John Tierney

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, I, too, have high words of praise for the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), who worked hard on this issue. However, I have to make mention that I think we are going in the right direction perhaps in reducing the amount of money allocated to national missile defense, but we are not going far enough. We would all love to throw an umbrella around this country and stop any type of missile projection coming in here; and if we could do that, there would not be a Member of Congress that would hesitate to vote for it. The fact of the matter is that we do not have a system that works that way, and every reputable scientist indicates that we will not have a system like that in the foreseeable future, if at all. The Pentagon's own operations office and research office and technical office has indicated that not only have the tests not been successful to indicate that a system would work, but that the regime for testing as we go forward is not adequate to ever give us the confidence that any system would be reliable. In essence, we would be buying a false sense of national security. We have to as a Nation set our priorities on this issue. We have been setting our priorities supposedly in line with what dangers, what risks, what threats may actually exist. But our intelligence services do not tell us that the primary risk threat to us is an intercontinental ballistic missile sent from a so-called rogue nation. It is, instead, something along the lines of what we experienced on September 11, and yet we do not align our national security budget in that direction. We are going to pay the price if we do not pay attention on that. There are a number of reasons why we should not go beyond just testing this system; and yet this budget calls for not only testing a national missile defense system, but actually deploying it and violating the ABM treaty in the process, something which many in this country do not think is wise, certainly our allies do not think is wise, and gives great concern to Russia and China, nations upon whom we are now calling for their cooperation, yet telling them at the same time that we are going to unilaterally violate an agreement, a treaty, binding their countries and ours. It does not make sense, it is not good fiscal policy, and frankly it is not good national security policy. If we want to really protect this country and give our citizens some feeling that we are secure in our lives and in this land, we should organize our priorities, understand which risks really are threats of immediacy, and allocate our resources in that direction. Spending 60 to $100 billion on a system we have not yet proven can work and have not yet shown that we can have any confidence in its reliability is not the right direction. Putting resources into home front security, where we know now especially what our concerns are, knowing that we have some 40 agencies whose efforts have to be coordinated, knowing that we have to work diplomatically, through intelligence, through law enforcement, as well as the military, and we have to make sure we have cooperation of everyone throughout the world, we know that this is going to be expensive, and we know that we still have a domestic budget and items that we have to confront at the same time. We should get our priorities straight, Madam Chairman. We should not put this excessive money into national missile defense. Even those of us who think that we are nowhere near ready to go forward can get others to agree that we should just, at most, do testing and not move us into this dangerous path of starting to build before we are ready, before we have something that can be shown to work. We have done that in other programs, the F-22, the Osprey, at our great risk and disappointment and sometimes lives. We ought not to start down this particular path. We ask people to consider that when they vote on this particular amendment. It does not go far enough in cutting funds for national missile defense. It does not put our priorities in the proper order. It does not give us true national security but, rather, gives us a prospect of national insecurity. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Chairman, just looking around and counting, I am not sure that I reached the same conclusion that the Chairman did, and I am wondering if she might want to count again.

Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Chairman, I make a point of order.

Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume only because I do not want to let time pass between the gentleman's comments and reality. The fact of the matter is, I heard the word ``demagogue'' used in there, and I certainly hope that it was not pointed in this direction after what I just heard. The true fact of the matter is we only have to look at scientists. There are a number of people missing from this debate that would not be in favor of national missile defense. They are basically most scientists, our European allies and friends in other countries and a large part of our military. The fact of the matter also is that we do not rely on the same technology for NASA that we rely on for the missiles because if NASA fails, we understand that we need to go forward in there, we can have other attempts at this. If we are relying on a missile defense system and it fails, we are all dead. The fact of the matter is we need to test to make sure it works. As to further facts on that, I have been to classified briefings. You would think after 106, that that would settle in and the information would come out clearer. It does not take 106 to understand what is going on here and what is happening with the allocation of resources. This system has never fully tested the exact system that will be used ultimately. It has never shown that that would work. In fact, when there have been so-called successes here, it has usually been because there has been a beacon, because there has been some other sort of radar systems working other than the ones that will eventually come in. We have spent over $60 billion in the last several years on trying to design a national missile defense system that has not worked. If we are going to continue to spend money, it ought to be testing to get to a system that we can then have some level of confidence in its reliability, not start building something that the Pentagon's own Office of Testing and Evaluation tells us has not been tested properly, has not been tested to show it is successful, and whose testing regime does not show that. It is not a lack of money. Colonel Welch on the panel says clearly, you can keep throwing money at this. Money is not the issue. The issue is doing the tests, doing them properly, and getting to a point where you have some success on that. Madam Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I join all of our colleagues and all Americans in our sorrow for Tuesday's victims and in our outrage for the despicable acts of cowardice which have so changed our lives. Tonight, we show our unity; and by so doing we serve notice that we, as a Nation, are resolved to hold accountable those responsible for Tuesday's terrorism. As we go forward, I do not think this Congress wants to purposely abdicate its constitutional obligations and responsibilities. It seems unlikely that this Congress would knowingly deny itself the information that may well be necessary in the future in order to intelligently carry out its work with the President in meeting their shared responsibilities in the area of national security. Yet if we pass the resolution tonight, without first adding the language of this motion to recommit, I am concerned that that is precisely what might occur. As written, the joint resolution refers to the War Powers Resolution but could arguably be read not to require more than periodic reports to Congress, if any reports at all. Even the periodic reports could mean at least 6-month intervals could pass without adequate knowledge by which Congress could carry out its responsibilities. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, successive executives have historically challenged the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution. By passing this motion to recommit, we can cure that ambiguity and clarify the record. In 1991, then President George H. W. Bush asked Congress to authorize his use of force, and he signed a joint resolution that included a requirement that the President submit to Congress at least once every 60 days a summary on the status of his efforts. There is no reason why this Congress should ask for less as we join with this President, and no reason why in the spirit of unity, and consistent with the Constitution and the precedent set by his own father, that this President would not sign a resolution containing similar language. So I move now to recommit the joint resolution to the Committee on International Relations with instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith in its amended form. This is a straightforward and a simple amendment, Mr. Speaker. It will not delay our action here tonight. It continues to unite us in support of the President's existing authority to act to prevent future acts of terrorism and to locate and deal appropriately with those responsible for the tragic events of September 11. But it does clarify that the President report the status of his efforts to carry out this resolution. It does express our sense that as parties with a shared constitutional responsibility, the President comply with the statutory authority by consulting regularly with Congress and reporting every 60 days. Whenever there exists a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, the Constitution empowers the President, as Commander in Chief, to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances. This joint resolution reaffirms that power. Congress and the American people want the President to be able to act to prevent future acts of terrorism; and so it is no surprise that the Constitution allows for such authority and no surprise that Congress acts to restate it tonight. We should remember that national security is a shared responsibility, Mr. Speaker, requiring joint efforts and mutual respect by Congress and the President. Congress is a co-equal branch of government, specifically empowered by the Constitution, with the power to declare war and to make all laws which will be necessary and proper for the carrying into execution of that power. So while we specifically have not declared war tonight, we do make a law by which the President may engage United States Armed Forces in action against others. The responsibilities of Congress, I believe, Mr. Speaker, obligate us to remain informed and to have consultation with the President concerning any action under this resolution. Our continued ability to act in concert as co-equal branches of government demands no less, and our obligation to American citizens everywhere demands at least that much. We want to act in unison and we need the President's cooperation to do that. As a matter of mutual respect and as a sign of unity, as well an act of constitutional statutory compliance, Mr. Speaker, I ask that we all vote to recommit and have it come back forthwith as amended.

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

Mr. TIERNEY. I am, in its current form, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I join Americans everywhere today and tonight, as well as my colleagues here, in expressing our sorrow and sympathy and condolences to every family and friend who has experienced a loss as a result of what went on in yesterday's tragedies. And, unfortunately, there were those in my district who suffered loss, and our hearts go out to all of them this evening. Mr. Speaker, in the face of this trauma, the American character of resolve has shown itself. Untold numbers of citizens have participated in rescue and medical efforts, while others have joined together to comfort victims and their families. Lives have been lost, but lines have been formed as people line up to give blood, and everywhere men and women and boys and girls reach out to help those who are hurt, and that effort will continue. Congress and the President have pledged to work together; and they are going to work together to meet the challenges and work with essential agencies, and every effort will be made to further rescue, further medical treatments, to support victims and families of victims and to address the enhancement of our security throughout this country as we move forward into the future and to identify and hold accountable those responsible for these despicable, cowardly acts. Although everyone continues to experience competing emotions of sorrow and anger and frustration, we are going to refuse to allow these acts to rob us of the values we have as citizens. We will not tolerate these acts against our people or our country, but we shall exercise patience so we rightfully identify anyone responsible for these acts; and once we have done that, then it will be our duty to execute strong and certain recourse. Mr. Speaker, we have the ability and the wherewithal as people to meet these challenges; we have met so many challenges in the past. As we do that, we shall not allow our emotions to override our values as people and as citizens. Our civil liberties and those of all Americans, together with our own sense of justice, will not be abandoned lest we tender to terrorists the victory they have not achieved and they do not deserve. Certainly our lives have now changed, but still our resolve is enforced by the memory of the victims, by their families, and their bravery and selflessness of those who marched into danger to try to be of help. They inspire us as we move forward.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to provide a copy of correspondence made available from three notable professionals in health care law and policy, Sarah Rosenbaum, David Frankfort, and Rand Rosbenblatt from the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services, Rutgers University School of Law in Camden, in the latter two cases, and make it available to the gentleman from Georgia and others, because I think now, in the light of day, as opposed to the midnight oil burning at the White House, you can see that reasonable professionals that deal with this every day indicate that this particular amendment that is going to be proposed would change the law to the detriment of patients, would change the law to the detriment of those people that rely on this body to protect their interests. It establishes an entirely new level of policy here where, no longer is the standard of care what is existing in the medical profession, but, as the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) says, what goes on in the insurance industry. It goes beyond that and just basically makes sure that States that have protective rights in there get those thrown out the window, so that all the States, whether it is Massachusetts, whether it is New Jersey, whether it is Florida, they put in protections for their particular people, for patients in their State, they are now out the window, thanks to the largess of the gentleman from Georgia and the White House. That is wrong. I do not think that is what the gentleman intended, and I would expect upon reading it and now being knowledgeable of it, the gentleman would change his mind.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, for 5 years-plus Democrats and some Republicans have worked towards a Patients' Bill of Rights. The real heroes in this one are the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). On the Senate side, they are Senators Edwards, Kennedy, and McCain. Central to the effort is the need to stop unfair denial of access to medical care. Story after story has been heard in the past of people of all ages being denied appointments with specialists, being denied the right to seek emergency care when they reasonably believed they had an emergency. It is important when it is your child, and it is important when it is your parent. Also central has been the need to hold HMOs accountable for their bad decisions that unfairly denied people the benefit of their doctor's advice or the care that they needed. Doctors and nurses have been held responsible for their actions but impersonal HMOs have been allowed to deny care, act arbitrarily and with impunity without being held accountable. In all that time, the person who is now President of the United States first vetoed the Patients' Bill of Rights in Texas, then he opposed it and allowed it to become law only because it had a veto- proof majority and he did not even sign it. Then, of course, he took credit for it during the campaign. The majority of Republicans and Republican leadership resisted true patients' bill of rights reform vigorously. But in 1999, 68 people on the Republican side voted with Ganske and Dingell, they voted with the American people and with patients, they voted with the health care community of doctors and nurses. Then the GOP leadership in the Senate passed an HMO relief bill. The Senate and the House leadership conspired to let that good bill, the Ganske-Dingell bill, die in conference. This year, the Senate passed the Ganske-Dingell bill as the Kennedy- Edwards-McCain bill. The White House panicked, the leadership over the other side panicked, and now they have found a way to kill true managed care reform. Under the guise of passing something that will not be vetoed, they attempt to bring forward a poison pill and provisions that give us a choice that is unpalatable. They want to gut patient protections, abandon patients and protect HMOs' bad practices. They want to pass a bad House bill, then let that die in conference when the Senate holds firm seeking real patient protection. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a joke. When people get a chance to read it, they will only be heroes that are consistent with where they have been, not those that have moved around and found themselves with the President's bad acts.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. The only thing that has been compromised here with the Norwood amendment is the rights of the American people as patients. In 6 months, the President has done to this bill what he was unable to do in Texas: he has killed those rights of the American people. I wish the gentlewoman from Connecticut had stayed longer, because she would realize that in the second sentence of the applicable section of the Norwood amendment, what appeared to be giving States rights is taken away, in essence, what appears to be a preemption for the managed care industry of all underlying State law related to health care quality. On economic damages, yes, you can get the money for the cost of your operation back, but now this law is going to tell you what your arm is worth, what your eyesight is worth, and the limit is quite low. Lastly, we spent over 5 years trying to deal with an industry that we do not trust, that has made bad decision after bad decision, that the American people have recognized; and the way this amendment deals with it is to say that when you are sick, when you are down and out, you do not just have to prove that you are right by the preponderance of the evidence, as anybody else would with any other type of claim, but you also have to overcome a presumption that is a rebuttable presumption. This is the HMO protection act. This is something done in the dark of night. I wish the gentleman from Georgia and others had had a chance to get enough light to read its provisions, because if they did, they would know that the only thing the President has done here is what he could not do in Texas: kill patients' bills of rights, kill protection for patients. We can do better and we should do better. Let us hope the Senate, in conference, can at least get us back on track.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it goes beyond that. No longer will you have to have a proximate cause be the conduct of decisionmakers, but the cause. In a complex area like health care, that is a dangerous thing, and I think the gentleman would agree.

Mr. TIERNEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding me this time and thank all those who have worked on this amendment. I think we should just get rid of the mirrors and the smoke on this, Mr. Chairman, and cut straight to the heart of the matter. This administration is simply attempting to undercut the authority and the effectiveness of the EPA by reducing its funding by 25 million people and putting 270 people out to pasture.

Mr. TIERNEY. Reclaiming my time, I have respect for that, but the short part of the matter is that people are being put out of work at the EPA and enforcement will not proceed as it should on this. This is nothing new. This majority and this administration have had a hostile attitude toward environmental protection for several years. In 1995, the House majority attacked an astounding 17 riders to eviscerate the EPA. And over several years running, the EPA was forbidden to spend any funds to implement or even prepare to implement the Kyoto Protocol that combatted global climate change. Frankly, without the efforts of colleagues in the Senate, without vetoes of then President Clinton, and without substantial public outcry, the EPA simply would have been crippled. Further, it seems this administration has not learned anything from the last several months. Nearly every public indicator signals there is no issue on which the public and the administration disagree more strongly than on the environment. From clean air to water quality, the public is acutely aware that the majority and the White House are not protecting the people's interest or their needs. Now they seek to attempt to undercut the EPA by shifting enforcement responsibility entirely to the States. We all support assisting the States in their efforts to ensure environmental law compliance, but that will not take care of problems across borders, that will not take care of the problem that this administration, in transferring that responsibility to the States, is risking an erosion of the standards that this legislative body has passed and calls upon the States to enforce. This administration will almost certainly permit States to issue proposals that include incentives for voluntary compliance. And while some States are good stewards of environmental issues, others have a history of diluting enforcement of provisions that protect the public. In such States, we have seen what happens to violators who simply choose not to voluntarily comply. Nothing. No penalties, no deadlines by which the standards must be enacted, nothing at all, Mr. Chairman. Voluntary compliance too often simply means ``never having to say you're sorry.'' Findings by the General Accounting Office also echo this sentiment. It finds serious cuts would result in 15 to 25 States receiving no funding at all. In those States the cutbacks would result in the absence of effective enforcement of protective safety measures. The EPA knows that there would be serious staff reductions that would result in this proposal; and I believe, Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what the administration is intending. The facts are that the EPA enforcement resources are already stretched thin. The Washington Post recently outlined a case where a State seriously neglected its responsibilities and violated numerous environmental laws. The State had also shifted the burden to the residents to prove violations. One case involved a power plant illegally emitting the hazardous gas styrene, which harms the nervous and respiratory systems. Without the efforts of the EPA, Mr. Chairman, which requires States to enforce the code, who knows how long those violations would have continued. It is crucial that the EPA have the resources to enforce environmental laws. Enforcement of those laws is often the only thing that stands between polluters and justice. The Senate has already restored this funding in their version of the bill, Mr. Chairman, and I strongly encourage Members to do the same in this body.

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

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. TIERNEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. TIERNEY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), as well as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), and the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) for their leadership and hard work on this issue. Would that we could legislate on this, because certainly we would move in the direction that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) has set forth. I am pleased to support this important amendment. It is important to the millions of people who die from tuberculosis each year; it is important to the mothers in developing countries who have maternal mortality rates 18 times that of people in developed countries; and, Mr. Chairman, it is important to the people of Colombia who live in fear because our past efforts have failed them. Last year, the Congress agreed to a $1.3 billion supplemental appropriation for a 2-year package for Colombia and surrounding countries. Now, between this appropriation and the defense appropriation, we are being asked for another $1 billion. Last year we were told that our taxpayer dollars would be used to increase protection for human rights, expand the rule of law, and promote the peace process in Colombia. We were told it would be used to eradicate coca crops across Colombia. We were told it would be used to promote alternative crops and jobs in Colombia. That is what we were told. After close examination of the evidence, we simply have to ask, where did the money go? The human rights situation in Colombia has gotten worse, the peace process is no closer than it was, and many of the crops eradicated were actually food crops. And now we are being asked to buy the same set of broken promises as last year, and this is not progress. We all know that the Colombian military has close ties with the paramilitary organizations responsible for large scale massacres of civilians. Our own State Department has documented that the Colombian Armed Forces aid paramilitaries by providing them with intelligence, supplies, ammunition, and that they often fail to protect civilians from attacks. The military funding we give in the hopes of helping the Colombian people is, to some degree, having the opposite effect. In the first 18 days of this year, 170 people were killed in 26 massacres. Data shows that as of April, deaths due to political violence roughly doubled those from previous years. These are innocent people trying to make Colombia a safer and more prosperous place, like Cristobol Uribe Beltran of the Association of Workers and Employees in Hospitals, Clinics and Organizations, who was kidnapped on June 27th and assassinated the very next day, innocent lives brought to an end for no legitimate reason. This is not progress. We have seen the human rights abuses in Colombia continue to escalate since last year's aid package. More than 300,000 people were forcibly displaced from their home by political violence. There continues to be hostage-taking, torture, killing of civilians. Our aid is being used against people who have been mislabeled as guerrillas and are often students, professors and priests. They are taken captive by the paramilitaries and oftentimes never heard from or seen again. Our aid has been used to destroy food crops and put harmful herbicides in the rivers and ponds in Colombian villages. It has displaced people from their land and homes and forced them to relocate, and this is not progress. We need to take a hard look at the situation we are dealing with in Colombia and make the sound judgment that our military aid efforts are simply not working. The aid we are providing is being misplaced, and I believe there is a role for the United States to play in this situation that is entirely different. We can provide resources to build infrastructure, so crops can get to markets profitably; we can provide assistance to help build a court system to the point where it is effective, fair and respected; or we can build schools and roads and community support; or we can build a competent, efficient, respected police force and a military force that does not favor the paramilitaries or ignore paramilitary atrocities. With all of these options at our disposal, we are being asked to choose the one we know will not work because it has not worked in the past. This amendment recognizes that act and, instead, diverts some of this money from this wasteful program to one that saves lives. That is the intent of this legislation. Mr. Chairman, we ask that this money be used for tuberculosis aid and not for military purposes.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, last evening, on rollcall vote No. 248, I want it to be in the Record that I was here and I did vote in favor of that bill. Unfortunately, there was a malfunction with the voting apparatus, apparently, and it did not record my vote.

Mr. TIERNEY

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