Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding. We will take the gentleman up on that offer. The gentleman and I co- chaired a briefing here on the Hill back a few years ago. It was a pleasure to join the gentleman then, and we look forward to joining him in the spring.

Mr. Speaker, when the President first announced the $15 billion in his State of the Union address, yes, we were very surprised. It sounded almost too good to be true. But we knew that at least our voices had been heard. The caucus and faith-based groups around the country, with the AIDS community, had long been calling on our President to provide the funding needed for global AIDS, and we thought initially that perhaps our requests and our pleas had been answered.

But it was almost too good to be true. And I know the next day I joined the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) and others at a press conference, where we said, yes, we appreciate the fact that the President was reaching out and did appear to be responding, but we had many questions about what the $15 billion really meant.

At that time I asked several questions: What might have been some of the restrictions placed on that money? Where would it have come from? Was this new money or was it going to be taken from other important programs? And today, as I stand here, I can tell you that there are restrictions, and, yes, it did come from other important programs, and that very little of it was really new money. Not only that, but the money is coming over a long period of time. The public health effort that we need now demands an infusion of a large amount of funding now.

As I said, the CBC has been pushing for more funding on this issue for many, many, many years. Currently there are 29.4 million infected people, with 3.5 million Africans were newly infected just last year.

There were 3.5 million new infections. Despite the President's commitment to fighting HIV/AIDS at $15 billion over 5 years, $10 billion of which may or may not be new funds, we are really disappointed by the size of the budget request for 2004. Based on a budget analysis of this fiscal year 2004 budget request compared with the fiscal year 2003 omnibus bill, the President is barely providing $380 million in additional funding this year. Rather, as I said, the administration is taking away nearly $80 million from the USAID infectious disease program, and reducing our contributions to the Global Fund by $200 million from projected fiscal year 2003 levels.

Also, when we look at the President's commitment to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, for which he has only designated $1 billion over the next 5 years, or $200 million per year, the Global Fund is a public-private partnership. It is an efficient, accountable, results-oriented mechanism for responding to these three killer diseases: AIDS, TB, and malaria. It is an innovative fund, and it operates under a technically rigorous and efficient process.

Just last week, I read that I think it was Malawi had requested some funds, and those funds were not released because certain requirements had not been met. I think the Government of Malawi wanted to put the funds in a general account, so the funds were not released until Malawi made the alterations in their plans. That demonstrates the kind of oversight that the Global Fund does have and why it is so important, because of the way in which this funding is provided to the countries through a coordinated partnership coming from within that country, a community-based approach that knows where those funds are needed and can best apply those funds to the problem. This is the best place that the funds should be provided; and as I said, they should be provided up front.

I also said at the time that I would have felt a lot more confident in the $15 billion if I had also heard that the U.N. population funds had been released; because, again, I had a lot of concern about were these funds actually going to be available. Later on, the President did say that he was going to take on some measures that would release these funds; but again, we read that they are going to be tied to whether abortion counseling is given.

In many countries that need these funds, countries where HIV/AIDS is rampant, these are sometimes the only or the first line of defense for women, particularly, but men also, in terms of protecting themselves and getting the kind of information and counseling that they need to prevent HIV and AIDS.

We had what we thought might have been good news just a couple of weeks ago about a vaccine, but we are very far off from a vaccine today. So prevention remains the best way to address this disease, and the U.N. population funds do provide that kind of prevention. We need to release those funds.

We heard our colleague, the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), talk about the Mexico City language, the gag rule. These funds are needed. They are part of the process. We need to have them released.

I also said at that time that I would have felt more confidence in the announcement of the funding if there had also been a concurrent announcement that the United States was going to support the release of the funds for Haiti.

Haiti is one of those countries that is in the first round of the Global Trust Fund funding, the awards. But if they do not have the infrastructure in place, if they do not have the concurrent funding to have the health care infrastructure in place, those funds will not be able to be as effective as they would be otherwise. So in the absence of all of the other measures that need to be in place, the commitment, despite the pronouncement of $15 billion for global HIV and AIDS, still does not live up to the promise that we heard in late January during the President's State of the Union address.

So I would call on the President and call on my colleagues to urge our President and to urge this administration to provide the level of funding; and I believe it should be somewhere in the area of, is it $2 billion each year? And because the fund is now underfunded and will probably run out of funds after the second round, really, a country such as ours should be able to provide even more than this, since we have not funded it to our total amount over the last couple of years.

Certainly $2.2 billion should come from our country. It will encourage other countries to increase their contributions to this fund. It is just not right for us to offer this promise of a global trust fund to allow them to give to three or four countries in the first round and several countries in the second round, and then to find that the funds have run out.

Already, the Caribbean countries have been asked to cut back on their projected requests. They have had to cut that in half. We heard when we were in Barcelona that if we continue to address this pandemic with dribs and drabs of funding, with the same lack of commitment that we have seen over the past 20 years, that the numbers will double and quadruple, hundreds of thousands of people will become infected, and we will experience many more deaths, not only overseas but here at home, as well.

So again, I am calling on the President and asking our colleagues for their support in providing the kind of funding that is needed to fight this global AIDS pandemic.

Mr. Chairman, the issue of human cloning is one that understandably causes grave concern and often heated opposition. But we in our position as leaders have the responsibility not only to ensure that this developing and promising technology that can revolutionize the art of healing, is not used for nefarious purposes, but to also educate and inform the public on the issue.

Today I rise in support of H.R. 801, the Greenwood-Deutsch Cloning Prohibition Act of 2003, because it makes the critical distinctions and provides the hope that the people of this country are looking for. We don't ever want to clone human beings, but we do want to use the technology termed, ``human somatic cell transfer'' as the vital tool it is, to allow scientists to fully develop the wonderful promise of stem cell research.

I applaud my colleagues for their leadership in bringing this alternative bill forward. It should be the primary, and really the one bill before us today.

As a physician I look forward to the day when we can cure diseases such as sickle cell disease, make the quadriplegic walk again, and successfully treat or reverse so many other diseases for which this was still an impossible dream I was in practice.

To pass H.R. 534 would not only cost our nation its standing as the world leader in health technology, but passing that base bill would kill this dream, and with it the hope of life and health for countless of our constituents.

Let's not do that, vote instead for the Greenwood/Deutsch/DeGette/ Eschoo substitute.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4 and in support of the Kucinich amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Welfare Reform Bill on the floor today, and in support of the Kucinich amendment.

First I object to the process, and will object every time the Republican leadership brings a bill to the floor without committee hearings, mark-ups and outside of the regular order. This is an affront not just to those of us who serve on this side of the aisle, it is a denial of the rights of those who sent us here to represent their interests, and it is a repudiation of the Democratic process. The process does a disservice to all of us.

Second, I oppose it because of what it contains. I would imagine that is why it is being forced to the floor in this manner. It could not be brought into the daylight.

This bill forces persons out of a system that helps them to care for themselves and their families, into an economy that has no jobs to go to, and without the benefit of childcare or other supportive services. Not only would this force women and children further into poverty and all the ills that it brings, it would further tax the states who are already feeling the pressure of Medicaid and other cuts. Why is this body waging a war against poor folks. Where is the compassion in the conservatism.

Why does this bill increase the work requirement. Why does it not allow education and training to count towards this requirement. Why are we not providing for the care of the children of the mothers who are in training or at work. Why does this bill not provide equity for the Americans living in the Territories.

Mr. Chairman, although the U.S. territories, Guam, Puerto Rico and my district, the U.S. Virgin Islands are required to meet all of the TANF requirements, they do not have access to all the tools that other jurisdictions have to successfully move people from welfare to work.

The territories are island jurisdictions where the ability to move from one jurisdiction to another in search of work is prohibitive and as a consequence, in the Virgin Islands, while our welfare rolls have been lowered, our failure to meet the work participation rates have resulted in fines. And this in the face of the fact that we don't receive Supplemental Grant funds even though our average dollars per person is extremely low and we don't receive Contingency Funds even though we have experienced economic downturns and high unemployment.

This is why Ms. Madeleine Bordallo of Guam and I have joined Mr. Avevedo-Vila Acevedo of Puerto Rico in supporting the Democratic Substitute which makes our territories eligible for the Supplemental, Contingency and Child Care Block Grant programs. This funding is available to the states and gives them more resources to move people from welfare to work.

Again where is the compassion.

The base bill, H.R. 4 is a terrible bill, it hurts those in need and it offers no help. This body should not pass it.

Mr. Chairman and colleagues, people who have needed the help Welfare/ TANF offers want to work and they need our help. Mr. Chairman, in honor of the memory of Congresswoman Patsy Mink, and of her years of distinguished service to this body and to mankind, and to really reform Welfare so that it helps to raise people out of poverty, we need to pass the substitute named in her honor.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to re-introduce H.R. 5133, the ``Teacher Recruitment Act of 2003'' to expand the eligibility of individuals to qualify for loan forgiveness for teachers in order to provide additional incentives for teachers currently employed or seeking employment in economically depressed rural areas, Territories, and Indian Reservations.

Rural and small town schools educate a significant number of America's students. Nearly forty percent of America's school-age children attend public schools in rural areas or small towns with populations of less than 25,000. Forty-nine percent of the nation's public schools are located in rural areas and small towns and 41 percent of public school educators teach in rural community schools. Rural school districts are often the largest single employer in their area and rural schools serve as the social, recreational, and cultural foundation of their communities.

Although rural and small schools educate nearly 40 percent of America's students, they receive less than 25 percent of the total federal, state, and local spending on public education. Rural and small schools tend to be located in areas with low property values and few industries, making it more difficult to raise additional revenues. Additionally, because federal grants are awarded based upon student population, rural districts often receive insufficient grant funds to accomplish the stated purpose.

Rural schools face formidable challenges in recruiting and retaining quality teachers. Compared with teachers in central city schools and urban schools, rural teachers tend to be less educated, slightly less experienced, younger, and less likely to belong to a minority group. Chronically low salaries and benefits exacerbate the difficulty in attracting quality teachers to rural and small town schools. For example, in the district that I represent, the U.S. Virgin Islands, teachers have not received a substantial raise in over seven years to offset the rising cost of living. There has been no state subsidized programs towards teacher certification, advance education, or teacher training. Adding to the need to expand the Teacher Loan Forgiveness program is the lack of substantive incentives on the local level to incite teacher recruitment and retention within and outside of the rural communities. Similarly, there are many challenges associated with preparing teachers to work with Native American children and parents, and often teachers have not been properly prepared to address these challenges. Consequently, teachers who are less than qualified are working on American Indian reservations, and the retention of qualified teachers remains a challenge.

If ``The Leave No Child Behind Act'' is truly meant to reform our nation's education, we need to pass legislation that adequately addresses the deficiencies in our educational system. To effectively implement the provisions of ``The Leave No Child Behind Act,'' we must attract and keep quality teachers. The American Federation, which represents of 1.2 million members, has urged the support and passage of amendments to expand eligibility for loan forgiveness to those who are teaching in schools in need of improvement, as defined in ``The No Child Left Behind Act.'' The ``Teacher Recruitment Act of 2003'' would expand the eligibility of individuals to qualify for loan forgiveness for teachers beyond that available under section 428J of the Higher Education Act by providing additional incentives for such individuals to teach in economically disadvantaged or depressed and underserved rural areas. Under this bill, teachers may qualify for up to 100 percent student loan forgiveness. The ``Teacher Recruitment Act of 2003'' is a good step toward the continuing challenge of recruiting and retaining teachers in rural areas and I urge its passage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to re-introduce legislation which continues to be the highest health care priority for the more than 4 million residents of our country's off-shore areas--the elimination of the cap on Medicaid payments to the U.S. Territories and Commonwealths.

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, it saddens me as a physician, to report to you once again that our fellow indigent Americans living in American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands who qualify for Medicaid, receive less than adequate health care because the amount of federal Medicaid dollars we receive falls far short of meeting their needs. Because we face depressed economies with high unemployment rates, as well as, a growing indigent population, the ever-increasing cost of health care coupled with the federal cap means that our local governments have to bear a significantly greater cost of the Medicaid program than their counterparts in the states. This means, that for the bare bones Medicaid program in the Virgin Islands, the federal government contributed only $5.59 million of the $14,394 in fiscal year 2000 total cost of the program. In Guam, the local government spent three times more than the $5.4 million they received from the federal government to run their Medicaid program also in fiscal year 2000.

Mr. Speaker, this is my fourth term as a member of the House of Representatives. Every year I have been here, fighting to eliminate the cap on Medicaid for the insular areas has never been far from my focus.

Since becoming Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus Health Braintrust, I have garnered the support of my fellow Caucus members in calling attention to this problem and have made lifting the Medicaid cap for the off-shore areas a central item in the CBC's overall health care agenda. I thank my colleagues for the support they have given me on this issue.

In 1997, we were successful with the help of the previous administration to secure important increases in our cap for which we were grateful but that was almost five years ago and the problems have gotten worse not better.

It is time that our country ends this inequity and, in this one area--health care--treat all Americans alike, whether they live in a state or not. We must end the practice of residents of the territories and commonwealths having to leave their homes to seek more and better health care services on the mainland, often splitting-up families all because our Medicaid program is under-funded and our local governments can't afford to pay the difference.

Mr. Speaker President Bush recently announced a proposal to modify and improve the way Medicaid works in the states. My colleagues from the off-shore areas and I look forward to working with the President, Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson as well as every member of this body to impress upon all of you the urgent need to end this unequal treatment of health care funding for the American citizens living in the territories and Commonwealths.

I urge my colleagues to join my cosponsors and I in supporting this bill. All Americans deserve the same health care program that their government provides, regardless of where in the country they happen to live.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

As amazing as it is, the words of the distinguished African American scholar, Dr. W.E.B. Dubois, resound as loudly today as they did when he first wrote them more than 100 years ago. How appropriate and on target are his words as he remarks on the lack of health care for African American at that time and as we compare them to our situation today.

I want to take the liberty, though, of focusing on his treatise on the ``Philadelphia Negro'' because in chapter 10 we see in his description a clear indictment of this Nation's health care system as it existed in the African American experience. One hundred years ago, and shamefully still today it has been bereft of both health and care. In short, while there have been some advances in the last 100 years, on the whole, nothing has changed.

Several recent surveys, for example, clearly show that the general public even today thinks that health status and access to care is equal among all population groups. In this, we echo what Dubois wrote over 100 years ago that ``the fact of high death rates and other signs of neglect of the laws of physical health have not yet been apprehended by the general public,'' he wrote. After a wealth of articles and scientific and lay journals, reports commissioned by this body and with the Congressional Black Caucus and other organizations representing people of color giving voice to the inequities in health at every opportunity, my question is, is anyone listening?

Infant mortality in our community is 2.3 times more than in those of our white counterparts. AIDS affects African American eight times more than it does whites. Death rates from heart disease are 30 percent higher in blacks. Our incidence of diabetes is more than twice as much as in the white population. The black male has the lowest life expectancy of any population group in our country, and in our hemisphere only men in Haiti have a lower life expectancy than those in our Nation's Capital.

The chapter on Negro health also focuses on the lack of reliable or complete statistics, which is still an issue that is very relevant today. Just last week we cosponsored a Hill briefing on the Institute of Medicine's report on public health for the 21st century. In that briefing, the importance of collecting accurate data for minorities and using this data to build research, treatment, and prevention infrastructures was stressed. It is essential if we are ever to close the gaps in health status, as we must, that we collect and analyze important data on race, ethnicity, and other socioeconomic factors that are relevant or cause them.

Dubois also spoke of poor health infrastructure, as he termed it, ``the lack of nearly all measures to prevent the spread of disease.'' This is the state still of our deteriorating health care infrastructure in our community and many rural communities. A chilling thought in days such as these, where we are on high alert for a chemical or biological terrorist attack. If our communities are not prepared to protect our residents and respond to any such attack on their behalf, then no one is prepared and no one can be protected.

We in this caucus recognize, as Dubois did back then, that health does not exist in an unhealthy environment, and our Congressional Black Caucus agenda reflects that. ``Broadly speaking,'' he wrote, ``the Negro, as a class, dwell in the most unhealthful parts of the city'' and have ``a large degree of poverty.'' We still have the lowest income levels, the highest unemployment, and many of us still live near toxic sites.

But the most compelling statement in that chapter in the Philadelphia Negro, which I would ask us all to contemplate as we go through yet another term, another budget process in the face of these glaring disparities in health is this:

Dr. Dubois wrote: ``The most difficult social problem in the matter of Negro health is the peculiar attitude of the Nation toward the well- being of the race. There have, for instance, been few other cases in the history of civilized people where human suffering has been viewed with such peculiar indifference.''

Given the many deaths caused by the lack of health insurance in this, the last industrialized nation that does not guarantee health care to its residents, given the cuts or level funding of programs designed to address our health care deficiencies, the refusal of the department and this body to target dollars to build capacity in our, the most affected, communities, the movement to remove the words ``minority'' and ``disparity'' from the health lexicon, and the failure to respond adequately to the recommendations of several Institute of Medicine reports on the inequities of health care among people of color and those who speak different languages in this country, I think it is appropriate for us to ask ourselves the question whether this attitude has indeed ever changed in the more than 100 years since those words were written.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 141 to improve the calculation of Federal subsidy rate with respect to 7(a) loans.

The 7(a) loan program is one of the two Small Business Administration's primary lending programs and is a major source of capital for our nation's small businesses. Lending through the SBA loan programs currently represents 40-percent of all small business lending. Last year, the SBA lent a record 20 billion dollars of which 12 billion was in the 7(a) loan program.

While Congress fights to increase appropriations for the 7(a) program, our efforts are frustrated by a miscalculated subsidy rate. It is estimated that since 1995, 7(a) lenders and borrowers have over paid by some $400 million plus dollars for using the program. This overcharging is simply another name for small business tax. Passage of S. 141 will be the first step in correcting the SBA lending problems plaguing our nation's small businesses. This legislation would force the Administration to use a subsidy rate model that accurately reflects the cost of the small business loan programs to the taxpayer. The change will provide immediate relief for entrepreneurs in search of capital to finance and expand their companies.

I urge the passage of S. 141.