Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of Senate bill 342, the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act to amend the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act.

First of all, I want to commend Chairman Boehner and Ranking Member Miller for their movement of this legislation to the floor. Obviously I am pleased with my participation as a member of the conference committee. I also commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) for their participation. Also I would like to thank the House committee Democratic staff, Ruth Friedman, Ricardo Martinez, and Maggie McDow and the Republican committee staff, Pam Davidson, Krisann Pearce, Kate Houston, Rebecca Hunt, and Judy Boyer for all of their hard work and collaboration with the Senate staff in shaping this legislation to better serve some of our neediest and most helpless citizens.

In the year 2000, about 879,000 children were victims of abuse and neglect in this country. Of this number, approximately 1,200 children died of abuse or neglect, and 44 percent of those children were under the age of 1. It is indeed a disturbing thought that an adult would want to hurt an innocent, helpless child. Yet it occurs and it occurs daily in this country. The United States Congress has in the recent past taken to the floor to bring awareness to the problem and the need to deal with child abuse in this country. This resolution allows us to not only acknowledge this tragic problem but also to provide some assistance to the children and the families that are victims of abuse.

I am very proud of the many good provisions of this legislation. One is the increase of funds from $33 million to $80 million for community- based groups that run programs to strengthen and support families in efforts to reduce the level of child abuse that exists and that exists among families. There are also other new funds and emphasis to better meet the needs of abused children, such as providing funds to meet the needs of children who witness domestic violence and have policies in place to address the needs of infants who are born and identified as having been physically affected by prenatal exposure to illegal drugs or to HIV or who are HIV-infected.

However, this bill would only be doing half its job if we did not also look at individuals who assist the victims of abuse. There will be grants made available to improve child protection services, particularly cross-training to enable child protection service workers to better recognize the signs of domestic violence and substance abuse in addition to child abuse. It also calls on States to provide better training and to strengthen efforts toward child abuse prevention programs.

As our economy worsens and the number of unemployed, especially long- term unemployment, rises, we need to recall the correlation between the state of the economy and violence. With high unemployment and a weak economy, more adults will become frustrated and depressed, both of which often lead to child abuse. You mix together an unemployed individual who feels depressed, frustrated and stressed, who becomes overwhelmed, and it is unfortunate that more of them will take out their rage or their emotion on whoever is closest or whatever is closest to them. At times, sadly, this may be released on a spouse or a child.

Just as the bill would be incomplete if it did not acknowledge improvements for child protection systems, we would be incomplete in our focus on improving the status of at-risk children if we did not acknowledge the state of the economy and the need of a tax credit for our neediest families. One may not see the correlation, but it is there. If we are going to stand here today and send the message that we sincerely care about the well-being of the less fortunate victims in our Nation, we cannot then in the next breath send the message to the once-abused mother or father that they are not worth the child tax credit, or to the children who witness domestic violence or violent crimes around their home on a regular and ongoing basis that they are not worth a concrete, comprehensive program like Head Start.

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, I am proud of this bill, Keeping Families and Children Safe Act; but I also do not believe that we are doing a complete job, that we are doing enough to help the neediest and the most helpless, and sometimes youngest, victims in our Nation to be safe and secure.

And so I commend the gentleman from Michigan; I commend all of those who have worked and helped shape this legislation. I support this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), who is indeed an advocate for children, not only an advocate for children but who is indeed an advocate for whatever is good and wholesome for the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce has come to the floor, and again I want to reiterate my commendations to him for the outstanding leadership that he has provided in bringing this legislation before us and to the floor of the House.

I have always been told that the greatness of a society can be determined by how well it looks after its old, how well it looks after its young, and what it does for those who have difficulty in looking out for themselves. And when we think about abused and neglected children, we are thinking about individuals who have difficulty looking out for themselves.

For the last 10 or more years each Christmas Eve, I and a group of my friends visit what we call halfway houses for neglected and abused children; and to see little children in the basements of apartment buildings, in the basements of churches or in many instances just places that the keepers of these facilities have found and to see them there with little hope, with no real encouragement, and not even knowing what the season is about, and to see the glee and the joy that they have just when they are given an apple or an orange or some fruit or a toy that someone else may have just given away, that speaks to what this legislation will mean. If we can prevent families from taking out their frustration on children, if we can find children who have left home, who themselves are confused, if we can bring hope to the hopeless and help to those who are helpless, then that is really what America should be about; and that is one of the things that this legislation helps to do. So once again, I commend all of those who have been instrumental in bringing it to this point.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to note it is a pleasure to see as many children in the Chamber as there are to see this bipartisan legislation being approved. I would reiterate that there is nothing more important that America could do than to demonstrate how important children are and prepare for the future leaders of our Nation to emerge, to have the kind of services that they need, the kind of programs.

We cannot afford to lose a single one. So every time we can go out and bring in a child who may have been lost, may have been neglected or may have been abused we are actually doing the best work that we could do. I would urge support of this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Chicago (Mr. Emanuel), my neighbor and friend, for organizing this Special Order and certainly for giving me an opportunity to participate. Our districts abut each other; and as a matter of fact, I guess before now some of what is my district was his district.

Maybe some of what was his district is my district. So we have many similarities and certainly represent some of the same people and some of the same thoughts. It is no secret that I am a supporter of the notion of reimportation of prescription drugs. As a matter of fact, I am a proud cosponsor of H.R. 847 introduced by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), my good friend.

Some people might ask me why do I support the concept of reimportation of prescription drugs, and I generally say to them it is no real big deal if they understand as I do, but I do it for a lot of reasons. One, the increasing use of prescription drugs has revolutionized health care. As a result, spending on prescription drugs has increased at a rate of 12 to 13 percent a year for the past decade and will continue to increase in cost at that rate for the foreseeable future. Prescription drugs are the fastest-growing portion of State health care budgets, and many States are facing serious budget crises relative to being able to come up with enough money to actually operate. Yet millions of seniors, perhaps tens of millions, are skipping doses of their prescribed medication or splitting pills or facing a choice between food on the table or taking their prescription drugs. I know this because of the statistics. I know it because of the recent studies. I know this because every weekend when I go home, I hear about this dilemma from one or more seniors in my district.

Meanwhile, the pharmaceutical industry remains the most profitable sector of the U.S. economy with profit-to-revenue ratios of over 18 percent. I heard the gentlemen discussing profits and being capitalists and living in a capitalistic environment; and like them, I do not have a problem with profits, but I do have a problem with overcharging our seniors. So when I learn that Glucophage for diabetics is 74 percent cheaper in Canada than in the United States, I have a problem with that. When I learn that Tamoxifen for treatment of breast cancer is 80 percent cheaper in Canada than in the United States, I have a problem with that. Time does not permit, but I could easily go on and on with the list of prescription drugs available outside the U.S. at a fraction of the cost to my constituents, and when I learn that almost 80 percent of the ingredients of prescription drugs are imported, that redoubles the problem I have with the cost of prescription drugs in the United States. And when I learn that these prescription drugs are developed with millions upon millions of dollars of Federal tax money, I have a serious problem with the cost of prescription drugs in the United States.

I know that reimportation is not the sole or even most important element in providing affordable prescription drugs for our people. I for one will not rest until we have real and effective prescription drug coverage preferably as part of a system of universal health care. But absent a comprehensive solution, there is no excuse in denying Americans the same access to prescription drugs enjoyed by our Canadian neighbors.

Mr. Speaker, the prescription drug industry is sick, and that sickness is endangering the health of all America. Reimportation would be a good first dose of castor oil to bring the industry back to a more regular and healthy state. So I want to thank my colleague and neighbor from Chicago again for organizing this complex discussion on the issue of prescription drugs and how we can get the costs down, and I yield back to him and thank him so much for the opportunity to participate.

Yes.

Absolutely. And one does not have to be on Medicare or Medicaid to feel the bite.

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

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Committee on Government Reform, I am pleased to join my colleague in consideration of H.R. 2254, which names a postal facility in Boulder City, Nevada, after Bruce Woodbury.

H.R. 2254, which was introduced by the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter) on May 22, 2003, has met the committee policy and has been cosponsored by all members of the Nevada delegation.

Mr. Woodbury is a native of Las Vegas, Nevada, and has lived in Boulder City for over 25 years. A distinguished community and civic- minded member of Boulder City, Mr. Woodbury has long been involved in city politics. As a member of the Clark County Commission for 21 years and the Regional Transportation Commission, Mr.

Woodbury has successfully tackled a number of challenging transportation projects.

As chairman of the Regional Transportation Committee, Commissioner Woodbury was a driving force behind the construction of the Las Vegas Beltway and reducing traffic delays.

I commend my colleague for seeking to honor the numerous contributions of Commissioner Bruce Woodbury in this manner. I note that H.R. 2254 also enjoys the support of the Honorable Robert S. Ferraro, mayor of Boulder City, and members of the entire city council.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly concur in the passage of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for his remarks, and I am pleased to join with him as we consider H. Con. Res. 220, a bill commending Medgar Wiley Evers and his widow Myrlie Evers-Williams for their lives and accomplishments.

Mr. Speaker, on June 12, 1963, a black civil rights activist was murdered in front of his home and became a martyr for the cause. On that same day, that very same day, his wife became even more committed to the cause and to the work that they were doing.

Medgar Wiley Evers was born July 2, 1925, near Decatur, Mississippi, and attended school there until he was inducted into the Army in 1943. After serving in Normandy, France, he attended Alcorn College, where he met Myrlie Beasley of Vicksburg, Mississippi. They were married the next year on December 14, 1951.

After receiving his degree, Medgar Evers moved to Mound Bayou, Mississippi, during which time he began to establish local chapters of the NAACP throughout the Delta and organizing boycotts of gasoline stations that refused to allow blacks to use their restrooms.

He worked in Mound Bayou as an insurance agent until 1954, the year a Supreme Court decision ruled school desegregation unconstitutional. Despite

the Court's rulings, Evers applied for and was denied admission to the University of Mississippi Law School. His actions caught the attention of the NAACP's national office, and he was appointed Mississippi's first field secretary for the NAACP.

Medgar and Myrlie moved to Jackson where they worked together to set up the NAACP office, began to investigate violent crimes committed against blacks and rallied civil rights demonstrators and organized voter registration drives.

On June 12, 1963, a few hours after President Kennedy had made an extraordinary broadcast to the Nation on the subject of civil rights, Medgar Evers was shot in the back and killed. It was then that Myrlie Evers-Williams began her relentless search for her husband's killer.

Medgar Evers's accused killer, Byron De La Beckworth, a white segregationist, was tried and released after two hung jury mistrials. Despite these initial defeats, Myrlie Evers-Williams continued searching for new evidence in the case. Mr. Beckworth was finally convicted in 1994 and sentenced to life in prison.

In June of 1988, Myrlie Evers-Williams became the first black woman to be appointed to the Los Angeles five-member Board of Public Works. In 1995, she ascended to the national chairmanship of the NAACP and served until 1998. She had written two books, one, ``For Us, the Living,'' and two, ``Watch Me Fly: What I Learned on the Way to Becoming the Woman I was Meant to Be.''

One can look at the number of black elected officials in Mississippi--today the State that has more African Americans elected to public office than any other State in the Nation--and when we do that we see the work of Medgar and Myrlie. Look at the number of blacks enrolled in each of Mississippi's public and private institutions of higher learning, and we see the work of Medgar and Myrlie. We can look at the former Secretary of Agriculture, Mike Espy. We can look at State Senator David Jordan, and of course, we can look at the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), a Member of this body and the originator of this legislation.

When we look at all of that development, we see the work, we see the impact, we see the influence, we see the lives of Medgar and Myrlie Evers. So it is indeed altogether fitting and proper that, on this day, I am often reminded of the fact that the Constitution of the United States of America suggests that all men, I guess if we were writing it today, it would say ``all men and women, are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and that among those would be life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.''

Medgar and Myrlie Evers pursued rights, not only for themselves but rights for others, and as a result of that pursuit, he gave the most precious thing that one could ever have and the most precious thing that one could ever give, that is, indeed, his life. So I am pleased to join with those who would pause on this day to pay tribute to their lives and to their legacy.

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

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

As I continue to listen and to hear of the great works and the exploits of Myrlie and Medgar Evers, it occurred to me that in order to have a full appreciation that one perhaps should have been living during that time. It just happened for me that I lived not very far from Mississippi at that time.

I was a young child growing up in the State of Arkansas and actually lived only about 25 miles from Mississippi, and so I knew a great deal about Mississippi and had relatives who lived in Mississippi, and so we would drive across the Mississippi River at Greenville and go and visit in places like Mound Bayou and Cleveland and Schuller and Lexington and Greenwood and all through the Delta back the other way.

There was an environment, there was an atmosphere, as a matter of fact, my brothers and I would sometimes kid ourselves because our father would never have to chastise us in the car to be quiet when we got to Mississippi. I mean, there was a feeling and once we crossed the bridge, we would immediately become silent, and he did not have to say, ``You all be quiet, sit down, do not do things.''

Then when one travels to Mississippi today, they see a very different Mississippi. They see a Mississippi that in many ways has transformed itself from the Mississippi of the past to the Mississippi of the present and moving on to the Mississippi of the future.

One can attribute much of that change to Medgar and Myrlie Evers. One can attribute much of that change to the era known as the civil rights period, the movement, the marches, the demonstrations, the willingness of people to say that change is so necessary until I am willing to run the risk of being violated or being mutilated of doing whatever it takes to move out of the dark ages to the brightness of possibility of what it is that tomorrow can and should bring.

I know, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) should be walking in the door at any moment, but while he is about to walk into the door, I know one who was indeed a part of the struggle during that period and was an eloquent voice for civil rights and human rights and for the movement of all people then, as she is today.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time we have left.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to commend the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) for introducing this legislation. I also want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) and say what a pleasure it has been to work with him this afternoon. I appreciated his comments and the pleasure of having the opportunity to work with him.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) to close out for our side.

Mr. Speaker, this is the sixth time this legislation has been sent to the House, I opposed it the past five times, and I still oppose it today. This bill is an attempt to strike, yet again, at the foundations of a woman's right to choose with the aid of family, clergy, counselors, and physicians. I am an avid supporter of choice without reservation. Medical decisions are personal and should be made in private without the interference of the government.

I oppose this proposed interference of the government in doctor's offices not only because I support choice, but because it endangers women's health and safety. Medical technology has advanced, and safe abortion procedures are available for women. If passed, this legislation will force doctors to perform procedures deemed dangerous and outdated as of 1975. These procedures might be necessary to save women whose lives are threatened by their pregnancies. The proposed ban does not provide for life-saving exceptions, and will be overturned by the Supreme Court.

This ban is also unconstitutional because it is in blatant violation of Roe v. Wade. Might I remind the House, this landmark decision leaves the regulation of post vitality or late term abortions to the States, not the Federal Government. While the judiciary system is violated by this legislation, so is the healthcare

field. ``Partial-birth'' is not a medical term, instead it is a vague political term designed to inflame this debate, and outlaw abortions throughout pregnancy.

During the hearings for this legislation in March, Dr. Anne R. Davis testified 90 percent of abortions are conducted during the first trimester. I refuse to believe this legislation proposed six times in the past eight years is to ban only 10 percent of abortions. I stand with over 17 organizations of dedicated and respected medical professionals, three state referendums, and a Nebraska Supreme Court, all of whom oppose this unconstitutional and dangerous legislation that must not be passed.

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Mr. Charles Tidwell who died a few days ago after having spent a lifetime of being a good husband, a good father, a good neighbor, a good citizen and a good friend.

Mr. Tidwell was what we would call an ordinary man, ordinary in that he owned his own business, an ordinary business, he was a self-employed plumber, who for many years worked every day. He was a welcomed sight; people often looked forward to him coming because he generally represented relief, a man who knew how to do what he could and do it well.

Mr. Tidwell was ordinary but he was also unordinary, unordinary because he and his wife were intimately connected to their community, actively involved in their church, actively involved in the civic affairs of their community and actively involved in politics or public policy decision-making. The Tidwell home was oftentimes the place where block club meetings were held, political candidates came and problem solving discussions were held and of course, Mrs. Tidwell generally found a way to have some fried chicken, cake, potato salad, potato pie or whatever she decided to cook. In reality the Tidwells represent the best among us and we're going to miss Mr. Tidwell, a good son, a good husband, a good father, a good neighbor, a good citizen, a good American. May his soul rest in peace.

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

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Committee on Government Reform, I am pleased to join my colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), in consideration of H.R. 2030, which names a postal facility after the late Congresswoman Patsy Mink.

H.R. 2030, which was introduced by the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case) on May 8, 2003, has met the committee policy and has been cosponsored by more than just the State delegation. The bill currently lists 115 cosponsors, truly a testament to the accomplishments of our late colleague, the Honorable Patsy Mink, who sadly passed away on September 28, 2002.

Congresswoman Mink was first elected to Congress in 1964 and served until 1976. She took a 14-year hiatus from national politics and returned to her congressional seat in 1990, where she remained unto her death in 2002.

Congresswoman Mink served on the Committee on Government Reform for a year in 1991 before being assigned to the House Committee on the Budget. She returned to our committee in 1999 where she served until her death last year. As a distinguished member of the Committee on Government Reform, Congresswoman Mink was committed to writing important legislation, such as the bill that would increase the mandatory retirement age of law enforcement officials.

As a member of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, Congresswoman Mink fought hard for the rights of women and children. She co-sponsored title IX, the Early Childhood Education Act and the Women's Educational Equity Act.

During her last few years in Congress, Congresswoman Mink continued to work on such important issues as immigration, Social Security, and health care. Throughout her brilliant career, the Congresswoman provided the strong voice to those who needed one. Her accomplishments will continue to benefit Americans for generations to come. It is only fitting that we share our gratitude by honoring her in this manner.

I would also urge my colleagues to remember our late colleague as a fighter for children and the working class. I note she would have joined us in our push to bring the child tax credit bill to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case), for honoring Patsy Mink with the postal designation. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the chairman, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member, for moving this bill to the House floor and Anne Stewart of the gentleman from Hawaii's (Mr. Case) staff for her hard work.

I urge swift passage of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case), the author of this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON).

(Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

(Ms. WATSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

(Ms. SOLIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), the first African American woman on the Committee on Ways and Means.

(Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have left.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentlewoman from Florida if we might be able to use some of the time on her side.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have heard speaker after speaker take to the floor and talk about the virtues and attributes of Patsy Mink. To a person, they have all talked about how fiery, how dynamic, how pointed and how relevant she was and how much she meant to this institution.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) for some further reflections.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure now to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader and a longtime friend and associate of Patsy Mink's.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from California for her remarks and comments.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to express my appreciation to you for your accommodation and to the gentlewoman from Florida. Patsy Mink was a great American, a great representative for this body, and thousands of people all over the world were inspired by her. Long before I became a Member of Congress, I was inspired by Patsy Mink.

I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleague in consideration of H.R. 925, legislation redesignating a postal facility after Cesar Chavez, a fighter for dignity, human rights, and livable working conditions.

H.R. 925, which was introduced by my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), on February 26, 2003, has met the committee policy and has been cosponsored by the entire Illinois delegation.

Cesar Estrada Chavez, the founding leader of the first successful farm workers union, was born on March 31, 1927, near Yuma, Arizona, the second of six children. Cesar began working as a migrant worker when the family lost their land during the Depression. When he was 11 years old, the Chavez family followed the crop picking and moved to California, living in the trucks they drove.

Although working in the fields and attending school was difficult, if not impossible, Cesar managed to do both and graduated from the eighth grade. Shortly afterwards, he joined the Navy. After his tour of duty, he began teaching Mexican farm workers to read and write so that they could take the test and become American citizens. This activity marked the beginning of Cesar's efforts to improve working conditions for migrant workers.

Cesar Chavez founded the National Farm Workers Association in Delano, California, and in 1965 joined an AFL-CIO union strike against Delano Table and Wine Growers. This successful 5-year strike led supporters to the United Farm Workers, a national group of unions, churches, students, minorities and others. It became affiliated with the AFL-CIO.

Cesar continued organizing workers, strike after strike. And he produced results. Farm workers gained collective bargaining rights and under union contracts enjoyed higher pay, health care and pension benefits.

In 1984, Cesar called for another grape boycott, to protest the pesticide poisoning of grape workers and their farmers.

Cesar Chavez passed away at the age of 66 on April 12, 1993. Before he died, he received the Aztec Eagle, Mexico's highest award given to people of Mexican heritage who have made major contributions outside of Mexico. On August 8, 1994, President William Clinton posthumously awarded Mr. Chavez the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honor in America.

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for seeking to honor the legacy

of Cesar Estrada Chavez, and urge swift passage of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), the sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe we have any additional requests for time, but I yield myself such time as I may consume to note that I was pleased to have the opportunity to be in the company of Caesar Chavez on several occasions, at rallies, demonstrations, marches, and on picket lines, even in Chicago where there were no farms. It is an excellent way of remembering the great contributions that he has made.

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

Mr. Speaker, in October 1998, this body passed a bill to establish a commemoration of the centennial of powered flight and the achievements of the Wright brothers.

The commemoration activities set forth in that bill will come to fruition this year with the Festival of Flight. The Festival of Flight will consist of four events that will be held nationwide to celebrate Wilbur and Orville Wright's first flight.

Wilbur and Orville Wright manned the first successful controlled and sustained powered flight. The Wright brothers, originally bicycle store owners from Dayton, Ohio, moved to Kitty Hawk, North Carolina for the hills, strong and steady winds, and the soft-sanded ground--ingredients for successful flight.

They went back to Dayton and build a six-foot wind tunnel to conduct experiments with over 200 different wing models. They developed the first reliable tables on the effects of air pressure on curved surfaces, the principles that we use today and that you see on every airplane.

In 1903, the Wright brothers completed the construction of a larger plan powered by their own lightweight gas-powered engine and returned to Kitty Hawk. On December 17, 1903, four men and a boy witnessed the first flight--a flight which dramatically changed the course of transportation, commerce, communication, and warfare throughout the world.

I hope that the Festival of Flight will educate Americans to the achievements of the Wright brothers and their contributions to the development of this nation.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I had planned to talk about health care as a result of the Congressional Black Caucus' chairman, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), coming to Chicago on Sunday to participate in a forum dealing with health care issues that is going to be held at the Illinois Institute of Technology.

But listening to much of the discussion this evening as special order speeches have been made talking about tax cuts and tax breaks and which groups got them and which groups did not, I could not help but be reminded of the fact that President Bush has been in office now for about 2 years after being selected by the Supreme Court, and has actually presided over one of the worst downturns in our Nation's history. We have lost 2.7 million jobs, as many as 500,000 in the last 2 months alone. The only answers that I have heard the Republicans give is, tax cuts, tax cuts, and more tax cuts as we have gone from a surplus to a $350 billion deficit, the largest deficit in the history of this country.

As I listen to all of the information about tax cuts and the inability to give certain groups a break, the top 1 percent of the tax cuts that we have made will receive on an average of $24,100 in 2003, this year. Those with incomes of more than $1 million will receive an average of $93,500.

I hear people talk about what will happen for small businesses, and 52 percent of small business owners will only get between zero and $500. Seventy-nine percent of the benefits will go to individuals who have incomes of over $100,000. Twenty-nine percent of the population will go or 29 percent of the breaks will go to individuals who make more than $1 million.

More than two-thirds of the tax cuts will go to the top 10 percent of the population, and over 50 percent of the tax cuts will go to the top 5 percent of the population. The bottom 60 percent of the taxpayers will only get 8.6 percent, averaging less than $100 a year for the next 4 years. The average reduction for the richest 1 percent will be $103,899 for 4 years. Thirty-nine percent will go to this tiny group. The best off 1 percent of the population will get 52 percent of the benefit.

I am not one that always pays a great deal of attention, but oftentimes

I do read them, to what newspapers have to say about these proposals and what we are doing. But as we talk about the need to stimulate the economy, I was reading the New York Times on May 9, and they indicated or they stated, they said, that lower-income families, of course, would be the quickest to spend the money to help provide some of the stimulus the Republicans claim is their first priority. Instead, the GOP remains fixated on high-income concerns. Framing the reconciliation talks is more than an exercise in dueling sugar plums.

So I guess, concerning this whole business of who gets what, a friend of mine told me the other day that there was a quote that said the history of the world, my friend, is relationships between where the money goes, and that after everything else is talked about, look and see where the money goes.

It seems to me that as we have dealt with the tax cut issue, most of the money continues to go to the wealthy. Most of the money continues to go to those who have the most.

At any rate, our health situation is still in bad shape. I am going to spend the rest of my time talking a little bit about that. Our health care system is unacceptable for the world's most powerful and wealthy country. I would say that the state of health care in this country is one of the top critical issues facing the Nation. I do not believe that it can be cured by putting too much of our resources in one population group.

Even as we come to an end of the war against Iraq, there will still be and still are individuals in need of health care. It is true that the state of education, the state of unemployment, and the state of housing are all in dire need of improvement, as well; but they all connect to the need to have a solid, concrete health care system that serves all people.

The state of one's health sets the precedent for everything else in our lives. If we are not in good health, we cannot perform our jobs well or do well in school. If we are not in good health and do not have insurance, we end up with an exorbitant amount of debt that will be virtually impossible for anyone to pay off, if we have been sick.

The numbers are absolutely startling. There are approximately 60 million people without health insurance at some point during the year in this country. Many people believe that it is only the unemployed or individuals with low incomes that cannot afford health insurance.

However, nearly 80 percent of the uninsured are individuals from working families who cannot afford health insurance or cannot access employer-provided health insurance plans. More than one out of every five families making $75,000 a year or more has at least one member without health insurance.

In Chicago, those making between $25,000 and $75,000 or 34 percent have at least one family member without health insurance, as do 41 percent of families making up to $25,000. In Illinois, almost 10 percent of those with at least a bachelor's degree and 20 percent of full time workers are uninsured. America needs to realize that the face of the uninsured has changed. The level of education or salary will not automatically guarantee an individual insurance anymore.

The health crisis is not only due to the number of uninsured in our Nation. There are millions more than the estimated 60 million uninsured at some point that have less comprehensive insurance than what they actually need, and, therefore, are under-insured. They are the families working for small firms or family-owned businesses that are being hit the hardest by the current state of the economy, forcing the employers to cut back and have the employee pay higher premiums. There are senior citizens on Medicare that are being denied care by physicians who can no longer afford to care for them. These are the components of a failing health care system. With State and the Federal Government slashing Medicaid, the safety net we once depended on is instead not a net at all.

Currently in Congress there are numerous resolutions that would help mend our Nation's health care crisis as a whole. The proposed solutions range from a refundable tax credit, to purchasing private insurance, to Congress enacting health care for every American, to amending the United States Constitution. There are also resolutions to help to resolve a single issue plaguing the health system, whether it is the cost of prescription drugs, the reimbursement amounts for a mammogram under Medicare, or a new formula for FMAP.

Although minor changes in health care may be easier for a Member to get passed, it allows many Americans to remain stuck, still unable to afford expensive health insurance. I believe that Congress must act sooner rather than later and reform our health care system as a whole.

One of my American Medical Student Associate fellows, Amanda Muellenberg, once explained the problem of fixing Medicare piece by piece with an old Dutch story. She said there was once a young boy walking down the road and realized that the town's dike had a hole in it. To save the town, the young boy put his thumb in the hole to stop the leaking. Soon another crack and a hole appeared and then another and another. It was not long until the young boy ran out of fingers to clog the holes, and still with all his efforts, he could not stop the dike from leaking. Instead of clogging each new hole in our health care system, we need to rebuild it.

The Kaiser Family Foundation found that uninsured Americans cost Federal, State, and local governments about $35 billion in 2001. Much of that money went to treating individuals who had become seriously ill due to a lack of medical attention. I believe this amount that is spent on helping the uninsured ill could be better used to give screenings and preventative care, leaving less of a financial burden on taxpayers and hospitals for admissions.

President Bush made the commitment to America to leave no child behind in education. Instead, we need to ensure that no American is left behind in preventative care, access to medical treatment, and affordable insurance. The way to accomplish this and the only real way is through enactment of a national health plan, where everyone is in and nobody is out. And as much of a problem that we have across the board with health care and health insurance, when it comes to some population groups, especially when it comes to minorities, nowhere are the divisions of race, ethnicity, and culture more sharply drawn than in the health of the people in the United States.

Despite recent progress in overall national health, there are continuing disparities in the incidents of illness and death among African-Americans, Latino/Hispanic-Americans, Native Americans, Asian- Americans, Alaskan Natives and Pacific Islanders as compared with the U.S. population as a whole. We can point to 6 areas in particular: One, cancer; two, cardiovascular disease; three, infant mortality; four, diabetes; five, HIV/AIDS; and six, child and adult immunizations, aggressively.

Cancer, for example, research shows in general that people of diverse racial, ethnic, and cultural heritage are less likely to get regular medical check-ups, receive immunizations, and be routinely tested for cancer when compared with the majority of the U.S. population. Cancer deaths are disproportionately high among Latino/Hispanic-Americans and African-Americans. Vietnamese women are 5 times more likely to have cervical cancer and Chinese-Americans are 5 times more likely to have liver cancer.

Cardiovascular disease. Disparities exist in the prevalence of risk factors for cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease and stroke. Racial and ethnic groups have higher rates of hypertension, tend to develop hypertension at an earlier age, and are less likely to undergo treatment to control their high blood pressure.

Mexican-American men and women have elevated blood pressure rates. Obesity continues to be higher for African-American and Mexican- American women. Only 50 percent of Native American, 44 percent of Asian-Americans, and 38 percent of Mexican-Americans have had their cholesterol checked within the past 2 years. Coronary heart disease mortality is higher for African-Americans. Stroke is the only leading cause of death for which mortality is higher for Asian-American males.

We look at infant mortality, current studies document that despite advances, African-American and Native American babies still die at a rate that is 2 to 3 times higher than the rate for white Americans. Infant mortality is really a measure that health professionals use to measure quality of life. If infant mortality is high, it usually means that the quality of life is low. If infant mortality is low, it usually means that the quality of life is high.

Statistics revealed that among Native Americans and Alaskan Natives, the incidents of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, SIDS, is more than 3 to 4 times the rate for white American babies. And while the overall infant mortality rate has declined, the gap between black and white infant mortality rates has widened.

Diabetes, studies indicate that diabetes is the 7th leading cause of death in the United States. Approximately 16 million people in the U.S. have diabetes. African Americans are 1.7 times more likely. Latino Hispanic Americans are 2.0 times more likely. The Alaskan natives and Native Americans are 2.8 times more likely to have diabetes than whites. The Pima tribe of Arizona has the highest known prevalence of diabetes of any population in the world. Native Americans and African Americans have higher rates of diabetes-related complications such as kidney disease and amputation as compared to the total population.

HIV/AIDS, recent data from prevalence surveys and from HIV/AIDS cases surveillance continue to reflect the disproportionate impact of the epidemic on racially, ethnic and linguistically diverse population groups, especially women, youth and children.

The African Americans and Hispanic Latino group accounted for 47 and 20 percent respectively of persons diagnosed with AIDS in 1997. Among African Americans, 56 percent of new HIV infection and AIDS cases are a result of intravenous drug usage. For Hispanic Latino groups, 20 percent of new HIV infections and AIDS cases results from intravenous drug use. Seventy-five percent of HIV/AIDS cases reported among women and children occur among diverse racial and ethnic groups.

Six, child and adult immunizations. Statistics from the President's Initiative on Race reveal that for the most critical childhood vaccines, vaccination levels for preschool children of all racial and ethnic groups are about the same. However, immunization levels for racial and ethnic groups are lower.

School age children and elder adults of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds continue to lag when compared to the overall vaccination rates for the U.S. general population. While 79 percent of white preschoolers are fully immunized by 2 years of age, only 74 percent of African American and 71 percent of Hispanic Latino children, including preschoolers and school age children, are fully vaccinated against childhood diseases.

Annually, approximately 45,000 adults die of infections related to influenza, pneumonia infections and hepatitis B, despite the availability of preventive vaccine. Among the elderly, there is a disproportionate amount of vaccine preventable diseases in racial, ethnic and underserved populations.

Although the reasons for these disturbing gaps are not well understood, it appears that disproportionate poverty, discrimination in the delivery of health services and the failure of health care organizations and programs to provide culturally competent health care to diverse racial, ethnic and cultural populations are all contributing factors.

For people under 65, blacks and Hispanics have a higher percentage of being uninsured than whites; 12.7 percent of non-Hispanic whites are uninsured; 22.8 percent of blacks are uninsured; and 24 percent of Hispanics are uninsured.

Minorities face greater difficulty in communicating with physicians. Hispanics are more than twice as likely as whites, 33 percent versus 16 percent, to cite one or more communication problems, such as understanding the doctor, not feeling the doctor listens to them or that they had questions for the doctor but did not get asked. Twenty- seven percent of Asian Americans and 23 percent of blacks cite that they also have communication problems.

Minorities, of course, are more likely to be without a regular doctor. Hispanics are twice as likely to not have a regular doctor than whites, 41 percent versus 19 percent. Thirty-one percent of Asian Americans and 28 percent of blacks are without a regular doctor.

Compared with the rates for whites, coronary heart disease mortality was 40 percent more for Asian Americans but 40 percent higher for blacks in 1995. Stroke is the leading cause of death for which mortality is higher for Asian American males than for white males.

Racial and ethnic minorities have higher rates of hypertension, tend to develop hypertension at an earlier age, are less likely to undergo treatment to control their blood pressure. From 1988 to 1994, 35 percent of black males 20 to 74 had hypertension compared to 25 percent of all men.

Among adult women, the age-adjusted prevalence of overweight continues to be higher for black women, 53 percent, and Mexican American women, 52 percent, than for white women. Only 50 percent of American Indians, native Alaskans, 44 percent of Asian Americans and 38 percent of Mexican Americans have had their cholesterol checked in the last 2 years.

According to the 2001 Surgeon General's Report on Mental Health, the prevalence of mental disorders is believed to be higher among African Americans than whites, and African Americans are less likely to be treated for mental problems such as depression or anxiety.

Infant death rates among blacks, American Indians and Alaskan natives and Hispanics in 1995 and 1996 were all above the national average of 7.2 deaths to 1,000 births. The black infant death rate is 14.2 deaths per 1,000 births. This is nearly two-and-a-half times that of white infants, 6 deaths, 1,000 births. Puerto Ricans have a rate of 8.9 deaths, 1,000 births, and overall, American Indians have a rate of 9 deaths to 1,000 live births.

HIV/AIDS is the sixth leading cause of death for African American males and the 10th leading cause of death for African American females. In 2000, 47 percent of all cases reported in the United States were among African Americans. The rate of new AIDS cases among African Americans was almost 10 times higher than among whites.

Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States, accounting for more than 544,000 deaths each year. For men and women combined, blacks have a cancer death rate about 35 percent higher than that for whites, 171.6 versus 127 per 100,000. The death rate for cancer for black men is about 50 percent higher than that for white men, 226.8 versus 151.8 per 100,000. The prostate cancer mortality rate for black men is more than twice of that of white men, 55.5 versus 23.8 per 100,000. The death rate for lung cancer is about 27 percent higher for blacks than for whites, 49.9 versus 39.3.

Incident rates for lung cancer in black men is about 50 percent higher than in white men, 110.7 versus 72.6 per 100,000. Native Hawaiian men have also elevated rates of lung cancer compared with white men. Alaskan native men and women suffer disproportionately higher rates of cancer of the colon and rectum than do whites. Vietnamese women in the United States have a cervical cancer rate five times that of white women, 47.3 versus 8.7 per 100,000. Hispanic women also suffer elevated rates of cervical cancer. Black women have the highest death rate from cervical cancer. Stomach cancer mortality is substantially higher among Pacific Islanders, including Native Hawaiians, than other populations.

We mention these numbers because America, our country tis of thee, has a goal to create equal justice, equal opportunity, equal service. The idea that out of many can be one, and one not just in concept but also one in reality. And to make real these ideas, there is obviously a need for special programs and special activities, in addition to changing the way we provide treatment in some instances.

There is a need to increase the numbers of minorities in medical schools, in nursing schools, and to train more professionals. There is the need to put more ambulatory care programs in places where there are none. There is a need to increase accessibility. Of course we know that poverty plays a tremendous role. There is a need for

more education, more assistance for individuals to take control of their own health.

And that is why the Congressional Black Caucus has made health one of its top priority issues. That is why we are pleased that our chairman, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), will in fact be in Chicago on one of his stops as he and other members of the caucus go across the country trying to help raise the issue, trying to help people to understand what they can themselves do, and also continuing to suggest to America that we have to put our resources where our conversations are; that we have to make available quality comprehensive health care to all people in this great country without regard to their ability to pay.

So, Mr. Speaker, as I come to the close of my special order, I want to thank you for your indulgence. I want to thank the American people for watching and listening. And I hope that we can indeed let America be America again, the land that never has been and yet must be. The America that we all continue to dream about. The America that we all continue to hope for. The America that can ultimately crown its good with brotherhood from sea to shining sea. And the America that can have quality comprehensive health care for you and quality comprehensive health care for me.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of my special order.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 45 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until Thursday, June 5, 2003, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a longtime friend, mentor, fellow activist and one of the most committed and dedicated educators that I have ever known, Mr. Joe Rosen.

Joe died a few days ago at the ripe age of 91, after having devoted much of his adult life to teaching, being a principal, a district superintendent and overall advocate for improving teaching techniques and for finding additional ways to more effectively educate racial minorities and disadvantaged children.

One of Joe's unique characteristics is that he never gave up on the neighborhood where he grew up and sharpened his skills. Mr. Rosen was born and grew up on the west side of Chicago in a community that was predominantly Jewish. He graduated from Marshall High School and put himself through college, working as a taxi driver, at the post office, and as a laundry worker.

His undergraduate studies were at the Chicago Teachers College and he earned a master's degree at DePaul University. Mr. Rosen studied to become a biology teacher, but could not find an opening during the Great Depression. Therefore, he took a job teaching physical education and did that for several years. He loved to tell the story of how he beat out the legendary Chicago Sun Times columnist Irv Kupcinet for a handball instructor's position because he was willing to work for less money.

Joe eventually got a job teaching biology at Wells High School, and in 1947

was appointed principal of the Howland Elementary School, and this set the stage for the rest of his life's work, dealing with the needs of underprivileged children.

Joe's daughter Arlene stated that ``All of our lives, all of our family, friends and relatives, if they had clothing to pass on, would take them to my dad and he would take them to school. He would take clothes for adults too. He had kids get eye exams and had an arrangement with those doing the testing to provide glasses for a very low fee.''

Mr. Rosen established an after-hours social center at Howland for elementary and high school pupils to keep them off the streets. As the neighborhood was changing, he instituted intergroup understanding as part of the curriculum.

When he became Superintendent of District 10, he established the Farragut Outpost, an alternative school for Farragut students who were not progressing well with the regular straight academic curriculum. The Outpost kept young people in school and attracted many dropouts back.

Joe was indeed an innovative educator who was able to do a great deal with teaching approaches and techniques. He was an avid supporter of early childhood education and established several Head Start and daycare center programs in his district.

Joe would be pleased to know that we are here tonight talking about the earned income tax credit program that is designed to help those at the very bottom. Joe promoted back-to-school activity. He promoted breakfast and lunch programs for children, understanding that they could not learn well if they were hungry.

However, many people knew him best through his partnership with Mrs. Ida Mae Fletcher, Ma Fletcher, a pioneer leader and education activist. Through their efforts, community involvement and parental participation became buzz words associated with public education in the Chicago area.

Joe was forced to retire at the age of 65 because of an age requirement. However, he continued to work both formally and informally for many years. He met his first wife, Ms. May Berg at a dance and they were married in 1939. After her death, he met Ms. Carol Bauer and they were married in 1984.

Joe leaves to mourn his passing his sons Laurence and Robert; stepson Harlen Bauer and stepdaughters Betsy Bauer and Susan Bauer; Yetta Rothstein, his sister; brother Walter Rosen; and four grandchildren.

Joe continued to be active and serve on various boards and committees right up to the end of his life. He was a member of our Seventh Congressional District Education Task Force and the Westside Association for Community Action.

Joe never gave up on his inner-city community, and the community never gave up on him. He leaves a tremendous legacy of commitment, dedication and commitment, to serving those who needed help. That is why Joe would be pleased to see my colleagues here extolling the virtues of tax relief or tax cuts for those who really need it, and not for those who do not, those who can benefit if we are real about what is needed.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman not only for being here tonight, but also for the tremendous leadership you provide as chairman of the Hispanic Congressional Caucus. I have been pleased and delighted to note many evenings when I have seen you talking about not only health care, but talking about education, talking about the needs of people across the board; and I have been gratified that all evening we have seen an array of individual Democrats take to the floor, and talk about this tremendous tax break that we saw just before we left to go on vacation, go to our districts over the Memorial Day holiday.

It is amazing to me that we have heard about Leave No Child Behind when we have left millions of children, just with this one act, this one tax break for the wealthiest 1 percent, the wealthiest 5 percent, we have left millions of children behind, all at one time.

It is amazing also to hear people who do not want to pay taxes. I do not know how in the world we expect to have the kind of country, to have the kind of democracy to provide the kind of services without individuals paying taxes. Oliver Wendell Holmes supposedly said one time that taxation is the price that we pay for a civilized society. And then to hear people talk about those who do not pay much do not need breaks, or to hear colleagues suggest that because individuals are not in a position to pay much in the way of taxes, or as much as some others, that they do not deserve.

We hear talk about stimulating the economy. Whoever heard of stimulating an economy by giving back to the wealthiest individuals, who could not possibly have a need to spend any more money.

When I was a kid growing up, my mother used to make soup, and if she wanted to stimulate that soup, she would take her spoon and go down to the bottom of it and stir things up. When she would stir things up, the flavor would ignite and the aroma would penetrate the whole house.

So it would seem to me if we really want to shake up the economy, we would go down to the bottom, provide something for those people, raise the minimum wage, put some money in the pockets of individuals who are trying to make it. If we do that, then it is clear to me that those individuals are going to take the additional money that they have and go to the supermarket and buy milk for their children, or you are going to find people purchasing Pampers for the babies, or they are going to run to the barber shop and get a haircut or go to the beauty shop and get their hair fixed. Those individuals are going to put money back into the economy. If we have money in the economy, it means that money is going to go from one place to the next place to the next place.

I have always been told that money in neighborhoods is pretty much like blood to the body. If all the blood runs out of the body, you are going to die. Or if too much of it is in one part of the body, you are going to get sick because it is not circulating properly. So if too much of the money goes to one segment of the population, then of course the economy is going to get sick. If we have a sick economy, as we do right now, somebody is going to suffer. It really means that all of us will suffer because we have an imbalance.

But if we have things moving around, if those at the bottom are running out to the store to make their purchases, then the guy at the supermarket gets

the money and can go and pay down on a house or can get a mortgage. Now we have got things percolating. We have got things moving. I think that is really what we need to be doing and not talking about this trickle- down, failed economic theory that we know does not work.

I mean, once again, coming from the top down and saying that we are going to get some investments, after we have had three tax cuts. We have had three breaks, three cuts, and rather than stimulating job development, we have actually lost 2.7 million private sector jobs since President Bush took office. That is 2.7 million private sector jobs.

So what is there that is going to cause one to believe that another tax break is going to stimulate the economy in such a way that we can create jobs? And so I agree with the gentleman that what we really need are policies that work, policies that will stimulate movement.

I represent a congressional district that has lost more than 120,000 good-paying jobs, manufacturing jobs, over the last 20-30 years. Many of those jobs went by way of NAFTA. They went by way of Fast Track, went to other places, and now people are unemployed wondering what it is that they can do. I just do not have faith in the trickle-down theory. It has not worked, and will not work. I do not think there is any way it is going to work, and we have to have a new order.

I have no doubt that they are going to come back. That is because there seems to be a feeling, or they have some notion, that somehow or another you can get something out of a turnip other than turnip juice. If you do not make the right kind of investments, put people to work and balance things in such a way that everybody can benefit rather than these policies where the rich just simply get richer, the poor get poorer and everybody else gets squeezed; and that seems to be the approach.

I am not an expert on economics, but it is crazy to me. I mean, we look at all of the places where we need to make investments. Our infrastructure. If you do that, people are working. And if they are working, then things are being shaken up and can be moved about. If you are just waiting for something to happen from on high and say that there are these theoretical investments that we expect people to make and they may or may not make them, but you know that if people have needs and are able to take care of those, you do not have to wonder about that. You know that the guy with six children who needs milk is going to the supermarket if he has got money. That is not a theory. That is an automatic. Or you know that children who need books to go to school, if they have got the money, that the families are going to invest in the education of their children. And so to me it is just a wrongheaded approach. It is an elitist approach. It is an approach that somehow or another does not deal with the realities of life, that is mythical, that is kind of a now you see me, now you don't. It is sort of a shell game. It is a sham. It is not good for the American economy, it is not good for the American people, and I think there is no alternative except to change it.

Of course, we know that in order to change it, we are going to have to change some of the individuals who are leading it. That is, we have got to put some different people in place so that those individuals will make different decisions. Yet we get accused of starting class warfare. I hear people talk about class warfare. I was studying something about political philosophy, and I read something that a fellow, Voltaire, supposedly said. He said that the purpose of politics as he understood it was for one group of people to take as much money as they possibly could from another group and handle it differently. That is called the Voltairean philosophy. And when you take from the poor who need the most and give to the rich, I do not know what you call that. I guess greed would be about the best way to characterize it, and I think that is a real problem. And the only way that we stop it is to change the way we not only see things but also to change the way that we do things. I think we can do that because the American people will see the difference. There is an old saying that says, Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I do not think the American people are going to be fooled to the extent that they will allow the same policies and practices to continue because then it will be shame on us.

I think the kind of leadership, though, that you provide is going to continue to help us to move away from that and certainly the kind of leadership that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) provides is going to help us move away from that. And so when I see people like you and I see people like her in leadership displaying the kind of energy, the kind of tenacity that you display, then yes, there is hope not only for this House but there is also hope for America. It has been my pleasure to join with you this evening.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), who is the originator of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will simply indicate that I am pleased to join with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and the gentleman from Texas in extolling the virtues of this pioneer who has contributed greatly to the development of pride and to education in her native Texas. She is indeed a role model, and I join with both my colleagues in extending condolences to her family.

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