John Tierney

Mr. TIERNEY

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

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment adds $5 million to the operation and maintenance defense-wide account. The Secretary of Defense, using existing transfer authority, may transfer that money to the legislative branch for the purpose of establishing a select committee, in essence along the outlines of the amendment that I just reviewed moments ago, and I will not belabor that point by going over all of that information, except to say that it would be a select committee for the purposes of investigating contracts and related materials with respect to things being spent in Iraq and Afghanistan and the issue of terrorism. As I mentioned earlier, this is and should be a bipartisan effort. I think the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) should be commended for his leadership on this and for pointing out the fact that, in fact, when Harry Truman did it years ago, he was a Democrat and the President was a Democrat, and he still found it the patriotic and judicious thing to do with respect to the responsibilities of the House of Representatives; and if we are to maintain the integrity of this Congress and our responsibility of oversight of such huge sums of money, it would be the appropriate thing for us to do now in a bipartisan way. 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 done that, not exercised their institutional responsibilities to the extent they could in this particular Congress. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the Committee on Government Reform has tried, but the full Committee on Government Reform has only met four times on related hearings. Similarly, the House Committee on Armed Services has taken up this issue once in June of 2004 at a Readiness Subcommittee hearing, but beyond that it has not delved into the issue. Mr. Chairman, there is certainly a need with the billions and billions of dollars being spent. The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) has been vocal about his attention to this matter. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) spoke earlier about the $100 million found in contracts that were questioned just yesterday, and the fact that report was kept from us at a time when our taxpayers, our constituents and our citizens want to know about these enormous sums of money, and want us to do our job. There is a need. We in Congress have a responsibility. The institution's integrity demands it, and the American taxpayer and our troops deserve it. They deserve no less.

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

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for taking this amendment to this point. Just in response to the gentleman's comments a second ago and earlier, the reason for this amendment is that current law takes care of any State that wants to put a higher proportion of funds towards out-of-school youth. It has the flexibility for that. And if they want to move in that direction, they can. It also allows States like Massachusetts, and at least 17 others, who have a greater need to serve in-school youth for job training purposes, to use their money for that. What the H.R. 27 bill does is it takes away that flexibility and harms at least 27 States from being able to help the people that they want while it solves a problem that does not exist for the others. The others already can, in fact, serve as many of the people they want out of school. With respect to this money that is a duplication for it because there are other funds going, none of those other programs have money left over for job training. They are already used up. Most of them are underfunded: Safe and Drug-Free Schools being slashed by the President. Title I, underfunded. You can go right on down the line. So I hope my colleagues look at this and do not disadvantage those States that need to have the flexibility to serve more in-school youth, and at the same time realize that this amendment harms those who need more out-of-school youth served in no way at all.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman very much. This is an example of the collegiality of our Committee on Education and the Workforce. We do not agree often, but we at least have a good collegial time doing it. I just want to stress the points that I made. And the fact of the matter is that having a mandate that every State put all their money toward out-of-school youth does not help those States that have an in- school youth issue. It also deprives a lot of programs that are working with our business community and in-school youth to get them better equipped to not only support themselves but their families to have them be more self-sufficient when they get out of school. Those programs would be slashed in many States if H.R. 27 were to go through as it is. We have a great need for these in many States; programs like Girls Inc., Action Inc. and others work that way. I respect the chairman giving me this time to make that point, that this H.R. 27 change is a solution that does not have a problem.

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

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) for yielding me time and also for the excellent work she did on this bill. I also want to add my congratulations to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), as well as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) who did do a good job and who went to conference and brought back a bill that I believe is going to get great support in this House. While the final proposed version of IDEA does not meet 100 percent of the things that I and my constituents might have wanted if left to our own drafting devices, it does reach a reasonable compromise; and for that reason I support it. Back in April of 2003, I spoke against this bill in the House version of H.R. 1350. Subsequently, I urged adoption of the bill that was a lot closer to the Senate version and, in fact, in committee I joined a number of colleagues on various proposed amendments that would have moved the House bill in that direction if they had passed. They did not. Those amendments were close votes and, sadly, they were along party lines; but I am glad to say that the conference report essentially incorporates the provisions that we sought in committee with at least one notable exception and that is the funding. The heart of IDEA lies in the protection of children with disabilities and the individualization of their education to account for those disabilities. Therefore, the conferees were, I believe, wise to retain language requiring a determination of whether misbehavior was a manifestation of a child's disability or not. That ensures that no child is unfairly punished for their disabilities. In addition to improving the House's version of discipline provisions, the conference report improves the monitoring and enforcement aspects to ensure the States actually comply with the law. It worked a fair compromise on early intervention. It does a much better job than existing law in addressing transition services for older students, a task I believe that we are going to have to pick up in the Workforce Investment Act as we reauthorize it in 2005, and I understand that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) has expressed a similar desire. It sets standards for highly qualified teachers and focuses the resources on their professional development and preparing them for this specialized field. While it does not satisfy everyone, it does work out a compromise on these families and students' civil rights. That is a significant improvement over the House version of this bill. So the major issue still remaining, of course, is the funding. We did take the gentleman from Ohio's (Mr. LaTourette) bill and my bill, which would close a loophole. The Spending Integrity Act would close that loophole that otherwise would have let districts use up to 20 percent of additional funding for noneducational purposes, and this is important to close that, but we are still falling short in that mandatory full funding is not provided. We have a commitment to reach that goal by 2011, and I hope that everybody who is involved in making that commitment will be just as vigorous in making sure that it becomes an actuality. But given last night's vote on once again raising the debt ceiling of this Nation another $800 billion and realizing that the budgets that have been proposed by this administration continually fall short, there is no assurance that that is going to be met. We have a lot of work to do to make sure we move in that direction. We authorize and appropriate too little this year and presumably in future years. It is a serious problem that mars an otherwise reasonable compromise, but, Mr. Speaker, with that reservation in mind, I will vote for this conference report. Again, I want to thank all of the constituents that worked on this bill with us, as well as all the people in the committee and the leaders in conference.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to just address one part of this bill. I feel strongly that we ought to go with the substitute amendment that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) will be presenting, and that this House ought to try, in a bipartisan fashion, to work within the Collins-Lieberman-McCain legislation, and that the surest way to do that and to get a bill now is to make sure that this House acts in a bipartisan way, and not in the manner that seems to be before us today, a poison pill that will tie this issue up and not allow us to have the kind of legislation we need to protect this country. The 9/11 Commission, in its work, was very adamant about the idea that congressional oversight should be reinforced and strengthened, particularly if there is going to be some strengthening of the legislative and executive branch. Any executive power that is going to be enhanced ought to be met with commensurate increases in congressional oversight. Section 5021 of this bill authorizes the President to essentially reorganize all of the work that Congress would do in establishing the intelligence regime under this bill. It would have the President be able to submit a reorganization plan with expedited approval, up or down, with no amendments; in essence, abrogating all of our responsibilities as legislators to the White House. Now, I am surprised that this would get any support and, unfortunately, in the Committee on Government Reform, it did get enough support in a 20 to 21 vote. My amendment that would obliterate this recommendation was defeated. But it did pass. It was successful in the markup of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence community markup, but in the Committee on Rules, as is its penchant for rewriting the law, it reappears with us here today. The fact of the matter is that allowing the process to just organize and bring us something to vote up or down is an absolute total abrogation of Congress's responsibilities. I am shocked that our colleagues would even consider that premise. They should look at one another. They should determine whether or not they came here to just give our role to the White House or we came here to do what our constituents elected us to do, which is to deliberate, to debate, to decide, and to vote, and to vote on matters of this significance. Yes, in one of the issues one of the Members brought up in the committee was that this would take time, we would go from committee to committee and House to House. The fact of the matter is, that is hard work as the President likes to say, but it is the hard work we are supposed to be doing. It is our responsibility to legislate. It is the executive branch's responsibility to give us a recommendation that we should consider. But in the end we need to do our job, and this bill should be done in such a way as to meet the Menendez substitute. We should all vote for that and not for the base bill.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) for yielding me time. This amendment is, in fact, about fairness. It is fairness to the American workers. A Federal court ruled in 2003 in the IBM case a conversion to cash balance plan, in that instance, which would have reduced pensions for older workers by 47 percent was a violation of Federal age discrimination rules. Now, even though that provision has become law, it has not stopped consultants from trying to convince the Treasury Department to issue new guidance that would overturn that rule and other Court rulings in favor of employees. By prohibiting the Federal Government from assisting in overturning these judicial rulings, this amendment protects millions of people. Those people stand the risk of having their pensions from hard work and long hours taken away from them by the conversion. It is only right and fair and just that we pass this amendment. More than 8 million employees and retirees have lost $334 billion in benefits as a result of pension plans being shifted to cash balance plans inappropriately. A large number of older Americans, in this case defined by people 40 years and older, have lost up to 50 percent of the values of their plans. So I think what is even worse about this is the fact that President Bush's administration has supported treating these workers unfairly by backing cash balance plans. In December of 2002, the IRS proposed lifting the 1999 moratorium on cash balance plan conversion. This year, the administration's budget proposed to give corporations a green light to violate pension age discrimination laws, while providing inadequate protection to workers affected in the future. These threats by the administration to workers' pensions demonstrate the importance of passing this amendment. By voting for this amendment, Congress will be taking another important step toward protecting the rights of workers. I urge my colleagues to do just that. Support this amendment and stand up for America's workers.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I do have to comment that I think this amendment does not want to shut down the process that the gentleman from Oklahoma talks about. In fact, he wants to revise the 2003 process to make improvements that have already been recommended by the General Accounting Office, that have been recommended by congressional lawmakers and, in fact, have been recommended by the Office of Management and Budget from the administration. It is an opportunity for them to get it right. This amendment would give lawmakers in the OMB an opportunity to revise this privatization process along the lines that Congress has already done in the other instances that my colleague from Maryland has mentioned. So it is not a process of shutting it down, but it is a process of hoping that it will be done fairly and will get the taxpayers the best solution and also treats the Federal employees fairly on this. This administration has been relaxing health and safety protections, has been scaling back overtime rules, and has been enacting new regulations designed to weaken unions. This administration has been, in fact, waging an all-out assault on the American worker. And now they are shifting it over, to make matters worse, and extending those attacks on the benefits and protections of workers who have chosen public service as a career. Those people who pursue a career in Federal Government are one of the greatest resources that we have and they are some of the very best in this country. They make our system work and they do their job with skill and, many times, without any recognition. Mr. Chairman, there has been no good reason and no evidence of poor performance to lead this attack on the Federal workforce and no reason to have it come under assault on that basis. We can have the competition people talk about if it is done properly and it is done on a level playing field. The President has already attempted to curtail the collective bargaining rights of some 180,000 workers in the Department of Justice and in the Department of Homeland Security and threatening to do it in the Department of Defense. In addition to those legislative reforms, there are proposed revisions in the regulations about outsourcing to private contractors, even trying to redefine the type of work to be considered inherently governmental. Without this amendment, the changes will affect too many people in an unfair way. Mr. Chairman, I suggest this is not pragmatic public policy. We ought to move and do what this amendment says we should do. I urge my colleagues to support the Van Hollen amendment.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for the opportunity to discuss an issue that is critical to my constituents in Nahant, within the Sixth Congressional District of Massachusetts. One hundred years ago, the Coast Guard seized land from the town of Nahant for the purpose of stationing military personnel. While some of that land was returned in 1954, the town has remained interested in reacquiring the remainder of the parcel located in the Castle Road, Goddard Drive and Gardner Road area. Recently, to address housing needs elsewhere in New England, the Coast Guard decided to sell this property through the General Services Administration. Unfortunately, despite over 50 years of positive relations and Nahant's express interest in purchasing the land, the Coast Guard did not inform the town of that decision. I became involved to help facilitate a solution that was agreeable to all parties. After a series of meetings and discussions, the General Services Administration and the town of Nahant agreed in principle that the 12 housing units will be conveyed to the town for an amount of $2 million. Since then, Nahant has convened a special town meeting and approved the $2 million for the purchase of the land. This agreement is moving toward a satisfactory conclusion, but specific legislative language is necessary to codify the sale. That language, developed in collaboration with and which has the full support of GSA, the Coast Guard, the town of Nahant and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), chairman of the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, was crafted and accepted in the version of this bill which this subcommittee and the Committee on Appropriations reported last month. I thank Members for their support of this provision throughout the subcommittee's consideration of the bill. Additionally, I would like to point out, this sale generates $2 million in revenue for the Federal Government. I understand that we cannot get this in the UC list coming up, but I ask for Members' continued support for this as this bill goes to conference.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York, both for yielding me this time and for bringing this matter to the floor today. It is obviously essential that we finally take some action on this legislation. We need to extend critical funding to women's business centers across the United States. In particular, the Center for Women and Enterprise in Boston serves many of the constituents in my district and throughout the State of Massachusetts. It has been long overdue, and many of these centers have already suffered because of Congress's inaction. It is a bit disturbing to know that it has been 10 months since the Small Business Administration authorization bill has expired. And it continues to linger, and we need the majority to come forward and the White House to come forward at this point in time and bring it and put it on the agenda. Everybody has great rhetoric about how important small businesses are to our country, to our districts and to the economy. But now it is time to put that rhetoric into action and make sure we move on this bill. We do not have to tell people or remind them about how this economy is suffering: almost 2 million jobs lost in the last several years and still not anywhere near back to where we were in January of 2001. We know what a generator of jobs, what a booster of the economy small businesses can be, and we also know how important the Small Business Administration is in providing capital for these businesses. So if we could do the bill that is before us today but also bring forward the Small Business Administration reauthorization, we could deal with that issue of capital. At a time when the economy is suffering as much as it is, many businesses are starting to fail. They need that capital so that they can retool. Some need it to grow. And we need some new businesses to fill in where others have left. That cannot happen without this bill coming forward. The so-called 7(a) loans are by far the most critical capital vehicles that we have for small businesses: $11 billion in loans to small businesses every year. That aspect has to be assured to businesses. If we do nothing by the end of this month, fees for that will double, freezing out many businesses from the opportunity to get access to this money so that they can expand or they can start up. Time after time, we hear on the floor and we hear in people's individual districts how much they feel for small business and how certain they are that small businesses add to the benefit of our country. Mr. Speaker, we need to put our money where our mouth is. We need this measure to be brought forward. I support today's bill because it does a good thing, particularly with respect to the women's business centers across the country, but realize that we have to do more and move the Small Business Administration reauthorization forward.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I think the American public would find it highly unbelievable that if, in fact, the rules proposed by the administration did all the things that are purported, that the advocates for working people and the advocates for families would oppose it. In fact, it is a rule that does not do the things that are professed here; and that is why advocates for families, for working people oppose them in such a loud and clear way. The first rule ought to be do no harm when we are talking about amending rules. And the amendment that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) have here sticks to that creed. The administration's rules, on the other hand, are so ambiguous that the Department of Labor and potentially aggrieved workers will at best be involved in litigation from now to the end of time. At worst they are going to be interpreted to prevent possibly 6 million people from becoming eligible for overtime that are currently eligible under the existing rules. The administration has had every opportunity to work into a rule that would be agreeable and understandable by everyone. The proper way to do that, of course, would have been to work with both Democrats and Republicans in the House, to go through the committee hearing process, to have a debate and deliberation, and to vote and to clarify those rules. That has not been the effort that has been taken here. Continually, the administration throws out their rules, gets feedback, and then tries to throw them out again, and this time, despite the numerous people that have objected to these rules, saying that the interpretations are inappropriate, are trying to plow this thing through. We can see that not only Democrats are objecting but a number of Republicans are; otherwise we would not have had to postpone last night's session until today so that some arms could be twisted on this measure. What are Americans to believe of this administration other than it desires to deprive workers of overtime and allow employers to demand and get longer hours without more pay for workers and to work employees more instead of hiring additional workers? This, as our economy is being decimated by economic policies for rich millionaires, that are doing little, if anything, for the middle class and people that aspire to enter the middle class; 1.8 million jobs fewer today than we had in 2000; wages from last August to this August rising only 1.9 percent while the cost of living is up over 3.2 percent. It is a squeeze. Essentially, wages are flat but tuition bills continue to rise, and our colleagues on the Republican side and the administration will not increase Pell grants, will not increase work study funds, are cutting Perkins loans funds so families are getting no help there. Health care premiums are rising. Employers are insisting that more and more employees pay a higher percentage of the premiums, more co-pays, and more deductibles. Gas prices are up. Food and milk and other prices are up. All of this, while in my State, Mr. Chairman, in Massachusetts 86 percent of the taxpayers in 2006 will get less than $100 from the 2003 Bush tax cuts. So they are not getting any help from the tax cuts, and they are getting the squeeze from rising prices, and wages are stagnant. And now the administration proposes a plan, which, at best, is ambiguous and leaves people in confusion and in a state of litigation and, at worst, deprives almost 6 million people of overtime. The 40-hour rule is so that families can spend some time together and, when they cannot, that at least they get compensated so that they can pay some of the families' obligations and bills. Some low-income workers will actually become eligible for overtime pay under the new rule, and that is a good thing and that is why the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from California's (Mr. George Miller) amendment does not affect that. It allows that to go into place. And we want those people to become eligible, and we would do that. The other factor is that for years it has been pretty easy and pretty clear to determine who was eligible for overtime pay and who was not. If one was eligible, they got paid time and a half for every hour they worked more than 40 hours a week. People should know that workers who stand to lose their overtime pay because of these new rules include foremen, assistant managers, registered nurses, workers who perform relatively small amounts of supervisory or administrative work, salespeople who perform some amount of work outside the office, chefs, nursery school teachers, workers in the financial services industry, insurance claims adjusters, journalists, funeral directors and embalmers, law enforcement officers, athletic trainers, and others from all different parts of the workforce. I have listened to the gentleman from Ohio. I wish he were still in the room here. And the fact is that what he says about there being no law going into effect, I think, has been soundly defeated by the comments from the Congressional Research Service and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). The fact of the matter is that if they had the facts, they would argue the facts, and they do not. If they had the law, they would argue the law, and they do not. So obfuscation is the rule of the day, and that attempt has now been put to rest. The people that the new rule would help, this amendment allows it to help. The people that it would harm and the confusion there is, is set aside by this amendment. So the only true course and the fair course to take at this point in time is to bring us all back to the House to set a good set of rules that protect the American worker and try to help out in this economy when things are so difficult and people are experiencing a squeeze.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I stand in strong support of the Sanders amendment in this matter. Our international tax rules provide far too many incentives for United States companies to move jobs and operations offshore. It is a growing trend. Corporations that have built their successes through the protection of the United States laws and contracts in this country are increasingly giving up their citizenship to move offshore and avoid paying United States taxes. Not only are they doing that, but they are costing hardworking Americans their jobs and are grossly abusing loopholes in the current tax system. These corporations should not then be able to take advantage of the taxpayers' generosity through the Ex-Im Bank. Particularly at a time when our country is at war and we are running record budget deficits, Congress should take a firm stand and prevent taxpayer money from increasing the bottom line for profitable corporations who shirk their responsibilities here at home. The Ex-Im Bank is intended to finance American services and products, not the export of American jobs and resources. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, today on June 17, 2004, the Holocaust Center of Boston North, Inc., located in Peabody, Massachusetts, and dedicated to the study of the Holocaust, Genocides, and Human Rights, will honor my constituent Sonia Schreiber Weitz with the Center's first Social Justice and Human Rights Award. A Holocaust survivor who experienced the torture and degradation of five Nazi concentration camps and Hitler's Death March, Sonia Weitz has devoted her life to educating young people to the dangers of bystander behavior, the nature of hatred and power of one individual to create positive change. An accomplished author and poet, she is committed to fighting for human rights and sharing her experiences during the Holocaust with audiences of all ages. Born in Krakow, Poland in 1928, young Sonia attended public schools with both Jewish and non-Jewish friends. Only occasional whispers of anti-Semitism marred her early childhood, but in September of 1939, when Sonia was 11 years old, Germans invaded Poland and changed her life forever. Many of her relatives were murdered, the Gestapo took her mother, and she and her remaining family members were sent to a labor camp where they remained for more than a year. Sonia and her sister, Blanca, were then sent to Auschwitz, while their father and Blanca's husband were sent to Mauthausen in Austria. As liberating forces approached and the Nazis sought to destroy evidence of the camps, the inmates were sent on a death march through the snow and ice to Bergen- Belsen, in Germany, where the two sisters experienced the worst conditions of their enslavement. Finally liberated, they lived in a camp for displaced persons for 3 years before immigrating to the United States, where Sonia lives today, in Peabody, Massachusetts. In her book, ``I Promised I Would Tell,'' Sonia Weitz shares memories of Nazi racism, dehumanization and mass murder. ``Who better to write about light after darkness than me,'' she says. A co-founder of the Holocaust Center North, Ms. Weitz has coordinated clergy conferences, media seminars, human rights awareness days, interfaith teen projects, and Holocaust survivors' workshops since 1982. She has been an appointee of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council. She is the recipient of an honorary Doctor of Humane Letters degree from Salem State College, the ADL Interfaith Award, the Facing History Human Rights Award, and countless other honors. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my constituents throughout Boston's North Shore in honoring this extraordinary human being, Sonia Schreiber Weitz, and I ask that my remarks unanimously be allowed to conform with the written remarks submitted on this day.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for yielding me time, and I thank him for his work in opposition to this bill. I think he has it exactly right, Mr. Speaker. These PRAs, as they are called, the personal reemployment accounts, are presented to us in the face of over 2 million jobs lost under this present Republican administration. One and a half million workers have exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits. President Bush and the House Republicans refuse to extend those unemployment benefits despite these facts. Even Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan thinks it is a good idea to extend those benefits. The money is already in the trust fund. It is the right thing to do morally. We have done it in the past, in the first Bush administration. We did it five times. It is the economically wise thing to do. For every dollar invested in unemployment benefits, $1.73 comes back into the economy because people that get it have needs. They have rent or mortgage payments to make. They have health care bills, car payments, education costs, groceries. That is what this economy needs right now to give those people a boost so they can survive while they are looking for a job. But the administration and the Republicans in the House seem afraid that extending those benefits will be an admission of their failed economic policies, the fact that we have had two tax cuts for millionaires while we are fighting two wars, and regular Americans are the ones being asked to sacrifice. So these so-called PRAs are offered, actually they are reoffered as you have heard, as this is a bill that was already presented through the House and advisedly passed. It provides no employment, no unemployment benefits, no job creation. There is no new money to get people to work. In fact, it is going to be funded through cuts in existing programs. And because we are $500 billion in deficit, it is pretty clear that there is not going to be enough money there for the $3,000 that people are talking about. It is going to in fact be far less per person. In brief, it is robbing from proven programs that are effective job- training programs for an experiment that is designed to fail. It is built on a false premise. We had Secretary Chao come before the committee and when asked why she would not extend unemployment insurance benefits, she said because the administration thought that was an incentive for people not to look for work. That is an insulting, false premise. Two million people are involuntarily unemployed during this term. For every three people looking, there is only one job. Many people that are getting a job are getting it at 21 percent less pay than the job that they lost. Although the bill proposes $3,000, it is more likely that people will get far less. The one-stop centers that we have now are the centers that have the flexibility. They are serving the needs of people. In fact, they provide for the other things that were talked about, as the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) said. But what they want to do here is take a program that averages 5 to $6,000 in costs for job-training programs now available to individuals that have lost their jobs and substitute it for up to $3,000 which will fall far short in which they are supposed to pay for that 5 to $6,000 worth of job training and child care and transportation and housing assistance and relocation services and career counseling. This must be a miracle $3,000 per person because it is shrinking as the needs are there. The present system, Mr. Speaker, is working. It is one that people have worked on in a bipartisan nature. This is what we need to do, not false programs, but deal with the real needs of the unemployed. Give them extended unemployment benefits and give them a chance to get a job.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the Republican Majority's proposed rule that would limit debate on a matter as important as the Department of Defense Authorization bill, which purports to provide spending in excess of $400 billion for Fiscal Year 2005. At a time when Members of the United States House of Representatives claim to be supporting the extension of democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is unconscionable for the leadership to limit debate in the House. There were times in the not too distant past, where a bill of this magnitude would have been debated for at least two weeks. Members would have had the opportunity to voice their position on hundreds of amendments important to their constituents and the nation. It appears that keeping with the Republican Majority's fear that reasonable Republicans will join Democrats in actually improving the underlying bill, the Rules Committee has acceded to the Majority Leadership's pressure and only allowed 28 of 127 amendments for debate and vote. This institution--the People's House--deserves better, and the American people deserve better. Had the Rules Committee and the Leadership followed a practice from a time before the current Majority was in power, most if not all of the proposed amendments would have been made in order, including two amendments which I proposed and which, I firmly believe are in our common interest. We should be able to agree that American defense workers are 100 percent committed to our armed forces and to ensuring that America has the best trained, best equipped, best led forces in the world. Unfortunately, these workers have seen their jobs vanish at an alarming rate without explanation or justification. Over the past 15 years, defense-related employment is said to have fallen by some 67 percent. This translates into over a million lost jobs. We need to do more to reverse this disturbing trend. The Amendment I sought would place us standing firmly in solidarity with these workers. First, we would find out where the jobs have gone, and second, fight to keep them in this country. We made a similar fight last year. We were partially successful. The House-passed version of the Defense Department Authorization bill established a ``Defense Industrial Base Assessment Program'' to collect new information about where defense contracts are being performed; to determine what percentage of the contract is being completed overseas; and to learn the business rationale for why contractors are sending contract work out of the United States. The bill then called for the Secretary of Defense to recommend a plan for getting back as much of the off-shored work as possible in future years. Unfortunately, that program was significantly weakened when the Senate version of last year's authorization bill failed to include the language, and the conference report only required the Department to use existing data to study the problem and eliminated the mandate to look at where and why these contracts are leaving this country. Some suggested that the mere existence of that program would allow us to get a better understanding of the strength and capacity of our defense base; such is not the case. A program that relies exclusively on existing data and only asks rudimentary questions will not provide the most complete assessment of our industrial base. The Department of Defense is required by the National Defense Authorization Act of 1997 to submit, on an annual basis, a report to Congress on the amount of purchases from foreign entities for the previous fiscal year. That, however, was inadequate, as shown when the most recent report submitted to the Armed Services Committee exposed the shortcomings with relying on `existing data' to monitor prime contracts. The report stated, ``In some instances, the exact information required by Section 827 is not available, and the Department of Defense had made assumptions to complete the report.'' It goes on to say that some of the other information needed to complete the report was, ``not readily available in the Department of Defense database.'' If we know the Pentagon's use of existing data does not fully capture our country's purchases from foreign entities, why should we have any greater confidence that it will accurately assess our country's defense industrial base? We must put the teeth back into this much-needed program--new data must be collected and the right questions must be asked. Still, knowing what happened to this work is only the first step. We must do more than close the barn doors after the horses have left. Strategies must be implemented that restore and revitalize the defense- manufacturing base and they must be implemented right now. My amendment also required that the Secretary, as a condition of procurement, mandate that the contractor perform substantially all, and in no event less than 65 percent, of the primary and secondary manufacturing contracts in the United States. The Secretary would be allowed to waive this requirement only in cases where products and services were not available in this country or where concerns of national security necessitated a waiver. Even when waived, the Secretary would have to notify Congress, citing the business rationale or relevant threat information for the determination. The amendment also would have required, on an annual basis, that the General Accounting Office study the number of waivers and submit a report to Congress offering recommendations on how the United States can increase capacity and further strengthen our industrial base. It is long past time that we move beyond rhetoric about appropriately prioritizing the work to be completed in the United States and require the Secretary of Defense to work toward that goal. Just as we in Congress continue to fulfill our patriotic promise to our men and women in uniform, we must also demonstrate an equal commitment to those men and women who build, repair, and operate the machines that sustain and strengthen our security here at home. Mr. Speaker, while I am disappointed that Congressional Republicans denied my colleagues the opportunity to vote on my important Build America amendment, I would like to commend the dedicated advocates who work tirelessly everyday to ensure American defense jobs do not go overseas. I would like to commend Armed Services Chairman Duncan Hunter and Senior Democrat Ike Skelton for inserting provisions into this bill that are intended to address the systemic problem of defense offsets. U.S. defense exports with offset agreements in excess of 100 percent are now happening regularly and it is long past time we level the playing field and ensure that our defense workers are no longer in jeopardy of losing their jobs because of their companies' offset arrangements. The Hunter-Skelton provision is a good first step, and while it doesn't go as far as my Build America amendment does, it should, at the very least, be included within the final version of the Defense Authorization bill. ground missile defense Mr. Speaker, the second amendment that I proposed, and which should have been considered today, deals with the need for operational testing and evaluation for a realistic ballistic missile defense system. The common-sense amendment would allow Members of Congress to be on record in support of operational testing before the ground-based system is hastily deployed. As we all know, this country has already spend in excess of $130 billion chasing the ``Star Wars'' scheme from the Nixon Administration to the current Administration. We have disagreements about the level of funding for ballistic missile defense; about the number of interceptors that should be deployed if the system is ever proven to work; and about how this matter should be prioritized as opposed to other critical threat related defense programs. But Mr. Speaker, no system should be hastily built and recklessly deployed prior to adequate testing. This is a matter where there should be unanimous agreement. It simply defies common sense that we would stand idle and allow the most expensive item in the Defense Department's $400 billion plus budget before it has been rigorously scrutinized and evaluated. The people of this country have a right to know what they are getting. So far, what they are going to get is a system that has not been consistently or realistically tested in a way that demonstrates it can handle even some of the simplest threats it may encounter. My colleagues do not have to just take my word on this matter. Allow me to cite just a few of the most recent voices that have weighed in on this matter and arrived at a similar opinion. In March, the GAO issued a report revealing that the tests that have been completed to date occurred under repetitive and scripted scenarios, fully repeating the same technical and atmospheric conditions over and over again. Critical parts of the system have yet to be flight-tested together. That report goes on to say that, ``only two flight tests under improved test conditions . . . are planned to be conducted before September 2004.'' It remains unclear, however, if the Missile Defense Agency will even go ahead with these flight tests, or if they will be cancelled or replaced with simulations. Later in the month of March, 49 generals and admirals, including former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral William Crowe, Retired United States Air Force General Alfred G. Hansen, and Retired United States Marine Corps General Joseph P. Hoar, wrote to the President that he ``postpone operational deployment of the expensive and untested ground based missile defense system and transfer the associated funding to accelerated programs to secure the multitude of facilities containing nuclear weapons and materials to protect our ports and borders against terrorists who may attempt to smuggle weapons of mass destruction into the United States.'' In plain English, these respected military authorities state some basic facts of life: (1) the system that is now proposed is not only expensive but is largely untested; (2) money being spent on building such an untested system would be better spent accelerating programs that would secure the many nuclear weapons facilities and materials around the world as well as protecting our ports and borders against terrorists who may attempt to smuggle weapons of mass destruction into the United States; and (3) essentially every threat assessment performed for us by intelligence agencies indicate that the latter threat is far more pertinent to the United States than is an attack by a continental ballistic missile. In April, a General Accounting Office report warned that the system due to be fielded later this year would be ``largely unproven'' because of a lack of realistic testing. On May 7th, 31 former government officials wrote a letter to President Bush. These officials served under Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton. They had worked in the Pentagon, the Department of State, National Security Council, Office of Management and Budget, and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agencies. Their letter stated clearly that ``the initial defense capability being advertised by the Missile Defense agency is a sham'' and they recommended that the President ``drop the 2004 deployment and commit instead to a sensible research and development schedule.'' Last week, the Union of Concerned Scientists released a comprehensive report that found, ``no basis for believing that the system will have any capability to defend against a real attack.'' Fielding a system at this time will do little more than foster a false sense of security among the American people misleading our constituents to believe they will be appropriately protected from a ballistic missile attack when the reality is they may not be. The amendment, quite simply, enforces a 1983 statue, which the Missile Defense Agency has seemingly decided to openly ignore. Without holding the Missile Defense Agency to some standards of independent, realistic operational testing, Congress would not be fulfilling its proper oversight duties. Mr. Speaker, because the Republican Majority chose to close down debate on this important bill, Members of Congress are missing their opportunity to represent the people of this country in demanding that the Director of the Missile Defense Agency may not proceed with the initial deployment, or any phase thereof, of a ballistic missile defense system until: (1) the Director of Operational Testing and Evaluation of the Department of Defense approves, in writing, the plans for the operational testing to be conducted; (2) the operational testing is completed; (3) the Director analyzes the results of that testing; and (4) the Director submits a report on the results of that testing to the Secretary of Defense and to the Congressional Defense Committees. In short, Mr. Speaker, Congress is once again abdicating its responsibilities of oversight of this Administration and marching lock- step with the Administration, wasting billions of dollars (some $10 billion in this budget alone) on a system that military and scientific experts agree is untested, unproven and a sham. I have to add, Mr. Speaker, that upon my request the General Accounting Office requested a review of some 50 deficiencies in the testing of this ground-based missile defense system that were identified by the former Director of Operational Testing and Evaluation, Mr. Philip Coyle. I had asked the General Accounting Office to determine whether any or which of those issues had been addressed, their current status, their status as anticipated in September 2004 (when the President indicated he intends to start wastefully building this untested project), and the degree of confidence that we might have in such a system if deployed at that time. After incredible resistance in cooperation from the Department of Defense, the report was done some 18 months later. Unfortunately, in keeping with its reputation as the most secretive Administration in history, the Administration-- apparently so displeased with the results and conclusions--classified the report. At my further insistence, and again after much resistance, the General Accounting Office was able to produce an unclassified version of the report. That unclassified report, Mr. Speaker, was entirely uncomplimentary of the program and clearly indicated that the program is not ready to be deployed as a working system in which this country could have confidence. The classified version, which went into much greater detail with regards to specifics, should be de-classified. All of the information in it has essentially been known for some time and been the subject of open hearings in this Congress. The information has appeared on numerous web sites at various agency and entity locations. However, the Administration, seemingly so fearful that the actual assessment of this system's sorry state would be known to the public, has actually classified the 50 items pointed out by Mr. Coyle. Mr. Speaker, given recent history, if the classified report had been at all complimentary we can assume that the Administration would have de-classified it in a nanosecond. As it has not, we might assume the reasons are clear. It is not right that billions of dollars will be misspent at a time when this nation's needs are so great. It is not right that the American people will be presented with false confidence at a time when security concerns are so high. It is not right that so much time, money, and resources will be concentrated on an unproven, unworkable, sham of a system that does not even address what all of our intelligence sources tell us is the primary threat that faces this nation. Mr. Speaker, from No Child Left Behind to the Sarbanes-Oxley bill concerning accounting reforms, this Congress has not been shy about requiring testing and ensuring accountability. However, it seems when it comes to spending over $10 billion, one of the most expensive items in this year's defense budget, there will be no accountability and testing. As quoted above, ``the initial defense capability being advertised by the Missile Defense Agency is a sham'' and the President should ``drop the 2004 deployment and commit instead to a sensible research and development schedule.'' This Congress should live up to its responsibilities and insist on that.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member of the full committee.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleague to stay around for the amendment that the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and I will present to talk about politicization of particular projects and policies. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. TIERNEY. Yes, I have additional speakers coming.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I have two more speakers on their way over.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise to address H.R. 2432, the Paperwork and Regulatory Improvements Act of 2004. We are talking about this bill today because House Republicans are concerned that they are being criticized for the millions of jobs that have been lost under this administration. House Republicans have decided that instead of taking action to create jobs, they would make a plan to talk about taking action to create jobs. Each week they have a different theme. This week they are talking about cutting red tape. The bill we are considering, however, does nothing to cut red tape. As we will hear later from the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), this bill does nothing to reduce the hours that Americans spend filling out paperwork. In fact, the hours Americans must spend filling out paperwork has increased dramatically under the Bush administration. This bill will also do nothing to improve the regulations issued by the Bush administration. In fact, some provisions of the bill will actually make the regulatory process worse. I have a letter that I would like to enter into the Record to appear after my statement, Mr. Chairman, from the League of Conservation Voters opposing this bill. This letter states, ``At best, this bill would result in a waste of money at a time when Federal resources are shrinking; at worst, it would contribute to a loss of vital protections for millions of Americans.'' The League of Conservation Voters also expresses in their letter support for an amendment the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and I are offering that would establish an independent commission of distinguished experts to investigate the politicization of science in the regulatory process. The League of Conservation Voters thinks this is such an important issue that Members may find their votes in the League of Conservation Voters scorecard. Leading scientists, including 20 Nobel Laureates, have said the political and ideological distortion of science is a major block to effective government action on a wide range of health and environmental issues. This administration is injecting itself into the regulatory process to manipulate science and to manipulate agency regulations to suit industry. Over and over we hear about agency proposals that are rewritten by the Office of Management and Budget to fit the needs of industry without regard to the expertise of agency scientists and other experts. The administration's proposal on mercury pollution is one recent example. The gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) will describe these particular problems in more detail at a later time. We should not be here just talking about cutting red tape, Mr. Chairman. We should not be passing legislation that will weaken important regulatory protections that aim to ensure a safe and healthy environment for our children. What we should be doing is taking positive steps to make the regulatory process better for all Americans. League of Conservation Voters, May 18, 2004. Re: Oppose H.R. 2342, Support the Waxman (D-CA)/Tierney (D- MA) Amendment U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representatives: The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) is the political voice of the national environmental community. Each year, LCV publishes the National Environmental Scorecard, which details the voting records of Members of Congress on environmental legislation. The Scorecard is distributed to LCV members, concerned voters nationwide, and the press. LCV urges you to oppose H.R. 2432, which would require the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to assess the feasibility of imposing regulatory budgeting on major agencies. Regulatory budgeting is a misguided concept that elevates the interests of regulated industries over all other considerations. At best, this bill would result in a waste of money at a time when federal resources are shrinking; at worst, it would contribute to a loss of vital protections for millions of Americans. Regulatory budgeting caps the costs that government can impose on the private sector each year, regardless of the need for public protections. Under this system, once the ``budgeted'' cap has been reached, agencies must cease fulfilling their mandates--polluters get a free pass, workplaces go unprotected, and hazardous foods move into commerce. OMB should be directed to account for actions that have taken place over the past three years as scores of critical safeguards have been weakened, rescinded, or abandoned in progress. LCV has noted with alarm the accumulating threat to public health and the environment caused by the rollback of regulations intended, to prevent destruction of the ozone layer, reduce air pollution, prevent neurological harm to children, reduce public exposure to toxins and contaminants, preserve crucial habitat for endangered species, ensure clean drinking water. LCV supports the Waxman-Tierney Amendment to create a Commission on Politicization of Science in the Regulatory Process. The Commission would evaluate regulatory activities to determine the extent to which political considerations have undermined the quality and use of the science, and report within 18 months. This commission will address concerns among scientists and government professionals that political considerations are unduly influencing regulatory decisions. Americans expect that the science used in development of regulations is not colored by politics. Please oppose H.R. 2432 and support the Waxman Amendment. LCV's Political Advisory Committee may consider including votes on this issue in compiling LCV's 2003 Scorecard. If you need more information, please call Betsy Loyless in my office at (202) 785-8683. Sincerely, Deb Callahan, President. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).