Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, first let me thank the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), and the chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), for this bill and for their hard work and leadership in terms of trying to address the very complicated issues of housing and our veterans population.

Mr. Chairman, 20 percent of our homeless population hold jobs, 22 percent are mentally ill, and 11 percent are veterans. Now, on any given day in my home State of California, there are approximately 350,000 people who are homeless, including as many as 100,000 children. I rise today because we must help the over 3 million homeless nationwide and millions of low-income families struggling to find shelter across this country.

Mr. Chairman, this bill is woefully underfunding homeless programs for one of our Nation's most vulnerable and most consistently neglected populations. Now, I understand that this bill provides $25 million more than fiscal year 2003 levels. But given the cost of inflation, this bill really does provide a net cut. Moreover, and what is very important that we understand here is that this bill falls $83 million short of the President's request. The President's request. Our amendment simply funds the McKinney-Vento homeless programs at the President's request.

This Congress and the administration have championed the need for more supportive housing, more comprehensive transitional housing and homeless assistance programs, and really ending the chronic cycle of homelessness. President Bush and Secretary Martinez have both committed to ending homelessness in the next 10 years.

As we make these commitments and promises, the rates of homelessness continues to rise. Since the start of 2003, people requesting emergency homeless assistance and food has sky-rocketed. At a time of record and rising unemployment and economic uncertainty, when more people are forced to live on the streets, to suffer the elements and the stigma of homelessness, we must commit and live up to our promise and our obligation to end this crisis.

By increasing the funds used in the McKinney-Vento account, we can devote the much-deserved funding and attention to homelessness. The Lee-Schakowsky amendment would provide a modest response to this often unavoided yet urgent problem by simply funding the McKinney-Vento account at the President's requested level of $1.3 billion for fiscal year 2004.

This $83 million would translate into housing to over 14 million families who have critical housing needs and over 2.5 million households with children living in severely substandard housing. By supporting McKinney-Vento at the President's requested amount, we could provide shelter for the over 1 million homeless children in our country.

What would we be giving up in order to fund these accounts and do the right thing? The answer is nothing that HUD could not live without. This offset comes from an already bloated working capital account which pays for IT consultants and computer supplies at HUD. Even with the passage of the Lee-Schakowsky amendment, the HUD working capital would have received over $1 billion from 2001 to 2003.

The real question that our amendment poses, is very simple: Do Members support helping to alleviate homelessness or do they support a nameless, faceless account used to provide the tools to process the information about the homeless. It is really about choice.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, let me follow up with that by saying, failing to fund the administration's budget request for homeless programs undercuts HUD Secretary Martinez's pledge to end chronic homelessness within the next decade. By repudiating the administration's homeless budget, which is at the heart of that pledge, it will be impossible to provide the permanent housing and supportive services that are needed for the 150,000 chronically homeless individuals.

Underfunding in the homeless account really comes on top of the bill's deep cuts in public housing and underfunding of section 8 renewals. Public housing and section 8 are the key provisions providing rental assistance to the poorest. Program cuts now will result in an increase in the level of homelessness nationwide, and that is one of the reasons why we are standing today with the President in terms of his funding request of $83 million, so we can move forward and begin to address those who have been shut out, really, of the benefits of this very wealthy country.

I want to close with this poem from a 7-year-old homeless child. It is called ``Being Homeless'':

``If you are a kid, it is cold, lonely, scary. I guess I need to hurry and grow up.''

It does not seem much of a choice to me in terms of restoring or putting in the $83 million that the President wants. I am asking for this House to please support the Lee-Schakowsky amendment.

It is really a matter of choices. We can decide, do we want to help those who are vulnerable, those who are out on the streets with no place to go, those who barely have enough to eat, those who have severe mental difficulties, physical difficulties who have no health care; or do we want to fund some information technology account over at HUD.

I ask for an ``aye'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker. I rise in opposition to H.R. 2738, the Chile Free Trade Agreement.

Last year, this House passed a free trade agreement that I voted for because it encouraged commerce while protecting important labor and environmental standards and protecting American jobs.

The Chilean FTA and the Singapore agreement we will be voting on shortly, represent the products of Fast Track: Congress has no chance to remedy fundamental flaws in these bills. We are asked to accept what the President hands us, and in this case the Administration has handed us two bills that represent a step backward.

These bills do not uphold basic labor standards.

We set a terrible precedent if we pass these bills without adequate labor provisions because I guarantee you this weak standard will be replicated in future trade agreements.

We see the same shortfall on environmental standards and thus we set a bad precedent in that regard as well.

We need to be promoting sustainable development and environmentally sustainable trade--it's in the American interest.

Finally, this bill and its companion will continue to erode the American job base. NAFTA has cost hundreds of thousands of American jobs.

These trade agreements and those that will follow in their path will accelerate this job loss,

further damaging an economy that is already spiraling down in a jobs depression.

Labor and environmental standards are not luxuries: they are essential ingredients to a sound trading policy. We could have built on the Jordanian standard; instead, these bills fall short.

I urge you to oppose this bill.

Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman for yielding me time and for his leadership and for making sure we have a way to make sure that the world knows what we are trying to stop tonight.

Head Start has a proven record of preparing low-income children for school and for life. It has been successful because Head Start understands that education is not just about reading and writing; it understands that all children need a sound body if they are to have a sound mind. Just as much as they need education and learning, Head Start understands that they need nutrition and health care.

Recent studies show the congressional districts represented by Congressional Black Caucus Members have almost twice as many children in Head Start as other congressional districts. That means if this bill goes through, children in our districts will be disproportionately hit.

Mr. Chairman, block granting is a recipe for disaster. It guarantees that thousands of Head Start students will start their life well behind. It is the beginning of the end of Head Start. By supporting the Miller substitute, however, we are recognizing that Head Start works. Let us keep it working.

Mr. Speaker, let me just thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank all of my colleagues on this side of the aisle and also our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, especially the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) for leading this very important fight for more affordable prescription drugs.

Mr. Speaker, I want to start off tonight by sharing with my colleagues the news from a study which was featured today in the Wall Street Journal. Now, this article begins, ``Black Medicare beneficiaries are more than twice as likely as white beneficiaries to go without a prescription drug because they could not afford it.'' This is a study conducted by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Let me repeat: African Americans are two times more likely to go without needed medicine.

Now, this study goes on to detail the deep disparities in access to drugs, reporting that fully 16 percent of black recipients of Medicare said they could not afford to fill at least one prescription in 2001 compared with 7 percent of whites.

Mr. Speaker, make no mistake, African Americans are suffering disproportionately and mightily under the current laws crafted to protect the drug companies and their inflated prices. And make no mistake, that the suffering will only get worse if we do not pass this bill. And the suffering will last for as long as there is this huge, and I cannot believe this huge, resistance to efforts to reduce the skyrocketing and irrational cost of these lifesaving medicines.

The reality for African Americans and millions of Americans on Medicare is outrageous and shameful, but we have the option tonight to do something about it. We should and we must seize this opportunity to provide lifesaving medicine to millions of Americans who are going without, simply because they cannot afford the bloated costs of drugs. And we should do so by voting to allow, as this bill does, safe, FDA- approved prescription drugs to be reimported into the United States.

Now, much has been said about safety and logistics of reimportation, and I think it is very important to point out that the FDA-approved drugs are already frequently and legally imported into this country, but only by the manufacturers. It is also important to note that more than 1 million Americans already purchase their medicines from outside the United States, and there has not been one reported death or illness from Americans taking such products.

Mr. Speaker, the simple fact is that seniors' drug costs increased 44 percent between 2000 and 2003, with the top 50 drugs prescribed to seniors increasing in cost by 3.5 times the rate of inflation in the last year.

The simple fact is, Americans pay 30 to 300 percent more for medicines than do people in other industrialized countries. We should pass this bill tonight.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Today I rise in support of this amendment, and I would also at this point like to thank the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick) for introducing it and also for her very bold and committed leadership and her very hard work over the years in trying to ensure that we increase the level of assistance to help combat HIV and AIDS. We could not do it without her. We authorize, she appropriates. And she certainly has taken lead to ensure that millions of people in Africa have hope. I thank her.

Over the past 2 months, in fact, it was about 2 months ago, the President of the United States signed into law H.R. 1298, the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003. This piece of legislation, which passed the House overwhelmingly last May, provides $15 billion over 5 years. That is $3 billion a year, which is still not enough but that is all that we could negotiate, for global AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria programs in the developing world, especially in Africa and the Caribbean.

Two weeks ago the President took this promise of money to the continent of Africa where he attempted to trumpet the compassionate side of United States foreign policy. For the most part, he was warmly welcomed by people who believe and expect that when the United States makes a promise to tackle a problem, particularly something as devastating as HIV and AIDS, which of course Secretary of State Colin Powell has repeatedly described as a greater threat than terrorism, people believe that we will follow through on our commitment.

Unfortunately, that has not been the case so far, and I was very surprised and taken aback last week when I learned of a letter forwarded to the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) from the White House asking him to keep the overall funding for global AIDS at $2 billion, specifically mentioned that the Global AIDS Fund should only receive $200 million this year. Actually it was $200 million less than what was in the bill, so thankfully I am glad that the committee did not heed this particular advice.

But meanwhile let me just say in Paris, France we learned that our Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson, was at the global AIDS meeting. He of course serves as Chair of the Executive Board of the Global Fund, and he was attempting to solicit greater contributions for that organization from other donor nations, which is a good thing, but we are leading the way.

Let me just ask my colleagues what kind of message do these two actions really send to the rest of the world? Clearly, the administration's financial commitment to this issue does not match its rhetoric. Let me just quote the President's own words when he was in Nigeria on July 12. The President said, ``This week a committee of the House of Representatives took an important step to fund the first year of the authorization bill. The House of Representatives and the United States Senate must fully fund this initiative for the good of the people on this continent of Africa.'' The President said that in Africa. So today we are left to work with the foreign ops appropriation bill that is woefully underfunded coming in at even $1.8 billion less than the President requested way back in February. Unfortunately, this means that a variety of valuable foreign aid programs must compete for the same pot of money, including foreign aid initiatives that the President considers to be his own. This scenario could have been avoided really if the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) which provided an extra $1 billion in global AIDS funding by way of an emergency designation in this bill had been approved in committee last night, if the Committee on Rules had made the amendments in order. Ever since the subcommittee allocations came out, we knew that we were likely to face a $1 billion funding shortfall for our global AIDS programs. That is why about 2 weeks ago 115 of our colleagues joined in sending a letter to the President, urging him to formally request an emergency supplemental appropriations of $1 billion for our global AIDS program so that we could avoid any potential cuts to any other foreign aid programs. So we sent this communication.

I am still hopeful that the President will move to save millions of lives in Africa with the same kind of zeal that he has displayed earlier in pushing through tax cuts and in pursuing the invasion of Iraq. But in the meantime we must also do what we can to ensure

that the promises made by the United States Government towards the people of Africa and the Caribbean are lived up to.

Mr. Chairman, let me ask that we support the Kilpatrick amendment. The need for increased funding for HIV and AIDS is now. These additional funds can be spent to save lives, and we need to put this money into the account right now. I hope that the Members have heard the cry of the Congressional Black Caucus today.

As you know the amendment before us would transfer $300 million from the Millennium Challenge Account to our bilateral AIDS programs within the Child Survival and Health Account of the Foreign Operations bill. This would reduce the overall funding level for MCA to $500 million, while boosting funding for our Global AIDS programs within this bill to $1.73 billion.

As a co-sponsor and a strong supporter of the Millennium Challenge Account legislation that we passed last week, I had to make a difficult decision as to whether we could justifiably pull $300 million away from the initiative without jeopardizing its ability to get off the ground in its first year of operation.

After careful consideration of the likely timing for the enactment of the MCA, the need to operationalize the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and future funding disbursements, as well as the urgency of the Global AIDS pandemic, I believe that this amendment is an acceptable tradeoff.

Nonetheless, this kind of practice is not something we can engage upon year to year. The administration must back up its so called Presidential initiatives with more than just rhetoric. It must provide the funding. Otherwise, the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, the Millennium Challenge Account, and our other initiatives will be nothing more than empty promises. The need for increased funding for HIV/AIDS is now. The additional funds can be spent to save lives immediately.

I hope that you will support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I rise in strong support of the McGovern-Skelton amendment. This amendment transfers $75 million from Colombian military assistance to global programs for HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment. Now, this amendment signals to Colombia and the world that this government is serious about the need to respect human rights, that it believes that we need to rethink our approach to the Colombian situation, and that we recognize that the HIV/AIDS pandemic is the greatest health and humanitarian crisis of our time.

Plan Colombia has failed. Coca production in the Andes has increased. Eradication programs are shifting production, not eliminating it, and they are exposing men, women, and children of the region to dangerous pesticides. At the same time, paramilitary organizations tied to the Colombian army we are supporting have engaged in gross human rights violations. Those same paramilitaries, according to the Washington Post and other sources, are major drug dealers themselves. The Post reports that paramilitaries control 40 percent, that is 40 percent of the Colombian drug trade. Human Rights Watch and other humanitarian organizations have reported that Colombian military officers alleged to have committed human rights abuses remain on duty.

We should be able to translate United States assistance into influence to promote the protection of human rights. That is not happening in Colombia, and civilians are paying the price. We are compelled to ask: What are we trying to do in Colombia and what is our exit strategy? How much will we spend on this program and what will it accomplish? The United States has a long and troubled history in Latin America, and we should end this chapter.

At the same time, this bill underfunds the President's $3 billion HIV/AIDS initiative, so this amendment would help correct this imbalance that will cost lives. While the money that this amendment would transfer from the Colombian account is a modest sum by most standards, it can go a long way towards helping those individuals who are suffering and dying from HIV and AIDS and other opportunistic infections such as tuberculosis and malaria.

Now, with the cost of generic anti-retroviral drugs dropping to under $300 a year, let me tell my colleagues what $75 million would do. Seventy-five million dollars would allow another 250,000 HIV/AIDS infected individuals access to these lifesaving drugs. Seventy-five million dollars could also pay for approximately 7 million people to take the normal $10 treatment course for tuberculosis, which is the leading killer of HIV and AIDS patients. And with the cost of most malaria treatment courses ranging from $2 to $5, up to 15 million patients could be treated with just $75 million.

Let me be clear, though, that as much good as this money can do, it can in no way overcome the nearly $1 billion shortfall in spending for our global AIDS, TB, and malaria initiatives. Now, the President has promised $3 billion, but it is obvious that this Congress must deliver on that. I would hope that the President would try very hard to find some way to make up the difference between the $3 billion that we authorized back in May and the just over $2 billion that we are now appropriating.

Thanks to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Kilpatrick) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), with this amendment we have an opportunity to piece this money, and that is what we are doing, piecing this $1 million together. But it is worth it.

It would be a travesty to underfund our first-year pledge of the 5 years, $15 billion commitment we made so recently to fight global AIDS, particularly since the President spoke so much about it during his recent trip to Africa. Expectations have been raised, and we must deliver upon them or we risk further damage to our credibility.

This amendment improves our foreign policy in two directions. It helps correct a Colombian policy that has gone badly astray, and it transfers desperately needed funds to the most urgent humanitarian and health crisis of our time. It helps us, this House, deliver on the President's promise. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hinchey-Price amendment, and I would like to speak to the substance of this amendment. It promotes diversity by preserving existing limitations on media ownership. It actually promotes democracy.

The recent FCC decision to adopt new broadcast ownership rules raising the national television ownership rules undermines the fundamental principle of diversity, fair play, competition, and exchange of ideas. It really does run counter to our notion of freedom of the press, the right to free expression, the right to be heard.

The overwhelming public reaction against this FCC move dramatically illustrates the very diversity in America that this ruling circumvents.

Groups as wide ranging as Common Cause and the National Rifle Association, the National Organization for Women, in fact, the National Association of Black-Owned Broadcasters actually support this amendment. All of these groups oppose this step toward greater monopolization of the Nation's airwaves.

If we fail to take action, it is possible that a single company could own a newspaper, a television station, and a local radio station. Do we want all local news controlled by one company now that is possible under the new FCC rules? These few monopolies would shut down the views and voices of millions of Americans.

Another likely result of this rule change will be the further silencing of minority voices. According to recent surveys, minorities own less than 2 percent of the country's licensed television stations and only 4 percent of the commercial AM and FM stations. These minority owners and other independent operators are in grave danger of being trampled on by the accelerated expansion of media conglomerates.

Millions of Americans have contacted the FCC to express their disapproval of raising the limits on media ownership. This amendment addresses all of these very important concerns. It prevents the implementation of this unwise and unsound rule change.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 50th wedding anniversary of James Wilson Jackson and Harry Belle Fullmore, better known as Honey.

James, a lieutenant in the United States Army was stationed at Fort Bliss in El Paso, Texas where he met Honey. And, like her name, Honey was the belle of Texas and James was swept off his feet. After numerous Sunday dinners prepared by Jesse Cook, Honey's mother and James' future mother-in-law, James proposed to Honey and the two married on August 14, 1953.

They had four children: James Wilson Jackson, Jr., Suzan Elizabeth Jackson, Barbara Ann Jackson and Michelle Jackson.

Having chosen a military career, James and Honey traveled throughout the world including the Orient, Europe and from coast to coast in the United States. Everywhere they settled, they developed a host of friends.

Upon retiring from the military, James and Honey chose Cleveland, Ohio as their new home. Since moving to Cleveland in 1970, they have dedicated themselves to contributing to their community and society at large. James chose the civic route, volunteering to serve on various Boards and Commissions. Honey chose to make her contributions more economic in nature, supporting upscale and specialty boutiques from coast to coast.

During the 50 years of their marriage, James and Honey have been faced with many obstacles and hurdles, but working together, they have persevered. I am honored to commend James and Honey Jackson on their Golden Anniversary.

Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman for yielding me the time and also for his leadership and support in offering this amendment.

As an urban resident, let me just say that national forests are really national property and belong as much to my constituents and to me as to anyone else. The roadless rule was the most popular Federal rule in history. Wiping it out is just downright wrong. Once this wilderness is gone, we will never get it back.

Extending the roadless rule also means protecting clean drinking water, preserving habitat and safeguarding recreational opportunities. Preserving roadless areas also helps prevent incredibly damaging forest fires that we have witnessed in recent years in California and elsewhere in the West.

Forest studies show that fires are twice as likely to occur in areas with roads and areas that have been logged in these roadless areas, and under existing rules we can still practice fire management. That is exactly what we should be doing, practicing responsible fire management.

And, yes, most of us do live surrounded by concrete and asphalt. There have to be a few places left for our children and our grandchildren that are unpaved. And as I said earlier, national forests really are national property. We only have a handful of roadless areas left. Let us leave them for our kids, and let us leave them for their kids, our grandchildren. Our public lands really are under siege.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for introducing this resolution. It gives us the opportunity to reflect upon a great man.

I rise in strong support of this resolution honoring Maynard Jackson, most famously known as the first African American mayor of Atlanta, but who will be remembered for much more than his outstanding service as mayor to the people of Atlanta.

Maynard Jackson's accomplishments were far-reaching. He was an extraordinary leader in business, law, and public service. He successfully brought the world's largest airport, the Olympics, and a new world-class reputation to the City of Atlanta. Because of his efforts, the city boasts a booming economic center that is now home to one of the most prosperous African American business communities in the world.

The Honorable Maynard Jackson was a staunch supporter and pioneer of affirmative action initiatives. His legacy is particularly important at a time when the Nation has renewed its commitment to diversity as a compeling State interest through the Supreme Court's landmark decision. The transforming power of targeted efforts toward diversity and inclusion is clearly evidenced in Jackson's work. As mayor of Atlanta, he authored initiatives that laid the foundation for many of the minority firms in Atlanta's thriving business community. Additionally, Jackson successfully incorporated some of the most marginalized communities into the core of the city's political activities.

Early in life, Maynard Jackson proved he was exceptional by graduating from Morehouse College at the age of 18. He also held a law degree from North Carolina Central University. In addition to serving three mayoral terms, Jackson created several successful business ventures. He most recently chaired the Democratic National Committee Voting Rights Institute.

He believed in serving the larger community, but he also believed in giving back on an individual level. He did so by serving as a mentor to many young potential, aspiring, upcoming young leaders. Those leaders now have great shoes to fill with Maynard's passing, but are able to step up to the challenge and lead us into tomorrow, a great tomorrow, because of his care and his guidance.

I honor Maynard Jackson for his life's work. He created opportunities where none really existed. He advocated for communities that had been disregarded and disenfranchised. Every leader can learn from the way in which he facilitated the breaking of racial and class divides to achieve collective progress, prosperity, and peace for all Atlantans and all Americans.

To Jackson's credit, Atlanta is now a sophisticated and progressive city, an example to the country and to the world. His work points the way to a more equitable society and has left us numerous methods as to how that society can be achieved. For that, we are deeply grateful.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my congressional district, the Ninth Congressional District of California, who knew and loved Maynard Jackson, I join today with our colleagues, Maynard's family and friends, and, indeed, the entire Nation, as we mourn his passing, but also as we celebrate his life and his monumental accomplishments. Maynard Jackson will forever remain in the hearts and the minds of the American people.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I want to applaud our colleagues, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), co-chairs of the Arts Caucus, and their staff for their leadership on this issue of national importance, and I rise today also in strong support of this amendment.

Congress has the responsibility to provide adequate funding to the National Endowment for the Humanities, which is the largest single funder of humanities programs in our country; and the National Endowment for the Arts, the infrastructure for private nonprofit and Federal arts initiatives.

The current state of the economy has stifled private funding which subsidizes many arts and humanities programs nationwide. The economic downturn and our budget crisis is crippling arts initiatives in many, many States, especially in my home State of California. For example, in Oakland, one of the cities in my district, most of the arts education programs are facing real extinction. The result is the gradual disappearance of arts initiatives for people of all ages, ethnic backgrounds, social and economic backgrounds.

In the vibrant, very diverse Ninth Congressional District of California, this strikes a significant blow at the foundation of our community.

It is imperative that we support funding for the NEH, which is at the forefront of preservation of our historical and cultural heritage. For more than 20 years, the NEH has supported efforts to stabilize historical materials such as crumbling books, archives, newspapers, sound recordings, films, photographs, and archeological and ethnographic objects. These are treasures which will be lost forever.

Mr. Chairman, I wish you could listen to the stories of my constituents in the Bay area. Art and music teachers have been laid off. For example, Ms. Bonnie Noble, an art teacher at McClymonds High School in Oakland, explained that students tend to take art courses to escape the harsh reality of violence which has escalated with the downfall of the economy. Already she has difficulty convincing students to pursue arts in their postsecondary studies for fear that it will distract them from securing a good job in an apparently vicious competitive market.

Mr. Chairman, every year Members of Congress proudly exhibit the art work of the winners of the Artistic Discovery Arts Competition from their districts in the halls which provide the foundation of the United States Capitol. It seems contradictory to cut funding to the programs which support creativity in our community. We enjoy the fruits of their works and witness the products of this young talent every time we walk through the tunnel for a vote when we come over to this Capitol. Can you imagine walking through those dreary tunnels with bare walls simply because we refused to adequately fund arts and humanities programs and there were no teachers left to instruct our students?

This amendment also provides funding for the NEA, which is an investment in the economic growth of communities with grants reaching every congressional district in the country. During the last 14 years, the NEA has provided funding for over 123 programs in my district alone, including the Berkley Symphony Orchestra, the Axis Dance Company, and the East Bay Institute for Urban Arts and the Museum of Children's Art.

Clearly, a vote against this amendment, which is endorsed by the bipartisan Arts Caucus, is really an action against the vital thread which sustains the pulse of American culture. I urge all Members to support this amendment.

Madam Chairman, first, let me thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise today in support of the State Department authorization bill and also in support of the Millennium Challenge Account and Peace Corps amendments. I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for working on a bipartisan basis once again to ensure broad support for this bill.

Together we were able to craft language examining, for example, the impact of U.S. loan policy on Haiti and its ongoing humanitarian crisis and calling for the participation of small and minority-owned businesses within the MCA account. Small and disadvantaged businesses represent a very vital economic engine in this country yet too often have very little chance to participate in foreign assistance programs, so I am very pleased that we were able to ensure that they will play a role in the Millennium Challenge Account.

My two amendments are included in this bill, and once again I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for their support.

I would like to highlight two aspects of this bill which represents real progress in foreign policy, family planning and global climate change. First, through the Crowley-Lee amendment, the bill restored U.S. funding to vital United Nations family planning programs. This measure helps provide health care to and prevents abortions to the world's poorest women. Failure to provide family planning costs the lives of women and children. It is really just that simple. This also is a common-sense measure that prevents HIV and AIDS.

I strongly oppose the Smith amendment and would urge my colleagues oppose stripping out this important health care provision. The bill we passed out of committee also declared that it was the sense of the Congress and that the United States should demonstrate international leadership in mitigating global warming. The Committee on Energy and Commerce, however, refused to take up the responsibility of leadership and removed this global climate change measure. If we refuse to lead, we will be left behind technologically while we continue to contribute disproportionately to the world's pollution and global warming.

The Committee on Rules has joined the Committee on Energy and Commerce in this conspiracy of silence by refusing to allow a vote on the Menendez amendment on climate change.

Also, I am disappointed that the Committee on Rules did not make in order my amendment to advance democracy in fair and free elections on Haiti. But, on balance, it is a bill which I urge my colleagues to support. I thank the gentleman from Illinois again for this bipartisan bill.

Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the Smith amendment to deny basic, urgently needed health services to poor women living in over 141 countries around the globe. This dangerous amendment would strip the amendment that we successfully offered on a bipartisan basis in committee to restore UNFPA funding.

UNFPA saves the lives of women and their children. It prevents abortions, and it provides basic HIV/AIDS prevention services.

Madam Chairman, an overwhelming majority of this House voted for and the President recently signed into law an HIV/AIDS initiative. UNFPA funding is yet another important source of funding in the fight against the deadly pandemic and should be supported. Every day UNFPA is fighting the spread of HIV and AIDS and is saving the lives of hard-to- reach women in hard-to-reach places all around the world.

Finally, for those who are trying to turn this debate into a debate about abortion, let me clarify once more, not one single penny of UNFPA funds goes towards abortion. The Crowley-Lee amendment included in the bill strengthens the fact, and that is the reality. I urge a no on the Smith amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I want to thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me this time and for his leadership and his commitment to addressing the HIV/AIDS pandemic globally.

We passed very recently H.R. 1298, the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003, and the President signed this into law. This bill would expand the list of countries which the HIV/AIDS response coordinator has directed funding authority over.

Now, while USAID administers programs in some of the countries, such as Jamaica and the Dominican Republic, the practical effect of this amendment would be to highlight the Caribbean as a region that deserves our special attention in the fight against the global AIDS pandemic. As we look at the Caribbean, we must focus on the fact that the prevalence rates are similar to what they were in sub-Saharan Africa before this unbelievable explosion.

Today, over 500,000 people in the Caribbean are estimated to be living with HIV and AIDS with prevalence rates in most countries ranging from 1 to 3 percent. While it is clear that Africa, as the epicenter of the AIDS pandemic, should be the focus of our global AIDS initiative, we must be very clear and aware that the Caribbean is poised to undergo a dramatic increase in the number of new AIDS cases, with estimates of over 1 million people infected by 2010.

The Caribbean has, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) indicated, the second largest population of persons affected outside of sub-Saharan Africa with AIDS. And it is important that while he support AIDS prevention and treatment efforts in Haiti and Guyana, two of the hardest-hit countries respectively, we must also promote a regional response to the epidemic rather than a piecemeal two-country strategy. Such a response must also take into consideration the high volume of mobility within the Caribbean due to labor force shifts and the tourism industry.

We have a moral obligation to act not only because of the devastation that the AIDS pandemic has and will cause, but also because of our close connection to the Caribbean region and its people, as there are nearly 23 million Caribbean immigrants residing in the United States today; and over 10 million people from the United States visit the Caribbean annually.

The Rangel-Lee amendment does not preclude other countries from receiving funding, it does not authorize new funding, and will not steer an arbitrary level of funding to go to the Caribbean. It merely adds CARICOM countries and the Dominican Republic to the list of countries the HIV/AIDS response coordinator will oversee so that we can better coordinate our response to the pandemic in the Caribbean region.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, tonight I rise to acknowledge the groundswell of support for an investigation into whether or not the Bush administration made its case for war against Iraq. As proof of the growing demand for honest answers from the Bush administration, we need look no further than the support around the country to create an independent commission to investigation whether the Bush administration manipulated and distorted evidence to take the country to war in Iraq.

Now, over 300,000 people have signed this petition and hundreds of thousands of people commented. Of course, I received thousands of letters from my own district, but tonight I would like to read into the Record just some of the over 24,000 comments received from outside of my district in the State of California.

The credibility of this administration in front of the

American public and the world at large is our most precious

commodity. We must know the truth as soon as possible.

This came from Arcadia, California.

I am writing to you as a concerned citizen of this country.

I believe that we are heading down a very dangerous and

destructive path that is being led by the Bush

administration. This country is no more special than all of

the countries in the world, and American citizens are just as

important as Iraqi citizens. Our actions are not preventing

hostility, but I believe it is creating more violence and

anger towards America. It is the outrage that stems from

within that compels me to write to you and ask you to look

into this matter and not merely dismiss it as another policy

move.

Again, Arcadia, California.

This one comes from Dublin, California.

As a member of a military family, I am deeply concerned any

time a President chooses to send our Armed Forces into danger

zones. I have been appalled by the growing evidence that the

President may have lied about the reasons for invading and

conquering Iraq and fear that many lives may have been lost

because of deliberate falsehoods.

From Pleasanton, California:

The credibility of the United States is at

stake. Our new preemptive war policy is incredibly dangerous

and will result in many innocent lives lost until decisions

for war are based on reality. Invading another country should

be a very serious act. We did it. Our military performed

well. But our President still needs to remain accountable to

the United States citizens. Please ensure full disclosure is

made on this matter.

By the way, this individual goes on to say, I am a

Republican, but I still think that the Presidency must be

accountable to people.

Another one from Pleasanton, California:

Leading America into its first war based on a preemptive

strike doctrine and against strong international opposition

was the most serious act President Bush has committed. Now

there is serious doubt that his justification was honest. A

democracy can only function if all of these suspicions can be

examined and proven either correct or wrong. You can only

keep America a democracy if you support the establishment of

this commission.

Again, from Pleasanton, California:

Nothing could be less patriotic, more disregardful of the

safety of our troops or more injurious to our national

security than invading a country under false pretenses. If

the Bush administration lied to us, we have a right, and a

need, to know.

Pleasanton.

Here is one from Lodi, California:

Our involvement in Iraq has caused the region to become

even more unstable. We owe it to ourselves and the world to

investigate this matter and put every effort forth to unearth

the truth. President Clinton was impeached for lying about

sexual involvement with an aide. Evidence is coming to light

that Bush and his administration have lied to the world and,

to date, little is being done about it. I ask you, which

infraction is more serious and warrants our time and money

for investigation?

Again, Lodi, California.

Here is one from Tracy, California, Mr. Speaker:

The responsibility of sending young men and women into

harm's way should not be taken lightly. It is to this end

that I ask you to support a review of pre-war intelligence. I

ask this as a former soldier and a member of the district of

Tracy, California. I live on Central Avenue which runs

through the downtown of Tracy and was lined with yellow

banners embroidered with the names of our community's sons

and daughters sent to fight in Iraq. You represent those men

and woman, they wrote to their Member of Congress, and their

families and, he said, you owe it to them and to us to

investigate why exactly they are fighting this war. Yes, it

is still a war.

Here is one from Thousand Oaks, California, in southern California:

Our country was taken to war with Iraq on the premise that

we were under imminent threat by Iraq's weapons of mass

destruction. Now, months later, after many deaths on both

sides, we have yet to find any real evidence of these weapons

that the administration had such ``hard evidence'' of. In

order for the people's confidence in this administration to

be restored, I am asking you to let us know the truth by

endorsing an independent probe into this matter.

Here is one from San Diego:

If we continue to make war based on misinformation, we will

regret it as we did in Vietnam. What is done is done in Iraq,

but we should be honest enough to look at the truth.

Now, here is another one from La Mesa, California, in southern California:

Our system is based on the truth, the whole truth, and

nothing but the truth. Once we feel that we are betrayed by

our leaders and that they are not telling us the truth, the

whole system might collapse. We paid millions of dollars to

investigate the previous President because he lied about his

private life. Therefore, it is worth our effort and money to

investigate the current President and find out if he lied

about taking our country to war. Certainly we need to know

how the President used false evidence in his State of the

Union speech to make his case for war. Please form an

investigation committee and bring out the truth.

Here is one, Mr. Speaker, from Huntington Beach, California, again in southern California:

Isn't it time we got to the bottom of this embarrassment?

It is obvious at this point that there were serious

distortions given to the American people regarding the

necessity for war with Iraq. As a matter of fact, it might be

more important to look at why the distortions were necessary

at all. Why was it so important to go to war with Iraq that

lies had to be used? A lot of time, money, and lies have been

spent on this charade and it seems, in due course, that the

Bush administration should receive the same grilling that

Tony Blair has gotten over the same issues.

Mr. Speaker, believe me, these individuals throughout the State of California believe that this is a matter of national security and national integrity to explore these questions. They want an independent commission to establish an investigation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) for holding this Special Order on Head Start and for the gentleman's leadership to ensure that we continue to raise the level of awareness in terms of making sure that our country knows what is going on here in Washington, D.C. I thank the gentleman for remaining consistent and ensuring that we do have this opportunity to speak out and to wake up America.

Tonight of course this Special Order, this discussion is with regard to Head Start, a program whose obituary is but a few days away if the administration has its way. If the administration has its way, this would be the beginning of the end for Head Start. Later this week, we will see the Republicans overhaul or at least try to overhaul the Head Start system, a program which has fundamentally provided children with an opportunity to succeed. Since its inception in 1965, it has reached over 20 million people. It is a program that still continues to touch and improve this country's low-income children by providing them opportunities to succeed. It really is the best example of Leave No Child Behind.

In my hometown of Oakland, California, over 1,600 children are part of our area Head Start programs; and across the country last year, Head Start and Early Head Start programs worked with more than 900,000 children in over 2,500 local programs. But the Bush administration has indicated that, like so many other beneficial policies and programs that they are dismantling, Head Start must also be dismantled. They are saying that it must be undone, it must be gutted. How are they doing this? They are doing this in several crucial ways.

First, they want to block grant Head Start, but block granting Head Start would be very dangerous. Block granting Head Start would mean creating 50 potential new bureaucracies in each State. Not only would that be expensive, depriving these programs of money to use for the real goal of providing early childhood development and education for children, but it would weaken the oversight and evaluation of these programs.

And, of course, block granting Head Start is especially disturbing at this point in our Nation's history in the economic downturn and jobs depression that we are, unfortunately, experiencing. At a time when State budgets are in such crisis and with the States able to determine exactly how they are going to spend their money, the possibility of using this money for things other than Head Start I think would be too tempting. I would hate to see our children caught up in State budget battles. It is too risky, and they do not deserve that.

Perhaps worst of all, Republicans wants to turn Head Start into a program that relies on an exclusively academic program rather than what has been proven to be successful, and that is a comprehensive program for low-income children. What they want now is for children as early as age 4 to take a literacy test. Can Members imagine giving a 4-year-old a literacy test by which they would be evaluated? Gone would be the program components of nutrition and immunization programs, as well as counseling and other very important program components that provide for the support not only of the child but of the family. This focus on test scores for young children really is unbelievable.

At this particular time we should be doing more to improve and to increase the program, not reduce it. The truth is, we are still not reaching enough children. As I said earlier, over 1,600 Oakland students are in our Head Start programs. On any particular day in my hometown, 300-400 children are on waiting lists for Head Start centers. Head Start officials tell me all 30 centers have children on waiting lists, meaning all of the areas in my city are being affected.

Several months ago when families of Head Start heard about this very backwards initiative and proposal, 300-400 rallied immediately at city hall and they said in no uncertain terms if it is not broke, why fix it. They said that they wanted more children included in Head Start and that it was working in the way that we know it has always worked and to not tamper with it.

In fact, several of them told me we needed to focus on the fact that 300-400 children in Oakland are far too many to begin school already behind. They insisted, as we are insisting tonight, that Head Start remain intact. We must not stand by and allow the Bush administration to dismantle a successful, proven program like Head Start.

The President wants to kill one of the country's most successful programs, and I do not understand it. I encourage all of my colleagues to join with the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus to resist this administration's very wrong and backward policies. I encourage our colleagues to do everything possible to avoid having one of the greatest early childhood education efforts become an obituary, a tombstone on which is written ``Head Start was a great program.''