Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with you the inspirational message of a perceptive eighth grader, Tess Spinola, winner of the Disabled American Veterans Auxiliary (DAVA) annual State Essay Contest. The contest, which began in 1948, was held throughout the East Bay Area of San Francisco. This year's question was ``What does Americanism mean to me?'' Tess attends St. Joseph's Elementary School in Alameda, CA in my district.

Founded on March 5, 1947, the Oakland Unit (#7) Auxiliary of DAVA brought together wives, sisters, daughters and mothers of those injured or disabled during wartime. The group of women decided at that time to dedicate their efforts to give back to the nation in a variety of ways. They work with local youth to bring more of America's young people to community service. Not all their work is purely organization, of course. DAVA created 100 baby quilts and gave them to nearby Highland Hospital, along with hand-made wheelchair bags and lap ropes for veterans. A few women in the Oakland Unit put on a party for people with Alzheimer's disease; others chair an Olympics for those with disabilities. In the words of Eva Mae Perakis, past state commander, ``Our main purpose is to stimulate patriotism in the country and bring joy and awareness to the community.''

Ms. Perakis described the essay contest as ``overwhelmingly heart- warming.'' She said she receives letters from students who said it enriched their young lives to study and learn about veterans. ``They realize they didn't really appreciate those freedoms they took for granted,'' she noted. Ms. Perakis also noted that the essays have ``touched a few adult hearts as well.''

``The contest causes our children to think and investigate inside themselves,'' Ms. Perakis said. ``It's good for their minds. We're just trying to make our young students aware of what freedom really means. We hope they get that awareness as they write.'' Mr. Speaker, we all know that our children represent the future, and that someday they will be running this great country of ours. But, their impact frequently comes much before their maturation to

adulthood. As any parent can tell you, today's youth has a knack for giving us adults a few important lessons. Tess Spinola's essay does just that.

What Does Americanism Mean To Me?

(By Tess Spinola)

Americanism is such a powerful word with so many meanings.

It is the equivalent of struggles, worries, doubts and fears,

that all led, eventually, to astounding triumphs that define

who we are, and the country we live in. It is the feeling of

freedom as we lay our hands over our hearts and pledge to the

flag; a flag that symbolizes the blood, sweat, and tears of

Americans in the past, present and future; it is the pride

and patriotism that only an American can truly understand.

Most importantly, Americanism means something different

for each of us.

Americanism means Victory to me; it means the success in

the quest for independence by the Colonist in the

Revolutionary War, symbolizing that America and its citizens

are people that will fight to the end, and will prevail in

the darkest of situations. Americanism, to me, also means

Freedom. It is the heart and passion of the Northern states

in the Civil War, fighting for four years for the freedom of

their African American brothers and sisters. It means Unity

to me, because when joined together as one, we are

unstoppable. More recently, and for the first time,

Americanism means Compassion for me. It is the New York fire

fighters, encased in the ash, smoke, fire and despair, as the

Trade Centers were minutes from crumbling to the ground. It

is the moments that they climbed up those smoky stairs,

risking their lives just for the hope that they could save

the life of another. It is the way that Americans have shaken

off the September 11th attacks and helped each other

recuperate; turning defeat into a lesson we will learn from

and grow because of for the rest of our lives. Americanism is

a word and a meaning shared throughout our country, by

everyone, yet it is also something very personal for me.

When I walk into my Catholic Church, and I am able to take

Communion, and have a relationship with God in my own way, I

know what Americanism means. When I leave the Basilica that

day, and go to friend's house that is a Jew, or a Baptist, or

one that has no religion at all, I know what Americanism

means. When I am allowed to enjoy the Diversity surrounding

me everywhere I go, and love all people I meet as my equal,

Americanism has its most profound meaning for me. To be an

American is to be a person of God, accepting, acknowledging,

respecting and loving all people. It is what we have fought

through, what we have strived for, what we are still fighting

for in many ways, and what we have the chance to live

everyday of our lives.

Yet, Americanism, like anything, also means Change and

Growth. Not only do we acknowledge that we need to change and

grow in many ways, but we strive toward it everyday of our

lives. We look forward to once again realizing our faults,

defeating them, and growing because of them. Americanism is

not represented for me through the war we may be going into

with Iraq; in fact the war is America turning its back on

everything we stand for. But it does mean to me the hundreds

of people lining up to protest the war in San Francisco.

These people know what Americanism means; freedom and right

to protest, which is something that seems like such a basic

right, but in reality, was fought for and earned by our

founding fathers. These people are living out what we have

fought for throughout our country's entire history, and when

I see them on the front page newspaper, I know why I am proud

to be an American.

In short, Americanism means Victory, Freedom, Unity,

Compassion, Diversity, Change, and Growth. It is the triumph

and the pride in the tears that run down the cheeks of

America's citizens as they hold their hands to their hearts

and ponder for what seems like the first time, every time,

the meaning of their National Anthem. It is alive in each and

every one of us, and we must strive to be a real American

everyday; the sum of what we have fought for, and what we

have learned. As I watch people of all races, nationalities,

religions and histories live together as equals, as I gaze at

our flag, waving in the cool air of a young sunny day, as I

observe the sparks of fireworks on the Fourth of July,

bursting triumphantly and fluttering back to the ground in a

glowing sparkle, I know what Americanism means to me. What

does it mean to you?

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this unpatriotic and anti-democratic District of Columbia appropriations bill

(H.R. 2765), and in favor of Delegate Norton's amendment to remove the school voucher program.

As the former Chairman for the Committee for the District of Columbia, I am disappointed that Republican Members are again carrying out their annual assault to force their extremist right wing policies on the District of Columbia--policies that are so extreme that they are unable to implement them nationwide.

I would like to remind the sponsors of this bill that the citizens of the District of Columbia do not want a school voucher program. That is why their elected representative, Delegate Norton, is offering her amendment to strike this program today. I guess representative democracy is okay for the citizens of Iraq, but not for the citizens of our Nation's capital.

School vouchers do not solve the problems confronting our public schools. At best, private schools can only accommodate a small portion of students' educational needs in the District of Columbia. Nor will private schools--even with limited government financial assistance-- ever be affordable to most families. It's simple, if enacted, this voucher program will mean fewer resources for the District's public schools. The $10 million for vouchers today would be far better used to improve the District of Columbia public school system, helping all children in our Nation's capital--not just a privileged few.

The Republicans have not stopped at subverting democracy in the District of Columbia with their school voucher program. They are also prohibiting the city from implementing a locally approved ballot initiative to allow the medical use of marijuana by DC residents suffering debilitating health conditions and diseases including cancer and HIV infection. In addition, the Republican bill maintains the current prohibition on the use of Federal or local funds for needle exchange programs in the District. Finally, the Republican bill prohibits the District from using Federal or local funds for abortions, except to save the life of the woman or in cases of rape or incest.

Like their foreign policy, the Republicans only support democracy in this country when it suits their extremist right wing ideology. The District of Columbia has an elected government that should be able to determine the laws for its residents--just like every state in our Nation determines its own laws. It is past time for Congress to respect the rights of the citizens of the District of Columbia and uphold democratic principles that this country was built upon.

I urge my colleagues to join me--and support democracy--by voting against the District of Columbia appropriations bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a group of my colleagues to introduce the Fair Trade Coffee Resolution. This resolution calls on the Legislative Branch and the Executive Agencies of the Federal Government to make fair trade coffee available at their events and food service venues. It also directs the Congress to provide information to the public about Fair Trade coffee. Last year, the House of Representatives passed H. Res 604, recommending that the Congress adopt a global strategy for resolving the coffee crisis. Since then we have not taken any legislative steps to do what we recommended. This small piece of legislation requires very little on our part and yet would promote efforts to give a decent standard of living to small coffee farmers around the world.

The current coffee crisis has driven coffee prices down to a hundred year low. On top of that, small farmers are at the mercy of ruthless middlemen and are not even receiving the fair market price. These middlemen take advantage of small farmers who have no other

way to sell their coffee. Millions of small farmers are cheated out of their fair share of income as they receive as little as 1 percent of the final retail price of their coffee. This meager price is nowhere near enough to support their families and their communities. Instead of having enough money to spend on food, education and health care, coffee farmers are being thrust into a cycle of debt and poverty. The situation is so bad that some farmers have turned to producing cocaine and opium to support their families while others have given up in despair and even committed suicide.

As a major purchaser of coffee, the United States has a responsibility to ensure that small coffee farmers are being adequately compensated for their work. And here in Congress we should do our part to ensure that we pay a fair price for the coffee that is purchased for our own use. If companies like Starbucks and Dunkin' Donuts can successfully offer fair trade coffee in their stores, there is absolutely no reason why the federal government cannot do so as well. While fair trade coffee is already served in some of the House of Representatives cafeterias we need to do more to send a signal to the rest of the country.

The fair trade economic model is a unique way of providing small farmers with a living wage that has been proven to work. Coffee is fair trade certified when: (1) Coffee importers agree to purchase from small farmers included on the international trade register; (2) farmers are guaranteed a minimum ``fair trade price'' of $1.26 per pound for their coffee; (3) coffee importers provide a certain amount of credit to farmers against future sales to help the farmers stay out of debt to middlemen; (4) importers and roasters agree to develop long term relationships with producer groups that cut out the coffee middlemen.

Small farmers are certified to be producing fair trade coffee if they are organized into democratic cooperatives and use environmentally friendly and sustainable growing methods.

The development of these criteria has made the fair trade economic model a viable solution to the coffee crisis. Both major coffee trade associations, the National Coffee Association of U.S.A. and the Specialty Coffee Association of America have recognized this fact. So have numerous universities around our nation. UC Berkeley, Harvard and many others have already enacted policies promoting the sale of fair trade coffee on their campuses. It is time that Congress recognized that fair trade coffee is one step in solving the humanitarian emergency caused by the coffee crisis.

By providing $1.26 per pound for coffee, fair trade certification provides small farmers with enough money to sustain their families and be able to contribute to their communities. Furthermore, by cutting out the middlemen, the price of fair trade coffee for consumers is the same as any other specialty brand of coffee. Besides being comparable in cost to other specialty coffee it is also comparable in taste. Fair trade coffees from all over the world have won awards such as Food & Wine Magazine's ``Best Coffee'' award and 1st place in the Greater Philadelphia Tourism Board's Blind Coffee Tasting for 2002 competition. With comparable cost and taste compared to other coffee, it is hard to justify not purchasing fair trade coffee. Seeing how there is more than 165 million pounds of fair trade coffee being produced and only 35 million pounds being sold, there is plenty of it. All that needs to be done is to create an awareness of the benefits of fair trade coffee among the public and this resolution does exactly that.

This resolution sends an important message to the American public about the willingness of our Federal Government to aid poverty stricken farmers in other countries. We set an example for the rest of the country to follow by recommending that the Legislative Branch and the Executive Agencies make fair trade coffee available for all events and at all our government food service venues. Taking this small step on our part can go a long way toward helping thousands of small coffee farmers around the world. I urge my colleagues to support passage of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and in doing so rise in opposition to 2738, the U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement implementing the Act. And not only do I speak on behalf of numerous Members who oppose this, but I also speak on behalf of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the AFL-CIO, the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, United Auto Workers, United Steelworkers of America, the UNITE, the needle trades, and the Machinists Union, all of whom strongly oppose the Singapore and Chile Free Trade Agreements, and it will soon become apparent why they oppose it.

These agreements are notable for their lack of labor rights enforcement language and, for the first time, the addition of a permanent work visa program for a violation of a guest laborer organization that invites foreign workers to come to this country under specialized visa programs, and these agreements are a template for future trade agreements and are sufficient reason to oppose both agreements and the implementing legislation.

American workers have suffered too many job losses for the sake of free trade, for the sake of giving huge tax cuts to the richest Americans, and they have suffered, the children and education and health care in this country, as the current administration has worked its will to harm and dismantle labor unions and to ignore children's education by starving these programs through tax cuts.

The U.S. Trade Representative has the ability to ensure that good- paying jobs are not shipped overseas, I must say, by negotiating labor standards that have strong enforcement measures, but the U.S. Trade Representative has not, he will not, and the administration will not ask him to. Thus, it is up to Congress to require him to protect U.S. workers from the devastation of trade agreements like the Chile Fair Trade Agreement.

Our Nation's unemployment rate reached 6.4 percent in June, the highest rate in more than 9 years, causing the loss of more than 1 million jobs in the last 3 months. Since NAFTA, we have lost 500,000 jobs due to NAFTA. Three-quarters of the jobs lost due to NAFTA have been in the manufacturing sector. These are good-paying jobs that have been shipped overseas. These are traditional American jobs that are the highest skilled among our labor force.

But rather than take the successes of the U.S.-Jordan Fair Trade Agreement, which was heralded by labor and environmental organizations, as the new model for trade agreements, the Bush administration is taking us down the path of further job losses and more degradation of our environment.

Chile's Free Trade Agreement contains only one enforceable provision on workers rights, and it is a hollow, hollow obligation that each country, get this, each country must enforce but not necessarily maintain its own domestic labor laws. If they change their domestic labor laws, that is all they have to do. If they eliminate their domestic labor laws, this fair trade agreement acknowledges that and ignores the fact that there will no longer be any workers rights.

It pays lip service to upholding the International Labor Organization's core worker rights and to not weaken its domestic labor laws, but then both these provisions are expressly excluded from coverage in the dispute settlement chapter. Hence, the Chile Fair Trade Agreement contains virtually no labor standards because any worthwhile labor standard is not enforceable.

The U.S. cannot afford to go down the road of further job losses with the Chile FTA and the Singapore FTA or any other future trade agreements.

It is anticipated that 3.5 million white collar jobs and $136 billion in wages will shift from the United States to low-cost countries in the next 10 years. So all of those, in addition to the 100,000 high-tech jobs we have already lost in California, Silicon Valley, those jobs will become obsolete under the Bush administration's course for free trade. It will not just be IT jobs. We will see a shift in financial service jobs, research and development jobs, service call center jobs and insurance jobs.

Then we get to the new immigration visa program established in the Chile FTA, and it will exacerbate the loss of white collar jobs here. The current H-1B visa program, kind of an enforced slavery program that was written at the behest of the Silicon Valley corporations, is a program of a 3-year temporary work visa renewable one time. So it is a 6-year program. The new visa program will allow an indefinite renewal, time after time, for 1,400 nationals from Chile.

U.S. college grads will increasingly see a future in flipping hamburgers and

waiting on tables, while college grads from overseas will increasingly see good-paying white collar jobs in their future.

The U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement is nothing more than a model, a template, an excuse for the Bush administration to diminish labor standards here in the United States. Furthermore, it sets a dangerous precedent as a model for current negotiations with Central America and the Western hemisphere, and I am sorry for my colleagues who think we are going to do something different in Central America. They are just wrong.

We cannot trust the U.S. Trade Representative or the Bush administration to do the right thing. We know it. They behave like China. If we want to get them to do the right thing, we must stop them here before they strike again and diminish more labor standards. It is time for us to stand up, defend the few good-paying jobs we have left in this country and demand the administration go back to the drawing board and include enforceable labor language in the Chile FTA.

I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 2738, the implementing language for the U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

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

I rise once again in opposition this time to H.R. 2739, the United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.

It is not bad enough that we trash workers' rights in Chile. We might as well do two of them at once and trash any hope for workers' rights in Singapore.

I am happy to note that organized labor in the United States opposes the Singapore, as well as the Chile, Free Trade Agreement. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the AFL-CIO, the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the United Auto Workers, United Steelworkers of American, Unite! the Needle Trades Union, and the Machinists Union have all informed us of their opposition to both the Singapore and Chile free trade agreements.

If we are at all interested in protecting workers' rights around the globe, then we must oppose this piece of legislation. In Singapore in particular, a one-party dictatorship has consistently suppressed workers' rights just as they are being suppressed in Cuba, China, Liberia, Haiti, Pakistan, and many other areas of the world; and we are not doing anything about that. And we do set a standard which might very well be followed in Central America as we proceed into that free trade agreement later this year.

This agreement fails the test for acceptable labor rights provisions and trade agreements most miserably, and nowhere is it near the standard we set in the U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement. It does not require Singapore to adopt even the most basic ILO standards for workers' rights. Singapore claims to uphold the ILO core standards; yet our U.S. negotiators have not obligated Singapore even to its hollow claims. Meanwhile, workers' rights are being trampled on.

The State Department outlines the numerous violations in its ``2002 Human Rights Report,'' stating that ``there were no laws or regulations on minimum wages or unemployment compensation,'' and their report goes on to say that there was a prohibition on strikes by workers in the water, gas and electricity sectors; and for the workers that can strike, there were no specific laws that prohibited retaliation against strikers, allowing corporations to apply virtually any tactic they choose to break up a strike.

I realize that the majority would like to see labor standards in this country returned to those conditions that we had in this country in the early part of the 20th century; but it is not going to work, and it is obscene to think that we will turn our backs on the poorest workers in poor nations across the globe where we are exporting jobs from our American workers. Even if this free trade agreement included the ILO core labor standards, it would be toothless. The agreement fails to provide the same enforcement mechanisms for labor violations as it provides for commercial violations; so if one disobeys the rights on patents or copyrights, they will be severely punished; but if they torture our shoot or otherwise bother workers, there is no retaliation. Once again, the administration chooses to relegate labor to a substandard class.

Under the Singapore agreement once a determination of the labor violation has been made, the first course of action is a fine which is capped at $15 million annually, a mere slap on the wrist. The negotiated course of enforcement pales in comparison to the sanctions that are available to protect our industries. The rich in this country get protected by this administration. Working people around the world are ignored. And without binding labor rights provisions, governments around the world will continue to trample on workers with impunity.

It is for this reason that I must strenuously oppose the U.S.- Singapore Free Trade Agreement and urge my colleagues to join me.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) for the purpose of yielding time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Republican Anti-Head Start legislation that strives to destroy this nationwide pre-school program for poor children, and in support of the Democratic substitute.

The Head Start program is by far the most successful preschool program in this Nation's history. The facts show that Head Start works. Children enrolled in Head Start show gains in their IQs, are more likely to graduate from high school, and are less likely to need special education, repeat a grade, or commit crime than low-income children who do not attend Head Start.

Head Start works because it provides comprehensive health and nutritional services as well as educational services to poor children. This is important because well-fed and healthy children learn better than hungry and unhealthy children.

Head Start also works because it provides services to parents such as education classes, health services and parent training classes. This is vital because parent services involve fathers and mothers in their children's development and as a result their children perform better academically.

Unfortunately, the Republican bill today attempts to destroy all that is good about Head Start. Instead of expanding the program, the Republicans allow states to gut Head Start and the benefits it provides to children. By turning the program into a block grant, Republicans are ensuring that unproven state preschool programs could soon replace Head Start.

It is a proven fact that these state programs aren't as good at improving our children's academic performance. A recent Yale University Study shows that Head Start provides better health and nutritional services than any state preschool program. Yet, the Republican bill does not even require States to demonstrate that their preschool programs can do a better job than Head Start. In fact, States could use Head Start dollars to support preschool programs that have no quality education standards or that have no school readiness standards.

Republicans also allow States to cut off all services to 3 year olds, to increase class size, to increase child-staff ratios, and to eliminate adult literacy services, parent classroom involvement and all health and nutrition services.

Mr. Chairman, our children deserve better than a second rate start to their education. They need the best Head Start we can give them.

Unlike the Republican bill, the Democratic substitute builds on the proven success of Head Start by strengthening school readiness, improving program quality and accountability, and expanding access so more children can receive its benefits. The Democratic bill strengthens Head Start's focus on pre-literacy, language and pre-math skills and creates new quality standards to develop school readiness skills.

Our legislation also expands Head Start to all eligible preschoolers and increases access for poor families to the Early Head Start program. Even the most successful programs need improvements over time. The Democratic bill addresses this. It strengthens Head Start by providing meaningful reforms that build upon this program's success.

Mr. Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to stand up and stop this heartless destruction of Head Start. The hopes of millions low-income children are depending on us to do the right thing. We should not deny these children the Head Start services that give them a better chance, that help them to succeed, and allow them to become healthy and productive citizens of our great country.

I urge my colleagues to vote to save Head Start and Early Head Start by supporting the Democratic substitute and voting down this destructive Republican anti-Head Start bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2427, the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act.

This bipartisan legislation overcomes the stranglehold that the drug lobby has on Congress and provides a means of providing safe, affordable medication to all our citizens. It allows for the importation from Canada and Western European countries of Federal Drug Administration (FDA)-approved prescription drugs that sell at prices significantly below those charged for the same medications in the United States.

Last year, average drug prices in the United States were approximately 67 percent higher than those in Canada and about twice those in Italy and France. Yes, for the same drugs! As a result of these high prices, many Americans are denied the medical treatment they require. They just cannot afford to pay for the drugs they need for their health. This bill takes a commonsense approach to address this problem; it provides Americans ready access to these same lower cost drugs from other countries.

The opponents of this bill--most notably the administration, Republican House leaders and the powerful drug lobby--contend that the passage of this legislation would compromise the safety of prescription drugs in this country. Let's examine the validity of this contention:

There is no validity to opponents' claims that this legislation would open our markets to counterfeit drugs. The legislation not only requires that these imported drugs meet current Federal drug regulations, but it strengthens these standards by requiring all prescription drugs sold in the country to use high security, counterfeit-resistant packaging. (A technology already being used throughout the European Union). Furthermore, the legislation only allows the importation of FDA-approved drugs manufactured in FDA- approved facilities.

Opponents falsely claim that state this legislation would allow individuals to access drugs

without prescriptions. The regulations currently in effect controlling the accessibility of prescription drugs are not changed at all by this legislation.

Despite protests from those who oppose this bill, the fact is that drug manufacturers safely import an estimated $14.7 billion worth of FDA-approved drugs into this country today. It is also estimated that more than a million Americans already purchase their medications from outside the American market--for example, by taking trips into Canada or by making an Internet purchase--without any evidence of adverse effects.

Thus, it appears that the safety argument is just a red herring. A bogus argument to defeat this legislation and continue the practice of providing Americans with ready access solely to drugs offered at inflated prices that feed the insatiable profit-hungry appetite of the pharmaceutical industry and corporate investors. It is time to put an end to this practice.

The goal of this bill is simple. It will allow American consumers the right to purchase needed medication at a lower price. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Workers with Disabilities Opportunity Act of 2003'' with Representative Matsui (D- CA) and 34 other colleagues. This bill will remove a persistent employment barrier facing Social Security beneficiaries with disabilities who want to attempt to return to work--the fear of losing their health insurance. Right now, these workers lose their Medicare health insurance coverage if they remain in the workforce more than 8.5 years. This legislation would make Medicare coverage permanent for them.

There is a glaring problem with the American workforce today. There are a disproportionately small number of workers with disabilities in it. According to the Census Bureau's 2002 report, only 24 percent of American adults with disabilities are employed compared to 77 percent of other Americans. The National Organization on Disability reports that despite major advances in disability services and technologies, less than 1 percent of Social Security Disability Insurance enrollees leave the rolls each year to return to work. When the non-working adults with disabilities were asked in the National Health Interview Survey why they were discouraged from working over one-fifth of them replied that it was out of fear of losing their health insurance. With this piece of legislation we can remove this barrier.

People who receive Social Security disability insurance benefits risk losing the health insurance coverage they currently have if they return to work. While you may think that their job's health benefits may cover what they need, many employers do not offer health insurance and even if they do, the treatments workers with disabilities require may well not be covered by a standard employer-provided plan. This puts many Social Security beneficiaries in a dilemma. They must choose between staying at home and keeping their health insurance or going to work and losing it. There is no question about it; this Hobson's choice is keeping disabled Americans out of the workforce.

Some of you may ask: ``Well, what about existing law?'' The answer is that existing law does not do nearly enough. Under current law, Medicare coverage only extends for 8.5 years after a Social Security beneficiary returns to work. While this may sound like an adequate amount of time to become integrated into the workforce, keep in mind that people with a physical or mental disability often require ongoing care. Their health, often their lives, and certainly their ability to sustain work, depend on that care.

The Workers with Disabilities Opportunity Act is critical for removing the fear of returning to work for the millions of Americans with disabilities. We had bipartisan support for the original House version of the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act that extended Medicare coverage to 8.5 years for workers with disabilities. We hope to have bipartisan support for making this improvement

complete. Furthermore, this piece of legislation is supported by the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, which is made up of a coalition of national disability organizations including the American Association on Mental Retardation, National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, Paralyzed Veterans of America, The Arc of the United States, and United Cerebral Palsy. Let's work together to give Americans with disabilities the opportunity to succeed in the workplace by providing permanent Medicare coverage. Let's give Americans with disabilities a real ticket to work instead of pulling the rug out from underneath them after eight and a half years.

If this bill becomes law millions of Americans will no longer be afraid of going back to work. Enacting this small piece of legislation can have a tremendous impact on the lives of American with disabilities. We need to give Americans with disabilities a chance to become permanent, active members of the workforce. Americans with disabilities deserve the opportunity to succeed and we can give it to them by making their Medicare coverage permanent. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this important legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer my support for this bill funding America's international diplomatic and humanitarian efforts. However, I do not do so without reservations. I strongly opposed the Republicans callously stripping funding from this legislation that would aid women throughout the world. Out of compassion for the plight of many women and the millions of children born into poverty each year, this House should honor our nation's longstanding commitment to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).

UNFPA is the largest internationally funded source of population assistance to developing countries. For over 3 decades, UNFPA has provided over $6 billion in assistance to more than 150 countries for voluntary family planning and maternal and child health care. Contrary to accusations made by its antichoice proponents, UNFPA does not provide abortions or abortion service. They prevent the need for abortions by educating women in other countries on the many advantages to services such as contraception and disease prevention.

For the last 3 years, the Bush Administration has unilaterally cancelled funding for the UNFPA initiative, claiming that UNFPA plays a role in the coercive abortion practices of the Chinese government.

Just last year, upon the President's request, three monitoring teams visited China to investigate UNFPA's program, including a group from the U.S. Not one of the three groups, who also consisted of a former Dutch Ambassador to NATO and a group from the British parliament, found evidence of coercive practices and recommended the release of funding for the UNFPA.

Nonetheless, family-planning opponents in this chamber vowed to strike the UNFPA provision within the overall bill before us today, claiming UNFPA support programs knowingly and intentionally participate in the management of forced abortion and sterilization in China.

While that portion of the bill greatly troubles me, I would like to convey my support for many of the other initiatives contained in this bill. The positive components of this bill include: increases in contributions to the poorest countries worldwide, new programs designed to improve the lives of Afghan women, a fund to allocate increased aid to international peacekeeping activities, and an increase of financial support for the Peace Corps and refugee assistance.

While we had a real chance today to make some significant changes to the way we provide assistance to women in other countries, I cannot deny the importance of so many other initiatives we've made available today. I rise in support of the bill and will work with like-minded colleagues and advocates to improve this bill before it comes back before us as a conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Reverend Douglas L. Siden for his outstanding leadership in the San Francisco Bay Area community. Doug Siden has been an ordained American Baptist Minister for 48 years. On July 28, 2003, a reception will be held to honor him on the occasion of receiving a Doctor of Humane Letters from the American Baptist Seminary of the West and to recognize his many years of community service.

Doug Siden, a resident of Alameda, CA, has always been committed to social justice, the environment and to youth. As a young minister in the 1960s, he first demonstrated his leadership abilities by advocating for the establishment of parks in his community. He developed an inter- racial church that supported fair housing and the integration of the community. He marched with Cesar Chavez to support farm workers' rights and marched with Martin Luther King, Jr. during the civil rights movement. Several times, Doug went to Washington, DC, to advocate for civil rights legislation as the representative of the inter-faith San Francisco Conference on Religion, Race and Social Concern.

Through the years, Doug has always been in the forefront of leadership. He was the first pastor of a newly created church in San Mateo, CA; first director of urban strategy for his Northern California regional church; first chairman of the San Francisco Night Ministry; first Area Minister for his denomination's churches from San Francisco to the Oregon border; and first Regional Camp Executive Director for the American Baptist Churches of the West. Doug is proud of his leadership role in the establishment of two-year round camps for children, youth, adults, and families of all ages in the Santa Cruz Mountains and the High Sierra near Lake Tahoe.

Doug is currently devoted full-time to public, community, and church service. He was elected to the East Bay Regional Park Board of Directors in 1992 and currently serves as the Board's Vice President. He is involved in leadership roles in a myriad of other organizations, including President of Martin Luther King, Jr. Freedom Center and Chair of the Seafarers Ministry of the Golden Gate. Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbit appointed him an Advisory Commissioner for the Point Reyes National Seashore and the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Additionally, he serves on the Board of Directors of the Chabot Space and Science Center in Oakland, the Rotary Club of Alameda, and the American Baptist National Conference.

I join the friends and colleagues of Reverend Douglas L. Siden in expressing congratulations as he receives a Doctor of Humane Letters. I also join in thanking him for his years of service. He is the epitome of community activism from which we have all benefited.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin if he could tell me how many years their bill in the House would extend the financial life of the Medicare program.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his answer and reclaim my time.

Mr. Scully, the director of CMS, said last week that it would not extend the solvency of Medicare 1 day and indeed might shorten the solvency, and that is of course from the Republican director of CMS. Further, both GAO and MedPac, bipartisan groups, have reported to us that the proposed privatized plans that are in the Republican House bill will increase the cost to Medicare for every senior who is foolish enough to sign up for them. So not only does the Republican plan not save any money in Medicare. It is in very grave danger of costing Medicare money for no extra benefit. But we must not try to focus in merely an hour on the multitude problems that exist in the House bill.

We are constrained in this motion to deal with portions of the bill that are before us, and so there are two principal elements here: one, to eliminate the cockamammie premium support competition, whatever one wants to call it, Medicare+Choice that starts at 2010 in the House- passed bill. As I have said before, the Republican experts in Health and Human Services tell us it will not save any money and will probably reduce the solvency of the Medicare trust fund. GAO and MedPac tell us that these programs will create additional costs to Medicare over the standardized system.

Secondly, there is no fall-back in the House plan. There is no plan in the House plan. There is an estimate of what we might do, but there is nothing in the House plan that would require a benefit to be provided. Nothing. At least the Senate bill has a provision to ensure that there will be a Medicare program to provide a drug benefit in all communities should there be no insurance company reckless enough to try to understand what the House position is and take the subsidies needed to encourage it to participate. So if we want to have any plan at all and make sure that the law provides for it, we must recede to the Republican part, and if we want to keep Medicare solvent, we must drop the House portion which has the premium support. Those two are the basic elements that are needed before this plan could go forward under any circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the memory of Dick Sadler, a longtime resident of Hayward, California. On July 11, 2003, Mr. Sadler's family and friends will gather to celebrate his life and his many contributions, most notably in the world of boxing.

Dick Sadler rode out of his hometown of Columbus, Ohio on a freight train in 1934 with just 18 cents in his pocket, seeking greener pastures in the West. He survived the Great Depression by dancing and playing the piano at nightspots up and down the West Coast. His days free, he began studying the ancient art of boxing at city gymnasiums. From the beginning, Sadler developed into one of the greatest boxing manager-trainers in the history of the sport. He took George Foreman from a raw amateur to the heavyweight championship of the world; he trained Archie Moore during the last 10 years of Moore's illustrious career; he managed and trained Sonny Liston, Charlie Shipes and Freddie Little, among others. He served as advisor to heavyweight champions Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier.

But Sadler was more proud of his accomplishments outside of boxing. He and his fighters spent numerous hours raising money for boys' and girls' clubs, YMCAs, Special Olympics and other worthwhile causes. He worked tirelessly to establish a pension fund for former boxers--a mission that regretfully never came to fruition.

Sadler coached championship prizefighters all over the world. He rubbed elbows with famous politicians and movie stars, and dined with royalty in Europe and Japan. According to all who knew him, Sadler looked most at home in a boxing gym. A boxing gym located on the second floor of a building with creaky stairs leading up to it. A boxing gym where kids with dreams are punching speed bags, jumping rope, tossing medicine balls, and pounding heavy bags. In the middle of the room is a ring and there is Dick Sadler, his elbows resting on the apron and his jockey cap high on his head. He is staring up between the bottom two ropes at a couple of aspiring champions, occasionally calling out instructions.

That's the Dick Sadler his friends will remember. I join them in applauding his life, so richly lived. He not only contributed to the success of champions whose names we all recognize but he contributed to his community and those who were not champions but in need of a helping hand.

Mr. Chairman, today, I rise in strong opposition to the Republican Labor-HHS appropriations bill.

Just 2 years ago when Congress passed the Leave No Child Behind Act, we made a commitment to improve education for every American child. We promised that there would be a qualified teacher in every classroom within 4 years. We pledged to provide every school district with the resources to meet new achievement and accountability standards for raising academic performance. We committed to making sure after school programs were available to provide a safe environment for children to pursue extracurricular activities that help them learn.

My how times change. Today, the President and Republicans have turned the promises of Leave No Child Behind into a hoax. They refuse to fully fund the initiatives that are vital to its success. They've passed the buck to the States, which simply don't have the resources to fund these programs but still must meet rigorous achievement standards. In this shortsighted and callous effort, Republicans have doomed Leave No Child Behind to fail. This is a slap in the face to school kids everywhere and to their parents who simply want their children to have good schools and qualified teachers from which to learn.

You don't have to take my word for it, just look at the numbers. Republicans provide $334 million less than was promised for teacher training and recruitment. This means 54,000 teachers won't receive needed training next year and another 7,000 teachers won't be hired to provide specialized instruction in reading and math to 170,000 at-risk children. For Calfornia, Republicans make sure our public schools will lose nearly $1 billion in grants to meet new student achievement standards and $50 million less for grants to ensure teacher quality.

In addition, highly successful after school programs are being underfunded by nearly $1 billion. California will lose out on $100 million in funding for these activities. Grants provided under IDEA are $1.2 billion less than promised. So California's school districts will lose out on nearly $130 million for educating children with disabilities.

Now, if you thought failing our children and their future was bad enough, consider how this bill shortchanges America's workers and their families. Even in the midst of this tough economy and growing unemployment, the Republicans can't seem to bring themselves to increase funding for job training. Federal job training programs are simply funded at last year's level. And for those Americans who are lucky enough to have jobs, the Republicans want to take away your right to earn overtime pay.

We had the opportunity today to stop the Labor Department's proposed regulations expanding the number of employees who are exempt from receiving overtime pay when they work more than 40 hours in a week. Republicans defeated our Democratic amendment to make sure no funding was provided to enact these flawed regulations. In doing so, 8 million American workers could lose their right to overtime pay, which translates into a huge pay cut for working families who depend on overtime pay to maintain their standard of living. This change would also encourage employers to work employees longer hours, leaving them with less time to spend with their families. There is no question that working families deserve better.

Lower income families, women and their children also deserve better when it comes to health care. Yet, this bill also threatens their ability to receive the medical services they rely on.

Like so many programs, Title X, the nation's cornerstone health services and family-planning program, won't receive additional funding next year if this bill passes. This is despite the fact that more than 4.8 million low-income families and their children receive basic health care through its 4,500 clinics nationwide.

Title X clinics provide needed health services: screening for breast and cervical cancer, sexually transmitted diseases, breast and pelvic exams, in addition to prenatal, postpartum and well-baby care. They also provide educational services, counseling and information concerning both abstinence and contraceptive methods. By providing these family-planning services, Title X contributes to the reduction in unintended pregnancies and makes abortion less necessary.

In the 13th District alone, these family health clinics were able to serve over 63,000 patients in 2002--but they could be doing more and they should have the resources to do it. Unfortunately, anti-choice lawmakers are holding funding for these clinics hostage despite the success of these services in preventing unintended pregnancies.

Ideology, not science, has led Republicans to divert funding to ineffective ``abstinence-until-marriage'' programs. Congress now devotes $117 million to these entirely unproven methods while flat lining funding for title X programs. But, unlike Title X, abstinence- only programs provide no actual clinical health services.

I urge my colleagues to take a stand for the future of our children, working families and women in voting down this bill. We shouldn't throw away America's future by neglecting the education of our children, the economic security of working families, or the health care they need and rely on. I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 2660.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Police Chief John Robertson of the City of Newark Police Department for his 29 years of devoted service to the citizens of California.

Chief Robertson dedicated his life to reducing crime, implementing technological advances, and helping the lives of many people on a personal basis. He was not content to merely punish wrong-doers, but set about to bring an end to the problems he encountered by using a community oriented philosophy that worked wonders to stop crime.

In the course of his career in law enforcement, Chief Robertson has left his mark on three cities. He began his career in the City of Garden Grove in July 1974 as a Patrol Officer and worked his way up to Detective. He was appointed Sergeant in March 1980 and Lieutenant in May 1981. He became Captain, February 1986, and served as Deputy Chief until August 1988 when he was promoted to Police Chief. He served as Police Chief of Garden Grove until June 1992, then as Police Chief of the City of Orange until March 1998, and finally as the Chief of Police of Newark in August 1998.

In Garden Grove, Chief Robertson is accredited with revitalizing the community through ``family policing'' and developing the Department's Pride Program. In Orange, he significantly reduced crime, managed the Department's budget and made a significant number of technological improvements. In Newark, Chief Robertson implemented a Citizen's Police Academy, improved technology, remodeled the police facilities, became a mentor for a local high school student, implanted the HOSTS (Help One Student to Succeed) Tutoring Program, and took responsibility for the City's Code Enforcement Unit and cleaned up a large blighted area of Newark.

Chief Robertson's greatest accomplishments in the City of Newark include bringing together the Newark Community by spearheading a youth summit with NAACP, setting up meetings with the Afghan Community to bridge cultural differences, and working with the gay/lesbian community after the murder of a transgender youth. Chief Robertson demands by word and shows through leadership that everyone must be treated with dignity and respect, regardless of race, color, creed, or sexual orientation. He was the first Police Chief to require all officers to document racial information on all car stops. He also mandated that all police employees attend training at the Museum of Tolerance to promote understanding and acceptance in the community.

I am honored to join the colleagues of Police Chief John Robertson to commend his many years of exemplary service to law enforcement. His commitment to excellence has shaped the lives of many, and his services to California will never be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, each one of us has had a special teacher that touched our lives as children--a teacher who managed to capture our minds and create in us a hunger for more information.

Mr. Speaker, I rise here today in support of H.R. 438, the Teacher Recruitment and Retention Act of 2003, which will create incentives for our nation's best and brightest teachers to educate students in our poorest and most disadvantaged school districts.

It will also ensure that our children with special needs are taught by educators who are trained to work with their unique disabilities, so that they can succeed along with their peers in the classroom.

This legislation more than triples the maximum amount of Federal student loan forgiveness available for math, science and special education teachers who commit to teaching math, science, and special education in a low-income community school for 5 years.

This dramatic increase in loan forgiveness--from $5,000 in current law to $17,500--will provide schools with an effective tool to recruit and retain high quality teachers in areas of critical need.

Student loan forgiveness for high-need teachers, such as math, science, and special education, provides an effective incentive and can be a critical link in increasing the supply of these essential educators.

At a time when our States are facing a growing fiscal crisis with fewer resources available in their own budgets for recruiting teachers, this legislation will provide an additional recruitment tool for schools serving low-income students in inner cities and rural areas.

It is my hope that this legislation will also attract intelligent young men and women, including those from minority communities, to enter the teaching profession and to specialize in math, science, or special education.

Helping our States and local communities recruit excellent teachers can have dramatic results. Students in these schools are generally those that would benefit most from having a highly qualified teacher, and these schools often face the most difficulty in attracting quality educators.

Studies show that teachers with advanced degrees are less prevalent in high-poverty schools. Other studies also demonstrate that a knowledgeable and qualified teacher is a critical determinant in closing the achievement gap for students.

H.R. 438, the Teacher Recruitment and Retention Act provides a meaningful incentive to attract teachers in key subjects to Title I schools in our nation's inner cities and rural areas, where they are desperately needed.

The two bills that the House has considered today make critical reforms to help States and school districts ensure that every child has the chance to learn from a highly qualified school teacher.

H.R. 438, the Teacher Recruitment and Retention Act and H.R. 2211, the Ready to Teach Act demonstrate the commitment of the House to offer new tools to schools and communities by strengthening teacher training programs and creating significant new incentives for math, science, and special education teachers to educate students in disadvantaged school districts.