John Tierney

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I stand in favor of this particular amendment. In Massachusetts we have plenty of testing going on already. This idea by the President simply raises the quantity of testing, while doing nothing about the quality. Beyond that, we have the issue of bringing the testing procedure up to scale. The New York Times articles on Sunday and Monday indicate that this industry is not ready to produce the kind of quality tests and have them designed and administered and corrected in an appropriate way. We need to go back to the drawing board and make sure that this is done not as a mandate that will not be funded, but as a way to be actually used as a diagnostic tool for our children.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, this bill has many good features to it, and I am sure that if we manage to maintain or keep out of it some of the problems that we have run into in the past it will probably pass this body. We have managed to keep out vouchers. We have managed to keep out block grants, things that in the past administration caused this bill to stop dead in its tracks. If the President continues to maintain the position that he will not insist on those things, the bill will move forward. We still have to work on modernizing schools. We still have to work on having smaller class sizes. There is much more to be done, but I do want to call some attention to one feature of this bill that I think merits some consideration, and that is the high degree of testing that is being asked for. We have to keep in mind that there already is testing being done in the States. Virtually every State has a significant amount of testing being done and the Federal Government already requires testing three times in math and reading throughout an elementary school career. We have to be concerned that the testing that is in this bill does not amount to just quantity over quality, and my fear is that we have not allowed or provided for in this bill a ramping up to scale the capabilities of the testing community to be able to put those 260 additional tests that are now going to be required throughout this country in an appropriate way. We have not allowed time for them to be developed and implemented. We have not allowed enough resources for them to be done. The estimates are that it is $30 per test for the administration and much more for the development. The Congressional Budget Office estimates $650 million a year for these tests. Yet the President is only asking for $350 million. If we continue in this path, States may feel forced to go to off-the- shelf tests, the lowest common denominator here; and the problem with that is we are going to run into all sorts of difficulties about whether or not this testing procedure then really does measure the progress of our students or is it just putting on them yet an additional burden of still another test in which teachers have to prepare; it has to be developed; they have to take time out of the classroom and away from other subjects that probably should be taught. So I caution our Members to hopefully go back to the drawing board on the testing provisions and make this truly a good bill, provide the resources that are there, make those tests not something that is required until and unless we do the background work that needs to be done.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to this rule. The President, on a number of occasions, has made it clear that education is supposedly his number one priority, and that is exactly how it should be. What deeply troubles me is the heavy-handed way in which the majority is preventing the full House from debating some of the most crucial elements of this concept. While ostensibly one of the more important factors for this bill for the President and others is testing, yet this rule allows only one amendment, and that would completely strike a proposed new test. No other amendment on the validity or concept of testing would be allowed if this rule passes, not even one. If it passes, there will be no real consideration as to whether we provide sufficient resources to schools to administer fairly and comprehensively these tests. There will be no real debate about whether or not this type of testing is even good for our students or, if it is, what is the best way to administer them. We are going to hear a lot of reasons why it could not be done, and chief amongst them is you allowed us some amendments. Well, 28 out of 158 is hardly enough. You are going to say there is not enough time to do all of this. Well, we are going to be going home in a little while and we are not coming back tomorrow, so that does not carry any water. The fact of the matter is a good public policy debate is exactly what we need, especially on this bill, and we all ought to be here to engage in it. One amendment that I would propose would address perhaps the biggest flaw in this debate. The bill dramatically increases the scope and frequency of standardized tests by requiring States to begin testing students each year in grades 3 through 8. That is on top of current requirements. As a result, children will sit for standardized tests by the time they reach the age 9, and in some fourth grade classrooms in fact children still sit three times in a given year. What clearly is unfair is the anemic funding that this bill proposes. The Congressional Budget Office says it will cost $650 million each year for States to design, administer, review and revise the tests required by H.R. 1. That is way more than is expressed in this bill, and there is no way of telling how the States intend to make up the difference, other than by depriving other important educational programs. For this reason I submitted an amendment that would require annual appropriations to reach $600 million before those provisions could go into effect. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, it seems the majority cannot see the millions of students through the trillions in tax cuts.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman not only for the time, but for the tremendous effort he has made in trying to make this decent bill even better. Mr. Speaker, I am what we might term a conditional supporter of H.R. 10. While I believe that this legislation is in fact a step in the right direction toward ensuring retirement security for Americans, I do not think that this legislation really goes far enough in achieving this goal for everyone. As it stands, this bill is certainly not as comprehensive as it could be, and is not as comprehensive as it should be, a fact that I think is clearly recognized by those of us who join the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) in support of his amendment that will be offered in a little while. Today, despite the best intentions of others, the underlying legislation does not quite live up to its billing. Even more important, it does not quite live up enough to the ideal of this representative body attending to the needs of all the Nation's people. The Portman-Cardin bill does not have something for everyone, but it certainly has a lot for a few. In fact, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has most recently published a paper on this bill based on a rather extensive study. It finds that while the pension provisions will increase savings for some, it does little or nothing to increase savings for the people who are most in need of our help, low- and middle-income workers that comprise the majority of our workforce. Specifically, the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy has found that 76.9 percent of the pension and IRA tax reductions that will result in this bill would go to people making $67,000 or more. So if you earn less than $66,000, you will not be able to expect as much as you should if the bill becomes law in its current form. That same institute has also found that less than 1 percent of the pension and IRA tax provisions of this bill would go to persons making 25 percent or less. That is 40 percent of our Nation's working population. I want to repeat that for those who might not have heard what I just said. Forty percent of the members of our workforce will receive only 1 percent of the benefits yielded as a result of this bill. Fortunately, we have a way to make this bill actually work better for all people. We can do that. The way to do it is to adopt a substitute that will be offered a little while later. As we have heard and we will hear again, that substitute would leave intact the base bill and add a few provisions that, by their addition, actually make this a bill that we can be proud of and a bill that would truly make a difference. As we know, the version of this legislation being considered in the Senate includes measures that would address the needs of those low- and moderate-income savers who contribute to retirement plans. This amendment seeks to bring H.R. 10 more in line with that version. Specifically, what this amendment would do is simply expand the existing pension coverage for those who currently contribute to pension plans, but also extend it to those who, for whatever reason, do not and cannot. The fact is that when weighed against paying medical bills, planning for a child's college education, and making mortgage payments, retirement planning remains a low priority for many families and working people. Mr. Speaker, this is a legitimate concern that I do not believe H.R. 10 alone takes any significant steps to address. One final point, Mr. Speaker. If the argument is ever raised that the provisions of this bill are too expensive, let us remember that it is only a fraction of the cost of the base bill, and we have started in this body to have the majority try to give away billions of dollars to the wealthiest 2 percent through estate tax provisions. We can do better. We should do better with this bill.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, on May 6, 2001, the Jewish Journal/North of Boston will celebrate its 25th year of publication. For a quarter century, the Jewish Journal has been the principal source of community news and information for the Jewish population of the communities that lie between Boston on the New Hampshire border, most of which are within the Sixth Congressional District. As a community-sponsored publication, managed by a Board of Overseers representing the diverse points of view of the entire community, the Jewish Journal keeps its readers well informed of Jewish concerns-- local, national and international--while offering a forum for a lively exchange of ideas. The newspaper's independence from any chain or large corporate entity ensures its journalistic integrity and guarantees that its readers receive unbiased consideration of all the issues. I want to add my congratulations and best wishes to the management and staff of the Jewish Journal/North of Boston on reaching this important milestone and commend them for the invaluable service they provide for thousands of Jewish families in our area.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to applaud a group of 180 students in my Congressional District who visited Washington, DC yesterday morning to entertain gatherers at the Lincoln Memorial. The Beverly High School Band and Chorus deserves to be commended for the hard work and practice it takes to perform at such a high level, and I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating them. In addition to a wonderful experience here yesterday, these students have learned many valuable lessons from being part of this talented and impressive group. Clearly, for a band and chorus to be successful, it must work as one. Teamwork is a lesson these students have learned well, and it will be one that they carry with them as they encounter new challenges in the years ahead. Practice and perseverance have become second nature to the members of this organization. These are cornerstones of living, and these students already have a strong grasp on these concepts at a young age. Finally, Mr. Speaker, each one of these students, as well as their teachers and chaperones, have found joy in this adventure that began in the Sixth Congressional District of Massachusetts and ended in glory at the Lincoln Memorial. They have made all the people in the Commonwealth proud of their work, and they have provided examples of leadership to all they know. I wish them all the best of luck in their future endeavors, and I am confident that the lessons they have learned will not be forgotten.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I also rise here this evening to speak of one of the great horrors of our century, and that is the Armenian genocide. As a member of the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues, I once again join a large number of colleagues in recognizing the great tragedy of the Armenian people. As we all know and has been stated here several times tonight, this genocide occurred in 1915 when the Ottoman Empire began to force Armenians from their homeland, and it lasted until 1923. These 8 years saw the deaths of 1.5 million innocent victims and 500,000 exiled survivors. Despite the tremendous magnitude of the genocide, the world stood by as families were torn asunder and millions of lives were taken. Therefore, today, as we stand in recognition of the victims of this Armenian genocide, we also stand in recognition of the guilt of complicity of all nations that turned away when faced with this great tragedy. There is no doubt that calling events by their rightful name, genocide, is an important element of this recognition of responsibility. Had we heeded the lessons that emerged from the massacre, perhaps we could have avoided other great tragedies in this century. In quietly letting the sorrow of the Armenian people go unresolved, however, we allow their tragedy to repeat itself over and over again in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s, in Rwanda in the 1990s, and elsewhere throughout the world. Today, as we once again honor the victims of the Armenian genocide, on behalf of the Sixth District of Massachusetts, I also honor the commitment and perseverance of Armenian-Americans who have tirelessly struggled to ensure that the great sorrow of their people becomes known to all people. As we in Congress continue to confront issues of international peace and security, we would do well to remember this message: never forget.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today and join my colleagues who spoke just prior to me in honor of the 180th anniversary of the Greek independence. As a Member of the congressional caucus on Hellenic issues, I once again join those colleagues and others in paying tribute to the nation of Greece and its people. As we all know, as was so eloquently put forth by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), ancient Greece was the fountain of democratic ideals and values for the rest of the world, and her modern counterpart has been steadfast in ensuring that the philosophic traditions of the past are actively practiced. Today, we celebrate the triumph of the ideal of self-government in recognizing the achievements of the Greeks who so valiantly fought for independence. We also recognize the debt of gratitude that the citizens of the United States and many other nations owe for the ideals upon which the American democratic experiment is based. Greece, at the juncture between continents, continues to be actively involved in the international community, maintaining excellent relations with the United States, Europe and other nations. We all remember the recent response to the devastating earthquake in Turkey as an example of the commitment of goodwill that the Greek people continually demonstrate. It is my hope that this spirit of rising above differences will serve to inspire other nations as we move forward into the 21st century. On behalf of the people of the 6th Congressional District of Massachusetts, I wish to extend congratulations to the people of Greece and all of the people of Greek heritage in the United States on this important holiday. I am honored to have been selected to be an honorary grand marshal in this year's independence day parade in Boston. I look forward in sharing in the celebration once again with my constituents. It is my hope that the new millennium will bring forth many more years of positive and productive relations between the United States and Greece.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the able ranking member of the Committee on Government Reform.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 327 is a substantial improvement over the small business paperwork bills that were considered by the House in the last two Congresses because in the last two Congresses, these contained controversial penalty provisions, and they have since been removed. This bill includes provisions suggested by the Democratic minority that will reduce the paperwork burden on truly small businesses. Mr. Chairman, small businesses as everyone is familiar with, are the backbone of the economy and, now, are where the new jobs are being created. However, many small- and family-owned businesses spend a great deal of their resources learning about and complying with applicable laws. I am very pleased that we are looking at ways to make it easier for small businesses to understand what information they are required to provide and the ways to simplify and streamline the paperwork process. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 327, as amended, requires the Office of Management and Budget to annually produce a list of information collection requirements applicable to small businesses and to do that in a manner that is useful to small businesses. This list must be printed in the Federal Register and on the Internet. The bill also requires each agency to establish one point of contact to act as a liaison with small businesses. It requires agencies to make efforts to further reduce paperwork on businesses with fewer than 25 employees. It establishes a task force to study the feasibility of streamlining information collection and dissemination. Mr. Chairman, 3 years ago, we considered similar provisions when we considered H.R. 3310. Unfortunately, that bill also contained provisions that would have probably prohibited agencies from penalizing businesses for most first-time information-related violations. These provisions would remove agency discretion. It would have created a safe haven for willful, substantial, and long-standing violations. They were obviously strongly opposed by the prior administration, by labor, environmental, consumer, senior citizen, health, trade and firefighter groups, as well as by some State attorneys general. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and I offered an amendment to address these concerns. However, the amendment failed. Because of the surrounding controversy, the bill was never considered in the Senate; and we lost a chance to implement the provisions that we are considering today. The bill was resurrected in the next Congress as H.R. 391. The amendment of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), which fixed controversial provisions, narrowly failed by a vote of 214-210. Again, because the controversial provisions remained in the bill, it never became law. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to see that H.R. 327 does not include those controversial penalty provisions and now there is a strong chance that this bill will in fact become law. Mr. Chairman, I am also pleased to say that the managers amendment to H.R. 327 includes suggestions made by the Democratic minority of this committee. For instance, the task force will study the feasibility of strengthening the dissemination so that agencies can more effectively share that information with other agencies and with the public. The task force must make recommendations for implementing an interactive system for information collection requirements so the small businesses can identify applicable requirements over the Internet. It will provide guidelines for developing an interactive system that edits the information submitted by small businesses and checks for consistency. It will make recommendations for electronic dissemination of collected information. Finally, it will make recommendations for coordinating information collection between the different agencies. Another change that was suggested by the Democratic minority clarifies that the annual list of information requirements will be produced in a manner that is useful to small businesses. The original bill required that the lists be made by statistical code; however, that list likely would not be used by small businesses, it would merely provide a statistical analysis of the quantity of information regulations. After all, the purpose of this bill is not to count regulations but to help small businesses understand and comply with the information collection requirements. The new language ensures that the list is produced in such a manner that such small business concerns can easily identify requirements with which they are expected to comply. Further, H.R. 327 includes a provision suggested by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and it was adopted 3 years ago. And it focuses paperwork reduction on small businesses with fewer than 25 employees. This amendment directs our efforts to truly small businesses that need our help the most. The definition of small businesses that was incorporated to H.R. 327 and was so broad that it included numerous businesses that many do not really consider as small. It would have included petroleum refineries with up to 1500 employees, pharmaceutical companies with up to 750 employees, and banks with up to $100 million in assets. Thus, this bill, as amended, helps most businesses not just small businesses, and I believe it is appropriate to focus the agency efforts on businesses that truly are small. Mr. Chairman, the information collection is one of the more important jobs of the Federal Government. It allows the government to enforce the law without burdening businesses with in-depth site investigations; nevertheless, it is difficult for small businesses to fully understand what is required of them. And many businesses have expressed frustration with the fact that they provided similar information to more than one source in government. Mr. Chairman, I believe the government should help small businesses understand their responsibilities and streamline the information collection process. This bill serves both purposes without jeopardizing the underlying protections. Furthermore, it should help us take advantage of the information age by using the Internet to gather and disseminate information. These changes have been suggested by numerous sources, including the General Accounting Office. Mr. Chairman, it is a bit ironic that we are considering this bill to help small businesses at a time when the President has proposed cutting funding to the Small Business Administration by over 46 percent. He has recommended eliminating the New Markets Venture Capital Program, which provides venture capital and technical assistance to small businesses in less prosperous areas in the country. The President also recommends eliminating the BusinessLINC Program which encourages mentoring between large and small businesses. I am hoping that as the session moves forward, we will be able to deal with those matters and to truly help small businesses there, as well as with this Paperwork Reduction Act. I am pleased that we are at least willing to consider this bill which would help small businesses comply with the law and encourage the government to take advantage of electronic reporting and reduce duplicative paperwork burdens. I urge your support for passage. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) for the leadership he has shown on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I understand the desire that the task force address concerns of the small business community. It is my understanding that is why the task force in fact includes someone from the Small Business Office of Advocacy. That is what they do. So I should not think we would all be surprised about that. I think that should continue and we support that. But I think it is also important that the task force obtain input from the environmental, public health and the labor communities as well. Because the study, in fact, is looking at the feasibility of streamlining paperwork without negatively impacting underlying protections. I think, as much as we can all rail here about the need for paperwork reduction and streamlining, we all believe that is a good goal. I think few of us would argue that the regulations in fact are there for a purpose. While we are achieving our goal for this bill, we want to make sure we do not undercut the purposes of those regulations that are so important. I would also like to clarify a point made by the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose). I understand his preference of the Office of Management and Budget to use the North American Industrial Classification System. However, I want to ensure that he understands the bill has changed. The bill now states that the information should be organized in such a manner that such small business concerns can easily identify requirements by which they are expected to comply. If the North American Industrial Classification System is the easiest, then I think that is obviously the one OMB will select. But we should all know that the NAIC categories are used for census purposes and for compiling statistics. OMB may not find that to be the most significant or most proper way to do that, in which case they will use another way of presenting the information. I thank the chairman for that. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca). (Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, let us be clear about what is going on here. In the space of about 10 minutes, people that supported the Republican Party in the last campaign have gotten them to step forward and do away with rules and regulations that took some 10 years to devise and promulgate. We have had hearing after hearing, study after study, thousands of studies, all of which come to the conclusion that MSD injuries do happen in the workplace and are related to the kinds of repetitive practice that go on there and can be resolved with very reasonable solutions, reasonable efforts between the employer and the employee to resolve these situations. The rule is a very short rule, 9 pages. It is very clear. It is flexible, and if it were not flexible we would hear complaints about how it was too rigid and prescriptive, but it is flexible. The employees and employers can work out solutions to it in the best way possible, and it can happen and should happen for the number of injuries that go on year in and year out. For a few businesses that have this continued practice and refuse to deal with it, they have cast aside millions of workers and their problems. Let me say every time there is a regulation, we hear from industry how it is going to be the ruination of the industry. Back in 1995, the Office of Technology Assessment released a study of six OSHA rules. Every single one of them the industry said would be the ruin of business; but in the end, it turned out that they had overestimated the cost from between 50 to 300 times. In fact, in five out of six of those instances, the OSHA estimates were the correct estimates; or, in fact, they were overestimates. So that they were not as ruinous. In fact, they did resolve things to get people a better, healthier way of conducting their business. This is not a practice that should be condoned. We have a process. This process is being cast aside for purely political reasons in many instances. The fact of the matter is, the process worked. It was started by a Republican Secretary of Labor. The understanding has always been there that these injuries are harmful and can be resolved. It continues on now. As I said, in 10 minutes, they are being cast aside and casting aside millions of people who rely on this government and this process to find ways to make it safer for them to be at work. In the end, it is better for business.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I also thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), as well as their staffs, for including language on an amendment that I submitted on health care to this bill. We have heard for some time now supporters of this bill urging us to believe that we face a bankruptcy fraud epidemic, with an exponentially increasing number of debtors who, but for the fact they are in bankruptcy, otherwise would pay their debts. Instead we find out, as one study says, that some 3.6 percent of chapter 7 debtors would hardly be able to pay any more of their bills if bankruptcy were not an option. That hardly constitutes a bankruptcy fraud epidemic, as advocates of the bill claim. More often, filing for bankruptcy is not a way out for scam artists, but a critical source of relief for common people trapped in unfortunate, and sometimes dire, circumstances. Among the many egregious shortcomings of this particular bill is the absence of a definitive provision to allow the coverage of reasonable medical expenses whether a debtor does or does not have health insurance coverage. Certainly we all share the goal of ensuring that the bankruptcy system is not used as a shield for irresponsible spending decisions. But debt repayment should not preempt reasonable and necessary medical expenses. Currently, H.R. 333 in fact does that. The health language contained in our substitute would allow debtors to cover reasonable medical expenses in the event of bankruptcy. Without this amendment, this protection is not guaranteed. The IRS guidelines that form the basis for the means test in this reform legislation can change from year to year. Right now these guidelines make it possible but do not guarantee allowance of reasonable medical expenses. In fact, three out of four debtors cite serious medical problems or exorbitant health care costs as the reason for their filing for bankruptcy. In 1999, a half million middle-class families were forced into bankruptcy for these reasons alone. It does not make sense to deny people who have the financial wherewithal to pay for these medical expenses, when they should be able to file bankruptcy in the first place and be able to afford vital health care costs. This is a vital component of this bill, Mr. Chairman. Real bankruptcy reform should be about not eliminating opportunity but making sure people can stop having themselves financially devastated particularly because of medical problems.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for this opportunity to say some words about Joe Moakley, John Joseph Moakley, but all of us know him as Joe. He was described the other day by folks from Massachusetts as a lunch-bucket Democrat and politician; and a politician obviously defined in this sense, as a servant of the people. When one is talking about a servant of the people, it is everybody. Joe worked over 50 years and continues to work now for a better quality of life for everyone, rich or poor, and all those in between. He is known for his policy work whether it is housing, whether it is the environment, whether it is employment, El Salvador or Cuba. He happens to make sure that he is happiest when people are working. When they are employed and there are numerous economic development projects going on in his district, he is smiling the most. As he said just the other day, that the favorite bird for him is the crane. When one looks all over his district in Boston, one sees one crane after another. One sees construction projects blooming in the Boston skyline and that means development, it means progress, it means jobs and a better quality of life for all of Joe's constituents. His life is a lasting example of honor. He treats others with respect and dignity; and in turn, he is liked by everyone, as we have heard from Members on both sides of this aisle. He is compassionate, but he is certainly not weak. He is strong, but he is always considerate of others. He has a sense of responsibility that has permeated his being for a long, long time. At the age of 15, as I am sure my colleagues have heard or will hear, he forged his documents and enlisted in the Navy and went into World War II. Today some people would probably say he misrepresented something and try to run him out of government; but for Joe, this was the right thing to do to get in there, be a patriot, and to represent and work on behalf of his country. Tom Oliphant wrote a column about Joe the other day; and in it he said something that was very touching. He said Joe Moakley treats everybody the same. So even if you are a king or President, you get to be treated like his constituent. That says a lot about Joe. It is exactly the way that he has always treated with respect the people whom he represents and whom he considers family. So it is fitting that this courthouse be named after him. It is fitting because that is where he grew up, that is where he played and ran around in the rail yards that used to pass through there, chasing watermelons and other fruit off of the trains as they went by. I am proud and I consider it an honor to join others here today in saying that this courthouse will be appropriately named for Joe Moakley. It represents jobs. It represents progress and development. Most of all, it represents justice and fairness.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in recognizing February as American Heart Month and in commending the 22.5 million volunteers and supporters committed to combating heart disease. Clearly, all citizens should ``Be Prepared for Cardiac Emergencies. Know the signs of cardiac arrest. Call 9-1-1 immediately. Give CPR.'' Paralysis, weakness, decreased sensation, numbness, tingling, decreased vision, slurred speech or the inability to speak, loss of memory and physical coordination, difficulty swallowing, lack of bladder control, mental capacity declines, mood changes, dysfunctional, uncontrollable, and unpredictable movement, shortness or loss of breath, fainting, and fatigue are all signs associated with cardiac arrest. Immediate response to signs of cardiac arrest is imperative as seconds and minutes make the difference between life, the quality of life, and death. Every 29 seconds, someone in America suffers a heart attack, and every 60 seconds someone dies as a result of the same. While we have the luxury of emergency ambulatory responses as a result of 9-1-1, if we act while waiting on trained professionals to arrive, we can make a meaningful difference. For this reason, we should all encourage broader knowledge of CPR. As medical professionals have said, when the heart is under attack, blood is not flowing to parts of the body, such as the brain, that solely rely on it for functioning, and permanent damage to the brain can occur if blood flow is not restored within four minutes. As a result, if life is sustained, the quality of life may be significantly diminished as irreversible harm often takes place. I am hopeful that those who have regular contact with loved ones at risk will be trained in CPR. I applaud the American Heart Association and other organizations nationwide that educate and train all of us to be properly prepared for cardiac arrest by providing education that informs us about the causes and signs of heart disease and the skills necessary to react to these unfortunate episodes when they occur. Also, I thank my colleagues for pausing to recognize these organizations for their ongoing efforts in this vital area.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this. Mr. Speaker, basically, I want to point out in response to some of the comments made by our colleagues on the other side, this attempt to replace current legislation for the Foreign Sales Corporation tax provision really in some instances doubles the benefit that existing companies are now getting, in particular those of the arms manufacturers and exporters. At the very least, we would hope we would have an opportunity to go through committee and deal with this on a matter where we could have some amendments and if not eliminate this Foreign Sales Corporation tax provision, at least put amendments in there that would bring it back to what is now, as there is no basis in fact or any argument for why we are doubling in some instances the benefit the corporations would get. In fact, passage of their particular replacement legislation is going to result in a rejection by the WTO. Everybody knows that in advance. We are going to be in a position where the United States companies are going to be penalized, and it is not going to be the companies necessarily that would be the ones benefitting from this proposed replacement legislation. There is going to be other small businesses, people that depend on financing their business operations and paying their help and their workers, who are going to be penalized when the WTO allows retribution for this. We are going to be exposed to penalties that we ought not to be exposed to. This situation is not even a close call. Mr. Speaker, no one questions whether this is even good tax policy. The General Accounting Office, the Congressional Budget Office, the Congressional Research Service have all argued the foreign sales corporations have a negligible effect on trade. In fact, the Congressional Research Service argues that one of the greatest beneficiaries of this tax preference is foreign consumers who will pay a lower price for products subsidized at our taxpayers' expense. As there exists no evidence that the foreign sales corporations actually improve United States trade or create jobs, this hardly seems to be a judicious use of some $5 billion. Given that this bill was written almost completely behind closed doors, one would hope that it would at least be given a full public debate. Instead, proponents cynically assume that the public will not understand the matter of tax policy; indeed, they count on the public not understanding it, and they permit a measly 40 minutes of debate time. Instead of actually debating the issue and letting the chips fall where they may, Mr. Speaker, they rush to submit something, anything to the WTO as soon as possible, even something they will most certainly reject, and have expedited the legislative process to a point of incoherence. We should vote against this legislation.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, maybe the gentleman can help me understand something. Sunday night, you ostensibly had an agreement, and now the gentleman tells me it is just some legal language. I practiced for about 22 years, most of it in business law, contracts, things of that nature, as well as others. So I guess what the gentleman is telling us is that all night Monday, all day Tuesday, all night Tuesday, and then on Wednesday, the gentleman's lawyers have yet to come up with language that would be acceptable to accomplish the purposes that are wanted, so therefore, we are still here, and we are going on and on. Is that what I understand to be the case?

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

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I cannot let go unanswered the comments of the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) and the chairman about the Department of Education, who, when they had some difficulty in one of their audits, responded more quickly than any other agency I can remember in righting that ship. It is amazing for people that do not want to get partisan, they neglect to note the fact that the Department of Defense financial statements for 1998 were less timely than ever and a record $1.7 trillion of unsupported adjustments were identified by auditors. The same was true roughly in the following year. They do not ask for the Department of Defense to be closed down, but both the Texas platform of the Republican Party and this party on the other side of the aisle is in favor of closing the Department of Education. They should be ashamed of raising an issue like that.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 782, the Older Americans Act Amendments. The reauthorization of the Older Americans Act is five years overdue, and it is time for Congress to show its support for our nation's seniors by passing this important bipartisan legislation. I applaud the efforts of my colleagues in the Senate, particularly Senator Kennedy, for making this bill, which is so important to our nations seniors, a legislative priority. I think we can all agree that renewing our commitment to older Americans is an important legacy for the 106th Congress. The Older Americans Act includes crucial programs such as the elderly nutrition program, which provides 240 million meals to over 3 million older persons each year, as well as the Senior Community Service Employment Program, which provides part time employment opportunities in community service activities to low-income seniors. Both of these programs are instrumental in ensuring that older Americans enjoy their golden years without having to constantly worry about where their next meal will come from. A key addition to the Older Americans Act in H.R. 782 is the National Family Caregiver Support Program. I was very pleased the Committee adopted the amendment I offered to boost the authorizing level of this program to $125 million. This funding level is vital. About 4.4 million people in the United States over the age of 65 require long-term care due to a functional disability. All too often the needs of older Americans and the family members that care for them create an undue burden on the quality of life of the entire family. This legislation would authorize $125 million to establish a new program that would provide grants to states for supporting the crucial role of family members in the care of their loved ones, by, for example, providing respite care and adult care to complement the care provided by family. The National Family Caregiver Support Program is just one of the many initiatives in the Older Americans Act that promises to improve the lives of some of our nation's neediest and most neglected citizens. I urge my colleagues to stand with me in support of this important legislation. We owe it to our nation's seniors.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me the time. This Senate bill that is being proposed here today under the suspension rules falls very far short of the necessary protections that we need. And while some have said that this is a step in the right direction and some have even told us that we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, when is it that this House started letting only the passably good be the enemy of the best that we can do? I agree with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), we can do better and we should do better. And if we need to bring it to committee and allow it to come out under a regular rule so that we can put amendments to it, let us do it. But this bill as it came out of the Senate is too inadequate. It needs to be amended. We need to have inspections. We need to have training for workers so that they can do the right job on that for their own good and for the good of the public. This is a bill that needs sorely to be corrected and to be improved. I ask that we do that in the right process, that we not settle here. There is nothing going to be accomplished by letting this pass in its present form. We can do much better. We can do much for many more people if we do the right thing and bring it back, let us amend it, let us make it a strong bill. Let us have safety in the pipelines.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, if you are paying attention to the House floor at this moment, please listen very closely to what some of my colleagues and I are discussing. Because we are talking about saving children who are being savaged and we desperately need your help. If you can, please stop what you are doing for a second--I know we're all very busy right now, but again this is important. So, please, stop what you are doing and remember for a moment what you felt like when you were a child, especially if you had moments in which you felt very vulnerable in any way. Now, take that feeling, and try to imagine living in a community ripped by the throes of war--your parents are missing, friends, sisters and brothers beaten, broken and battered, if even still alive. And as you imagine this life, now look down at your arms and legs. Imagine an arm or a leg or more mutilated and even severed from your body. Think about that. Can you even bear to imagine it? As hard as it is to believe, there are children today who don't have to imagine this horror because they live it. They see where their arms and legs once were. They know that their family has been destroyed. They are the children of Sierra Leone. And no matter what your politics are, humanity calls us to act. Support funding for peacekeeping now. Support Tony Hall's bill to halt the illegal diamond trade that funds this butchering now. Don't wait. Support ending the horrific suffering of these children now.