John Tierney

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully depart from some of my colleagues here who think that this rule is a fair rule. I suggest that this rule is, in effect, a somewhat hidden attempt to kill the only campaign finance reform proposal that probably has a chance of passing this year. We know that because last year when it was presented, it passed by 252 votes to 179. It had 61 Republicans on it. It was, in fact, a bipartisan effort. This year, instead of showing a willingness to either take a stand and be counted on the issue of banning unregulated soft money donations to parties, of regulating phony issue ads on television, and imposing new fund-raising disclosure rules, some are trying to use the rules, I believe, to obfuscate the issue, take 10 swipes either killing it with a poison pill or killing it by substituting suggestions that are unpalatable to most of the Members of this Congress. In fact, the New York Times, in an editorial on September 13, I think, justifiably called these junkyard tactics of 1998. It is essentially the same tactics that we saw last year. This rule, in a good world, would be defeated; but apparently it is going to pass because people fear that without this rule we will have no chance at campaign finance reform at all. We should have that chance. We should vote for Shays-Meehan without all the other shenanigans.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for yielding me the time, and I congratulate him on once again having the tenacity to stay with the Shays-Meehan bill and bring it back to this House. With all due respect, I suggest that the proposal by our colleague from California is a step backwards, certainly not a step forward. I would say that we should support the Shays-Meehan bill and note that that is in fact only a partial reform. The bill that I propose pending before this body and some day, hopefully, we will get it as part of a rule and be able to debate it is the clean money, clean elections bill and in fact calls for public financing of campaigns. I understand all of the arguments that the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) has made and just suggested. There is nobody that I hear in the district, no average citizen, that thinks that it is going to be easier on elections if in fact they can raise money or thinks that people are going to stop raising money at some point in time. In fact, if we raise the limits, they are going to spend more, raise more, have more TV ads and go on. The clean money, clean elections bill will in fact be the one process by which we can lower the cost of campaigns. It requires broadcasters to give time for campaign ads at low or reduced cost, because in fact we have given them a public value, we have given them the spectrum, and they ought to in return give some public benefit back on that and that would reduce the cost of campaigns by some 40 or 50 percent. The clean money, clean elections bill would limit the amounts of money spent. It would make campaign season shorter by virtue of the distribution schedule. It would make the money chase end. People would not have to spend virtually all their time raising money. And, in fact, it would allow people that are not personally wealthy and do not know people with $50,000 or $75,000 or $3,000 able to run for office and have a reasonable prospect of campaigning and winning. It is, in fact, the kind of campaign reform that most of America wants. State after State are passing referenda and certifying that they want to have a campaign system where they get their elective process back in their hands. They have heard all the arguments. All of those referenda has been put to them in a way of, ``Do you want public money buying bumper stickers for candidates?'' The resounding answer is ``Yes, rather than special interests paying that money, we want to have our election process back.'' Let us pass Shays-Meehan and get beyond that someday to real campaign finance reform.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the soon-to-be chairman of the Committee on Rules for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I recommend a ``no'' vote on this rule and, obviously, object to the entire Republican risky bill. It is risky because the Republicans who are putting forth this program are endangering our families, our businesses, and our seniors. This scenario that they are going to have $3 trillion in 10 years is by no means assured by anyone. Two-thirds of that is entirely Social Security monies that should go to protect Social Security. Nothing in the Republican plan extends Social Security for even one day. Nothing in their plan even addresses Medicare's needs, in particular, prescription drug needs. The only way they would get the other third to be able to put for any tax breaks at all is if they design to cut education, cut veterans' needs, cut research and development, cut a myriad of other programs that Americans depend on every day. That is the only way they get the kind of surplus they are talking about. And already they have shown that they have no intention of doing that. It is going to be the Ronald Reagan plan again, borrow and spend, borrow and spend until we have trillions of dollars in debt to pay off. And after they have put all of this at risk, who are they putting it at risk for? The wealthy. One of the gentlemen from the other side said that we object to certain tax breaks and listed off things that he did not find objectionable if they are put in at the right time and if they are in fact the tax breaks that people are getting. What we object to is the $80 billion of corporate welfare, including by now the well-known chicken manure credit, but also breaks for three- martini lunches. As the Washington Post said, the details in this tax ban highlight the Republican predilection for constant breaks for multinational corporations, real estate ventures, and other special interests. They spend nearly a tenth of their breaks to favorite corporate America. $24 billion over 10 years would benefit multinational corporations. It is a break for foreign oil and gas income that would cost the Treasury more than $4 billion. This is in fact a plan, as the President rightly said, that is risky and plainly wrong. Even Mr. Greenspan says that this is not appropriate in timing and in substance on this particular deal. They are going to raise interest rates over the roof. The American businesses and families, when they pay their mortgages, are going to suffer.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Kucinich/ Ros-Lehtinen amendment. We have a strong and proud tradition in this country of respecting local decisionmaking, particularly when it furthers broad public interests. And those public interests include clean air and water, consumer protections and workers' rights. A good number of us in this chamber have expressed our concerns about NAFTA because of provisions in that treaty that pose a threat to our national interests in safeguarding our environment and upholding workers' rights. In one instance, a Canadian chemical firm is challenging a California law crafted to protect that state's drinking water. If the company prevails, an important environmental protection would be overturned and U.S. taxpayers would have to foot the bill for any damages awarded. A similar scenario could also unfold through the World Trade Organization, where a foreign corporation or government can take issue with a local or state law in the United States. A favorable ruling from the WTO would compel the U.S. government to use its resources to overturn the offending local statute. The Kucinich/Ros-Lehtinen amendment would stop the federal government from taking such action, and protect the rights of state and local governments. As the pace of economic globalization heightens, we should be very wary of sacrificing state and local laws at the altar of ill-defined international investor rights. Free trade should mean fair trade, and fair trade should not trammel the power of state and local governments to act in the public interest. I urge adoption of the Kucinich/Ros-Lehtinen amendment.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, what we are talking about here is whether or not OSHA should be allowed to go forward with the rules they have established. Proponents of this bill say no, kill it, delay it, do whatever you can, but do not implement it. They use the same excuse or tactic that they have used before, simply to propose yet another study. The irony here is that the delay would be for 24 months, 2 years. The irony in particular is that the proposed study would merely review existing literature. Even more ironic is the study that they seek to be done, they seek it by the National Academy of Sciences, a group whose studies they rejected when it came time for the Census, because this particular group said the Census should be done with statistical sampling. Our friends on the other side did not like it then, but now, because they want a delay, they do not want to see the standards go into effect, they cannot wait to put this off and have the National Academy of Sciences do yet another study. The harm is not just to working men and women, although that harm is severe. The harm is also to businesses. We do not hear that from the other side, but $15 billion to $20 billion a year is going to be spent on workers compensation costs because of workers' injuries. My small businesses want to know that they can rely on reasonable regulations to help them stop that kind of expenditures. Up to $60 billion is spent every year on these kinds of injuries. The harm to workers, Mr. Chairman, each year more than 600,000 American workers suffer work-related musculoskeletal disorders. No one champions excessive regulation, but no one can seriously argue that there should be a total absence of oversight, or that that is appropriate. If it is the government's appropriate function to strike a balance for business, for workers, and for consumers, it is especially so, Mr. Chairman, in this particular instance, when good regulation can save business money, can enhance efficiency, as well as save individuals from painful and debilitating injuries. Mr. Chairman, the standards in this particular instance are limited in scope. They are based on science. There have been, in fact, some 2,000 studies done, and they have been reviewed and reviewed again by peer groups and scientists from all walks. These proposals provide flexibility for each employer to tailor the program to their particular workplace. It covers manufacturing and manual handling operations, which account for about 60 percent of these types of injuries. Mr. Chairman, the science shows that this is warranted. There is no need to delay it again for yet another study when that in fact has been done. Workers say they need it, and businesses clearly say they see the merits and need these standards. Mr. Chairman, we have to just listen to what some of these businesses say. 3M said they estimate that because of these efforts since 1993, over 1,000 employees did not develop work-related musculoskeletal disorders, and it resulted in approximately 16,000 fewer lost work days. 3M's experience is that implementing an ergonomics program is effective for reducing the number of work-related musculoskeletal disorders, and additionally, is good business, Mr. Chairman. Peter Meyer, the human resources director for Sequins International Quality in New York, Mr. Chairman, agrees, as does the General Accounting Office, this is good for business, as well as good for workers.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Earlier, one of our colleagues said this was ready, fire, aim. I think what we really have here is ready, aim, delay, delay some more, delay forever, if we can. They talked about this being an effort not to prohibit, but it is in fact an effort to delay this for up to 2 years. They talked about wanting to make sure they have all the studies before there are some sweeping regulations. The irony is that their proposed study would merely review existing information in literature. This is the same group standing up saying delay, we want to await the National Academy of Sciences report that rejected the National Academy of Sciences report saying that there should be statistical sampling in the census. They threw that out. But now, because it is to their benefit to wait and delay, they want to wait for the National Academy of Sciences report. There are reports out there, Mr. Chairman. Let me say that the National Institute of Safety and Health has already had the most comprehensive compilation of review research on this issue to date. And the relationship between those types of injuries and the exposure to the workplace risk factors was shown. They have identified over 2,000 studies of work-related injuries and hazards, two thousand. They selected 600 of the studies for detailed review based on well- accepted criteria, that included strength of association, consistency, temporality, and coherence of evidence. Twenty-seven peer reviewers examined that document, including epidemiologists and other scientists, physicians, ergonomists, engineers, industrial hygienists, employers and employee representatives. Based on that review of the scientific evidence, they had a substantial body of credible research that showed strong evidence of association between those types of injuries and work-related physical factors. The NAS study in 1998, Mr. Chairman, reviewed the same body of evidence, but it supplemented that evidence by including reviews of biomechanical and other control intervention studies. They then had scientists review it and had panel discussions. They had a 10-member steering committee prepare the report. They had a peer review by an additional 10 scientists. Mr. Chairman, I think my colleagues get the point. This is ready, aim, delay, delay, delay.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1995 is a step forward, though far from perfect. We have come a long way since 1994, when colleagues here in the majority sought to eliminate the Department of Education and to seriously cut back on very important education programs, including such programs that were successful, like Head Start. We have come a long way even since the beginning of the discussions and debates on this particular piece of legislation. Everybody agrees, Mr. Chairman, that we should be improving education for all children, whether they are wealthy or not, minority as well as nonminority children. Many of us have long complained for flexibility, but not flexibility that would leave out the aspect of accountability. Instead, we have insisted on just that, accountability. The amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) in fact puts that back in, an accounting of the performance and the results showing that the Federal money expended results in student achievement across the board for minority and nonminority, for rich as well as for poor. The Congress in Ed-Flex failed to add that suitable accountability. In this bill we have achieved that, and we have included the provisions that are necessary for professional development. We are going to have a requirement that there would be a plan to ensure that all teachers within the State are fully qualified no later than December 31 of 2003. For the first time we have that in education language; that the use of the funds must improve student academic achievement, must close those achievement gaps, must use disaggregated material. In other words, we must see that every group of children succeed, poor as well as rich, minority as well as nonminority, and we must have reports on that data. Mr. Chairman, this is important progress, and of course we would prefer the Martinez bill because it has a separate stream of funding. But here there is accountability even without the separate stream of funding. In order to show the kind of progress that is necessary, we believe that the smaller class sizes are necessary, and that money is going to have to go to that end in order to reach accountability aspects and get the kind of improvement in achievement that is necessary. We would like to see it tighter, but this is a significant move, and we congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) for moving this in that direction. We have in this bill professional development. We have a way to help teachers, not punish them or threaten them, but to help them and give them the support in their development. We have more teachers here, and it is going to be up to the appropriators to make sure a significant amount of funds are available so we can do the hiring of all the necessary teachers to decrease the size of classes, particularly in grades 1 through 3, as well as get the professional development there. But first and foremost, Mr. Chairman, we have in this bill the accountability that is going to trigger and lead to smaller classroom sizes and good professional development. That is the way we are going to get better education for all children in this country. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and the other members of the committee for their hard work on this bill.

Mr. TIERNEY

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

Mr. TIERNEY. Again I thank the gentleman very much.

Mr. TIERNEY. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman and ask should new information come to light and should we reach resolution on the total cost of the project and additional funds are made available in the Interior allocation, would he consider some funding for the project in fiscal year 2000 as part of his conference negotiations?

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) for his support and for his commitment to completion of the Parker River Wildlife Refuge headquarters complex and its visitors center in Newburyport, Massachusetts. I understand that we are waiting to reach a final agreement on the total cost of the project. My current understanding is that sufficient funds from previous years exist to move this project forward in fiscal year 2000. Is that the gentleman's understanding as well?

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) and others who have come before us to talk about the right of American men and women to organize; certainly, the right to decide whether or not they choose to organize to be represented in the workplace to determine what their wages might be, what benefits they might get, what the safety factors at work might be, what hours they might work, all of those things that many of us have become used to understanding as a valid exercise in the workplace. Madam Speaker, 74 percent of the American people believe that workers should be able to decide whether they want to join a union, and they should be able to make that decision without interference by management. People support a fair and open process that allows for equal access and equal time, for any discussion of what it means to join a union. And, they support a decision-making process that reaches a timely conclusion on that issue. That means that when workers vote freely to join a union, that decision is honored and accepted by management. The reality, unfortunately, is far different. Threats, intimidation and harassment are all too commonly used against those who seek to form a union. In nearly one-third of all organizing drives, one or more workers are fired illegally. If workers are able to overcome those obstacles and form a union, the system allows for endless legal challenges and stonewalling by employers. The laws designed to protect the freedom to form a union are failing, and the penalties for ignoring them are too small to be a deterrent. This is not a level playing field, and it is well past the time that we restore some measure of balance to the system. Madam Speaker, we talk a good deal in this Chamber about how we might improve the lives of American families. I suggest that one specific way in which we can do that is to allow for American workers who so choose to join a union. It can make a significant difference in the ability of those workers to provide for their families. Recently in my district, 24 employees of a small enterprise that made parts for engines being produced by the General Electric facility in Lynn signed cards to join a union. An overwhelming majority wanted that right. They had been earning $6.10 an hour, and unionized employees doing the same work were making $14 to $18 an hour. Segments of the community, including me, contacted the owner of that company, Metal Improvements, and urged that it respect the desires of the workers and sit down at the bargaining table in good faith. I am happy to report that that was done. Unfortunately, in too many other instances, management mounts an endless series of challenges to the workers' rights to organize. The results can be bitterness and divisiveness that undermine productivity. Madam Speaker, unions not only serve their members well, they serve the broader interests of our society. When social service workers who care for the elderly and the mentally ill and the mentally retarded earn only $7 or $8 or $9 with little or no pension or health care, as many do in my district, they are often forced to work two or three jobs a day just to make ends meet. Their ability to do just one job well suffers. Turnover is high, and the quality of care is diminished. Madam Speaker, by joining a union, these workers can raise their standard of living, and they ought to be able to have that right to make that decision.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, all of the materials we are looking at this evening, the underlying bill, H.R. 2122, the Dingell amendment, the McCarthy amendment, all collectively apparently have some sort of broad support for the prospect that we need a background check and a waiting period. What we are arguing about here is time, the amount of time for that. We all apparently agree on the purpose of that, is to keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people, because 17,000 of those wrong people presumably would have gotten their hands on guns if we in fact had the Dingell resolution as law, because that is what the statistics and the facts tell us, that that many people, with the Dingell provision in effect, still would have been felons, the wrong kind of people, who would have gotten guns. We can presume that if they went in under the Dingell provision and bought that gun on a Saturday or Friday night, the background check of 24 hours would not have been effective, and they would have been out there with their gun causing damage. In 1996, 4,643 young people were injured and 2,866 were murdered. We can presume that some of them might have been in that circumstance, and we ought to not worry about a little inconvenience, we ought to worry about the comments this brave women and the other people in America are saying, protect our children.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, recently I had the pleasure of joining with my constituents to celebrate Marblehead, Massachusetts' 350th Anniversary! At the festivities a remarkable young eighth grader from Marblehead Middle School shared her poem, ``Remembrance of Old Marblehead'' with those assembled. I can attest to the fact that her words and delivery truly ``stole the show'' and I take great pride in sharing Ms. Katherine Fowley's fine work with my Colleagues: Remembrance of Old Marblehead I stand on the rocks and I listen to the ancient whispers of the sea, They sing the songs of fishermen, of cannon fire, of boats rich with merchandise. I lie on the banks of Fort Sewall. Suddenly, the benches transform into cannons. Trees become young soldiers. Townspeople cheer as the proud bow of the Constitution steers into harbor. At night men gather around a blazing fire. Their triumphant songs rise to meet the surge of ocean waves. When I walk on the old roads, I hear the drumming of Glover's Regiment marching over faded cobblestones. On the steps of the Town House the crier is ringing his bell. It calls out in the salty air like a foghorn leading sailors home. . . . When I walk by the historic houses, I see the spirits of Marblehead. A woman stands on a widow's walk. Her white dress flaps around her like the wings of wild seagulls. She is waiting for her husband to return. She is waiting to see the tall mast emerge from the fog. She is waiting. The aged bricks and wooden clapboards of these houses are filled with voices. And the song of these voices is remember.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) for allowing me to step up before him for a second because I do have to leave. Mr. Speaker, I thought I wanted to come here this evening and talk with all the others that think this is an important issue. I want to take a little leave from the prepared remarks that I had to compliment the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) for the leadership that he has shown on this. To let people know it goes beyond just filing the bill, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) and I shared time on the Committee on Government Reform, which unfortunately under its current leadership has been wasting a lot of time on issues that apparently are not getting that committee too far into anything concrete. The gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) has understood that that committee has great progress in line, it has great potential, and he has taken on an issue here that is important to the American people and is what that committee ought to be doing on a regular basis. So I commend the gentleman from Maine for stepping forward on that. Shortly after the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) did his study, he was kind enough to share it. I did another study after the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) did his, and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) did his. It was one of those succeeding studies that sort of went domino effect right across the country, as we have heard mentioned here. The results in my district were no different than they were in others. Seniors that are not covered in a large plan are paying an extraordinary high amount for prescription drugs. This whole health care system that we have is imploding at the current time. We said this in 1993 and 1994. We told people then that if we did not do something about the systemic problems that we had in our health care delivery system, we were going to find that managed care companies would take every ounce of profit that they had out of it, squeeze it out and hand back to the American people a problem. Essentially, that is happening in large part, and aggravating that situation is the huge cost of prescription drugs; the cost to managed care systems themselves, the cost to hospitals, and the cost to individuals that are not covered on a plan large enough to drive a lower price. The gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) and I have both heard the prescription drug manufacturing companies come out and tell us that this is cost fixing, price fixing. We both smiled at that because we know it is the exact opposite of that. They do not have a free market system. In fact, the prescription drug companies are running monopolies. They have patents on those drugs and they are determining the prices on them. They are discriminating in two different ways that we found out through our reports. Overseas, where people have universal or single payer health care or they have some system to buy en gros for people, they are driving the prices down and then that cost is being made up, that profit for the company made up by shifting the higher costs to people that are not covered in this country. Then within this country, people that are covered in plans get a lower price because the plan is large enough to bargain, and that cost is then shifted onto those that are not in that position. We need to have the majority understand that this is not a partisan issue. They have made it a partisan issue. The fact that we can have 111 or 112 sponsors to a bill and none of them be from the majority party, when it is a bill that talks to an issue that the American people speak about every day, and there is not one person that is going to speak here this evening that is not going to say that they took the studies and reports in their district and went to seniors and went to others in their district and talked about it, received a tremendous response from people who have said, ``That has been an issue for years. We are glad that Congress is listening. Something has to be done.'' Now, obviously, what has to be done is Medicare has to include prescription drugs in that program in long range, and that, I hope, will come to fruition at some point this time. In the interim, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) has had the foresight to put this bill together, and I have been fortunate enough to cosponsor it and move it forward to allow people to have the benefit of the Federal supply system. Strangely enough, well, it is not really strange, it is no coincidence at all that the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) is a cosponsor of significant campaign finance reform, as am I and most of the other people that will speak here this evening. Amazingly, in the early 1990s when many products were lifted and allowed States to buy under the Federal supply system, originally prescription drugs were on that list. Consequently, by the end of that fall when the appropriations bill was done, there was a single sentence in there that took prescription drugs out. So now prescription drug companies make 28 percent profit in some instances. Other companies in the Fortune 500 would be happy to have 10 percent profits. Nobody is saying we do not want them to have profits. They have been the top 20 profitable companies across the world in the last years. We want them to make a profit. We do not want them to shift the responsibility to the most vulnerable part of this population. We need to improve our health care system. We need to make sure that people can do it. And when we get through with this bill, when it passes, I am hoping we move on and allow legislation to pass to take away any impediments, anything that would stand in the way of States or entire regions of this country joining together to get their prescription drugs at even lower prices. We can put in protections for the manufacturers to make sure that their prices are not driven down worldwide, but we have to make sure that we move in that direction. Let me leave the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) with one story that we have shared and that I think drives it home. There is a woman in my district who lives in Newburyport, Massachusetts, who wrote a letter and then she shared it later with the newspaper, and the letter begins, ``I am sitting at my desk with an involuntary flow of tears streaming down my cheeks. My husband sits close by silently eating his heart out. I am angry. I am distraught. I am feeling extremely defenseless.'' She goes on to say, ``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 two weeks ago. We cannot keep on doing this. Our income tax return bailed us out 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 is exhausted, what will we do? I have no aces in the hole. All I have left is hope and prayer.'' What people like her are hoping and praying is that Congress will not make this a partisan issue; Congress will understand that we are here not to waste time, as the Committee on Government Reform does all too often. It is here to act on legislation that is important to the American people, legislation like H.R. 664. Again, I congratulate the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) for bringing this matter to the attention of the Congress and helping us getting it passed.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I am shocked, but pleasantly shocked, pleasantly shocked to hear the other side of the aisle finally stepping up to the plate and saying that rather than shut down the Department of Education, they understand that there is a Federal commitment to do something to raise the level and to raise the bar. I was listening to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) speak about making Pell Grants an entitlement, and I thought maybe we would need some armed guards over here to stop all of our friends and colleagues from the other side rushing over and signing onto that legislation as cosponsors. But I trust that really will not be a problem. In fact, I asked some members of the Committee on Education and the Workforce who have been there for quite some time to search back in their historical perspective to see if there ever was an occasion when the current majority proposed more money for Pell Grants, to raise the authorization for Pell Grants, that the Democrats were not first in line to be there and do that. They could remember none. In fact, I searched for the one bill that has been filed that would, in fact, raise the authorization for Pell Grants to make them worth what they used to be worth when this program was originally adopted, and that is H.R. 959. There were 62 sponsors and cosponsors on that bill, not one Member of the majority party. So here we are today talking about a resolution. It is Teacher Appreciation Week. All things education are apparently on schedule for all of us. But when the dollar has to stop and the buck has to stop here, Mr. Speaker, let us see how many people on the other side are willing to actually come forward with the money by raising the appropriation level and by raising the authorization level to make Pell Grants really what they should be worth. Again, I think we are faced here with a potential in this language for pitting program against program. The other side says that is not the case, and we hope it is so. And we are probably all going to vote for this because we want the strong message to continue as we have continuously put it forward, that we need to pay for Pell Grants because that is the best way to fund higher education. We need to raise funds for work study programs. We need to make the interest rates as low as possible for anybody that does have to take a loan. But, Mr. Speaker, we have to stop making resolutions and feel-good pieces of legislation, move on to bills and acts that actually put our money where our mouth is, and make things happen. We stand ready to do that.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me this time. I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and other members of the committee for bringing forth legislation which will in fact put more Federal funding and more emphasis on education. The presentation of this resolution marks an acknowledgment that all aspects of government, Federal, State and local, must step up to the plate and support education. What is particularly notable is that the majority, which in the past has not been willing to do that, which has in fact been stepping back and saying that the Federal Government should get out of education, now is stepping forward and agreeing with us that, in fact, we all must participate. The Constitution is what obligates people to fund IDEA. There is not a Federal legislative mandate. The Constitution told States that they have the obligation to fund this program, and the Federal Government stepped forward and made an offer to assist, and we said we would do it to the extent that we could, hopefully up to 40 percent. We are moving toward that goal. This resolution entitles us to move even more so forward. But in no way should we be pitting one education program against another. We still need more teachers and smaller classrooms. We need more technology. And we need more teacher development. We need to make sure that we do this. I thank the chairman for accepting the language into this bill that says that local communities that have funds freed up by virtue of additional Federal funding must keep that money in educational programs so that in fact Federal, State and local governments all participate in smaller classrooms, more teachers, teacher development, technology and all the needs of education.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I believe that Mr. Milosevic is wrong and that the War Crimes Tribunal will eventually have its course and way with him. I believe that whatever brought us into this situation, whether people agree or disagree with the events, we are not going to be able to undo the past. I believe that we should and must try to reach a diplomatic solution to this situation which resolves the refugee situation, which resettles people, which leaves Mr. Milosevic subject to the War Crimes Tribunal and which gets us back on track, and I believe that we have to do something about making sure Mr. Milosevic has encouragement to come to the table, which is why the war strikes will continue. With regard to ground troops, I ask the sponsors of this bill whether or not they might be willing to have a unanimous consent to change the word ``elements'' to ``troops'' and resolve whatever disagreement we have on that. I would hope to get an answer to that.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the thoughtful remarks of my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, before I begin my remarks. On this 84th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, we take a moment to remind ourselves anew of the atrocities that people are capable of committing against others. The Armenian Genocide of 1915 to 1923 ranks among the most tragic episodes of the 20th century. It serves as a constant reminder for us to be on guard against the oppression of any people, particularly based on their race or religion. Too often during this century, the world has stood silent while whole races and religions were attacked and nearly annihilated. This cannot be allowed to happen again. Particularly as we face revived and brutal ethnic hatred in Kosovo, we must take this opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to the achievement of liberty and peace worldwide. I would also like to take a moment, thinking about the individuals who lost their lives during that Armenian genocide. One-and-a-half million innocent Armenians had their lives snuffed out mercilessly. When we try to contemplate the idea of one-and-a-half million lives, it is a staggering number, almost incomprehensible. But we must remember the victims of the genocide as they were. Not numbers, but mothers and fathers, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins and 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 everyday. As a member of the Congressional Armenian Caucus, we work every day with many of our colleagues to bring peace and stability to Armenia and its neighboring countries. Division and hatred can only lead to more division and hatred, as the genocide proved. Hopefully, the work of the caucus and of the others committed to the same cause will help ensure that an atrocity such as the genocide will never happen again. Kishar paree and Shnorhagalootyoon. I thank you for your time.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Greek Independence Day. A a member of the Congressional Caucus on Hellenic Issues, I join my colleagues in saluting the strong and enduring ties between the United States and Greece. The link between our two great nations stretches back to the very beginning of the United States' days as an independent nation. Our founding fathers, recognizing the compelling example set by Greece's experience with democracy, were inspired by the writings of the ancient Greek philosophers. Indeed, our own experiment with democracy has proven successful to a large extent because of what we learned from the Greeks. The Greek influence can be seen throughout our society even as we gaze upon the architecture of this great building in which we serve. Today, as we rise in tribute to the 178th anniversary of the beginning of Greece's struggle for independence, we are reminded of the importance of maintaining strong ties with Greece and its people. As a member of NATO, Greece has shown a commitment to the same values of international peace and security to which the United States aspires. One of the great men from my home state of Massachusetts was Charles Eliot Norton. Norton, a professor at Harvard, was devoted to strengthening the ties between Greece and the United States. In 1879, he founded the Archaeological Institute of America, in an effort to foster greater appreciation of the treasures of Greek history. As Norton said, ``A knowledge of Greek thought and life, and of the arts in which the Greeks expressed their thought and sentiment, is essential to high culture. A man may know everything else, but without this knowledge he remains ignorant of the best intellectual and moral achievements of his own race.'' These words are as true today as when Norton wrote them in 1885. The modern Greek nation continues to be an inspiration to the United States and the rest of the world. I look forward to joining in this weekend's related ceremonies in the Boston area, and I am pleased to be able to offer my congratulations to the people of Greece on this happy occasion.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I just wish to add my thoughts to the remarks that have already been made. I will not take the full 5 minutes, Mr. Chairman. Strictly, I am troubled and I say this to the chairman of the committee that my understanding is that, in fact, this committee has had every ability of working and bringing to us a basically contest- free nonprovocative motion here and that the leadership on that side has in fact imposed on us this debate and this particular decision that we must now make. I think that the American public ought to know that and ought to know that the committee is perfectly capable of functioning and bringing things forward in a nonpartisan manner but that it is the party over there that chooses to make this into a partisan issue several days after some left Hershey under the misguided belief apparently that some chocolate was going to resolve everything and get people working on the same plane. If we are talking about doing what is in the best interest of this country's national security, then simply the vote that we took last week on national missile defense is a step away from that. It is technologically not feasible at present. The costs have not been considered and the impact it would have on treaty negotiations, I think, was not served well and not considered appropriately. I would compound that today by saying that we are not going to put nonproliferation in the forefront of our national security interests. We are instead going to move and cut monies for a reduction in the plutonium and uranium. I think it sends the wrong message internationally. I think it sends the wrong message to the American people. In our first line of defense, we should be setting our priorities where the greatest danger lies, and we clearly are not doing that through this action. Mr. Chairman, in closing I would note that by destabilizing the economies in Asia and elsewhere we do not do anything for our national security. This particular attempt is not in the interest of our people and I think that the motion of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) ought to pass and I think we ought to move forward with that amendment.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me say that exactly the point is that we do not have a capable national missile defense, one that works. We do not have that. And everybody readily admits it is not the lack of money and not for lack of will. We have spent billions and billions of dollars on research and development and testing to get to the point where we still do not have a system that works. It is not in the best interest of the national security of this country to prematurely deploy or make a decision to deploy a system. It does not work. There is no prospect that it will work any time soon. There is no prospect that a high-speed missile at a high altitude is going to be hit by another item, or bullet, as they call it. The fact of the matter is that to decide to deploy now, as opposed to decide to continue to research and test until we know we have something that works, sends the wrong message. We should be about nonproliferation. We should be about making sure that Russia decreases the amount of missiles that it has. We should be about bringing other people into the nonproliferation regime and making sure that we defend our country, we have no national security interest, and ignorant children, unhealthy families, or seniors having an undignified retirement.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Chairman, I had come down here hoping to engage in a high-level debate. I am a little disappointed to see the cynicism and skepticism creep in, and there is some sort of contest here about who is most in love with America's small businesses. I suspect all of us appreciate and acknowledge the importance of America's small businesses. My colleague who just spoke is not the only Member of Congress who is a small business person, nor is it unique among our colleagues here to have a small business experience in their past before they came to this body. So I would hope we start with the assumption that all of us are here intending to do what is best, not just for small businesses, but for America and for our population, including our consumers, and including all of us who have a concern about the environment and law enforcement, and all of the other agencies that are involved in making our quality of life at a high level, or as high a level as possible. I rise in opposition to this bill, having been somebody who has a long experience with small business and with their regulatory affairs, having represented numerous small businesses as they dealt with regulations and their application. But I look at this bill, Madam Chairman, and I see it has some good points and it has some deficiencies. The problem that I see is in the efforts to work with the other side to correct some of these deficiencies, and we are met with sort of a challenge that any correction of the bill in a bipartisan manner will take away the opportunity for somebody to be the champion and somebody not to be the champion. I do not think that is the way we ought to proceed in moving legislation through this body. There is much in this bill that in fact can be supported. I think that we all agree that businesses should not be burdened or overburdened by overzealous application of the law. The proposal in this bill to publish in the Federal Register an annual list of the requirements that pertain to small business makes sense. We ought to do that. The establishment of an agency point of contact, a liaison for small businesses to work with, should make compliance easier. That, too, is something everybody should be able to support, as is the proposed task force that would examine how the requirements for information collection can be streamlined. Everybody here wants to make sure that small business gets a break when it is deserved. We just want to make sure that we do not provide a disincentive for filing reports that protect our health and our safety. I believe we should be able to achieve that goal if we put aside the concept of winners and losers here. We all agree with my colleague's comments about small business being the backbone of America, creating the majority of new jobs; the fact that small business owners work hard in their communities to help build them, and that we should make sure that everybody in small businesses is encouraged in creating jobs and new jobs. That is something we definitely want to do. But we know that most small businesses do in fact obey the law. There is no question about that. They are good Americans. We were all good Americans when we were small business people. We salute them, and we are sure Members on both sides of the aisle do. However, there are problems with this bill, because not all of us are angels, in fact. Some of the small businesses we find in this bill are not in fact small businesses by our normal account of how that word might be defined. In this bill, I might note, Madam Chairman, there will not be any requirement for the filing of one less piece of paper when this bill passes. Every small business will be filing just as much paper the day after. As I mentioned, there is nothing actually in this bill that reduces paperwork. If this legislation is enacted, no individual will file one less piece of paper tomorrow or the day after than they would have filed before, but this H.R. 391 would bar agencies from assessing civil fines against those who violate a large variety of laws, even those when the violations were intentional. I do not think that is someplace where small businesses want to go or the American public wants to go. The administration is strongly opposed to this bill for obvious reasons, as it is currently written. There is a Statement of Administration Policy on the bill which states that if presented to the President in its current form, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Transportation, and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency would recommend that the President veto this bill. All of those people, Madam Chairman, cannot be against small business in America. They do, however, see that this bill needs some remedial action, and they are going to suggest that. I think when we talk to the amendment the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) is proposing, it takes that action. It allows and requires, in fact, the agencies to look at the nature and seriousness of a violation, the good faith efforts to comply that might be there, and other relevant factors in determining whether or not there should be a waiver. I think the American people want to lessen the burden of paperwork everywhere, they want to lessen the burden of regulation, but they want it done in a reasonable way, they want it done with common sense, and in a way that still provides for protection of our health and our safety in all counts. So I would ask, Madam Chairman, that everyone reconsider their hardened positions and their concept that people are going to be better than others or more a champion of small business, and settle in on what is best, not just for small business, but to help small business keep maintaining the health and safety of the American public; simply allowing agencies to waive when appropriate, but to retain the ability to check all different circumstances when it is appropriate and when it is not.

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

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise simply in support of the Kucinich amendment. For the life of me, having listened to this entire debate on the amendment, I have not heard any real justification from the other side as to why they would not try to correct this bill and improve this bill by agreeing to accept the terms of the Kucinich amendment. I have listened for some time here. What we are talking about on one side is an alleged reduction of paperwork. I repeat what I said earlier in talking about the bill, that the bill would not reduce one single piece of paperwork. The real crux of this addresses the issue that when someone fails to file a piece of paperwork that speaks to the health and safety, what action would be taken. We all agree there should be some leeway for people who make innocent misfilings or failings to file. That is why the Kucinich amendment talks about the agency being able to look at the nature or seriousness of the alleged violation, whether or not there were good faith efforts to comply and other relevant factors, and in those instances where it is appropriate, to waive it; but not a carte blanche waiver, which in effect is a disincentive for some bad actors to not file papers. We are talking about a business community that by and large is full of good actors. We all understand that. But regulations are for the bad actors, and to make sure they do not do that, and there is no reason not to put in the Kucinich amendment language so that the bad actors are not encouraged not to file on issues where safety and health are very important. We have also heard a lot of discussion about the fact that this might be some sort of a partisan effort. I do not think that is the case at all. I think the evidence for that lies in who are the groups that support the Kucinich amendment, and make a point that they are very interested in health and safety. We talked about the fire fighters. The International Association of Arson Investigators, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the International Association of Fire Fighters, the National Fire Protection Association, the National Volunteer Fire Council, all under the category of fire fighters, believe that the Kucinich amendment is necessary. Senior citizens: The National Citizens Coalition for Nursing Home Reform and the National Council of Senior Citizens believe the Kucinich amendment is necessary. Under the category of health: The Alliance to End Childhood Lead Poisoning, the American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association, the National Breast Cancer Coalition, the Physicians for Social Responsibility all understand that we could have a situation where waivers are made only in the right and proper conditions. In the consumer category: Coalition for Consumer Rights, Consumers Union, Consumers Federation of America, the Institute for Agricultural and Trade Policy, Safe Food Coalition. And public interest groups: The Center for Science in the Public Interest, the Government Accountability Project, the League of Women Voters, the National Partnership for Women and Families, OMB Watch, Public Citizen, U.S. PIRG. Returning to the state attorneys general: The States of California, New York and Vermont. Other State and local officials, including the California District Attorneys Association. And environmental interest groups: The American Oceans Campaign, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Friends of the Earth, the League of Conservation Voters, National Environmental Trust, National Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society. Mr. Chairman, I suggest all of these groups cannot be wrong; that there has to be some semblance of reasonableness in their position that the Kucinich amendment makes sense. And again I say, I heard no reason why the opposition does not stand up, take this bill off the floor and work with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), work with other Members on this side of the aisle and the other side of the aisle who understand the seriousness of giving carte blanche waivers to bad actors and, instead, giving it a process that allows the proper actors to get the waivers they deserve, under the proper criteria being applied, and still insist that the right paperwork for safety and health reasons be filed, and that those that willingly misfile or do not file receive the action they should receive.