Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of my colleagues I rise to remember the life and sacrifices of Private First Class, Lori Ann Piestewa of the United States Army. Lori was a member of the 507th Maintenance Division working near Nasiriya, when her convoy made a wrong turn and was ambushed. Lori lost her life along with eight other American soldiers in the same incident. Lori became the first Native American woman to die in combat.

Lori was a dedicated mother of two young children, and leaves behind a closely knit group of family and friends in the Hopi Indian community in Tuba City, Arizona. Lori was a source of enormous pride for her family and the larger Hopi community.

Native Americans have a long and proud history in the United States military, with 12,000 currently serving. Hopi leadership has reported that approximately 56 tribe members are in the military, with an astonishing 48 now on active duty in the gulf region. Hopi/Arizona Tewa enrolled tribe members face many hardships: unemployment hovers near 27% and of the employed less than 40% have full-time jobs. Moreover, nearly 57% of Hopi tribe members live below the poverty line, with only small percentages of the Hopi population in need receiving public assistance or welfare resources.

Lori's children and family should know that in sacrificing her life for our nation in this war, she has become a great source of pride for all Americans, but particularly those of us who have served or who have family members who have served in this nation's armed forces. Lori will also stand as a symbol and poignant reminder of the many hardships and tremendous sacrifices that Native Americans in this nation continue to make for our country.

Mr. Speaker, no matter which way we voted on the war resolution, I think we all come together hoping that we have a package for those heroic people that fought the war in the Middle East, and that when they come home that we will be able to treat them as heroes and have a veterans package for them.

One would think, however, since we have not the slightest clue of how long

the occupation is going to take, where we will have to go next in the region, what the total price is going to be to have democracy installed in Iraq, that before we even think about borrowing money and having a tax cut, that we would wait and see in a rational way what would be the cost to the United States of America.

It is true we have no friends to go to to help pay for the cost of the war, and we do not even know how long this is going to continue, notwithstanding the fact that we call a victory; but I think that in the short run what we are talking about is that the majority in this House really does not want to see this great Republic provide any public service.

They have advocated eliminating corporate taxes altogether. They have advocated letting Medicare just turn softly, slowly in the wind. They have advocated privatizing Social Security; and at the end of the day, they will tell you that these would be the responsibilities of the State and local government. But ask the Governors and ask those in the States how they treated them in this budget. Ask the local community, the firemen and the policemen how are they treated.

They will do anything and say anything in order to say at the end of the day nobody pays taxes except the working people. They fight our wars, they pay our taxes; but the wealthy at the end of the day are the recipients. Is this what we call shared sacrifice? I think not.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation without any hesitation.

Most all Americans, and certainly those in this House, are strong advocates for democracy all over the world, and we had hoped that the seeds of democracy would have grown in Cuba. Many of us have taken different approaches how we would want to do this, but one thing is abundantly clear: It has taken too long for Castro to recognize the importance of open elections and, certainly, no Americans can find any justification of the wanton and massive arrests of people, many of whom who were advocates of normalization, all of whom were advocates of democracy, to have been arrested with closed and secret trials and without any evidence that their conduct was a threat to the security of the people in Cuba.

While we also are reminded that some of us are old enough to have supported the July 26 resolution against Batista and recognize that we do not want those days ever to return, still we are not satisfied with the progress that has been made in terms of moving toward democracy, and it is hard for us to believe that the Cuban Government wants us to believe that these people were arrested because they were involved in a conspiracy with the United States of America to overthrow their government. If they truly believe that the United States intended to overthrow their government, they should have exercised their right to have kicked out the chief of the U.S. Interests Section there, and then not to hold their people hostage and subject

to the painful sentences that have been imposed upon them.

I join in urging the Cuban Government to release these people, to open up these courthouses, and to whatever complaints they have about the conduct of any Americans that are in Cuba, to let the whole world see it. But I am glad to stand with my colleagues and ask for an immediate response to the call of this House, and that is to release the prisoners forthwith.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution introduced by my colleague, Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart condemning the actions of the government of Cuba in violation of the rights of its citizens. It is not the resolution that I would have drafted, but it comes close enough in reflecting my objections to these actions.

Representatives of the Cuban government want us to believe that their actions in arresting and prosecuting Cuban citizens were based on evidence of their involvement in a conspiracy with the United States to overthrow their government. The Cuban citizens being prosecuted--many of them journalists and advocates of open elections and supporters of normalization of relations with the United States--allegedly consorted with the Chief of the U.S. Interests Section in Havana in this conspiracy at private meetings, including visits to each others' homes.

The so-called evidence is that the United States government provided the Cuban activists with millions of dollars with which to carry out the conspiracy and that these Cuban citizens, therefore, were in violation of Cuban law.

It is hard to believe that the Cuban government feels so insecure that these mass arrests had to be carried out, that the trials had to be held in secret, without any evidence exposed to the Cuban people or to the international community, or that the God-given right of Cuban citizens would be so violated. It is even harder to believe that if this conspiracy theory held water, the person who was at the center of the conspiracy--the Chief of the U.S. Interests Section in Havana-- would be allowed to remain in Cuba.

Hardly anyone could disagree that Castro-led revolution of 1959 had improved the lives of the great majority of Cuban citizens. But we've waited too long for the revolution to take the next step in offering true democracy to all Cubans. Some Americans believe that the best way to bring democracy to Cuba is a policy of embargo, cutting off all food, medicines, travel, trade and social and family contacts.

Some of us believe that--as with other communist countries, such as China and North Vietnam--a better way is to tear down barriers and allow the Cuban people to see the benefits of democracy. In my view, such a policy of engagement is far better than the use of propaganda and the distribution of radios and pamphlets. U.S. citizens are the most effective ambassadors of democracy.

Despite the ability of supporters the embargo to sustain that failed policy for over 40 years, there has been a great deal of progress in the movement toward normalization of relations between our countries. Just as in February 1996, when the Cuban government shot down two unarmed private aircraft piloted by Cuban-Americans based in Miami, this time there was no threat to the security of the Cuban government. Just as the shooting incident set back the development of our relationship for several years, that unwarranted violation of the rights of ordinary Cubans, in my humble opinion, has further set back the efforts of the Cuban and American people to move toward democracy and free trade.

For 30 years, I have been part of a sometimes unpopular effort to improve relations between our countries. I would be less than honest if I did not say now that the response of the Cuban government to concerns raised from many quarters has been less than adequate. I will continue to support any effort by our two countries to improve that relationship, but I cannot support this action taken by the Cuban government. Indeed, I am forced to condemn it.

I know that this view is shared by many of my colleagues, and I hope that the Cuban government will seek ways to undo this unfortunate setback to relations between our countries.

I hope that they will reconsider this action against people who were seeking to demonstrate their political differences with their government. I hope that the government will take the most drastic action for any government to take, to reverse itself and release the prisoners.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, and all of the Members of the House that worked on this legislation, including the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) and our past Member, Tony Hall, for the interest and support that he has given. I would like to thank the nongovernment organizations for the work that they have done to make the Kimberly Process available to us, and the certificates, so we can move forward with better trade with those who produce raw diamonds.

Like other Members, I was motivated to get involved in this issue after seeing the horrific evidence of violence wrought by rebel groups financing their civil war activities and human rights abuses through the illegal diamond trade. Addressing this issue, it seemed to me, was part and parcel of our responsibility to assist the nations of sub- Saharan African countries by bringing peace to the continent.

In addition, I understood if we did not curtail trade in illegal diamonds, our failure to act would have a chilling effect on the legitimate diamond trade for countries such as Botswana where legitimately mined diamonds provide a significant source of her income. The stain of conflict diamonds threatens to have a tremendous adverse impact on her.

I would like to say a few words about the process by which this legislation is being considered. Normally, I have been a strong advocate that all legislation go through the committee process and be fully debated; but this particular bill did not go through the Committee on Ways and Means or the Committee on International Relations, but I do believe in view of the time pressure to pass this very important legislation that this should be an exception to the rule and there should not be any controversy. I am pleased to be working with the gentleman from California and on the other side of the aisle with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) to give this support in connection with the urgency that it deserves. I ask all of my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, as we begin an unjust invasion of Iraq, I think that it is appropriate that this chamber hears from citizens and leaders on the local level, and not just the representatives of the Administration.

Last week, on March 12, 2003, the New York City Council courageously passed resolution 549-A, condemning current plans for an invasion of Iraq. They did so representing their constituents, who have made it abundantly clear through letters, faxes, emails and public protests, that the costs are too great and the evidence too suspect to support an invasion. The resolution represents the voice of the people of our great city.

I applaud the majority of the members of the Council for their principled fight for peace and diplomacy. I commend them for resisting the tempting safety of silence and risk being unfairly labeled and misunderstood as ``unpatriotic.''

We live in a time where no one wants to challenge our foreign policy decisions for fear of being perceived not supportive of freedom or of our brave men and women who poised for the invasion of Iraq. However, when history records where elected leaders were at the time that this fateful decision between war and international cooperation was made, it will be clear that it was the City Council of New York who stood strongly as voices for peace.

I invite you to read excerpts of their resolution, so that it can be clear why the elected representatives of the citizens of the City of New York, still recovering from the attack of September 11, believe that real peace and democracy should be secured by law, not force.

New York City Council Resolution Urging Military Restraint in Iraq

Resolution calling on the government of the United States

to make all efforts to work through the United Nations

Security Council in a manner that would reaffirm our Nation's

commitment to the rule of law and the primacy of human rights

in our international relationships, and to take all

appropriate steps toward securing the participation of other

nations and international bodies in the effort to ensure that

Iraq does not possess biological, chemical or nuclear weapons

and toward promoting human rights for all the people of Iraq;

and further calling on the government of the United States to

work through the United Nations Security Council and with

other nations to ensure the unimpeded access of United

Nations weapons inspectors to all areas of and facilities in

Iraq and to ensure that the inspectors be given a full and

fair opportunity to conduct their efforts in accordance with

United Nations Security Council resolutions; and further

calling upon the Council of the City of New York to oppose a

pre-emptive military attack on Iraq unless it is demonstrated

that Iraq poses a real and imminent threat to the security

and safety of the United States or its allies or unless other

options for achieving compliance with United Nations

resolutions calling for the elimination of weapons of mass

destruction and the means for their development have failed.

By Council Members Perkins, Baez, Barron, Boyland, Brewer,

Clarke, Comrie, Davis, DeBlasio, Dilan, Espada, Foster,

Gerson, Gioia, Gonzalez, Jackson, Koppell, Liu, Lopez,

Martinez, the Speaker (Council Member Miller), Monserrate,

Moskowitz, Quinn, Reed, Reyna, Sanders, Seabrook, Serrano,

Stewart, Vann and Yassky.

Whereas, The manner in which the United States government

is responding to the crisis involving Iraq has caused great

concern among many New Yorkers, resulting in one of the

largest public demonstrations in the history of the City of

New York on February 15, 2003; and

Whereas, The Council of the City of New York is the locally

elected voice of the people of the City of New York; and

Whereas, Saddam Hussein has violated United Nations

resolutions requiring his government to destroy biological,

chemical and nuclear weapons, cease the development of such

weapons and permit international inspection of all areas and

facilities to ensure compliance with such resolutions; and

Whereas, Although international weapons inspections barred

by Iraq in 1998 have been reinstituted in response to

international pressure, particularly from the United States,

there is evidence that despite some cooperation, Iraq is not

fully complying with United Nations resolutions; and

Whereas, It is imperative that Iraq not be allowed to

possess, use or export biological, chemical or nuclear

weapons, or weapons of terror, and that Iraq fully comply

with United Nations resolutions; and

Whereas, Since taking power in 1979, Saddam Hussein's

regime has committed human rights violations against the

Iraqi people on a massive scale--documented by Amnesty

International, Human Rights Watch and others--and we condemn

these crimes and the ongoing oppression of the Iraqi people,

including the Kurdish, Shiite and the other minority groups;

and

Whereas, It is in the interest of all nations, including

the United States, that threats to world peace and violations

of human rights be dealt with in accordance with

international law and, whenever possible, on a multilateral

basis; and

Whereas, A pre-emptive United States military attack on

Iraq, absent a real and imminent threat to the security and

safety of the United States or its allies and absent the

support of the international community would violate our

commitments to the United Nations charter; and

Whereas, War has grave repercussions in terms of loss of

life; and

Whereas, While it is difficult to project the financial

costs of war, a thorough analysis published by the National

Bureau of Economic Research estimates that the total cost of

invasion, occupation, peace-keeping, reconstruction, nation-

building and necessary humanitarian assistance might range

from $150 to $750 billion;

Whereas, Such cost would place an enormous strain on our

nation's ability to maintain the infrastructure, human

services and social programs necessary for our nation's

security, general welfare and progress; and

Whereas, It has not been substantiated that all other means

of disarming Saddam Hussein in accordance with United Nations

resolutions have been attempted and have failed; and

Whereas, The United States government has not articulated

how a military attack would result in the formation of an

Iraqi government that rejects the development of nuclear,

biological or chemical weapons and promotes freedom and

democracy; and

Whereas, In the event that our armed forces are called into

combat in Iraq, we recognize, honor and appreciate the

commitment, service and valor of our military personnel, and

together with their families, we fervently hope for their

safe return; and

Whereas, This resolution speaks of the United States'

response to the current crisis involving Iraq and does not

address any action the United States might take in response

to any future humanitarian crisis; now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the government of the United States should

make all efforts to work through the United Nations Security

Council in a manner that would reaffirm our nation's

commitment to the rule of law and the primacy of human rights

in our international relationships, and should take all

appropriate steps toward securing the participation of other

nations and international bodies in the effort to ensure that

Iraq does not possess biological, chemical or nuclear weapons

and toward promoting human rights for all the people of Iraq;

and be it further

Resolved, That the government of the United States should

work through the United Nations Security Council and with

other nations to ensure the unimpeded access of United

Nations weapons inspectors to all areas of and facilities in

Iraq and to ensure that the inspectors be given a full and

fair opportunity to conduct their efforts in accordance with

United Nations Security Council resolutions; and be it

further

Resolved, That the Council of the City of New York opposes

a preemptive military attack on Iraq unless it is

demonstrated that Iraq poses a real and imminent threat to

the security and safety of the United States or its allies or

unless all other options for achieving compliance with United

Nations resolutions calling for the elimination of weapons of

mass destruction and the means for their development have

failed.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) for giving me this opportunity to address the House in probably the saddest day that I have had in my career, to be a Member of Congress and to not be able to respond to my constituents, and indeed, to so many people in our great Nation, as to how we find ourselves in the situation we do today.

What is even more remarkable is how we can debate putting together a budget and say that we have to wait until the war gets started good or the war is over, and then we will be able to come back and fit it into the budget. It is almost like saying that we would like to give prescription drugs and hospital assistance, but we do not know how many people are going to be sick. We would like to give prisons and cops and security, but we really do not know how many people are going to commit crimes, so wait until it is all over and then trust us, we will come back.

Another problem that I have today is that so many of my colleagues find it very, very difficult to understand that we come together in our hearts, and wanting to make certain that no young person that is in our military today will ever have any reason to challenge that this United States Congress appreciates them for their dedication, their loyalty, and that we are prepared to do anything and everything that we can for them to have the security in knowing that we are all Americans together and nothing, not Republicans and not Democrats, not liberals and not conservatives, is going to breach this bond that we have a constitutional and moral right to have.

I have been involved in a lot of debates as to when American troops should be introduced into harm's way. I was not here when they went into the Dominican Republic. God knows I was not here when they went into Korea. I was not even here when they had a vote on the Tonkin Gulf resolution.

I was here and I heard debate on Kosovo. I was here and heard debate on Haiti and the Persian Gulf. We had Democrat and Republican Presidents, and we had serious differences of opinion. Most of the time, at the conclusion of these debates, we praised each other and expressed support that it was intellectually and politically the right thing for the Republic and a great Nation like ours to do. Nobody accused someone of being unpatriotic because they differed with the President, whether he was Republican or Democrat.

Today I hope, Mr. Chairman, that we are not going to challenge each other as to who loves our country and who respects our flag the most; but we concentrate on the fact that those that are placed in harm's way, they do not have the opportunity to debate which war they support or which war they are against. They do not have the opportunity to make the decisions. When the decision is made, they have to go; and we have to be there for them.

I suspect if the gauge of patriotism was gauged not on how many flags we had stuck on your automobiles but, rather, how patriotic we were in wanting to help the troops, that we would be here and we would be coming here saying how many members of our family have we encouraged to join up and to volunteer and to get involved in this thing, not only to bring democracy to Iraq but to bring democracy to the region.

I would suspect that if we were all as patriotic as sometimes I hear the words said, that we would reflect this not only in the budget, but we would be talking about expanded services for our veterans, for our warriors, for those people who would want to expand and join the Reserves and join the National Guard.

I would suspect that if we did not have this attitude that ``we will hold your coat, you go ahead and fight,'' but we were really saying, we appreciate what you are doing, that we would say, ``and when you come home we are not going to treat you just as disabled veterans or sick veterans or veterans without homes, we are going to treat you as the heroes that you are for what you have done for us.''

I would find it awkward when my veterans come home from Iraq to tell them that what I was really debating on the floor was how much money could we really take out; that I would be saying what we were trying to do on your behalf would be to have a $1.5 trillion tax cut because we want to stimulate the economy; that what we were doing was trying to cut back a budget, to cut back health care, to cut back housing.

I would find it difficult to explain how the thought of terrorism would have this Congress so petrified that instead of doing the things that we have been sent down here to do, we are cutting back in spending, we are cutting back in taxes, and we are cutting back in being those things that we are asking people to fight for, that is, a country where everyone has an opportunity to decent health care, a decent education.

I am going to be just as critical of this President as I can; but more than that, I am going to be just as supportive as this Congress allows me to be supporting those programs that allow them to get back home healthy and safe and to be able to be discharged and knowing that we are going to protect those rights.

I hope when that flag goes up we recognize one thing, that no one has a right to say that someone is less patriotic because they did not support every intrusion that a Congress has made or a President has decided of our men and women into a foreign country.

Mr. Chairman, let me first thank the gentleman from Connecticut who has so graciously yielded time for us to express ourselves in this august Chamber, as well as the Congressional Black Caucus and the Progressive Caucus under the leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and of course the gentleman from Baltimore, Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owns), the architect that put it all together.

When Governor Bush was running for President, one would think that he picked up a Democratic National Committee Campaign piece of literature. He was for education, Leave No Child Behind, prescription drugs; and when he was appointed to office by the United States Supreme Court and he got there, he had a substantial surplus in the budget, the Social Security trust fund and the Medicare trust fund. It looked like it was on its way to full recovery. But the programs that he had promised, instead of getting that, what we did get was a $1.3 trillion tax cut, most all of which went to the wealthiest Americans in our country. As a result, as we stand here today, the surplus is gone. We have no prescription drugs. We expect devastating cuts in the Republican budget. And one thing that we did not know was that we would be in war. Of course we do not like talking about that because Republicans say if one talks about money and how much the war cost that one is preempting the President from declaring the war; but now that the bombs are dropping, I assume somewhere before this debate is over, somebody would be slipping some papers to us saying what the estimated cost of the war is.

Our budget says that this is the patriotic budget. This is the antiterrorist budget. This is a budget that protects our young people on the field by saying the President did not know, I do not think he knew, that he was going onto declare war before his budget, before his 1.5 trillion tax cuts. So, therefore, what we are saying from a tax policy is let us freeze everything. Let us just put a stop to the tax cuts, a stop to the flooding of our deficit, and just take a look at what America should be all about and adopt this budget as one that is the budget of patriotism, a budget that tells the terrorists that we believe that as the President is concerned with liberating and bringing democracy to Iraq, as the President has a concern about bringing democracy to the region, as the President has a concern to capture the oil fields, increase the production, and get the revenue to improve the education and health care of the people in Iraq, that the antiterrorist patriotic budget says that we have the same commitment and a stronger commitment to the people in the United States of America to provide the health care, the affordable housing, the education to make us more productive so that we can protect this democracy.

We want to give our men and women that are fighting in the Middle East all the protection that they have today; and when they come home, we will be there to say that we fought against cutting their budgets for veterans benefits, for health benefits, and for education benefits. Vote for the patriotic budget. That is the one that is on the floor now.

Mr. Speaker, what a great opportunity we had tonight for all of us to unequivocally endorse and praise those brave young men and women who are prepared at any time to put their lives on the line and put themselves in harm's way for the interests of the United States of America.

My training in the military dictated to me that when that flag goes up, we salute it. When you are in the military, you do not have the options of determining which is a right war, which is a moral war, and which is any other type of war that one likes or dislike. You do what you are told, and you fight for this great country.

As Members of Congress, however, we had an opportunity to forge a resolution that would not have any doubt about our unequivocal support for our men and women not just tonight but as long as we are able to serve in this great body for this great country. But somehow we sought not to do this. Somehow, as the majority leader said on different occasions, we wanted to mix policy with praise. Our fighting men and women do not have an opportunity to deal with policy; and yet this is what we are asked to do, as the majority leader said, that we must congratulate and express the unequivocal support and appreciation of the Nation for a President who brought us where we are today. I do not like where we are today. I did not vote or support how we got where we are today. I am prepared to salute the Commander in Chief because he is in charge today, but why do you put me in the position that it even looks as though I am not supporting our men and women? Because I reserve the right as a Member of this body to disagree with this President or any other President as long as I am elected to serve my constituents.

I am happy that I will have other occasions to show in a more vocal way

my unequivocal support for our brave fighting men and women.

Mr. Speaker, as we stand on the brink of an invasion of Iraq, we must ask ourselves if there are better ways to secure long- lasting peace and prosperity in the Middle East.

I invite you to read excerpts of my remarks against an invasion of Iraq and in support of national service that I delivered Sunday, March 9, 2003 at Riverside Church. I was really moved by the sermon delivered by the Reverend Dr. James Forbes, Jr. that morning. The reading from the Bible was the parable of the weeds in the wheat field. It tells how the weeds will be destroyed but only after the weeds and the wheat grow up together and the wheat is allowed to mature. It was a great analogy as we take a look at a world today--a world that would have us believe that the weeds would be Saddam Hussein and that some are saying we have to destroy the entire wheat field in order to get him.

Understanding the Power of the People

Every minute of every day of every year that we live is

actually part of history. We never really perceive what it is

we do, how important it is, what we could have done or what

we didn't do, until that day is over.

Well, I can share with you now that I was not excited about

that trip. I didn't intend to walk and I asked Percy why

didn't he walk down there if he felt so excited about this?

But he said no and set it up with Andrew Young and John

Lewis. I was running for office and he said how important it

would be at least for me to go down and have my picture

taken.

Well, having my picture taken seemed like it made a lot of

sense. So I got a roundtrip ticket, and took my cashmere

coat, my Stingy Brim hat, my Florsheim shoes, and went down

there to have my picture taken.

I had bad feet so I knew I wasn't going to march. But when

the rain started coming. I saw these poor farmers,

sharecroppers and young people just finding plastic to wrap

their feet in. I heard them start singing the hymns and the

civil rights songs. When I saw and heard all this, I knew

that I just could not return to the airport. So I switched my

shoes with someone that was coming back to New York, got his

sneakers (kept my cashmere coat, however) and started that

march from Selma to Montgomery.

I cursed every step of the way of that march, wondering why

in the world was I marching with no cameras, no TV, no

reporters, in the darkness with a group of white Southern

guardsman allegedly there to protect me. But it was only

after that event was over that I fully recognized the power

of Dr. Martin Luther King and fully understood the power of

people who believed that they could make a difference.

How little did I know in marching in that march that, as a

result, Americans who had been treated as a fraction of a man

would be given the power to vote in the Deep South. It was a

country where lives could be taken through lynchings, where

people could be beaten to death and segregated, and people

would say there's nothing that we could do about it. This

march, and the subsequent incidents with dogs, allowed the

best of America to come out--and not only turn it around, but

provide for a kid from Lennox Avenue to succeed the late and

the great Adam Clayton Powell. It allowed me to be here today

and say that as a result of that Voting Rights Act, we now

have 39 African-American men and women serving in the House

of Representatives. God is good.

It means that no matter how many weeds are growing that, if

we are strong enough to be the wheat to provide the light,

there is no sense in giving up on this country. It's all that

we got.

We are the country. It is not just those people who come to

Washington. It is us who decide just how strong we're going

to be or how frightened we're going to be, or show silent we

will be against the injustices that are taking place under

our flag.

An Unjust and Unwise Invasion

On September the 11th, when enemies of the United States

struck the World Trade Center, I think all Americans put

aside whether they were Republican or Democrats, liberals or

conservatives. For the first time in our history we felt the

pain of hatred attacking us, and the things that we believed

in. For the first time in my congressional career, New York

City members were treated as members of Congress, and not

merely as members of the New York delegation. We sang, ``God

Bless America'' and said, under the President's leadership,

that wherever this threat had come from, we were prepared to

do whatever was necessary so that we would never feel the

pain the way we did then.

However, soon the President started talking about ``the

axis of evil.'' He spoke about North Korea, Iran, and Iraq.

And somewhere along the line, it was forgotten that our

attackers were funded and had come from Saudi Arabia. Also

lost was the fact that Osama bin Laden was the person we were

searching for. Somehow the message got blurred. Soon, the

President started connecting--without facts--Osama bin Laden

with some force on television. And before you knew it. Saddam

Hussein was transformed into the link to the tragedy that

befell us at the Trade Center.

Let me tell you, I have listened to President Bush

privately and publicly. I have heard from the CIA and the

FBI. And I can tell you without fear of contradiction that

the President of the United States, has not given one

scintilla of evidence to connect the actions of Saddam

Hussein with the tragedies that struck us here in New York

City, And, if Colin Powell, the CIA, and the FBI have

evidence that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass

destruction, why in the heck didn't they give it to the U.N.

inspectors so they could get these weapons out?

I want to make it abundantly clear that what I learned on

Lennox Avenue applies to me today. If somebody is around the

corner waiting to hit me in the head with a pipe, I want him

taken out right away. Preemptive strikes don't bother me. But

for this great country, without any evidence that we're in

imminent danger, to select a developing country that's

defenseless against our power, and deliver in ultimatum that

they must show evidence of how they disposed weapons of mass

destruction, or we will drop bombs on them until they're

sensless--3,000 high tech bombs in 48 hours--that's not the

great America that I'm proud to be a part of.

An attack against Iraq would be the first time that our

country has ever struck another country without provocation.

Doing so, we will lose the moral authority to tell other

countries that God made us to live and work together. If

Pakistan and India decide that they don't trust each other,

if the Taiwanese and the Chinese don't trust each other, if

the North Koreans fear that they're going to be attacked by

South Korea, do they also have the right to a preemptive

attack? What international body could we appeal to in good

faith and say that they were wrong?

They tell me that there will be little collateral damage,

but how much is ``little'' when you're talking about the

lives of people? They tell me we have the technology to

reduce the loss of life of Iraq's people--mothers and

children, innocent people. But if we have that technology to

determine where the innocent people are in Iraq, why couldn't

we use that technology to locate the weapons?

Let's Talk About Oil

Why Iraq? Why now? Why the rush? At the end of the day, the

question has to be: Will we in New York, will we in the

United States, will we on this planet, feel any safer after

bombing Iraq senseless?

It goes beyond Iraq or weapons of mass destruction. It has

to, because we know as a fact that weapons of mass

destruction are in North Korea. And take my word for it,

these people in North Korea are the meanest people in the

world. I know. I've dealt with them. You can't imagine people

starving to death in North Korea, with 40,000 American troops

in South Korea, being isolated by their former friends, the

Russians, who have collapsed, the Chinese, who look at them

suspiciously, the Japanese, who have had problems with them

historically. The only thing they got are these dangerous

weapons which they're selling, and we are saying that we got

to negotiate with them while we bomb Saddam Hussein.

It would seem to me if we're prepared to go to the

international community to contain North Korea, that that is

the least we can do for civilization and the United Nations

to contain Saddam Hussein.

But let's think about it, because we have to be practical

about it. There ain't no oil in North Korea.

Now, let's talk about oil, because some of my colleagues in

Washington may be listening to me here, not just because I'm

at The Riverside Church, but because C-Span is here, and we

like to watch each other. So, to my colleagues that may be

watching, let's talk about oil. For years we have been

addicted and dependent on foreign oil and gasoline. 55-

percent of the oil that we consume today comes from foreign

countries. We have been promising ourselves since the days of

sweater-wearing Jimmy Carter that we were going to do better.

But each year we import more and more oil from abroad.

Any economist will tell you--and those of you that came to

church late may have seen some of them on TV this morning--

that the one thing that could possibly turn this economy

around would be cheaper oil prices. That, if the price of oil

continues to rise, then what we know in our community to be a

recession could become a depression for us and a recession

for other people in this country.

The largest reservoirs of oil are in this region, with Iraq

controlling most of it. But the countries in the region that

do have oil have joined together in order to make certain

that they keep the price of oil high so that they would get

an income. They have decided that they will control the

supply of oil from the region in order to get what they think

would be a fair price for oil.

Now, the President of the United States has said to me

privately and, if you listen to him carefully, he has said it

publicly, that we have to have as our first mission to seize

the oil wells in Iraq. That we will be sending airborne

troops there to prevent Saddam Hussein from destroying them.

Once we seize those oil fields, he has said, we will bring in

American and European technology. To do

what? To develop the full potential of the production of oil

in this area. By doing this, he shatters the restriction on

the supply of oil that OPEC has put on and shatters any idea

that the reduction in the supply of oil would increase the

price of oil.

Is the President saying this so that America would no

longer have to depend on Middle Eastern heads of nations for

higher oil prices? Is he saying this in order to get us out

of the recession? Is he saying this because we are so

dependent on foreign oil that we would want a stable supply?

No. The President doesn't say that at all. This is what the

President says. We have to increase the supply of oil out of

Iraq so that we can get the money to restore peace and

harmony to the people of Iraq to build their schools and to

give them health care. That is what the President is saying

that we must do.

The President is also saying something else. He is saying

that after we liberate Iraq--and, there is no indication that

we're going to met with kids and women with little American

flags waving for us--but after we liberate Iraq, that that

will be the beginning of bringing democracy to all of the

countries in the region.

Now, I don't know that much about the Islamic faith, but I

hardly think they're waiting for born-again Bush to be

bringing his type of democracy to that area.

If we hit Saddam Hussein, he will want to be remembered by

the people in the region. Knowing that they are no friends of

Israel in the region, it would seem to me that we're

jeopardizing our friends and brothers and sisters in Israel

from a preemptive strike by Iraq. Since they can't reach us,

they will reach for our best friend, Israel. Israel will be

forced to strike back with force--one, to show that she can

sustain the hostility from the region and, two, because of

the internal politics that exist between the hawks and the

doves there. You tell me how it will not be perceived as the

United States and Israel not having a ``holy war,''

especially with our President saying he's going to bring

democracy to the region of the Muslim states there.

Instead of us bringing a sense of peace and confidence,

we're creating an atmosphere that could be chaotic as

Americans go to the Middle East and Americans go abroad.

The Burden Must Be Carried by All

Now, whenever a nation, a community or your home is in

danger, it seems to me that we all have an obligation--if

we've enjoyed the benefits of living in this great nation--to

say, ``What can we do to help?'' But there's a strange

atmosphere that exists in Washington, that people talk about

war without talking about the sacrifices of war. You don't

have to be in combat, you don't have to be shot, to

understand that not all of the people who go to Iraq are

coming back--that families suffer the pain of losing their

loved ones, and that you're going to kill people whose lives

you have no right to take away.

It reminds me so much when I was in P.S. 89, where there

were groups of people that would say, ``Let's fight. Someone

said something about your mamma. Someone offended your

sister. Let's go fight. I'll hold your coat.'' You know.

We got a lot of people in Washington that want to hold

people's coats.

I listen to these people talking about how we should have

taken out Saddam Hussein a long time ago. ``We have to teach

these people a lesson. We have to demonstrate the power of

the United States. We have to force the United Nations to

respect us.'' But we do this by sending people into harm's

way.

There has never been a war in which we have not said that,

at least in terms of financing it, that we're going to have

to pay for it through taxes. Yet this President has said,

through Rumsfeld, that we can have two and three wars going

on at the same time. We already have troops in Korea, Japan,

Europe and Afghanistan. We're sending troops to Colombia and

the Philippines. We're deploying 300,000 troops in Iraq. God

knows how many more it will take for the occupation of Iraq.

The President has asked for $90 billion to pay for the first

month of the invasion while advocating a $674 billion tax cut

for the wealthiest people in the United States.

When you take a look at who the liberators will be, who

will be put in harm's way, it won't be the sons and daughters

of members of Congress or the President's cabinet. It won't

be the rich and affluent who insist that we ``take them out

now.'' No. It will be good Americans, patriotic Americans,

who evaluated the economic situation in this country, and

decided that the military gave them a better shake than they

could get in the private sector.

And so they, like me and so many others, go into the Army.

When the flag goes up, they salute it because they made a

contract to fight--if they were called on. Don't tell me that

they'll be checking out who is in the foxhole to see whether

they were drafted or volunteered. Don't tell me that, in this

great country, only those who can't do better economically

should be forced to carry the burden of being killed in war.

I refuse to accept that.

So some people have accused me of introducing legislation

to reinstitute the draft just to embarrass the President or

because I am against the war. Others say I did it to deter

people from talking about going to war because of concern

that their loved ones would be placed in harm's way.

And I tell them, ``You're darned right, those are some of

the reasons why I introduced it.''

It makes sense to me that, if we're going to determine that

we're going to attack a nation, if we're going to determine

that we're going to take a preemptive strike, if we're going

to determine that no matter what the United Nations says,

that we will go it alone, we have to find out who ``we'' are.

And the closer that ``we'' are to our families, the less

likely we are to say that we're going to war.

We have a situation where the President believes that God

has given him a mandate to attack Iraq. It seems that there

is nothing that Saddam Hussein could ever have done to

prevent war. It went beyond Saddam Hussein showing where the

weapons are or proving that there are no weapons. This

President is bent on getting rid of Saddam Hussein; the goal

is to take him out.

And so, as people were ridiculing me, I got a call from the

senior senator from South Carolina. He told me, ``Charlie, I

am so sick and tired of all this minority stuff.'' He said,

``While it is true that minorities find themselves in the

service and in harm's way more than the general population,

while it is true that they seek safe haven from the economic

oppression in the military, what about some of my

constituents. No one ever talks about them.''

Poor whites in rural areas face the same challenges. They

love the uniform and the opportunity to serve. But it doesn't

mean that they want to carry the full burden of fighting wars

all over the world. He told me about the National Guard. We

have 800,000 people, dedicated people, in the Guard. Many of

them have already served their full careers in the military,

and they have decided to live the rest of their lives in

South Carolina. So they join the reserve. They join the

police department. They join the fire department. They want

to increase their skills in the military reserves. They want

promotions. They want to increase their pensions. But they

have been called up, not once, not twice, but three times.

We've been pulling up the reserves, breaking up marriages,

breaking up families, causing people to lose homes, and pull

kids from schools.

He said that it was time that the burden of fighting wars

be not restricted to those people who find themselves without

financial or political influence. So Senator Fritz Hollings

introduced my draft bill in the other chamber.

Make History--Let Your Voice Be Heard

I didn't believe that my bad feet and me could make any

difference in bringing about the Voting Rights Act.

Sometimes, some of you may believe that the power of the

United States is just so overwhelming that your voices can't

be heard. But let me say this to you: At some time, at some

place, somebody may just ask you, ``When your country decided

that it was going to have a preemptive strike against a weak,

undeveloped country to prove a point, did you say anything?

Did you do anything? DId you demonstrate?''

We have a responsibility as Americans not to wait for

things to happen, but to be involved in those happening

things. We are America. We are history. Your voice really

counts.

The silence has been deafening. Why? No one wants to

challenge a President after the attack of September 11, 2001.

No one wants to be perceived as being unpatriotic. No one

wants to be perceived as if they are not supporting our brave

men and women that are stationed in the Middle East.

But I tell you what. Your support of me has given me the

power and the incentive, not to be classified as a profile in

courage, but to represent your sentiment as you have

expressed it--at the Riverside Church, in front of the United

Nations, all over New York, and as we see it all over the

country. You just can't be blinded by your own prejudice when

the whole nation is saying that we will not be safer if we

attack Iraq.

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

I rise in support of this suspension bill and congratulate the chairman of the committee for taking the bulbs and baubles and whistles off the Christmas tree that they stacked on this bill initially. I am disappointed that we were not able to do more for our reservists, but I am pleased that we are doing more than they had originally thought on the other side of the aisle. And I am glad to see that we are bringing a clean bill to the floor and that is not bogged down with fish tackle boxes and foreign bettors on horse races.

I do hope during these very sober hours and days that the majority will think more and more about how we can be of assistance to those brave men and women who have volunteered or who are in the Reserve to see what we can do to not only give them political support, but legislatively to give them real support for the dedication that they continuously show not only in defense of this great country, but now in following the mandates of the President.

I would like to say that during time of war, we have become historically accustomed to the fact that we share sacrifices. Soon our chairman will be presenting to us an obscene tax bill that is anything but sacrifice, but would reward the wealthy. I do hope that as the House has caused the committee's leadership to change its mind and try to do things fairly, that we will see a change in attitude as this country is on the brink of war where shared sacrifice means exactly what the President said it would mean, and that is that we all be prepared to give support.

I support the Armed Forces tax fairness bill. I do hope we will see more bills of this kind in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), an outstanding member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services on the Democratic side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty), an outstanding member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I would like to say that we should feel very proud that we are making this minor adjustment to improve the quality of life by reducing tax liability on men and women in uniform. It is hard for me to believe that as we talk, it is suggested that we are reducing the money for education for those people who are in uniform around the country, those that are dependent on Federal funds to support the localities where the men and women are stationed here in the United States. In addition to that, we are cutting back on aid for our veterans.

I would hope that in the spirit in which we pass this very modest bill, that all of us, Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, make some spirited effort to not have patriotism just be a flag on the bumper of a car, but to make some special effort to give priorities to those men and women in uniform by making certain that their kids are not denied an opportunity to get an education, and making certain that those who go in and serve, that their benefits are not being reduced.

Having said that, I would like to close on this and indicate that I think it is worthwhile that we get a record vote on this legislation not so much for political reasons, but so that our men and women would know that they would have a unanimous vote by the House of Representatives not only on this bill, but many bills that I hope will come before us where we can differ with the policy, but we will make it unequivocal support for those who volunteer to salute our great flag and our great country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I guess I rise in support of the bill. The reason I reluctantly say ``I guess'' is because the Republicans once again have shrewdly put us into a political box by bringing to the floor a provision that provides tax relief for the families of the Columbia Shuttle astronauts out of compassion for these families. There is no one in the country, no one in the House, that would not want to support this very, very sensitive provision. But, once again, the Republican leadership has to make things difficult.

I am really amazed and surprised that as we ask for support for this bill, that we have to put tax provisions on this bill to provide relief for those people who make bows and arrows. It is totally unbelievable. If that is not enough, then we have to find out why would we repeal the tax on fishing tackle boxes and provide benefits for livestock sold on account of drought or other weather-related issues?

Why, in God's name, can we not hold sacred just taking care of the families of the shuttle astronauts, and not clobber this bill with stuff that is just nothing more than provisions that people want to provide for their people back home? I have no problem with providing relief for pet projects back home. That is part of our responsibility. But why in the world would we put it on a bill like this?

I will tell you why; so we do not have to debate these things on their merit. There is no one, in my opinion, prepared to explain why they voted against the families of Columbia Shuttle astronauts from receiving benefits.

I may have missed something. Thank God they have taken out eliminating taxes on foreign bettors on horse racing. They have taken out repeal of consumer health protection.

But if the Republicans have anything else to say about this bill, and I do hope that they do, please explain to this Member why on this bill they sought to attach unrelated tax benefits for fishing tackle boxes, for removing taxes on bows and arrows, and providing benefits for livestock sold on account of drought or other weather-related conditions.

It would seem to me that if this relief is important enough for the House of Representatives to consider, then out of respect, it should never, never, never have been put on the Suspension Calendar with the Columbian shuttle astronaut bill which puts the Members of the House in the position of having to support stuff that they never would be able to explain because they support the families of the shuttle victims.

Well, I do hope to hear from the other side soon on these other issues.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

I am disappointed that we do not have an explanation as to why the fishing tackle boxes and the removal of taxes of bows and arrows and benefits for livestock and an explanation of why those are on this bill, but I guess silence is probably the best explanation that we can possibly come up with, and that is they feel very awkward and embarrassed and ashamed that they would have to resort to a mechanism like this in putting this on the Columbia Shuttle victims' bill.

That being what it is, I am not prepared to go home and explain why I voted for these bows and arrows and fishing boxes and livestock. It suffices to say that all of us in our hearts know that the same way the men and women have been heroes for all of us in the Armed Forces, we cannot do enough to pay tribute to the heroes that served the United States and the world by meeting the challenges of outer space, and that forever in our hearts we will remember the families of the Columbia Shuttle, and whatever we can ever do in the Congress or anywhere, for that matter, to ease their pain and to show our support, we want the families to know that even if sometimes it means swallowing hard, they can depend on us being there for them as they were there for us.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of my colleagues I rise to share an important article which appeared in the New York Times on February 9th that details the legacy of Mr. Arthur Ashe. The article entitled, ``A Gentleman, A Revolutionary'' was written by Mr. Donald Dell, former United States Davis Cup team captain, a leader in the sports marketing industry and a close personal friend of Mr. Ashe.

The article discusses Arthur Ashe's lifelong commitment to making a difference and his selfless work for causes of freedom and justice throughout the world. It is a poignant piece and one that I believe gives a compelling example of what a principled and moral individual can accomplish for his community and his nation.

[From the New York Times, Feb. 9, 2003]

A Gentleman, a Revolutionary

(By Donald L. Dell)

The Arthur Ashe I knew was not only a tennis player, an

activist, a thinker, a writer; he was also a man of uncommon

grace and power. On this, the 10th anniversary of his death--

Arthur died on Feb. 6, 1993--I want to express my sentiments

about my good friend of 23 years.

When I first met him, he was a skinny young man with a

whippy tennis game. He had great wrist action in his strokes,

on both his forehand and his backhand. He had a tremendous

arsenal of shots; he could hit his backhand about seven

different ways. He was shy, introverted, but he was a risk

taker. He was never afraid to take a chance to win a point.

Even then, there was a touch of the quiet revolutionary in

him.

As he matured, he developed into a genuinely intellectual

man: inquisitive, studious, a man who loved learning. This

side of his nature is what led him to champion so many

causes, rationally and reasonably. To say that Arthur Ashe

transcended tennis is an understatement.

Yet it was tennis that remained a passion. Arthur was

focused on being the best player he could be. He achieved

that zenith in 1975 with his victory over Jimmy Connors to

win Wimbledon--in my opinion, his greatest triumph on the

court. That match remains a classic example of brains over

brawn. Connors's combination of power and consistency was

considered invincible, and yet Arthur diffused that force,

thinking and calculating his way to the signature

championship of his exceptional 15-year career.

Of course, Arthur always knew that he carried more

obligations than merely winning tennis matches. He knew that

he was representing his race at all times. The demands of

such a burden are difficult to fathom, certainly for those of

us who have never experienced it. Through it all, Arthur

remained patient, always willing to give of his time to meet

with people, to sign autographs or to conduct a clinic for

underprivileged kids.

I was surprised when I read Arthur's quote that the

toughest obstacle he had faced was not his two open heart

surgeries, or even AIDS, but rather, as he put it, ``being

born black in America.'' We had a long discussion about it.

He told me that regardless of how prominent you were, each

day every black person in this country was made aware that he

or she was black. Arthur had faced racism as a young man

growing up in Richmond, VA, and regardless of his success, he

continued to have to deal with it his whole life.

His commitment to making a difference, along with his sense

of justice, led him to become a leader in the anti-apartheid

movement. He assumed the role in his usual intellectual way.

He first visited South Africa in 1973, largely as a learning

experience. At the time, he was denounced by the black

community, much of which felt that he was being

used as a pawn by the South African government. But Arthur

believed that you could not speak out against apartheid

unless you knew something about it. He also thought it was

important for young blacks there to see a free black man, one

of accomplishment and stature in his chosen field.

Arthur's sense of responsibility to his race, again coupled

with his intellectual curiosity, led to one of his proudest

achievements. While attempting to research the heritage of

black athletes, he found no definitive work on the subject.

In typical Ashe fashion, he set out to produce one. He

invested three years of his time and money and employed three

research assistants to write ``A Hard Road to Glory,'' a

three-volume history of the black athlete in America. That

work, published in 1993, is a milestone in the field of

historical sports writing; the script for the television

version, which Arthur also wrote, won three Emmys.

For all his public achievements, I was always struck, in my

personal relationship with him, by his overriding sense of

trust. That trust pervaded my professional dealings with him

as his lawyer for 23 years. We never had a formal contract.

After an initial letter of agreement in 1970, he and I

renewed each year with a handshake. Trust came naturally to

him. He strongly believed--and we would debate this long and

often--that there was a lot more good in people than bad.

But that trusting nature belied his toughness. Clearly,

Arthur was tough on the tennis court, but off the court, he

was just as strong-willed. One need look no further than the

strong, unpopular stands he took on issues like more

stringent academic standards for college athletes. Often

swimming against the tide, Arthur always chose what he

believed to be the moral and principled course.

And, obviously, Arthur had to be a man of great courage to

deal with his medical traumas. Not once, when he learned that

he had AIDS, did he say, ``Why me?'' He felt that same

question could be asked of all the wonderful things he

enjoyed in life. Why did he win Wimbledon? Why did he marry a

beautiful, talented woman, Jeanne, who was such a major force

in his life, and become father to a loving, precious child,

Camera? No. When it came to adversity, Arthur preferred to

pose the question differently. ``Why not me?'' he would ask.

When our group was leaving South Africa in 1973, someone

handed my wife, Carole, a newspaper. Rolled inside it was a

poem from Don Matera, a South African poet and freedom

fighter who had recently been banned and was therefore

prohibited from meeting with Arthur in public. I think that

poem really captures the essence of Arthur Ashe.

I listened deeply when you spoke

About the step-by-step revolution

Of a gradual harvest,

Tendered by the rains of tolerance. . . .

and I loved you brother--

Not for your quiet philosophy

But for the rage in your soul,

Trained to be rebuked or

summoned. . . .

These lines reveal the true Arthur Ashe: a man of quiet

philosophy, with a raging, noble soul--a man I loved so much.

We may never see his like again.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am proud to introduce the Medicare Rx Drug Benefit and Discount Act with John Dingell, the Dean of the House and Ranking Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Our Ranking Member on the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, Pete Stark, has had a leadership role in the development of this legislation, as have so many other health care leaders in our caucus.

This legislation makes good on our promise to add affordable, comprehensive prescription drug coverage to Medicare.

The Democratic bill will look, smell, taste, and feel like any other Medicare benefit, because it is a Medicare benefit. Beneficiaries will not be forced to join an HMO or other private insurer to get the prescription drugs they need.

Under this legislation, every beneficiary will be guaranteed a $25 monthly premium, $100 annual deductible, 20 percent coinsurance and $2000 out-of-pocket limit, no matter where they live.

We provide additional assistance for low-income beneficiaries. Those with incomes up to 150 percent of the poverty level ($13,470 for one person) will pay nothing.

Those with incomes between 150-175 percent of poverty ($13,470- $15,715 for a single person) will pay premiums on a sliding scale with no additional cost-sharing.

The Medicare Rx Drug Benefit and Discount Act would: lower prescription drug costs for all Americans, regardless of whether they are covered by Medicare, give all Medicare beneficiaries the option of a reasonably-priced guaranteed prescription benefit under Medicare, and ensure that senior citizens and people with disabilities receive coverage for the drug their doctor prescribes and not some substitute that an insurance company deems ``equivalent.''

Unlike the President's and other Republicans' proposal, our plan would never force seniors into an HMO or similar private plan in order to get a prescription drug benefit.

Republicans claim they will give seniors a ``Medicare'' prescription drug benefit, but their proposals are really just a way to provide subsidies to insurance plans and HMOs, not to help beneficiaries.

Republicans claim they will give beneficiaries choices, but their proposals really leave virtually all of the important decisions to the private insurance companies. Under the GOP plan, private insurers will decide which drugs are covered and which are not. If your drug is not on the list, too bad. Millions of seniors will not be able to afford their prescriptions under the GOP plan. Under the GOP plan, private insurers can pick and choose which pharmacies to include in their networks. If your neighborhood pharmacy is not on the preferred list, you are out of luck.

The bottom line is that those who can buy insurance under the GOP plan may find their choice of pharmacies severely limited or that they cannot get coverage for the drugs prescribed by their doctor.

Ultimately, there is only one choice the President and other Republicans want to force seniors to make--the choice of either their family doctor or their life-saving medicines. Under the GOP plan, seniors in search of even modest drug benefits would have to leave the traditional Medicare program--where they have the choice of any doctor they want--and join an HMO or other private insurer that may or may not cover their family doctor.

Many HMOs and private insurers have unfairly limited health care in the past. That's what the Patients' Bill of Rights debate has been about. They've been unreliable partners in Medicare to date; just look at the problems in the Medicare+Choice program. And now the Republicans want to put them in charge of this medication benefit under their ``privatization'' model.

Republican leaders have never liked Medicare. Former Speaker Gingrich once said Medicare would ``wither on the vine because we think people are voluntarily going to leave it.'' In 1995, Dick Armey called Medicare: ``a program I would have no part of in a free world.''

Republican proposals lay the groundwork for them to make good on their desire to do away with the program. The Republican prescription drug plan is the first step towards privatizing Medicare. They would force seniors to deal with private insurance companies instead of having the choice of getting prescriptions through Medicare. They would also institute so-called ``modernizations'' that would significantly raise the premiums of beneficiaries who wish to stay in the traditional Medicare program.

In contrast, we base our plan--not on a flawed privatization model-- but on the successful Medicare program. We offer a genuine Medicare plan, providing affordable voluntary drug coverage to all American seniors through Medicare.

Under this legislation, no senior will ever have to choose between putting food on the table or paying the rent or getting the medicines they need.

This legislation also helps reduce the sky-rocketing costs that seniors and other beneficiaries currently pay for prescription drugs by utilizing the collective negotiating power of Medicare's 40 million beneficiaries to guarantee lower drug prices. By closing some loopholes in current law that prevent or delay generic drugs from coming to market, this legislation also reduces drug prices for all Americans.

While our Republican colleagues are engaged in a cynical political exercise designed to bring themselves political cover, we offer serious legislation. It would bring senior citizens Medicare prescription drug coverage.

When President Harry Truman first proposed Medicare in his second term, a wide array of Republican forces were against him saying he could not do it. Truman said: ``We may not make it [now], but someday we will.'' Eventually, Truman and other Medicare advocates succeeded. Harry and Bess Truman became the first Medicare enrollees in 1965.

The Republican leadership may prevent us from passing a true Medicare prescription drug benefit now, but they cannot stop us in the long run because that is what seniors and all Americans have said they really want.

As Pete Stark points out, prescription drug coverage is as essential to seniors' good

health in the 21st century as coverage of doctor visits and hospital stays was in the 20th century.

If you want to see the real difference between Democrats and Republicans, look at Medicare prescription drug coverage. While Republicans protect the pharmaceutical industry's profits, Democrats protect seniors from skyrocketing prescription drug costs. I urge my colleagues to look at the fine print, and to vote for this legislation when the opportunity arises.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to use my time to talk a little bit with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade.

First I want to thank the gentleman for including the technical corrections raising the personal duty exemption for travelers returning from the Caribbean basin region to $800 so that the Caribbean basin region is not at a disadvantage with the rest of the world. But I want to further inquire whether the chairman would continue to consider making a similar correction for the U.S. insular possession including the United States Virgin Islands so that we can preserve the historic balance in personal duty exemptions. Doing so will ensure that we do not damage the Virgin Islands or other of the U.S. insular possession economies which have so heavily depended on tourism. I appreciate the spirit in which the chairman has always looked at these technical corrections, and I ask him to consider making the correction as it relates to our citizens in this area.

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for this and past considerations.