Curt Weldon

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I offer a perfecting amendment.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, that is exactly the point here, and I would just want to add again that the Committee on the Budget, in their deliberations, zeroed out the Sea Grant Program, and those of us on the Committee on Science who went to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] worked with him to raise up an authorization level to put funding back in. It was not what we wanted. It was around $34 million, but it was, in fact, increased funding. What we have now done is we have increased it to a much higher level, which is a level that the Committee on Resources had in their mark, and I think, as I have said publicly, I am very happy and pleased to work with the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] and to support the other priorities and concerns he has. So we move ahead, get the program, keep it intact and work with the natural resources bill to support that when it comes to the floor as well.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's comments, but the facts are that when we take the sea-grant program out of this bill, there is no authorization in the science bill for the national sea-grant program. What I am attempting to do is to raise the dollar amount, as well as to work with the Committee on Resources to address those other concerns that they have. Let me say, Mr. Chairman, and I think we ought to ask for the ruling on this, my understanding is that the Parliamentarian has ruled that this program has exact joint oversight by both committees, both the Committee on Science and the Committee on Resources. What it appears to me is that perhaps staff, not Members but staff is really behind this effort to exert who has the control over it. That is the worst part of what we are talking about here, because in the end we all agree the sea-grant program is a good program. It deserves to be funded. The chairman of the Committee on Science is accepting the funding level. The chairman of the Committee on Resources has agreed to work with us on the changes that the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] wants to make. I have agreed to support them and to work with them. So there really is no issue unless we allow the staff to dominate this debate and have their petty feuding over which staff is going to control the final product to come before this body. I ask my colleagues to support the perfecting amendment. parliamentary inquiry

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss an issue that was previously discussed by my friend and colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Ballenger], dealing with the Davis- Bacon legislation. There are many on my side of the aisle that would like to totally repeal this legislation and put at risk those construction workers across America whose quality of life and skilled craftsmanship directly depends on this important piece of legislation. There are many in the Republican Party who disagree with that premise but who do believe that reform of this rather outdated law in terms of its threshold level needs to be reformed and revised. Mr. Speaker, with that in mind, over the past several months a group of us have, in fact, come up with a piece of legislation to reform Davis-Bacon. This piece of legislation I introduced today with the cosponsorship of 27 Republicans and the support of organized labor across the country as well as many of the largest contracting corporations in America. Mr. Speaker, this legislation, in fact, does allow us to reform Davis-Bacon. It allows us to deal with the extremely low threshold of $2,000 and raise that in a significant way. In fact, similar legislation was already introduced in the Senate in the form of S. 1183, which also enjoyed the support of the labor movement in this country. Like S. 1183, my bill will raise the current $2,000-and-above threshold for [[Page H 10028]] applying Davis-Bacon to Federal contracts to $100,000 for contracts for new construction, and $25,000 for renovation and repair work. It will prohibit contract-splitting to avoid Davis-Bacon coverage. It will make provisions for payment of less than prevailing wages to apprentices, trainees, and helpers. A very important part of reform, Mr. Speaker, is to allow us to continue to develop the apprenticeship programs and the trainees and helpers that are so necessary to the building trades of this country, and, in fact, the construction unions are, in most cases, the organizations that best provide those apprenticeship programs. The act enforces and provides enhanced enforcement of the act and makes other changes to clarify the scope of coverage of Davis-Bacon. But my legislation differs from the Senate bill in two important ways that I think bring the bill even more to the center. First of all, where S. 1183 adjusts the threshold for inflation only every 5 years, my bill adjusts the Davis-Bacon threshold on an annual basis so that that threshold goes up each year. Second, where S. 1183 replaces the current weekly payroll reporting requirements with a monthly requirement which is very onerous for the business community, my bill requires payroll reports only every 3 months, or quarterly, which is a provision very much welcomed by the business community. Mr. Speaker, there are many who will get up and argue there are abuses of the program, as my friend and colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Ballenger] did today, and I will not dispute that, and, in fact, there are the appropriate actions that can be taken by the Federal agencies, Department of Labor, to deal with those instances where fraud and abuse occurs. That does not mean we should jeopardize the quality of life of every construction worker in this country, which is what repeal of Davis-Bacon would do. I would like to submit for the Record as part of my extraneous material, Mr. Speaker, a series of articles put forth by Peter Cockshaw. Peter Cockshaw publishes the Construction Labor News and opinion articles and newsletter. He has been doing this since 1971 and is one of the most respected construction authors in the country. In his letter that I am going to submit for the Record, he points out in the 1960's and 1970's he strongly backed repeal of Davis-Bacon, but as the same article indicates, he says, ``My opposition to repeal today is based on a medically changed labor relations climate.'' Peter Cockshaw and the Cockshaw report, which owe nothing to anyone and operate independently from both union and nonunion contractors, supports keeping Davis-Bacon in place but making the reforms in line with what I have outlined in my legislation. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the legislation I have introduced today not only is supported by all the major building and construction trades, but I have here a list that I will also include of 145 contracting companies and associations across America, many of them that frequently support Republican candidates in 20 separate States, who support this legislation and who support reform of Davis-Bacon as opposed to repeal of Davis-Bacon. Let me further add, Mr. Speaker, that 34 Republican members signed a letter that I circulated to Speaker Gingrich saying that we did not want Davis-Bacon to be a part of reconciliation and we continue to work to try to pull that out to allow us to have a separate up-or-down vote, hopefully, on my amendment and my bill, which would, in fact, reform the entire Davis-Bacon process. Mr. Speaker, this is a sound way to approach a difficult issue. It is Republican approach that I know my Democrat colleagues will embrace as well. Labor is behind it. Significant business support is behind it. I urge my colleagues to join with us in reforming Davis-Bacon is a way that keeps in mind the sensitivity of the American worker. The material referred to follows: Cockshaw's Construction, Labor News+Opinion, Newton Square, PA, May 4, 1995. Dan McGirt, Legislative Assistant, Office of U.S. Representative Curt Weldon, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Dan: As you requested when we talked Wednesday evening, enclosed is our April issue with follow up on the Davis-Bacon ``battle'' (see page 3). Among other aspects, the article documents that the use of higher skilled, higher paid tradesmen on federal highway construction over a 14 year period actually was less costly than in the lower wage states. If you have any questions on the piece, or any other Davis-Bacon matter, please don't hesitate to call me. Also enclosed is a bio and ``Newsmaker'' reprint which summarizes my 31-year background in construction. As I indicated, our publication is 100% independent. We accept no advertising or financial support from any organization. The sole source of our revenues is from subscribers and from all types of industry groups I address in speeches (union and non-union employers as well as organized labor). Finally, as the March article you have notes, I strongly backed repeal of Davis-Bacon in the 1960's and 1970's. But, as the same article indicates, my opposition to repeal today is based on a radically-changed labor relations climate. Hopefully, this information is useful to you. I would appreciate your forwarding a copy of Curt's letter with the March article when it is sent to the other Members. And please give my best wishes to Curt. With warmest personal wishes, Peter A. Cockshaw, National Labor Analyst/Publisher. [From Cockshaw's Construction Labor News+Opinion, March, 1995] Will Prevailing Wage Laws Be Repealed? opposing sides launch high stakes campaigns that will determine fate of davis-bacon act The campaign to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act is shaping up as the most bitter labor relations battle of this decade. Gauging by the sparks now flying between repeal proponents and opponents, that probably is an understatement. Encouraged by Republican victories in Congress and many state legislatures last year, repeal advocates see a golden opportunity to ax the Act. U.S. House and Senate bills H.R. 500 and S. 141 seek to do just that. Repeal supporters also are pushing legislation in several states which have ``Little Davis-Bacon'' laws. Leading these efforts is the merit shop Associated Builders and Contractor (ABC). It heads a group called the ``Coalition to Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act.'' Faced with the repeal threat, opponents are marshaling their forces all over the country. The largest group is the ``Contractors' Coalition for Davis-Bacon'' comprised of some 18,000 employers, associations and building trades unions. To influence the outcome, opposing sides have ``flooded the airwaves'' with a blitz of claims, position papers and studies. Cockshaw's, assisted by respected construction analyst and research William Maloney, has just completed an exhaustive probe into all these arguments -- both pro-and- con. Having done so, we'll now attempt to put the Davis-Bacon debate in sharper focus and offer our views on whether repeal is in construction's best interests. Let's first examine the key arguments by ABC and others who seek to kill prevailing wage laws at both the state and federal levels. In making their case, repeal advocates focus on two central issues: 1. That the Davis-Bacon Act inflates the cost of construction, and 2. That it serves to protect the wage and benefit structure of union workers. (Some also allege that the Act is racially discriminatory -- a charge we view too spurious to dignify.) Before addressing the critical issue of cost, let's dispense with the claim that the act fosters union bias. This contention was true in the 1960's and `70's. Then the Act did protect union wages because the unions enjoyed a large portion of market share. However, this is the 1990's where the tremendous growth of the non-union sector has shrunk organized labor's market share to about 20% of all construction. Moreover, when once a majority of the workforce was organized, only 18.8% of construction workers were union members in 1994, the BLS reports. Data from the U.S. Labor Department's Wage and Hour Division also illustrate the lessening impact of union rates on prevailing wages. Last year only 29% of the 12,500 wage decisions were based on union rates. So arguments that Davis-Bacon protects union compensation packages are no longer relevant. Not battle between union and open shop sectors Industry authority Maloney who heads the University of Maryland's Construction Engineering and Management Program makes another crucial point: ``Although some may see it as such, the fight over Davis- Bacon is not strictly a union vs. non-union struggle. ``Many nonsignatories have as much to lose from repeal as the signatory sector. ``That because astute open shop contractors offer wages and benefits comparable to union signatories--pay needed to recruit and retain qualified workers. ``Absent the Act, cutthroat competitors will steal work from union and non-union employers alike. [[Page H 10029]] ``They'll do so by low-balling the bid with lower-paid, lower-skilled workers.'' In sum, the current battle is between responsible employers--both union and open shop--on one side and those who win work by shortchanging workers on the other. cost savings arguments are disputed The disputed argument of those who want to ax Davis-Bacon is that the repeal will save money. ``In making their case,'' Maloney explains, ``opponents have adopted a extremely narrow perspective on the Act's impact. ``They have done this by focusing solely on the value of the construction contract. ``That simplistic approach assumes that wage rates are the main determinant of installed costs. ``It totally ignores the influence of productivity--which is largely influenced by the knowledge and skills of the workforce.'' Results of an eye-opening study by three noted economists at the University of Utah support Maloney's contention. The economists probed the impact of repeal in nine states in which prevailing wage laws were repealed. Their 82-page study is ``Losing Ground: Lessons from the Repeal of Nine `Little Davis-Bacon Acts'.'' Tossing cold water on the cost-savings claims by repeal advocates, the Utah economists found: ``The shift to a less-skilled labor force--lowering labor productivity along with wages--have lessened any possible savings associated with repeal.'' On the other hand, repeal proponents repeatedly cite cost savings estimates made by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Last year CBO estimated that repeal would save some $3 billion over five years. The problem with that projection is that it is based on outdated and dubious methodology compiled from a study done 13 years ago. This fact was pointed out by the U.S. Labor Department's (DOL) Employment Standards Administration. In testimony before the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee last month, Assistant DOL Secretary B.E. Anderson stated: ``Current CBO estimates originate from a 1983 study which used crude savings estimates from a 1982 departmental regulatory impact analysis. ``Changes in the construction industry--including narrowing the gap between union and non-union wages and changes in our administration of the Act--make these estimates unreliable.'' The cost issue aside, University of Utah economists cited the impact of repeal on training and safety. The study found that construction training fell off 40% in the 9 states which repealed the laws. It also noted that occupational injuries rose by 15%. repeal advocates ignore changed conditions The biggest problem Cockshaw's has with arguments made by repeal advocates is that they totally ignore current industry conditions. Most of the claims now being made to kill the Act have validity when applied to the 1960's and 1970's. But, unlike the high wage climate 20 and 30 years ago, construction today is a low wage industry. Pay is so lousy the industry no longer can compete for qualified workers and there are skilled shortages most everywhere. Interestingly, those who lead the drive to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act agree with these points. In a speech last year, Tommy Knight, president and CEO of ABC member Brown & Root stated: ``None of our challenges is more important than the need to reverse the decline in living standards that our craft employees have suffered over the past decade. ``Since 1983, the purchasing power of the typical construction worker has been reduced by almost 30%. ``Worse, a majority no longer can carry health insurance for their families. They can't afford it. ``Typical teenagers now view a potential career in construction as only slightly more appealing than becoming a migrant farm worker.'' Brown & Root's chief executive continued: ``It's a small wonder that our average craftsman is more than 40 years old and from a generation that entered the business when a good living could still be made from it. ``If this trend is left unchecked, it won't be long before our industry compromises its ability to fill the needs of our customers and our country.'' ABC's executive vice president, Dan Bennet, also sounded the alarm early last year about construction's poor financial incentives. Then in December he bemoaned the resulting skills shortfalls, noting: ``A major part of the problem lies with an aging workforce . . . and the lack of qualified entry level workers to take their place.'' Given these views, the ABC's campaign to repeal Davis-Bacon is puzzling. That's because it is impossible to raise wages when you act to lower them! And there is solid evidence that this is exactly what will happen if prevailing wage provisions are struck down. It comes from the same 82-page University of Utah study cited earlier. The authors' key conclusion regarding the impact of repeal in nine states: ``Repeals in the states studied cost construction workers at least an average $1,477 per year in earnings.'' Given this evidence, it's crystal clear that scrapping Davis-Bacon will lower wages further and make a construction career even more unattractive. And skilled labor shortages, which are already increasing at an alarming rate, will worsen. In summary, there was a time when Davis-Bacon contributed to higher costs and inflation. At that time, in the 60's and 70's, Cockshaw's backed repeal efforts. But, as we've demonstrated in this article, conditions in construction today are vastly different. For that reason and others we've cited, Davis-Bacon repeal now would be a huge mistake. Although repeal is not in the industry's best interests, reform of the Act's administration is.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing, along with 19 of my colleagues, the Davis-Bacon Act Reform [[Page E 1937]] Amendments of 1995. This is a companion bill to S. 1183, introduced by Senator Hatfield in the other body. The Davis-Bacon Act is an important protection for many working families in our country. Davis-Bacon requires contractors to pay the locally prevailing wage on Federal construction and repair contracts. The law seeks to level the playing field without undermining local economies and local employment practices. Repeal of Davis-Bacon would reduce the standard of living for many working families and force contractors to discontinue training programs, health care, and pensions for their workers. With the result, I might add, that the Federal Government would face the costs of taking over training, paying for indigent health care for workers, and possibly bailing out failed pension plans. This bill represents an alternative to repeal. We recognize that the threshold triggering Davis-Bacon coverage of contracts has not been adjusted since it was set at $2,000 in the 1930's. This bill raises the threshold to $100,000 for new construction and $25,000 for renovation and repair contracts, and would adjust the threshold annually for inflation. This bill also prohibits contract splitting to avoid Davis-Bacon coverage, enhances enforcement of the Act, makes provision for the use of helpers, and makes other changes in the law to clarify the scope of coverage of Davis-Bacon. Our bill is identical to S. 1183 with two exceptions. As I mentioned, we would adjust for inflation annually. S. 1183 makes that adjustment every 5 years. In addition, S. 1183 replaces the current weekly payroll reporting requirement with a monthly requirement. Our bill requires payroll reports every 3 months, or quarterly. I believe these modifications strengthen our version of the bill. Mr. Speaker, we introduce this bill to reform Davis-Bacon in the hopes of expanding the range of options to be considered by the House and to expand the debate beyond repeal versus the status quo. This bill was worked out as a compromise between labor and a coalition of over 14,000 contractors in all 50 States. We hope that what comes out of this process is a reform of Davis-Bacon that all sides can live with.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Who has the plan?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. So if we get the time tomorrow night, I will be here. fire prevention week Let me move on to a topic that I originally wanted to address that is very near and dear to me because it is the reason I got involved in public service in the first place. And that is the emergency responders of this country. Before being mayor of my hometown I was a local fire chief in a volunteer company and director of fire training for a county of 560,000 people. I literally grew up working with those people who respond to our disasters. The reason why I wanted to take out this special order tonight is that this week is Fire Prevention Week. It is a week where we want to raise the awareness of one of the Nation's most serious problems. That problem is the loss of life caused by fire and disaster throughout this country. We tend to focus in America on incidents involving war and loss of life from plagues and other illnesses, and certainly that is critical and an important priority of our society. But, Mr. Speaker, we fail to look at the fact that our Nation has the worst record of any industrialized nation in the world when it comes to fires and natural and man-made disasters. On average, 6,000 people a year die from fires primarily in one- and two-family dwellings. In fact, according to the Safe Kids Campaign, which is a national group focusing on protective measures for our children, almost 1,000 children each year are killed from fires, primarily residential fires. We in this country do not take the issue serious unless it is the result of a major disaster, like we saw with the World Trade Center or the Oklahoma City bombing or the wildlands fires out West or a flood like we had in the Midwest or down South. We need to understand the importance of raising the awareness of our children and our families every day throughout the year. When I first came to Congress 9 years ago, I saw a void in terms of awareness of the people who were out there protecting our communities. And there are a million and a half of them Eighty percent of them are volunteer; 20 percent of them are paid. I saw a void in understanding on the point of our public officials that these people are really America's number one domestic defenders. They are the people who respond to every disaster we have, not just the fires in our homes, not just the hazmat incidents, the bombings like we saw in New York, the wildlands fires, the hurricanes such as in Florida, the tornadoes we saw in the Midwest, the floods and the earthquakes. In every one of those instances, year after year, these emergency responders come out and give of themselves to protect our people and our communities. Mr. Speaker, this is one time during the year when we can recognize the work of these selfless heroes. In fact, at the end of this week, we will have the annual fallen firefighters memorial at Emmitsburg, the site of the National Fire Academy for this country. At that site we will recognize those individuals who gave their life during the last year in protecting the American people. Mr. Speaker, what is so outrageous is that each year we lose approximately 100 men and women all across America, some paid, many of them volunteers. These individuals selflessly give of themselves to protect their communities and each year approximately 100 of them make the supreme sacrifice. On this occasion, this weekend, as we do every year, we will pay tribute to their families and their loved ones. I think the best way we can pay tribute to these unsung heroes is to acknowledge the real problem that America has, the need to take care of our children, to educate them on what to do if they are in an emergency situation, the need to deal with our seniors, many of whom are confined and live alone and do not have adequate alarm systems or do not have the adequate ability to protect themselves if an incident occurs in their house and the ability to teach our families how they need to be able to be prepared to deal with emergencies, and that is what this week is about. Yesterday, the International Association of Firefighters, the organization of paid firefighters nationally, brought to Washington a group of young children and individuals who had suffered burns in real instances around the country. What a tragedy it was and what a tragedy it is to see someone who suffers burns from an incident in their home or in their place of work. These kids came down here to remind us that we have an obligation every day of the year to try to heighten the awareness of young kids as to how they can prevent burns from occurring in the home, in the workplace, in the school or other places where our families assemble. I commend the firefighters associations for bringing those kids here and for Senator Dole for speaking to them to remind them that we do care and that we are going to continue to work on funding for burn foundations across the country and for educational programs like those provided by the National Fire Protection Association and the International Association of Firefighters to protect our kids, especially those that are done in cooperation with the national Safe Kids Campaign. Today over across the street, we had, along with the Congressional Fire Services Institute, a 2-hour luncheon session for Members of Congress and their staffs where we taught them how to use portable fire extinguishers. Some say, why is that necessary? My first term in Congress, we had a fire in the Speaker's suite that burned the entire suite and could have jeopardized life in that particular building, but because of aggressive action by some staffers and because of the quick response of the D.C. Fire Department, the fire was extinguished. We want every staffer in our buildings to know that they should understand how to respond to an emergency, how to use a portable extinguisher. And along that line, we have also done CPR classes where Members of Congress and staffers can learn the basic techniques of CPR and hopefully spread that word back in their districts. Tomorrow we will have a program at the Capitol Hill Day Care Center where we will talk to young children who are there every day about fire protection, life safety and about some of the basic lessons that they should be learning, like how to dial 911 when an emergency call is needed or how to drop and roll if in fact the child's clothing should somehow catch on fire or one of the other things that can happen to a kid in the home that they need to understand they can take action on themselves. On Friday, we will have a session with Members of Congress on national legislation looking at the whole issue of disasters. A year ago, over a year ago, I petitioned Speaker Tom Foley to convene a bipartisan task force of Members of this body to focus on the issue of natural and man-made disasters, partly because I felt we were not totally prepared, partly because of the frustration that I hear every day from the emergency responders across the country, and partly because every time we have a disaster this Congress is [[Page H 9893]] asked to come in and allocate billions and billions of dollars that we do not have to pay people primarily in property areas where they could have bought insurance, either flood insurance, earthquake insurance or fire insurance. This legislation that we are going to advocate and highlight this Friday in fact focuses on a national system to not just take the burden off the taxpayers but to establish a reinsurance fund through the private insurance companies to pay for disasters, but also to provide an incentive for local towns and counties to adequately preplan their emergencies, to make sure those building codes are up to date and enforced, to make sure there are adequate emergency plans in place in each community and to make sure the emergency responders are properly trained and equipped. So, Mr. Speaker, all week long we will have a series of activities in Washington focusing on the ultimate objective of reducing the loss of life in this country and the damage to property from the perils of fire and other disasters. But I think it is more important than that in terms of the issue not just of educating the citizens of this country but in recognizing those heroes that we take for granted too much in this country. I have had the pleasure, over the last 9 years, of traveling 49 of the 50 States and to work and speak to individual and State fire service groups in each one of those States. Those brave individuals in each of those 49 States are the same. They are selfless people, unselfish people who care about their neighborhoods, care about their communities. They are Republicans and Democrats, and they are there doing a service in many cases with no compensation as volunteers. This is a time and this is a week for us to acknowledge them, to pay tribute to their work, to thank them for being the real heroes of this country, that we can look up to and pay our respects to, to pat them on the back for a job well done, to stop by the local emergency response station and let them know we appreciate their work, to take our kids over and help sensitize them to the kinds of things they should understand in case an emergency occurs in their home. This is a week where we can pay tribute to these people. As I traveled around the country and interacted with these folks, one of the things I heard in my early time in Congress was they just were not getting the response from the Congress that they felt was necessary. We took that notion and 8 years ago, 7 years ago formed the Congressional Fire and Emergency Services Caucus. That caucus, Mr. Speaker, quickly became the largest caucus in the Congress and remains the largest caucus in the Congress with over 400 Members, Republicans and Democrats who laid down their partisan differences and who come together to say, we together can support these brave men and women and give them the kinds of resources they need. Following the formation of that caucus, which has had successes in a number of legislative areas, ranging from increasing funds for training to passing legislation dealing with safe cigarettes to dealing with issues involving hazardous materials, putting an emphasis on FEMA, on urban search and rescue and all of the other issues that confront us every day, we also formed a congressional institute, and that institute works as the educational arm of the Congress in sensitizing us to the real priorities that emergency responders have every day. In talking to these emergency responders nationwide, the one message that I keep repeating to them that is so important is that they have to let public officials at all levels know who they really are. They are not just the people who respond to our disasters. They are not just the firefighters. In every one of the towns where we have emergency response organizations, and Mr. Speaker, there are 32,000 organized emergency response departments in this country, in every one of them, the local fire and EMS department is the location where they hold the town meetings. It is the hall where the young couple holds its wedding reception. It is the organization that gets called when there is a child that is lost and they have got to organize a search party. It is the group of people that you call when the cellar is flooded and you have to pump it out. It is the group of people who organize the July 4th parades and Memorial Day celebrations, Christmases for kids that have special needs and all of other things that make our communities in America so vibrant and strong. And so during this week, as we recognize and celebrate the need to educate the people of this country on how to protect themselves from the ravages of fire and other disasters, let us especially pay tribute to those brave men and women, 1.5 million of them in 32,000 departments across America who today are responding to every type of disaster that the mind can imagine. Let us thank them for their efforts. Mr. Speaker, as further effort this week to encourage Members to get involved locally in these issues, we will be distributing this week some of the most important devices that Members can take and sell back home in terms of educating their own citizens on how to prevent loss of life and property damage. The First Alert Company is providing smoke detectors for every Member of the House and the Senate which they can use as an example of what should be done in every home in this country, and that is placing a low-cost, in some cases, $5 or $6 smoke detector in a home that can alert families there is, in fact, a problem. I would encourage all of our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to take these detectors, which they are getting for free and to use them as examples of simple things that can be done by families, and if families, in fact, cannot afford to buy smoke detectors, let us know where they are so that we can work with the groups that are providing them nationally. In fact, both the International Association of Fire Chiefs and the First Alert Company have gone time and again to provide free smoke detectors and free batteries to many of our urban areas, especially areas where we have high incidences of poverty, coupled with incidences of arson and fire so we can protect those people who do not have the financial resources to buy this equipment. These are simple tools, but perhaps one of the most important tools in protecting lives and especially children in terms of incendiary fires and situations that would occur that would threaten the lives of our youngsters throughout this country tonight. In closing, let me say I took this special order out in hopes I could spend an hour talking about many of the programs in place today and many of the actions that are being done both in this Congress and throughout America, and let me say this issue is about as strong a bipartisan effort as I can think of. The Democrats who are involved in this are leading the way as equals with Republicans on these issues, and they have been supportive along the track all the way down the line even when some of our Republican administrations were not as sensitive to these concerns as they should have been. I just wish we could take that spirit of bipartisanship that we use in dealing with fire and life safety issues instead of scaring people and use that same spirit to address some of these other concerns that we have in this Nation which cause us to polarize, split apart and just demean each other, call out partisan name-calling back and forth. If we could accomplish that, then perhaps we could really show the American people that we can solve the problems of this country and we can do it in a way that is bipartisan and that can give each party credit, because the ultimate goal is not to achieve a winning edge over the other party. The ultimate goal is to meet the needs of the American people.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I think I have had enough of this issue. I think the facts are what they are. Anyone watching this who cannot see what this is all about is just not paying attention. This is not about a bipartisan debate. It is about one party coming up with a plan, maybe it is not perfect, but putting it out there for people to look at, and the other party walking away and saying, we do not even support our President because the plan he has we cannot support. Even though we said initially the President had a plan, we do not want to embrace that because you do not want to make a tough decision. You want to have your cake and you want to eat it, too. You cannot do it anymore. That game is over. We are going to move on. I would just say in closing, I appreciate the emotion displayed by myself and other Members. I respect everyone who was here tonight. I would like to continue this. I will come back again. If we get time, we can have a good, honest split-the-time debate. I will come back. The gentleman from California, Mr. Riggs, will you come back as well? Mr. RIGGS Absolutely.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. No. Members are complaining about our not providing a chance to let them look at this, but when are you going to give us your plan to look at to tear apart like they are tearing ours apart?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I will have a hearing. When will my colleagues give us a plan?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Well, when will we get your plan? When will we get yours to look at?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. We would like to see your plan. When will we get that?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. One term. The gentleman has so much eloquence, I thought he had been here for more than one term. Let me just say that, unfortunately, in the 9 years I have been here, in this session, I have had more chance to look at legislation than any period of time in my history. We have been given bills that do not even go through our committees in the past that we had to vote on on the floor. I agree, granted, we should have more time, but it is not like we have not been discussing this issue.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time. How many terms has the gentleman been here, Mr. Farr?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Give us a date certain. When will my colleagues give us your plan?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentlewoman makes a point. This plan is available for anyone who has access to Internet, or, if they call my office, I will send them a copy. I agree that Members should have ample opportunity to vote. I can recall being here my first session of Congress at 2:30 in the morning when Jim Wright was in the Chair and they brought out a 1,200-page document, put it on the desk, and said we have to vote on it tonight. We didn't have days, hours or minutes. It was the continuing resolution that we were being forced to vote on that none of us had seen. This did not just deal with Medicare. It was the blueprint for the entire country's fiscal process for the next fiscal year. We did not have minutes to consider it. Unfortunately, part of the practice of this institution is that we get bills like that. In this case we have it. I have had town meetings, I have interacted with my people. I know the parameters of this. There is a chance to amend it. We will all have an opportunity on the floor to present a viable alternative, and at that point in time we want to hear what your alternative does. We want to hear it. I have heard tonight that none of my colleagues on that side support the President's proposed plan because of the level of controls on increases, so I will be interested to know what their plan is. I now yield to my colleague from California, Mr. Farr.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I have to limit our time now because I do have to do at least 15 minutes on what I came here for. So if my colleagues will stick around, I will yield to each of them to make a closing comment, in fairness. I will start with my good friend, Ms. Pelosi.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments, and I respect her, as she knows, as one of the tireless workers on behalf of human needs in this Congress and I respect that. But let me say what offends me is that I do not hear the same level of special orders, of dialog over here, talking about the abuse of the human service delivery programs in this country is I hear with the rhetoric going on with Medicare. This issue of SSI is not new. It is not some anecdotal comment. In fact, the money that is being used to take care of families who can now qualify their kids as operating below their grade level is known as crazy money. And all over the country parents are going to psychiatrists to get their kids qualified so they can collect SSI forever. That is outrageous, because it takes money away from kids who have legitimate needs, and it takes money away from legitimate concerns of seniors who have the need of SSI. Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is, we have to admit in this body, both sides, that there is gross waste and abuse all over. We need to stop scaring people. The worst part about what I heard tonight is scaring seniors. No one wants to hurt senior citizens. I am not going to vote here to hurt my 85-year-old mother or her friends in my hometown or the town where I was the mayor, which is the second poorest town in my county. I will not vote to do that. We have to stop the rhetoric of scaring seniors into thinking the bad Republicans are going to rob them and take their benefits, and that is what is [[Page H 9891]] being said here, and that is what offends me. I yield to my colleague.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Be happy to yield.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I will quote Democrat Chicago Mayor Bill Daley in an article in the New York Times, and I quote. ``The only message we have got is the same one we had in November. The Republicans are going to cut Social Security and Medicare. People look at it and say forget it, we don't buy that. The sky isn't falling''. This is not Newt Gingrich, this is the Democratic Mayor Bill Daley saying here we go again. We are going to scare the seniors. Like the attempt was made when Ronald Reagan came in to convince seniors that now Republicans were going to end Social Security. It was a scare tactic for nothing less than partisan politics. And I will again quote Mr. Moynihan, the most respected Member of the Senate on issues involving Medicare and health care. This is from September of this year on David Brinkley. At he present moment, Medicare costs double every seven years. The Republicans want to slow that down to doubling every ten years. The administration is somewhere in between. No one is talking about abolishing Medicare, and, indeed, no one is talking about cutting Medicare, especially the rate of growth. Now, Mr. Speaker, if we could get beyond the rhetoric and have an honest debate and Democrats present an honest alternative, if other Members do not like the President's, they should put their plan up. We cannot say we are not going to cut anything, that is not realistic.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, we now have the three Members of Congress, who spent an hour on the floor tearing apart the Republican plan, saying it was outrageous, it was insensitive, was not compassionate, and now we have, after each of them have been read the President's plan and said there is a plan out there, it is the President's plan, now have said individually they do not support the President's plan. That is exactly the problem. And let me point out what this debate has come out to.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Does the gentlewoman support that level of change?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Does the gentlewoman support that?