Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, official business prevents me from being present for legislative business scheduled for today, Monday, June 9, 2003. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the following rollcall votes: H.R. 1610, to redesignate the post office located in Marceline, MO as the ``Walt Disney Post Office Building,'' rollcall No. 249; H. Con. Res. 162, honoring the City of Dayton, OH for hosting ``Inventing Flight: The Centennial Celebration,'' rollcall No. 250; and S. 763, designating the ``Birch Bayh Federal Building and United States Courthouse,'' rollcall No. 251.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present for legislative business on Monday, June 2, 2003 I would have voted ''yea'' on the following rollcall votes: rollcall No. 227, H. Res. 159, Expressing profound sorrow on the occasion of the death of Irma Rangel; rollcall No. 228, H. Res. 195, Congratulating Sammy Sosa of the Chicago Cubs; and rollcall No. 229, H.R. 1465, Designating the facility of the United States Postal Service in Iron Station, North Carolina as the ``General Charles Gabriel Post Office.''

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill, H.R. 1588. If this were a straightforward Defense Authorization bill, it would have my support, but the provisions contained in this legislation go far beyond the scope of the Pentagon and the great men and women who grace our uniformed services.

This bill has become a Trojan Horse. The Defense bill is being used as a legislative vehicle by which the President, the Secretary of Defense and a complaint majority in this chamber can rewrite the rules that conserve our land and wildlife resources.

This bill is not about providing for the health and welfare of our armed services, or taking care of military needs at home and abroad, or about advancing our military capabilities. The underlying bill contained a major rewrite of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act that goes far beyond what the military needs or requested. The Endangered Species Act specifically allows the Secretary of Defense to waive requirements for purposes of advancing our national security. In other words, the Secretary has waiver authority under present law.

But for reasons that are beyond me, the Secretary of Defense wants broader exemptions than are found in current law. For example, the bill weakens ``critical habitat'' designation requirements to such an extent that they are only done on a discretionary basis. These changes to our national environmental laws are being railroaded without consideration of a full debate and without an opportunity to consider a more sensible alternative. The majority, in its rush to pass bad legislation, has denied the opportunity for Members to consider an alternative environmental provision authored by my fellow colleague from Michigan, Mr. Dingell, and the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. Rahall. The majority has denied us a right to discuss this important issue and the right to offer amendments.

Mr. Chairman, given the tilted playing field on which H.R. 1588 is being considered, I regret that I must vote against final passage.

Before closing, I want to pay a salute to the men and women of our armed forces and thank them for a job well done and for the sacrifices they are making to protect our Nation. As I recall the swiftness with which they marched into Baghdad, I am puzzled at the implication of some that our present environmental laws and regulations impaired their military readiness. I am convinced that our military is well prepared, and am equally convinced that they can maintain a high standard of readiness under existing environmental laws.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in opposition to H.R. 2, the conference report that gives a tax cut to people earning over $300,000 per year, and robs the Federal Treasury of needed revenue to fund health care, education, and unemployment opportunities for millions of Americans.

The conference report does nothing to significantly improve the financial plight of destitute and dispirited unemployed and underemployed workers. Over 2.7 million jobs have been lost over the past 2 years, and H.R. 2 will not provide relief to them. The conference report is still terribly skewed towards the wealthy. The measure before us contains a useful provision that increases the child credit from $600 to $1,000. The increase is premised on the flawed notion that a tax credit is equivalent to disposable income. The bottom line is, unemployed and poor people need employment and disposable income, not the expansion of a tax credit.

I also want to emphasize that States around the country, and in particular, Michigan, will still have to confront the reality of escalating budget deficits and fewer dollars from the Federal Government to fund needed services.

As we debate the issues before us, I must emphasize that I do not subscribe to supply-side economic theory, and apparently, neither does Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who has criticized the efficacy and timing of the tax cut that is about to be enacted.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to be outraged that the majority persists in engaging in backroom negotiations devoid of input from Democratic conferees. Democrats have been marginalized at every juncture in the conference process. I remain resolute in my refusal to yield. I also want to advise my colleagues and the American public of a critical point--Republicans are making grandiose promises that will never be realized. In the near future, we will all witness the folly of H.R. 2, and experience the inevitable economic pain that will befall our Nation in the aftermath of this massive and ill-advised tax cut. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 2.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill that America does not want. America needs jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor of the House today with a profound sense of outrage. I am outraged that the majority has once again brought a tax cut bill to the floor that will further exacerbate the spiraling deficits that confront our government. I am also outraged that the majority has denied Democrats the opportunity to offer and debate a substitute. Finally, I am outraged at the disservice that the American public has to endure because they will not be afforded the opportunity to witness a full debate on the merits of the bill we are considering.

The bill under consideration provides tax cuts for individuals and businesses totaling $549.5 billion over 11 years. The facts of the matter are, this horrific bill fails to provide real solutions to the problems of stagnant economic growth, unemployment and the fiscal crises in the States. This bill is overwhelmingly skewed toward the wealthy. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Tax Policy Center, taxpayers with incomes of more than $1 million will receive an average tax cut of $105,600 in 2003, with $42,800 of that coming from cuts in the capital gains and dividends tax rate. Middle income taxpayers would receive an average tax cut of just $218. The top 5 percent of households would receive 75 percent of the benefits. Only one-fifth of households with income between $40,000 and $50,000 a year receive any benefit at all.

A look at the facts reveals that this bill will result in staggering long-term deficits that will burden future generations, forcing cuts in vital programs such as Social Security and Medicare and further weakening economic growth. I am astonished that my colleagues have the temerity to bring this bill to the floor, especially when Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan recently warned against costly new tax cuts when the government is already facing record-high deficits. It is very interesting that the majority will tout Chairman Greenspan when it suits them, and discounts his counsel when it runs counter to their political agenda.

I am also outraged the bill before us does absolutely noting to address the budget crises affecting States. States are facing their worst budget gaps since World War II.

Unlike the Federal Government, States must balance their budgets every year and have been forced to cut programs and lay off thousands of workers. I believe that the best way to stimulate the economy is to put money into the coffers of State governments, and into the hands of a everyday workers like those who live and work in my district. This bill will do nothing to support programs related to education and health care, hiring back furloughed employees, or extending unemployment benefits to millions of the unemployed.

My concerns are quite simple, unemployment is now at 6 percent and the number of workers who have been unemployed for more than 6 months account for 20 percent of all unemployed workers, the largest proportion in a decade. The economy has lost 2.7 million jobs in the last 2 years, but this bill does nothing to help the unemployed. Contrary to what the bill's supporters believe, a tax cut for wealthy investors does nothing to help unemployed workers pay the bills.

This is the third economic stimulus package of the Bush administration. The first two did little to stimulate the economy and this one will only increase the misery index for many Americans. America cannot endure another stimulus plan that results in more economic stagnation, sagging consumer confidence and rising unemployment. This bill does not include a 26-week extension of unemployment benefits nor temporary grants to States to provide benefits to low-wage and part-time workers.

Mr. Speaker, today the majority is engaged in another reckless tax cut endeavor that is steeped in unfairness and will contribute to staggering deficits. I am outraged that Democrats have been denied the opportunity to provide a viable alternative and Americans are being deprived of the opportunity to hear a full and open debate.

I cannot and will not support this bill and urge my colleagues to be courageous and hold and similarly cast a dissenting vote.

Mr. Speaker, It is vital that we implement AMBER Alert systems, not just in our local communities, but nationwide. Our efforts to crack down on child abductors and abusers will be fruitless if we cannot transcend state borders quickly enough to catch these vicious criminals. I am in full support of a national system that will provide for such coordination. In the conference report, we have just that, a provision that provides for a nationwide alert system that is cost-effective and technologically savvy. That is, however, not the only provision in this bill, Mr. Speaker. There are many provisions in this bill that, while attempting to deter these criminals from committing such heinous acts, infringe upon the livelihoods of many innocent individuals and prohibit what would normally be harmless, legal acts.

I vote for the H.R. 1104, the House version of this conference report in hopes that conferees would come together and agree upon a bill that would attack the key issue at hand, protecting our children from molesters and pedophiles. After reviewing the conference report, I did not see any substantive alterations or any elimination of these bad provisions, but rather I noticed additional provisions that, again, hurt the livelihood of innocent individuals and legal acts. For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I vote ``NO'' on final passage of the conference report and I will further expound on why I did so below.

The PROTECT Act would expand the type of homicide that can be punished by death. This will would provide for this expansion, despite the fact that more than half of death penalty cases are found to be erroneous. Cognizant of the disproportionate number of minorities being sentenced to death yearly, and the high number of erroneous rulings by the court system, I am very reluctant to support such a provision.

Furthermore, I am not a proponent of mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines because they undermine and eliminate judicial discretion in individual cases. Judges, under the provision, are unable to impose a lesser sentence after considering the circumstances surrounding a given case. There should not be a one-size-fits-all sentencing structure when judges are determining incarceration of a human being.

This bill would increase certain mandatory minimum sentences for many sexual abuse crimes. For example, for child abduction cases current law consists of a minimum of 51-63 months in jail. This bill increases the minimum to 121-151 months in jail. Judges engage in numerous cases regarding sexual abduction and have more experience and expertise in those cases than we do. Therefore, we should not second-guess their decisions on whether to impose a sentence that is more lenient. They see the defendant and victim, they hear the arguments and testimony, and hence, we should show deference to their rulings.

Similar to the mandatory minimum provisions, this bill also provides for a ``two strikes and you're out'' section that creates a mandatory life sentence for sexual offenders that have been convicted more than once. This provision negates a judges discretion and ability to impose just sentences. Currently, there is no such law that provides for mandatory imprisonment for life after being convicted of a sex crime.

Under this report, if an individual commits a sex crime and is jailed, subsequent to that person's release, he or she will be supervised for life. The statute of limitations regarding these crimes will be voided and an individual can be supervised for his entire life. Not only will it be difficult for these persons to find employment or social acceptance after such a conviction, but this bill will also allow them to be followed and observed day-to-day.

Another bad provision that was added in conference has been coined the ``crack-house statute amendments''. Essentially, this provision will make legitimate businesses the victim of felony charges if they cannot guarantee a drug free property or business. This provision was intended to eliminate the many detrimental effects of ``rave'' parties that allegedly expose drugs and drug usage to the minors that are present. This provision permits government to narrow its focus to particular parties and social gatherings where drug usage is allegedly prevalent and impose felony charges on the owners as a means to eradicating the drug problem. Quite to the contrary, what it

will do is deter innocent, law-abiding property owners and potentially lucrative sole proprietors from investing in the community because of their inability to ensure a drug-free environment. This provision is bad for community and economic development and does not guarantee that these ``raves'' will cease to exist, or that drugs will not be readily available to youth.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I am vehemently opposed to the conference agreement. It is anti-civil liberty and overreaching. Any attempt to provide strong protection for children is trumped by the unreasonable persistence of the majority to increase penalties for these cases. As I stated earlier, the court is experienced enough to decipher individual sex crime cases and impose the appropriate sentence. We should focus on the issue at hand--a system that is technologically apt enough to produce the type of nationwide coordination that we need to catch criminals. Thereafter, the courts will proceed as needed, on a case-by- case basis. I support the need for an AMBER Alert system, but I do not support the conference agreement in its entirety.

Mr. Speaker, to our fine colleague, the former State Senator and now Congressman from Florida, for coming in and taking the mantle of leadership by the hand and helping to move our country forward, I want him to know he is to be admired. He is certainly a fine symbol for young people all over this world to know that when we speak up and have a conscience about what we believe, our families are better, our people are better, and our countries are better. So I thank the gentleman for coming here. He really had big shoes to fill, but I want Mrs. Carrie Meek to know that he is doing a wonderful job and we are very proud of him.

I am honored and privileged to be here with my colleagues tonight for what I consider to be one of the most important issues we will ever consider during my stay here in this United States Congress. The young people of America and the citizens across this country by the tens of thousands came to Washington, D.C. last Tuesday, April 1, to speak out and to demonstrate, to assemble, as our Constitution allows, to say to the world that we do not want our country to go back. We want to go forward. We are the sons and daughters of this civilization, and we believe that if we can go to war, we can also go to the universities, and that the doors of the American universities funded by public dollars must stay open.

It was wonderful to see all the people there. And I want to particularly talk about the young people, the young faces that were there last week. I am a graduate of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. I was born and raised in Michigan all my life. I think it is not coincidental that this case being heard is from the University of Michigan. This university of over 35,000 students for many years has produced leaders for this country, and has produced fine scientists and teachers and engineers and other kinds of people, like so many other universities around this country.

This is not the time to wipe out opportunity. It is a time to expand opportunity so that all God's children can have a higher education experience. I believe that education is the key to a person's life. The more of it that one gets, the more interaction one has with people like oneself, but also people who are different than we are, who come from different backgrounds, this prepares us to be the kind of citizen who can lead anything, who can make this country move forward, and can even, yes, serve in this United States Congress.

So the young people who came, my colleagues, and I know we all saw them from all walks of life, from universities all over this country, they came to say to this Supreme Court, please do not shut the door of opportunity now. We are ready. We have been raised, we have excelled, and we need you to keep the doors of our public universities open.

Now, this case at the University of Michigan not only affects that university, as my colleagues know, but educational institutions all over America. Over 100 businesses have filed amicus briefs with the court. General Motors, headquartered in my district; Microsoft, and many other corporations in this country have filed briefs to say that a diverse workforce not only strengthens our companies and helps to increase the bottom line, but allows our workers to have the mix and experiences of not only their own ethnicity but those of others. So this is not the time, the corporations are saying, to turn the clocks back.

As my colleague mentioned earlier, General Schwarzkopf and others, the highest elements in our military commands, have supported the university's admission policy. They are saying do not go back. The beauty of our Armed Forces, yes, as we fight today in two foreign lands, in Afghanistan and also in Iraq, keep the doors of opportunity open. These are generals, former generals in our armed services, who know that a diverse military is what best serves our country and they are supporting the University of Michigan's policy.

We all need to be aware, too, that not only the young people who were here from all over the country, but the young students at the University of Michigan raised $50,000 themselves, sent 12 buses of their children, young people, to this Capitol of our United States. After the march, at noon, they had another rally where thousands of young people came and said, Congresswoman, we are here because we want the court to hear us. We want the court to know that we will do whatever is necessary to be the best that we can be, and we want the court to keep the opportunity for doors to be open so that we can raise our children to have the best opportunities in life, so they can be the best citizens they can be, and we believe an education is the key to that.

As was mentioned, I am a graduate of the University of Michigan. The two cases before the Supreme Court, one for the undergraduate school, talks about a point system. There is a base of 150 points that can be had. A student needs 100 points to be considered for admission. At least 80 of those points they get from scholastic ability, from middle school right through high school, with the SAT scores. So 80 points of that 150 can come from the academic achievements from middle school right through the high school experience. Then there are about 15

other categories, my colleagues, where other points can be had. For instance, if someone had a father or a grandfather go to the university, they get what is called legacy points. If a student is from Michigan and they live in the upper peninsula, they get a certain number of points. If they are from a socioeconomic background that is low and they need help, they get points. If they are an athlete, they can also get points to add to that. If they are from a minority class, African American, Asian American, Latino American, or Native American, they can get points.

It is amazing to me, with those few that I mentioned and at least 10 others, why are we singling out the ethnicity of that category? Why not the legacy points? Why not if a student lives in an underrepresented county, like the upper peninsula? This is not the time now to put the race card in American society. We have our hands full just keeping the doors of opportunity open for all our institutions of higher learning. This is not a time to confuse our young people by telling them, yes, you can go fight on the front line, but, no, you cannot go to the university. Something is inherently wrong with that.

And what those beautiful students and young people said last Tuesday was, no, America, no, Supreme Court, do not take our country back. Let us move forward in the greatness that this country is.

I had an opportunity to sit in the Court last Tuesday. It was a wonderful experience. The young people were also there in the Court, those who could get in, and we heard the arguments on both sides. We know now that the Supreme Court will be deliberating, some say June, some say right through the end of this session, which will be later on in October-November when the Court is finished before we get our decision. What we need people to do now, who believe that America should be open for its citizens, for all citizens, that the public universities of this country should not be closed, that the military opportunities should not be shut down, that corporate America continues to grow and expand and create work environments that all people from all backgrounds can participate in, if they believe in a just and open America, we need them to fax, to e-mail, to write and to call the nine justices of the Supreme Court.

Those nine justices will be determining in the next several months whether the admissions policy should be upheld or if it should not be. So those who are listening tonight, and we are happy that we are able as the Congressional Black Caucus to bring the information to them, they should let their voices be heard. They need to speak out through fax, e-mail, writing or calling and let the justices know. This is the greatest country in the world. We want to maintain that. Education is the key to that.

Young people have stood up to say that we are here on the steps of the Supreme Court to ask our Court, our justices, to keep justice in America. Keep the doors open. I am very proud of the young people. I want them to know that many years ago, during the 1960s civil rights movement, I was one of those students.

Speak out against injustice. Our Constitution allows us to demonstrate and to assemble when we think something is wrong. Some countries do not have that opportunity. The University of Michigan is a fine university, as are universities all over the country. What happens with this decision in the Supreme Court will determine what kind of country we live in in the next 10, 20, 30 years of this country. Stand up America. I thank the young people, and continue the struggle because it is young people who must keep America strong, and it is you who must have the opportunity to raise, defend, and build your families. God bless you. We are so proud of you.

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honor and privilege to address the floor this evening and acknowledge the efforts of the young people from throughout our Nation who mobilized to travel to Washington, DC to demonstrate in support of the ideals associated with affirmative action and the historic cases being considered by the Supreme Court regarding the University of Michigan admission policies for the law school and the undergraduate program.

I am especially pleased to commend the efforts of the students who traveled from Michigan to demonstrate their support for, and commitment to the University's affirmative action policies. The efforts of U of M were particularly gratifying to me. I am an alumnus of the University. I am a witness to the virtues of affirmative action policies enacted by U of M.

On April 1, on the steps of the Supreme Court, I was also a witness to the assemblage of people from around the country, but especially from the great State of Michigan who braved the elements and other obstacles to form a coalition believers and supports of affirmative action.

I am personally aware of the sacrifices the students made to come to Washington, DC. The students were responsible for raising over $50,000 and bringing 12 buses of students. The shining faces and fervent voices of the students were a sight to behold. Their efforts were a testament to the importance of preserving affirmative action, and a message to the Supreme Court Justices to do the right thing. I salute the students and pledge to them I will continue to fight on behalf of affirmative action. Finally, I offer my heartfelt thanks to each and everyone of them for joining the coalition of black, brown, yellow, red and white supporters of affirmative action.

Mr. Speaker, let me add that the mayor of the city of Detroit was here representing the young people. He is 32 years old and attended a historically black college; he is now a lawyer. It just demonstrates we can be anything that we want to be if we just rise up and speak out and be the very best that God asked us to be.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) for maintaining the Committee on Appropriations' constitutional right to appropriate, and for oversight, both to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and to our ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and our staffs for making sure that our constitutional rights as appropriators is preserved under this supplemental.

I rise in strong support of the supplemental, our troops, our men and women in the military who are fighting to support this country's and around the world's freedom. I rise also to support the Obey amendment that was not made in order. We must protect our homeland. We must protect our hometowns. And as was mentioned earlier in the chart displayed by the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), this supplemental does not do that yet, and we will have another opportunity in the 2004 budget and I hope we will do that.

I represent probably the largest body of water, of international waterway, in this country. The Ambassador Bridge is the busiest commercial border in this country, where a billion and a half commercial products cross that border every day; 40,000 businesses have trucks with hazmat materials on them. Three million people drive those trucks. And we must make sure that our homeland is protected, and we need this homeland money so that our local communities, our targeted communities, can have those dollars we need to protects our citizens, not just at the ports but around this country. And this supplemental does not do it. And I hope we will do it in our 2004 budget as we move forward to do that.

It is so important that we speak out to let Americans know that as we appropriate their tax dollars, we are not only taking care of Afghanistan, Iraq, helping with our other foreign allies, but we are doing what is necessary so that their children can be safe in their own homes, so that the mayors can have the resources they need. It is so important.

And I thank the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and our staffs for bringing it to the floor in such a timely manner. This is a good supplemental at this time, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I rise today to support H.R. 1559, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for FY2003. As a member of the Appropriations Committee and the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, I am proud of the work that the committee was able to produce and thank Chairman Young and Ranking Member Obey, as well as Chairman Kolbe and Ranking Member Lowey of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee on Appropriations for their continued leadership.

Our nation is in a time of unparalleled needs. We are waging a war against Saddam Hussein and his regime, we are fighting a war on terrorism, while at the same time needing to respond to the needs to protect our homeland. This supplemental reflects what is at stake.

The supplemental includes $62.5 billion for military operations in Iraq and the war on terrorism. As an appropriator and a member of the United States Congress, let me say that I am committed to doing everything I can to make sure that our troops are provided with the equipment and resources necessary that will ensure their safety and their ability to mount an effective opposition in Iraq, that will ensure a successful and hopefully an expeditious end to military action. Let me state the utmost respect and admiration I have for our men and women in uniform and that my thoughts and prayers go out to all of them and their families during their difficult times.

I am also proud that this bill does not reflect the blanket check that the Administration originally sought, that would have created new accounts and provided the Administration with programming authority, without congressional oversight. I do not believe in writing blanket checks. As a Member of Congress and a member of the appropriations committee, I feel our role is more important than being just a bank. If we are to be successful in our important missions, Congress needs to be involved and be assured a say in how, where and to whom our money is going. I am happy that Members on both sides of the aisle were able to work together to ensure that Members retain congressional oversight during these important times.

While I support this important supplemental, it is not without certain reservations. First, this bill does not go far enough in providing the sufficient funds needed to protect our homeland. We have vital, unmet needs that need to be responded to effectively. We had a chance to do right, but the Republicans, unfortunately, have blocked an amendment by Congressman Obey that would have provided for $2.5 billion in additional funds for our homeland security needs.

These additional funds would have allowed us to address important issues, such as: increasing port security; protecting federal dams and waterways from terrorist attacks; protecting important food and medical equipment; strengthening the security of nuclear materials at home and abroad; and strengthening U.S. laboratories' ability to cope with a chemical attack.

I represent the 13th District of Michigan, which contains the largest international commercial border in the nation, with $1.5 billion in goods coming into our country every day. The City of Detroit has also been named as one of 10 cities likely to be targeted for a terrorist attack. Mr. Speaker, our security needs are immense here at home and we need to act responsibly. Refusing to allow Members a vote here on the House floor to increase funding for homeland security is an act of irresponsibility that could have adverse consequences.

These additional funds would have allowed government agencies to respond to the unmet needs that our nation's safety requires. Refusing to allow Members a vote here on the House floor to increase funding for homeland security is an act of irresponsibility and we are shortchanging, plain and simple.

Mr. Chairman, the American people look to us to do the job of the people and to protect and safeguard our homeland. It is time that our words and intentions are reflected in the amount of funds that we appropriate in the name of homeland security.

Finally, I also question the amount of funding we are providing for reconstruction and humanitarian needs in Iraq--$2.48 billion. With the war that presumably could last for weeks, maybe longer, the humanitarian needs and reconstruction needs will be great.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, and in support of the CBC and Democratic Alternative budgets.

I didn't think a budget resolution could be much worse than the one produced by the Majority, but then I see the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. This amendment calls for more tax cuts and more cuts in nondefense and non-homeland security spending.

Like the parent resolution offered by the Majority leadership, the budget cuts called for in the gentleman's alternative are just unrealistic. In fact, the $1.6 trillion tax cut proposed by the

gentleman's alternative, requires that domestic spending be cut by an additional $8 billion.

The budgets proposed by Republican Study Conference and the Majority leadership will force authorizing committees' to reduce eligibility requirements and benefits for people programs that service our children, veterans, farmers, federal workers and more.

Like the parent resolution, the RSC amendment provides more tax cuts for the wealthy that are bound to continue to take our economy down the glide path of additional deficits. What I don't understand is why our distinguished majority rightly calls on all Americans to support the war effort in Iraq, but is not willing to pay for its costs. That is a major disconnect.

The Democratic and CBC alternative budgets offer targeted tax cuts that are designed to stimulate the economy and produce real jobs. Up to a million jobs will be produced by the Democratic Alternative in 2003. The Majority's plan, on the other hand, creates only 190,000 jobs in 2003.

The CBC and Democratic Alternative budgets provide more money for Medicare prescription drugs. The Democratic Alternative sets aside $528 billion in new money for a prescription drug program. We deliver and the President's party doesn't.

The Democratic Alternative and Black Caucus budgets invest in education and training. These increases will enable Congress to increase funding for the ``No Child Left Behind Act.''

The Democratic and CBC Alternatives protect our men and women in war; they advance the security needs of our homeland; they increase our investment in human capital and the nation's infrastructure. And they do so in a fiscally responsible way.

Soon we will be asked to redevelop and rebuild Iraq. We will be asked to pass appropriations that will develop and modernize that country's health care delivery system, repair and build 3,000 miles of major thoroughfares; upgrade the country's maritime ports, build classrooms and provide student supplies; provide 20,000 units of housing; rebuild the country's financial system; establish a potable water delivery system; and more.

It is ironic that this administration and the majority party in this Chamber will be asking us to spend billions to invest in redeveloping the infrastructure in Iraq while it simultaneously cuts back our investment in American cities, states and individual human capital. The Members on the other side of the aisle may be able to explain that to their constituents, but I know I won't be able to explain it to mine.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the gentleman's amendment and support the CBC and Democratic Alternatives budget resolutions.

Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of our troops and our families.

Mr. Speaker, at this moment my prayers and thoughts are with the service men and women who are braving the fierceness of battle in the deserts of Iraq. My best wishes are with them and their families for a safe return home. I have no doubt that they will be victorious in their undertaking and perform their duties honorably and bravely.

I have a particularly soft spot in my heart for the service men and women serving in Michigan's National Guard and reserve units that are now activated to duty. They are providing a myriad of services and tasks on behalf of the war effort and in service to our nation.

The politics of war should stop when the first shot is fired and when the men and women who make up our armed forces move into the field of battle. Some Members in this chamber have taken exception to the Administration's handling of the Iraq crisis, and I include myself among those who have had strong reservations about our road to war. If this were a simple resolution expressing our support and best wishes for the safe return of our troops, it would have my complete and unquestioning support. As a Member of the House Appropriations Committee, I will do everything I can to make sure that our troops are provided with the equipment and resources necessary to ensure their safety and support their families.

But I have strong reservations about the course of action that took us into our present state of war. My position on this war has been plainly clear since the beginning, when the Administration first proposed using preemptive action against Iraq. I supported working through the United Nations and our allies and using all diplomatic means possible to disarm Saddam Hussein. I do not feel that the President stayed true to this path and exhausted all diplomatic means available. Therefore, I could not in good, moral conscious, vote ``yes'' for this resolution because it represents an affirmation of the policy of pre-emption. I strongly disagree with the application of a pre-emptive doctrine. It is counter to our values as a democratic nation and our American tradition.

Now that we are committed, our troops are bound to perform their mission effectively and destroy the Iraqi war machine. As they pursue their objective, they will encounter many perils as the war follows its course. I share with the President the wish that their job will be completed swiftly so that they will soon be returning home to their loved ones.

Mr. Chairman, as we are now unfortunately engaged in an assault on Iraq, I pray for the safety of our American servicemen and women engaged in that military campaign and hope for their safe return. As we debate this budget resolution to fund programs for the defense and investment in our country I am very troubled by the harmful consequences for the budget cuts called for in this document.

This budget resolution partially reflects our current priority to protect the men and women of our fighting forces. It is only a partial measure because we need to see the supplemental appropriations request before we really know what the defense budget is. Looking beyond defense, this resolution is a travesty to the Americans who live within these borders.

High priority programs like Medicaid, education, veterans benefits, federal employee pension benefits, prescription drug benefits, law enforcement, food stamps are targeted under this budget resolution.

The majority says the cut backs total represent a 1 percent across- the-board cut. But because the Republican budget mirrors the President's request for defense, they impose a 2.9 percent cut on nondefense spending.

This is a guns and caviar budget.

The budget resolution says these cuts will come from eliminating waste, fraud and abuse. That's hogwash; it cannot be found. The resolution instructs the authorizing Committees to do the dirty work. The Committees will be asked to pony up $470 billion in direct spending program cuts over 10 years. When measured against a 10-year mandatory spending projection of $15.6 trillion that amounts to a 3 percent cut.

The only way to accommodate a cut of this magnitude is to cut benefit levels or restrict eligibility for benefits for human service programs that service our children, elderly, veterans, farmers, federal workers and more.

This budget could push nearly half a million poor children out of child nutrition programs.

In the field of health care, the Republican budget does not provide any significant funding for a Medicare Prescription Drug Program--only $28 billion. With that, you might be able to provide every senior with a bottle or two of aspirin each year.

The Resolution doesn't tell Congress to specifically cut funding for Medicare and Medicaid in order to provide a prescription drug program. It tells the Ways and Means and the Energy and Commerce Committees to do the dirty work. So if the Republicans want to deliver on their promise of a $400 billion prescription drug program, the two committees will have to find a combined total of $372 billion in program cuts.

Under this budget resolution seniors lose out in two ways. They get little or no prescription drug benefit and they will see their coverage under Medicare and Medicaid reduced. They will lose out because here are the options available for getting to the numbers called for in the Republican budget resolution:

Cut physician reimbursement by a third, saving $215 billion. If we go that route, it will only encourage doctors to stop seeing Medicare and Medicaid patients.

Eliminate hospital payments for medical education and cost of uncompensated care, saving $200 billion. That will be devastating to urban hospitals in Detroit and other inner cities, which are on the brink of financial collapse as it is.

Terminate home health benefits under Medicare. That will yield $207 billion. Or do away with skilled nursing home benefits . . . that will save $187 billion.

We can save $51 billion by taking health care services away from 5.3 million low income kids under the State Children Health Insurance Program.

This is a resolution that says to the wealthy, you don't have to pay the cost of this war against Iraq. We'll give the bill to seniors, children, disabled Americans, the sick, the hungry and to generations not yet born. There is no sacrifice being asked of those who can afford it the most. Make no mistake about it. The $382 billion dividend tax cut will do nothing to stimulate the economy. It most benefits those who financially benefit the most in our society.

And that's not just my view. It's a view point shared by the Disabled American Veterans. Ed Heath, National Commander of the DAV, says--and I quote--``Cutting already under funded veterans' programs to offset the costs of tax cuts is undefensible and callous.''

I have been critical of the President's budget and foreign policies. Why, after all, are we conducting a war that we are not willing to pay for. The President is sending a message that we can extend our global military reach without any sacrifice and still afford a tax cut that will largely benefit the top one percent of Americans. This budget document echoes what the Administration has been saying: ``We can have it all.''

Well, we can't have it all if it means breaking a contract with federal workers by cutting their pension health benefits;

if it means breaking the contract that we have with our seniors to cut back on Medicaid and Medicare health coverage;

if it means reneging on a promise to provide seniors with a meaningful prescription drug benefit;

if it turns our back on disability benefits and health care for our veterans;

if it means denying opportunities to our children by cutting back on health programs, Head Start, and Pell Grants.

This budget resolution is nothing but a series of broken promises. All the alternatives being considered today represent a better way, and I am going to support them. With an America at war, we need to act with some fiscally responsibility. The Republican budget does not meet that test. This budget benefits the investment class with a dividend tax cut at the expense of programs that serve everyday Americans. It divides us as a country and worsens our economic position.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5 is the Republican's quick fix to the health care crisis across the nation. They address the problem of increased insurance cost for medical malpractice, but have proposed a contorted theory for fixing it. An in-depth look at H.R. 5 shows that it does absolutely nothing to implement ways to decrease insurance premium costs, and furthermore, it does initiate means to increase the availability of medical malpractice insurance. For the foregoing reasons, I voted ``no'' on this passage.

H.R. 5 will limit the amount of non-economic damages that a patient can recover in a malpractice suit and it sets a bar for punitive damage recovery that is nearly impossible to reach. Overall, this bill limits the amount of recovery for all patients by providing a one-size-fits- all solution. How can we limit what a jury can award to an individual who has lost her/his right to reproduce because of a doctor's or medical manufacturer's negligence? How can we limit damage awards to an individual who has been paralyzed as a result of their negligence? How can we set a standard that is so difficult to meet that it will reduce the opportunity that plaintiffs will have to punish these defendants for their malicious acts? H.R. 5 is moving away from fixing the crisis in our health care industry and leaning towards making it worse by essentially punishing the victims.

Mr. Speaker, we need a bill that acts fast to help doctors and the medical industry sustain themselves financially. Right now, as we debate H.R. 5, thousands of doctors are leaving their respective states because they cannot afford the high insurance premiums. Doctors are now taking on much heavier loads of patients, much more than some of them can handle. To such as extent, some say that their situation is ripe for potential negligence cases, as they are not able to devote the attention necessary for the patient. They need our help now, Mr. Speaker, and we cannot change their situation by selling unfounded limits on non-economic damages.

Additionally, we must work to curb rogues from bringing fraudulent malpractice claims that flood our courtrooms, which are factored into the issue of high insurance premiums. For example, we should not prohibit a justified victim from receiving $750,000 in non-economic damages, but rather, we should aim to deter those rogues from each bringing fraudulent claims for non-economic damages worth $250,000. H.R. 5 does not provide for any differentiation between legitimate claims and the many unwarranted claims that bring a halt to judicial economy every day.

The Democratic substitute is superior because it would have sought and punished rogues for bringing fraudulent cases. It would not have capped non-economic damages or punitive damages. The substitute commissioned a study to assess the medical malpractice issue and determine how we can better address and then eliminate the problem. As for the current crisis, the substitute would authorize the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to provide grants to geographic areas that experienced extreme shortages of health providers due to the high premiums.

Although the Democratic substitute was superior for this crisis situation, the Republicans used their control of the House to prevent the substitute from being brought to the floor for a debate, along with any amendments that Democrats would have offered. This is undemocratic and an irresponsible use of leadership. The House floor is where all members should have the opportunity to discuss various ideas, views or bills from both sides of the aisle. To preclude that possibility is undemocratic. Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the Republicans regulation of this very important issue and I also vehemently disagree with H.R. 5.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for continuing to be in the forefront of this issue. God loves her for it; and as we work together to build a better world, this is certainly one of the most important issues that we will face in our lifetime.

As a member of the Committee on Appropriations, I am acutely aware, as most of the Members of the Congress are, what a tight budget we have this year and as we move into the next few years as we send our troops off in Afghanistan currently, soon to be Iraq with North Korea another possible war target. It is important, I believe, that as we do all of this, and I want to commend President Bush for making the statement in his State of the Union address, that we will spend more resources to fight HIV and AIDS.

As most everyone knows in the world, the pandemic is spreading. Africa today, India, former Soviet Union, China, and right here in our own country, unprecedented numbers of people being infected with HIV and AIDS. So I am happy to commend President Bush on taking the first step as the leader of the free world to really begin to address the problem.

Is it enough? No, it is not enough. We need to do better. We need to do more, and that is what we are talking about tonight, how we do more. It is not always money. When you are the leader of the world, you can do a lot of things that can help poor countries and other countries of the world. We can make it possible for generic drugs to be used in poor countries; and as was mentioned earlier, if the United States would step forward and sign an agreement that the World Trade Organization put forth, many of those poor countries could use generic drugs and would be able to treat the hundreds of thousands of people who are infected with HIV and AIDS; and I urge the President to come forward to work with the World Trade Organization to make sure that those pharmaceuticals are available for the poorest of the poor so they may treat themselves, save their families, and protect their children. It is most important, Mr. President; and I hope he will work in that vein.

The gag rule that was mentioned, the gag rule, for those who do not know, is a rule put on some of our appropriations that says any country that teaches family planning may not be a recipient of the funds that have already been appropriated. Many of us think that is wrong. Family planning is just what it is; and many countries in the world, we of the United States and other countries of the world, help people to plan their families so they can live within the means that they have.

By our putting the gag rule on the funds that will come forward for HIV and AIDS, it says that many of the countries will not be able to access those funds. We believe that the funds ought to be available for those countries, the poorest of the poor, who are infected, in this case, with HIV and AIDS; that the family services ought to be integrated. We have already heard that when the services are integrated, more people come and take part in those services and not just be treated with one illness, but may also have tuberculosis, may also have malaria, HIV. So then we are able to treat the entire illnesses of the people, and I hope that the President will reconsider and take the gag rule off his initiative for treating and helping with the AIDS pandemic.

We can also relax and expand the rules for HiPC countries, the highly indebted poor countries of Africa. They cannot partake of this initiative because we need to expand who can participate. It would mean that some of those countries would have to match the dollars in some instances; but many have told me, and the president of Uganda, one of leaders in the world in treating and reducing the HIV pandemic, that they are ready, willing, and able to work with this country, but they need help. They need our leaders to free them up so that they can access and treat more people. From the generic drugs, making those available, that is one way we can help. Sometimes it is not always the money. Is the money enough? No, it is not. But we as the leaders of the world can do other things that will assist in those poor countries.

AIDS, HIV, tuberculosis, malaria, as a member of the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs, we fund those lines for countries all over the world. Why then in this initiative must we take money from the programs that are working well, the malaria, the tuberculosis program? We do not want to subtract money from those to give to HIV. We want to make it a partner with our HIV dollars, not to rob Peter to pay Paul, but to make that as one pot of money so we can treat all of those and put the dollars in that are necessary.

Is the money enough? No, it is not. But it is not always the money. There are other things that we can do to help. We can help by making it possible for some of the countries to be able to cancel their debt. In some instances 30, 40, 50 percent of the revenue of a country is used to cancel the debt. At a time when resources are low, at a time when countries are poor, we as leaders of the free world need to find a way that we can make arrangements to cancel some of that debt so those resources can be used to treat their own people in their own country.

And I tell the President if he would stand up and make that a fact, work out some arrangements so some of the debt can be cancelled, those dollars then could be put back in those countries to treat the pandemic so we do not have to always use U.S. dollars. There is a way to address the problem. Is the money enough? No, it is not. But it is not always the money. Many times it is leadership.

I want to commend President Bush for what he has already done, but I want him to know, and this Congress to know, there is much more that we can do. Make the generic drugs available, help with canceling the debt that the countries have, make sure that we get rid of and eliminate the gag rule that is not making it possible for some people to access the money.

In United States today, Africa, India, China and several other countries of the world, this is a real pandemic. Our role and our rule ought to be as responsible leaders in this community, leaders of the world, all 535 of us. What else can we do to relieve the illnesses, to break it down so that so many children will not be orphaned, so that so many families will not be left with nothing?

There are things we can do, and it is not always the money. I contend that if we just did three of the things I mentioned today, cancelling the debt, the use of generic drugs, as well as making sure the gag rule does not stifle and eliminate those who need treatment, it would help. Is the money enough? No, it is not.

But let us stand up and work together, Mr. President, with you. We are ready, we are willing and we are able. We just count on you to lead our country in this pandemic crisis that we see.

HIV and AIDS is not going away. Family planning is a necessity. We need to work to integrate the services so that our families can be strong, so that our children can grow and live and have an intact family, and that we move forward as a United Nations of all of God's people.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate National Peace Corps Day on February 28, 2003 and to commend the organization and its volunteers for the important work they do around the world. Since 1961, more than 168,000 Americans have taken part in this important mission to volunteer in 136 countries. This mission is important on many levels.

The idea of the Peace Corps began in my home State of Michigan when John F. Kennedy, campaigning for President, proposed the concept in October of 1960 to a group of college students in Ann Arbor. He wanted to see how many of them would be interested in volunteering in developing countries to help in their progress and development. In March of 1961, the Peace Corps was established through an executive order signed by President Kennedy. Today, more than 40 years later, the Peace Corps remains a vital government program that helps to forge strong ties with other countries and to promote global peace.

Peace Corps volunteers give much of themselves during their assignment, and on a human level, there can be no greater service than helping to improve and making a positive difference in the lives of others. As a result of Peace Corps volunteer efforts, the ties between American citizens and those in host countries grow and remain strong long after the Peace Corps assignment has concluded. I know of no Peace Corps volunteer who has returned unchanged or unmoved by the positive work they have performed and the wonderful people they have met.

In my district, currently four volunteers are participating in the Peace Corps. They include: Ms. Kathryn L. Donahue placed in Lesotho; Mr. Brent J. Hayduk in the Ukraine; Ms. Maureen A. Magee in Gambia; and Mr. Seth W. Pickens in Haiti. I am so proud of them and the other volunteers across our nation. To all volunteers, past, present, and future, I say thank you for your dedication and for the honor you all bring to our country.

Mr. Chairman, today, I voted against passage of H.R. 4, the Welfare Reform Reauthorization. I opposed passage of the bill last session and today for the same reasons.

First, the Republican bill has weak educational opportunities for welfare recipients, it places unfunded mandates on States, and implements stricter requirements without taking into account increases for inflation. This puts States in a very compromising position. Furthermore, this bill only includes $1 billion in

additional funding over five years for childcare. It is general knowledge that there is insufficient money provided for childcare to meet the current needs of our nation. Moreover, the Republican bill places harsher work requirements on mothers with young children, without providing for a sufficient increase in childcare funding. How are families to cope?

Additionally, the Republican bill is only concerned about the numbers looking good on paper. The majority points to the success of the reduction of welfare rolls with the Welfare Reform Law of 1996; however, they fail to take into account the number of welfare recipients that have moved off the welfare rolls straight into low- income, minimum wage jobs. Many families still must rely on government assistance to stay afloat. Their measure of success is terribly flawed.

Providing government assistance to needy families should not be based on unlimited assistance--this is something that those of us on both sides of the aisle can agree on. However, this bill should be directed at providing fair and meaningful assistance that will help lift families out of poverty. This objective is at the heart of both the Kucinich and Cardin Substitutes that I supported. Both of these alternatives to H.R. 4 put a greater emphasis on educational opportunities and programs--an approach that would ensure that families are able to move up the economic ladder. Without the opportunity to learn a trade or pursue post-secondary educational options, the outlook for families being able to move off of welfare and improve their economic status is bleak.

Welfare reform should include policies that provide real solutions to helping families leave and stay off of welfare. Helping families to succeed is the Democratic approach--and the right approach. If we fail to enact policies that give families a real chance to create a better life, we fail families and we fail children.