Ed Towns

Mr. TOWNS

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, in my district I am fortunate to have educators that perform beyond the levels expected of them. Andrea Kostie-Lieberman is illustrative of that type of educator. Andrea is a product of New York public schools. She graduated from Berriman Junior High School and Thomas Jefferson High School. She earned a B.A. and master of science from Brooklyn College. An additional master of science degree was obtained from Pace University. Andrea is certified by the State of New York as a school district administrator, and as a school administrator-supervisor. She is also certified as an assistant principal and principal. Her educational career began in district 19, where she is currently in charge of district 19's Early Childhood Center P.S. 149 Annex. expertise by serving on many educational committees, including the 10th Congressional Commission on Education. She has served as vice president for membership, and as an executive board member of Phi Delta Kappa. I am proud to recognize Andrea Kostie-Lieberman for her professionalism and dedication.

Mr. TOWNS

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to relate the odyssey of success of Maria E. Gonzalez. Born in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, in 1938, she dreamed of being either a teacher or politician. In some measure, she was able to realize her ambitions. After arriving in the United States at the age of 16, Ms. Gonzalez graduated from Commerce High School. She met Domingo Gonzalez and their union resulted in four children, and subsequently five grandchildren. When her children became adults, Maria returned to school and received her B.A. from Touro College. She later received a master's degree from Bank Street College of Education. Ms. Gonzalez put her training to good use and became a social studies teacher at Junior High School 296, where she taught sixth-, seventh-, eighth-, and ninth-grade students until 1993. Currently she works as a housing coordinator for Phipps Community, providing social services for the tenants of CPW houses. Maria has been very active in local politics. She is the female district leader for the 54th assembly district, and a former member of the United Parents Association and the Puerto Rican Teachers Association. Ms. Gonzalez is also the former treasurer for the election campaign of Councilman Martin M. Dilan, and a former assistant to Assemblyman Darryl Towns. Indeed, she has been able to realize her dreams of teaching and being involved in politics. Her success is truly worthy of mention, and it is my pleasure to highlight her accomplishments and contributions.

Mr. TOWNS

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my dear colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Walker, for including the amendment dealing with subpopulations offered by myself and the gentlelady from California [Ms. Lofgren]. Also, I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley] for his support in getting this amendment in. This amendment seeks to cure one of the many problems that arise when we try to put good and responsive science into law. Risk assessment may help improve regulatory decisions, but good risk assessment doesn't guarantee good regulatory decisions. Risk assessment should supplement the regulatory goal of safeguarding public health, but should not stand alone in the analysis. This bill requires that a number of numerical estimates be made; yet it expresses those estimates in a crude way that fails to take account of the special needs of vulnerable subpopulations such as children, the elderly, and disabled individuals. It is the concern for these vulnerable subpopulations that encouraged me to sponsor this amendment. As we have learned in recent years, averages and best estimates often tell us almost nothing about the way in which a risk will have an impact on real people. On average a drug or device, a chemical or compound may be safe and effective, however, it may have terrible unsafe or ineffective consequences for special subpopulations such as the elderly, children, pregnant women, disabled people, or individuals with certain chronic illnesses. Those who are vulnerable in our society need to be concerned about health care expenditures, salary loss for a lengthy illness, and years of work lost to premature death. And this is all because they have no option to choose the level of risk to which they are exposed to a health hazard. I believe that science cannot always explain complex or unusual relationships between the exposure to hazards and the potential health effects to all people. This amendment simply says that when numerical risks are provided, estimates shall also be provided for these subpopulations where such estimates are relevant. I urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. TOWNS

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to talk about the Contract With America. As we look at the Contract With America, there is one thing that for some reason as I look at it and I examine it is left out. We have left out dealing with the drug problem. The drug problem is something that is not going to go away. We must address it. As we look at what is happening in many of our urban areas and we look in terms of our prisons, we find that many of the people who are in prison have been involved in drugs. But at the same time for some reason or another, we do not want to spend the kind of money that we need to spend to be able to address the drug problem. We have people who will come into our district offices seeking help, and we cannot provide help for them because there is no place for them to go because there are no funds available for them to be able to go and get treatment. I recognize that there is no one solution to the problem and that we need to have several types of treatment programs, but for some reason we have sort of ignored this problem. I know that some districts have a greater problem than others, but I think the time has come when we need to look at what is happening in the United States of America and that regardless of where you are in terms of your district, if you have the problem now, I think you need programs to begin to work with it. And for some reason you do not have it, I would like to say to you, ``It's coming. It's on its way to you right now.'' I would hope that the people who do not have the problem would come and rally with the people who do have the problem to begin to come up with some solutions to the drug addiction problem. We are spending a lot of money on the back end that if we would address this problem on the front end, we would not have to spend the money on the back end. It costs a lot of money to keep a person in prison, when we could spend the money to be able to detoxify a person and to be able to assist them in terms of counseling and to hope to put them back on the road to work. We talk about welfare reform, we talk about health care reform, we talk about all the different types of reform, but at the same time we still do not spend the kind of time talking about dealing with the drug problem. The Speaker came up with an idea, and I must admit that I like the idea very, very much, that he is going to encourage Members from various districts to go and visit other districts. In other words, he is going to encourage people from the rural areas to go into the urban areas and to visit those areas. I think that is an excellent idea and I think that is one that should take place and should take place right away, because I think that there are some Members in the House that do not realize what is happening in some of the urban areas. That is the reason why that sometimes that when you feel that you need support, that you are not getting support, that they do not understand the problems you are having in those areas. I am hoping that people in the urban areas will go into the rural areas and take a look at what is happening there and be able to give the assistance that needs to be given in the rural areas. America is not the same. It is different in terms of its regions. The cost of living, when we talk about wages and we talk about increasing the minimum wage. Some people say, ``Well, it's not necessary.'' But then if you come from a high cost-of-living area, it is very necessary. I think that we have to sit down, take a look at where we are to begin to address some of these problems. I think that the best way to do it would be able to look at this drug problem and say, ``Well, let's face it, there is a region that has a serious problem. We're going to give them the necessary resources to be able to address the problem and to be able to help them to be able to work it through.'' Because if not, eventually they would have to incarcerate the person and it would cost a whole lot more. Recognizing that there is a dispute going on about the best possible treatment for addicts, I understand that. But I think that the treatment that the person will respond to is the kind of treatment that we should be able to get them into. Some people say the methadone maintenance program does not work. There are some people who have responded to the treatment of methadone maintenance, and if they have responded to it, I think we should work it out where we would have funds available to set up programs for people that could benefit from that particular treatment. Then I think the drug-free program, some people can benefit from that. I think that we should be able to set it up where they can go into that. Then if they need cyclaozine or whatever it is to be able to provide the kind of treatment they need, that we should be able to provide that care for them. I think the worst thing in the world that is happening now, that for an addict to walk into a facility and say, ``I would like to be treated,'' and then after you talk to them, you find out that a waiting list of a year, a year and a half, or 2 years. My goodness, what will happen to a person who has to wait to get treatment, to get care for 2 years? I think the time has come when we should roll up our sleeves and be able to provide the kind of necessary care for people that have those problems.

Mr. TOWNS

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] for the outstanding job he has done in bringing us to this point, because if it had not been for him last year in terms of his talking about the importance of unfunded mandates, I do not really feel we would be here now. So, I would like to say to him he really kept the issue alive. I would also like to say to the other side that this bill really is more the bill that we dealt with last year, the bill that the gentleman from Florida talked about, the hearings that we had all over this country, and basically what people were saying to us is that something has to be done, and I think this bill really addresses their concerns. I know that others want to go even further, but I think that to go further is a mistake. I think we have been down that road before. I remember the catastrophic health care bill that we kept wanting to go further, and go further, and go further, and we went, and then all of a sudden we had to come back to undo what was done. So, I can see that we are making the same mistake again. So the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] offers us an opportunity to do something different. First of all to address the problem in a very logical and sensible kind of way, not the draconian bill that is being proposed on the other side of the aisle, H.R. 5. I think we need to recognize that, and deal with it. want to know how much it is going to cost and we need to know how much it is going to cost. To me that is a very practical way to deal with the problem and that to me is a solution to the problem. We heard it as we had hearings in Pennsylvania, as we had hearings in Florida, as we had hearings here in Washington, DC; people were saying to us that was their concern. But what we are doing is taking it a step further and I think we are going to find that there are procedural barriers that are going to make it impossible for us to do the kind of thing we need to do. I have heard the term bipartisan support. I think bipartisan support is good and I think we should have it whenever possible, and I think that this bill that the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] is putting forth is truly the bipartisan bill. That is the Moran-Goodling bill of last time around. I think that is the bipartisan approach. So, I would encourage my friends on both sides of the aisle to take a look at this legislation, because this really deals with the problem, it makes it possible for us to be able to legislate in a very timely fashion and do the kinds of things that need to be done. It eliminates the dumping that goes on from one State to another. When I look in terms of what is happening in my own area in terms of incineration, how one area can create problems for another area and we cannot do anything about it because of the fact that we would have to come back and be able to examine it before we move forward, this legislation eliminates that kind of bottleneck, it makes it possible if one area is dumping on another area that we address that and deal with it right away. So I think this makes a lot of sense if we really want to deal with the problem as we have heard it out there, as it comes from people throughout the area. On this particular legislation, H.R. 5, let me set the record straight because I have heard about all kinds of hearings and all of that. Even if there were hearings they were held though in secrecy, because I do not know anything about them, and I have talked to Members who have been here even longer than I have been here and they do not know anything about it, I do not know anything about it, so it seems to me the hearings they are talking about did not take place; and being they did not take place, we did not talk to governors of various States to find out their views and feelings, we did not talk to city council members to find out their views and feelings, we did not talk to county executives and we did not talk to legislators around the country to see in terms of their views and feelings about this legislation. All of a sudden here we are rushing to push it through because of the fact we must do it before dark. I would just like to say it is too important to move forward in that fashion. I would hope this would be an opportunity to correct the mistake that has been made. Support the Moran bill, because at least this is something on which we have had communication with people out there, we have talked to them about it. So I think this is an opportunity to stop us from making a major mistake by going further with H.R. 5, but coming back and supporting the Moran substitute which I think deals with the issue that is at hand. So I would like to yield back the balance of my time and encourage all of my friends and supporters to make certain that they support the Moran substitute. That is really the legislation that should be moved forward.

Mr. TOWNS

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to Mr. Casey Headrick Williams, Sr., born on January 1, 1910, to the late Jim and Betty Williams in Cerro Gardo, NC. As a young teen, Casey gained a reputation for being an excellent baseball player and traveled throughout the State competing in baseball. In 1925, the Williams family moved to Chadbourn, NC where they immediately became members of the Mount Moriah Baptist Church. Shortly after moving to Chadbourn, Casey, met Lella Lewis, the oldest daughter of Arch and Princess (Pennie) Lewis; and, on March 5, 1929, Casey and Lella were united in holy matrimony. This union was blessed with 16 children. Mr. Williams is completely dedicated to his family. The family always had breakfast together on Sunday morning at which there was a family prayer and each family member recited a Bible verse. Mr. Williams has always been a dedicated breadwinner for his family--at times holding multiple jobs simultaneously and commuting over 100 miles daily to work. For several years, he successfully managed the local candy store. Mr. Williams also worked as a manager in the manufacturing field. After this schedule became too strenuous, Mr. Williams decided to become a sharecropper and lived in various parts of Columbus County. In addition to love for God, Mr. Williams has always stressed the importance of hard work, discipline, and education, although his formal education did not extend beyond the sixth grade. Mr. Williams recently celebrated his 85th birthday. In these, his sunset years, he is now able to spend more time with his family and enjoying his hobbies, which include gardening and freezing the vegetables he grows. Recently, Mr. Williams has become a very good fisherman under the tutelage of his nephew, Paul. Mr. Williams has also continued his lifetime involvement in the politics and civic matters of the community and surrounding areas. Although Mr. Williams does not have enormous tangible richness, he considers himself to be a wealthy man. His wealth is evidenced by the respect that other members of the community have for him, the love of his family, and his place in the Kingdom.

Mr. TOWNS

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

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by first thanking the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney] for this very fine amendment. I think it is the kind of amendment that would make this bill better. Also, Mr. Chairman, let me just sort of respond to my friend, the gentleman from the State of Connecticut [Mr. Shays], who indicated that we keep asking for exemptions. There is a reason why we keep asking for exemptions. The reason we keep asking for exemptions is that this bill did not have any hearings. Therefore, there are a lot of things that we feel need to be corrected. There should have been some input. Some questions should have been asked along the way. I have been here 13 years. I have been here 13 years. I can never recall a piece of legislation of this magnitude to come before this body without having one public hearing, and then want to know as to why we want to ask for exemptions, why do we want to ask for amendments. It is very obvious that we want to strengthen it, we want to make it better, we want to get as much input into it as possible, because we are talking about the lives of people. We voted earlier, and we were able to exempt the senior citizens. I think that was a very wise vote. I think that those of the Members that made that vote, it was an important vote and they should have done it. However, I also would like to say that here is another one that we need to vote in favor of, because the children are extremely important. Mr. Chairman, if we want to save money, this could be referred to as the save money amendment, because when we look at the problems that we have with children in terms of their health, if we do not have some protection for them, they will end up in emergency rooms, they will end up with all kinds of problems, and it will cost us more in the long run than it would to correct it now. If someone is going to say, ``What about a point of order,'' think about the amount of children that will die while we are waiting for a point of order. I think that the time has come for us to wake up and to address this problem and address it now. Mr. Chairman, we are sending the wrong message out there. I do not think that we should be guilty of doing that. I think unfunded mandates give us an opportunity to correct a lot of things that are going wrong. Mr. Chairman, some people want to increase the defense budget. If we do not protect our children, who are we going to draft? Who are we going to put in the military? Who is going to go? I think we need to make certain that we have a healthy population, and we need to do that with our children. Mr. Chairman, let me just say to my friends on the other side, yes, they said to me earlier that they have the votes, and they are right, they probably have the votes. However, let me say, they could win the battle but they will lose the war if they do not move to protect the children of this Nation. I say that is important.

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, it is my time. Let me say to the gentleman, so that he will be aware of the fact, more than 50 percent of the people that serve on the committee now are brand new. They were not even on the committee in the last Congress. I am saying to the gentleman that these are the new Members in the Congress, this is not the same bill that was dealt with last year, so therefore, for the gentleman to say that we had hearings on this bill, that is not accurate. This is a new bill. It was not the bill last year. Let me just say to the gentleman, further, the bill last year was sponsored by me so I know what the bill said versus that this bill says. I am saying to the gentleman that his Contract With America does not mean that he should ignore input coming from America. I think if that is the contract the gentleman had, he had better divorce himself from it.

Mr. TOWNS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, in the 103d Congress, yes, there were hearings, but this bill is not the bill that was brought in the 104th Congress.

Mr. TOWNS

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield one more time?

Mr. TOWNS. I ask, ``Didn't this bill say that full funding, in terms of from Congress, in terms of the mandate, is supposed to be full funding? So, if it's full funding, then a State could very easily say, `I will not move to clean this up unless the Federal Government gives me the money.''' I think that is what the bill actually says, so my amendment would help to correct that, to say, ``If you are killing people in another State, then it becomes the responsibility of you to stop doing that,'' and I think that is what we are talking about. There are a lot of situations out there like that, so it is not just one isolated situation. We are talking about situations all over this Nation where this exists, and this bill would prevent that from being dealt with.

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

Mr. TOWNS. I thank the Chairman. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by first commending Chairman Clinger, the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] and all of those who have been involved in this issue. And of course we were involved in this issue last year. But I would like to first point out that what we are doing this time is very different than what we did last year. So what I would like to do is to offer the amendments that I think strengthen the bill because I am trying to find a way to support the bill. This en bloc amendment is designed to remedy a serious flaw. It would exempt from the coverage of this bill any Federal law or regulation that regulates States and local governments regarding interstate matters that significantly impact the health or safety of the residents of other States or local governments. The problem is very simple. Suppose one State is dumping raw sewage from a treatment plant into a water supply that is endangering the health of the residents of an adjoining State. Under this bill, if the Federal Government ordered the polluting State to stop dumping the sewage into the water and orders the polluting State to clean up the mess it created, if the cost of the cleanup was a billion dollars, the polluting State would not have to fully clean up the water unless Congress gave them a billion dollars. This is outrageous. This is not the kind of law that we should be identified with or sending out to other States or municipalities. If the State is deliberately endangering the health of the residents of another State, why should the Federal Government have to pay for that? Why should not it be the responsibility of the polluting State to pay for the mess it created? As currently written, this bill contains a perverse incentive for the polluting State not to pay for the pollution and health and safety hazards it creates. It is a disincentive. I think that is the last thing that we should try to create. We highlighted this problem last year. It is not a hypothetical situation. It is real. Interstate health and safety problems exist now, today, all over this country. In fact, in Oklahoma they had to get a Supreme Court ruling to protect its water standards against downstream pollution from Arkansas. Just a few years ago, New Jersey residents rightfully expressed concern about New York's hospital wastes washing up on New Jersey's shores. There is also a problem with incinerators blowing toxic smoke across State lines and adversely affecting the health of citizens in adjoining jurisdictions. States like New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island are constantly complaining that their air quality is negatively affected by air pollutants from New York and Philadelphia. In conclusion, the State that should be held accountable for the creation of the burden is relieved of their responsibilities. They should have the responsibility and should not be allowed to walk away from it. We should not reward States for wrongdoing. This amendment would prevent an interstate catastrophe. I would urge its adoption.

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I offer two amendments, Nos. 133 and 134, as printed in the Record, and I ask unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc.

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

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

Mr. TOWNS. I say to my colleague, ``You know, what you're saying, and I think that we are talking about a health issue here, and I think that's the reason why I become very sensitive; you are saying, `Trust us.' But you know I don't think we can go totally on `Trust us,' because if you have a State that's doing harm to people that reside in another State, you know there is no real incentive for them to do anything about it.'' So, I think that is the situation we are talking about. So, yes, we would like to trust, but we are talking about people dying, and that is what this issue is all about. So I would like for the gentleman to think very seriously about adding this amendment because I think it strengthens the bill. I would like to vote for this, but I cannot vote for it knowing that we have this issue out there that could affect a lot of lives if we do not correct it here now.

Mr. TOWNS

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, let me say that this is an issue that I have been involved in now for some time, and I have a lot of respect for the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger]. We worked hard in the last Congress on H.R. 5128. But the bill that is before us is not the same bill that we proposed in the last Congress. It is a different bill. The bill the last time, we had hearings all over. We had hearings in Pennsylvania, we had hearings in Florida, we had hearings here in Washington, DC, to get input coming from people that are involved in government. We had State elected officials coming, we had county elected officials coming. We had providers of service coming and talking to us about their concerns. Now, that is the way that we should be involved. We should not all of a sudden go to bed one night and wake up one morning and say we are going to now put forth a bill, we are not going to talk to anybody, and we are going to push it, not knowing exactly what we are doing. I do not think that is the Contract With America. I think they want to have input, they want to talk, and they want to make certain what we are doing is moving this country in the right direction. That is the view and that is the feeling I am getting. As I try now to call around and get input and feelings from people that are going to be affected by what we are doing here, we do not have enough time to do it. The only way to do that would be to have hearings. Now, I am just listening in terms of the fact that first of all, the dumping part. We should take some time and address that, to find out just what are we really doing here. We do not have to do this this way. This is not good government. We have too many unanswered questions here to move forward. Now, I have been a supporter of this legislation all along. But I will be honest with you, what is before us now I cannot support, because to me it is not moving in the direction that I feel that the American people want us to move in. They do not want unfunded mandates, but they want to make certain what we are doing is not going to make the situation worse. I am not sure. I have not had enough time to go over it. I have not had enough time to talk to people involved in terms of administering this program once we order it. There is a lot of questions here that nobody has been able to answer. And I think the only way you answer them is to talk to people. We need to talk to experts out there. We have not talked to them. This is the kind of legislation that the magnitude of it requires a discussion. And I am disappointed over the fact that the people that are moving it forward, as I look now, 50 percent of the people that are on the committee this year were not on the committee last year. It is a different bill. So I am hoping that tomorrow they would allow us to fix this bill. And if we cannot add amendments to fix it, I have to vote against it.

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Velazquez]. [[Page H366]] (Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington, DC [Ms. Norton]. (Ms. NORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Houston, TX [Mr. Gene Green]. (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Baldacci]. (Mr. BALDACCI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams].

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the ranking member of the full committee. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)