Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a giant in the labor movement, a giant whose voice was silenced 2 weeks ago, Mr. Morris Biller, affectionately known as Moe. Moe Biller departed this life on September 5 at age 87.

Moe Biller's voice may be silent, but the principles for which he lived and fought for can be heard all around the world. It is often said that success in life can be measured by how many people one is able to touch in a positive way. By all accounts, Moe Biller lived a pretty successful life.

He was one of those individuals who had to swim upstream. His 20 plus years as president of the American Postal Workers Union helped to transform that union and the United States Postal Service. Moe's legacy will perhaps be that of a hero to those workers of the Postal Service who were viewed as mediocre to the mail process. He was a champion for the little people.

In 1970, he led a strike that began in his hometown of New York and spread to 30 cities involving 200,000 workers. Former President Richard Nixon called in the National Guard in an effort to move the mail. That strike led to postal reorganization in 1971 and provided workers with the right to bargain for wages, benefits and improved working conditions.

Even those who did not agree with Moe's style or message respected him for his courage and passion on behalf of the workers at the postal workers' operation.

The Postmaster General has noted that Moe Biller was a forceful, innovative leader who worked tirelessly on behalf of the American Postal Workers Union members and on behalf of the Postal Service. The Postmaster General ordered that flags at postal facilities be flown at half staff until Biller's burial, which took place on Sunday, September 7.

Mr. Speaker, Moe Biller's imprints on the labor movement, collective bargaining rights, and concern for humanity are attributes to be admired. Moe's work will continue with leaders like the current president of the APWU, Bill Burrus. I was pleased to join Bill Burrus and members of APWU at the Second Annual Moe Biller Postal Conference which took place at the Brookings Institute recently, and Moe's presence could be felt.

We have lost a giant in the movement. The best way we can honor Moe Biller is to keep his spirit alive by rededicating ourselves and redoubling our efforts to improve worker conditions, protect collective bargaining, expand health care to those in need, and provide adequate resources for those who are the everyday workers of our society. I ask that my colleagues, citizens of America, and the 750,000-plus postal workers join with me in extending our heartfelt condolences to the Moe Biller family and our thanks for his great work on behalf of humanity. May Moe Biller's spirit rest in peace and resonate in our actions. He was truly a representative of the working man.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Norton amendment and in strong opposition to the D.C. Davis voucher amendment for education. I am not against the Davis amendment because it only affects a small number of students. I am not against it because it is supposed to be experimental. I am not against it because it was introduced by my namesake and chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, a committee on which I serve, for he is indeed an honorable man and I respect and appreciate his leadership.

However, Mr. Chairman, my father used to tell us that fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on

me. And when I hear my colleagues and others talk about the great gift that this is to the poor children and the disadvantaged children of Washington, D.C., I am reminded of my mother who used to tell us to always look a gift horse in the mouth. And when I look at this voucher gift, I see a trick. I see subterfuge. I see us backdooring our way into further destabilization of public education. I see us undermining the principle that all children should have the right and the opportunity to get a good common school education. And since there is so much wrong with public education, since there is so much wrong with public schools, let us fix it and let us fix them.

Instead of trying to voucherize our way out of failing situations, why do we not fix the schools that we have got? Why do we not fix old, dilapidated and crumbling schools? Why do we not pay teachers an adequate and decent salary? Why not adequately prepare teachers so that they can really know how to teach? Why not put adequate materials in classrooms? Why not provide equal funding for all of our public schools so that every child will have an optimal opportunity to learn, to develop, to achieve, and to excel?

Yes, Mr. Chairman, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I am afraid that this amendment will become part of a sinister plot to undermine public education. This is part of a message to those who want to isolate children and take us back to the dark days of segregation and unequal opportunity. This amendment is like manna to those who want to disorganize teachers and bust unions.

Yes, it is D.C. today. It is Chicago tomorrow; St. Louis, New Orleans, Los Angeles next week. Then it is all over America. And so Mr. Chairman, the message of this amendment goes far beyond Washington, D.C. and it is not good for America. I urge that we take into consideration the needs of all the children, and if we are serious about the children of Washington, D.C., then we should be serious about the children all over America and adequately fund public education so that every child has his and her opportunity to achieve.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Kennedy of Minnesota amendment. I have listened to this debate now for more than an hour. I have certainly come to the conclusion that the fact of the matter is that the Transportation, Treasury and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2004 does not adequately fund the National Railroad Passenger Corporation that we call Amtrak. As a matter of fact, this bill provides $900 billion for continued assistance to Amtrak.

Last year, Congress provided just over $1 billion to keep Amtrak running through fiscal year 2003. Amtrak now estimates that it will need $1.8 billion to maintain existing operations in fiscal year 2004. The present bill before us is not sufficient to meet Amtrak's contractual obligations for commuter and intercity passenger rail service. If Amtrak is unable to continue its existing operations, many commuter railroads that are dependent upon Amtrak operations would be unable to continue to provide quality and reliable services to their customers.

Amtrak is a major part of the economy of the city where I live. I live in the city of Chicago, which we call the transportation capital of the Nation. Amtrak operates more than 50 trains into and out of the city of Chicago each and every day. These include an extensive network of long-distance trains that provide service to the east and west coasts, the Gulf of Mexico and Canada. Amtrak also operates dozens of regional corridor trains to most major cities in the Midwest. Last year, Amtrak carried two million passengers to or from Chicago. Nearly 600,000 more boarded Amtrak trains at other stations within Illinois.

Amtrak employs 2,075 individuals in Chicago. And of those employees, 897 were actually Chicago residents. In calendar year 2002, the total wages of Amtrak employees living in the city of Chicago were approximately $37.7 million. Should Amtrak not be able to continue its operations, imagine the negative impact this would have on the people of Chicago and the people who live in that region, the people who work for Amtrak, and the thousands of people all over the country who look to, expect and need Amtrak as their primary mode of transportation, even to and from work every day.

I oppose this amendment because I think it goes in the wrong direction, and I would certainly support the Olver amendment to increase Amtrak funding by $500 million rather than cut it in any way, shape, form or fashion.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Chairman Davis' Resolution H. Res. 350, honoring Lance Armstrong. Mr. Chairman, I had planned to introduce a similar resolution with 24 cosponsors along with Representative McHugh and Representative Doggett. I have turned these cosponsors over to Chairman Davis and appreciate him adding them to his resolution.

Mr. Speaker, today we honor a man who has shown tremendous strength, courage, and perseverance in his struggle to overcome seemingly insurmountable odds. Lance Armstrong is a world-class cyclist who came back from a grueling battle with cancer to dominate in his sport; a man who has remembered those still battling against cancer and who strives each day to make a difference in their lives. I am pleased to join in honoring Mr. Lance Armstrong.

On Sunday, July 27, 2003, Lance Armstrong achieved his fifth consecutive Tour de France

victory. The completion of this 23-day, 2,125-mile cycling race is a significant accomplishment. Yet, even more significant are the odds that Mr. Armstrong overcame in order to compete in this, his ninth, Tour de France. After competing in the race from 1993 to 1996, Lance Armstrong was informed that he had testicular cancer that had spread to his abdomen, lungs, and brain.

This information was undoubtedly devastating to Lance Armstrong. However, this man was not about to give up on his life and dreams. He chose, instead, to fight cancer with all of his strength. He decided that the disease would not win. It took a long and difficult struggle, chemotherapy, and surgery, but Lance Armstrong remained strong and never gave up hope.

Mr. Armstrong is now in recovery, but he continues to fight cancer. After succeeding against enormous odds, he is now helping others as they face their own battles with cancer. In 1997 he founded the Lance Armstrong Foundation, or the LAF. This organization provides support, information, and services to cancer patients and survivors. Through the LAF, Lance Armstrong has supported thousands of cancer patients and survivors by actively advocating for their needs. His books It's Not About the Bike: My Journey Back to Life and Every Second Counts offer inspiration to those devastated by this terrible disease. By sharing his story, Mr. Armstrong has given comfort and hope to untold numbers of people battling cancer and their families.

Lance Armstrong's battles have only just begun. He continues to fight cancer through the Lance Armstrong Foundation and to hold his position as one of the greatest cyclists of all time. He has truly earned the pride of his coach, Chris Carmichael, his main sponsor, the United States Postal Service, and all of his loyal fans.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I congratulate Mr. Armstrong on his many tremendous accomplishments, especially his fifth consecutive Tour de France victory, and wish him all the happiness that life has to offer. I also want to commend Ms. Sarah Kinneer, a summer intern of mine, for her work on this Resolution. She worked hard and did an outstanding job.

Mr. Speaker, I rise before you today to speak on the matter of the U.N. family-planning program or the UNFPA. Last year, President Bush cancelled three years' worth of funding to the UNFPA after allegations that the UNFPA's program in China violated the Kemp-Kasten law. This law prohibits the United States from providing funding to any organization that supports or participates in involuntary sterilization. In May of last year, President Bush sent his own three person team to China to investigate but even after they returned finding no evidence in support of these rumors, the President still cancelled funding to this much needed organization, endangering the lives of women across the globe.

Over the past 33 years, the UNFPA has provided more than $6 billion in assistance to more than 160 countries for voluntary family planning and maternal and child health care. It has provided life-saving reproductive health services in over 150 poor countries around the world, but has not provided or paid for abortion services anywhere in the world. The UNFPA has actually worked to reduce the need for abortion by promoting voluntary family planning.

The fact remains that today nearly 600,000 die each year from causes related to pregnancy; 99 percent of these women are from developing countries. Many of these deaths could have been prevented by providing the means or information to choose the size and spacing of their families. And while contraceptive use has increased, there are 350 million women in developing countries who do not have access to a range of safe and effective family planning methods.

With the UNFPA program, it will provide reproductive health care, including family planning services but not abortion, to the world's poorest women. The loss of each year's funding will have a severe impact in the developing countries the UNFPA serves: $34 million would prevent 2 million unintended pregnancies; nearly 800,000 abortions; 4,700 maternal deaths; nearly 60,000 cases of serious maternal illness; and more than 77,000 infant and child deaths. These numbers are astounding and certainly something I would want to prevent.

The evidence is clear: funding to the UNFPA must be restored. The UNFPA has time and time again proven to be a necessary organization ensuring the safety and well being of women and their families. It will continue to provide safe methods of contraception to women, giving them a choice with their health and with their lives.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend and congratulate the American Political Science Association on the occasion of having reached a milestone of 50 years of existence, 50 years of growth, and 50 years of providing opportunities for individuals to obtain first-hand experiences in learning about and being involved about and being involved in the art of public-policy decisionmaking. It has been my experience to have talented, energetic, and eager to learn individuals interact with me and members of my staff in a very professional and sincere way as we worked together in pursuit of mutual goal. I also take this opportunity to express my thanks and appreciation to the American Political Science Association (APSA) Congressional Fellowship Program for doing an excellent job of helping to prepare many of our future leaders. We thank you APSA and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to congratulate Ms. Nicole Jones on her graduation from Harvard University, July 24, 2003:

Whereas, Harvard University, which celebrated its 350th

anniversary in 1986, is the oldest institute of higher

learning in the United States of America; and

Whereas, Harvard University has grown from nine students

with a single master to an enrollment of more than 18,000

degree candidates, including undergraduates and students in

ten graduate and professional schools; and

Whereas, Seven Presidents of the United States of America,

John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Theodore and Franklin

Roosevelt, Rutherford B. Hayes, John Fitzgerald Kennedy and

George W. Bush were graduates of Harvard; and

Whereas, its faculty has produced nearly 40 Nobel

laureates; and

Whereas, Harvard University continues to be recognized as

one of the very best and most outstanding academic

institutions in the world today; now therefore, be it

resolved that I Danny K. Davis take this opportunity to

congratulate my next door neighbor, Ms Nicole Jones on this

outstanding milestone in her career; and be it further

Resolved, That I commend and congratulate my neighbors Mr.

George and Ms. Jenny Jones, her proud parents, for the

contributions which they have made to Nicole's nurturing and

development. We all wish her well as she moves on to the

University of Michigan Law School to make further preparation

for a lifetime of service.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I also have an amendment at the desk which I had understood was going to be handled at the same time as the Fattah amendment.

Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. Chairman, I will then discuss my amendment at the same time as the Fattah amendment, though it is different from the Fattah amendment.

My amendment dealt with the fact that section 8 is underfunded and HOPE VI housing is underfunded in this appropriation. The bill funds the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The single largest low-income housing program at HUD is the section 8 housing choice voucher program.

The voucher program enables low-income families with children, the elderly and the disabled to rent apartments in the private market. It makes up the difference between what low-income people can afford to pay for housing and what private rents are, and is a critical source of support for more than 2 million families. Without vouchers, many of these families would be stuck in overcrowded and unsafe housing, or even worse, homeless.

If the shortcomings of this bill are not addressed, 85,000 families will not have the funding for their vouchers renewed. These families need affordable housing assistance. The current funding in H.R. 2861 does not address nor take into consideration inflation and the high cost of living, unemployment, and the failure of corporations and small businesses.

Another housing program which is underfunded is HOPE VI. The purpose of the HOPE VI program is to revitalize severely distressed public housing developments and transform them into safe, livable environments. A required element of the program is the provision of the effective, targeted self-sufficiency initiatives so that public housing can regain its role as housing for low-income families who are determined to improve their status.

HOPE VI funds are used to provide three types of grants: planning, implementation, and demolition. Mr. Chairman, the vast majority of public housing in Chicago is in my district and, of course, we need public housing assistance. Without HOPE VI, many of the people will lose hope and lose what they have had.

My amendment would have added $300 million to HOPE VI to replace some of the $500 million that is being cut. But since most of the money has already been given back to the wealthy in the form of huge tax cuts, I am afraid that very little is left for HOPE VI for the poor, for veterans health care, for the needy, for the disadvantaged, and for the 3 million people who have lost their jobs.

Since the money is gone, Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw my amendment.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2210 will dismantle the most effective of all Great Society programs, Head Start.

Mr. Chairman, sometimes when we evaluate, we need to look at the depths from which one comes as opposed to only the heights to which they have not excelled.

I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2210. I am pleased that my amendments in committee to restore reference to the importance of delivering culturally appropriate services and to increase opportunities for fathers to more actively participate in Head Start were agreed to. And while I am pleased with the acceptance of these amendments and others introduced by my colleagues, I am greatly disappointed by the fact that other amendments will not be discussed here today.

Among these is my amendment to provide funding for grantees to fulfill the requirement that 50 percent of teachers have bachelor's degrees. Since my amendment was not accepted, this will continue to be an unfunded mandate like the rhetoric of Leave No Child Behind.

Education is, in fact, the great equalizer, and since its introduction in 1965, the Head Start program has helped over 21 million of America's poorest children gain the academic, social, emotional behavior, and readiness skills necessary for success. In those 38 years, we have learned much about the needs of disadvantaged children living in poverty. What we have learned is what it takes to prepare them for school. It takes dedicated, skilled, well-trained teachers. It takes parental involvement. It takes comprehensiveness. It takes health care. It takes nutrition. It does not take some kind of program that has never been tested.

Let us keep Head Start. ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it.''

Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by commending Chairman Boehner and Ranking Member Miller from the Education and the Workforce Committee and Chairman Castle and Ranking Member Woolsey from the Subcommittee on Select Education for their work

on this bill. I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2210. I am pleased that my amendments in committee to restore references to the importance of delivering culturally appropriate services and to increase opportunities for fathers to more actively participate in Head Start were agreed to. While I am pleased with acceptance of these amendments and others introduced by my colleagues on the Education and the Workforce Committee, I am greatly disappointed by the fact that numerous amendments designed to improve this legislation will not be discussed today. Among these is my amendment to provide funding for grantees to fulfill the requirement that 50% of teachers have Bachelor's degrees. Since my amendment was not accepted, this will continue to be an unfunded mandate, like the rhetoric of Leave No Child Behind.

Education is the great equalizer. Since its introduction 1965, the Head Start program has helped over 21 million of America's poorest children gain the academic, social, emotional, behavioral and readiness skills necessary for success in the future. In those thirty-eight years, we have learned much about the needs of disadvantaged children living in poverty and what it takes to prepare them for school. It takes skilled, well trained and dedicated teachers. It takes comprehensiveness. It takes health care, nutrition, it takes parental involvement and participation. It takes more than eloquent speeches about Leave No Child Behind experiments. The Head Start program has grown and changed through the years with the increased knowledge of how best to serve low-income children and their families. Study after study has shown that participation in the program results in decreased incidence of school failure, higher graduation rates, lower crime rates later in life, and better social and emotional relationships. In these times when politicians speak so eloquently on how no child should be left behind, why would we conduct an experiment that would restructure an already successful program and, ultimately, result in thousands of children being left behind?

Title II of this bill would do just that. It implements a pilot program for eight states to take the Head Start money appropriated to them and run the program on their own. The idea behind this experimental program is to integrate Head Start with already existing state preschool programs. However, such a move would undermine the intent of Head Start as a comprehensive, family-based program. Title II would allow states to determine their own standards, guidelines, and qualifications. These states could decide to implement Head Start as a pre-kindergarten program, cutting out nutrition, vaccinations, dental care, medical care, and other important services currently guaranteed to children in the program. With the current state budget crisis, these services will almost certainly be eliminated, leaving the low-income children served by Head Start with no way to receive these extremely important services.

The Head Start program has been in place for 38 years and has been continually improving in quality as professionals have gained knowledge on how best to serve low-income children. This knowledge and understanding has resulted in high quality standards being set. In contrast, many states do not even have preschool programs, and those that do are still in the early stages of developing them. Few state-run preschool programs have established quality standards. Nor do state-run preschool programs encourage the active participation of parents. Helping parents learn how to provide nurturing environments for their children has a positive impact for years after graduation from Head Start and is beneficial for the child in the program as well as his or her siblings. The role of parents in Head Start goes far beyond being a PTA member or a teacher's aide; parents learn that they are the most important role model for their children and must be a caring and supportive influence. The vast majority of State-run preschool programs also have little to no integration of services, which is already a major part of the Head Start program. Merging Head Start with programs that do not have quality standards, do not encourage parent participation, and do not provide such services as nutrition, health, and immunizations runs the risk of destabilizing a successful program and lowering standards and minimizing services that have been so painstakingly developed.

Mr. Chairman, Head Start could serve our children better. However, dismantling the program and leaving states to rebuild it without the insights gained over the past thirty-eight years would be a tragedy for our low-income children and their families.

Mr. Chairman, I have always stood by the saying that ``education is the great equalizer''. Yet, in this bill, we are allowing education to be easily accessible to the haves and more difficult to obtain for our Nation's have-nots. This attitude toward education is a giant step backwards to 40 years ago. Low-income children, children with disabilities and individuals who want to go to college are the ones that are being hurt substantially in this bill.

Although, the 2004 budget resolution was to provide the Department of Education with a $3 billion increase, this bill only allows for a $2.3 billion increase over Fiscal Year 2003. The Title I program is one that is hit the heaviest. Title I schools have the least experienced teachers, less competitive teacher salaries, higher teacher turnover, a less rigorous curriculum, the least amount of resources and students with greater academic deficits, which all adds up to these schools being less able to meet the No Child Left Behind Act's mandates. Instead of providing a substantial increase to offset the disadvantage these schools are already facing, this bill only provides a $666 million increase, compared to the $1 billion in the 2004 budget resolution.

On April 30, this House passed the IDEA reauthorization bill with the promise attached from the 2004 budget resolution to provide a $2.2 billion increase over the current level. Yet, this bill falls $1.2 billion short of that promise. As deficit stricken states continue to cut from their school funding, schools will have to continue to absorb the costs of providing special education for nearly 6.7 million school children as well as even cut other school programs or hope for a local referendum to pass to offset the shortfall.

A college graduate can expect to earn 80 percent more than a high school graduate, or $1 million over the course of a lifetime. This obviously allows for an individual to have a better quality of life by having a higher skilled job, better health insurance, pension and the ability to provide a better life for their children. Yet, this bill in essence abandons higher education federal student aid. All the federal student aid programs: Pell Grants, Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (SEOG), Federal Work Study, Perkins Loan Program, LEAP, and Graduate Education are level funded. This may not sound too bad but for example the Pell Grants maximum award was kept at $4,050 which will only cover 38 percent or less of expenses in a 4-year public college compared to 84 percent of expenses covered by Pell Grants in 1975, when the program originated. Unfortunately, the Federal Government is abandoning higher education while the states suffer record breaking deficits. These simultaneous occurrences result in cuts in grant aid to students facing rising cost in higher education. Loyola University Chicago lost $1 million in state grant aid for needy students due to Illinois $5 billion deficit. How much more will their students lose without any increases to the federal student aid programs?

Mr. Chairman, If we pass this bill, we are sending the message that we do not care enough about all of our nation's children and young people. We need to ensure that we are helping those who are in most need of help--low-income children, children with disabilities, and those who have the desire to continue their education but who just can not afford to go without assistance of state and federal aid. Our message needs to be clear. But most importantly, our message needs to be more than just words. Let's see increases in funding where they are most needed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2427, the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act of 2003. Those who are debating this bill can be divided into just two separate groups: those who support making pharmaceuticals more affordable to Americans, and those who are swayed by the pharmaceutical industry's attempts to maintain astronomical profit margins. I proudly stand with the first group.

You cannot deny the skyrocketing prescription drug costs in this country. The price of the top 50 drugs used by American seniors rose at three and a half times the rate of inflation in 2002. At community clinics, physicians prescribing common antibiotics find that their patients cannot afford them. Americans with diabetes, high blood pressure, and other manageable diseases go without life-preserving medications. Meanwhile, those in other countries pay as little as one tenth what Americans pay for the exact same pharmaceuticals. In Canada, the country's national health care system allows them to negotiate prices with drug companies, substantially reducing costs for Canadians. In their quest for profit, those drug companies raise prices in the U.S. to compensate for lost profits in Canada.

Contrary to our opponents' claims, H.R. 2427 has built-in provisions to ensure the safety of reimported drugs. The new technologies developed to ensure the safety of reimported drugs will also safeguard domestic pharmaceuticals against counterfeiting. Our opponents claim that the FDA fails to adequately monitor the safety of drugs already being imported into the U.S. The answer is not to deny Americans the right to reimported pharmaceuticals, but to hold the FDA accountable for its failures and demand improvement.

Our opponents claim that H.R. 2427 would hurt low-income Americans, in attempts to win more support for their position. In fact, this bill would only provide poor Americans with more access to the medicines they need through cost reductions.

Mr. Speaker, as health care costs rise out of control, we must take every step possible to improve health care for the 41 million uninsured and countless underinsured Americans. I urge you to join me in support of H.R. 2427. Do now allow our opponents, influenced by the pharmaceutical industry, to deny safe, affordable prescription drugs to Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the proud sponsor of this resolution to establish a National Community Health Center Week. As we have discussed prescription drugs for our seniors on the House floor, some of the main points of discussion have been issues like affordability, accessibility and who is being served. Just as the bill that was passed last Congress and this Congress, there will be individuals that can not afford their prescriptions or some that will just not have access to them. Fortunately, I know that there are Community Health Centers available throughout the nation to help those in need or who get displaced by health care legislation. Community health centers have become the safety net within the health care system caring for 1 of every 5 low-income babies born in America, 1 of every 8 uninsured individuals, 1 of every 9 Medicaid beneficiaries, 1 of every 9 persons of color, 1 of every 10 rural Americans, almost 750,000 homeless and nearly 850,000 farm workers. Community health centers are established in almost every corner of our nation, representing every aspect of any Congressional district--whether it be assisting the working poor in the inner city or in the rural farmland, migrant workers, or even those who have insurance but do not have access to any other health facilities.

These health centers provide high-quality, cost effective health care as they continually meet escalating health needs and assist in reducing health disparities as well as adapting to the changing nation. With the weakened economy and unemployment reaching its highest point in almost a decade, our nation's health centers are feeling and will continue to feel the consequences by an increasing volume of patients, especially the uninsured. By establishing a week to raise awareness of community health centers, we will also be highlighting each year the great accomplishments these nonprofit, community owned and operated health providers offer so many communities. With recent numbers indicating that the nation's uninsured population is even higher than once thought, at a startling 60 million, if our nation will not realize the need for universal health care, we need to realize the importance and the need to better fund our community health centers.

One of the most amazing aspects of the community health centers is the involvement of the community. Each center tailors their services to best meet the needs and priorities of the communities of which they are in. Citizens in these communities become active participants in their community's health care decision making. Health centers even provide approximately 60,000 jobs to the residents in the communities of the centers.

Mr. Speaker, community health centers are the safety net that are committed to serving all individuals with the mission that everyone deserves quality health care services regardless

of where one resides, if they can pay or have insurance. They are vital in insuring that America's forgotten are being kept healthy.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the violation imposed on women prisoners' right to reproductive choice. Abortion has been legal in this country for more than thirty years. Roe v. Wade did not lay out specifics that only white women or black women could get an abortion, that only the rich or the poor could have this health care service or that is to be taken away if a woman is imprisoned.

In 1993, Congress lifted the six year funding restriction that had prohibited the use of federal funds to provide abortion services to women in federal prison. After the restrictions were lifted, the Bureau of Prisons required medical, religious or social counseling sessions for women seeking these services. The Bureau even took the steps to respect others views by not requiring the participation of any staff personnel that personally did not agree with reproductive choice. Yet in 1995, the funding restriction was put back in place and once again, women prisoners were denied their reproductive choice.

All the cards are stacked against women in prison. In the last decade, the number of women in federal prison has increased by 182 percent, compared to 152 percent for men, making women 7.5 percent of the prison population. The rates of infection for HIV and AIDS in women exceed the rate of infection for men in prison with the number of infected women increasing by more than 88 percent since 1991. Amnesty International USA released a report in 1999 revealing that gynecological services, in general, for women in prisons were inadequate and of poor quality. Many women prisoners are victims of physical or sexual abuse and vulnerable to sexual abuse or misconduct by correctional officers.

Now imagine a women in prison being in those conditions, with those circumstances being isolated from family and friends, not earning meaningful compensation from prison jobs, and being pregnant knowing she will receive poor prenatal care, the loss of custody upon the birth, and without the ability to make a decision on her reproductive rights. These women are completely dependent on the health care services provided by the Bureau of Prisons. This ban prevents them from seeking needed reproductive health care and prohibits them from having a reproductive choice.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kilpatrick amendment to increase HIV/AIDS funding for Africa. I am very pleased that the committee has seen fit to have already included a total of $1.43 billion in global assistance to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria.

However, this amendment, and in many ways, it is a meager amendment, will allow another $300 million to be added to the funding as a way to get closer to the fulfilling of our country's promise of providing $3 billion in funding for HIV/AIDS in 2004.

According to the Joint U.N. Program on HIV/AIDS, more than 70 million people have already become infected since the outbreak of the disease, with an estimated 5 million new cases this year. The estimated 70 million people infected stretches across borders. They do not stop at three countries or five countries or 10 countries. No, they include all of the countries, regardless of religion, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status.

Eastern Europe and Central Asia now have the world's fastest growing HIV/AIDS epidemic. In Africa, six southern nations are facing famine because of the combination of drought and a dramatic decrease in the labor force due to being infected with HIV. Due to these horrific conditions, without work or food, there has been an increase of sex being used to obtain money and food. The Joint U.N. Program on HIV/AIDS also mentions that if an estimated $10.5 billion is spent each year by 2005, then approximately 29 million new infections could be prevented. We need to support the international programs that have been established and that are working.

In the President's recent trip to Africa, he continuously repeated America's promise of $3 billion per year. Yet our Congress, under this appropriations bill and the labor-HHS appropriations, is only appropriating less than $2 billion.

Mr. Chairman, an estimated 3 million people will die from HIV/AIDS this year. This gives no doubt that the great need for additional assistance is necessary.

The time is not now to plunder and wonder or talk about what could possibly happen if we are spending too fast. I would say to my colleagues who worry about spending too fast that people are dying too fast. I would much rather be a part of the spending than be a part of the dying.

Let us support the Kilpatrick amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for making that point.

Mr. Speaker, as we know, the SARS epidemic took a great toll on Southeast Asia. China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Vietnam, Singapore, Taiwan and Toronto were all affected. As of July 11, a total of over 8,400 persons fell victim to SARS, and over 800 died. Taiwan was the third hardest hit country, where 671 became ill and 84 died. Many of the SARS cases in Taiwan could be traced to a lapse of infection control procedures in a single hospital. Health authorities rapidly responded, upgrading the SARS surveillance system, tightening infection control procedures, and educating the population to quickly respond--to symptoms of a potential SARS infection. A key element to Taiwan's success was its ability to coordinate the responses of all relevant sectors. I commend the government of Taiwan for its highly effective handling of this health emergency.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to note that the SARS epidemic which had plagued Taiwan has now abated. On July 15, 2003, the Centers for Disease Control officially lifted the travel alert for Taiwan, with no new cases having been reported there in over a month. All known chains of person-to-person transmission of SARS have been broken. I am pleased to say that we may now feel confident in continuing, without fear, our travel to and business with this wonderful country.