John Tierney

Mr. TIERNEY

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

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

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, we could all be here on this bipartisan motion today, this bipartisan bill, and actually pass it on a suspension. I do not see a great deal of controversy about what is going on with the subject matter of this bill. The fact that I would like to hear discussed in a bipartisan way is the motion to recommit. I would ask the gentleman from Ohio why is it we do not hear anybody in a bipartisan way from that side of the aisle talking about the recommittal to have that go into effect and have that be bipartisan? We need disclosure. 527s are, in fact, a blight on our election system. We have heard Members on that side of the aisle talk for a long time about how they want disclosure. The majority whip tells us he wants disclosure. I would hope he would come to the floor and say that he supports this in a bipartisan way. The head of the conference has said that he supports disclosure. He intends to raise a lot of money under 527s. Let us hear him come to the floor and talk about how he wants to be bipartisan on this bill, and then we can pass the subject bill which is virtually a no-brainer with its regressive nature. At this point in time, we are spending an awful lot of time reaching around slapping ourselves on the back. Let us do something really heroic for the American people. Let us do something that really gets to the serious part of business. Let us do something for campaign finance reform and get rid of these 527s.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, a vote for permanent normal trade relations with China gives up favorable United States Trade Agreement enforcement rights, it relinquishes forever any ability to use as leverage our existing periodic review process to, at least, try to effect universally acknowledged violations of human rights, including worker rights, religious intolerance, the spreading of technological and other information for dangerous weaponry, environmental degradation, and a long history of noncompliance with virtually every bilateral agreement negotiated between the United States and China in recent generations. It does so despite the fact that it will have an adverse effect on the jobs of many who are the least prepared to deal with such a loss, and that is mostly because we have failed in advance of expanding ever- open market initiatives, to put in place effective transition assistance and worker training and re-training and health care for those who are unable to afford it through the unexpected job loss. And all of this is done unnecessarily. Contrary to those who misinform us with claims that granting PNTR to China benefits the United States, that is inaccurate. And it is not accurate, as inferred and misstated, that in failing to give PNTR to China, we would give a benefit to the European Union that we would not get in the United States. Legal analysis shows otherwise In fact, if China, in acceding to the WTO, grants market-opening concessions to WTO members other than the United States, then existing bilateral trade agreements between China and the United States require that China grant those same concessions to the United States, even if Congress does not grant PNTR to China. Sound legal analysis of the controlling bilateral trade documents since 1979 show this to be true. Further, the bilateral agreements between China and the United States have far superior mechanisms for enforcing trade agreement violations than has the so far grossly slow and relatively ineffectual WTO Claims process. The need to retain our advantage of enforcement and to forego being constrained only to the WTO process is extremely important given China's history of noncompliance. In fact, it was the United States' ability to use the so-called 301 Sanctions, as allowed in the bilateral agreements between the countries that finally forced China's compliance with the 1992 Trade Agreements on Intellectual Property. There is reason to be concerned that Chinese officials are already backing away from the 1999 U.S.-China Bilateral Agreement, which is the basis for the request for PNTR. Consider just two of several statements by Chinese negotiators and/or authoritative sources: On wheat, where the Administration Summary of the United States-China WTO Agreement, February 15, 2000, says ``China will import all types of U.S. wheat from all regions of the United States to all ports in China . . .,'' China's chief WTO negotiator was quoted in the South China Morning Post on January 7, 2000, as saying: ``It is a complete misunderstanding to expect this grain to enter the country . . . Beijing only conceded a theoretical opportunity for the export of grain.'' The USTR fact sheet states: ``China will allow 49% foreign investment in all services, it will allow 50% foreign ownership for value-added in two years and paging services in three years. In contradiction, AFX- ASIA, November 22, 1999, asserts: ``. . . foreign companies will be allowed to acquire the 25% stakes in operators of local commerce, long distance and international calls, and the maximum permitted foreign stake in telecom operators will be raised to 49% six years after WTO entry, the official in the ministry's [China's Ministry of Information Industry] policy and regulation department said.'' The list goes on and on, but it should be noted that the United States Trade Representative has publicly stated that major differences remain on the ``commitments on a wide range of WTO rules including subsidies, technical standards, a mechanism to review implementation and many other issues.'' This is not an argument over trade or no trade. Despite attempts by some to paint those who would vote ``no'' on PNTR as isolationists, I-- and most other objecting parties--support trade, and support trade with China. We have $80 billion of trade with China now as well as a trade imbalance (in China's favor and not in our interests) of $70 billion per year. No one proposes ending trade with China. What is opposed is the expansion of trade privileges to China without retaining the ability to enforce effective compliance with those trade agreements. Furthermore, there is opposition to surrendering what appears to be a final opportunity to inject into multi-lateral trade agreements protection for workers, for the environment, for human rights and against religious intolerance. It is a chance to retain some leverage against China's long standing conduct of making weapons of mass destruction or related technology and/or information available to nations such as Pakistan and Iran, all very much against our national security. That other countries in the WTO have poor records in some of these areas also, is not sufficient reason to forego the annual opportunity to raise these issues with China. The WTO is itself flawed by the absence of mechanisms to review individual members' compliance with reasonable international standards in these areas. While no one contends that every country must meet the exact standards set by the United States or any other nation, there certainly are recognizable thresholds of conduct (child labor, the right to associate, the right to believe in one's religion) that should and could be negotiated and incorporated in trade agreements. We would be remiss to add a country as large as China, with such an atrocious record, without first seeking to correct deficiencies in the WTO. At the very least, if such a country is to be allowed to join WTO, some review of its conduct in complying with international norms or evidence of improvement in these areas over time, should be required. My colleagues David Obey and Barney Frank have made several good points in recent presentations on the issue. ``As trade between highly developed, high wage countries, and under developed low wage countries has become a larger and larger share of the mix, negative side effects have appeared in high wage countries like ours. A downward pressure on wages because of that expanded trade between very unlike economies has reinforced other economic trends and policy actions, producing an ever widening income gap between those that invest and those that work. A rising tide no longer lifts all boats. In fact, the ability of those with large amounts of capital to pay any price necessary for what they want has, in the global economy and local neighborhood alike, driven some costs far above what can be afforded by those whose boats are anchored to low wages. That has happened with the price of housing. It has happened with the price of education--especially at private institutions. It has happened with the price of medical care.'' ``Downward pressure on wages in economies like our own have been accompanied by greater incentives to minimize environmental costs that go into any product because we are told these products are in competition with products produced in countries with much less concern for either well-paid workers or well-protected environments. This has made it more difficult to protect gains that industrial countries have made in raising workers' living standards or cleaning up the environments in which they live. There is no question that in macro economic terms, totally open trade can produce more goods at lower costs worldwide. And normally that would be a blessing. But when that becomes the only goal, or at times the only result, it carries a high price for those who do not possess large amounts of capital because their wages cease to rise. And the communities they live in come under pressure to allow corporations to do less and less to clean up pollution, all in the name of remaining globally competitive in a world where there are almost no restraints on the movement of the power of capital and ever increasing restraints in the power of everything and everyone else--governments, consumers, and labor.'' No one expects equal income for all people. The need for society to have risk takers who can amass wealth for investment to produce economic growth for everyone is bound to produce inequality. ``But as Pope John Paul once observed, there are certain ``norms of decency'' that must be respected in order to produce economic justice and the social cohesion that is necessary for any economic system to function.'' The last decades have produced just the opposite--the widest gap between the wealthiest one percent of our people and the least wealthy twenty percent--at any time since the birth of the twentieth century. Since new globalized trading realities have helped produce the problem, they must also be part of the effort to fix it. Trade agreements are an appropriate place to address such issues. While Alan Greenspan, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, asserts that we must not allow our ``inability'' to help workers who are being injured to reduce our support for open trade, I believe Barney Frank has it more accurate when he says, ``The problem we face is not inability, but unwillingness to do so.'' It is appropriate to set new trading rules, new sets of power relationships, and wider representation of interest at the negotiating table. Congress should have a commitment, as should society, to greater educational opportunity and training opportunities for workers and children in working class families. It should have a greater commitment to health care for every person regardless of financial circumstances, especially those of families of workers whose corporate employers are being squeezed by the pressures of globalization to shrink the safety net businesses used to provide. In essence, this vote is about doing all the right things before and not after we give away our leverage to obtain them. The real shame of this debate is that few people understand that we can, in effect, retain our leverage to enforce the values in which we believe and continue to trade. A more honest debate with less demagoging and less misinformation--as well as a willingness by those who stand to gain a tremendous amount economically to acknowledge and not dismiss the concerns of others--could have resulted in Congressional action that would have protected all Americans. The American public will not be pleased when analysis shows that Congress has unnecessarily voted to surrender the U.S. capacity to best enforce its interests. It will be all the more unhappy when it hears that Congress did so while also giving away our only leverage to protect fundamental individual rights of autonomy and association, and to safe guard distributive justice and social well being of a sort that cannot be measured by maximization of corporate shareholders returns or aggregate monetary wealth. I ask for a vote against this, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, Topsfield, Massachusetts is observing a year-long celebration of the 350th anniversary of its founding as a town by the General Court of the Commonwealth in 1650. The observance will not only reflect upon the town's proud history, but will look with optimism toward the future. When Governor John Winthrop arrived in Salem harbor in 1630, Masconomet, the sagamore of the Agawam tribe, who lived in the Topsfield area, welcomed him. The regional high school is named for Masconomet, who always lived peacefully with his new neighbors. The early settlers of Topsfield, named after Toppesfield, England, were mostly farmers. But as British encroachment on their liberty through passage of various taxes escalated through the late 1600s and the 1700s, they became more and more concerned about defending against attack. On April 19, 1775, 110 of Topsfield's citizenry in two companies joined with other towns in a march to Lexington and Concord to fight the redcoats at the very beginning of the Revolutionary War. Topsfield citizens have served with distinction in every war since. While the town's character has changed through the years from farming to light manufacture and small business, it has retained its rural character. It is home each autumn to the Topsfield Fair, the Nation's oldest agricultural exposition. Its Ipswich River Wildlife Sanctuary is the largest sanctuary in the Massachusetts Audubon system. A number of famous people have called Topsfield home. The Stanley family of the Stanley Steamer automobile arrived in 1659 and lived in the town until 1778. The ancestors of two leaders of the Mormon Church, Joseph Smith, its founder, and Brigham Young, its second president, were near neighbors in Topsfield. Today, Mr. Speaker, Topsfield stands at the beginning of this new century looking optimistically toward a bright future while celebrating its long and proud heritage. A time capsule is being assembled that will include essays by fourth graders about what life was like in the year 2000, as well as recollections of seniors about the century just past. To those residents of Topsfield in the year 2100, as well as to the town's current citizens, may I add my sincere congratulations and best wishes.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, throughout the history of our Nation, our elected officials have recognized when it is time to set aside specific philosophical differences and act in the best interests of the public with regard to our precious natural resources. Whether we have been inspired by conservationists such as John Muir or led by visionaries such as Theodore Roosevelt, we have always managed to meet the next step in the challenge to protect our land and to ensure that our children can enjoy a clean and healthy environment. And now, another one of those landmark moments is upon us, and I am glad to see that the House is responding with the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 2000. Many of my colleagues have already, and will continue to talk about the provisions in the bill that will benefit generation after generation of Americans. My home State of Massachusetts will receive millions of needed dollars for vital Land and Water Conservation Fund projects as well as urban parks and recreation programs. Upon final action by the Congress on this legislation, we will finally support with a meaningful commitment a significant increase in efforts to restore and protect precious coastal habitats and wetlands. Certain refinements may be necessary as this bill continues through the legislative process, but I am sure we will do that by making sure that the Department of Commerce is included as a participant in the management of the funds. Mr. Chairman, I commend both the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member, for the fine work they have done, and I urge passage.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, every so often we learn of individuals confronted with enormously difficult choices who take the courageous, though difficult, path. The story of Corey Johnson, a constituent of mine from Middleton, Massachusetts, and a student at Masconomet High School, fits that description. Corey is co-captain of the school football team, a good athlete in several sports, and popular among classmates. Although he suspected his homosexuality since grade school, it was this year that he shared the information with family, friends, teammates and strangers--by nature of the publicity attendant to the circumstances surrounding a gay athlete's decision to ``come out.'' Sunday, April 30, 2000, the New York Times front page carried the story of Corey's courage, and the community's reaction--thankfully mostly tolerant and supportive. Because the story is--as the article notes--a hopeful model, I submit the article for the Record. [From the New York Times, Apr. 30, 2000] Icon Recast: Support for a Gay Athlete (By Robert Lipsyte) When Corey Johnson told teammates on the Masconomet High School football team last spring that he was gay, the two other starting linebackers responded characteristically. Big, Steady Dave Merrill, quietly absorbed the almost physical shock, then began worrying if the revelation would divide the team. Merrill said he decide to take it on as a challenge, a test of the captaincy the two shared and a test of his own character. Jim Whelan, the artist, said he looked into Johnson's eyes and saw a need for instant support. He broke the silence by saying, ``More than being teammates we're your friends and we know you're the same person.'' Their reactions were critical in the risky, uncharted, carefully planned campaign to bring out of his increasingly claustrophobic closet an American icon, the hard-hitting football hero. The campaign involved Johnson's parents, teachers, and coaches, as well as a gay educational agency, all encouraged by the administration of a school with a long history of diversity training. One measure of their success will be seen Sunday when Johnson, who turned 18 on Friday and will graduate in June, speaks in Washington at the Millennium March for Equality. For gay activists trying to shatter stereotypes, Johnson is a rare find, a bright, warm quick study who also wrestled and played lacrosse and baseball as he earned three varsity letters on a winning football team. For athletes, whose socialization often includes the use of homophobia by manipulative coached, he is a liberating symbol. ``Someday I want to get beyond being that gay football captain,'' Johnson said, ``but for now I need to get out there and show these machismo athletes who run high schools that you don't have to do drama or be a drum major to be gay. It could be someone who looks just like them.'' At 5 feet 8 inches and 180 pounds, Johnson had to make up for drama-club size with the speed and brutality of his blocking and tackling. ``He hit like a ton of bricks,'' said Whelan, who became his friend in seventh grade because, he recalls, ``he had a strong mind, he liked to think and he was unwilling to accept injustice.'' Others in school, including the girls he refused to date (``It's not fair to use people as pawns,'' he said) were attracted by his friendliness and sly wit. Asked for publication in the yearbook how football captains spent the night before a game, he said, ``I go to sleep early with my Tinky Winky.'' And he indeed has one of those purple Teletubby dolls ``outed'' by the Rev. Jerry Falwell, crammed in a corner of a stereotypically messy room filled with trophies, athletic posters and balled-up T-shirts. ``This is a great kid with a mind of his own,'' said Coach Jim Pugh, who faced down a booster club president who wanted Johnson's captaincy revoked. ``My issues with him were not gay-related. They were about who knows better how you step out on certain defensive plays.'' Johnson said he had suspected his homosexuality since sixth grade but suppressed thinking about it. In the high school's ``elite jock mix'' of heterosexual innuendo and bravado, he came to realize ``this just isn't me.'' His crushes were on other boys. ``In health class a teacher told us that in every large group of friends, one turns out gay,'' he said. ``When I was lonely and depressed and isolated, I kept thinking, `Why does that have to be me?' I wanted to live a quiet normal life.'' In the fall of 1997, in the first game of his varsity career, as a sophomore starting at both right guard and middle linebacker, his blocking was so effective and he made so many sacks that the line coach awarded him the game ball. Yet, he was so afraid that everyone would hate him when his secret was revealed that he was often unable to sleep at night or get out of bed in the morning. He would reach out on the Internet in a teen chat room on a site called Planetout.com finding other gay youngsters, even other gay football players. For years, he has exchanged e- mail messages with a gay right guard in Chicago. Johnson's decision to come out began taking shape during his family's 1998 Super Bowl party in the living room of its rented townhouse in this suburb 25 miles north of Boston. One of the uncles pointed at the comedian Jerry Seinfeld in a television commercial and described him with a gay slur, and said that such ``sick'' people needed to be ``put into institutions.'' Another uncle laughed. Corey's mother, unaware at the time of Johnson's sexual orientation, said she chided her brothers and asked them not to use such language. Johnson said he went into the bathroom and cried. A month later, he told his guidance counselor and biology teacher that he was bisexual. He says he was a virgin at the time. Later, he told his lacrosse coach that he was gay. All three were supportive. They also began to understand his moodiness and mediocre grades. One of His Parents Wasn't Surprised He told no one else during that summer and the football season of his junior year. He joined the school's Gay Straight Alliance, which was made up mostly of straight girls. Since he was known for defending kids being hazed or bullied, no one found this remarkable. In December 1998, the football team voted Johnson and Dave Merrill co-captains. After Christmas vacation, he decided to tell his parents. His father already knew. He had read an exchange between Johnson and a gay e-pal. For months, his father held the secret; he did not want to burden his wife, absorbed in ministering to her dying mother. ``I dropped the ball,'' he said in retrospect. ``What if Corey had done something to himself?'' A burly, 45-year-old, chain-smoking former marine who drives a Pepsi-Cola truck, Rod had helped raise Johnson since the boy was 1. He and Johnson's mother, Ann, who gave birth to Corey when she was single, were married 12 years ago. Johnson never knew his biological father, though he kept his last name. (For reasons of ``privacy and safety,'' Rod and Ann agreed to be interviewed only if their last name was not published. They also have a 10-year-old daughter.) Ann's reaction, according to both of them, was the unreserved love she had always offered, but now it was tinged with fear; if people found out, would they be mean to her son, would they hurt him? That spring, Donna Cameron, a health teacher at the school and a Gay Straight Alliance adviser, took the group to a conference of the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network, a national organization that works with Massachusetts' Safe Schools program. Johnson attended a sports workshop led by Jeff Perrotti, the organization's Northeast coordinator. Perrotti talked about challenging the entitlement of athletes and finding a way for all students to be treated as well. At the end of the session, Johnson raised his hand and said he was a football captain and wanted to come out and needed help. Player's Statement Thought to Be a Joke Perrotti, a 41-year-old openly gay former high school teacher, said he immediately realized what this meant. ``A football captain is an icon,'' he said last week, ``and one coming out would raise the expectations of what was possible, it would give hope.'' Masco, as Masconomet is called up here, is the regional high school of 1,300 students for affluent, predominately white Boxford, Topsfield and Middleton. The phrase ``Only in Masco,'' used by friends and critics, often refers to its liberal commitment to diversity and alternate education. Pugh, the football coach, a warm, steady 50-year-old from Long Island, seems equally at home on the field and in what he calls his ``touchy-feely world'' as a special-education teacher. Perrotti said he consulted with Bob Norton, the Woburn High School principal, who had been a football and hockey coach. Johnson's mother came to school for meetings with the staff and Perrotti. It was decided that Johnson would first tell his junior classmates on the team, on April 8, 1999, more than a year after he had first told some teachers. Three days before the meeting, Cameron, 52, the Gay Straight Alliance adviser, who had been out as a lesbian to friends and family, came out to her students. ``I didn't want Corey to stand alone,'' she said last week. ``I wanted to put a second human face on what for most of the kids was just an abstract when they used gay slurs. As it turned out for both Corey and me, kids found it even easier to talk to us about other problems.'' The day before the meeting, Johnson came out to Pugh. It was fine with him, Pugh said, as long as everyone remembered that the football season was about football and that it would not become a ``media circus'' that would spoil everyone else's experience. That attitude prevailed; a major magazine was turned away last fall, and until now there has been no mainstream national exposure. Ann and Rod were not persuaded about even this controlled coming out. Rod said, ``I felt he was putting a target on his back.'' Ann said: ``We were afraid for him that he would be hurt. But if I said no, then we were acting as if we were ashamed of who he was.'' At the meeting, in Pugh's classroom, Johnson told his teammates that he was gay, that he hoped for their support and not to worry. ``I didn't come on to you last year in the locker room and I'm not going to do it now,'' he said. ``Who says you're good enough anyhow?'' That lightly dropped remark had been scripted in the preliminary meetings. Outside, in the hall, Merrill said players asked him if it was a joke. The news spread quickly through the school. There were several scrawled gay slurs, but no one was going to go bashing the football team. ``It sort of all evolved through the summer lifting program and into the season,'' Merrill said. ``It escalated and then it dropped off. It got to be old news.'' ``At first the team was meek about it,'' Johnson said. ``People didn't talk to me, and when they saw it was still just me they asked all kinds of questions. They wanted intimate details. They thought it would be cool to know more about the subculture. When they heard about a gay bar called the Ramrod, they asked me to get them T-shirts.'' Whelan, visiting his girlfriend at college, met an openly gay ``fun guy,'' who he thought would be perfect for Johnson. He told them about each other and tried to fix up a double date. The most dramatic incidents were football related. Pugh said the president of Masco's active booster club, the father of four past, present and future players, demanded that Johnson be removed as captain for ``unit cohesiveness.'' Pugh told the father that he was the divisive one, and that it was not an issue. The night before a game, the captain of the Lynnfield team made anti-gay remarks in a pep rally speech. His coach benched him. At the game, an opposing lineman shouted gay slurs in Johnson's face. ``I couldn't stop laughing,'' Johnson said. ``Here, I had come out to my teachers, my parents and my team, and this guy thought he could intimidate me?'' Finding a Date For the Senior Prom Johnson and Perrotti like to say that the team bonded through the experience, but other players are not so sure. While Whelan and Merrill attended and spoke at gay-rights conferences, and the team once sang the gay anthem, ``Y.M.C.A.,'' after Johnson had a particularly good game, there was an element of distraction. Merrill said ``some kids were nervous and had to be talked to.'' Masco dropped from 10-1 in 1998 to 7-4, but Pugh attributes that to the loss of last season's quarterback and star running back. Some problems never did materialize. When younger players complained to Merrill about having to shower with a gay teammate, he would growl, as he would to most complaints, ``You're a football player, just suck it up.'' But then, Masco football players have traditionally never showered at school. Although Johnson's parents and many of his teachers and coaches think he should go to college in the fall, he said he has decided to ``become an activist'' for a year and to intern in the network's San Francisco office. Merrill is going to the University of New Hampshire, without a football scholarship but confident that he will walk on the team. ``I'll know now I'll be able to make it in the real world,'' he said. ``I handled it. I was mature. We were a unit.'' Whelan is going to the Rhode Island School of Design in the fall. That ``fun guy'' he spotted finally met Johnson, at a gay conference. Whelan was right. They liked each other. The fun guy, Michael, became Johnson's first boyfriend, and next month Johnson will take him as his date to the Masconomet senior prom. The season isn't over yet.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) for yielding the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this particular procedural method to try and rush this matter to the floor, and I take a bit of issue with the chairman of the Committee on Rules who stated that there was a need to bring this matter to the floor today because otherwise we would not be able to get to it with our absolutely busy schedule here in the House. For those of us that have languished these last few days as we were waiting around for any of the business of the House to come forward, we know that that is a little bit of an overstatement. In fact, it is a gross overstatement. The majority has set so much time for Members to be back in their districts. We might as well try to move the Capitol elsewhere to catch up with where the Members are in accordance with the schedule. The fact of the matter is that what they are asking the Members to do here is to set aside their right under the rules to have time to scrutinize the bill so we can deliberate it. It might have gone up on the Internet at 10:00 this morning; but if all people needed was two hours before we debated a bill and deliberated it, then that is what our rules would call for. But our rules call for these matters to sit for a day so people can have time to look through these bills. Regardless of what the Members on both sides of the aisle have said, some agree and some disagree with what they think may be in this bill. That is exactly the point. People need time to scrutinize the bill to see what might have been slipped in from time to time. We understand that there was language on AIDS medical relief in here that may have been taken out, put back in with some changes, taken out again. People need to know this and debate this important issue through its final resolution. We need to talk about whether or not the child labor language stays in the bill or is taken out and what the content of it is if, in fact, it is in. We need to know so much more. When we are talking essentially of increasing NAFTA to 65 more countries, we need to know what about labor protections, what about the environment; and in fact, there are any number of labor groups and environmental groups who wish that there were issues to be brought up and debated, and people should have the time to look at this bill and be able to do just that. The last speaker mentioned the fact of how favorable this bill was and the fact that we had debated this bill previous times and voted upon it and passed it twice. That is only part of the bill. In the course of last evening, also put into this bill was the Caribbean Basin Initiative, and that, in fact, was never passed by this House; that was defeated by this House by almost a \2/3\ margin, because it was, in fact, an extension of NAFTA without any protections for labor and environmental concerns, in fact, without any language even in side agreements that would do that. Mr. Speaker, I just suggest that these rules that we have here in the House to allow people 24 hours to look at these matters are there for a reason, and that there was no countervailing reason why we should set aside that rule and set aside the opportunity of Members to have the deliberative time, the time to scrutinize these provisions, so that we can all be certain that when it finally does come for debate, each and every important matter and aspect is talked about, is reviewed and has the sunlight of daytime shining on it, so when people finally come to a vote, we can talk about all the issues that are important: The number of jobs that may be lost, the number of special favors being done for some people who are going to be very wealthy off of this bill, and all of those points are important, important enough for us not to rush this through prematurely or unnecessarily.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to commemorate one of the most tragic events in the 20th century and that is, of course, the Armenian Genocide of 1915 to 1923. It ranks amongst the most tragic episodes. It was the first but unfortunately not the last of the incidents of ethnic genocide that the world experienced during the last century. More than one and a half million innocent Armenians had their lives ended mercilessly. It is staggering to even contemplate the idea of one and a half million people having their lives ended so arbitrarily, but we must remember the victims of this genocide as they were, not numbers but mothers and fathers and sons and daughters, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins and, of course, friends. Each and every victim had hopes, dreams, and a life that deserved to be lived to the fullest. It is our duty to remember them today and every day. As we stand here today at the beginning of a new century and a new millennium, we should take a moment to speak about the need that that tragic event serves as a constant reminder for us to be on guard against the repression of any people, particularly any oppression based on their race or their religion. Unfortunately, during the genocide, the world turned a blind eye to the horrors that were inflicted. Too often during the last century the world stood silent while whole races and religions were attacked and nearly annihilated. As the saying goes, those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. We must never forget the important lessons of the Armenian Genocide. As a member, Mr. Speaker, of the Congressional Armenian Caucus, I join many others in the House of Representatives working hopefully to bring peace and stability to Armenia and its neighboring countries. Division and hatred can only lead to more division and hatred, as has too often been proved. Hopefully the work of the caucus and of others committed to the same cause will help ensure that an atrocity such as the genocide will never happen again in Armenia or elsewhere. While I might not be Armenian, Mr. Speaker, my wife is and many, many of our friends, which causes me, of course, to say ``yes odar empaytz seerdus high e.'' I am not Armenian but my heart is, and we all should have our heart with them on this particular occasion.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) for bringing this to our attention here today and also the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for his efforts to make sure that this House would spend ample amount of time debating all the particulars of the path in which we seem to be headed. This is, in fact, a situation where we are taking the wrong action and taking it with too little thought. What is before us would improve the bill and strike an appropriate balance between the supply and demand aspects of the problem that confronts us. The bill, as currently constructed, strikes us with a false assertion. It asserts that the United States involvement in this 40-year-old conflict would somehow correct the situation and stop drug dealing and drug use in this country. That somehow getting involved by training armed forces and providing helicopters is going to stop or reduce consumption in this country. It tries to leave with us the impression that this has been well thought out and debated, but that is absolutely questionable when we think that General McCaffrey came before the subcommittee on which I sit and left with us the clear impression that there is much work to be done here. He acknowledged that it will take years to deploy the proposed helicopters out there to train the troops for the proposed task. He tells us that there are currently insufficiently trained and insufficient numbers of pilots to even get into those helicopters. They do not have the hangars to house those helicopters. And that we should know that some 5 years out we definitely will still be involved in this enterprise in a best situation. The fact of the matter is we have to know that there are already 300,000 people that have been displaced in Colombia. If we go in on the current path, we are likely to see scores of thousands of others being displaced, and we are not taking proper precautions to resolve the situation that those people will find themselves in. Yes, Mr. Chairman, things have gotten better in Bolivia and Peru; but things have gotten worse in Colombia as a result of that. And the action that we are embarking on today simply forces people in Colombia to grow these crops somewhere else, most likely Ecuador, maybe Panama or Mexico or somewhere beyond there. And we are not talking about what we might do to stop that from happening. The statement of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) is one of the reasons that people on this side are very concerned about where we are going here. He talks about if things do not resolve quickly there, then we will need more United States troops. This is Nicaragua all over again. We do not seem to learn from our past mistakes. We should take the time to debate all the ramifications of this proposal and talk about it in depth and see if we cannot find a more balanced way to attack this problem. Mr. Chairman, wealthier Colombians are leaving that country in droves. Apparently, they are more than willing to fight to the last drop of American blood. We can be helpful in this situation and we should, Mr. Chairman. We can support President Pastrana by providing resources to build infrastructure so crops can get to market profitably, to build confidence of the people there in the government by helping him to strike an even-handed effort against paramilitary as well as guerrilla forces, to build a court system to the point that it is effective, fair, and respected, to build schools and roads and community support, to build a competent, efficient respected police force and a military that does not favor the paramilitaries or ignore paramilitary atrocities. Mr. Chairman, we can be balanced in our efforts. We can increase efforts for prevention and treatment here at home. And the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) is exactly right in that regard. We do not have anywhere near the proper attention being spent on treatment and prevention in this country. It does bear repeating the fact that we have way too many people in our jails with alcohol and drug abuse problems and a problem that they cannot get a job when they are out, even if they do deal with drugs and alcohol, because we are not spending enough of our attention on making sure that they are educated and trained and capable of returning as productive citizens. We do not start putting money in early enough for early childhood programs and Head Start and after-school programs, for community building and community programs to make sure that every one of our children has the ability to be productive and be happy citizens with hope. And we certainly are not providing enough attention and enough resources to make sure that those that are addicted, that have a drug or alcohol problem, get the kind of treatment that they need. That is what this debate is about, Mr. Chairman, and I am so glad that the gentlewoman from California brought that up and the gentleman from Wisconsin made it clear that we are not spending the time that we need to debate all of these issues and the ramifications that will come from them.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in honor of the 179th anniversary of Greek independence. As a member of the Congressional Caucus on Hellenic Issues, I join my colleagues in paying tribute to the Greek nation and its people. Over the last year, Greece has continued to be an active and important member of the international community. During the devastating earthquakes that ravaged Turkey last year, Greece reached out its hand to help its neighbor. This act of kindness was inspiring to us all, proving that it is possible to set aside differences in times of need. We should not be surprised, though, by Greece's actions. As a member of NATO and the European Union, Greece has continually shown its commitment to international peace and security. The United States and Greece share a common philosophy that promotes democracy. Of course, it was Greece that paved the way for the great experiment which became the United States of America. Every American who enjoys freedom and democracy owes the Greek people a debt of gratitude for inspiring our founding fathers. On behalf of the people of the Sixth Congressional district of Massachusetts and myself, I wish to extend congratulations to the people of Greece on this happy occasion. I am honored to have been selected to be one of two Grand Marshals in this year's Independence Day parade in Boston and know the day will be enjoyed by many. I look forward to many more years of happy and productive relations between the United States and Greece.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me time to speak in opposition to this rule. Mr. Speaker, this rule is restrictive. Although there are claims that it is allowing all debate on all points of view, it, in fact, does not do that. I spent a considerable amount of time with my staff putting together a substitute amendment that certainly would have allowed this debate to be expanded out to talk about tax fairness and the kind of investments we need to keep our economic growth and to keep families secure in this country. I think it was a point of view that deserved to be debated, deliberated and voted upon. We ought not to have just a debate about whether we are going to have incredibly huge tax cuts that favor only a small segment of already wealthy individuals and corporations, or a situation where people talk about taxing some more. We have within this trillions of dollars of budget a huge amount of unnecessary and unwarranted advantages that are given to special interests. If we were to recapture those, we can do the two things that we need to do in this country, invest in our economic growth, in education and job training, in health care and retirement security, and research and development, in infrastructure, and, at the same time, have the kind of fairness we need. Mr. Speaker, we need to have this process go back to the drawing board and come out again.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, today we have heard all stories from our constituents who have to choose between medication and food or rent. We all know that by paying higher prices than individuals anywhere else in the world, Americans are subsidizing the drugs that benefit others. We know that private prescription drug expenditures have been growing at a rate of 17 percent a year. We do not deny the drug manufacturers, who enjoy the highest profits of any industry profits of any industry, engage in important, sometimes life-saving research that should be encouraged. But the burden should not be on the elderly and those least able to afford it. Let us clear up one misconception now: H.R. 664 does not mandate price controls, but uses market forces such as volume buying. The United States makes large public commitments to drug research already, through taxes and the National Institutes of Health research money. While companies in the United States generally face an effective taxation rate of about 27 percent, drug companies, through generous tax credits and benefits, were effectively taxed at roughly 16 percent. Financial encouragement of research should not be eliminated and would not be under the legislation we seek to bring to the floor. During the 1984 Waxman-Hatch Act effort and the 1990 Medicaid debate, drug companies complained they would have to cut research, yet they subsequently contradicted themselves by expanding it instead. We merely seek to strike some balance. With the many public benefits received by the drug companies also comes some social responsibility.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear our colleagues on the other side of the aisle tell us that they want to keep government quiet and not do any business. One Member, in fact, was quoted as saying that this last session was a ``legislative respite.'' In fact, there is unfinished business; and the American people do want Congress to attend to that business, not the least of which would be prescription drug relief. Anybody that goes back to their district and talks to anyone, particularly seniors, understands that this Congress has been derelict in its duty to not address the high cost and lack of accessibility and affordability for prescription drugs, particularly to seniors. Mr. Speaker, we have the Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act that has not seen any action by this House, which some estimate would save 40 percent on the cost of prescription drugs. We have a health care delivery system that is in need of attention. The American people would be the first to step forward and say this is a role for government to come in and provide some focus and some attention and some direction. HMOs are in trouble. Hospitals are having difficulty making ends meet. They are closing down, leaving some patients in the position of having to drive miles and miles just to get emergency care and other relief. We have the Patients' Bill of Rights that passed this House and now is languishing somewhere in the netherland. Mr. Speaker, we need some unfinished business to be attended to.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Chairman, I also want to add my congratulations to the chairman and to the ranking members for their good work in putting together a bill that moves us forward on the work that was begun in 1994, the idea of having a bill that gives all students the best chance to have the kind of education that we want our children to have. This bill focuses on accountability. It allows us to determine the academic progress based on disaggregated information so that we can assure that every student, majority and minority, whether they are rich or they are poor, are getting the kind of improvement and the kind of success that we want them to have in our public educational system. The bill allows for reporting to parents so that they know that the teachers are qualified and that their children are getting the kind of attention that they want, and they get to measure the performance of their schools so they can make decisions about where they send their children. This would allow us for the first time to define and require fully qualified teachers; and when put together with other legislation this committee has passed this year, it allows us to make sure that we give teachers the kind of support they need to be the very best. We are providing for mentoring; we are providing for good professional development, and that moves the whole system across because the most important thing, of course, is a qualified teacher in every classroom. We need to know that this bill also authorizes, it brings from a demonstration program to a fully authorized program the comprehensive school reform that allows schools to get sufficient moneys, to look out and see what programs are research based, proven effective, for that school to implement for a curriculum with standards that can be measured that brings in the parents, brings in volunteers, and brings in the kind of work that we need in our schools and gives them the flexibility of putting together a program to lift that entire school from literacy right through to every other subject and focus where they know that school needs the most attention. This is a bill that is worth supporting but still needs some attention, and we hope that before we wrap this up we will look at passing the bill of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah). I am going to join the gentleman from Pennsylvania in an amendment that will make sure that all of the services the children get are comparable, that they have equal access to quality teachers, curriculum, and learning resources. With those things done, Madam Chairman, it is a good bill, and we would urge support.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, the American public is not going to be fooled by clever tactics. This has been a long-standing process with the Patients' Bill of Rights, and the American public is aware of that. In the 105th session we talked about coming forward with a meaningful Patients' Bill of Rights, and that was put off by people who were carrying water for the special interests and the insurance groups. We fought all the way through that. We found a way to build a coalition with Republicans and Democrats that were bold enough and strong enough to step forward and give real patients' rights, talking about the idea that insurance companies would be no longer the ones to determine what is medically necessary just on the basis of cost; but we would take this out of that venue and leave it to doctors and patients to decide the issue of medical necessity. This Patients' Bill of Rights will allow people to determine if they need to go to a specialist and get that care. We have right after right in there that, finally, we have enough Republicans and almost all the Democrats on it that it will pass. And it is at that point in time that the leadership of the majority decides that they now have to get clever. It is not enough to try to fight it on its merits. It is not enough to try to fight it on a fair rule. It is not enough to bring it forward for a straight up or down vote. Because they know now the political pressure in this country demands Patients' Bill of Rights in the form of Norwood-Dingell. They refuse to do it. They are being clever. The American public will certainly not be fooled by that.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, in 1994 the insured population was swelling while the cost of health care was rising higher and higher, even higher than the rate of inflation. We were paying more and getting less, but we backed off and walked away from health care reform because we were told there really was no health care crisis. Yet, when we look at the picture now, things have only gotten worse. The Census Bureau tells us that the number of uninsured continues to rise. Health care costs are still escalating, and the Federal employees' health benefit premiums are going to 9 percent this year. The managed care organizations who were supposed to solve the problem of cost have not only failed to do so, but have added new problems of their own. The system is still in need of major reform that would make health care universal and that would eliminate the inhumaneness of our current system, which leaves millions without coverage. But in the meantime, even our imperfect system has things that can be improved. Managed care should not be allowed to run rampant over patients by denying emergency care arbitrarily, by interfering with doctors' professional clinical judgments, and by injuring patients who have no legal redress. Only the Norwood-Dingell bill allows access to lifesaving clinical trials and prescription drugs outside the plan-defined formulary. Only the Norwood-Dingell bill has whistle-blower protections for doctors and nurses who advocate for patients. Only the Norwood-Dingell prohibits plans from giving financial rewards to health care professionals when they limit care. Only this bill will hold plans accountable through strong external review processes, backed by a nonwaivable right to sue in court, as people should have. When we buy health coverage, what we really are purchasing is peace of mind and the security that we will be taken care of in the event that something unforeseen occurs. Without some way of holding plans accountable to what they have promised, we can never be certain that our care will not be denied. We have to support the Norwood-Dingell bill.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, it appears that our Republican colleagues, the Republican Party leadership, have a real dilemma on their hands. After forcing through Congress a budget resolution that we already knew was simply unrealistic and that in order to implement it it would require disastrous reductions in programs for the needy and others, they are desperate to find some additional funds to finish the appropriations process so they can limp out of town. Well, what to do when one needs to come up with a quick eight or nine billion dollars? According to the Republican leadership, the plan goes like this: Their plan is to find the money and pass the appropriations bills by delaying payment of the earned income tax credit to 20 million low- and moderate-income working American families. That is right. They want to delay payment of the earned income tax credit to 20 million low- and moderate-income working Americans. That means that the only Americans who would bear the burden of delaying the tax refunds are those whose earnings permit them a refund so they can afford to commute to work, for their jobs to keep clothes on the children and to feed their families. Is there anyone who really believes that the most intelligent way to raise money to cover the shortfalls called for in the failed Republican budget is to make more money from low- to moderate-income taxpayers? I truly hope not.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, this particular amendment is going to request that the director conduct and provide scientific and technical support for the private and public efforts to conduct studies of the organization, delivery and financing of health services in order to determine the cost and quality effects of various methods of substantially increasing the number of individuals in the United States who have access to health services. Mr. Chairman, those studies should include a study to determine the impact of a single-payer insurance coverage program on health expenditures in this country during the fiscal years 2000 to 2007 compared to the projected impact of the current system on health expenditures in the United States during that period. Mr. Chairman, simply put, I bring this amendment forward for the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), as well as myself. What we seek to do is to make more explicit one of the duties that the agency is already charged with, and that is the duty to study ways of increasing access to health services. We have a situation in this country where there are estimates of 43 million Americans without health insurance coverage. Of those numbers, 11 million are said to be children. The balance of those people are adults, the majority of whom are working adults. This is simply a situation that is intolerable, Mr. Chairman, and it is about time that we started to look at the reasons why that is so and what we can do about changing that dynamic and making sure that all Americans have access to affordable health care. As a former small business president of the Chamber of Commerce and someone who deals often with small businesses, I can tell my colleagues that there has been a change of mind amongst many people in the small business industry. They, at one time, were listening to the larger national organizations and international organizations about how terrible it would be if we had universal health care. Now they are seeing the alternative of what happens under the current system. They see the number of people that are uncovered, and they realize that the premiums they are paying to cover their employees and their own families are increased by virtue of the fact that those premiums are also covering the 43 million Americans who have no coverage. That has to be paid for somewhere. Those people do get health care. They unfortunately get it when it is later on in their situation, when the situation is more critical, when treatment is more expensive, and now we need to know why that is so. Now we need to know why we cannot cover everybody. I think it has come around to providers, whether they be doctors or nurses or others. It has come around to hospitals, to CEOs who I have talked to, as well as business people and consumer groups. We need to look at a more effective health care system in this country. It is more than enough to say that we have a problem. It is time to do something. And when we talk about some of the immediate solutions, and my colleagues have heard as well as I have that we need to put more money back into community hospitals, particularly teaching hospitals because of the cuts in the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, and that is so. The estimates were that we were going to cut $112 billion and that we were then going to be able to take care of fraud and abuse and get preventive services, and that was going to help it be more affordable. The fact of the matter is, that estimate was overshot. Some $200 billion is estimated to have been squeezed, and those hospitals and home care providers and others do need some money to be put back in. But to just put money back in would be a temporary fix. The system is broken. It is not working. We are not covering everybody. And if we do not cover everybody, we cannot control the cost and cannot make sure that we provide good quality services to everyone. What this bill will do, Mr. Chairman, is to get this agency to do a study and to compare it to what we have now. What will improve the cost situation. More importantly, what will improve the accessibility and the affordability issues. Now, among those things we asked to be studied is the single-payer system. That is one option. In no way does my amendment say that that is all we should study or that we should predetermine that is exactly where we have to go. It is a proposal that I think has considerable merit. The Massachusetts Medical Association had two independent studies done, and not to the surprise of many, it came back saying the single-payer system would have been a better system if applied in Massachusetts over the next 8 years. It would save money, it would cover more people in that State, it would provide them better services. We should find out if that is so for all the States in this country. We should find out if we should have a single-payer system or some other form of universal health care. We should balance and measure those systems against each other and how they will do. And then we should measure it against the current system to find out what would be best. Modification to Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Tierney

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is rather brief. What it does is it seeks to have this following subparagraph, ``the conduct of research on methods to reduce the costs to consumers of obtaining prescription drugs,'' be included in this bill. Mr. Chairman, prescription drugs can improve health care, and it can save lives. But these benefits cannot be realized unless patients can afford their medications. H.R. 2506 already requires research on ways that new and appropriate uses of drugs can improve health quality and costs. Our amendment would simply add support for research on ways of promoting prescription drug affordability as well. Pharmaceutical manufacturers may argue that reducing prescription drug costs to consumers will reduce the profit incentive that drives researchers to develop new drugs. But, Mr. Chairman, that is a myth. Currently, the drug companies enjoy such large profits that they have ample room to cut costs without sacrificing research. The largest pharmaceutical manufacturers spend less on research and development than they make in pure profit; and the size of that profit is, indeed, substantial. The drug industry is three times more profitable than the average profitability of all other Fortune 500 industries. Moreover, if individual U.S. purchasers paid less, the drug manufacturers would likely continue to maintain their high-profit levels. They would simply make up for the decreased revenue by spreading costs, for instance, to other countries that now consistently pay far lower prices for their prescription drugs than do citizens in this country. Currently, many Americans find prescription drugs unaffordable, particularly our seniors. A recent Standard and Poor's report on the pharmaceutical industry tells us that drugmakers have historically raised prices to private consumers to compensate for the discounts they grant to managed-care customers. Seniors in my district, Mr. Chairman, and in my colleagues' are victims of this price discrimination. When we studied this issue in my district, we found that seniors were being forced to pay, on average, more than twice as much as the large insurance companies' clients. Other countries are also benefiting from discounts. Other countries are benefiting from discounts far more than our country. A drug that would cost $100 in the United States costs only $76 in Canada, $67 in Britain, $47 in Sweden, and $32 in Australia. There certainly is room for equalizing prices. Let me add the human dimension to what we are talking about, Mr. Chairman. One of my constituents, Louise Duda of Newburyport, Massachusetts, recently had a letter published in the local newspaper, the Daily News of Newburyport. It was a tragically familiar tale, one that I am sure many of my colleagues can already account in their districts. Mrs. Duda begins her letter by saying: ``I am sitting at my desk, with an involuntary flow of tears streaming down my cheeks. My husband sits close by, silently. I am angry, distraught, and feeling extremely defenseless. Why is our Government heartless toward the most vulnerable segment of our society?'' The letter goes on in which Mrs. Duda says: ``My husband just returned from the drugstore. When I read the receipt, I felt a sense of panic and my eyes welled up. $250? This has to be a mistake. No, it is $250. But how can that be? We just paid $400 2 weeks ago. We can't keep doing this. Our income tax return bailed us out the last time. Now what? I took a quick mental inventory of our financial status. Our one credit card is maxed. Our bankruptcy prevents us from obtaining a loan. We are living paycheck to paycheck. We have overdraft, but when that's exhausted, what do we do?'' She has no aces. She has no hope, just a prayer. Mr. Chairman, I urge our colleagues to vote on this amendment to find an answer to Louise Duda's question about what we do about lowering the cost of prescription drugs in this country. I ask that Members help support the prescription drug affordability by supporting this common sense amendment.

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

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, amendment No. 11.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, some people are concerned about the language because they thought my amendment was simply saying that we would study only single-payer, but, in fact, we have looked at some language and I am more than happy to ask for unanimous consent that my amendment be modified in accordance with the modification that has been sent to the desk which says that the study shall include an examination of the financial impacts of a range of health care reform proposals to include, but not be limited to, a single-payer insurance program compared to the current system across an 8-year period beginning in fiscal year 2000.

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

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for that courtesy. I simply wanted to reiterate the point that we must study all the available reforms on that, and this, of course, is one important one.