Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker Congress should fully fund concurrent receipt this session. It's the right thing to do. We owe it to the soldiers, airmen, sailors and marines, who have served as a source of great pride in our Nation, to fully fund the retirement that they have earned without penalizing them because they are also disabled. For every dollar given in disability pay, a dollar is taken out of retirement pay. That is wrong.

Time and time again, our veterans' needs are being ignored. Not only do America's veterans face this issue of concurrent receipt, but VA still needs $1.8 billion to bring the fiscal year 2004 appropriation to the level set forth by the Budget Resolution. Where are our priorities?

Right now, there are 140,000 Americans serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Now, more than ever, Congress needs to take action and fully fund concurrent receipt. We must promise this generation of servicemembers that they will be entitled to a full retirement for a career spent in the military. Today's soldier is tomorrow's veteran. We must show today's soldier that we will take care of him tomorrow.

Last year, the Bush Administration threatened to veto any bill that contained concurrent receipt. The Administration forced Congress to compromise and our veterans paid the cost. Conferees provided for a special compensation for 35,000 veterans who could prove that they had a combat-related disability that made them eligible for this special pay. Compensating just 35,000 veterans, out of over 500,000 veterans affected, is absolutely unacceptable! Now is the time for us to correct the national embarrassment caused by the careless treatment of America's veterans.

Any proposal that leads one to believe that it is furthering last year's authorizing of special compensation, by limiting receipt of special compensation to injuries or illnesses incurred while undertaking official military duties only, is a sham! This plan would fundamentally alter eligibility requirements for disability compensation. A proposal such as this could also affect VA health care and vocational rehabilitation because these services are based on service-connected disability status. I urge Congress to reject any proposal that amends Title 38's definition of service-connection.

The Administration will argue that there is a cost barrier to fully funding concurrent receipt. This argument shows where the Administration's priorities are misplaced. If we can come up with another $87 billion for the war in Iraq, then we can surely find the money to bring our Nation's military retirees on par with the rest of federal employees. About $21 billion of the $87 billion is to rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure. If we can come up with $21 billion to build schools and hospitals in Iraq, then we certainly can come up with the money to fully fund concurrent receipt for the men and women who fought so bravely on behalf of this great Nation.

I ask that Congress fully fund concurrent receipt this Session. I further ask that VA be given the $1.8 billion it needs so that we can show our veterans that we respect the sacrifices they made on our behalf. We need to stop talking the talk and start walking the walk.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for his support in helping to get this bill to the floor and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), in fact, the entire Florida delegation.

I am delighted to introduce this bill which designates the facility of the United States Postal Service located 440 South Orange Blossom Trail in Orlando as the Arthur ``Pappy'' Kennedy Post Office.

Arthur ``Pappy'' Kennedy was Orlando's first African-American City Commissioner. He was elected to the Orlando City Council in 1972, reelected in 1976, and served until 1980. Born in River Junction, Florida, in 1913, his family moved to Orlando where he attended the Johnson Academy and Jones High School. Upon graduation, he attended Bethune-Cookman College, a Historically Black College in my district in Daytona Beach.

There was no stronger advocate of higher education than Pappy Kennedy. A man always involved in the community, he was the organizer of the Orlando Negro Chamber of Commerce, president of the Jones High School Parent-Teacher Association, and instrumental in organizing of the Orange County Parent-Teacher Council. He also worked with many, many organizations including the Meals on Wheels, the United Negro College Fund, and the NAACP.

Yet, for all of his accomplishments, Arthur ``Pappy'' Kennedy is best known for being Orlando's first African-American City Commissioner.

And when elected, he had the distinction, according to the Orlando City Clerk's Office, of being elected by the largest percentage among contestants in the 101-year history of the city.

I am honored to recognize one of Florida's stellar native Floridians with this Post Office designation.

In closing, it is my understanding that the Kennedy family is in the Washington area, and I would like to welcome them and thank all of them for their inspiration and support in the life of this heroic civil rights leader, Arthur ``Pappy'' Kennedy.

I urge all of the Members to support the naming of this post office.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) a question. While we are all in the Third Congressional District very excited about the naming of the post office, I have gotten many comments about the status of this particular post office. I have contacted U.S. Postal personnel. I would like for the gentleman and other Members to work to get it upgraded so it can be the quality that we all want representing Pappy Kennedy.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. speaker, on rollcall No. 513, agreeing to the FY 2004 Defense Appropriations Conference Report, I was unavoidably detained, and unable to make the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased with the decision made yesterday by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that declared the use of older voting machines would again lead to the disenfranchisement of minority voters. I applaud the court for deciding to assure voters that the basic fundamental requirements of equal treatment and fairness are carried out. Underlying this, I quote from Justice Kennedy who wrote: ``Voting is one of the most fundamental and cherished liberties in our democratic system of government.'' To me, the California decision highlights a painful lesson our country learned from the 2000 elections, that it is not possible to hold a fair democratic election if voters are not guaranteed their votes will be fairly counted.

I read in the paper and have heard on the news a lot of talk about hanging chads and other technical problems that led to the Supreme Court selecting George W. Bush as the President in the 2000 Presidential election; but let me tell Members that in my district, Florida's third, 27,000 votes were thrown out and never counted. Let me repeat, 27,000 votes from precincts 7, 8, 9 and 10 tossed out, never counted from minority neighborhoods that vote 98 percent Democratic.

In California, the voting machines that 44 percent of the voters were going to use in the October 7 recall election were so questionable that California's Secretary of State, a Republican, was not planning to allow this equipment to be used in future elections. And take note, the comparison he drew for the dire situation was that California should not wait for a Florida-style election problem before going ahead to replace their out-of-date voting machines.

In the court decision, the 9th Circuit stated that 40,000 citizens of California would have their votes uncounted because of old machines they were planning to use. I repeat, 40,000 votes. In addition, a quarter of the State polling places are not yet functioning because election officials did not have enough time to prepare for the recall. To me, the situation in California clearly shows that we still have quite a ways to go in reforming our voting system. And to make matters worse, even though just last year we passed an election reform bill, the Republicans have blocked full funding. Up to this moment, we still need another $2 billion before the end of the year to ensure that we do not repeat the 2000 election. Yet if we fail to provide the States with this badly needed funding, we may be headed right down the same path, to face this terrible situation that we were in just 3 years ago.

Here we are, 3 years later, the leader of the free world and at the same time the laughingstock of the free world telling other nations that we do not support them or we are going to sanction them because we consider their elections to be unfair; yet here at home we cannot get our own elections right.

I completely support the circuit court's decision and hope to see the election postponed until they get better equipment in place. We must never, ever repeat what happened in Florida. We certainly do not want to witness a repeat of the 2000 Presidential election. In closing, I think the recount in Florida, the redistricting problem in Texas, and the recall of California's Governor is part of a right wing conspiracy to politically enslave the American people.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise as a member of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, as a Congresswoman from Florida, to offer legislation that authorizes $170 million for construction of a much-needed VA facility in East-Central, Florida.

The legislation comes about after VA released, to the Capital Assets Realignment for Enhanced Services Commission, a draft report for VA review. The draft report recommends that Florida's East-Central Market receive a new hospital.

Florida's Central Market has the largest workload gap and the greatest infrastructure investment need of any market in the United States. The CARES draft report states that the logical choice for a new hospital in Florida is Orlando. There is a former 150-bed Naval Hospital in Orlando, originally designed for two additional floors, which can be restructured to take on additional services.

This will mean a big difference in many veterans' lives because currently more than 50 percent of them must travel 60 miles or one hour to the nearest VA facility. This is a problem that must be addressed now. Veteran population growth within a two-hour radius continues unabated. If a new facility is not available to veterans in East- Central, Florida soon, the hardship of long drives and waiting periods will grow even greater for our veterans.

As the Congresswoman from Florida's third district, I know firsthand of the need for a new VA facility in Orlando. I have been there for our veterans time and time again. I personally escorted former VA Secretary Jesse Brown to the old Naval facility in Orlando and told him what a perfect site it would be for a VA outpatient clinic. The James V. Haley VA Hospital in Orlando, Florida was later opened, and it is proving to be the best location available to provide even greater services to our veterans.

The goal of the CARES commission is to modernize the VA health care system. This is an important first step in making certain that the needs of our veterans are met. They are indeed, the best of the best, and deserve to be treated as such.

I abhor the treatment of America's veterans under this administration. From the shabby effort to provide for full funding of concurrent receipt, to the exclusion of new Priority Eight veterans from the VA health care rolls, this administration has proven that it is a miserable failure at treating our veterans with the honor and gratitude that they have earned.

Anibal Acevedo-Vila, of Puerto Rico, and Shelley Berkley, of Nevada, join me in sponsoring this measure that additionally provides $250 million for the construction of a VA hospital in Las Vegas, Nevada, and $30 million for seismic upgrades at the VA medical center in San Juan, Puerto Rico.

I would like to thank Senators Bob Graham of Florida, and Harry Reid of Nevada for introducing the companion legislation to this bill in the United States Senate.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to speak against that amendment, and I want to begin by thanking the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn) and the other 220 Members of the House of Representatives that sent a letter to the Committee on Appropriations seeking full funding for Amtrak. But the Republican leadership and this Bush administration do not care what we, the people, think. Just like the reauthorization of TEA-21, which would improve our crumbling transportation infrastructure and put millions of people back to work, the issue concerning Amtrak brings up a fundamental question as to where this Nation stands on public transportation.

We have an opportunity to improve a system that serves our need for passenger rail service, or we can let it fall apart and leave this country's travellers and business with absolutely no alternative forms of public transportation.

We could fund this Nation's entire passenger rail system for a year with the money that we spend in just one week in Iraq. Let me repeat that. We could fund this Nation's entire passenger rail system for a year with the money we spend in just one week in Iraq. But I guess the House leadership and the Republican administration have decided it is more important to fund the needs of the Iraqi people than the citizens right here in America. We continue to subsidize highways and aviation, but when it comes to our passenger rail system, we refuse to provide the money Amtrak needs to survive.

Last year alone, we provided $18 billion in direct funding to the airline industry. Let me repeat that. Last year alone, we provided $18 billion in direct funding to the airline industry.

On November 12, 2001, I was in New York when American Airlines flight 587 crashed shortly after taking off from JFK Airport, creating a national panic and shutting down the entire city. Fortunately for me and many Members of Congress who ended up at Penn Station that day, Amtrak was still running and returned us safely to Washington to deal with this latest tragedy. I realized, once again, just how important Amtrak is to the American people and how important it is for this Nation to have alternative modes of transportation.

This issue is bigger than just transportation. This is about safety and national security. Not only should we be giving Amtrak the money it needs to continue to provide services, we should be providing security money to upgrade their tracks and improve safety and security measures in the entire rail system.

Some people think the solution to the problem is to privatize the system. If we privatize, we would see the same thing we saw when we deregulated the airlines. Only the lucrative routes will be maintained, and routes in rural locations will be expensive and few.

Once again, we see the Bush administration's ``too little too late policy.'' I am surprised they have not suggested a tax cut to solve this problem. Instead, they are trying to take the money from the hard working Amtrak employees, who day and night work to provide top quality service to their passengers. These folks are trying to make a living for their families, and they do not deserve the shabby treatment from the President. It is time for

the Bush administration to step up to the plate and make a decision about Amtrak based on what is best for the traveling public and not what is best for the right wing of the Republican party and the bean counters at OMB.

This is not about fiscal policy. This is about providing a safe and reliable public transportation system that the citizens of this Nation need and deserve. Let us stop this crisis now before it is too late.

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to speak about a very brave young man, Jeffrey Mattison Wershow, who was killed in the line of duty in Iraq. A specialist in the Florida National Guard who served with the Army's 124th Infantry Regiment, he died at the very young age of twenty-two. Jeffrey was born in Gainesville, a city which is in my congressional district, Florida's third.

Compounding the tragedy of Jeffrey's death is that he was killed in Iraq while trying to keep the peace after the U.S. invasion had already ended. He was assigned to be part of a group of soldiers in a 124-man group assigned to escort U.S. officials. He was killed while guarding a convoy of vehicles while they were parked outside a campus building at Baghdad University when an Iraqi man approached him, pulled out a gun, and shot him.

For his service in ``Iraqi Freedom'' Jeffrey received the Army Commendation Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Achievement Medal, the Parachute Badge and the Army Service Medal. The Army in fact, has recommended that he receive the Bronze Star and the Purple Heart for his dedicated and honorable service in combat.

It is truly impressive all that Jeffrey had accomplished during his young life. He began his active duty in the U.S. Army back in June 1999. After he finished his specialized training, he went on to join the 82nd Airborne Division of the Army's 505 Parachute Infantry Regiment. From there, he went on to continue his service with the National Guard.

A curious and bright young man, Jeffrey had a burning interest in history and political science. He was active in Gainesville politics, and served as co-campaign manager to the campaign of one of my close friends, Cynthia Chestnut, during her County Commission campaign in 2002. He also participated in politics at Santa Fe Community College, was elected to the Student Senate, and was intending to run for student body president.

In a photo taken of him for which he will be fondly remembered, he can be seen patriotically waving the flag during last year's University of Florida Homecoming parade. Jeffrey, riding in the veteran's float, in a demonstration of boundless patriotism and limitless energy, jumped out of the boat and ran down the street waving the American flag to energize the crowd.

Jeffrey will be deeply missed by all of the people who knew him. I will keep Jeffrey and his family members with me in my prayers and thoughts.

Mr. Chairman, Head Start works just fine the way it is. Why the Republicans want to change something that has been proven to work, just to put their name on it, is just ridiculous. Head Start works fine just the way it is. One of my constituents, Eddie Moore, and all of his brothers went on to college after being in Head Start. He also went on to play professional football and now he is an extremely successful business man.

Head Start is one of the most important education programs for low income children, and it is tragic that the House Republican leadership is set on dismantling it. The plan is not just to completely underfund the program, but to block grant the funding!

You know, Head Start kids are very prepared and do better in school than low-income children who don't receive Head Start. It's been proven that Head Start narrows the readiness gap between Head Start kids and children from the more affluent side of the tracks. Head Start should help children arrive at school more ready to learn--and it does just that--very successfully.

My best advice to the Republican leadership is: if it ain't broken, don't fix it, and more importantly, don't brake it! I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2210 will dismantle Head Start. The Republican example of compassionate conservatism is destroying our best early childhood education program for our children. If it isn't broke, don't fix it; and, whatever you do, don't break it.

Mr. Speaker, due to a pressing matter in the state, I was unable to make the following votes. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``No'' on rollcall vote No. 371, ``No'' on rollcall vote No. 372, ``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 373, ``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 374, and ``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 375.

Mr. Speaker, let me first of all thank the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus for his leadership on African issues and particularly on this Liberian issue; and let me thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), who has been one of the leaders in the Congressional Black Caucus and Chair of our African subcommittee, for his leadership.

The Bush administration sent troops to Iraq, for, so they claim, so they claim, humanitarian reasons. Our troops went over there to alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people, to liberate the Iraqi people from a tyrant, to bring justice to the people of that nation, so they claim.

At this very moment, leaders in the United Nations, leaders in various African nations, members of the Congressional Black Caucus, members of the human rights community worldwide, are pleading with the President to send peacekeeping troops to Liberia. Yet the President set off for Africa without any intentions of even visiting Liberia and without bothering to consult with members of the Congressional Black Caucus about his trip, many of whom have worked on issues pertaining to Africa for decades.

As you know, Liberia has always been a faithful ally of the United States. Both nations share close historic ties. Liberia in fact was founded by free slaves from the United States in 1820. The capital, Monrovia, is named after a United States President, James Monroe.

Unfortunately, the situation in Liberia has turned chaotic. Non- emergency staff at the United States embassy were evacuated when fighting broke out in the capital between government troops and rebels. Hundreds of Liberians have been killed and thousands have been wounded. The fighting is not over. Tens of thousands of others have been driven from their homes and aid workers say that up to 1 million Liberians may end up displaced.

This recent conflict is nothing new. This is a country that has been suffering from civil war for years. About 200,000 Liberians died in fighting during 7 years of war in the 1990s. We have been successful in drawing attention, thanks to the leadership of the Congressional Black Caucus and others, both nationally and internationally.

The CBC has been strong in its efforts to encourage the Bush administration that the United States play an active role in the conflict in Liberia, especially before it spreads to other nations in West Africa. We do not want this fighting to spread to other West African countries.

Let me repeat that. Liberia is now making headlines in newspaper and TV news across the country, making people around the United States aware of the conflict and forcing the administration to put it on their radar screen. Recently the U.N. secretary asked the U.S. to play a bigger role. African countries and others have pledged up to 3,000 troops if the United States helps out.

On all borders of Liberia, the Europeans are showing that peacekeeping missions can be successful. Clearly, our Nation plays an influential role in world politics. We saw that many times in the past and recently in Europe. And, remember, the State Department, when they argued for intervention for a European country, they always say it is for humanitarian reasons.

We do not want it to spread to other countries. So why should Africa be given the same treatment? The situation in Liberia is critical, and this is a perfect time for the United States to play a leading role in bringing about an end to the misery and suffering of the Liberian people.

In closing, my favorite scripture is ``To whom God has given much, much is expected.'' We are expecting that the administration will come forward and help the suffering Liberian people.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to pay special tribute to the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law for their great work in promoting civil rights and equal justice.

The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, was formed in 1963 at the request of President John F. Kennedy, to involve the private bar in providing legal services to address racial discrimination. The establishment of the Committee sought to fulfill the expectation of America's leaders that the private bar become an active force in the continuing struggles for

equal opportunity and racial equality. The principal mission is to secure, through the rule of law, equal justice under law.

The Committee's major objective is to use the skills and resources of the bar to obtain equal opportunity for minorities by addressing factors that contribute to racial justice and economic opportunity. Given our nation's history of racial discrimination, segregation, and the de facto inequities that persist, the Lawyers' Committee's primary focus is to represent the interest of African Americans in particular, other racial and ethnic minorities, and other victims of discrimination, where doing so can help to secure justice for all racial and ethnic minorities.

The Lawyers' Committee implements its mission and objectives by marshaling the pro bono resources of the bar for litigation, public policy advocacy, and other forms of service by lawyers to the cause of civil rights.

For decades, the Committee has made a lasting impact on civil rights in America. The Lawyers' Committee has continually pressed forth its mission to mobilize the bar in upholding the principles of equal opportunity and racial equality as the standards by which the integrity of American democracy is judged.

This year the Lawyers' Committee celebrates it's 40th Anniversary. In celebration, the Lawyers' Committee is convening a major symposium, The Quest for Equal Justice: Advancing a Dynamic Civil Rights Agenda for Our Times--July 18 to 19 at the International Trade Center in Washington, DC. Distinguished participants will examine the progress that has been achieved and the many outstanding challenges presented by the persistence of racial, ethnic, gender and other forms of discrimination. The symposium hopes to address critical civil rights issues in the opening decades of the twenty-first century.

Mr. Speaker, at a time when we face the imminent danger of once again losing much of what has been gained in the national journey to equal rights it is critical that the Lawyers' Committee be given proper commendation for their continued hard work and dedication to civil rights. So, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying special tribute to The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. We wish them all the best as we acknowledge all of their accomplishments.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), for their hard work in bringing this bill to the floor today and for working with Members on and off the committee to ensure a fair process that includes Members' ideas.

It is very fitting that we pass this legislation in the same year that we are celebrating 100 years of providing power flights. We had a good debate in both the subcommittee and full committee, and I expect it to continue today and throughout the conference.

Since 9/11 the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has been focusing on improving the security of our transportation infrastructure and ensuring the safety of the traveling public. This reauthorization bill goes a long way in accomplishing this goal and fits well into the overall homeland security plan we are developing.

The FAA has a very important job to do, and this bill provides additional funding and the direction that would allow the FAA to improve the air transportation system for passengers, airports, airlines and many businesses that rely on the aviation industry.

I encourage my colleagues to support the bill and this amendment as we continue on the road to improved safety and security for the traveling public.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and to the members of the Congressional Black Caucus, I thank them for hosting these educational hours to educate the American public as to what is going on in the people's House.

To me, the cold-hearted attitude of the House Republicans can be summed up in a statement made last week by

the House majority leader. When asked about bringing up the child tax credit bill, he said, and I quote, ``There are a lot of other things that are more important than that.''

I humbly ask my colleague on the other side of the aisle, what exactly on your agenda is more important than the protection of the children in this Nation? In my State of Florida alone, the child tax credit package benefits over a million children. Once again, the Republican leadership is catering its agenda to the rich, after deciding just today that the only way they would agree to take up the child tax credit bill is by adding on an $80 billion tax credit for the rich in the bill. Even though their selected leader, George W. Bush, is urging them to take up a clean bill and even though they follow his leadership in everything from tax cuts for the rich to foreign policy, when it comes to funding children's programs, they ignore even the plea of the White House. In addition, the House Republican leadership is planning to dismantle Head Start, one of the best educational programs for children of working-class families, by block granting program funding.

There was $900 million sent down to Florida Governor Jeb Bush. Yet he put the money in the bank as opposed to helping the people of Florida. Block grant money is not the way to go. In the past, everyone was telling me, just send the money to the State. In the area of transportation, just send the money to the State. Education, just send the money to the State. They will know best what to do with it. I can tell you, they are singing a different tune now. When I talk to the mayors or the county commissioners, they tell me, Whatever you do, don't send that money to Tallahassee, because we will never see a dime of it. Whatever you do, don't block grant the money and send it to Tallahassee. It is a deep hole and they never see a dime of the dollars that come from the Federal Government down to the State.

The Republican Head Start block grant plan will end Head Start as we know it, one of the most successful programs in the history of this country. Even the new limited eight-State block grant is a risky deal. Why risk turning a successful program over to States with unproven expertise and without the Federal program quality standard requirements and oversight that are demonstrated to increase school readiness?

My colleagues, there is an old expression which really applies to this issue: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Head Start kids are very prepared to do better in school than low-income children who do not receive Head Start. In addition, it has been proven that Head Start narrows the readiness gap between Head Start kids and kids from the more affluent side of the tracks. Head Start should help children arrive at school more ready to learn, and it does. But for the administration to expect Head Start to completely protect children against the effects of poverty is just plain stupid. Moreover, block grants do not work. Block grants gut the quality of comprehensive services. And this block grant plan is particularly bad and requires States to provide a bunch of services but does not require the same nature, extent or quality of them. None of the 13 areas of Head Start performance standards that lay out the comprehensive services and high level of quality that have made Head Start successful are even mentioned in the block grant. In fact, the block grant emphasizes comprehensive services being met through referrals of families to outside service for assistance, which would end up encouraging States to provide a much lower level of service.

In addition, the block grant does not specify any minimum requirements for teacher education levels, for child-staff ratios or for curriculum content. It simply calls on each State to come up with their own school standards and their own ways of measuring progress against those standards. I can go on and on and on as far as Head Start is concerned. I will submit my statement for the Record. But I do have a question for the gentlewoman from California.

When we passed, when the House passed--I did not vote for it--the $350 billion, $20 billion was earmarked to the States. Can you explain what was the purpose of the $20 billion that went to the States? Was it to put in the bank and use for a slush fund next year to, I guess, enhance the chances of the Republicans to continue to practice reverse Robin Hood, stealing from the working people to give tax breaks for the rich? What was the purpose of that $20 billion?

That is an example of what is wrong when you send a block grant to the State and you do not specify.

nderstanding in talking to the different committees, it was specified that this money would be used to help the States in their struggle.

I do not know whether the gentlewoman saw it, but last week on the national news, on ``Dateline,'' they discussed the number of students, hundreds of thousands of students that are failing the tests in Florida, third graders who were being held back, thousands of students not graduating, because we came up with additional educational standards. And I must quickly say that many of the schools, the ``F schools'' or the failing schools, have been the schools on the other side of the railroad tracks, the schools on the other side of the bridge, that have never gotten adequate funding.

So when we set standards, and the support was not there to work with the schools, many of the children do not do well. We look at the State of Florida as we speak. We do not have summer school programs in place. Could some of that money be used for summer schools, for some of the cuts that have occurred in the school system to augment the cuts in the programs for educational support for the school system?

I thank the gentlewoman once again for bringing this subject area to the American public.

Wake up, America.

To me, the cold hearted attitude of House Republicans can be summed up in a statement made just last week by the House majority leader. When asked about bringing up the Child Tax Credit bill, he said, and I quote: ``There are a lot of other things that are more important than that . . .''

Now, I humbly ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, ``what exactly, on your agenda, is more important than the protection

of the children of this nation?'' In my state of Florida alone, the Child Tax Credit package benefits over a million children.

And once again, the Republican leadership is catering its agenda to the rich. And after deciding just today that the only way they will agree to take up the Child Tax Credit bill is by adding on an $80 billion tax credit for the rich to the bill. And even though their selected leader, George W. Bush, is urging them to take up a clean bill, and even though they have followed his lead on everything from tax cuts for the rich to foreign policy, when it comes to funding children, they ignore even the plea of the White House.

In addition, the House Republican leadership is planning to dismantle Head Start, one of the best education programs for children of working class families, by block granting program funding.

You know, there was $900 million sent down to the Florida governor Jeb Bush, yet he put the money into the bank, as opposed to helping the people of Florida. Block grants is just not the way to go. In the past, everyone was telling me, send transportation dollars to the states, send the education dollars to the states, the states can best figure out how to use it. They're not telling me that now, when I talk to the Mayors in Florida, or to the County Commissioner, they tell me that, ``whatever you do, whatever you do, don't send the money to Tallahassee, because we will never see a dime of it.'' That is what they tell me, they say it gets lost in Tallahassee, and it never trickles down to the areas, to the first responders, to the Head Start programs, it is just an empty hole.

The Republican Head Start block grant plan will end Head Start as we know it. Even the new limited 8-state block grant is risky. Why risk turning a successful program over to states with unproven expertise and without the federal program quality standard requirements and oversight that are demonstrated to increase school readiness.

My colleagues, there is an old expression which really applies to this issue here: if it ain't broken, don't fix it. You know, Head Start kids are very prepared and do better in school than low-income children who don't receive Head Start. In addition, it's been proven that Head Start narrows the readiness gap between Head Start kids and children from the more affluent side of the tracks. Head Start should help children arrive at school more ready to learn--and it does; but for the administration to expect Head Start to completely protect children against the effects of poverty is just ridiculous.

Moreover, block grants don't work. Block grants gut the quality of comprehensive services. And this block grant plan is particularly bad, and requires States to provide a bunch of services, but doesn't require the same nature, extent or quality of them. None of the thirteen areas of Head Start performance standards that lay out the comperhensive services and high level of quality that have made Head Start successful are required or even mentioned in the block grant. In fact, the block grant emphasizes comprehensive services being met through referral of families to outside services for assistance, which would end up encouraging States to provide a much lower level of services.

In addition, the block grant does not specify any minimum requirements for teacher education levels, for child-staff ratios or for curriculum content. It simply calls on each State to come up with their own school standards and their own ways of measuring progress against those standards. But the problem is that those standards are not clearly defined in the block grant and vary greatly in content and quality among the States. As it is now, Head Start education standards are thorough and strongly based in standards of education, and having States come up with their own standards with no direction and no requirements will only serve to weaken education standards.

Lastly, block grants weaken oversight and evaluation. States that meet the eligibility criteria have their applications deemed approved by the Secretary by default--which means that there won't be any oversight or evaluation of the quality of the State plan. In addition, there is no minimum threshold required by States' internal evaluations of their programs--they can just go ahead and define it on their own. No States monitor their programs as closely as Head Start is monitored. And under the block grant, outside evaluations of the State programs will likely not happen very often. Under the Republican plan, there will be no more compliance reviews with regard to national performance standards. Gone will be meaningful Federal oversight and monitoring.

Why, why, why, the Republicans are changing something that works, just does not make sense. Once again I repeat: if something isn't broken, don't bother fixing it.

Mr. Speaker, this has become an all too familiar moment for me. You see, this is the ninth time in 8 years that the Republicans have pushed a ban on so-called partial-birth abortion. Yet I continue to be outraged every year at this leadership's self- righteous attempt to turn back the clock on women's constitutionally protected rights, back to the time when women had to leave the country or risk their lives in dangerous back-alley procedures.

The Supreme Court agrees that medical decisions should be made by the patient and her doctor and not by a bunch of politicians in Washington and their special interests. This is why several medical and health organizations, including the American College of OB-GYNs, oppose this legislation.

This legislation was wrong 8 years ago, and it is still wrong. It contains no exception whatsoever for women's health. It simply puts women's lives at risk. This is a perfect example of how mean-spirited and extreme this administration can be. This is a direct attack on Roe v. Wade. But more than that, it is another example in a long line of this administration's attacks on our rights.

I cannot stand by and watch as one by one this White House and the leadership in this House chew up our rights and spit them out. I stand today as a woman and as an American to fight for our constitutionally protected rights. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and a ``no'' vote on the underlying bill. Wake up, America.