Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on April 8, 2003, the Congressional Liaison Office of the United States Marine Corps, came to my office to notify me of the death of First Sergeant Edward Smith, age 38, who was killed in the line of duty while participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom. On April 4, 2003, 1st Sgt. Smith was shot in the head while engaging with enemy forces in Iraq. He died on April 5, 2003 in Doha, Qatar as a result of his wounds.

My colleagues, Sgt. Edward Smith was not only a soldier, but a father, husband and son. According to the Defense Department, Smith was the ninth soldier from the Illinois area to die in Iraq. Sergeant Smith, a career soldier, was nearing the end of a 20-year military career and was anticipating retirement when he sustained his fatal wound. Born and raised in Chicago, Edward Smith graduated from CVS High School, moved to Anaheim, California in the 1980s, where he married and raised a family. He leaves behind a wife and two sons in California and a mom and dad and friends in the Chicago area. All of our thoughts and prayers are with Sergeant Smith's family.

Mr. Speaker, as this House begins a month-long district work period, we are still waiting for the answer to the question: Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Where are the weapons for which 1st Sergeant Edward Smith, and so many others, gave their lives?

With each passing day, the American people and I, continue to wait.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is modest in scope. It temporarily stays Federal death penalty prosecutions for the fiscal year 2004.

I want to say that this is not an abolition of the Federal death penalty. Specifically, Mr. Chairman, it prohibits Federal funds under the act from being used in the sentencing phase of Federal death penalty cases.

Mr. Chairman, there are too many mistakes that happen in the Federal judicial system. Last year, I am sure you know, a district court ruled that the Federal death penalty is unconstitutional because it does not afford defendants enough opportunity to prove their innocence.

This decision was overturned by the Second Circuit, but only on legal grounds, and it shows that there is controversy over the factual accuracy of death penalty cases.

In Illinois, the State that I represent, where my district is located, the former governor, the Republican governor, I might add, George Ryan, imposed an indefinite moratorium on State death penalty cases because too many defendants were being exonerated.

This amendment tries to emulate what Governor Ryan did. However, it is more modest in scope, because it only lasts 1 year.

Mr. Chairman, in Illinois we had literally tens of individuals who were on death row, who had been placed on death row by a process that I am sure that Members of this body would not be proud of, including torture in terms of soliciting their confessions, and in terms of they had faulty defense counsel and various other kinds of issues and problems that they were not able to overcome.

As a result, there were approximately 61 people who were actually freed from death row. If I am not mistaken, there were a number of people freed from death row because it was determined that their confessions had been solicited after being tortured in the jail system or in the Cook County jail or the Chicago police stations.

So this amendment is meant to deal with that issue, to deal with similar issues in the Federal system.

I might add that since Governor Ryan imposed his indefinite moratorium on the death penalty, Illinois has passed a lot of reforms that came about as a result of the findings of a commission that Governor Ryan convened during this moratorium.

Our State has passed common-sense reforms that will more adequately safeguard defendants from wrongful

death penalty prosecutions. They have imposed a minimum defense requirement, and now, Mr. Chairman, I am so proud that my State is the first State in the Nation that has imposed videotaping of all interrogations. That means that in any death penalty case, all the interrogation has to be videotaped by the police department in the first instance. That bill was signed into law last week, and I think that we at the Federal level should do no less than what we have done at the State level.

I might remind the Members of this House that in the year 2000, the Department of Justice survey of the Federal death penalty system shows that the system disparately affects people of color. Eighty percent of cases in which the death penalty was sought involved defendants of a minority ethnic group, and over half of the cases involved African American defendants. It seems that with 80 percent of these cases, that certainly is out of line with what the population of this Nation is.

Since 1988, another factor that I want Members of this body to know is 60 percent of white defendants avoided the death penalty through plea bargaining, while only 41 percent of African American defendants were able to plea bargain in such a fashion.

So, this particular amendment, Mr. Chairman, is, I think, a worthwhile amendment. It is a sound amendment and it really is meant to eradicate some injustices that might exist, that do exist, in the criminal justice system.

I might add, Mr. Chairman, that the fact that these death penalty laws are carried out in such a biased way, one-sided way, affecting minorities, that it is shameful on this Nation for this to be allowed to continue.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Rush

Amendment No. 18: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, our hopes and prayers are with those working diligently to secure peace for the people of Sudan. The ongoing negotiations can be observed with cautious optimism that a peace agreement will soon be at hand.

I observed with great interest yesterday's debate on H. Res. 194, regarding the importance of international efforts to abolish slavery and other human rights abuses in Sudan. I share the concerns of my colleagues and their desire to see an end to slavery and human rights abuses in the Sudan and elsewhere in the world.

I want to associate myself with the remarks of my distinguished colleague from New York, Representative Ed Towns, who so eloquently framed the issue on the future of Sudan. While we cannot forget the past, there is nothing we can do to change it. The time has come for us to commit to a lasting peace and an end to hostilities and abuses in sub-Saharan Africa.

I join my colleague, Mr. Towns, in support of an NGO-Sponsored fact- finding mission to Sudan and a report on their findings on the current situation in the Sudan with regard to allegations of slavery, human rights abuses and religious persecution. I call on others to join me and Mr. Towns in this effort to uncover the truth about Sudan.

Mr. Speaker, tonight, while the President of the United States is visiting Senegal and other countries in Africa, 'I rise to address the House to express my concern for the citizens of Liberia. Liberia is an African nation that was founded in 1820 by freed Black slave men and women from the United States. The nation, considered to be the only U.S. colony in Africa, was founded with a grant of $100,000. Its capital, Monrovia, is named after the United States fifth president, James Monroe. By 1847, thousands of freed slaves had immigrated to Liberia from the United States. They declared independence and the commonwealth of Liberia became the Republic of Liberia.

Liberia's recently-deposed president, Charles Taylor, seized power in 1997 after leading a seven year insurrection, which claimed the lives of thousands of Liberian Africans against his predecessor, Samuel Doe. Taylor, an accused embezzler and protegee of Libyan dictator, Col. Mu'ammar al-Qadhafi, spread terror throughout Sierra Leone, Ivory Coast and Guinea. Taylor's human rights abuses include the use of child soldiers and funding terrorist organizations with money from blood diamond mines.

On June 4, 2003, the United Nations supported an indictment of President Taylor by a Special Court in Sierra Leone, at the same time a group of West African Presidents were meeting with Taylor and others in Ghana to discuss efforts to negotiate a peace agreement.

During the negotiations, President Taylor [said he would step aside if it would bring peace to his war torn country]. On Sunday, July 6, 2003, President Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria announced that Taylor agreed to leave Liberia under certain conditions and with certain guarantees. President Obasanjo stated that what was happening in Liberia could happen anywhere in Africa. Liberia, he said, needed relief from dictatorship so that the entire region wouldn't be affected by the errant regime in that nation.

Mr. Speaker, thus far, there has not been a successor named to govern Liberia. The leaders from the 16 Liberian opposition political parties in the nation, as well as leaders from religious and women's organizations, have been meeting in Ghana to draw up a peace plan and establish a transitional government expected to run the country for 18 to 24 months before new elections can be held.

The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Britain and France have asked the United States to lead, at least initially--a peace-keeping operation designed to separate and disarm the warring factions and establish an environment where a transitional government can take control of the country. ECOWAS has pledged 3,000 troops for an intervention force and is asking the United States to pledge 2,000 troops in this effort.

Mr. Speaker, I urge you, and my colleagues support the Liberian people's struggle to return their country to sane and just rule. Liberia has been a friend and a supporter of the United States. It was an ally during the Cold War and a facilitator of covert operations against Col. Mu'ammar al-Qadhafi during the 1980s. It would be a betrayal of that long-held trust to turn our backs on the people of Liberia who have supported us in the past.

Liberia's natural resources are plentiful. The country has iron ore, rubber, timber, diamonds, gold and tin. In addition, in recent years that it has discovered sizable deposits of crude oil along its Atlantic Coast, and it continues to make strides in the agriculture sector. We need to work with the local communities and provide assistance in the areas of development, policing, healthcare.

Mr. Speaker, Liberia has the potential of reestablishing a strong democratic model of liberation and justice for the continent. We must do whatever we can to assist the Liberians--these proud people of liberty--rebuild their beautiful country.

Mr. Speaker, today in the Committee on Energy and Commerce we are marking up the most critical expansion of Medicare since its inception 37 years ago.

As you might have expected, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the bill is not perfect. It needs work. There are two amendments that I will introduce to strengthen the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003.

My first amendment will ensure that diseases that disproportionately affect the African American community will be highlighted in the disease management component of the bill. The diseases that need to be highlighted include prostate and colon cancer, hypertension, and obesity.

The current language in the chairman's mark does not include enough diseases that should be highlighted in

the preventive care management portion of the bill. There is disease management capacity in the bill, and it requires preventive care in Medicare. So, in my opinion, Medicare must address the diseases that proportionately affect minority populations.

We have to address a population who has been told that their life expectancy is 15 years lower than that of their white counterparts. African American men have a 34 percent greater chance of being diagnosed with prostate cancer and a 123 percent greater chance of dying from prostate cancer than white men.

African Americans' overall cancer rate is 33 percent higher than for whites overall. The incidence of this disease among African American men is among the highest in the world. From 1973 to 1992, the rates of death from prostate cancer among African American men increased by 41 percent. Blacks are more likely to get cancer and to die from this dreaded disease than other racial or ethnic groups.

It should not be difficult to understand my insistence at this opportune time in the Committee on Energy and Commerce that we address this particular matter. It is my hope that seniors will become educated about what they can do to lower their risk for cancer.

Medicare should serve as an educational vehicle. Seniors will learn how to eliminate stress, how to eat properly, and how to incorporate exercise in their lives. They must learn how they can lower their own risk and improve health care through their own behavior.

My amendment also addresses preventive care for hypertension. Hypertension, Mr. Speaker, is a leading cause of stroke. I am sure that we all know people, loved ones, who live dramatically different lives following a massive stroke. I am sure that we know people who have lost their lives prematurely following a massive stroke.

Whether the stroke impedes speech, or it requires that an amputation must take place, or just general paralysis is the prognosis, we must do what we can to curb the indicators for stroke.

Preventative care and hypertension is so critical to minorities in the Medicare population. In 2001, 2,500 African Americans died from stroke, the third leading cause of death for all racial and ethnic groups. African Americans were 40 percent more likely to die of strokes than whites in 2001, when differences in age distribution were taken into account.

Mr. Speaker, the prevalence of high blood pressure in African Americans is among the highest in the world. That is why my amendment is so critical to ensure the longevity of African American lives.

The final component of my amendment addresses the overarching impediment to good health, and that is obesity. Obesity is a trigger for both hypertension and cancer. We would be remiss not to address cancer and hypertension and neglect to draw the connection to a healthy diet and exercise. Therefore, we must examine the how and the why obesity is a trend in minority communities and among many minority populations.

I can answer the how and the why partially from my own experience. As I drive around my own communities in my own district, I see a scarcity, Mr. Speaker, of places that have grocery stores that have fresh fruits and vegetables. In my community, in my district, there is an abundance of fast food restaurants, and the proliferation of these establishments and the lack of healthy food choices spell disaster for a healthy population and for healthy relationships with food and exercise.

The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is a serious Medicare program must provide a comprehensive preventative care program. This care must be multi-layered. It must address all diseases and, in the case of my amendment, must address diseases that are disproportionately killing people of color.

My amendment would ensure that diseases that disproportionately affect the African American community will be highlighted in the disease management component of the Medicare modernization bill.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 6 o'clock and 33 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, June 19, 2003, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring attention to some anti- consumer practices in the payday lending industry that need to be controlled. The payday lending industry throws consumers into a perpetual state of debt. They prey on the most vulnerable customers.

During turbulent economic times like these, many Americans continue to look for inventive ways to meet their financial obligations. Payday loan companies provide short-term loans

with high interest rates to consumers in dire need of cash. After supplying verification of employment and proof of an active checking account, consumers write a post-dated check and walk out of the payday loan establishment with cash in hand. Consumers often prefer these loans because the credit history requirement imposed by traditional banks is waived. Unfortunately, the consumers who most need these quick cash loans are usually those least able to repay the loans. The consumer is then subject to exceptionally high interest rates, which range from 261 percent to 913 percent annually.

This is why I am introducing the Payday Borrower Protection Act of 2003. The Payday Borrower Protection Act of 2003 would provide consumers who borrow from payday lenders much greater protection against high interest rates and exorbitant fees. My bill regulates and imposes some rational criteria on these loans, specifically addressing the exorbitant interest rates. This legislation caps annual interest rates at 36 percent and prohibits any payday lender from refinancing or rolling over loans. The bill also sets minimum national standards for state payday loan laws.

It is my hope that this legislation will ensure that fair borrowing practices are offered to consumers. My bill will ensure the industry can still stay afloat. At the same time, customers do not overextend themselves financially.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday marked the third month anniversary since the Federal communications Commission, FCC, voted to approve its controversial Triennial Review decision and still no written order has been issued by the Commission. I think many of us in this Chamber find it incredible that our troops invaded Iraq and ousted Saddam Hussein in less time than it takes for the FCC to write an order on which it has already agreed. This delay leaves an important segment of our economy and its employees in legal and economic limbo.

Mr. Speaker, the Triennial Review offered the FCC the unique opportunity to boost the nation's economy and not only save jobs--but create jobs as well. The Commission, however, responded to the challenge by issuing a ruling that is contradictory--largely deregulating broadband on one hand while, on the other, continuing the enormous regulatory burden of requiring large local phone companies to lease their lines at below cost rates to competitors.

In conclusion, the FCC has succeeded in creating uncertainty in the marketplace, and uncertainty on Wall Street typically converts to financial disaster. The order that is now being written at the FCC will consist of several hundred pages of regulatory detail. And as we know when dealing with the Federal bureaucracy, the devil is most definitely in the detail. I urge the Commission and its staff to finish its work on the Triennial Review order as quickly as possible so we can begin the tedious legal process of examining these details. Let us not forget that the jobs of thousands of hard working men and women, and the renewed health of our Nation's economy, are at stake.

Mr. Speaker, during the Republican Presidential Primaries of 1980, George Bush, Sr. referred to Ronald Reagan's proposed economic policy as ``voodoo economics.'' At the time, the economy was in the throws of a recession with a stubborn 5 to 6 percent unemployment rate; and millions of Americans were out of work. Predicated on the ludicrous dogma of ``supply side economics''--which has since been thoroughly discredited--President Reagan's job-creation policy entailed a massive tax cut overwhelmingly benefitting the wealthy; and the effect were to purportedly ``trickle down'' to the unemployed. During those 1980 primary debates, Mr. Bush, Sr. was correct in referring to President Reagan's policies as ``voodoo economics.'' His tax-cut was not successful in creating new jobs, but in creating massive budget deficits and an appalling gap between the rich and the poor.

Fast forward 23 years, and it seems that our current President should heed the advice of his father. For once again the Republicans have responded to our recession and high unemployment rate with voodoo economics. Once again, their magic elixir is an indefensible, obscene tax cut for millionaires that will provide negligible relief for the working class and will have minimal impact on job creation. Yet once again they strenuously assert that their plan will create jobs and bring relief to millions of working class Americans. If only this Congress would listen to the elder Mr. Bush.

The American economy has lost 2.7 million jobs since President Bush came to office. The current national unemployment rate is 6 percent. 8.8 million Americans are unemployed, 2 million of which have been unemployed for over 6 months. In just the last three months, 500,000 more Americans have lost their jobs. In my home state of Illinois, the unemployment rate is 6.6 percent and rising. We have lost at least 108,700 jobs since 2001, and over 422,000 Illinois citizens are out of work. My home city of Chicago has been hit particularly hard, and my congressional district on the south side of Chicago has been hit even harder.

These are not abstract numbers. While the country club millionaires who will benefit from the GOP tax cuts probably do not walk the streets of Chicago and witness the extreme poverty and hardship that come with high unemployment, I stand here on the floor of the House of Representatives, with my colleagues from the Congressional Black Caucus, to tell this Congress that the pain from unemployment is acute, and it is real.

The President and the Republican Congress seem to callously treat joblessness and economic hardship as some sort of unavoidable condition that can be exploited to justify their policies that blatantly benefit the wealthy. While this is a harsh indictment, what other conclusion can one come to? After all, the facts are quite clear: in the face of widespread financial misery whereby millions of Americans are out of work and millions more are teetering the brink of unemployment, the President and Congress do not choose to extend unemployment benefits to those Americans who actually feel the pain of unemployment; they do not choose to adequately equip states with the financial resources necessary to relieve the ancillary hardships that stem from unemployment (such a crime as lack of health insurance); they do not even choose to offer significant tax-relief to working-class and middle-income Americans who are the actual taxpayers losing their jobs.

No: President Bush and this Congress choose to address this issue by passing a $550 billion tax cut that overwhelmingly benefits the wealthy and the very people who are in the least need of help; and then try to call it a ``job creation bill.'' The sheer absurdity of this tax- cutting policy, on its face, suggests that the Republican-controlled Congress is disingenuous and is not truly serious about addressing the despair of joblessness. Instead, the President and this Congress have chosen to simply make the rich even richer; and simply cloak their policies under the guise of ``job creation'' (which is the latest marketing spin to come from the White House justifying its elitist tax cut.)

For how could one possibly believe and defend the assertion that the President's tax-cut package will actually create jobs? All of the evidence overwhelmingly points to the contrary. According to Congress's very own analysis the Republican tax-cut proposal--notwithstanding their vehement assertions otherwise--will not substantially kick-start the economy and crate jobs. Both the Congressional budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation has proffered detailed studies that show this tax-cut package will have virtually no sustainable effect on unemployment. If they choose not to believe their own analyses, Congress should listen to other credible sources: Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, Nobel Prize economists and financial titans such as Warren Buffet have said that the Republican tax-cut plan will do nothing to create new jobs. Thus, if one takes the Republicans at their word and believes that they are sincerely trying to help working class Americans with this tax cut package, then one must inevitably come to the conclusion that their choice of policy is borne from sheer myopia or even stupidity.

In reality, however, it's easy to see what's really going on: the Republican tax-cut plan is geared towards granting tax relief to wealthy Americans and has little if anything to do with job creation. As ten Noble Prize winning economists put it: ``Regardless of how one views the specifics of the Bush plan, there is wide agreement that its purpose is a permanent change in the tax structure and not the creation of jobs and growth in the near term.''

Thus, we here in Congress still have a lot of work to do. Along with the President, we have to enact real and sincere policies to create jobs and bring economic relief to millions of Americans. The citizens of Illinois--the citizens in my district on the south side of chicago-- deserve a responsive President and Congress that are serious about addressing the hardships of unemployment. The legislative solutions are not elusive. This is not rocket science. Congress should extend benefits to millions of unemployed Americans who will soon see their benefits expire and be left with no income. We should authorize and appropriate substantial funds to the states who are financially strapped and can no longer deliver some basic services to their citizens.

We must enact targeted and responsible fiscal stimulus that will kick start sustainable economic growth unencumbered by future budget deficits. Not only are these policy prescriptions the compassionate thing to do, they are the smart, economically-sound thing to do.

I urge this Congress to act now. Working class men and women are depending on us.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in wishing the President of Taiwan, Chen Shui-bian, congratulations and happy third anniversary in office. He has provided leadership to his people in maintaining economic and political growth for his country.

We in the United States appreciate the relationship we continue to develop with Taiwan. In the months and years ahead, I hope this relationship will grow even stronger.

Congratulations, President Chen.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Telecommunications Ownership Diversification Act of 2003. This bill would level the playing field so that economically disadvantage businesses owners could enter the communications field. As you know, since the passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act there has been an unprecedented growth in the Telecom sector, which has often been referred to as the telecommunications revolution. However, conspicuously absent from this revolution has been minority and economically disadvantage business owners. They have in essence been left on the fringes of this telecommunications revolution. There are many factors attributed to this lack of participation but chief among them is the lack of capital. Because entry into the telecommunications field is extremely capital intensive, many deserving, well qualified small business owners have been denied entry into this vital sector because they lack access to the needed capital to compete with large companies.

My bill would remedy this problem by making minor changes to the existing tax code, so that individuals who are currently under- represented in the ownership of telecommunications would be able to compete on an equal footing with large companies. It would provide sellers of telecommunications assets a tax deferral when those assets are bought for cash by certain small businesses. And it would provide investors an incentive to consider certain small businesses by providing a reduction in tax on gains from investing in these companies.

Former Chairman Kennard once eloquently stated that ``ACCESS'' is the civil rights of the 21st century. I believe the Telecommunications Ownership Diversification Act embodies the essence of this statement by making economically disadvantaged small business owners not only consumers of technology but also producers of technology. I hope that all my colleagues will join me in supporting this important initiative.

Mr. Chairman, I rise against this ill-conceived and ill- advised piece of legislation. Yet again the Republicans say that education is their number one priority but every time they have a chance to demonstrate their commitment to education they slash the funding or eliminate the programs designed to educate our children.

Since the enactment of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 1975, we have failed to fully fund this worthy program. It has now been 28 years since we wrote children with disabilities a bad check and today its time to make good on that debt. The only way to ensure free appropriate public education is to fully fund special education. Let us not politicize this issue. We know that the program is working. Millions of children with special needs have benefitted greatly from IDEA. Let us not return to the dark ages where children with special needs were considered second class citizens. Our children deserve better.

Not only do we negate to fully fund special education but we do away with our children's basic civil rights protections. By removing due process procedures in this Act, many children with special needs will be the target of discriminatory practices. This is troubling to me because even with the current safeguard, minorities are disproportionately suspended or expelled from school compared to their majority counterparts. Its seems that this legislation is geared towards educating just the privileged few.

Again, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to rise on behalf of the 600,000 children with disabilities so that no child will be left behind.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I rise to support the Watt amendment and to oppose passage of the irresponsible and shameful underlying bill.

Mr. Chairman, I fully understand that many sponsors of this bill have progun constituents who have been unrelenting in their blind fight to preserve and to expand their ability to bear arms.

I can appreciate the willingness of any Representative to consider the interests of his or her constituents. But, Mr. Chairman, what I cannot appreciate is the willingness of some to support legislation that so maliciously attacks the will of my constituents to bring legitimate actions before their individual State courts.

What I cannot appreciate is the unwillingness of the majority to allow consideration of amendments at committee. It is appalling and shameful that a bill which may have such far-reaching consequences for so many did not enjoy the consideration that it deserves. And what I cannot appreciate is the emboldened eagerness of some Representatives to sponsor legislation that so clearly places the special interests of the gun lobby ahead of the vital interests of the American people.

Mr. Chairman, I am aware that the sponsors of this bill closed the so-called ``negligent entrustment'' loophole. But if this bill is passed, no supporter, and I repeat, no supporter should walk away believing that the tragedies committed and contemplated under the original bill will not happen under this one.

I would ask the Members of this body to consider the case of an Illinois gun dealer who should have known that 72 mostly identical guns that he sold to an unlicensed gun trafficker were not for personal use. One of those guns was used by Benjamin Smith, a white supremacist who drove through Chicago and Indiana, randomly shooting blacks and Jews, including former Northwestern University basketball coach Ricky Byrdsong.

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, if this bill passes, we in Congress will be no better than the unscrupulous and irresponsible gun dealer who turned a blind eye to the violence and mayhem that his actions ultimately caused.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 90 I was misrecorded, and I duly intended to vote ``no'' on this particular rollcall.