Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding to me, and I want to thank him for having this important hour. I want to thank the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary and the dean of the Congressional Black Caucus as to all of his insight and his invaluable knowledge.

I just left the hearing; and just piggybacking on the colloquy that was taking place, I just asked one of the witnesses that was brought in who used to be in charge of Haiti University, and I asked him a simple question since I know that part of the administration had brought him here and wanted him to testify since he was their witness, whether or not he thought that individuals in Haiti should receive asylum right now coming into America, whether he thought that the policy that the United States has of turning back Haitians and accepting Cubans was a fair policy. And he quickly and unequivocally said that he thought that that policy should change and it shows absolute discrimination against the Haitian people and that that is something we should be moving in a complete bipartisan manner to make sure that we take care of those individuals, particularly now because of the fact that our hands are virtually tied into what is taking place in Haiti currently.

We need to talk about the security of the people that are on this little island called Haiti, 8 million people. What is going to happen to them? It seems to me that what took place here when we did not compel the individuals to sit down at the table to have a peaceful negotiation, when we knew that the alternative would be that common crooks and criminals would be coming in armed, coming across the border, people who had been banned for life and people who are really Benedict Arnolds because they were traitors to their own country, that they would be coming back to have an insurrection as well as killing innocent men and women on the streets of Haiti, that we should have done something about it. And now with no form of government that is there now, democracy basically we did not uphold, it has crumbled, the people in Haiti are at the mercy of these individuals.

I think that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) clearly pointed out at the Committee on International Relations how he brought both The Washington Post and the New York Times showing this Philippe, who is a known criminal, convicted, is now declaring himself to be the leader and people holding him up as if he is ruling the country, and we saw no place in the paper, nor have I heard of anyone else saying, that they were in charge. We have not heard from the prime minister. We have not seen that the chief justice of the supreme court, anywhere in the constitution, when we talk about democracy, says is supposed to be in charge.

Here is this guy demanding and commanding the police force, telling the people if this guy shows his face he is going to have him placed under arrest. So the people of Haiti are under, apparently, unless the papers are lying, and from what I see, are apparently under the jurisdiction of individuals who are convicted criminals. What they did was come, and now they have opened up and destroyed all of the prisons, where people who are under a legal system, we talk about institutions, but under a judicial institution system, that were convicted by law, they are now walking the streets and the people of Haiti are subject to them.

So I say to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek), we have to really wonder whether or not the people in Haiti are safe now. I hope that the troops on the ground are changing their position, because I know at one time they were only protecting United States property. So the question is, what about the people?

Just quickly, it is not only all of the press, but my constituents who have relatives that live in Haiti, and they are on either side of the fence. Some of them do not like Aristide either. But they do not like these common crooks that are there.

When they call my office, they are telling me they are afraid for their mothers, for their grandmothers, for their uncles, for their aunts who are living there now. The situation is not better than it was before Aristide was forced to get on the plane. In fact, if anything else, it is worse. That is what they are calling my office and saying to me.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I think that CARICOM really should be applauded, because they really stepped up to the plate. They could have sat back and said just let it be. They could have been silent, as we were, up until that point, because we did not push CARICOM or anything.

We are the largest democracy on the planet. Yet we did not go in there to urge any kind of diplomatic or political solution. It took the nations of CARICOM to step up to the plate and say, ``Look, we do not want mayhem and violence. We understand the history and significance of Haiti. Therefore, we are going to come up with this plan and try to get two people to the table.''

Who dropped the ball? Unfortunately, this administration dropped the ball, because it did absolutely nothing to urge the opposition to come to the table. In fact, by its silence it said, ``You do not have to come to the table,'' which one knew then would lead to a result of what could possibly be the 33rd coup d'etat in the history of Haiti.

When we look at it, the question is, what if anything could have been done

by Aristide at that time, because he agreed to everything. First the bishops came with an agreement. Aristide agreed to it. The opposition disagreed. No one compelled them to come to the table. Then CARICOM came. Then there was an international group that came. You would have one side there saying we are willing to talk.

I for one had some problems with what was going on, and I thought having some more people involved in government and making sure there is a balance of power, that is what democracy was all about. As I looked at the CARICOM agreement, I saw there were concessions in there that individuals who may have felt they were locked out of government and not able to participate in a democratic process, that they were given, and that was going to be part of the negotiating peace, where they would be given the opportunity to sit in a floor similar to what we have here in the United States of America, in Haiti, so they could have the political debate to argue one side to the other.

Now, for sure, in my estimation, I do not agree with most of the things that the Republicans in our House do, as far as what they are moving. But we do not get into armed revolt. What we do is talk about it and debate on the floor and I have an opportunity to participate. Sometimes I even question the opportunity to participate because we are limited in our rules. But still it is the democratic process. It is the institution that we have. I think that is how problems should be resolved, and that is what we should urge people to do.

I said for a long time that I disagreed with the results that took place in the year 2000, where I believe that we had a President that was selected by the Supreme Court. I disagreed with that. But I thought that the way that we responded when we said okay, I disagree with it, but the Supreme Court is what our institutions say where there a dispute it is to be resolved. So even the fact that I disagreed with what took place and with the decision, I am going to agree with that.

That would be a lesson, an example, for the rest of the world to see, and thereby we should then also encourage other individuals to establish these kinds of institutions and to support them and not undermine them with common crooks and criminals.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman, as well as the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), when I think about the whole Haitian task force.

Number one, the record should reflect that this is the gentleman's first term in Congress, and he surely has followed right in the foot steps of his mother, Carrie Meek, who long stood fighting for the rights of Haitians and talking about the injustice that Haitians were receiving. And I think that his stepping forward on behalf of the Haitian people is clearly what he has done.

We talked in the hearing about the wisdom that the gentleman has brought to the hearing today and that he brings every Wednesday to the Congressional Black Caucus meeting because the gentleman has this interdialogue with individuals from his community, the largest Haitian community on or in our country. And what the gentleman brings is a different insight. It is an insight that unless you have that kind of interaction, everybody would not know of. And the gentleman has done it in such an articulate manner, and we appreciate it.

I mean, how the gentleman pointed out today, for example, that our policy, we had a problem talking about getting troops there to stop the common crooks from coming, but we had boats there instantly where you can see them from the shore to stop Haitians from coming here. That is why you only see 900 here. That was just very astute of the gentleman, and we thank him for bringing that forward.

Just on that point, because, I think it is important, on the whole western hemisphere because the first statement that we heard from President Chavez from Venezuela is indicating that Venezuela is not Haiti. Because just in April of 2003, there was an attempted coup there, again, threatening democracy; and we stood idly by. And but for the people of Venezuela who decided that they were not going to allow the coup to stand and put the president back, we were silent on that.

Our hands were kind of caught, the administration's hands I should say, because the gentleman is correct. I do not think the Congress would have acted that way, but the administration's hand was caught in a cookie jar. Here we come just a few months, we move from that, and we have the same kind of coup. There is a lot of similarities in that, whereas we seem to disregard the institution of democracy because of the dislike of who happens to be the democratically elected president. What we should be doing is looking to see how we can strengthen those institutions of democracy, how we can be helpful to strengthen those institutions as opposed to saying that the way you do that is to have a coup d'etat which gets rid of government altogether and causes mayhem.

Where do they come from?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. I, too, want to join with the others in thanking him for his leadership for the past year and a half, but particularly on today, on this day where crisis and time is of the essence.

I want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for their leadership on the Haiti Task Force. One always has to thank the great gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) for simply being Maxine Waters.

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed again another one of those times where it is true that the Congressional Black Caucus is indeed the conscience of the Congress, and I would hope that with today's meeting we have awakened the conscience of those individuals that are currently at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, that we must not stand idly by as a Nation, a Nation that believes in democracy, and allow a people to die and a democracy to be wiped out.

We are indeed the world's only superpower, and just off our shores, in our hemisphere, is a case of democracy being dismantled by individuals who, by every account that I have heard, are violent, are thugs and criminals. In fact, the opposition is supposed to be peaceful, though they will not get to the negotiating table or agree to anything that has been put on the table so that this can be resolved in a peaceful way.

But because we are the only world superpower, it seems to me that we would have the ability to drive to get people to the table, to make that kind of difference, to save the lives, so that we can never see people dying in the streets, as we did just a short time ago in Rwanda.

In fact, I appeal to Americans that even in being selfish about this, when you think about what is going on in the world, if you want to be selfish about this, you know, if you have instability in Haiti, there could be instability here. In fact, people are coming now. The President says, ``Don't come.'' But they are going to come if their lives are on the line. They are going to go somewhere, and they are going to try to come here.

I think it is in our best interests to make sure that we intercede and have peaceful negotiations take place, and those negotiations are obviously not going to take place unless there is something affirmatively done to cause it to happen. We have the strength and the ability to do that.

Now, we do not have to do it alone. Clearly there are others that have agreed that they will come. They are just looking for a word; they are looking for some kind of indication to say, ``Go do this,'' so we can bring Canada, we can bring France, and we can bring CARICOM along with us.

Now, I will start wrapping it up, because I know that we have a lot of Members who want to say something in regards to this. I will conclude by saying that without military intervention, be it the United States, not just by ourselves, or an international military intervention at this point, I fear that the leaders of Haiti with the most guns will feel that they can rule Haiti. It becomes the law of the jungle. And I seriously cannot see how those who would kill and destroy the institutions that currently exist, such as hospitals and other institutions that are being burned, will bring this great country back up. Let us act now, because the camera of history is roaming. Let it not be on our time that we say that we stood by and did nothing, allowing democracy to topple and people and bloodshed to fill the streets.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the President of the United States to do something to act, to lead, to save lives and save democracy in the country of Haiti.

Mr. Speaker, if not now, when? Blood is in the streets. Anarchy is happening to our neighbor right next door, our third border is at stake. It is time for the United States of America to take serious the activities that are taking place on that island called Haiti, for indeed we should have been there long ago, talking and trying to negotiate and bringing things so that democracy can prevail.

We are the largest democracy on the planet Earth; and if democracy means anything, we should look just 90 miles off our shores and say that we are going to support and stand for democracy and not stand for anything that will be less than that, where mere villains and thugs can then take over a country.

We should stand strong and say that we are not going to allow that to happen, that we want democracy to flourish everywhere, not just overseas, not just away from home, but right on our third border. That protection that we need, we should be mounting the troops together, the United Nations as well as other foreign countries, to bring to the people on the ground peace.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my unparalleled support for this bill. However, I do not feel that this bill is complete in its entirety. Provisions concerning a feasibility study for a future sister museum facility at the site of the African Burial Ground in New York City, which were present in the Lewis/Watts bipartisan piece of legislation in the last session, are not included in this current bill. The erection of the African Burial Ground International Memorial Museum and

Research Center in lower Manhattan is a goal that I intend to work feverishly on with my New York colleagues and others. Such a facility would pay homage to those souls who were brought to this country to help build it, while under enslavement. Such a facility would join the Statue of Liberty, Ellis Island, the Museum of the American Indian, the World Trade Center site, and other great New York City landmarks as a national and international symbol that tells America's full story of freedom, the quest for freedom, and the openness of our society. Most important, the study of African culture through the results of DNA testing on the African Burial Grounds will help to further educate and enlighten our citizens to a culture that is central to the building of this proud nation.

As the Lewis/Watts bill reflected in a Finding, the Secretary of the Smithsonian declared in 1998 that the African Burial Ground site provided the ``perfect'' opportunity to dissect the institution of slavery in this country--urban, rural, northern, and southern-- including the aspects of the international trade. The Burial Grounds in New York are home to the remains of 20,000 enslaved Africans. These men and women were first generation African Americans, who had to endure inhumane conditions aboard slave ships, before they were forced into labor.

I attended the ceremonies of October 3rd and 4th at the African Burial Ground commemorating the reinterment of some 430 sets of remains that had been under study at Howard University for the last decade. Thousands of people were also in attendance for this event, signaling a clear indication of the powerful feelings of respect that lies with our citizens for an African sanctum in lower Manhattan.

I feel that, ultimately, the new national museum should follow the model of the National Museum of the American Indian, with facilities at both Washington and New York City. The facility in New York, in combination with the magnificent facility to be created here in Washington, would have an overall national and international impact of breathtaking scope and scale. As evident during the ceremonies, an African Burial Ground museum facility would also play a significant role in the revitalization of lower Manhattan in this post-9/11 world, with the hopes that it will become a major national and international visitor's mecca that would join with other New York sites in bringing millions of people, and with them, an economic boom to the entire area.

I whole-heartedly believe that the African Burial Ground is a true national treasure. It is unique in this nation and all the world as an archaeological site, and a site of unparalleled significance, symbolism, and power. A site and museum facility of this magnitude of importance must be part of any national museum, and it must be part of New York's African Burial Grounds.

I would like to thank John Lewis for his long fight to make the dream of a National Museum of African American History and Culture a reality. I would also like to thank my distinguished colleagues from Kansas and Connecticut, Senators Brownback and Dodd, for leading these efforts in the Senate.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak about my recent trip to Iraq and to answer some of the questions millions of Americans have been asking every day since the President first announced that he would seek another $87 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Just this Friday I returned from a 5-day trip with eight of my Republican and Democratic colleagues as part of a delegation. We toured the south, the north of Iraq, as well as Bagdad; and I was able to see firsthand the schools that have been rebuilt, the teachers we have retrained, and the hospitals, universities and newspapers that we have helped open. I saw Iraqi police in training; and most importantly, I talked to our young men and women, many of them still teenagers or just in their early twenties, who have continued to risk their lives to bring democracy and the comforts of life we enjoy here in the U.S. to Iraq.

I came back, like so many of my colleagues, believing that there is no question that this should be about us providing for and supporting our troops, and that we do need to assist in reconstructing Iraq and to ensure the safety of Americans here in the United

States and those working abroad in our embassies or even simply traveling abroad.

However, it is just as clear to me that we cannot really afford to stay in Iraq, nor can we leave at this time. We cannot stay because the basis upon which we invaded and now occupy that country, in my opinion, was false. Our preparations and understanding of what occupation would require were faulty. Yet, if we were to pull out now, our mistake could subject the region, the world, and especially our country and our people, to grave dangers of terrorism. Iraq under Saddam Hussein was not a haven for terrorists, but the porous borders of post-Saddam and even the failure of the administration to plan for such an eventuality may be making Iraq such a haven now.

The President has put us in a terrible fix. We cannot afford to stay, yet we cannot leave. Meanwhile, we cannot even afford the initial down payment on his flawed policy of preemption. The country cannot afford the $87 billion the President is asking the Congress to appropriate. Indeed, experts say that Iraq this year could only absorb $6 billion. So why is Mr. Bush demanding three times that amount?

America cannot afford the price tag that the President has put on this Iraqi misadventure unless he agrees to rescind the tax cuts to the top 1 percent of Americans, unless he understands that we have got to work in a multilateral situation and brings in a true form other nations to share in the cost of this. Because otherwise, the money that we will be spending will be money that we will be taking from the middle class and working class people of this great Nation and the poor who are already paying for this war, especially with their sons and their daughters.

Let us make it so this is a shared sacrifice by all Americans. Most of all, our men and women in uniform in Iraq need a change in policy.

Mr. Chairman, I vote against this measure. This is a perpetuation of a failed policy and misguided priorities. Even so, the President can turn this around once he makes a choice between troop strength and tax cuts to the wealthiest of Americans. The President can turn this around once he makes a choice between international cooperation and stuffing the pockets of partisan cronies. Mr. Chairman, we know this is just the first installment.

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following document for the Congressional Record.

[From the Financial Times, June 17, 2003]

The Horn In Peril

When is a ``final and binding'' decision reached by a

neutral body of legal experts open to negotiation? The

international community is facing this question in the Horn

of Africa, where the regional giant Ethiopia has rejected as

``unacceptable'' a Border Commission ruling on its border

with tiny Eritrea.

The outside world was appalled when two of Africa's poorest

countries went to war in 1998. It heaved a sigh of relief

when both governments agreed, after losing at least 70,000

lives, to submit their frontier to international arbitration.

But Ethiopia's rejection of the unanimous decision reached by

a Border Commission sitting in The Hague has raised the

prospect of, at worst, a new war and, at best, an indefinite

stand-off.

External donors sympathise with the tricky position in

which the ruling places Meles Zenawi, Ethiopia's prime

minister. Undermined by hardliners in his own party, Mr.

Meles is also resented by ordinary Ethiopians who have never

accepted the independence of Eritrea, their former coastal

province. Foreign governments know that losing Badme, the

settlement that was the flashpoint for the war, represents a

symbolic humiliation for the prime minister. They also nurse

a certain distaste for an authoritarian Eritrean government

that has jailed domestic dissenters and closed down the

private press.

But if international arbitration were easy for losing

parties to swallow, wars would never occur in the first

place. If the Border Commission's decision on Badme were to

go unenforced, Eritrea could reconsider its prompt pull-out

from the contested Greater Hanish Island, allotted by an

international court to Yemen in 1998. Nigeria could continue

to defy the International Court of Justice's ruling last year

that the oil-rich Bakassi Peninsula belongs to Cameroon.

``Might is right'' must not become the deciding principle in

territorial disputes across Africa, where so many colonial

borders cut across cultural and ethnic lines.

Ethiopia's rejection comes at a time when both countries

are appealing for millions of dollars in food aid to

alleviate a four-year drought. The failure to settle the

border dispute will not come cheap. Maintaining a 4,000

strong United Nations buffer force has already cost about

$500m (euro 420m), which could have been better spent feeding

starving rural families.

Donor countries cannot sit idly by while positions harden

to a point where future compromise becomes impossible. While

there is an understandable reluctance to use humanitarian aid

as a bargaining chip, they should leave Ethiopia in no doubt

that longer-term development aid is at risk. And they should

firmly spell out this link before Ethiopia's ruling party

conference takes place this autumn, when Mr. Meles risks

being boxed in by the impassioned nationalistic rhetoric of

his colleagues. There is far more at stake here than the

relationship between Ethiopia and Eritrea.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment just simply says that no funds in fiscal year 2004 can be used to close the St. Albans Veterans Facility. Basically, the St. Albans veterans care facility has been a key provider of services and jobs at St. Albans for as long as I can remember. It sits in the heart of my district on what was formerly a military base in Queens County, New York.

The St. Albans VA Primary and Extended Care Center provides primary care and offers specialized geriatric programs and restorative rehabilitation. Geriatric programs provide comprehensive evaluation and safe, effective management of elderly cognitively impaired veterans. An outpatient adult day care health care program and home-based primary care program exists and cares for the physically disabled, medically complicated elderly veterans who are at risk of nursing home placement or recurrent hospitalization. A comprehensive psychosocial rehabilitation domiciliary program providing incentive therapy, vocational counseling, and independent living skills training for patients seeking to return to independent living is provided by the VA Primary and Extended Care Facility.

This facility has 386 beds. This facility provides inpatient extended care services, including skilled nursing, antibiotic therapy, and respite care. Also provided is subacute restorative rehabilitation for the elderly. The campus also hosts an ambulatory care center that provides primary care and specialty care, including podiatry, audiology, dental service, and optometry. VA adult health care and home-based primary care programs, providing outpatient geriatric care, is present at the St. Albans campus. A homeless domiciliary emphasizing comprehensive psychosocial rehabilitation exists at the extended care center.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I realize, Mr. Chairman, that the CARES program that the VA is looking to is to reduce wasteful and underutilized space; that it is costing $1 million a day. I understand the need not to be wasteful, but the St. Albans facility is not a place of waste. It is not only a key to the County of Queens, it is a key for all of New York City and is also a huge economic engine in the City of New York.

We need this facility, particularly now; and it is really something that is not underutilized. In fact, it is overutilized. And so I would urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment and keep the St. Albans VA Facility for fiscal year 2004 and accept this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, as we enter this late night, I am reminded of a show: Things that make you say hmmm. When I think of just the title of this bill and what is referred reimportation of drugs, I say hmmm.

Reimportation tries to give the implication that the drugs were manufactured here, gone over, and they are coming back here so, therefore, they are safe. If the issue of safety were not there, what would we be talking about? We are really talking about the reimportation of drugs from many a different country. The FDA, if you just look up at the Web site of the FDA, over the last 5 years they have only inspected labs, labs over the last 5 years. Yet, we say safety is not an issue.

My esteemed colleague from Illinois talked earlier. He said he spoke with the former Secretary of the FDA, Donna Shalala; and she said if the FDA had additional money, maybe they could do this. Well, as indicated, there is no additional appropriations here because the implication is if the FDA does not have the money, they cannot ensure safety of the medicine.

What money will go to the FDA? There is no appropriations to this bill.

Just recently there was a situation that occurred in Florida where 19 individuals were indicted for distributing millions of dollars of counterfeit cancer, AIDS and other drugs. It occurs all over this country. If H.R. 2427 were to pass tonight, this is exactly what the Congress would be encouraging. Yes, we would be encouraging counterfeit drugs, improperly stored drugs, expired drugs, diluted products to enter our borders and to be distributed by qualified individuals, who, when I read the bill, qualified individuals, who they are? They have added, qualified individuals can bring this in, but there is no clear definition of who those qualified individuals are.

Supporting this bill suggests that health and safety warnings, I present, are simply myths. I beg to differ.

I have two pills in my hands. Distinguish between an authentic pill and a counterfeit pill. I ask anybody to just tell me how you, not experts, can determine which is the real one and which one is the counterfeit.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to lend my strong support for the Kilpatrick amendment of the fiscal year 2004 foreign operations appropriations bill. This proposal to provide an additional $300 million in funding for HIV/AIDS is critical, prudent, and timely.

The United States of America has the opportunity to show both the resources and action and commitment to tackling the AIDS crisis on a global scale. As has been stated, an estimated 42 million people worldwide are currently living with the AIDS virus. Last year alone, over 3 million people died from AIDS, and another 5 million were newly infected. In selected countries on the African continent, AIDS will kill, kill one in two young people. Other regions of the world have been hit hard from AIDS as well. In fact, AIDS is the leading cause of death in many Latin American and Caribbean countries, with 2 million people living with HIV. Over 7 million people in Asia and the Pacific are living with HIV. There is no denying the immediate need for additional HIV/AIDS assistance.

This international killer is indiscriminate in its targets. It respects no geographical boundaries and heeds to no race, no age, and no religion. AIDS has become the number one killer in communities throughout the world; and we must attack it with the precision, the determination, and the coordination it requires.

This proposed injection of new funds is offset by using funds budgeted for the Millennium Challenge Account. We have an opportunity to put much-needed and available funds toward a dire and critical need.

Mr. Chairman, I have heard from some of my friends on the other side of the aisle who are opposing this, they say that this will weaken MCA. I am convinced that when we look at this new foreign assistance initiative that has yet to be signed into law, that once the President, once it is signed into law, he will have to appoint a CEO with the consent of the Senate, he will have to hire 150 to 200 employees, there will be countries that have to be selected and proposals that will have to be reviewed and approved before any money starts flowing, which will probably not be until next spring. This amendment would leave $500 million to fund this new initiative, more than enough money to get the program operating and to fund proposals from eligible countries.

I firmly believe that we can today make a bold and creative statement about both our judgment and our commitment to the global AIDS crisis by taking this bold and creative step. We must show the courage to make decisions and the wisdom to spend money where it is needed and spend it now. There are programs on the ground, up and running, ready to engage the struggle against this disease. There are troopers on the front lines of the HIV/AIDS battle and they need our assistance, cooperation, support, and the funds. We should not let even the slightest opportunity slip by where we could have provided ammunition against this dreaded disease.

Mr. Chairman, we stand for a lot in America. We spend almost $4 billion a month fighting a war, and we talk about we want to make a difference in lives. Here is a chance for America to take the lead, to bring folks together and to say we are going to put our money where our mouths are. We are going to make sure that we save these lives. These lives. Because when we talk about trying to fight dictators and we talk about changing dictators, we want to change them because they are killing people.

Well, this dreaded disease is killing people quicker than any dictator. We have the opportunity, if we only have

the will, to put our money where our mouths are, and with this small $300 million, to say that we are going to make sure that we eradicate AIDS wherever it may raise its ugly head. Let us not just speak with words. Let us speak with deeds, deeds that can be heard around the world. Because if not, sometimes people say, for whom does the bell toll, and this is the boomerang. So for whom does the bell toll? It tolls for thee, if we do not wake up.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I come before this body to offer an amendment to today's Ready to Teach Act. As we here in Congress continue to discuss year in and year out the education of our children, this Nation's future, I am pleased to offer an amendment that I feel will have a large impact not only on the diversity of schools today but also on the future academic achievement of our students.

My amendment proposes to encourage partnerships between educational entities and inner city and rural secondary schools. This partnership will be funded by allowable uses of funds, which will fund outreach and coordinate efforts that encourage inner city and rural youth to pursue teaching as a career.

The need for such collaboration is evident to both educational researchers and anyone who simply walks into nearly any public school in the Nation. Research shows that our educational system must increase its efforts to encourage a higher proportion of students of color and males into the postsecondary pipeline. Too often, students leak out of the college pipeline between their 9th and 12th grade years because they do not consider themselves college material.

My amendment helps prevent that from occurring. By forming partnerships between educational entities and secondary schools, an opportunity is created to identify those secondary students who find teaching attractive

and encourage them to remain focused on their studies.

Not only does my amendment encourage teaching as a career, but it also encourages diversity. Obviously, a teacher's effectiveness depends, first and foremost, on his or her skills and high expectations; yet we also know that students benefit in important ways by having some teachers who look differently or some who look like them, who share similar cultural experiences, who come from similar neighborhoods, and who serve as role models demonstrating that education and achievement are things to be respected. It is important to expose children to a diverse teaching staff and to diverse role models within each of our schools. Where we have a rural or inner city school with teachers unlike the students, we are giving students a stunted educational experience.

Mr. Chairman, as schools are redoubling their commitment to raising standards and closing achievement gaps, we need to seize every opportunity to boost the achievement of inner city and rural students.

This amendment provides us with an opportunity not only to change the demographics of the teacher workforce, but also to encourage students to continue their pursuit of an education and to reveal to them the nature of the work of teaching.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce for their cooperation in allowing me to offer this amendment, and I request the support of all my colleagues as we seek to provide more educational opportunities to all our children.

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

Madam Speaker, when I first saw the headlines of the bill, I looked at the bill, it came across my desk, because everybody wants to do something about small business. I first said to my staff, let's get on this bill; it will help small business. But then after I read it a second time and a third time, the devil is always in the details. The devil is in the fine print. The devil is in what you read.

When I really read the bill, I found that this bill would actually be devastating; it is what we call short-term gain for long-term pain. When you look over the years, the pain that really will happen to people who we are trying to help in the long-term will be devastating. Then when I looked even a little bit closer and tried to watch it to see how it affected those low-wage earners that my colleague just talked about and minorities and women in particular, then I noticed another substantial devastating event, the fact that what this bill does because many of the people that we want to help, they happen to be minority and women and how they disproportionately will be affected by this bill.

In fact, when you look at it, certain diseases because of people who are of color, Latino and African American, you look at approximately 2.8 million or 13 percent of all African Americans and 2 million or 10.2 percent of all Latino Americans have diabetes. They would not be covered under this. They could be cherrypicked. African American men have a 20 percent higher incident rate and a 40 percent higher death rate from all forms of cancer combined than white men do. They will be affected by this bill disproportionately. African American women with breast cancer are 67 percent more likely to die from the disease than Caucasians. They will be disproportionately affected under this cherrypicking, what this bill will do to them.

Hispanics experience the highest invasive cervical cancer incidence rates of any group other than Vietnamese. They will be hurt and devastated by this. Hispanics account for nearly one-fifth of HIV/AIDS cases in the United States. African Americans account for approximately 35 percent of HIV/AIDS cases in the United States. They will not be covered. They will not be picked up by these folks.

Now, more than ever, minority populations and women depend on health care. H.R. 660 stands to make this needed health care harder for those populations to obtain in the long run, not in the short run. In fact, most States require insurance to cover cancer screenings, maternity, diabetes treatment, and other benefits that provide medical care for minorities and women. However, Federal AHP legislation would allow certain insurers to avoid complying with these State laws. This means a loss of crucial benefits for many families, that 1 million that we hear my other colleagues talking about.

While our Nation is faced with a new health care crisis, H.R. 660 is not the solution. It is absolutely not the solution. We must work to pass legislation that offers genuine relief to small employers while preserving the significant health care reforms undertaken by the States. I urge my colleagues to voice their opposition to H.R. 660, the so-called Small Business Health Fairness Act.

Mr. Speaker, I stand here today to discuss real intentions. The real intentions of the majority party to continue its careless actions that further devastate a suffering economy, that further diminish the opportunities of working and military families to care for their loved ones, and that further helps the rich become richer and the poor become poorer.

My colleagues, last month's $350 billion tax-cut package that passed was not really about stimulating the economy, but instead it was about borrowing nearly a trillion dollars to engineer a permanent shift in the tax burden away from the very wealthy, and a permanent reduction in federal revenues. If the tax bill's real intention was to stimulate the economy, those 12 million checks of up to $400 would have been first in, not first out, of the legislation. Again, the real intentions of the majority came to light--to provide relief for upper-income taxpayers. These real intentions are best seen in H. Res. 270, which provides low-income families with a child tax credit, but only if higher-income families are also eligible.

The intentions of the majority have caused many upper-income taxpayers to pay attention to what is currently happening and they send a thank you to those who support this shady legislation. They want to say:

Thank you for borrowing another $82 billion at a time when the federal deficit has exceeded $400 billion for 2003 and approaches $500 billion for 2004, adding billions of dollars in ``debt tax'' onto the backs of the very families that need this assistance the most.

Thank you for making a compromise between the two parties so hard to reach, for you are only further preventing discussion of a real prescription drug benefit and the rising percentage of unemployed people across this great nation.

Thank you for ignoring the agreement reached in the Senate, you are only further keeping Congress from focusing on other important issues such as the 41 million uninsured people in this nation.

Thank you for the corporate welfare to criminal enterprises like MCI Worldcom who stole the retirement savings of more than 1 million pension holders in New York State. These pension holders were victimized by MCI Worldcom's fraud and now see MCI abusing Sec. 108 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in order to avoid paying about $4 billion in future taxes because of its past criminal behavior.

Finally, thank you for the deceptive games being played, we truly see how as a majority party how careless and clueless you are about what it takes to restart this economy and support needy families throughout this nation.

Madam Speaker, MCI WorldCom represents the largest corporate fraud in United States history, costing shareholders more than $180 billion and still counting. So far, more than 22,000 jobs have been lost, and the company just received a tax refund from the Federal Government totaling $300 million for the so-called overpayments on the fraud MCI WorldCom committed.

Meanwhile, the impact in New York has been devastating. MCI WorldCom has laid off 30 percent of its workforce in New York, with most of the cuts coming in Long Island. New York State's pension fund, the second largest in the Nation, has lost about $306 million on MCI WorldCom, the worst single loss in the firm's history. Not to be excluded, New York City's five pension funds reported that they lost $160 million on WorldCom stock.

Why should we care? Because these pension funds represent a portion, possibly a significant portion, of New York State's public sector employees, policemen, firefighters, teachers, et cetera, who became victims of MCI WorldCom's fraud. Just the State pension fund alone represents more than 950,000 active and retired public employees and their beneficiaries.

There is so much more that can be said of this case; however, since time is brief, I will focus my remarks on what I believe are the most egregious items of this case.

First, the proposed settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission. I am extremely disappointed with the SEC's decision to settle with MCI WorldCom for a mere $500 million, and I know that sounds like a lot, but the original $1.5 billion fine represented less than 1 percent of the losses amassed by shareholders because of the company's fraud. This eye-popping ruling brings the SEC's credibility into question. Such ostrich-like attitudes by the SEC will only increase cynicism from investors on the SEC's legitimacy.

As MCI begins to rebrand its corporate image and seeks to distance itself from its criminal stigma, it is incumbent upon the SEC to act in a decisive manner that adequately punishes MCI WorldCom for its massive crimes. Their clever attempts to return to corporate normalcy cannot be realized until MCI WorldCom makes complete restitution for its criminal acts. As the regulatory agency tasked with overseeing corporate behavior, the SEC should serve as a strong enforcer and not a willing accomplice that rewards criminal activity.

Last week, I filed a petition with the U.S. district court requesting that Judge Rakoff delay any decision in the MCI WorldCom-SEC settlement until adequate information is available publicly to enable the thorough evaluation of the company's fraud, the proposed settlement, and MCI WorldCom's current and future plans for compliance with applicable law. I also urged the court to hold a hearing on the findings set forth in the upcoming reports of the examiner in bankruptcy and the

special investigative committee and evaluate the proposed settlement only when the SEC's investigation of the company is complete.

The second issue regarding this case is MCI WorldCom's attempt to use the Federal bankruptcy laws under Chapter 11 reorganization. As a member of the House Committee on Financial Services and a supporter of reforming our bankruptcy laws, I can tell my colleagues this is not the intent of Congress. Reorganization under the bankruptcy laws should not apply when the assets are the product of criminal activities. Bankruptcy should not be a vehicle for laundering stolen goods.

I am shocked and appalled that MCI WorldCom, or any other company for that matter, can manipulate our laws in this manner after admitting to criminal behavior. This is why I am working on a legislative remedy that will correct this and plan to introduce that legislation very soon. It is important to realize that if MCI WorldCom is allowed to reemerge from bankruptcy with 90 percent of its debt eliminated and retain the fruits of its crime, they will gain a significant artificial advantage over its competitors who played by the rules. If this happens, the message that regulators, policymakers, and other government officials would then send to the marketplace is crime does indeed pay; cook your books, defraud your investors, and you too can seek bankruptcy protection and become a more viable competitor.

The security laws are intended to protect innocent parties from fraud in the marketplace, while the Bankruptcy Code is intended to facilitate the reorganization of financially troubled companies who make unwise but honest business decisions; not companies who commit fraud.

The case with MCI Worldcom is clear. There actions were to defraud investors, their employees and the public. And they did so very successfully.

Before I conclude, I need to make two final points. MCI Worldcom executives have stated that they are owned tax refund on profits they ``really didn't make.'' Also, according to Business Week, the company plans to carry forward its newly recognized losses--``at least $6.5 billion''--from prior years in order to shelter future earnings from taxes.

This loophole allows MCI Worldcom to abuse the tax code because under Internal Revenue Code Sec. 108(a), income from the cancellation of debt (COD) is excluded from a taxpayer's gross income if the cancellation occurs in a Title 11 bankruptcy proceeding or under other specified circumstances. Under the code, sec. 108(b), a taxpayer benefiting from this income exclusion must reduce its tax attributes, including net operating losses (NOLs).

MCI Worldcom is exploiting an obscurity in the law. Rather than treat its NOLs and other tax attributes on a consolidated basis, the company is interpreting the law in a manner that allows it to deal with the NOLs on a separate basis. This would allow MCI Worldcom to preserve its NOLs and other tax attributes, so an estimated $10 billion or more of income to the new MCI Worldcom will be tax free. This means that the company will not pay taxes into the foreseeable future.

Now, although I support targeted tax relief and I realized long ago that the Bush tax cuts benefitted those at the very top, this is ridiculous. Here again, I will introduce legislation to clarify the treatment of tax attributes under section 108 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for taxpayers who file consolidated returns.

Finally, I need to address MCI Worldcom's best customer--you, me and everyone who pays federal taxes. Why? Because the federal government continues to be its biggest and best customer despite the company's criminal behavior. For a matter of fact, the company is getting no-bid contracts like the one to build a wireless network in Iraq, a line of business the company is not even in.

Curious? You bet. The federal government did not have this same policy with Enron and Arthur Andersen. Since committing the largest fraud in U.S. history MCI Worldcom has moved up to the eighth largest federal technology contractor according to a review by Washington Technology, with $772 million in sales. Why would the government award business to a criminal organization who is very unstable? You will have to get your answer from the Bush Administration.

To allow a corrupt, criminal enterprise like MCI Worldcom to perpetuate its violation of the securities laws and visit this injury on an already distraught sector would be an injustice to the millions of its victims nationwide. Whether it is the proposed settlement, its bankruptcy proceedings, its abuse of the tax code or the awarding of federal contracts, MCI Worldcom must pay for its crimes and make full restitution. Anything less will be the biggest fraud of all.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this legislation, not because of political ideology, not because I believe my wife, my two sisters, and my three daughters should have the right to decide when to bring a child into this world, but because I read the bill. I researched the history and I understand the real issues involved here.

Unfortunately, H.R. 760, the so-called partial-birth abortion ban and, again, partial-birth abortion is not a medical term, distorts the issue. H.R. 760 is a broadly written piece of legislation that would outlaw some of the safest and most common abortion procedures and makes no exception to preserve a woman's health or her fertility.

There are other so-called facts in this bill that are not supported by medical research. Contained in the bill, it is written that the procedure is never necessary to preserve the health of the woman. The key word here is never necessary. Well, I say ask Vikki Stella, a diabetic who, after examining all other options with her doctor, made a decision, along with her husband, to terminate her pregnancy of a much- wanted son. Vikki's option to choose this procedure was believed to be the safest and most appropriate, leaving her the opportunity to live a healthy life with her husband and two young daughters, as well as the opportunity to bear the son that they later gave birth to, Nicholas.

This bill distorts the truth and politicizes a constitutional right of all women in this country. And the in rulings of Roe, Casey and Stenberg by the Supreme Court, the Court stated that every abortion restriction must contain a health exception that allows an abortion when necessary in appropriate medical judgment for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

This bill does not do it. I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, I come before this body with two purposes in mind. First, to discuss the demons I battled as I came to a conclusion regarding my position on the legislation before us today. Secondly, to hopefully educate those listening and watching this debate taking place before us.

As I sat in my office yesterday evening confronting my long-held beliefs and realizing the possible collision that my surfacing position on this issue may have with my political ideology, I chose to delve deep into the heart of the issue and question my beliefs regarding abortion that I had never questioned before. As I further focused over the legality and morality of ending a pregnancy, the rights of a woman, and the rights of an unborn child pre-viability and post-viability, I came to the decision to oppose this legislation. No, not to oppose it because of political ideology. No, not to oppose it because I believe my wife, two sisters, and three daughters should have a right to decide when to bring a child into the world. But because, I read the bill, I researched the history, and I came to terms with the real issue. Unfortunately, H.R. 760, the so-called Partial Birth Abortion Ban of 2003 distorts the real issue--preventing members in this body and constituents throughout the nation from truly understanding what is at stake.

H.R. 760 is a broadly written piece of legislation that would outlaw some of the safest and most common abortion procedures, and it makes no exception to preserve a woman's health or future fertility. As the supporters of this bill incorrectly label the procedure of dilation and extraction, commonly known as D & X, but for the purposes of this bill as partial birth abortion, they vividly describe a procedure that they wish to ban in 2000 was found constitutional in the Supreme Court case Stenberg v. Carhart.

First, I will address the manner in which this legislation describes the fetus as a child. Medical journals describe the object in the womb of the mother as a fetus until fully delivered. And I, like many of you, not being a member of society who holds accredited medical credentials must follow the standards put forth by the medical society. The proponents of the bill truly attempt to be creative in its attempts to have readers of the language imagine an actual child going through this procedure. It almost worked on me, but that is when I looked closer at the language and focused on Section 2, subsection 5 of the legislation. There, contained in the bill, it is written that the procedure ``is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman.'' And here is where H.R. 760 further distorts the truth. They key phrase here is never necessary. Well, this all depends on what one values as a necessity. Yes, one procedure could have an advantage over another in certain cases. Where one doctor may prefer dilation and evacuation, commonly known as D & E, which involves a doctor inserting an instrument into a woman's womb and dismembering the fetus, because it is the safest procedure to ensure the woman's life and health, that same doctor may choose D & X for another patient because it is the safest and most appropriate procedure for that particular patient to ensure the woman's life and health. Unlike the proponents of this bill, I will stand on this House floor today and admit that sometimes this gruesome procedure is a necessity for some women. For example, it was the only option for Vikki Stella--a diabetic who, after examining all other options with her doctor, made the decision along with her husband to terminate her pregnancy of her much-wanted son. Vicki's option to choose this procedure was believed to be the safest and most appropriate--leaving her the opportunity to live a healthy life with her husband and two young daughters--as well as the opportunity to bear the son she later gave birth to, Nicholas.

My colleagues, this bill distorts the truth and politicizes a constitutional right of all women in this country. Incorrectly labeling the procedure and overriding the ruling of the Supreme Court as reaffirmed by the majority in Stenberg that a woman's health must be the paramount consideration, women across the nation are being denied their constitutional right. As a result of the ruling by the Supreme Court, every abortion restriction must contain a health exception that allows an abortion when ``necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.'' H.R. 760 does not do this. And for this reason, I find the so-called Partial Birth Abortion Ban of 2003 unconstitutional and unworthy of my support, the support of my colleagues, and the support of the people of this great Nation. I ask my colleagues to vote against this bill in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am honored to pay tribute to Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian on the occasion of his third anniversary in Office. During the last 3 years, he has maintained both economic and political growth for his country. The people of Taiwan enjoy one of the best standards in Asia and full political freedom.

President Chen has also strengthened Taiwan's relationship with the United States. We appreciate his support of our war against terrorism and his pledge of humanitarian assistance to post-war Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, the spread of SARS has threatened the entire region and permeated the west with sporadic infections. We hope that President Chen will be successful in controlling the spread of SARS in Taiwan and that Taiwan will not suffer the disastrous economical and medical set back such an epidemic would promote.

Once again, I congratulate President Chen on 3 years of service to the Taiwanese people and wish him well as he strives to develop the political and economic landscape of Taiwan.