Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about how H.R. 2210 will dismantle Head Start and take thousands of beloved Head Start teachers from the children who depend on them so greatly.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 2210, the wrongheaded Republican Head Start Bill that represents an unprecedented attack on our federal preschool system

I want to bring to your attention two important reports that were released this week by

the Government Reform Committee of which I sit on, one commissioned by members representing Los Angeles area, and one by the congressional Black Caucus. Both of which demonstrate that H.R. 2210 is detached from reality and does little to address the programs' existing challenges.

The reports released by the Government Reform Committee track the success of current Head Start program. They tracked studies that showed how Head Start children are more likely to receive medical services than other low-income children, and they are less likely to repeat a grade, require special education, or be convicted of a crime. Head Start children are also more likely to graduate from high school and college, and that the program narrows the performance gap between disadvantaged children and other children in vocabulary, writing skills, and social behavior.

So why is this Administration trying to dismantle a successful and popular 40-year old program? Studies after studies have showed that when states run their own pre-school programs, they fail to provide the services guaranteed under the comprehensive standards of Head Start. For example, 60 percent of the states do not require dental care referrals, while 40 percent of the states fail to provide mental health referrals.

Under H.R. 2210's proposal to block grant Head Start in eight states, hundreds of children would lose the protection of federal standards providing that they receive preventive and primary health care. They would lose the protection of federal standards providing that they receive all necessary immunization, and they would lose such protection for dental care. This is simply not acceptable!

The President is trying to hoodwink the American people into believing that one of the most successful child development programs ever needs to be ``fixed.'' Head Start isn't broken, but it is under threat from Republican meddling. My constituents have seen the Bush bait and switch before--on education, on the economy, and on prescription drugs. They won't be fooled this time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of the Kilpatrick amendment. I just want to remind Members that we spent $4 billion monthly to rebuild Iraq and we are quibbling over $300 million to rebuild the lives of people who surely need them.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hinchey- Price amendment to the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, The Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.

This amendment will deny funding to the FCC for the purposes of implementing its new cross-ownership and

local TV ownership rules. I believe this amendment is just the first in a series of extremely important steps to ensure that diversity in the media, both nationally and locally, will not diminish further.

The FCC's newspaper-broadcasting cross-ownership rule and the local TV ownership rule will exacerbate the current minority ownership crisis. According to the newspaper-broadcasting cross-ownership rule, one company will be permitted to own a local newspaper and local TV and radio stations in one single market.

If this rule is allowed to stand, it is possible that all local print and broadcast news could be controlled by a single company. The new local TV ownership rule will allow one company to own two TV stations in the same market as long as there are three other independent voices within that same market. The new rule will make creating a duopoly easier for a large corporation, while greatly limiting the number of independent voices on TV, including those of minorities.

Minority owners' share of the commercial television and radio market is already at a historical low. At the end of the 1990s, minorities owned only 1.9 percent of the country's licensed television stations. In the year 2000, minorities owned only 4 percent of the Nation's commercial AM and FM radio stations. Many of these minority owners are single-station operators.

I believe their voices, as well as the voices of other independent operators, will be silenced as large corporations are granted virtually unimpeded access to media markets under the new FCC rules.

The American public supports a diverse and competitive media. Over 2 million Americans have contacted the FCC to voice their disapproval of the June 2 decision to ease the limits on media ownership. The newspaper-broadcasting cross-ownership rule and local TV rule will further stifle minority voices in the media.

Congress must respond and protect the public's access to diverse sources of information.

Please support the Hinchey-Price amendment to the CJS appropriations bill to protect diversity in the media and to allow dissenting voices, minority voices, small voices to be heard. The public owns the airways.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my time out of order.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the distinguished gentleman from Maryland and the distinguished gentleman from California and the Chair of our Black Caucus who will be coming up in a minute for organizing this important discussion on the future of Head Start.

Later in the week, the House of Representatives will consider H.R. 2210, a bill that radically alters the Head Start program. H.R. 2210 is ill-conceived and ill-devised. It sacrifices accountability and oversight in favor of standardized testing of 4-year-olds. It teaches our children a wrong lesson on discrimination by repealing current civil rights protections and allowing programs to discriminate in their hiring practices based on religion. It gambles with our children's future by diverting already limited resources into experimental block grants that can be diverted to other Federal programs.

H.R. 2210 is a classic bait and switch bill. The major changes in and new requirements under title I are not contained in title II of the bill, which creates an experimental block grants program for Head Start in eight States. This overhaul reverses the precedent in achievement that was created by the No Child Left Behind Act.

NCLB seeks to close the achievement gap through strong standards and stronger Federal oversight. H.R. 2210 will only damage the integrity and efficiency of the program by redirecting resources to a block grant system and neglecting Federal standards and oversight.

Indeed, changing the funding formula to block grants under Title II creates a daunting scenario for Head Start. The four eligibility requirements under Title II do not address quality or expertise. The legislation requires the bare minimum of the eight participating States. All that a State has to do is to have an existing preschool system, a basic standard for school readiness and basic requirements for the allocation of Head Start funding.

All 50 States meet these minimum requirements, but too few provide quality service. For example, only three States currently provide all the services needed to get at-risk children ready to learn. These States provide the same set of eight comprehensive services required of Head Start through State-run pre-K programs. At present, there is simply no clear body of research demonstrating the effectiveness of State pre-kindergarten programs.

Let me also elaborate on other shortcomings of the proposal to change Head Start into a block grant program. Title II of H.R. 2210 does not specify minimum thresholds on class size, class-staff ratios or curriculum content. It calls on each State to create its own school readiness standards and own criteria for measuring achievement. With State preschool programs varying greatly in content and quality, how can we ensure that low-income children from across the Nation will receive a quality education?

H.R. 2210 also does not contain adequate evaluation and oversight requirements. Instead of annual reports and on-site evaluation by the HHS every 3 years, States under the block grant program will not be held to any minimum threshold requirements on quality or appropriateness of their State plans. This is a giant step backwards for the Head Start program.

Finally, the bill allows the States to use Head Start funds to supplement other Federal programs. Governors may be able to use this money to cover budget deficits in their States. My home State of California receives over $800 million in Federal moneys for Head Start. California is now suffering from a budget deficit in excess of $38 billion. With the block grant proposal, my State could divert TANF and Title I preschool funds to offset the State's budget deficit, then use the Head Start block grant to fund TANF and Elementary and Secondary Education Act. This loophole allows States to reduce Head Start funding legally, which severely shortchanges our low-income children.

Mr. Speaker, this is the wrong way to go.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I announce the passing of the legendary musician, Benny Carter, this past Saturday at Cedars-Sinai Hospital in Los Angeles. He was 95.

Benny Carter's life and career literally spanned the 20th century. His music encompassed the history of jazz and much more. Ranked with the likes of Johnny Hodges and Charlie Parker, Benny Carter is considered one of the greatest alto saxophonists of all times. Ella Fitzgerald described him as ``everything a musician would want to be''; while Miles Davis said, ``Everybody ought to listen to Benny. He is a whole musical education.'' And the great Ben Webster said about Carter, ``He is the only person that I get the shakes trying to play my horn behind or with him.''

Born in New York in 1907, Carter received his first music lessons from his mother, but was largely a self-taught musician. In the late 1920s he joined Fletcher Henderson's seminal orchestra and in 1931 became musical director for McKinney's Cotton Pickers.

Returning to New York in 1938, Carter formed his own top-flight orchestra and spent much of 1939 and 1940 at Harlem's famed Savoy Ballroom. His arrangements were much in demand and featured on recordings by Benny Goodman, Count Basie, Duke Ellington, Glen Miller, Gene Krupa, and Tommy Dorsey.

We will miss this outstanding and this exemplary musician. May he rest in peace.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, feel the unease of those who spoke before me about the information the President gave us on a reason for going to Iraq. I think it requires investigation. It requires us to know the truth. I do hope when Tony Blair comes on Thursday, we will begin to know the truth.

But in the meanwhile, I want to inform American seniors about the Medicare reform bill that will be considered by the House/Senate conferees. I want to protect and respect our seniors, but I am shocked at the bill the House majority passed by only one vote just over a week ago. Medicare beneficiaries have waited a long time for help; but, unfortunately, the proposed legislation falls short of what seniors and disabled Americans have been waiting for.

We are at a time when we know the miracle of science. Prescription drugs can be miraculous in their power to cure and improve the quality of life of our seniors. We in government have the responsibility to capitalize on the advantages of science and help our seniors. By adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare, a program that seniors know and trust, seniors will have an improved quality of life at a reduced cost to taxpayers over the long term.

A Medicare prescription drug benefit should be affordable, reducing the exorbitant prices of drugs, meaningful with guaranteed benefits, within Medicare, and available to all regardless of where they live.

So it is with great disappointment, Mr. Speaker, that I look at the proposals that were on this floor for Medicare reform. The House Republican bill fails to meet each one of the basic standards. The House bill does nothing to reduce the cost of prescription drugs. It creates a coverage gap so wide that almost 50 percent of seniors will fall into it.

Under the House bill, seniors pay the first $250 of their drug costs, then 20 percent up to $2,000. They will receive no assistance at all between $2,000 and $4,900. The bill also allows insurers to vary their benefit levels and prices around the country. Insurers will be able to limit access to specific drugs and pharmaceuticals. The House bill fails to guarantee the same benefits for the 9.2 million Medicare beneficiaries in rural communities, and it even prohibits the Secretary of HHS from negotiating a better price for seniors.

The bill that was passed by the House is designed to privatize Medicare, leaving seniors at the mercy of the HMOs and private insurance plans.

This bill uses private drug-only plans to administer the prescription drug program. These are plans that do not exist anywhere today. These plans could force seniors to leave trusted doctors and hospitals. Even worse, by 2010 the House bill turns the traditional Medicare program into a voucher program.

The Federal Government should provide a safety net for the citizens of America. Unfortunately, the House-passed bill does not include any important fall-back provisions. Under the Senate-passed bill, if at least two private plans fail to enter the market in a region, the Federal Government will step in and offer beneficiaries a Medicare prescription drug benefit. Private plans have not worked in many parts of the country, and over the past 5 years more than 2 million seniors have been abandoned by private HMOs seeking higher profit elsewhere.

I urge my colleagues to recognize this failure and vote accordingly. American seniors, do not be fooled.

Mr. Speaker, for the next week, Africa will be on page 1 news due to the President's trip to the continent. Then, once again, news on Africa will most likely recede to the back pages of our major newspapers and disappear for good. However, what many Americans do not realize is the increasing importance of Africa to the world and the United States.

Americans now import more than one-quarter of their oil from the African continent. In the coming years, due to new major oil discoveries in the Gulf of Guinea off the west coast of Africa, the percentage of African oil Americans consume will most likely rise. It will rise because there are quantities of untapped oil reserves on the continent, and it will rise because the United States realizes that oil from the Middle East can easily fall prey to the vagaries of wars and politics.

Africa is so important to us, in part, because it is a continent rich in natural resources. Copper, diamonds, gold, and wood are all in abundance throughout the continent. The Congo River itself has enough potential hydroelectric power to supply the electrical needs of the whole continent. And the

continent still has abundant rainforests which have been described as the lungs of the world.

We as Congresspeople can no longer afford to ignore Africa or view it solely through the lens of disaster and peril. Yes, we cannot deny that there are serious health problems in Africa with HIV/AIDS and malaria leading the list. There is crushing poverty throughout the continent. Africans living on less than $1 a day now number over 315 million, according to a recent World Bank survey. Serious conflicts in the Congo, where not thousands, but millions have perished, and West Africa still plagues the continent and puts a serious drag on the development of human resources and capital.

We cannot afford to ignore Africa, because people are beginning to realize that failed states and crushing poverty are fertile breeding grounds for terrorists and criminal groups. We cannot afford to ignore Africa, because the world is smaller and more interconnected. From the war on terrorism to the supply of crucial resources, from the campaign against threatening diseases to the opportunities for economic trade and investment, Africa is a key global player. We cannot afford to ignore Africa, because we now ignore it, and if we continue to do it, it is at our own peril.

Africa really matters in many ways. Not all of the news coming out of Africa is gloomy. Trade and investments with Africa are growing. U.S. exports totaled over $5.8 billion last year, while U.S. imports were $18 billion. Nigeria alone is the fifth largest supplier of oil to the U.S. Despite appearances, Africa is more peaceful today than in the 1980s and the 1990s. Democracy is also taking root in many parts of Africa.

But Africa needs increased resources to deal with the multitude of problems. U.S. assistance to Africa has been stagnant for many years, and real development assistance to the continent is less than $500 million. Although total U.S. assistance to Africa may total about $2 billion, a large chunk of this is for humanitarian and health-related programs. Many programs, including the areas of agriculture, democracy, conflict resolution, trade, and investment have suffered from significant cutbacks. In short, Africa needs increased assistance if it truly is to be brought into the mainstream world economy.

The Congressional Black Caucus has been a staunch advocate and played a pivotal role in strengthening the cultural, political, and economic ties between Africa and the United States.

I am therefore concerned, but not surprised, that President Bush did not seek out the guidance and assistance of the CBC before making his sojourn to Africa. This is not surprising because, as our chairman recently noted, ``the President has declined all of our offers to meet with him since our last discussion of January 31, 2001.''

In closing, I want to make a few remarks on the President's proposal to send in U.S. peacekeepers to Liberia. First, I recognize the longstanding historical ties between the U.S. and Liberia. I do not believe it will be as difficult to win the hearts and minds of Liberians who are predisposed to look upon the U.S. with favor. I generally support the concept of a peacekeeping mission to Liberia. However, I believe that a U.S.-led peacekeeping mission should be placed under the auspices of the United Nations. The United States by itself cannot be the policeman of the world, and our forces are already spread thin by our other significant commitments around the world. Any U.S. action in Liberia will have greater credibility if they have the seal of approval of an international body.

We must also think through very carefully our commitment to place U.S. forces in Liberia. We must have a mission that is clearly defined, and we must have an exit plan that is articulated and understood by the American public. I also believe that any plan to introduce U.S. forces in Liberia should be subjected to serious congressional oversight and approval.

The devil is in the details. The administration must first clearly articulate its methods and goals before any U.S. troops are put on the ground.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Elijah Cummings, Chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, for once again holding this very timely and important discussion on Africa.

For the next week Africa will be page one news due to the President's trip to the continent. Then, once again, news on Africa will most likely recede to the back pages of our major newspapers and disappear. However, what many Americans don't realize is the increasing importance of Africa to the world and the United States.

Americans now import more than one quarter of their oil from the African continent. In the coming years, due to new major oil discoveries in the Gulf of Guinea off the west coast of Africa the percentage of African oil Americans consume will most likely rise. It will rise because there are quantities of untapped oil reserves on the continent, and it will rise because the U.S. realizes that oil from the Middle East can easily fall prey to the vagaries of war and politics.

Africa is so important to us, in part, because it is a continent rich in natural resources. Copper, diamonds, gold, and wood are all in abundance throughout the continent. The Congo River itself has enough potential hydroelectric power to supply the electrical needs of the whole continent. And the continent still has abundant rain forests, which have been described as the lungs of the world.

We as legislators can no longer afford to ignore Africa or view it solely through the lens of disaster and peril. Yes, we cannot deny that there are serious health problems in Africa with HIV/AIDS and malaria leading the list. There is crushing poverty throughout the continent. Africans living on less than a dollar a day now number over 315 million, according to a recent World Bank survey. Serious conflicts in the Congo--where not thousands but millions have perished--and West Africa still plague the continent and put a serious drag on the development of human resources and capital.

We cannot afford to ignore Africa because people are beginning to realize that failed states and crushing poverty are fertile breeding grounds for terrorist and criminal groups. We cannot afford to ignore Africa because the world is smaller and more interconnected. From the war on terrorism to the supply of crucial resources, from the campaign against threatening diseases to the opportunities for economic trade and investment, Africa is a key global player. We cannot afford to ignore Africa because we now ignore it at our own peril.

Africa matters in many ways. Not all the news coming out of Africa is gloomy. Trade and investments with Africa are growing. U.S. exports totaled over $5.8 billion last year, while U.S. imports were $18 billion. Nigeria alone is the fifth largest supplier of oil to the U.S. Despite appearances, Africa is more peaceful today than in the 1980s and 1990s. Democracy is also taking root in many parts of Africa.

But Africa needs increased resources to deal with the multitude of problems. U.S. assistance to Africa has been stagnant for many years, and real development assistance to the continent is less than $500 million. Although total U.S. assistance to Africa may total about $2 billion, a large chunk of this is for humanitarian and health related programs. Many programs--including in the areas of agriculture, democracy, conflict resolution, trade and investment--have suffered from significant cutbacks. In short, Africa needs increased assistance if it is truly to be brought into the mainstream world economy.

The Congressional Black Caucus has been a staunch advocate and played a pivotal role in strengthening the cultural, political and economic ties between Africa and the United States. I am therefore concerned, but not surprised, that President Bush did not seek out the guidance and assistance of the CBC before making his sojourn to Africa. This is not surprising because, as our chairman recently noted, ``The President has declined all of our offers to meet with him since our last discussion of January 31, 2001.''

In closing, I want to make a few remarks on the President's proposal to send in U.S. peacekeepers to Liberia. First, I recognize the longstanding historical ties between the U.S. and Liberia. I don't believe it will be as difficult to win the hearts and minds of Liberians who are predisposed to look upon the U.S. with favor. I generally support the concept of a peacekeeping mission to Liberia. However, I believe that a U.S.--led peacekeeping mission should be placed under the auspices of the United Nations. The United States by itself cannot be the policeman of the world, and our forces are already spread thin by our other significant commitments around the world. Any U.S. actions in Liberia will have greater credibility if they have the seal of approval of an international body.

We must also think through very carefully our commitment to place U.S. forces in Liberia. We must have a mission that is clearly defined, and we must have an exit plan that is articulated and understood by the American public. I also believe that any plan to introduce U.S. forces in Liberia should be subjected to serious congressional oversight and approval.

The Devil is in the details. The administration must first clearly articulate its methods and goals before any U.S. troops are put on the ground.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this sham Republican Medicare bill. That is why I wear my black arm band because it is the death of Medicare and it does not provide the adequate prescription drug coverage our mothers, grandmothers, sisters, and nieces deserve.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 313 I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I want to stress the importance of a health safety net that has worked for the American people. It is our duty to protect the seniors that have contributed to society over their lifetimes. Our older constituents have built or supported most of what America is today and we owe them respect. We owe them the safety net that is called Medicare.

I want Congress to know that not only is Medicare important for the American people, it is a huge issue for America's women. Women, indeed, are the face of Medicare. Women constitute 58 percent of the Medicare population at 65, and women constitute 71 percent of the Medicare population over the age of 85. Women can expect to live on the average 19 years into retirement, while men can only expect to live 15 years. We must take care of our mothers, our sisters, and our daughters. We can do no less.

Across the breadth of the United States, the older and the poorer the woman, the higher the out-of-pocket health costs. The more she needs assistance, the less she will actually receive. Because of barriers to enrollment, close to half of older women with incomes below the poverty line are not enrolled in Medicaid. Research suggests that women on Medicare spend 20 percent more on prescription drugs than their male counterparts. Middle class women who have made wise financial planning decisions, can quickly find that high drug costs will eat away any retirement security they have worked to establish.

Mr. Speaker, I want to give you some thoughts on cultural diversity in regards to women and Medicare. More minority women than Caucasian women are uninsured or rely on public rather than private health insurance. Minority women are more likely to have lower incomes and to live in poverty than other women. The percentage of women on Medicare with incomes of less than $10,000 a year is a very telling statistic. Twenty-four percent of white women, or 14.7 million; 56 percent of African women, and there are 1.8 million; and 58 percent of Latina women, and there are 1.2 million, live way below the poverty line. Clearly, not only should we strengthen the safety net but we should find out why so many women need that net.

So, Mr. Speaker, a health safety net for the American person is imperative. Our older constituents have built or supported most of what America is today, and we owe them a great amount of gratitude. They should go to bed each evening feeling secure that they have health benefits when they are needed. They should know that their benefits are universal and affordable.

What a shame, a shame, that our seniors have to leave the United States and go to Canada or Mexico, where the same prescription drugs, same ingredients, are much, much cheaper. We have seniors who are eating dog food rather than regular food because they have to pay the cost of these expensive drugs.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, these older Americans should be given a benefit that they can rely on, that they will know they can live a quality of life with respect rather than the one they would have to live if we whittle away at Medicare. Let us honor our seniors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my shock and sadness at the untimely passing of our dear friend, Maynard Jackson, former Mayor of Atlanta and one of our country's most charismatic political leaders. I also want to take this opportunity to remember Maynard's contribution to affirmative action on the day when the Supreme Court declared its support for the program.

Maynard was a giant of his time, a trailblazer and a dedicated public servant who became the inspiration for generations of African American politicians. His election in 1974 as the Mayor of Atlanta helped usher in a new movement of racial equality and a new process of interracial understanding and coexistence where the spirit of the civil rights movement was carried forward by victories at the ballot box.

Maynard will be remembered as the South's first big city African American mayor, but his legacy was much more than that. During his three terms as mayor, Maynard oversaw construction of the midfield terminal at Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport, established a cultural affairs department, brought the Olympics to Atlanta, and all the while gave voice to the city's in-town neighborhoods. Perhaps one of the most significant accomplishments of Maynard Jackson's tenure was his early support and leadership on affirmative action.

During his first term, Maynard instituted a groundbreaking affirmative action program that elevated the percentage of city contracts awarded to minorities in Atlanta from less than 1 percent in 1973 to 38.6 percent 5 years later.

One of the great success stories of Maynard's affirmative action program was the creation of a joint venture between white and minority- owned businesses during the construction of the Atlanta airport. Working from a vision of inclusion, Maynard was able to unite various groups and interests in building one of the most complex airport terminals in the world ahead of schedule and within the budget.

It is particularly ironic, then, that Maynard passed away on the day that the Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling. In two successive votes, the Justices recognized that the most effective way to cure society of its exclusionary practices is to make special efforts at inclusion, which is exactly what affirmative action does.

We will never forget him. He will have a legacy that will live on forever in the United States of America.

There has always been affirmative action in public policy--but for many years it operated to exclude, rather than include, people of color. Affirmative action was put in place to not only encourage diversity, but to be a minor step in the direction of justice after hundreds of years of institutional and social discrimination against women and people of color in the United States.

Much of the opposition to affirmative action is framed on the grounds of so-called ``reverse discrimination and unwarranted preferences.'' In fact, less than 2 percent of the 91,000 employment discrimination cases pending before the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission are reverse discrimination cases. Under the law as written in Executive Orders and interpreted by the courts, anyone benefitting from affirmative action must have relevant and valid job or educational qualifications.

Opponents of affirmative action also claim it is discriminatory. The problem with this myth is that it uses the same word--discrimination-- to describe two very different things. Job discrimination is grounded in prejudice and exclusion, whereas affirmative action is an effort to overcome prejudicial treatment through inclusion. The most effective way to cure society of exclusionary practices is to make special efforts at inclusion, which is exactly what affirmative action does. When thinking about affirmative action policy, it is important to keep this principle in mind.

In fact, despite the progress that has been made, the playing field today is still far from level. Women continue to earn 76 cents for every dollar earned by a male. Black people continue to have twice the unemployment rate of white people, and graduate from college at half the rate of white people. In fact, without affirmative action the percentage of Black students at many selective schools would drop to only 2% of the total student body.

While I applaud the Court's decision today, our society still suffers from racial discrimination. It is unfortunate that after all these years we are still fighting an uphill battle for full inclusion into our nation's society.

However, we are fortunate to have had the civil rights movement and leaders like Maynard Jackson. In remembering Maynard, we must carry on his legacy and his commitment to never waver from equality for all.

Mr. Speaker, I want to add my voice again to those who are lamenting the life well-lived, and the life just going into transition. It was Maynard Jackson, as my colleagues just heard, who had a vision of inclusion.

Maynard was able to unite various groups and interests in building one of the most complex airport terminals in the world ahead of schedule and within budget. And as I said before, it is particularly amazing that today was the day that Maynard Jackson transitioned and also the day the Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling.

In two successive votes, the Justices recognize that the most effective way to cure society of its exclusionary practices is to make special efforts to see that Americans are included, which is exactly what Maynard Jackson stood for when he mentioned the phrase ``affirmative action.'' It was first used in President Lyndon Johnson's 1965 executive order. In 1967 Johnson expanded the executive order to include affirmative action requirements to benefit women. The policy was significantly expanded in 1969 by President Richard Nixon and then- Secretary of Labor George Schultz.

In 1973 Maynard Jackson began his leadership in implementing these policies, which enabled Atlanta to become a true world class city. There has always been affirmative action in public policy; but for many years it fought to exclude, rather than include, people of color. Affirmative action was put in place to not only encourage diversity but to be a minor step in the direction of justice after hundreds of years of institutional and social discrimination against women and people of color in the United States of America. Much of the opposition to affirmative action is framed on the grounds of so-called reverse discrimination and unwarranted preferences. In fact, less than 2 percent of the 91,000 employment discrimination cases pending before the Equal Opportunity Commission are reverse discrimination cases.

Under the law as written, in executive orders and interpreted by the courts, anyone benefiting from affirmative action must have relevant and valid job or educational qualifications. Opponents of affirmative action also claim it is discriminatory. The problem with this myth is that it uses the same word, discrimination, to describe two very different things. Job discrimination is grounded in prejudice and exclusion; whereas, affirmative action is an effort to overcome prejudicial treatment through exclusion and to provide inclusion. The most effective way to cure society of exclusionary practices is to make special efforts at inclusion, which is exactly what affirmative action does.

When thinking about affirmative action policy, it is important to keep this principle in mind. In fact, despite the progress that has been made, the playing field today is still far from level. Women continue to earn 76 cents for every dollar earned by a male. Black people continue to have twice the unemployment rate of white people and graduate from college at half the rate of white people. In fact, without affirmative action, the percentage of black students at many selective schools would drop to only 2 percent of the total student body.

While I applaud the Court's decision today, our society still suffers from racial discrimination. And in the name of Maynard Jackson, we must carry on his legacy and his commitment to never waiver from equality for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my shock and sadness at the untimely passing of my dear friend Maynard Jackson--former Mayor of Atlanta and one of our country's most charismatic political leaders. I also want to take this opportunity to remember Maynard's contribution to affirmative action on the day when the Supreme Court declared its support for the program.

Maynard was a giant of his time, a trailblazer and a dedicated public servant who became the inspiration for generations of African American politicians. His election in 1974 as the Mayor of Atlanta helped usher in a new movement of racial equality and a new process of interracial understanding and co-existence where the spirit of the civil rights movement was carried forward by victories at the ballot boxes.

Maynard will be remembered as the South's first big-city African- American mayor, but his

legacy was much more than that. During his three terms as Mayor, Maynard oversaw construction of the midfield terminal at Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport, established a cultural affairs department, brought the Olympics to Atlanta, and all the while gave a voice to the city's in town neighborhoods.

Perhaps one of the most significant accomplishments of Maynard Jackson's tenure was his early support and leadership on affirmative action. During his first term, Maynard instituted a groundbreaking affirmative action program that elevated the percentage of city contracts awarded to minorities in Atlanta from less than 1 percent in 1973 to 38.6 percent five years later.

One of the great success stories of Maynard's affirmative action program was the creation of a ``joint venture'' between white and minority-owned businesses during the construction of the Atlanta airport. Working from a vision of inclusion, Maynard was able to unite various groups and interests in building one of the most complex airport terminals in the world ahead of schedule and within budget.

It is particularly ironic then that Maynard passed away on the day before the Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling. In two successive votes, the Justices recognized that the most effective way to cure society of exclusionary practices is to make special efforts at inclusion, which is exactly what affirmative action does.

The actual phrase ``affirmative action'' was first used in President Lyndon Johnson's 1965 Executive Order. In 1967, Johnson expanded the Executive Order to include affirmative action requirements to benefit women. The policy was significantly expanded in 1969 by President Richard Nixon and then Secretary of Labor George Schultz. In 1973, Maynard Jackson began his leadership in implementing these policies, which enabled Atlanta to become a world-class city.

There has always been affirmative action in public policy--but for many years it operated to exclude, rather than include, people of color. Affirmative action was put in place to not only encourage diversity, but to be a minor step in the direction of justice after hundreds of years of institutional and social discrimination against women and people of color in the United States.

Much of the opposition to affirmative action is framed on the grounds of so-called ``reverse discrimination and unwarranted preferences.'' In fact, less than 2 percent of the 91,000 employment discrimination cases pending before the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission are reverse discrimination cases. Under the law as written in Executive Orders and interpreted by the courts, anyone benefitting from affirmative action must have relevant and valid job or educational qualifications.

Opponents of affirmative action also claim it is discriminatory. The problem with this myth is that it uses the same word--discrimination-- to describe two very different things. Job discrimination is grounded in prejudice and exclusion, whereas affirmative action is an effort to overcome prejudicial treatment through inclusion. The most effective way to cure society of exclusionary practices is to make special efforts at inclusion, which is exactly what affirmative action does. When thinking about affirmative action policy, it is important to keep this principle in mind.

In fact, despite the progress that has been made, the playing field today is still far from level. Women continue to earn 76 cents for every dollar earned by a male. Black people continue to have twice the unemployment rate of white people, and graduate from college at half the rate of white people. In fact, without affirmative action the percentage of Black students at many selective schools would drop to only 2 percent of the total student body.

While I applaud the Court's decision today, our society stiff suffers from racial discrimination. It is unfortunate that after all these years we are still fighting an uphill battle for full inclusion into our Nation's society.

However, we are fortunate to have had the civil rights movement and leaders like Maynard Jackson. In remembering Maynard, we must carry on his legacy and his commitment to never waver from equality for all.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address my concerns about H.R. 2210, the School Readiness Act. The major changes and new requirements under title II and title I will damage the integrity and efficacy of the program. This overhaul reverses the precedence in achievement that was created by the No Child Left Behind Act. NCLB seeks to close the achievement gap through stronger standards and stronger Federal oversight. H.R. 2210 attempts to reach the same solution by eliminating standards and oversight.

Title I serves to weaken the performance standards of the current Head Start program. States will be able to lower teacher standards. H.R. 2210 decreases the percentage of funds reserved for training and technical assistance from no less than 2 percent to 1 to 2 percent. The bill requires minimal parental involvement. Head Start will become disassociated with the Department of Health and Human Services.

A process of contracting out monitoring programs strikes the requirement that HHS oversee Head Start. The block grant encourages States to refer families to outside services for assistance that was once under the jurisdiction of HHS. This nullifies the 13 areas of Head Start performance standards that maintain the program's high level of quality. Under this legislation, the Secretary approves applications from States that meet the loose eligibility criteria by default. In essence there is no oversight or evaluation of the quality of the State plan.

Mr. Speaker, since its inception under the guise of HHS, Head Start was designed to help the whole child. Current service offered through HHS cannot be carried out as effectively with minimum input by the Department.

Above all, States will be forced to reduce the overall number of Head Start children served. States have already been forced to cut early childhood education programs outside of Head Start due to the budget crunch. The block grant allows States to use Head Start funds to supplement other Federal programs. Governors may be able to use this money to cover budget deficits in their States. In California, that receives over $800 million for Head Start, at the same time there is a $38 billion budget deficit. With the block grant proposal, my State has the option to use $800 million to close this budgetary gap.

Changing the funding formula to block grants, under title II, creates a daunting scenario for the Head Start program. The four eligibility requirements under title II do not address quality or expertise. The legislation requires the bare minimum of States: an existing prekindergarten system, standards for school readiness, allocating no less than 50 percent of funds to grantees and their interagency coordination. All 50 States meet these requirements, but too few provide the quality level of services.

At present only three States provide all the services needed to get at-risk children ready to learn. These States provide the same set of eight comprehensive services required of Head Start through state-run prekindergarten programs.

Mr. Speaker, 30 States have such programs; yet only three are able to meet the standards that they created in order to prepare our children for success in school.

Now we want to give all 50 States this responsibility, knowing full well that these States have not proven that they are able to do so. This will be a great disservice to our Nation's youth. We must make better investments in our children and our future instead of stuffing the pockets of millionaires. An investment in our children equals an investment in our Nation's strength, in our Nation's security, and in the future.

The economic plans and the focus of the administration must be balanced between future consequences and immediate gain. We must also continue to keep the facts at the front of the debate so that the administration and Congress can make policy decisions based on the facts rather than on misguided interpretations and subjective judgments.

Since 1965, Head Start has been one of the most successful anti- poverty programs. According to a recent report of the President's Management Council, Head Start received the highest consumer satisfaction rating of any government agency or private business.

The program has helped millions of children prepare for school, become productive students and improve the quality of their lives. The current program narrows the readiness gap between Head Start children and their more affluent peers. Almost 70 percent of children enrolled in Head Start programs are from minority groups. One-third of these students are African Americans. Over 34,000 migrant and seasonal workers' children are served annually.

Improving Head Start can be done without this major overhaul. As in the past, improvement can be done under the existing structure.

Mr. Speaker, in 1998 Head Start supporters sought to ensure that at least 50 percent of all Head Start teachers acquire an associate of arts degree or better by the year 2003. The program has met this goal. The HeadsUp! Reading Network was established to train Head Start and other early childhood teachers across the Nation. These are improvements that we hope to establish through the No Child Left Behind Act. We have not yet met these goals, but Head Start has met its goals internally.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to maintain Head Start as it is. It is the duty of Congress to protect the current and the future security of our Nation. We must continue to help the children of migrant workers, at-risk youth, and their parents. By supporting Head Start in its current form, we will be doing just that.

We have a $38.5 billion deficit.

Certainly one would be tempted to fill in the gap. Because of our shortfall in funds and because of the oncoming tax cut, we will have fewer revenues and we will find programs like health competing against educational programs, and I do not know how they can be separated, and other social programs that are the safety net. You have to be compelled in some way when you have some money coming in to close the gap here and close the gap there. They are not going to be closed because they are too deep, but to address the needs with these funds intended for the Head Start program.

Head Start is needed now more so than ever. With the new TANF requirements, you as a welfare recipient have to go back to work when the child is 6 months old. That means you are not in the home from zero to 5 to help nurture that child and teach them because you are working, and you are working a full day. So we need Head Start now so children can be ready to learn when they go to kindergarten, simple things like tying one's shoe, buttoning one's jacket, being able to share and work with others, those things that were done in the home that will no longer be able to be done in the home because one parent has to go to work, and these are single-parent families so they do not have the time to train their child.

Head Start was created during the War on Poverty during the 1960s. It was the best thing we did to close the safety net. Why would we take a program which has had such successful outcomes, and these can be measured, and start whittling it away? I do not understand the thinking. It will cost us less in the long run to have a Head Start program and not a block grant in every State.

The research clearly shows if you invest in the early years, there will be more of a guarantee of success in the later years.