Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the underlying bill and to the shortchanging of the nation's students, teachers, and schools.

We often hear about the need to leave no child behind. Yet, this budget leaves millions of children behind by underfunding vital education programs.

This bill falls short of providing funds to improve teacher quality, student achievement, and special education programs. The costs of higher education continue to increase, but this bill freezes the maximum Pell Grant award. We should do more to help students who face the daunting task of paying for a college education.

During these uncertain economic times, many families must rely on the incomes of two parents or on a single parent working more than one job. This bill does not provide enough funding for after-school programs which provides children with valuable learning opportunities and also helps children constructively use their time at the end of the school day.

While this bill will provide some funding to critical education programs, the bill does not do enough. It's time that we fulfill the promise to ``leave no child behind.'' This nation's families and schoolchildren deserve more.

On a separate issue, I oppose this bill because it undermines the nation's progress on scientific and medical research at the National Institutes of Health.

With a bipartisan effort in Congress and the leadership of the past two administrations, we have succeeded in doubling the budget for the National Institutes of Health over the last 5 years, increasing it from $13.6 billion in 1998 to $27.2 billion in fiscal year 2003. The hope, and in many instances the reality, is that these strong investments in biomedical research will encourage scientific advances that will ultimately translate into better health care for the American people, including better treatment and cures of devastating diseases like Parkinson's.

I am proud of this past national investment. However, I am very troubled that today's appropriations bill does not fully support the work and research of the National Institutes of Health. We should maintain a robust level of funding for NIH. We must continue a strong commitment to biomedical research funding so that medical advances can continue. Yet, this bill includes only a 2.5 percent increase--the smallest percentage increase in more than 15 years. The doubling effort was inspired, we should not reverse course and starve the research that we helped to spur.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce legislation to subject operators of push polls or phone banks to the same disclosure requirements as other types of political communication. It will not ban push polls or phone banking--it will simply create a level playing field for all types of political communication. Under this bill, any person conducting these types of calls would be required to disclose to each recipient of a call the identity of the organization paying for the call. In addition, the bill would require that campaigns and other organizations that conduct advocacy phone calls report to the Federal Election Commission, FEC, the number of households they have contacted and the script they used in making the calls. The bill would not interfere with legitimate polling, conducted either by candidates or independent organizations, as it would only apply to phone banks in which more than 1,500 households are contacted within the 25 days preceding a Federal election.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to one of our nation's most beloved cultural treasures, the great actress Katharine Hepburn, whose death on June 29th has been an occasion for mourning around the globe. Appearing in forty-three films and countless plays and television productions, she received four Academy Awards for her acting abilities, a feat unmatched by any actor in cinematic history. The author of a best-selling memoir, she was one of the most recognized and cherished American women in all the world.

Katharine Hepburn was also beloved by her friends and neighbors on Manhattan's East Side, where she maintained a residence for many years in addition to her home in eastern

Connecticut. For over six decades she lived in a townhouse on East 49th Street in the Turtle Bay neighborhood near the United Nations headquarters. Even after she retired permanently to Connecticut, she remained a generous and loyal dues-paying member of the local community group, the Turtle Bay Association to the end of her life. Her efforts on behalf of the Turtle Bay community led local residents to name a garden in Dag Hammarskjold Plaza on East 47th Street in her honor in 1997. Every year, on her birthday of May 12, the community continues to celebrate their pride in their illustrious neighbor's achievements and character with a display and a ceremony in her honor. Following the news of her death at the age of 96, the Turtle Bay Association and Friends of Dag Hammarskjold Plaza immediately established a memorial in the Katharine Hepburn Garden in tribute to their illustrious and beloved neighbor, complete with photographs, candles and flowers.

Because of her notable achievements on stage and screen and her indomitable and distinctive presence, Katharine Hepburn's spirit and presence will live on forever. It is only fitting that we salute her remarkable life and career and recognize her as a great American.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this Republican Medicare bill, and I urge every woman, man, every American to read the fine print. There are gaping holes. There are problems. I will put this into the Record and I am totally opposed to this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the health of America's older women is at serious risk. Whatever Medicare Prescription Drug bill we pass will have an enormous impact on older women, both now and in the future, and women are concerned.

More than half of Medicare recipients age 65 are women; by age 85, 71 percent are women. And most older women live on fixed incomes. Older women tend to have more chronic health conditions than men, and eight of ten women on Medicare use prescription drugs regularly.

In the face of these facts, the ``bait and switch'' tactics of the Republican Medicare Prescription Drug bill are simply outrageous. Seniors think we're giving them help with high cost drugs. They think we're offering them supplemental insurance--guaranteed, cheaper and permanent--to ease their burden of skyrocketing drug costs on fixed incomes. But the Republican bill is a cruel trick. Seniors who are sickest and taking expensive medications--mostly women on fixed incomes--get a little bit of help with the first 2000 bucks of drug expenses. But then they get the ``donut hole''--a big fat zero until they pay a $3000 ransom to get more help with their drug bills.

The fiscal irresponsibility of the Republican bill is stunning and illogical. Instead of putting the purchasing power of America's seniors to work as a huge bargaining chip to lower prescription drug costs, the Republicans prohibit the Secretary of HHS from negotiating for lower drug prices on behalf of seniors. The Democrats believe prescription drugs should be affordable for seniors--but our amendments to have the Secretary negotiate on seniors' behalf were defeated.

The height of hypocrisy in the Republican bill is the fact that it actually discourages employers from continuing to offer drug coverage for retired seniors who have already paid health insurance premiums throughout their working lives. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that a third of employers will drop retiree drug benefit coverage if the Republic bill becomes law.

Frankly, the Republican Medicare Prescription Drug bill is cruel. This is not compassionate conservatism. It is blatant bias against elderly, against women, and against the poor. It is the first step in doing away with Medicare as an entitlement and it is the first step toward dividing our elderly into the needy and those who can afford to ``buy out''. The purpose of Medicare was to help the elderly with needed care as they age, and to do it with dignity and not on the basis of ability to pay.

Prescription drug coverage would save money in the long term because drug therapies can be substituted for more costly treatments like hospitalization and surgery. But what seniors--men and women--need and want is help that they can understand and can rely on, not the ``bait and switch'' of the Republican plan.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to support legislation I have introduced with the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), H.R. 2482, the Iraqi Freedom from Debt Act. This bill will require the United States to negotiate in the International Monetary Fund and World Bank for these institutions to relieve the debt owed them by Iraq. This legislation also includes a sense of Congress that France and Russia and all other creditors should relieve the debts owed by Iraq.

While estimates of Iraq's debt range from one hundred billion to several hundred billion, the combined debt owed the IMF and World Bank is just $150 million. These institutions have the resources to relieve this debt, setting an important precedent for the rest of the world.

The case for debt relief in Iraq is especially compelling, given the fact that much of the debt can be characterized as odious. Odious debt is recognized as debt that is taken on by a country for the personal benefit of corrupt leaders or for the oppression of a people.

By taking the lead on debt relief, the U.S. has an opportunity to boost the Iraqi economy and to prove to the world that a major reason for U.S. action in Iraq was to benefit the Iraqi people.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of this legislation that awards the Congressional Gold Medal, the highest honor Congress can award, to Prime Minister Tony Blair. Past recipients include Presidents George Washington and Harry Truman; heroic figures such as Charles Lindbergh, Rosa Parks, and Mother Teresa; and Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who led England through the dark hours of World War II.

Mr. Speaker, just as Prime Minister Churchill stood with President Roosevelt to defeat the Nazis, Prime Minister Blair has offered steadfast support for the United States since the terror attacks of 9/ 11. The American people will never forget that the Prime Minister traveled across an ocean to be in the gallery of the House in a sign of solidarity with our country as President Bush addressed our Nation after the terrorist attacks.

More recently, prior to the war in Iraq, the Prime Minister and his U.N. envoy, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, worked tirelessly to exhaust every diplomatic channel to build consensus in the United Nations. It was Prime Minister Blair who tried to bridge differences with our traditional European allies up until the wee hours before the war began. Additionally, Prime Minister Blair pushed our own administration to use its political capital to fully engage in the Middle East peace process.

While that effort continues to face very substantial obstacles, most notably the unceasing suicide attacks against Israel citizens, the Prime Minister deserves credit for putting Mideast Peace on the table as does the Administration for its efforts to implement the ``road map.''

While the Prime Minister has demonstrated considerable political courage in recent months, his stand with our country should not be surprising.

As a political leader in Britain the Prime Minister has spent this life leading the Labour Party out of oblivion and into its current dominant position in the Parliament.

At age 30 he was elected to Parliament. Later as a member of John Smith's shadow cabinet he worked to transform Labour into a party tough on crime and while still committed to its social causes.

After being elected Labour leader in 1994, Blair moved the party to the political center and redrafted the party constitution in his image of ``New Labour''--much life President Clinton successfully moved the Democratic party to a position where it has won the popular vote in the last three Presidential elections.

As leader of the Labor Party, the British people rewarded the Prime Minister with a landslide victory in 1997, ending 18 years of conservative rule. At 43, Blair became the youngest Prime Minister since 1812. As Prime Minister, he has continued to change his country for the better. He has taken on the right to hereditary positions in the House of Lords, allowed the de-evolution of Scotland and Wales, and implemented a massive investment program in the areas of health care and education.

For the Prime Minister, education is the best economic policy and his government has followed this commitment.

I have great admiration for the Prime Minister's commitment to governing from the middle ground rather than trying to divide his country by playing to extreme groups on either side of the political spectrum.

Mr. Speaker, Congress could find no more deserving recipient of this high honor than Prime Minister Blair. In fighting terrorism, standing with the U.S. against Saddam and with the U.S. for Middle East peace, he has truly shown what it means for Britain to be our staunchest ally.

A recent Washington Post article well characterized Prime Minister Blair's current standing in the world. ``After the terrorist attacks of September 11, he has found himself playing a pivotal role in reshaping international relations and winning points for standing on principle, even from some of his most vehement critics.''

I recognize that some of my colleagues had strong reservations about the war in Iraq and I respect their opinions, but I urge that all Members stand and support this award in recognition of Tony Blair the man, as a leader of an inclusive political movement that has benefited all Britons.

Mr. Speaker, the deaths of six more British soldiers in Iraq this week remind us of the common sacrifice our troops are making serving side by side around the world. This is just one more example of the special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation in recognition of the man who has contributed so much to upholding this common bond.

I would like to note that this bill passed the Senate unanimously with 78 cosponsors and that we have 290 Members of the House that have cosponsored this important legislation. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) and all who have worked to pass and to get this bill to the floor. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution, and I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for their extraordinary leadership on this important issue and so many others.

We are experiencing the worst outbreak of anti-Semitism in Europe since the end of Holocaust in 1945. Just under 60 years have passed since the defeat of Hitler and now swastikas have reappeared in Europe. They can be found sprayed on Jewish schools, drawn on gravestones in a desecrated Jewish cemetery, painted on the wall of a synagogue, and stitched on the flags of anti-Israel demonstrators, and in the hearts and minds of the people who attack rabbinical students and Jewish athletes.

When we allow intolerance and hatred to fester and flourish, we are faced with tragic consequences. Put simply, hatred, violence and prejudice must not be tolerated. Countries must speak out against anti- Semitic acts, but rhetoric is not enough. Words will not restore the hundreds of Jewish cultural and religious sites which have been burned, desecrated and destroyed throughout Europe, and words alone will not prevent these tragedies from happening again.

Governments and institutions must condemn these acts as we do today, and they must ensure effective law enforcement against them. They must also promote tolerance education for their children. There is no question teaching children about the horror and tragedy of the Holocaust and other tragedies will create a generation of youth who are less likely to commit hate crimes and who are more likely to mature into adults who will envision and work towards peaceful world relations.

When this body passes H. Con. Res. 49, we will be spending a strong message to the world that anti-Semitism must be confronted and must be eradicated. I thank both leaders, particularly the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for his extraordinary life commitment to ending anti-Semitism and for world peace.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution, and I thank Congressman Lantos for his leadership and determination on this issue that is a priority to so many of us in this body.

I stand here today to express my outrage and grief over the latest round of terrorist attacks in Israel since the Aqaba (Ak-a-ba) summit earlier this month.

Twenty-two innocent Israelis have been murdered since the beginning of this month and many others have been injured in three separate homicide bombings.

For most of us, September 11, 2001, forever change our way of looking at the world. We learned that even the awesome power of the United States could not protect us from terrorists bent on destruction.

It forced us into a position that Israel has been in for a very long time--trying to protect loss of innocent life against an enemy that has no reservations about killing.

I strongly believe that Israel has the right to defend itself against suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks and that the world must recognize that Israel has a right to use military means to protect its citizens and its borders.

To bring an end to terrorism in Israel and peace in the region, Prime Minister Abbas must start by living up to his agreements, including a commitment to stop this violence against civilians. That means fulfilling promises of prosecutions.

His ability to maintain the rule of law would finally demonstrate a Palestinian interest in engaging in discussions of peace.

It is my true hope that Israelis and Palestinians can one day live side-by-side in peace.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the al Qaeda has not gone away, and we know al Qaeda does not choose its targets at random, it chooses targets to inflict the greatest numbers of casualties, to do the greatest damage economically, and to get the most publicity. Just last week, we were reminded that New York is still a target when the Attorney General announced that an al Qaeda terrorist was targeting the Brooklyn Bridge. He was deterred from attacking the bridge by the efforts of the New York Police Department.

This is just one example of how since 9/11 a large share of the burden of providing for the national defense has fallen on our cities. In Congress we have provided some funds to help. We even sent part of the money to where the need is. In fiscal year 2003, we provided $2.9 billion for grants to State and local governments to help them prepare for and defend against terrorist attacks. We even said that $800 million of that should be directed to where the threat is greatest. That is about 30 percent. The rest of the fund went out under a formula that is entirely unrelated to where the terror threat is.

Under this bill as it is currently drafted for the next fiscal year, that 70 percent will increase to nearly 83 percent. Our effort to protect the most likely targets of terrorism is moving backwards. We are cutting the funds to the Nation's most threatened cities by almost 40 percent, by $300 million, from $800 million to $500 million, and we are increasing the percentage that will go under the formula that is unrelated to potential threat, a formula that Secretary Ridge has repeatedly said is inappropriate and must be changed.

This formula sends the money where the threat is not. Just yesterday Secretary Ridge himself said of the high threat money and I quote, ``I would like to see the number significantly higher than $500 million.'' He went on to say, ``At the end of the day, I do believe that there are some communities and regions that need more money.''

My amendment will simply follow Secretary Ridge's advice and restore funding for high-threat cities. I understand that this approach is subject to a point of order. I originally had wanted to shift money from another account, but the fact is this bill severely underfunds our security needs. Resources are too scarce to shift between accounts, but our cities need more funding. New York City spent more than $200 million over the last year on counterterrorism. The grants so far amount to $220 million for New York, but very little of that can offset the personnel costs that the city has identified at more than $900 million.

The assistance provided after the September 11 attacks paid for cleanup and replacement of equipment. It did not cover the security costs. This is not just an issue for New York and Washington, but it is a high-priority issue for many cities, including L.A., Chicago, San Francisco, New Orleans, Kansas City, Cincinnati, Houston and any city with a port or a mass transit system.

Mr. Chairman, it is our responsibility to appropriate the funds needed to protect the American people and this bill falls dangerously short. Respecting the request of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), who has worked very hard in a bipartisan way for New York City and State, I am withdrawing my amendment, also at the request of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), and I appreciate the commitment from the New York delegation, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) along with help from the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to restore this in conference.

I appreciate very much the leadership of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my amendment.

Offered By: Mrs. Maloney

Amendment No. 2: In title II, in the item ``OFFICE FOR

DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS--Domestic Preparedness'', in paragraph

(4) after the dollar amount insert ``(increased by

$300,000,000)''.

In title III, in the item ``Disaster Relief (including

transfer of funds)'', after the first dollar amount insert

``(reduced by $300,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mrs. Maloney

Amendment No. 3: In title II in the item ``OFFICE FOR

DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS--Domestic Preparedness'', in paragraph

(4), after the dollar amount insert ``(increased by

$300,000,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, today I introduce legislation, the Emergency Warning Act of 2003, which would require the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Commerce to ensure that comprehensive, easily understood emergency warnings reach every American who may be at risk in any type of disaster. The bill instructs Commerce and DHS to work with the government agencies that currently issue warnings, with first responders, with private industry, and with the media to ensure that our emergency warning system informs the public when a disaster occurs.

We don't always know when a disaster will occur. However, we do know that we are all at risk for a natural disaster like a hurricane, or a man-made disaster like a terrorist attack. With the advances in technology, we can no longer rely on our televisions or radios to inform us if we need to evacuate our homes or businesses. It's time to utilize the available technology to ensure that all forms of communication are used to inform the public about emergency warnings.

Mr. Speaker, today with my colleague Representative Jim Leach, I am introducing the Iraqi Freedom from Debt Act. This legislation consists of `findings' and two major initiatives. It requires the U.S. to negotiate in the IMF, World Bank and other appropriate multilateral development institutions for relief of the debts owed by Iraq to these institutions. Secondly, it includes a sense of Congress that the President should urge France and Russia and all other public and private creditors to relieve the debts owed to them by Iraq.

I will speak in more detail on the merits of the bill later this week. I urge my colleagues to support this worthy legislation.

Mr. Speaker, welcome. Today, we're introducing a bill to end government subsidies for private clubs that discriminate against women. Ending Tax Breaks for Discrimination Act of 2003 makes it illegal to take income tax deductions for expenses at clubs with ``No Women Allowed'' membership policies. We think it's wrong for corporations to write-off big expenditures for entertainment, meetings and advertising at clubs that keep women out while they target women's pocketbooks. Men play and women pay.

I am joined by my distinguished colleagues, Representative Brad Sherman from California, Representative Louise Slaughter from New York, and my friend, Martha Burk--all tireless workers in the fight for equality. As a matter of fact, in the early `90s Mr. Sherman, as a member of the California tax board, implemented this same type of legislation. Since then, other States, like Colorado and Kentucky, have followed.

Right now, conventions and meetings come right off corporate income tax as legitimate business deductions, including those held at private clubs that discriminate. Half the price of a business lunch is deductible. But if you're a woman, you subsidize one-half a guy's lunch with your taxes, even though you can't join the club.

The whole point is that members of these clubs get financial gains-- either indirectly through career opportunities and board appointments, or directly through tax deductions. Women can't get these same financial gains--just because they're women. Golf is so ingrained as a part of business success that business schools teach students how to make the most of club memberships--the PGA even sponsors a program called ``Golf: For Business and Life'' to do just that. But, if you're a woman and you can't get a membership, you can't play golf or get the same elite club bonus package from your employer that your male counterparts can, you're clearly missing out. Men get the membership, the deal, the deduction, and women get the bill.

This bill ends deductions for advertising, travel, accommodation, and meals associated with these clubs. And it requires discriminatory clubs to print right on their receipts, ``not tax deductible''.

When I went with Martha in April to protest male-only membership at Augusta National Golf Club, it was obvious that this legislation was the next logical step. Money talks. At Augusta, at least 10 major corporations, including IBM, Lucent and American Express either withdrew or cut back spending on advertising and corporate hospitality. But all the while these same companies are reaching out to sell their products to women.

Mr. Sherman and I have asked the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to support this legislation. We're looking forward to their response. Frankly, who in this day and age can object to ending government subsidized sex discrimination?

I like big business, but women must have a seat at the table--the board table. Legitimate tax deductions should continue, but when these deductions support clubs that bar women from becoming equal partners, equal players, equal earners--they are not legitimate. This bill is past due and the time for discrimination is over.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the Morningside- Westside Community Action Corporation, MWCAC. For nearly a decade, MWCAC has worked tirelessly in order to serve the mental health community of New York City.

Founded in 1994, the Morningside Westside Community Action Corporation has been instrumental in advocating positive changes in governmental health programs, distributing information about issues facing the mental health community and promoting awareness and understanding towards those who suffer from mental illness. MWCAC strives to assist the mentally ill on their road to recovery and to help them achieve their goals and live productive lives.

Realizing that society has a place for all, the MWCAC has long been a proponent of helping the mentally disabled live normally within the mainstream. Morningside-Westside Community Action Corporation actively promotes reintegration, mainstream living, steady employment and recovery for all those who suffer from mental illness.

Over the last eight and a half years, under the leadership of Nancy Walder, their President, dedicated staff members have worked on mental health advocacy projects, and opened lines of communication between those who administer mental health services and those who require them.

In order to spread their message throughout the city and beyond, mental health service workers, members of the mentally disabled community and their friends and family members publish The Morningside- Westside Bulletin, an award-winning monthly mental health journal. Journal articles detail issues facing the mental health community and provide advice and avenues for help for those who are in need of assistance.

Under MWCAC's auspices, members of the mentally disabled community produce an annual Outsider Art Show, a forum that encourages members to contribute their own original pieces. The Morningside-Westside Community Action Corporation has also sponsored educational and informational events such as ``Harlem Mental Health Day'' and ``Healthy Mind, Healthy Body.'' Future events include ``Back to Work, Back to Life Day,'' an all day event to be held in Bryant Park, and a conference to be held in connection with the New York City Department of Health Federation.

A mental illness can be a paralyzing and debilitating condition. For years, many individuals have been forced to wander in the darkness of this disease without a helping hand. Thanks to MWCAC, those who need assistance in the New York area have a place to go for help.

In recognition of their outstanding contributions to the community and their commitment to the quality of life of the mentally disabled, I ask that my colleagues join me in saluting Nancy Walder and her dedicated staff at MWCAC.