job, and they tried and tried and unfortunately failed to change the rules of their own caucus to allow indicted Members to retain their leadership offices. Mr. Speaker, it is time to reinstate the ethics rules in this House. It is time that Republicans join the Democrats in supporting the Mollohan resolution, so that people can get a fair hearing, but it is done within a body that is operating properly.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to register my opposition to the total repeal of the estate tax. If we want to talk about values, as so many people did in the last couple of months leading up to this, let us talk about the value of supporting one's family and supporting one's community. Let us talk about the values of responsibility and fairness. They dictate that everybody pay his or her or its corporate fair share. Millionaires and multinational corporations benefit the most from our taxes. We talk about what our taxes go for. There are dues that belong to society. Eighty percent of court cases are commercial in nature. Businesses, mostly large ones. Air traffic controllers, paid for by our taxes, they mostly support business travel back and forth. Our Coast Guard, our Navy protecting our shipping lanes, bridges and highways, making products safe to go back and forth as well as people. The Securities and Exchange Commission is our tax money trying to make large corporations behave and treat each other well instead of cheating each other. Sometimes it actually works. The fact of the matter is that this bill absolves the top three- tenths of 1 percent from their responsibility to pay their fair share. And I say the top three-tenths of 1 percent because the Democratic alternative would exclude the first $3.5 million, or $7 million for a couple. So much for the argument of small farms and small businesses. They would not pay a dime on the first $7 million and only pay a portion of anything above that. The fact of the matter is that most of the money that is going to be taxed on that top three-tenths of 1 percent was not earned money. That is money they got from tax-free investments. It is money they got by appreciation, just the value of that property increasing over time. They did not earn it. To compensate for what these members of our society will not be paying as their fair share, small businesses, the people that go out and create payrolls, will have to pay more. The families that go out and work every day for a living, they will have to pay more than their fair share. And all the while this is going on, we are not even paying America's bills. This tax is going to be $290 billion off the top at a time when our debt is larger than it has ever been. We are running annual deficits that are at historic proportions. No family and no small business would ever operate this way. Mr. Speaker, let me just close by saying they are robbing us of opportunity and prosperity and community by attacking our education and our health, our clean water, and our clean air. All of this because they want to give America's princes and princesses a little break at the top three-tenths of 1 percent. Let us let everybody pay their fair share.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the Greek Revolution of 1821, which marked the beginning of a protracted struggle fought and eventually on by a people firmly committed to achieving freedom for themselves and liberation for their country. It is a day that bears personal significance to--and instills pride in--generations of Greek Americans, who still feel a strong sense of nationalism toward Greece even though they or their ancestors may have moved away long ago. Furthermore, irrespective of ethnicity, I believe it is a day of particular importance to all Americans, as we share a special kinship with the people of Greece. Whenever we promote democracy, civil liberties, and the principles of self-determination, we pay testament to our countries' shared values. Mr. Speaker, on this occasion, I also rise to welcome the honorable Mayor of Messini, Messinia, Greece, Christos Christopoulos, to the City of Peabody. On March 23, 2005, in a gesture of solidarity, Mayor Christopoulos and Peabody's Mayor Michael Bonfanti signed a sister-city pact. I extend my congratulations to the mayors, the Saint Vasilios Greek Orthodox Church community, and all Greek Americans of Peabody, many of whom descend from Messinia, on this important event.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, throughout the year, Members often express support for certain policies and programs or advocate for fiscal discipline. However, during the consideration of the Budget Resolution our true commitment to those priorities comes to light. What this Republican Budget Resolution reveals is that the Majority is more concerned with advancing a narrow ideological agenda. Carefully making sure to allow for a total of $106 billion in tax cuts over five years for high-end earners, this GOP Budget Resolution carelessly exacts severe cuts to critical services that benefit students of all ages, veterans, first responders, poor and working families, and communities interested in economic development. What this Republican Budget Resolution reveals is that the Majority is more interested in advancing a reckless, unsustainable economic policy than restoring fiscal responsibility. In fact, the Majority's proposal calls for a deficit of $376 billion in 2006--$78 billion more than the Congressional Budget Office's estimate. This budget, which only accounts for five years, never reaches balance. The Republican Budget signifies a failure in honest accounting not just because of what is included, but also for what it disingenuously leaves out. Excluded from this Budget are the details of the President's estimated $754 billion 10-year Social Security privatization plan ($20 Billion over the next decade), the cost of the over $800 billion (and growing) Medicare drug bill, the longer term costs of the war in Iraq, the cost to stop the alternative minimum tax from penalizing regular families, and the implications of extending the tax cuts. Feigning fiscal discipline and fundamentally at odds with what I believe are the real priorities and concerns of the American people, this GOP Budget Resolution also offers no 21st Century competitive strategy for our country and further shreds what is left of our ever- fraying safety net. A much needed competitive strategy would start with education, which is the vehicle through which students of all ages can achieve and become what they may never have otherwise dreamed possible. Going to college and attaining a degree is, unfortunately, not a right of passage for the vast majority in our country. Achieving this goal must not be minimized. Each year, a young man or woman becomes the first member of his or her family to graduate from college. For them, and for all their relatives and loved ones, obtaining a diploma means progress and instills pride. A college degree translates into hard dollars: over their lifetime, college graduates will earn on average $1 million more than they would have if they did not attend post-secondary school. Schools continue to serve as the source where we can view the promise of America in progress, and our country's legacy depends upon how well we educate our young people. For those not completing four years of college, higher job skills and technical abilities acquired through vocational and technological training and education are the path to the middle class. The Majority's budget cuts education programs by $2.5 billion in 2006 and $38 billion over the next five years and completely eliminates 48 programs, including the $1.3 billion vocational education program, the $437 million Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program, the $306 million GEAR- UP program, and the $225 million Even Start family literacy program. These cuts come at a time when the cost of attending a four-year public college has increased more than $2,300. In fact, according to the 2003 National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education survey, Massachusetts had the largest tuition increase in four-year public institutions (24 percent), and the second largest in community colleges (26 percent). They attack our increasingly successful community college and vocational-technical training programs. These cuts come at a time when there is an increased need to college access programs, including GEAR-UP and TRIO, that help high school students prepare for, apply to, and find financial aid for college. These cuts come at a time when many communities across the country are struggling with a growing methamphetamine and opiate problem. In Massachusetts, according to statistics from the state's Department of Public Health, the number of deaths from opiates has risen over 300%-- from 108 in 1991 to 468 in 2001, which is the most recent year for which statistics are available. The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities State Grants program has assisted states and school districts in developing youth anti-drug education initiatives, which has, in turn, helped parents and teachers learn more about the prevalence of drugs in the community. The program has been a source through which Massachusetts has been successful in obtaining $40 million in funds over the past five years. It is not just those who are looking to improve themselves through education that this GOP Budget Resolution betrays, but it also advances the Administration's all-out assault against those that depend on our longstanding safety net, those programs that assist the poor, children, elderly, and people with disabilities. Meanwhile, let me reiterate, the Republican proposal calls for $106 billion in additional tax cuts. According to the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, 46% of those who will benefit from these tax cuts in 2005 will be households who earn $1 million, which comprise only .2 percent of all households nationwide. The average tax cut for this income bracket was greater than $30,000 in 2003. This GOP Budget Resolution finances its hundred billion-dollar tax cut for the highest income earners at the expense of the most vulnerable and least fortunate in society. That is wrong. As required by the Republican Budget, the Agriculture Committee would be forced to cut spending by more than $5 billion over five years. With the general reluctance to alter or scale back farm subsidies, the food stamp program would bear the brunt of these cuts. This is not a program that has been riddled with so-called ``waste, fraud, and abuse.'' The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities calculates that ``over 95 percent of food stamp benefits go to households with income below the federal poverty level. Virtually all of the remainder goes to the elderly and people with disabilities.'' Further, their budget makes deeper cuts in Medicaid than the President's budget, directing the Ways and Means Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee to cut $19 and $20 billion respectively. It is expected that the bulk of such cuts will fall on low-income programs such as the Earned Income Tax Credit, the Child Tax Credit, unemployment benefits, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, foster care, and Medicaid. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, ``these Medicaid cuts are likely to push hard-pressed states to eliminate coverage for a substantial number of low income people, increasing the ranks of the uninsured and the underinsured.'' The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that, should these cuts affect all states proportionally, this would translate into a loss of over $117 million for Massachusetts. This is not the direction in which this country should be headed. What is being proposed in the Republican Majority's Budget Resolution is not a blueprint for success. Certainly, our constituents want to know that their tax dollars are being well spent. There is no question about that. But parents also do not want to pass on huge amounts of debt to their children, which is what the GOP Budget Resolution does. Parents do not want their children to be denied opportunities to learn and advance in ways beyond what they achieved in life. Moms and dads want to ensure that their kids are educated about drugs. They want their kids to know how to maximize their chances of gaining acceptance at a college and have programs available to help minimize the cost. They want to know there are enough police and fire fighters on the street to be able to respond effectively to emergencies, they want our country's veterans to receive adequate care after they return home from service, and they want to protect the environment so their sons and daughters inherit cleaner air and safer drinking water. At the same time, they take offense to denying food stamps or eliminating Medicaid coverage for those who depend on such services just to make room for another hundred billion dollar tax cut for the already well-off. That doesn't meet their standard of fundamental fairness. Their Budget Resolution does nothing to improve upon our long-term fiscal outlook, fails students, and exploits the poor. We must do better. We implement solutions that honestly and effectively address the budget deficit, chart a course that allows our students to competitively excel, and adequately provide for those who need the most help. A Better Way: The Democratic Budget is a more fiscally responsible approach to balancing the budget. It achieves balance by 2012, while accumulating less debt and wastes fewer resources on interest payments needed to service the national debt. The Democratic alternative is based on essential two-sided pay-as- you-go budget enforcement rules that led to a balanced budget in the 1990's. The cost of any additional spending, or any new tax cut, must be paid for by curbing spending, offsetting spending cuts, or new revenues. The 1990 pay-as-you-go rules had bipartisan support, including the support of the first President Bush. Those rules turned record deficits into record surpluses in large part because they subjected all parts of the budget, discretionary and mandatory spending, as well as revenues, to budget discipline. The Republican budget contains no such enforcement provisions. The Democratic budget provides $4.5 billion more for education and training programs than the Republican budget for 2006 and $41 billion more over the next five years. It rejects the $21 billion in cuts that the Republican budget requires the Education and the Workforce Committee to make over five years, increases the maximum Pell Grant by $100 in each of the next ten years--twice the Republican increase--and eliminates the program's current $4.3 billion funding shortfall. The Democratic budget provides $2 billion more than the Republican budget for 2006 and $9 billion more over five years for community and regional development, blocking the President's proposal to eliminate the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). Cuts in food stamps, housing, elderly services and other safety-net protections would not be necessary. The Democratic Budget works towards elimination of the deficit, paring it down dramatically in the next five years, and thus saving us from huge interest payments needed to service the national debt. We pay for all this by not extending the tax cuts for those earning over $200,000. According to the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center this would provide $223.5 billion between calendar year 2005 and 2010. The tax cuts were originally promoted as temporary--if extended, they will cost $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. Coupled with the costly challenges in Iraq and Afghanistan and the need to invest in our future, the tax cuts prove an unbalanced approach that creates huge deficits and shortchanges America's priorities. It is time to seize the opportunity to restore sanity and candor to the budget process and to pass a budget that promotes the security and values of the American people without imposing increased social inequities and crushing debt to future generations.

Mr. TIERNEY

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

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment mirrors in most respects a bipartisan bill that has been filed by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and me. It establishes a select committee of the House to investigate the awarding and carrying out of contracts to conduct activities in Afghanistan and Iraq and to fight terrorism. The select committee is to be composed of 15 Members of the House, appointed by the Speaker, with seven being made upon the recommendation of the minority leader. The select committee will make such recommendations to the House as it deems appropriate regarding the bidding, contracting, and auditing standards in the issuance of government contracts; oversight procedures; forms of payment and safeguards against money laundering; accountability of contractors and government officials involved in procurement; penalties for violations of law and abuses in the awarding and carrying out of government contracts; subcontracting under large, comprehensive contracts; inclusion and utilization of small businesses through subcontracts or otherwise; and such other matters as the select committee deems appropriate. Mr. Chairman, according to the Congressional Research Service, the $81.9 billion that is before us today in the supplemental appropriations bill is in addition to the approximately $200 billion that has been spent so far since the 9/11/2001 attacks on combat operations, on the occupation and on the support of military personnel deployed or supporting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Congress has recognized that we must meet our operational, technical, and equipment needs of our troops; and we should acknowledge that the funds for those purposes, particularly those for the safety of our troops, remains paramount. But when it comes to ensuring that the funds are properly managed and monitored, we have been largely silent. Horror stories abound. We just heard some by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) as he was talking about yesterday's news about Halliburton, and there is ample cause to carefully scrutinize the procurement process. Just in January, the special Inspector General for the Iraqi reconstruction reported that the Coalition Provisional Authority, CPA, could not account for $8.8 billion. The report said: ``Severe inefficiencies and poor management by the CPA have left auditors with no guarantees the money would be properly used.'' That same report indicated that auditors were unable to verify that the money for which they can account was spent for the intended purposes. The report raises the possibility of so-called ``ghost'' employees, citing 8,206 guards identified as on the payroll at one ministry, although only 602 could be verified. At another ministry, payroll listed 1,471 security guards when only 642 were working. A Center for Strategic and International Studies analysis, which was cited in an October 6 Washington Post story, indicated that as little as 27 cents of every dollar spent in the Iraqi reconstruction is actually filtered down to projects that benefit Iraqis. According to the testimony of Steve Ellis of the Taxpayers for Common Sense, who was citing a KPMG study, the Commander's Emergency Response Program, which is in effect a program designed to allow United States military officers to quickly fund small reconstruction projects, maintained little documentation of how taxpayers' dollars were spent. The study found that 42 cases were worth $13 million where there were no contracts on file and for 142 cases totaling $40 million where there was no proof that the work was even done. Quoting former Coalition Provisional Authority official Frank Willis, a February 14 story in The Washington Post told us of how the United States officials in post-war Iraq paid a contractor by stuffing $2 million worth of crisp bills into his gunny sack and routinely making cash payments around Baghdad from a pick-up truck. Even if we accept one Member's argument that this was because there were no normal payment procedures, it certainly cries out for better monitoring and better oversight. We all may have substantive differences about the merits of the military policy, but there should be unanimous agreement about the congressional role in ensuring that our constituents' tax dollars are being effectively and judiciously spent; and that is what this amendment does, Mr. Chairman. It is modeled after the original Truman Committee that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) mentioned a minute ago. As Members know, in February 1941, concerned about possible waste and favoritism, then-Senator Harry Truman introduced legislation creating a congressional committee to investigate how Defense contracts were being awarded and managed. The Special Committee to Investigate the National Defense Program, as it became known, exposed deficiencies in the bureaucratic procurement process, advocating for more effective coordination among the involved agencies, and raised important questions regarding production and cost of specific war-related materials. During its tenure from 1941 to 1948, the Truman Committee convened 432 public hearings and heard 1,800 witnesses testify. It is estimated their work saved taxpayers over $15 billion. Mr. Chairman, by successfully identifying and ferreting out other defective weapons and other war supplies, they saved thousands of lives. The Truman Committee was unanimously respected for its focus on fact- finding and its refusal to succumb to partisanship; and, in fact, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and I share that view. The Congress has oversight responsibility that can be done without succumbing to partisanship. It is our responsibility in this institution, and we have to maintain this body's integrity by doing that job.