Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3068) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2055 Siesta Drive in Sarasota, Florida, as the ``Brigadier General (AUS-Ret.) John H. McLain Post Office''.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 3068.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) to introduce H.R. 3068, which was introduced by my colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris), which designates this U.S. Postal Service facility in Sarasota, Florida, as the Brigadier General John H. McLain Post Office. The entire delegation from the State of Florida has signed on as cosponsors to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, Brigadier General John McLain was a national hero who this body appropriately recognizes today. A veteran of both World War II and the Korean War, General McLain served his Nation in the U.S. Army for 37 years. He earned countless honors during his career, including the Bronze Star, Meritorious Service Medal, and the Legion of Merit.

John McLain was born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on January 21, 1919. After finishing high school, he enlisted in the Army in 1940. His very enlistment at this time exhibited bravery and a love of country, as Hitler's Nazi Germany had already invaded several countries in Europe by this time at the outbreak of World War II. Sure enough, McLain was soon sent to Europe as part of General George Patton's Third Army. He fought bravely during the infamous Battle of the Bulge that began in December 1944 and was promoted to the rank of captain for his valor.

When he returned to his hometown following World War II, McLain enrolled at the University of Pittsburgh, where he graduated with honors in 1947. As war erupted in Korea, Captain McLain volunteered for active duty, despite being a Reserve in the Army. During the war, he served as a senior advisor with the Korean Military Advisory Group. After he returned safely home from his second war in 1953, he returned to the University of Pittsburgh, where he earned his second degree, this time a master of arts.

The Korean War concluded General McLain's distinguished combat service, but he remained in the Army Reserves until his retirement in 1977. He deservedly earned the rank of brigadier general in 1972. It is important to note that the general spent much of his years following his active duty teaching. He taught English classes at Florida State University in Tallahassee, Admiral Farragut Academy in St. Petersburg, Florida, and St. Petersburg High School in Edgewood, Pennsylvania. He also returned to his alma mater to teach English history classes at the University of Pittsburgh.

From the time of his retirement until his death, General McLain lived in Sarasota with his wife of 50 years,

Patricia Ann. He contributed to his community by volunteering countless hours at schools and organizations in the Sarasota area.

Mr. Speaker, for all these reasons, I urge all Members to support passage of H.R. 3068 that will name this post office after Brigadier General John McLain. General McLain will be laid to rest in Arlington National Cemetery on November 5 with full military honors.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for her work toward honoring General McLain through this legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for his help in passage of both these pieces of legislation. I also know the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris) badly wanted to be here for consideration of H.R. 3068. I commend her for her work on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation honors a devoted American patriot, Brigadier General John H. McLain. I, along with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), urge all Members to support its passage.

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

Mr. Chairman, the commander of the Army's 101st Airborne Division in Iraq, Major General Petraeus, likes to remind Congressional visitors that money is ammunition in the battle to stabilize Iraq: money to reopen the cement factory outside Mosul, money to buy ice and food from local merchants, money to productively employ the now-idle hands of former Iraqi Army officers, money for 1,000 other local projects that capitalize on the boundless potential of the Iraqi people and arm them to defeat their most entrenched, insidious enemies, powerlessness and despair.

This bill provides the ammunition needed to wage and win the next critical battle in the war against terrorism and oppression in Iraq. Building on the administration's original request, the committee has met our first obligation, to arm and equip U.S. warfighters to prevail in this complex mission while fueling construction of a viable, sustainable civil society in Iraq.

During two trips to Iraq since April, I saw the strength and courage of our forces as they worked alongside Iraqis rebuilding schools by day and risking their lives patrolling those same streets by night. The dedicated men and women of our Armed Forces know their quickest route home goes through as many markets as minefields, and that their victory over tyranny will be secured as soon as Iraqis are running their own democratic nation.

We are stewards of Iraqi sovereignty. With the reconstruction, economic development, and public diplomacy funds in this bill, we make wise investments to preserve and grow the precious assets in our trust. But the deed of trust is not indefinite. The window of opportunity to build on an oasis of hope in that troubled region will close. This bill reflects our national commitment to meet history's challenge and set Iraq on an inevitable course toward democracy and economic vitality.

Fiscal pressures here at home cannot change the harsher fact that Iraq faces its new future encumbered with a crushing debt burden estimated to be as high as $220 billion. Adding to that debt would be wrong morally and politically. Imposing debt without consent of the governed is the way despots and conquerors build monuments to themselves and past glories. That was how Saddam Hussein built his palaces. Liberators leave behind memorials to generosity and investments in a better future. That is what this bill will buy. Our investment will be returned manyfold by a free and prosperous Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday, China celebrated its National Day, recognizing the 54th anniversary of the founding of the Peoples' Republic of China. On this occasion, I wish to applaud Taiwan for its support of the United States in our war against global terrorism and for Taiwan's pledge of humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan and Iraq.

In recent years, we have witnessed Taiwan seek to return to the United Nations and World Health Organization. In my judgment, we should give Taiwan all of our support in these endeavors. Taiwan is a true democracy that guarantees the rights of its citizens. Furthermore, Taiwan is one of the most important economic entities in the world. Despite a population of just 23 million people, Taiwan has financial resources surpassing many Western countries.

On Taiwan's National Day, I hope Taiwan and the People's Republic of China will one day be reunited under the principles of freedom and democracy, and that this relationship will foster lasting stability and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to submit for the Record a speech delivered by Ambassador Joseph Verner Reed, Under Secretary General of the United Nations and a distinguished resident of Greenwich, Connecticut. Ambassador Reed's remarks were made at a ceremony at the Greenwich Town Hall commemorating Bastille Day on July 14, 2003.

The Ties That Bind

Citizens of the Town of Greenwich and the French Community

of our Town are thankful to be commemorating a date that is

both significant and symbolic in the shaping of our two

countries.

Allow me to paraphrase a few words spoken by President

George W. Bush on May 30, 2003, during an interview with a

French journalist. France and the United States share the

same objectives on all vital subjects. Regarding security in

our democracies, peace in the world and international

commerce, we are largely in agreement. President Bush was

echoing those famous words from President Franklin D.

Roosevelt: ``no two nations are more closely bound by the

ties of history and mutual friendship than the people of

France and that of the United States of America.''

On July 4, 2003 citizens of France deposited a red rose on

each of the 60,511 graves in honor of the American soldiers

buried in eleven cemeteries, who died in France during World

War I and II for the preservation of French freedom.

We celebrate the sovereignty and dignity of our two nations

with our respective national anthems.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have been in public life 30 years. I used to strongly oppose vouchers because I believed the arguments that we have been hearing in opposition without really frankly thinking them through. And then I opposed vouchers because I did not want to lose the support of the Connecticut Education Association and the local education associations because they opposed the concept of allowing our young people to have choice. But it started to really bother me because I felt that my opposition was based more on politics than on sound educational judgment.

I really believe that it is important to give choice to parents. I really believe that you have a better public education system if you give choice to parents. I really believe that the argument that we would be taking away from the public schools does not add up. If you do not have students in a public school, you do not have the expense of having those students in a public school to have to provide an education for. And every voucher system I have seen and every choice system I have seen spends less on the student in a private setting or parochial setting than it spends if they were in the public school system. So the school systems in the public sector gain from it. They do not have to educate that student at a cost greater than the amount of money that is being given to the private or parochial school.

Another factor that impacts me is that I always hear politicians, of which I am one, and proud to be, talk about the need to make sure that we do not

have choice in public schools and a number of them send their kids to private schools. I have never quite understood this issue between rich and poor. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle sometimes say that we on the Republican side of the aisle want to focus on the wealthy and not those who do not have wealth. Yet we are giving those who do not have wealth an opportunity to do what rich folks do, but somehow then it is not allowed. I strongly oppose taking this money out. I strongly oppose the Norton amendment.

I strongly support what the gentleman from Virginia has done. I am very proud of what my chairman has done. He recognizes that in Washington, D.C. the government, the Federal Government, functions like a State functions. We have an obligation to improve the school system in Washington, D.C. We spend a fortune on schools in Washington, D.C. We give hundreds of millions of dollars to the Washington school system. We are not shortchanging the Washington school system as is implied by some. We are merely saying, why not try out $10 million extra dollars, and they are extra dollars, they would not be in the budget unless they were for this program only, and see its impact.

I have come to the conclusion that the opponents of choice, the supporters of the Norton amendment and the opponents of the Davis amendment, fear one thing. They fear that it is going to work. They fear that their arguments against this program simply will be found to be fallacious.

I have another sense. It is such a small amount relatively, why not give it a chance? Let us say I am wrong. Let us just say others of us are wrong. But the bottom line for me is I believe in accountability, I believe in choice, I believe in contrast, I believe in having different models in play to see how they work and what works. And I would like for the poor people, those with the least amount of resources in Washington, D.C., to have some of the same choices that some of the wealthy folks in Washington, D.C. have. Oppose the Norton amendment. I support strongly the Davis amendment. I thank him for offering it.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to Congresswoman Norton's amendment.

We all know too many kids in our Nation's capital are not getting the education they need and deserve. Many students in the District lack basic language and math skills. Standardized test scores remain stagnant for D.C. public schools, and the average SAT score is more than 200 points below the national average. Additionally, the National Assessment of Educational Process just released a study which showed the District's school children were ranked as the worst readers in the country.

The D.C. Choice Program would provide scholarships of up to $7,500 to eligible students to cover the cost of tuition, fees, and transportation expenses. These scholarships are assistance to the students, and not the schools. And because all funding for the scholarship program comes from new funds, no public, private or charter school will be drained of its funding.

It is time to give parents of these children what every parent wants--the opportunity to give their child the best education possible.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Chairman Davis' amendment to a School Choice program in D.C.

Too many kids in our Nation's capital are not getting the education they need and deserve. There is little doubt that D.C. public schools are in serious crisis, but it is not a crisis by a lack of resources. D.C. public schools spend more per pupil than surrounding school districts in Virginia and Maryland. Clearly, alternatives to increased funding should be tested. By promoting a competitive model, all schools will be forced to improve academically, provide better quality services, and create an administrative structure that operates efficiently.

I oppose directly spending federal tax dollars on private schools. But, just as I support providing Pell Grants to college students for use at the university of their choice--public or private, including religious schools--I also support school choice programs that provide parents with similar choices for their elementary and secondary school children.

Opponents of school choice argue such a proposal could drain public schools of money and students. I think they're dead wrong, but there's a simple way for us to see. Why not establish a handful of demonstration projects that will help determine whether school choice improves our education system? If the projects are unsuccessful, we will terminate them. But if the programs are successful, they can and should be expanded.

The D.C. Choice Program would provide scholarships of up to $7,500 to eligible students to cover the cost of tuition, fees, and transportation expenses, if any. The scholarship would be considered assistance to the students and not the schools. In order to ensure accountability, an evaluation would be conducted that would consider the impact and academic achievement attained by the program.

The goal of school choice in the District of Columbia is to be an addition, not a subtraction. We all want the District's education system to improve, and this amendment will provide what every parent wants--the opportunity to give their children the best education possible.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2210, the School Readiness Act, because, on balance, this legislation will not benefit vulnerable children and families in Connecticut.

Since its inception in 1965, Head Start has been helping low-income children in Connecticut start kindergarten with the skills necessary for success. The program not only prepares children for school by providing a solid foundation in cognitive learning and socialization skills, but also makes them ``ready to learn'' by providing comprehensive health, dental and nutritional services. By focusing on the whole child, Head Start children start school more eager and able to learn.

I do not support the School Readiness Act because in my judgment, the state demonstration project contained in the bill could dilute the comprehensive services and parental involvement Head Start children depend on. The bill's loosely-defined performance standards give states overly-broad flexibility to meet federal guidelines. Consequently, vulnerable children and their families may not be guaranteed the services necessary to overcome barriers to success, or the same level of services they currently receive.

There are a number of laudable provisions in H.R. 2210 which will strengthen and improve Head Start. I support efforts to raise academic standards and improve teacher quality to ensure children are given every opportunity to be productive students and citizens. Unfortunately, H.R. 2210 does not guarantee that vulnerable children will continue to receive the type and scope of services necessary to start kindergarten ready and able to learn.

Early childhood is a critical time for children to develop the physical, emotional, social and cognitive skills they will need for the rest of their lives. A child who enters school without these skills runs a significant risk of starting behind and staying behind. We must ensure all children have an unfettered start and an equal opportunity to achieve in both school and life.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose any reduction in Head Start standards, accountability and performance.

Mr. Speaker, as a fiscal conservative, I believe national service is one of the most productive and cost-effective investments our government

can make. Through service, Americans of all ages gain a sense of commitment to their community and their country, which will prove invaluable for the rest of their lives.

National service benefits both the recipient and the giver. Volunteers not only address an immediate need, they lead and teach through example, and through that example, they learn the value of serving and helping others. We need to harness the energy and commitment of those anxious to contribute to their country, not deny them the opportunity to serve.

As an eighth grader, I vividly remember President John Kennedy's call to service when he created the Peace Corps in 1961. He said, ``Life in the Peace Corps will not be easy, but if the life is not easy, it will be rich and satisfying.''

As a former Peace Corps volunteer, and I want to emphasize I had the name ``volunteer,'' I can attest to the positive effect the Peace Corps has on the lives of people around the world.

Peace Corps volunteers are not high-paid consultants. Just like AmeriCorps volunteers, they are hands-on workers in the trenches who live in the communities they serve. Just like the Peace Corps, the challenges are great for those working in domestic service programs, but the rewards are immeasurable. I believe I would not be a Member of Congress today were it not for my experience in the Peace Corps. And I particularly believe I am a better person because of this service. I think the same thing applies to those who serve in AmeriCorps.

Both Democrats and Republicans should speak loudly and passionately in support of all service programs. And we must not stop until citizen service truly becomes a universal opportunity and a common expectation. I want to say parenthetically, in most cases, AmeriCorps volunteers in my communities are young men and women who have no resources whatsoever to serve their community or their country if it were not for AmeriCorps.

As most of you know, AmeriCorps--the most recognizable domestic service program--is experiencing significant challenges this year, and there is danger that countless programs across the country will receive little or no funding. Without question, there have been mistakes and mismanagements by the Corporation for National and Community Service. This summer, however, a series of steps have been taken to help put AmeriCorps on a sound financial footing. Earlier this month, we passed, and the President signed, the Strengthening AmeriCorps Program Act to correct the financial accounting problems. Additionally, the President has named David Eisner, AOL/Time Warner executive, as his nominee to head the Corporation. With these reforms in place, we ought to fulfill our commitment to the thousands of young people who have answered the President's call to service. I believe we must to do that, but not in this legislation.

We are in a war against terrorism, and national service is a vital part of winning that war. AmeriCorps and other service programs are the right prescription during these times because the best antidote to terror and hate in society are acts of kindness and service. If we are truly to expand service opportunities, we must find a way to work with those who see national service so differently.

Recently, I read an op-ed by former Majority Leader Dick Armey stating that programs like AmeriCorps robs the American taxpayer. I could not disagree more, but I know this notion is shared by too many of my colleagues. As a Peace Corps volunteer, I was paid a minimum wage to live, and I was given a small stipend. I have failed to understand why some of my colleagues would object to people earning a degree while serving their community. Isn't that preferable to just being given a grant. I do not understand why we would not be eager and thrilled to have more people participate in community service, particularly those with the least amount of resources.

The current accounting problems at the Corporation offer an opportunity to work together and ensure all service programs are transparent and accountable.

I believe that has to happen, but not in the vehicle we see here today. We need to reauthorize national service. We need to find a way to prevent further mistakes and mismanagement. It will not happen on this legislation. It needs to happen with men and women in this Congress working together. And I believe that there are commitments on both sides of the aisle and in the White House to do that.

The current accounting problems of the Corporation offer an opportunity to work together and in doing so, we will remember that a life of service connects us to generations of Americans who we will never know but whose service and sacrifice enable us to live in freedom. It also connects us to future generations of Americans who will inherit a world be built on the legacy of service we leave them.

Increasing and expanding opportunities to serve will not be easy, but in the words of President Kennedy, the effort will be ``rich and satisfying.'' I hope this Chamber will reauthorize national service. I hope we will find the funds necessary to make sure this program continues unabated, and I believe we will.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment and in support of the HOPE VI program.

Mr. Chairman, I'm amazed Congress would all but eliminate funding for this highly successful program.

While the $50 million for HOPE VI contained in this bill is $50 million more than the President requested for this program, this is still a cut of $524 million from 2003, a reduction of 90 percent, and will gut a program that brings hope and opportunity to so many.

In Stamford, Connecticut, a HOPE VI grant transformed a dim, crime- ridden, and dilapidated housing project into a beautiful place to live and raise your children. As a result of this federal assistance, Southwood Square is now a safe place for children to play, its residents receive job training on site, and working parents have access to a child care facility. Just as importantly, residents are involved in their community.

I wish Members could see the transformation that has taken place there. If they did, I doubt they would be cutting this program.

The most beautiful part of HOPE VI the way a grant from the federal government produces a ripple effect in the neighborhood. The transformation that occurs in HOPE VI communities is funded with a small investment in the form of a federal grant, but primarily is funded with local and private money.

The lesson there is that when the federal government demonstrates its interest in improving the housing needs of low-income families, the community responds in a big way.

The question that begs to be asked is: Why would such a successful program be cut so drastically?

I recognize the fiscal constraints of this budget cycle, but this is not time to weaken our commitment to HOPE VI. I urge passage of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment to increase

HOPWA funding. This amendment is tremendously important for thousands of people afflicted with AIDS.

I appreciate the good work the Chairman has done on this bill, as well as the fiscal constraints of this budget cycle. The bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is when it comes to the HOPWA program I think we can do better.

The National Institutes of Health estimates there are between 850,000 and 950,000 Americans living with HIV and AIDS. A majority of these individuals will face a housing crisis at some point during their illness as a result of increased medical expenses and lost wages.

More than 200,000 people living with HIV/AIDS are in need of housing assistance and HOPWA is the only federal program specifically designed to meet this need.

The HOPWA program is one of the most cost-effective ways to provide people living with HIV/AIDS with adequate and affordable housing.

Acute care facilities under Medicaid cost more than $1,000 a day as compared to HOPWA community housing, which averages $55 to $110 per day.

The program keeps those living with HIV/AIDS off the streets and out of expensive acute care facilities.

My predecessor, Stewart B. McKinney, died of AIDS-related pneumonia. His wife, Lucie, carries on his work as chairman of the Stewart B. McKinney Foundation. This foundation is dedicated to providing housing to persons and families living with HIV/AIDS.

The McKinney House and other HOPWA programs approach the HIV crisis in a truly caring, community-based and cost-effective manner. Because 90 percent of HOPWA funds are distributed to states by formula, states and localities control how money is spent--not the federal government.

Communities are empowered to use HOPWA funds to meet their unique housing needs, from providing short-term supportive housing for low- income persons with HIV/AIDS, to building new community residences.

The flexibility has, in large measure, contributed to the widespread success of the HOPWA program.

The bottom line is that money for HOPWA is money well spent. I urge support for the HOPWA Amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation to implement free trade agreements that have been negotiated with Chile and Singapore. These agreements are an important step in restoring our international competitiveness, stimulating our economy and promoting long-term economic growth.

The Administration's first two negotiated agreements since receiving trade promotion authority in 2002 will benefit businesses in Connecticut, which exported $279 million worth of goods to Singapore and $59 million worth of goods to Chile in 2000. More broadly, these agreements provide an excellent framework for creating larger free trade areas.

Chile could be a model for creating a Central American Free Trade Agreement, and even more broadly, a Free Trade Area of the Americas. The country is an ideal partner in South America because, unlike many other nations in the region, it has stabilized and restructured its economy, lifting price controls, deregulating labor markets, and privatizing state enterprises.

The United States is Chile's largest single-country trading partner, accounting for 20 percent of Chilean exports and 15 percent of imports in 2002. Chile is the United States' 34th largest export destination and 36th largest import contributor, but because Chile already has free trade agreements with other countries, including Canada, an agreement with Chile is critical to reduce the relatively high tariffs U.S. businesses face compared to these countries, and allow them to compete.

Singapore is a much larger trading partner for the United States. It is our 11th largest export market, with $16.2 billion in goods, and the 16th largest source for imports, with $14.8 billion. The United States is Singapore's second-largest trading partner, after Malaysia and before even Japan. Both countries already have relatively open trade with very low tariffs, if any at all, so the implementation of this agreement should not create a significant imbalance of any sort.

Southeast Asia generally has been a poor partner in trade, with average tariffs near 30 percent, and I have serious concerns about these nations' respect for intellectual property (IP) rights, but this agreement is a step in the right direction. The agreement allows U.S. companies to receive monetary compensation in cases where IP rights have been violated, and establishes tough penalties under Singapore law for IP violators.

In my judgment, trade can have a positive effect on social reforms and environmental protections by facilitating economic development and creating both the income and the institutional structures to address those issues.

Since 1994, when trade promotion authority expired, the United States has been steadily losing its status as the leader of free trade. We can't afford to let this decline continue. Passing trade promotion authority was like setting up a ladder that gives us the ability to get back to the top, and passing these two free trade agreements takes the first steps up that ladder. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2738 and H.R. 2739.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation to implement free trade agreements that have been negotiated with Chile and Singapore. These agreements are an important step in restoring our international competitiveness, stimulating our economy and promoting long-term economic growth.

The Administration's first two negotiated agreements since receiving trade promotion authority in 2002 will benefit businesses in Connecticut, which exported $279 million worth of goods to Singapore and $59 million worth of goods to Chile in 2000. More broadly, these agreements provide an excellent framework for creating larger free trade areas.

Chile could be a model for creating a Central American Free Trade Agreement, and even more broadly, a Free Trade Area of the Americas. The country is an ideal partner in South America because, unlike many other nations in the region, it has stabilized and restructured its economy, lifting price controls, deregulating labor markets, and privatizing state enterprises.

The United States is Chile's largest single-country trading partner, accounting for 20 percent of Chilean exports and 15 percent of imports in 2002. Chile is the United States' 34th largest export destination and 36th largest import contributor, but because Chile already has free trade agreements with other countries, including Canada, an agreement with Chile is critical to reduce the relatively high tariffs U.S. businesses face compared to these countries, and allow them to compete.

Singapore is a much larger trading partner for the United States. It is our 11th largest export market, with $16.2 billion in goods, and the 16th largest source for imports, with $14.8 billion. The United States is Singapore's second-largest trading partner, after Malaysia and before even Japan. Both countries already have relatively open trade with very low tariffs, if any at all, so the implementation of this agreement should not create a significant imbalance of any sort.

Southeast Asia generally has been a poor partner in trade, with average tariffs near 30 percent, and I have serious concerns about these nations' respect for intellectual property (IP) rights, but this agreement is a step in the right direction. The agreement allows U.S. companies to receive monetary compensation in cases where IP rights have been violated, and establishes tough penalties under Singapore law for IP violators.

In my judgment, trade can have a positive effect on social reforms and environmental protections by facilitating economic development and creating both the income and the institutional structures to address those issues.

Since 1994, when trade promotion authority expired, the United States has been steadily losing its status as the leader of free trade. We can't afford to let this decline continue. Passing trade promotion authority was like setting up a ladder that gives us the ability to get back to the top, and passing these two free trade agreements takes the first steps up that ladder. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2738 and H.R. 2739.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

The debate tonight to allow the reimportation of FDA-approved drugs is obviously long overdue. The arguments that Americans will be put at risk and the pharmaceutical industry will be harmed is specious and reminds me of the debate on the use of generic drugs that we had years ago in States throughout America.

Like the reimportation of drugs, the use of generic drugs was illegal and stayed that way for years and years because the pharmaceutical industry opposed it. Like the reimportation of drugs, we were told, generic drugs would harm the pharmaceutical industry and endanger individual Americans. Fortunately, we did not listen to those false arguments then, and we should not listen to them now, as they relate to the importation of FDA drugs. If Canadians, Germans, and others have the ability to buy FDA-approved drugs at a fraction of the cost, then Americans in this day and age should have the same opportunity.

Please vote for H.R. 2427, the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act.

I thank the proponent, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) and others, for their efforts and the House leadership for bringing this bill before the chamber.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2249) to amend chapter 10 of title 39, United States Code, to include postmasters and postmasters' organizations in the process for the development and planning of certain personnel policies, schedules, and programs of the United States Postal Service, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2249, the Postmasters Equity Act, was introduced by my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh). The gentleman chairs the Committee on Government Reform's Special Panel on Postal Reform and Oversight and has been a leader in Congress on postal issues. I am proud to support this legislation along with the members of this special panel, as well as the chairman and ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2249 affords postmasters the same options given to postal supervisors when negotiating pay and benefits with the U.S. Postal Service. This bill would extend to postmasters and nonunion postal employees the fact-finding procedures already established under current law for postal supervisors. The fact-finding process allows for an unbiased review of issues in dispute during negotiations, as well as the ability to issue nonbinding recommendations to resolve those issues. Currently, without this right, postmasters lack any form of recourse when pay talks under the consultation process fail.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is a matter of fairness. Postmasters deserve the same option available to postal supervisors, and the bill would produce an improved and fair consultation process. Frankly, I think it is a change most of us feel is long overdue.

The Committee on Government Reform believes adding a fact-finding option to the consultation process for postmasters will help strengthen their role in improving the quality of mail service for postal patrons and also in managing local post offices. Their role has been eroded over the years, especially for postmasters at small- and medium-sized post offices who serve as front line managers.

The Nation's two postmasters' organizations, the National League of Postmasters and the National Association of Postmasters of the United States, support this legislation.

The Postal Service Reorganization Act of 1970 created a consultative process for postmasters and other nonunion postal employees to negotiate pay and benefits but did not include postmasters in a fact- finding process subsequently provided to other management. Postmasters are often the heart and soul of the community. In many cases, they are the community's only link to the Federal Government.

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we do what we can to support their work in the 38,000 post offices across the country. I am pleased that the House is considering this bill today.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from New York for introducing H.R. 2249 and urge its passage, and I would also obviously commend the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), who is a very active person on issues dealing with labor and management issues.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 240) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that there should be established a National Community Health Center Week to raise awareness of health services provided by community, migrant, public housing, and homeless health centers, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 240, introduced by my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), commends the invaluable work of community health centers across the country.

As the text of this resolution states, there are over 1,000 health centers in the U.S. that provide outstanding health-related services to primarily low-income individuals. The vast majority of these care centers welcome all patients, regardless of their health coverage or ability to pay. Patients pay what they can afford at these facilities, and virtually no one in need is ever turned away. Those who seek help receive first-rate care at a fraction of the standard cost.

In addition to patient fees, community health centers are supported by Federal grants and contributions from State and local governments, Medicare, and private interests.

On behalf of the House, I want to join with the gentleman from Illinois and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) in praising the compassionate work of the thousands of employees and volunteers at community health centers across our great Nation. These care givers help so many, and this resolution intends to recognize their selfless efforts.

In addition, I hope the House's consideration of House Resolution 240 today will raise awareness of the services provided by the community health centers to all Americans who seek high-quality health care.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Illinois for introducing House Resolution 240. I urge all Members to support its adoption.

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

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

I have no further speakers, but I would like to make a few additional comments.

I strongly support community health centers, and I have always been impressed with the work performed by these centers and have found it very effective for us to support increasing the resources available to them. These centers have made wonderful contributions to the urban areas in, for instance, Connecticut's Fourth Congressional District, which I represent.

The care they provide is as good or better than care many patients with more comprehensive coverage receive. These community health centers served over 12 million people in the United States in 2001, 66 percent of whom lived below the poverty level and approximately 5 million of whom lack any health insurance.

There are over 3,000 centers in rural and urban communities throughout the country which provide quality, cost-effective primary and preventative care for low-income, uninsured and underinsured patients. By preventing costly hospitalizations and less frequent use of emergency care for routine services, it is estimated health centers save the health care delivery system over $6 billion annually in reduced use of costly hospital emergency room, specialty, and inpatient care.

Last year, Congress, and I think this is very important, reauthorized the community health center program. The legislation we passed aimed to add another 1,200 new and expanded centers over the next 5 years and doubled the number of patients who receive care in these clinics. This directly addresses the challenge of providing health insurance to the 41 million Americans who lack it, allowing the program to serve approximately one-fourth of that number, 10 million uninsured people.

So by passing H.R. 2660, the fiscal year 2004 Labor-Health and Human Services-Education Appropriations Act 2 weeks ago, Congress continued working towards the program's doubling.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 230) honoring the 10 communities selected to receive the 2003 All-America City Award.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Concurrent Resolution 230, introduced by my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from the State of North Carolina (Mr. Hayes), honors the great All-American communities of Laurinburg, North Carolina; Tempe, Arizona; New Haven, Connecticut; Miami Beach, Florida; Des Moines, Iowa; Marquette County, Michigan; Wilson, North Carolina; South Sioux City, Nebraska; Corpus Christi, Texas; and the Greater Racine Area of Wisconsin. These 10 cities earned the 2003 All- American City Award. This award is given every year by the National Civic League.

Established in 1894, the National Civic League is the Nation's oldest community advocacy organization. And, in fact, the All-American City Award is the oldest community recognition award in the U.S. For 53 years, this honor has recognized cities whose citizens are the most cooperative and involved in identifying and addressing community-wide challenges in their area.

Ten cities are chosen each year, and this year's honorees are very deserving. Each of these 10 cities has demonstrated, among other qualities, effective local government, an outstanding philanthropic and volunteer base, intercommunity cooperation, and strong citizen relations.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I commend Laurinburg, Tempe, New Haven, Miami Beach, Des Moines, Marquette County, Wilson, South Sioux City, Corpus Christi, and the Greater Racine Area for their awards, and the gentleman from North Carolina for introducing House Concurrent Resolution 230.

I urge all Members to support its adoption.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1399) to redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 101 South Vine Street in Glenwood, Iowa, as the ``William J. Scherle Post Office Building.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, S. 1399, introduced by the esteemed gentleman from Iowa, Senator Harkin, redesignates the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 101 South Vine Street in Glenwood, Iowa, as the William J. Scherle Post Office Building.

Mr. Speaker, Congressman Bill Scherle of Iowa has lived a life that is worthy of commemoration by this House. He served four terms as a representative of the people of Iowa in this body, from 1967 to 1975, and prior to that he was a member of the Iowa State legislature for 6 years.

One of Congressman Scherle's most remarkable contributions in office was his determined work in freeing the crew of the USS Pueblo, which was captured by North Korea in January 1968. The North Koreans imprisoned and brutally tortured the members of the crew, and Congressman Scherle was the most outspoken leader in Congress on the crisis. Eventually, due largely to his leadership, all but one member of the crew, Richard Benden, was released and returned safely home.

In addition, Congressman Scherle took particular interest in rural issues, which were most important to his district's constituents. He was a farmer himself, as well as a businessman, which seems somewhat redundant because farmers have to be businessmen as well. But in addition to being a farmer/businessman, he was a businessman and a Republican Party official in his State prior to becoming an elected official.

Now retired, Congressman Scherle continues to live with his beloved wife, Jane, on their farm outside of Henderson, Iowa. I understand he enjoys spending as much time as he can with his six grandchildren.

I think it is pretty special, as well, that the Senator from Iowa has introduced this bill because he ran two House races against Bill Scherle. The first match-up in 1972 was won by Congressman Scherle, and the second time around, in 1974, the Senator from Iowa was victorious. The two have since become good friends, and after running two campaigns against each other, I think that is a refreshing commentary on both these dedicated public officials and the process.

I also want to recognize the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) for his work on H.R. 2558, a virtually identical

piece of legislation introduced here in the House. I know he worked alongside the Senator from Iowa to recognize Bill Scherle in the Congress, and I commend him for his efforts as well.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I commend the Senator from Iowa for introducing S. 1399 that honors W.J. Scherle, as well as commending the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King). I urge all Members to support its passage.

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