Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today, unfortunately, the Democrats will not be allowed to offer an amendment that would dramatically increase the security of this Nation from terrorist activities, and that is an amendment to provide for the nuclear detection of nuclear devices that might be put into containers in ports overseas. We have 6 million containers a year that come to the United States. The CIA has told us, the intelligence agencies have told us that this is one of the prime ways to deliver nuclear material by a terrorist. The Hart-Rudman Commission that warned us of 9-11 prior to 9-11 has warned us that this is the main way in which a terrorist would have an opportunity to deliver a nuclear device. But what do we do? We wait until the containers get to the port of San Francisco, to the port of Oakland, to the port of New Jersey, to the port of Miami to then check them.

It is too late if they get inside of our ports.

If a nuclear device went off in one of our ports, it would not only devastate hundreds of thousands of lives, it would not only devastate the city, it would devastate the world economy.

The Democratic amendment should have been allowed so we can check these containers before they leave Asia, before they leave Europe, before they leave Africa. That is security for the Nation.

Mr. Speaker, one of the sad side effects of this unfair rule is that we will not be able to consider the Obey amendment to provide additional money for homeland security, and specifically, we will not be allowed to consider additional money for the protection of our sea ports of this Nation.

According to the CIA, it is more likely for a terrorist to sneak nuclear material into our ports than for a missile to reach our shores.

According to the prestigious task force headed by Senators Rudman and Hart, port security is a critical mandate which needs adequate funding.

And according to Steve Flynn, a highly respected security expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, an explosion from nuclear material smuggled into any American port would not only inflict devastating casualties, it would bring America to a grinding halt. Our economy would simply shut down.

We cannot check every container that comes to our ports every day, but there is much more that we can do. The Obey amendment would have allowed us to start to put in place security provisions overseas before the containers come to the United States, before they present a risk to our citizens, before they present a risk to our economy, before they present a risk to our national security. But we will not be allowed to consider that amendment because this closed rule would not allow a Democratic debate.

Mr. Speaker, I commend to my colleagues the following column authored by Bob Herbert that appeared in today's New York Times. ``Mugging the Needy'' accurately details the serious dangers posed by the budget plan recently passed by the House: that in providing $1.4 trillion in tax cuts to the wealthy, House Republicans are slashing billions of dollars in funding that aids low- income Americans. These cuts will affect Medicaid recipients, children in foster care, the national school lunch program, as well as veterans' benefits and the ability of students to afford their higher education.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican budget is not just a political document that details their misguided vision for America. It is far more serious than even that, for it fails to stimulate the economy and create jobs, it saddles future generations with enormous deficits, and it robs needy Americans--both young and old--of critical services. The Congress should reject this budget.

Mugging the Needy

(By Bob Herbert)

I had wanted today's column to be about the events in

Tulia, Tex., where a criminal justice atrocity is at long

last beginning to be corrected.

(For those who don't know, prosecutors are moving to

overturn the convictions of everyone seized in an outlandish

drug sting conducted by a single wacky undercover officer.)

But there is another issue crying out for immediate

attention. With the eyes of most Americans focused on the

war, the Bush administration and its allies in Congress are

getting close to agreeing on a set of budget policies that

will take an awful toll on the poor, the young, the elderly,

the disabled and others in need of assistance and support

from their government.

The budget passed by the House is particularly gruesome. It

mugs the poor and the helpless while giving unstintingly to

the rich. This blueprint for domestic disaster has even

moderate Republicans running for cover.

The House plan offers the well-to-do $1.4 trillion in tax

cuts, while demanding billions of dollars in cuts from

programs that provide food stamps, school lunches, health

care for the poor and the disabled, temporary assistance to

needy families--even veterans' benefits and student loans.

An analysis of the House budget by the Center on Budget and

Policy Priorities found that its proposed cuts in child

nutrition programs threaten to eliminate school lunches for

2.4 million low-income children.

Under the House plan, Congress would be required to cut

$265 billion from entitlement programs over 10 years. About

$165 billion would come from programs that assist low-income

Americans.

This assault on society's weakest elements has been almost

totally camouflaged by the war, which has an iron grip on the

nation's attention.

The House budget does not dictate the specific cuts that

Congress would be required to make. In its analysis, the

center assumed (as did the House Budget Committee) that the

various entitlement programs would be cut by roughly the same

percentages. If one program were to be cut by a somewhat

smaller percentage, another would have to be cut more.

The analysis found that in the year in which the budget

sliced deepest:

``The cut in Medicaid, if achieved entirely by reducing the

number of children covered, would lead to the elimination of

health coverage for 13.6 million children.''

``The cut in foster care and adoption programs, if achieved

by reducing the number of children eligible for foster care

assistance payments, would lead to the elimination of

benefits for 65,000 abused and neglected children.''

``The cut in the food stamp program, if achieved by

lowering the maximum benefit, would lead to a reduction in

the average benefit from an already lean 91 cents per meal to

84 cents.''

When's the last time one of the plutocrats in Congress

waded through a meal that cost 84 cents?

The Senate budget is not as egregious. It calls for a total

of about $900 billion in tax cuts, and there is no demand for

cuts in entitlement programs. But it is not a reasonable

budget. In fact, there's something obscene about a

millionaires' club like the Senate proposing close to a

trillion dollars in tax cuts for the rich while the country

is already cutting social programs, running up huge budget

deficits and fighting a war in the Middle East.

At least in the House budget the first--if not the worst--

of the cuts are in plain view. In the Senate plan the

inevitable pain of the Bush budget policies remains

concealed.

``There is a significant human toll in the Senate budget,

but it's in the future,'' said Robert Greenstein, the

center's executive director. ``What I mean is that given the

deficits we're already in, you can't keep doing tax cuts like

this--you can't keep cutting your revenue base--without it

inevitably leading to sharp budget cuts.''

House and Senate conferees are now trying to resolve the

differences in the two budget proposals. They will do all

they can to minimize the public relations hit that is bound

to come when you're handing trainloads of money to the rich

while taking food off the tables of the poor. So you can

expect some dismantling of the House proposal.

But no matter what they do, the day of reckoning is not far

off. The budget cuts are coming. In voodoo economics, the

transfer of wealth is from the poor and the working classes

to the rich. It may not be pretty, but it's the law.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday April 1, 2003, I meant to vote ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 96.

I support H.R. 1412, the HEROES Act of 2003, a bipartisan bill recognizing the contributions of our men and women in uniform serving in the Middle East.

Hundreds of thousands of the United States military personnel have been called upon to serve in active duty for ``Operation Iraqi Freedom.'' Some of our troops serving in this conflict are student reservists who were called up from their college campuses to serve their country, many of whom receive financial aid to help pay for their college education. While many other active military personnel are paying back their student loans.

The Act extends waiver authority to the Secretary of Education to ensure that members of the Armed Services and students are not punished financially as a result of their voluntary service to our country at time of war, or a national emergency.

While H.R. 1412 is a necessary and appropriate step, we should also recognize that Congress should be doing more to provide relief to our active military personnel. We should take additional steps such as allowing military personnel to defer their student loans while they are on active duty, so that military personnel would not be charged interest on their student loans for the duration of their active duty. We must do everything that we can to recognize and to reward the sacrifices of the courageous men and women who are fighting in ``Operation Iraqi Freedom.''

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, and I rise in strong opposition to the Hoekstra amendment. I want to associate myself with the remarks of my colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

This amendment does, in fact, do great damage to those who have already earned their educational stipend. As my colleagues have pointed out, these individuals that have joined the Freedom Corps have joined AmeriCorps for the purposes of rendering service to our country and a bargain that we struck at the end of that service, a stipend that would be available.

Yes, it is true that apparently there has been some mismanagement in this program, but this administration has made this request for two reasons: one, they say to clean up and deal with the problems that have been discovered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) and others; and the other is to pay the commitments that they already have.

These people have rendered their service. The stipend is due, and we ought not to break that faith because what we want to do is we have seen after 9-11 more and more people have offered to participate in the Freedom Corps, more and more people have offered to participate in service to the country; and for many of these individuals, that educational stipend is terribly important. It is now put on the footing that maybe a person got the stipend, maybe they do not. We are going to damage the reputation of this corps.

As my colleagues have pointed out, any of my colleagues who have visited these programs, these are rather remarkable young people from very different walks of life, from a cross section of our community; but for whatever reasons, they decide they are going to make this commitment of service and they do it to the elderly. They do it in education. They do it in public safety. They do it in health care. They do it in so many areas where our communities are in need.

Then when we meet them later in life, like so many of our Peace Corps volunteers, they have a little bit different cut to their jib, little bit different style because they have rendered that service and the pride that they carry with them of the time they spent with their colleagues in national service.

We ought to be encouraging this, and it would be a terrible, a terrible comment if we accept this amendment to simply take this money out and an amount of money at the time the administration is telling the Congress that we are trying to deal with those problems, but we are also trying to honor our pledges to these young people who have joined national service.

We have had debates in this Congress time and again about expanding national service, about having mandatory national service, having an alternative to the draft or to military service; and people on both sides of the aisle have recognized the value that is rendered by the people who engage in this service.

Yes, it is expensive; but we have constantly thought about how do we expand this so people invest in America. So they invest in their communities. So they invest in service to this country. This is not a message that we want to send. This is not a message we want to send after 9-11 when people are screaming to volunteer. This is not a time we want to send this message when people are offering, as was pointed out by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and others, to help and assist some of these families.

Maybe it is working fine in Fort Campbell, but a lot of other facilities are in communities that do not have that kind of impact on the community; and these services are very helpful, certainly for those communities where the National Guard have been called up or the Reserves have been called up and families are away, their soldiers are away, and in those communities, they do not necessarily live in a military community, but they are rendering a service. Many of these people are trying to help them through these times. It is a very bad amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a dear friend and colleague, Dr. Edward Zigler, who has recently retired after over 40 years as a distinguished professor of psychology at Yale University. Dr. Zigler has been a tireless and effective advocate for children for four decades. I, and many others in this Congress, have counted on his impeccable knowledge of children's development, his wisdom about its application to the Nation's most significant issues facing children and families, and his unassailable honesty and integrity.

Edward Zigler is a Sterling Professor of Psychology, Emeritus, Head of the psychology section of Yale's Child Study Center at the School of Medicine, and Director of Yale's Center in Child Development and Social Policy. He is the author, co-author, and editor of hundreds of scholarly publications and has conducted extensive investigations on topics related to normal child development, child psychopathology and mental retardation. He is the founder of the School of the 21st Century, which has been adopted by more than 1300 schools nationwide.

Because of Dr. Zigler's expertise and his commitment to our Nation's children, he has been asked to assist every Administration, both Republican and Democratic, since the term of President Lyndon B. Johnson. He was one of the planners of Project Head Start during the Johnson Administration. From 1970 to 1972, Dr. Zigler was the first director of the U.S. Office of Child Development (now the Administration on Children, Youth, and Families) and Chief of the U.S. Children's Bureau. President Ford then asked him to consult on the resettling of Vietnamese children following the ``Baby Lift''. President Carter asked him to write the 15-year report on Head Start.

In his ongoing role as an advisor on the Head Start program, he has worked with several Secretaries of Education, Health and Human Services, Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW); and Labor, including Secretary Bennett in the Reagan Administration and Secretary Riley in the Clinton Administration. Currently, he is on Secretary Tommy Thompson's Head Start Research Committee.

His work extends well beyond the Federal level to his own State of Connecticut, where he has played an instrumental role in establishing high quality school readiness programs for low-income children, and the city of New Haven, where he enlisted the police department in child abuse prevention efforts. The fact that his counsel has been sought consistently by both parties, and by decision-makers at all levels of government through the years is a testament to his nonpartisan focus on what research indicates is best for children.

Even a brief review of Zigler's research and writing makes it abundantly clear why his advice has been sought by so many for so long. Starting with an interest in mental retardation, Zigler's theory that children who experience an inordinate amount of failure would do better in school if they believed they had a chance to succeed, captured the imagination of the Planning Committee for Head Start in 1965. It was not long before Zigler was asked to head the agency responsible for Head Start. Thus began his sojourn into public policy. Since then, in addition to his sustained commitment to ensuring that Head Start offers young children living in poverty the comprehensive services they require to enter school ready to learn, Zigler has worked on issues ranging from child abuse to child care to children exposed to the trauma of war. He and his students have surveyed child care standards in the States as well as their preschool programs to raise awareness of the importance of quality and to guide policy makers in mandating better programs. He has been a pioneer in the development of effective family support programs. His work on child abuse and neglect has guided significant Federal and State legislation aimed at preventing this tragic social problem. During the Vietnam era, he worked relentlessly to assist with the resettlement of Vietnamese children. He was a member of the Advisory Committee on Head Start Quality and Expansion and of the planning committee for the Early Head Start program for families and children ages zero to three. Recently, Zigler completed work on a revision of the Head Start Program Performance Standards, and is currently serving as the Honorary Chair of the National Advisory Panel for the Head Start 2010 Project. Children always come first for Edward Zigler.

If children come first to this distinguished academician, Zigler's students follow as a close second. He has played a more central role than any other developmental psychologist in creating the field of child development and social policy. He was the major figure behind the creation of the Bush Centers in Child Development and Social Policy, which stimulated the development of several cross-disciplinary doctoral and post-doctoral training programs. He was also a key player in the establishment of the Congressional Science Fellows programs of the Society for Research in Child Development, from which many in the House and Senate have benefited through placement in our offices of outstanding post-doctoral experts in child policy. All told, he has mentored over 70 graduate and postdoctoral students and countless hundreds of undergraduates who are now following in his large footsteps to ensure that our public policies for children and families are guided by the best available science.

Dr. Zigler's many honors include awards from the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Society for Research in Child Development, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Academy on Mental Retardation, the American Orthopsychiatric Association, the National Head Start Association, the Heinz Foundation, and Teachers College, Columbia University. He has also received honorary degrees from Park University in Missouri and McGill University in Canada.

Throughout his career, Dr. Zigler has exemplified the socially responsible scientist. He is honest even when it angers the advocates; he is outraged when outrage is called for; and he never gives up on even the most stubborn problems. He is rare in his dual commitment to scholarly research and to public service. The Nation's children have benefited vastly.

I am pleased to honor him and to express my gratitude for all he has done and continues to do to ensure both happy childhoods and promising futures for our Nation's most vulnerable citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to submit a bipartisan resolution, together with seventeen of my colleagues in the House, recognizing the accomplishments of Operation Respect and of Peter Yarrow of Peter, Paul and Mary, who founded and helps to promote this outstanding program nationwide.

Operation Respect and its ``Don't Laugh At Me'' initiative are helping to promote anti-bullying, compassion and tolerance among children in after-school programs and children's camps. The ``Don't Laugh At Me'' program has been presented in 230 workshops in dozens of congressional districts. Over 18,000 educators in 27 states have received its training materials and professionally-developed curriculum. As we all know, Mr. Yarrow has described in words and song the program's goal and objective to enthusiastic meetings of the Republican Conference and the Democratic Caucus of the United States House of Representatives.

The ``Don't Laugh At Me'' program uses character education to promote the social and emotional growth in children. When a child has fewer worries of bullying and intolerant classmates, that child is able to focus on schoolwork as well as create new bonds with fellow students. It is no wonder that teachers, parents and students alike have given very high marks to the ``Don't Laugh At Me'' program.

Many organizations have commended Operation Respect and the ``Don't Laugh At Me'' program, including the National Conference of State Legislatures, who passed a resolution in August of 2001 that recognized the value of Operation Respect. Major educational organizations supporting this important initiative include the National Association of Elementary School Principals, National Association of Secondary School Principals, American Association of School Administrators, Council of Great City Colleges of Education, National Education Association, Council of Great City Schools, American School Counselors Association, National School Boards Association, National Middle School Association, and the American Federation of Teachers.

The House should recognize the achievements of Operation Respect and Peter Yarrow in helping to make schools and camps safer, more tolerant, more learning-friendly environments for our children. I would hope that the House would be able to consider this bipartisan resolution in the near future.

Mr. Speaker, I know that all Members of the House of Representatives will want to join me in saluting the Laborers' International Union of North America (LIUNA) on the 100th anniversary of its founding. LIUNA, through its millions of members over the years, has long played a vital role in building America through the construction of highways, bridges, dams and power plants, factories, office buildings, schools, churches, hospitals, apartments, and houses throughout the country.

The first president of the AFL-CIO, Samuel Gompers, convened the meeting in April, 1903, that resulted in the creation of the International Hod Carriers' and Building Laborers' Union of America. That union represented just 8,000 workers. In 1965, the name was changed to the Laborers' International Union of North America to reflect the expansion of the union beyond the construction field.

Today, LIUNA consists of approximately 800,000 members in more than 650 locals throughout the country. LIUNA members work in a wide variety of fields including local, state and federal governments, health care, shipbuilding and hazardous waste removal.

LIUNA is one of the most innovative unions in the labor movement, with state of the art training centers across North America. LIUNA has repeatedly demonstrated its commitment to protecting the rights of laborers and is among the most successful unions at organizing within the labor federation today.

LIUNA's success is predicated on the protection and promotion of its members--goals that are achieved through the dedication and hard work of union officers and their representatives working at all levels of government. The efforts of these men and women to protect and enhance the welfare of LIUNA's members serves to better the lives of all workers throughout the United States.

LIUNA's efforts to raise the standard of living for laborers are deserving of our attention and admiration. This is an extraordinary union whose leadership works hard every day to protect members' health and safety, provide laborers a strong voice in the workplace, provide extensive skill training to empower members to reach their full potential, and perhaps most importantly, to ensure dignity, respect and security for laborers in the workplace.

Mr. Speaker, I join LIUNA's officers and members in celebrating their 100th Anniversary, and I salute the work of the Laborers International Union of North America. I encourage my colleagues to similarly respect the positive impacts LIUNA has had within their home districts and states, and I encourage them to express their support of this historic anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, as we all prepare for college basketball's ``March Madness'' this month, I am introducing a bill, the Student Athlete Fairness Act, along with Representative Rob Andrews, to deal with another kind of madness. Recently a number of institutions of higher education have penalized student basketball players for misconduct, by banning them from post-season intercollegiate play. I support actions by colleges and universities to hold their coaches and players accountable when they engage in misconduct of any kind. Recruiting violations, academic fraud and financial improprieties have no place in college or college sports, and deserve punishment.

However, these particular institutions are penalizing the wrong student athletes--students who were not involved in any wrongdoing. In one case, Fresno State University is barring an entire basketball team from post-season intercollegiate play for the transgressions of previous players and coaches, even though none of the current student athletes or coaches were involved in the wrongdoing at all.

We can no longer allow colleges and universities to penalize innocent student athletes. Instead institutions of higher education must focus their efforts on the guilty parties.

The Student Athlete Fairness Act would prohibit colleges from penalizing players or coaches who had no involvement in a rules violation and would also prohibit colleges and universities from being affiliated with intercollegiate associations, like the NCAA, whose policies might include sanctioning players, teams and/or coaches even if they were not involved in any rules violation.

While many schools and teams work hard to follow the rules that are intended to preserve a quality academic and campus life alongside a vibrant athletic program, some schools have chosen to make innocent students scapegoats for the actions of runaway athletic programs that give win-loss records more priority than ethics and fair play.

An integral ingredient of the college and university mission is to foster both the academic and personal development of their students-- from civic engagement and community service, where students learn how to become active participants in democracy, to team athletics, where students gain valuable leadership experience. These objectives are severely undermined when students are punished harshly, in ways that can significantly affect their future careers and earnings, for violations of rules by others. This kind of substitute punishment has no place in our courts, and it should have no place in our colleges and universities either.

The Student Athlete Fairness Act would make certain that the coaches, school officials, or students who break the rules are the ones who are punished. Innocent student athletes should be free to play ball.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to submit, with sixty-three of my colleagues in the House, the College Affordability and Lifetime Savings Act.

According to the Department of Education, more than 7 million students will take out a Federal student loan this year to help finance their college education. As tuition costs swell and grant-aid fails to keep pace, students and their families are increasingly turning to loans as the primary mechanism to finance a higher education. While student loans make the college dream a reality for millions, they all too often turn into a nightmare of debt.

Over the past eight years the typical student loan debt has almost doubled to $16,928. In addition, 39 percent of all student borrowers now graduate with unmanageable debt levels. Too many student borrowers struggle to make their monthly loan payments, and many must forgo savings, public service careers, and major purchases.

Borrowing for higher education should be a sound investment for the future, both for the student, and society. Yet, today we are asking far too many students to mortgage their future at too high a cost.

Unfortunately, President Bush and the Republican leadership in Congress have ignored the pleas from millions of Americans to make student aid funding a priority. Instead, just at the time when students and their families need help the most to make ends meet, President

Bush and the Republican leadership have responded by cutting key student aid programs. Just last week, House Republicans demanded that we finance President Bush's tax cut on the backs of students by cutting $4.7 billion in aid to student borrowers. This could force the typical borrower to pay an additional $170 in student loan taxes over the life of their loans.

This is unacceptable, and we must do better by delivering sound legislation that helps Americans to make the college dream a viable reality.

The College Affordability and Lifetime Savings Act will help ease the burden of student loan debt for millions of Americans. The Act will change the current student loan tax deduction benefit to a tax credit-- which will deliver a larger rebate on the interest paid on student loans to borrowers, particularly those who are struggling the most to make ends meet. The savings for the typical borrower who is earning $20,000 a year will more than triple, to $347, in their first year of repayment. The Act will also help expand this benefit to more middle class families, allowing them to claim rebates, too.

I urge you to support the College Affordability and Lifetime Savings Act as a means to ensure that a college investment remains the investment of a lifetime for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to submit, with sixty-three of my colleagues in the House, the College Opportunity for a Better America Act.

Higher education has become more important than ever to ensure America's economic prosperity, national security, and health. Yet, swelling enrollments among low-income and working class families, massive state budget cuts, and rising tuition continue to strain our ability to ensure access to a college education for all Americans.

As a result, increasing numbers of students and their families are relying on debt to finance their college dreams. Over the past eight years the typical student loan debt has nearly doubled to $16,928, with 64 percent of students borrowing to finance their college costs. In addition, nearly two-fifths of all student borrowers graduate with unmanageable debt levels, and as a result, many may seek higher- salaried positions rather than public service careers.

At the same time, severe shortages of highly qualified personnel in many public service sectors, such as teaching, nursing, childcare, and child welfare, threaten the health and well being of our nation.

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the United States will need more than 2 million new teachers over the next 10 years. In a recent report, the American Hospital Association found that there is a national shortage of 126,000 nurses; just as the number of nursing school graduates decreased by 29 percent between 1995 and 2001. In addition, the number of unfilled child welfare specialists is growing rapidly; while the nation's childcare programs are plagued by high staff turnover, fueled by poor compensation.

We can no longer afford to ignore the growing shortage of a skilled public service workforce. We must invest in our recent graduates to enable more of them to pursue public service careers. The College Opportunity for a Better America Act would take an important step to filling shortages of highly skilled workers in the public service sector by providing up to $17,500 in loan forgiveness for graduates who enter teaching, child care, nursing, child welfare, and other high priority public service careers.

In short, the Act would provide the financial means necessary to attract and retain a highly skilled public service workforce.

America's higher education system has long served as a vehicle to achieve economic prosperity, national security, and an educated citizenry. From our nascent beginnings, when public education served as the means to equalize our society, to the National Defense Act of 1958--which launched many of our federal student aid programs--we have used higher education as a tool to move this country forward.

I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in honoring this tradition by supporting the College Opportunity for a Better America Act. It is an important step to help fill America's critical public service work gap.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Jeff Faux, who is the founder of the nationally respected Economic Policy Institute. During his long career, he as been a merchant mariner, railroad worker, blueberry farmer, antipoverty official, Labor Department statistician, and instructor at Harvard University.

Jeff Faux used these work experiences to his advantage when undertaking the great task of founding and building the Economic Policy Institute, the nation's only think tank expressly dedicated to examining economic issues from the vantage point of how they affect working families.

Named after the poet Geoffrey Chaucer, Faux grew up in Queens, New York, as an avid reader but an apathetic student. Dropping out of high school, he joined the merchant marine and shipped out to the Caribbean, before realizing that he didn't want to spend the rest of his life that way.

Completing high school years before open enrollment at New York's City University, his wide-ranging reading stood him in good stead when he aced an examination that qualified him for Queens College, in spite of his uneven record in high school. On evenings, weekends, and summers while in college, he worked as a bartender (following his father who had been a charter member of Bartenders Local 164), on a railroad, and in an American Can Factory in Brooklyn.

After he severely injured his back, Faux was treated in Queens General Hospital, sparing him from what might have been a lifetime disability. While hospitalized, he mused that he was, in a sense, the product of public programs--born in a public hospital, educated in public schools, and put back together again in another public hospital. Faux traces lifelong commitment to progressive politics to this period of recuperation and reflection.

Inspired by President John F. Kennedy's New Frontier, Faux moved to Washington, D.C., where he worked, first, for the Bureau of Labor Statistics and, then, for the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. Meanwhile, he enrolled as a graduate student at George Washington University, doing graduate work in economics.

Moving to the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO), Faux became one of the originators of a new kind of anti-poverty program: the Community Development Corporation. Modeled after a project initiated by Senator Robert F. Kennedy in the Bedford-Stuyvesant section of Brooklyn, community development corporations promote economic development in low- income areas, from the inner cities to rural America.

Traveling throughout the country, and briefly living with migrant farm workers in Colorado and New Mexico, Faux helped to turn the concept of community development corporations into a national program. He also found the time to participate in the historic Selma-to- Montgomery march for voting rights and to register black voters in Virginia.

In the 1980's, Jeff returned to Washington, D.C. and set about a new mission: founding a progressive think tank that would focus on economic issues. Others involved in the project included Barry Bluestone, Robert Kuttner, Ray Marshall, Robert Reich, and Lester Thurow.

In 1986, the Economic Policy Institute opened its doors, with a staff of Faux, communications director Roger Hickey, an administrative assistant and a graduate research assistant. Originally commissioning papers by academics, EPI build its own capacity with the hiring in 1987 of Larry Mishel as research director. A year later, EPI published the first biennial edition of its signature publication, The State of Working America, which would be researched and written by Mishel and many of the economists who later joined the staff of EPI.

In the later eighties, as a wave of deindustrialization swept over the U.S., EPI helped build the case for plant closing legislation, work that bore fruit in the WARN Act of 1988. A few years later, EPI shaped the debate on the minimum wage, showing that the benefits of raising wages for the poorest workers far outweighed the potential cost in terms of inflation or job loss.

Joining the debate about the North American Free Trade Agreement, EPI explored international issues as well, pioneering the proposal that labor standards be included in trade agreements. On domestic issues, EPI developed a trademark tactic, releasing statements signed by prominent economists supporting increased public investment, opposing the balanced budget amendment, endorsing President Bill Clinton's first budget plan, and opposing President George W. Bush's tax cuts for the very wealthy. Surveys continuously find that EPI is the most widely quoted progressive think tank in the nation's news media.

In 2002, Faux stepped down as president of EPI and assumed a new role as EPI's first Distinguished Fellow. He has begun work on a book about the North American economy.

Today, we thank Jeff for his enormous contribution in improving the well being of working families all across the world.

Mr. Speaker, too many Americans continue to be uninsured and too many of those Americans are Hispanic.

A recent study by the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation found that over 70 million Americans under 65 were uninsured for at least some time during the last 2 years. This is unfortunate enough, but the statistics are even more alarming when we look at the Hispanic community. In the last 2 years, over half the Hispanic population under 65 has gone without health insurance for some time. In California, half of the Hispanic population is currently uninsured.

We cannot ignore the problem as a country, and I certainly cannot ignore it as a Californian. More Hispanics live in California than any other State, and they contribute to the State's economy and culture in countless ways. But there remains a huge disparity between the Hispanic population and the rest of the population when it comes to the accessibility to health insurance and health problems. Studies consistently show that Hispanics suffer disproportionately from diabetes, obesity, HIV/AIDS and asthma.

We as policy makers need to commit ourselves to closing this gap. At a time when the economy has soured and the American families are feeling the effects, we need to bolster long-standing programs which have served Americans well. Medicaid is one of those programs. Instead of the current administration's proposals for tax cuts that will pad the pockets of the rich but will do little to shore up the programs that have served Americans admirably during times of economic downturn, the administration then turns around and tells our Nation's governors that there is no money to shore up these programs.

Mr. Speaker, Congressional Daily reports today that in a speech to the bankers, Majority Leader Tom Delay said that ``nothing is more important in the face of a war than cutting taxes.''

Not only does that defy the history of great leaders in the Western world who understood the necessity of harboring our resources in times of uncertainty and times of war, but it also defies what the American community expects at a time of war.

That is the notion of a shared sacrifice. At a time when we are on the eve of sending our young men and women in harm's way, we have to think about what the contribution is of the rest of us. We understand the implications of this war in terms of costs are now said it could exceed $100 billion, but we do not know that, because the war has not been fought yet. We also understand that there is going to have to be a long-term commitment in Iraq after the war, and we do not have any idea of what that cost is going to be.

We know that, in fact, these costs, whatever they are, are not in the budget as submitted by the President of the United States, nor are they in the budget that is being formulated by the committees in the House and the Senate, but what this does suggest is that this tax cut and when we add to them the tax cuts that the President has proposed, ending with the taxation on dividends by providing huge amounts of tax free income for the wealthiest people in this country, what it suggests is when the bill comes due for this war, when the $5 trillion debt comes due because of the spending and because of the war and because of the Bush economy, that one group of Americans will not have to participate in that shared sacrifice. Those individuals, because of these tax cuts, will live in a tax free world.

So when the interest mounts on the debt year after year, when we have seen in a matter of 2 short years going from almost a $5 trillion surplus to a $2 trillion deficit, when we see the deficit reestimated into the hundreds of millions of dollars within a matter of months, apparently our colleague the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and the President believe that somehow the wealthiest Americans in this country should not share in that sacrifice; they should not be burdened with the responsibility of helping to pay that back.

That will be left to people who earn their income through wages. They will continue to be taxed. They will continue to pay high rates of Social Security taxes, but the wealthy will not. They will escape that.

No, that is not the most important thing in the face of war. It cannot be cutting taxes. It cannot be how this country works its way through that war. It is more importantly how we make the decision to go to war. The President has offered a number of rationales for going to war. Most of them have been stripped away in the debate that is taking place in the international community, in the debate that is taking place in this country.

We have seen evidence offered and the evidence falls apart time and again. We have seen connections trying to be made between the war on terrorism and Iraq. The evidence has not been sustained, and yet as we proceed into that war the one thing that is on the gentleman from Texas' (Mr. DeLay) mind is cutting taxes. I think it defies what we know this country has done in the past when we have engaged in these conflicts and the necessity of what must be done, and I would hope that once again we would understand that the burden must be shared across American society because there are those who will be called upon to make the supreme sacrifice and that will be their lives and their futures in pursuit of this war should the President decide to go forward.

Clearly those who are at home must continue to engage in the kind of effort to pull this Nation through this period of time, and so we cannot embrace the philosophy of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) that somehow the most important thing that we can do is to cut taxes and our most important obligation is somehow to tell the wealthiest people in America that they will not share in that sacrifice, they will not be there when the bill comes due for future generations.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my grave concern over the Bush Administration's approach toward Iraq.

I believe that this Administration is now, and has always been, determined to go to war and that it has never taken all the steps available

to avert a war while also achieving its goals toward that country.

This Administration's approach ill serves the American people and is dangerous for America's position in the world.

Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein should adhere to the demands of the United Nations Security Council to destroy any weapons of mass destruction, to refrain from further development of such weapons, and to cease and desist from hostilities towards his own people and his neighbors. He has not yet done so.

But the fact is that the United States has never given the United Nations process its full respect. The President's national security advisors have said they have intelligence to prove that Iraq is failing to comply with the United Nations' resolutions and is deceiving the weapons inspectors, but it has not fully divulged that intelligence to the inspectors.

The President has said that the United Nations must vote to use force because the weapons inspections are not working. And yet he has never advocated for a robust weapons inspection regime. Even though chief weapons inspector Hans Blix is reporting that progress is being made, albeit slowly, the fact is that we could have made even more progress with a tripling of the inspections team and an early insistence on the use of U2 spy plane overflights.

The President has an obligation to take every step possible short of war before determining whether or not war is necessary. I do not believe that the conclusion today can be reached that war is necessary.

I believe that more time can safely be given to weapons inspections without risking a unilateral attack by Iraq against the United States or our allies.

I do not believe that the facts indicate that Iraq poses a threat to the security of the United States.

But perhaps just as important, I believe that the weapons inspection regime is keeping Saddam Hussein occupied and that an even more robust weapons inspection regime would cripple any offensive capability he might contemplate.

Mr. Speaker, America's standing in the world is jeopardized by the President's position on Iraq.

President Bush has stood by while North Korea becomes a nuclear nation, but he has badgered and bullied nearly every nation in the world to support his position against Iraq, whose military capabilities are far more limited than those of North Korea. The world community has rarely received such bellicose and belligerent treatment as they have from the United States on the issue of Iraq.

The President weakens the international alliance against terrorism and other world threats as he bullies nations to support his march to war.

These nations are not admirers of Saddam Hussein, but they are opponents of war when war has not yet been proven to be necessary.

And the American people are not admirers of Saddam Hussein. But they too strongly believe that war must be the last resort and only when absolutely necessary and only with international support. This Administration chose war as its first response and has not changed course since.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the Administration would strongly consider world opinion that advocates more time for weapons inspections. I would hope that this Administration would strongly consider the harrn to America's standing in the world as it deals with the members of the United Nations. And I would hope that this Administration would remember that America is a peaceful nation, it is a just nation, and a strong nation. America is not, and should never become, a nation that is proud to go to war.

Should it be determined that war indeed is necessary, I have every confidence that the armed forces of this country will perform their responsibility with strength and character. I have always admired the men and women who choose to serve in the armed forces. I admire them for their hard work, their sense of duty to our country, and their sense of responsibility. But it is because of that very character and sense of duty to our nation that our government must exhaust every alternative to war before placing those men and women in harm's way.

The measure of the strength of a nation is its ability to show appropriate restraint just as much as it is its ability to protect itself and its allies. Mr. Speaker, millions of Americans and people throughout the world support allowing more time for weapons inspections. I believe they are right and I believe our nation will be well served to allow more time for a rigorous inspections program.