Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Maryland, the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, for yielding time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Republican budget resolution tonight, and I strongly endorse the Congressional Black Caucus-Progressive Caucus budget resolution and our Democratic alternative.

Immediately after the Republicans passed their budget out of committee, one of the first groups that I heard from to object to their proposal was the American Legion. Representing America's honorable veterans, the American Legion stated that, ``The budget defies common sense. There must be a better way to provide tax relief to the American people than to balance the budget on the backs of disabled veterans.''

Disabled American Veterans call the House Committee on the Budget budget ``indefensible and callous.'' They represent nearly 1.3 million disabled veterans in the country, and they believe the Republican budget asks veterans to ``swallow a bitter pill to remedy an illness of their own making.''

Republicans are calling for a $15 billion cut in veteran benefits over the next 10 years. Over $800 million will be cut in health care programs for veterans next year alone. These budget cuts will impact a very large population in my own district.

I would like to just let the Members know in my own district we have over 28,000 veterans from all former wars that are still alive that reside in my district. Many are minority veterans. Mr. Chairman, 1.4 million of those veterans live in the Los Angeles County area; 2.3 million of those veterans live in the State of California.

We must keep in mind that among our troops being sent abroad right now are many young men and women representing our State of California. I know that, because I had an opportunity to meet with many of them in my district. I met three of them, three young women, two Asian women and one Latino. One was a student enrolled in college, telling me that her dream was to come back and become a teacher. The other two were in their profession. They almost had tears in their eyes, telling me that they had actually joined up to be in the Reserve unit, not knowing they would now be faced with something that was unimaginable. I pray for them, and I pray for their families.

Mr. Chairman, I know that what we are doing here tonight is very exemplary, by supporting the Black Caucus budget, the Progressive Caucus and the Democratic alternative, because we care about families, we care about the very people that are spending their time this evening defending our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for working with us. I also thank the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), and the gentleman from California (Chairman Pombo) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich). When we were discussing the bill last year, we went through different versions of the bill. We did try to accommodate the concerns of all Members who were involved in this effort.

I truly think this is a hallmark because it is a bipartisan bill that was working its way through last year, but unfortunately met some barriers on the Senate side. I know this is something that many people in urban areas are looking for as a model. We hear from Members on both sides of the aisle talking about providing open space in urban areas.

This will hopefully provide some type of relief for over 2 million people that reside along the San Gabriel River. I grew up there as a child and spent many Saturday afternoons and vacations in this area. Something that we like to talk about is the fact that so many people in that area come from largely low-income, underrepresented areas, and do not have the ability or economic means to go to Sequoia, to go to Yosemite, to even go to the beach. Some people in my district have never had the luxury of going to the beach. Their recreation occurs in their particular geographic area.

The San Gabriel Mountains are only 20 minutes away from a lot of the residents that I represent. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and I have worked on this issue. Many of his constituents feel very strongly about the need to provide open space for all communities. This is a step in the right direction. The Department of the Interior will conduct a study, and hopefully they will come up with some good planning so we can move forward. I thank all of the Members for working with me.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to discuss President Bush and the House Republicans' proposed budget. As my colleagues may recall, back in the year 2001, President Bush entered his office enjoying a fiscal surplus that no previous President had ever experienced, over $127 billion in that fiscal year alone, a 10-year surplus projected at $5.6 trillion. Our President also took office with an ambitious plan to provide tax cuts, the number of $1.7 trillion.

Democrats warned that a tax cut of this magnitude and time would prove irresponsible. We warned that the tax cuts would reduce the size of the future economy, raise interest rates and prove fiscally unsustainable, but our President chose not to listen. Instead he squandered $1.7 trillion of our Nation's surplus to advance his tax agenda, aiding a very small proportion of Americans, particularly the very wealthy.

By the summer of 2001, before the tragedies of September 11, our economy had begun to slow down, and our 10-year surplus was now down from $5.6 trillion to only $575 billion. I bring this point up because we cannot afford to ignore the connection between the current state of our economy and the President's first round of tax cuts.

Now that our economy is clearly faltering, Republicans would like to offer still more fiscally irresponsible tax cuts. How do Republicans expect to pay for the second round of $1.7 trillion in tax cuts? By cutting the programs that are essential to our collective well-being and the well-being of our families.

The President's budget cuts domestic programs important to our livelihood while enacting tax cuts that will add to our public debt. More specifically, the Bush budget sacrifices the health of

our Nation. In fact, 41 million Americans right now have no health insurance. Many of them are Hispanics.

The Bush budget cuts funding for Medicaid coverage for children, low- income seniors and the disabled. The budget also eliminates funding for programs that increase the number of minority health care providers, desperately needed in communities like mine, where we need linguistically and culturally appropriate health care providers.

It is also important to note that the President's budget will only create 190,000 jobs this year, less than the number of jobs that we lost this February. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the U.S. economy lost 308,000 jobs this past month. Latinos are also particularly heavily impacted. In my own district, unemployment rates are far beyond the 9 percent, way above what the national level is at 5.6.

These unemployment rates are outrageous, and our President's solution to create only 190,000 jobs is not even nearly enough where we need to be. The President should focus his budget on funding important Federal programs that create opportunity or self-sufficient jobs for the 8.5 million unemployed Americans, and instead, the President's budget cuts job training and employment programs for dislocated workers. It fails to extend unemployment benefits for the 1 million Americans who cannot access Federal assistance, but are still jobless.

As bad as the President's budget is, I am even more disappointed by the budget that the Republicans want to offer, and the Republican budget resolution requires that almost every authorizing committee cut spending within its jurisdiction, and it fails to explain which programs those will be that will be on the chopping block. I think it is questionable that we somehow implement a 2.9 percent across-the- board cut in these programs without giving us specifics. In reality, what it means is there will be more cuts for veterans, our children and the elderly.

For example, the Republican budget fails to provide any specific funding for a Medicare prescription drug benefit. It provides only $28 billion in new funding over 10 years for all the programs under the jurisdiction of two committees that are responsible for this, for Medicare, the Committee on Ways and Means and Committee on Energy and Commerce. From my own home district it would actually translate into $233.2 million of cuts in Medicare over the next 10 years, and the State of California would lose more than $18 billion.

Let us take a closer look at the Republican's budget and how it will impact education. Republicans, running on the assumption that every program harbors substantial waste and fraud, are requesting the Committee on Education and the Workforce to cut out $10 million from their budget. So what is it going to be, school lunch programs for kids or student loans?

We need to be responsible in our budget deliberations.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong opposition to the so- called medical malpractice bill that we are going to be voting on today.

I have heard from the minority physicians in my area, and they are quite alarmed. They are quite alarmed because their insurance premiums keep skyrocketing. And I am talking about the State of California, where we had some reforms back in 1974 through a law called MICRA, which was supposed to bring down the cost of malpractice lawsuits. What happened there was not much.

We had also Proposition 103 that was passed to bring down insurance premiums. Guess what, folks? In California it helped slightly, but not enough.

In fact, in California, the rates are still 8 percent higher than other parts of the country. I want to call the Members' attention to the fact that the caps that we are going to be looking at in this proposal discriminate against children, seniors, and the unemployed.

I want to call attention to the case of Jessica Santillan, a Latina teenager, who died last month after doctors at Duke University Hospital confused her blood type during an organ transplant. Under this proposed bill, Jessica's family would only be allowed to recover $250,000 in damages. That is wrong. This is no small amount that can compensate for the suffering of the family. I urge Members to allow Congress to vote on the Conyers-Dingell alternative.

Mr. Speaker, I believe we can all acknowledge that rising medical malpractice premiums are hurting doctors and patients. But I heard earlier from the other side that trauma centers are closing, and they are closing in Los Angeles. But it is not because of frivolous lawsuits, it is because we have not provided adequate reimbursement for Medicaid for those poor hospitals. That is why, and we are not even addressing that.

I have to say, with all due respect, that the bill will not lower insurance premiums. Caps in California did not lower premiums. Insurance reform did, Proposition 103, and only slightly, because we are still above many other States in the country.

We need to bring insurance providers to the table and we need to have that kind of discussion, not one that talks back and forth here on the floor.

Caps on noneconomic damages unfairly penalize children, retirees and stay-at-home moms. And you know why? Because they do not make an income.

Mr. Ed Whiddon, a retired lieutenant colonel in the Air Force, was a victim of malpractice at the hands of an anesthesiologist who left him a paraplegic. His compensation was almost entirely for pain and suffering damages because he was retired, no income, did not qualify for lost wages.

The bill would unfairly limit damages for retirees like this former member of our Armed Forces and others who earn no wages, like poor moms and children.

Let us protect patients' rights. Let us help those poor people. Let us open up those trauma centers by really addressing the issue adequately. This way is the wrong way. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 5 and to support the Conyers-Dingell alternative.

Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 50 on H.R. 441 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Madam Speaker, tonight I am very pleased to be here to speak about health care and the crisis that we face here in our Nation and particularly about the crisis that is affecting the Hispanic population and other minority groups.

I am delighted that I have been joined tonight by three colleagues that will speak about some of the situations and problems that they face in their own States. First I would like to, as chairwoman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Health Task Force, recognize the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen), who is our representative for the Virgin Islands. She is chair of the Hispanic brain trust for the Black Caucus.

I yield to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, who in her own right is a leading physician and who has actually done so much to help further the cause for universal health care, access for everyone and also for HIV and AIDS prevention, and also for those many chronic illnesses that many of us face.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks this evening.

Madam Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to recognize the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez), the chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Rodriguez), our illustrious chair of the Hispanic caucus. I thank him for appointing me as the woman who will be now in charge of the issues regarding Hispanics and health care this term. I am very privileged to be in this position, and I know that we have a long charge ahead of us.

Madam Speaker, tonight, today as Chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Health Task Force, I wanted to call attention to the health status of Latinos throughout the United States.

When we talk tonight about Latino health care, it is important to note that Latinos are the fastest growing minority group in the country, in the United States. So the issues we face confront the health care field throughout the country, whether you live in east Los Angeles, in my district in California, or if you live in Atlanta, Georgia, or in Birmingham, Alabama, where we are seeing a large number of Hispanics now residing in that area. I had the privilege, Madam Speaker, of being there this weekend and walking with other members of our caucus to celebrate a civil rights memorial for 28 years of suffrage that has gone on in the South. The issues are no different there than they are in other parts of the country with respect to those that are uninsured. African Americans and Latinos still face the same kinds of problems.

This week, however, Madam Chairman, we are celebrating this week as Cover the Uninsured Week, a national effort that is going on right now, that is being celebrated across the country, to recognize those people who are under-insured and uninsured.

I would be remiss if I did not point to this chart here tonight, to point out that 41 million Americans do not have health care insurance in our country. It is unfortunate that about 30 percent of those individuals are Hispanic.

Let me point that out on this section of the pie chart, 30 percent. Forty-seven percent of non-white/Hispanic, 47 percent. Thirty percent Hispanic, 16 percent black or African American, and 5 percent Asian and South Pacific Islander also fall into that category.

Madam Speaker, by the year 2020, it is projected that one in five children will be Hispanic. Yet Latino children have the highest uninsured rates in the U.S. child population.

And unfortunately, the number of Latino uninsured has been on the rise over the past decade.

I would like to point out the next chart that I have. Here we see also the rising numbers of those individuals that are Latino, that are working, 43 percent; those that are in the private sector, 2 percent; 18 percent Latino, Medicaid; and others that receive some type of coverage; and then those that are in the uninsured category: Latinos, 37 percent, to 14 percent who are Anglo, or white. Madam Speaker, 73 percent of the Anglo population has insurance; 43 percent on this chart here indicates people that are working, working Latino family members are uninsured. It is a crime. It is a crime that this is the situation here in our country.

The next chart unfortunately does not provide us with many more good indicators. The number of Latinos uninsured has been on the rise over the past decade; and all we have to do is start looking at 1990, where 7.0 percent, the number of uninsured Hispanics, has increased 7.0 percent in 1990, a decade ago. When we look to the year 2000, it is now not quite doubled, but almost

there, 11.2 percent. It has increasingly gone up. It is not to say that these people are not working, because they are. I fail to see the reason that they are not being provided with some attempted coverage for those that are uninsured.

In fact, 37 percent of nonelderly Latinos are uninsured, more than double the rate of whites. The large majority of uninsured Latinos come from working families, approximately 87 percent; but less than half of all Latinos have employer-based health coverage. That is to say that where they work, at their place of employment, they do not have any type of insurance coverage for their needs, to meet their needs.

So let us be clear tonight, I say to my colleagues. There are women and men who are working and paying taxes, they play by the rules, but they are not getting any health coverage. This goes far beyond just the Latino community. There are many working men and women, African American, Anglo women that I met, even today when I was out visiting folks in my district, who told me about their plight with not having adequate health coverage, or being underinsured. This is a real issue, I say to my colleagues, that we need to address.

Unfortunately, nearly one-third of all Latinos work for an employer who does not offer any health care insurance at all. The lack of insurance in our country is devastating to families, particularly Latino families. Among the uninsured, Latino adults in fair to poor health, 20 percent are women, 40 percent are men; and they have not visited a doctor in the past year. Can we imagine that, not being able to see a doctor in more than a year?

We know that the uninsured receive less preventive care and are diagnosed later for diseases and tend to receive less medical care for their illnesses. Uninsured children are 70 percent more likely than other children not to have received medical care for common conditions like ear infections, 30 percent are less likely to receive medical attention when they are injured, and nearly 40 percent of uninsured adults report skipping a recommended medical test or treatment in the past year.

Having health insurance would reduce death rates for the uninsured by 10 to 15 percent. How many lives can we save if we provide them with some attempted coverage?

There is a consensus that health insurance is a necessity. So how can we increase access to health insurance? Certainly, we need to make sure that children are enrolled in successful programs like the gentleman from Texas stated earlier, like the State Children's Health Insurance Program, known as SCHIP, and in California known as Healthy Families. And we must make sure that all of our vulnerable populations are enrolled in Medicaid in that safety net program, and that these programs make health care access a reality.

Madam Speaker, we also need to focus on innovative private and public approaches to covering the uninsured. When I was in the State legislature in California, I authored a bill to launch a body of research on how to provide universal health care coverage, and I was proud to be the sponsor of Senate bill 480. The researchers have come up with several proposals for universal health coverage, and many are being implemented now as we speak in Sacramento. Unfortunately, due to severe budget cuts, not only in the State of California but across the board, many of these programs that we have instituted in the past are now on the chopping block. One of the reasons is because of this whole new attempt to try to block-grant Medicaid. Our State is now being devastated with cutbacks in the budget. In California, which is almost a continent in and of itself, we are crying out for assistance now because our budget is woefully low in terms of providing coverage for the very needy, for the working poor, and for children.

Medicaid in California is known as MediCal. It is called MediCal. Our medical program offers dental services, physical therapy, and diabetes management. I was a proud offerer of reforms to provide treatment and management for diabetes. Lord knows the African American community and the Latino community suffer very high rates of diabetes. If it is not treated appropriately in a preventive matter, it can become a very acute problem that will come to haunt us and continues to haunt us if we do not come up with the incentive and money to go into those measures. I say we need to put money up front into programs like that to combat chronic illnesses like obesity, diabetes treatment, and asthma. These are the things that we need to be addressing and putting our money where our mouth is when we talk about providing assistance to the uninsured.

Medicaid is an incredibly important program, and it covers now approximately 40 percent coverage for Latinos; but without this help, I fear what will happen to our communities, not only Latinos, the people that I represent in my district, but poor people, working people, people who actually have jobs that will go without this kind of coverage.

Unfortunately, this administration has proposed what I said earlier, the Medicaid reforms known as block grants. What they are telling us is that they will give States money to be able to get more flexibility to provide coverage for different illnesses; but in the long run, in 10 years, they are going to cut that money back, and what it means is less people will be served. The elderly will be out. The young people, the children will be hurt.

I am here to tell my colleagues that we need to do more than that. We need to reverse that trend and ask this administration to step up to the plate and forget the rhetoric and really talk about making some very meaningful reforms in Medicaid and providing the coverage that is so very much needed in States like mine in California where we do not get a refund in our dollars. We are known as one of those States where we are a donor State. We give more money than we get back. I am here to say it is time that California and other States in the southwest like Texas, Washington State, and other parts of the country receive their fair share of dollars where we need it. Our seniors are crying out for reform; our children need it. Their voices are not heard often enough, and we know that. That is why we are here tonight, to speak on their behalf as well.

These proposals, as I see them, that the administration is proposing will be devastating; and instead, we should be looking at proposals that increase the Federal support to Medicaid by increasing Federal Medicaid or medical assistance known as FMAP. This bipartisan bill that has been introduced, known as H.R. 1816, will provide States the fiscal relief they need to improve health care access to vulnerable populations. To improve Latinos' access to Medicaid, we must lift the ban on health care access for legal immigrants and pregnant women and their children. I say, and I underscore, legal, people who are here legitimately who are having children here and are playing by the rules and paying taxes as they work, whether they are a nanny, whether they are a housekeeper, whether they are there in a restaurant serving us, or whether they are out in the fields picking our fruits and vegetables that we had here tonight, I say to my colleagues.

It is time to pass the bipartisan Legal Immigrant Child's Health Improvement Act. This bill would lift a 5-year ban currently in place on States receiving Federal support for health care services for lawfully present immigrant children and pregnant women who entered the United States after August 22, 1996.

This simply makes sense from a humanitarian and medical point of view, and it will save the public health system money, thousands and thousands of dollars. I can tell my colleagues that firsthand as a Representative in Los Angeles County where we have one of the largest health care, public health hospitals right now that sees so many individuals having to wait 8 hours just to be seen by one doctor, whether it is for a throat infection, an ear infection, or for being a victim of a drive-by shooting. It is unheard of, the kind of medical access that people have to attempt to receive, knowing fully that we are all paying for this standard of health care. Yet, it is unequal in areas that I represent. We have to change that. We have to work hard to make sure that it is equal for everybody, whether one lives in Texas, in the Rio Grande, whether one lives in Boston, Massachusetts, or whether one lives here in Washington, D.C.

We also must fix Medicare in order to help Latino seniors who are struggling with high-cost prescription drugs. This goes far beyond the Latino community. There are many, many seniors who are crying out for reform, who want to see their prescription drugs, the cost for that medication reduced dramatically. I can tell my colleagues now there are people who have told me, why is it that I have to pay $300 for my medication to treat my diabetes or my thyroid gland? I cannot afford to go on vacations; I barely make my rent. Why is it that the Congress cannot come together and make these reforms feasible so that I can live an appropriate life, one that I feel I deserve? This is what seniors are telling me all the time. I look at them and I look in their eyes and I feel we have done them a disservice, because we have not been able to reach an agreement with the other Members on the other side of the aisle to see that we are truly, truly addressing the needs of our senior population.

I say that fully knowing that my own parents are faced with that dilemma right now. They have one of those plastic cards that allows them to go see their HMO, Kaiser, Kaiser coverage; but they have to pay a copayment. If they have surgery, they have to pay another copayment. If they have to go in to get treatment for their thyroid, they have to pay another $200 or $300 every month, and my parents are on a fixed income. They no longer work. They are over 70 years old. I know there are millions of seniors that are in that same predicament, and they probably even have harsher, harsher illnesses than my own parents. And I pray that they will be able to make it as they see their daughter here try to get a resolution to provide an adequate prescription drug benefit for them, that is low cost, that does not discriminate against them, whether they are in an HMO program or if they are seeing their own fee-for-service doctor. There should be no discriminate treatment for either, and that is what I am going to work hard for, and I know that our Hispanic Caucus will do the same.

I want to tell my colleagues that recently I have had a chance to visit with a lot of my seniors in my own district in Monterey Park and in my new cities that I represent in Covina and West Covina, which were previously represented by the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). I want to tell my colleagues that folks are telling me the same thing: we have to change. We have to change the rules of the game so that everyone receives a fair, level playing field when it comes to access to health care.

Right now, because unemployment rates are so high, people are losing their jobs, they are losing their health care coverage. Today I saw a woman who I spoke to who runs her own business out of her own house. She told me that one of the opportunities that she had was to try to provide her own coverage for health care. It would cost her a minimum of $500 a month. That was entirely too much for her. What does that mean for her? That means that she is going to have to forego that. If she gets ill, God forbid. If she has to go to the doctor, God forbid. If she gets really sick or hit by a car or she becomes tremendously ill, she will have to go to a public emergency or trauma center, which is going to cost the public dollars, the taxpayers a lot more money. If we were just to put more money in to help the uninsured, we could save a whole lot in the long run.

I am advocating for us to have that discussion here tonight, for us to talk about other options for providing assistance to the uninsured and the underinsured, because there are a whole lot of people out there who are working that make $15,000, $16,000 a year, they have four kids, they are beating themselves up because they want the best for their kids; but they cannot afford to even make a copayment to have adequate coverage. It is time that we start looking at providing assistance to the uninsured, because every tax dollar that they pay into when they see their check, their payroll check, it says a deduction, but where does that deduction go? Is it going into a health care trust fund for them? Is it going to be available for them when they need it? Is it going to be available for their children? Those are the questions that I ask here tonight.

I would like to ask my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriquez), the chairman of the Hispanic Caucus, to please share with me what insights he might be able to shed on this issue.

I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez). It is a pleasure to be here tonight with him and other Members that came forward to speak on this very important issue.

The gentleman touched on so many important areas that we do not even have time in our committees, and as a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, a new member, we did not even have sufficient time to debate this new proposal that the administration is putting forward.

We had about 3 weeks ago Secretary Tommy Thompson come forward and talk about the aspect of trying to block grant Medicaid, and I talked about that earlier. What it means, block granting, is that we are racheting down health care. Fewer people get fewer health care. Not more care, fewer. And with the rising increase of population with the uninsured, it means less dollars, not only for Hispanics but for blacks, for Asian Americans, even for Anglos that right now are uninsured.

We have to do something. We have to take action.

Rural America also has been neglected in this debate. We are not doing nearly enough to provide incentives for health care centers, public health care centers to be adequately funded, serving our at-risk populations out there and I mean in particular women and men over the age of 40 who are still toiling out there, whether they are working in the fields or working in rural America who have no benefit of health care access.

We need to put funding there. We have to come up with formulas that are expanding and broadening support of the Federal Government to reach out to these rural communities.

My colleague hit an important note that I want to touch on also, and that is, with respect to the shortage of health care professionals that exist, the opportunities for people to get into the medical profession and especially in the nursing profession. Many of our community colleges at this point in time do not find that they have adequate funding to offer the curriculum that costs a lot of money, but money that is invested and well-spent can provide a product that will mean so much for our society, and I am asking this administration to put more money into those areas, into those health career professions and create those career ladders and opportunities not only for Latinos who want to come back and serve in their community but for all underrepresented groups and particularly those people who live in rural America.

I also want to touch on the aspect of mental health because in that whole discussion we forget about women and individuals who are afflicted by domestic violence, people that have the right under welfare reform, TANF legislation that provides them the ability to get help. Many of these individuals are being asked now to get off of welfare as we know it and to find jobs, but their illnesses have not been addressed. Some have mental illness. Some have substance abuse. Many are victims, at least 50 percent of the caseload can report that they have been victims of domestic violence.

Why have we not done a better job of monitoring those individuals? They are going to go back into that cycle and there will be no remedy for them. We should put dollars up front for prevention in mental health care and that should be covered by any health insurance program, and that is not being adequately addressed.

I know that the former Senator Paul Wellstone had a proposal that is being reintroduced under his name to try to provide that incentive for fully covering mental health care illnesses so that when we detect them we can get to those individuals that need that help to remedy and provide them from creating more harm to themselves, and I know that our caucus will be working hard to promote that.

Lastly, I would just like to say that we have a long way to go in terms of health care. We talk about education as being a privilege and a right for everyone in America, but I do not think that we have talked enough about providing equal access to health care for Americans and people who reside in this country. Our country is so wealthy, we are one of the wealthiest countries in the world, and yet we forego providing assistance and immunization for children to combat TB, to fight HIV, infections that are now ongoing in communities like mine and like my colleague's.

I ask this administration why, why is it that we could send billions of dollars across this country to fight a war and not use that same money to fight the wars that are here on our own Earth, on our own country to combat AIDS, to combat diseases, chronic illnesses in here and making an investment in the very families that are sending their young men and women abroad to fight a war.

It is nonsense that we forego the kinds of opportunities that we have here at home to put that money where it will be well spent, that will reap profits and benefits for this country tenfold, in 10 years to come, instead of bankrupting our system right now.

Those are the questions that I have. Those are the questions that my constituents have been asking me, and I hope that this administration will step up to the plate and begin to outline their plan to provide a recovery for health care for all Americans but particularly in this case tonight for the uninsured and for the Latino community.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for being here this evening and sharing his thoughts and words.

Again, I just want to underscore why we are celebrating here tonight, to talk about the real issue, and the real issue is that there is so many millions of Americans that are uninsured, 40 million, and we need to change that, and we need to do more here in the Congress and work together on both sides of the aisle to see that we come up with some remedies that can be taken care of this legislative session.

I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez). I want to thank also other speakers that came here tonight representing the Congressional Black Caucus, the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen), and also the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott). I am very privileged.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of my special order.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to be here tonight also to speak on behalf of this very important issue that I am also lending my support to not go with the nomination that has been put forward by the President, and that is Mr. Estrada. The reason I say that is because as someone who grew up in a humble community, whose parents immigrated to this country over 50 years ago to strive for opportunities for their children, they taught me some very valued principles. Those very valued principles are to be a part of the community, to value and support your traditions and to always remember where you came from. Remembering where you came from means that you do not ignore your ancestry and who you are.

One of the questions that was posed to Mr. Estrada when he came to visit with us as Hispanic Caucus members were interviewing him, he made it very clear that it was irrelevant to be associated as a Hispanic, that he felt very proud because of his qualifications, and that he did not want to be considered for this position because he was Hispanic. No doubt, that is an issue that

many people will look at very seriously.

But one of the criteria that I think we take to heart very seriously is not only that an individual who comes forward to us seeking our support from our caucus, 20 members, if I am correct, it is very important for them to outline what they believe what their intentions are.

It is just like a job interview. If I were an employer and an prospective employee comes to me and asks me to give them a job, I certainly want them to answer very important questions, like where they stand on very important issues that as an employer I need to know. This gentleman did not answer those questions for us appropriately, and my understanding is he did not do that as well with the other House.

My concern is that I am being somehow evaluated because I am viewed as being non-Hispanic or un-American because I refuse to support someone who is of Hispanic ancestry, but yet does not believe, in my opinion, in the principles that I and other members of the Hispanic Caucus espouse, and that is communities, that is tradition and values, to support members of our community, but to give back, to demonstrate a willingness to give back. And we have not seen any of those points at least reflected in any information that we have received from Mr. Estrada.

I want to say that the Hispanic Caucus has, on occasion, supported Republican nominees, and we have done that with the full enforcement of our caucus. In fact, two nominees that came before us, Republican Hispanics, were Jose Martinez of Florida and Jose Luis Linarez of New Jersey. They were supported by the Hispanic Caucus proudly and were able to reflect on their background and the things they have done to give back to the communities. Those are noble things to talk about. We did not hear that from Mr. Estrada.

One of the things I am concerned about, too, is there are some accusations we do not have the support of other Hispanic members or traditional organizations out there in the community. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I would like to just give you an indication of who those individuals and organizations are.

The United Farm Workers of America has come out strongly against the nomination of Miguel Estrada; 15 past presidents of the Hispanic Bar Association, which many of us are affiliated with; the United States Hispanic Leadership Institute; the Southwest Voter Registration and Education Project; the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, known as LCLAA, one of the largest union representative groups in the country; the California Chapter of the League of United Latin American Citizens. In fact, my own chapter came out opposing this nomination. We received a letter a few days ago from Rosemary Lopez.

Mr. Estrada is opposed by the Farm Labor Organizing Committee; the Farmworker Association of Florida; La Raza Lawyers Association of California; the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund; the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Educational Fund; the National Farm Workers Ministry; the National Latino Institute for Reproductive Health; and the Willie C. Velasquez Institute. These groups all oppose the nomination of Miguel Estrada.

I would ask people when they consider what position we took as a caucus, that they recognize what we had to go through. This is a very elaborate process that we took into consideration. We take very, very seriously the decisions that we make.

I can tell you today that I am still not convinced that this is the best nominee to represent us, who be there for a lifetime appointment, and then possibly move on to a higher position.

I have some serious questions. If I were an employer and the prospective employee did not respond to any questions I asked, I would say that person may not be the best qualified for that position.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to discuss an issue important to my community, and that happens to be health care.

I am concerned by the President's health care proposal for this year's budget. The President's Medicaid proposal will not help the poor, the sick, the elderly and the disabled, in my opinion. In fact, the President's proposal weakens the health care safety net for millions, millions of people.

Currently, Medicaid is an entitlement as we know it, which means that States receive funding based on the number of people in their State who qualify for this coverage. The Bush proposal would encourage States to eliminate Medicaid funding for many people insured by the program in return for a small amount of so-called fiscal relief.

This proposal requires States to choose between short-term fiscal help and damaging long-term financial constraints. It raises out-of- pocket costs and reduces medically-necessary benefits to the poor, and it fails to address the increasing problem of the uninsured.

We have all heard from our States and our Governors about the budget cuts that they are soon going to be implementing and the impact it will have on Medicaid.

For example, in my own State of California, our Governor has proposed cutting optional programs like adult dental care, physical therapy, and diabetes management, a bill that I carried in the House when I was a member of the Senate.

So one would think during these difficult times our priority would be on reinforcing Federal support for Medicaid programs. Instead, at this time when States are seeing rising rates of Medicaid enrollment for young children and families, this administration wants to change the rules of the game.

We have unemployment rates in my district as high as 9 percent. Nine percent. That is astronomical. And you are seeing this administration taking a position to scale back the help to the working poor and low- income families and disabled people who rely on Medicaid.

Let me be clear: I support flexibility in Medicaid programs. But to me flexibility means that the States should have the opportunity to help more people in need, to design programs which fit the needs of their residents, and to come up with creative solutions covering most of the uninsured, if not all. Flexibility does not have to mean that we put everything in block grants and cut off services.

As Chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Health Task Force, I want to take this opportunity to talk a little bit about what the Bush Medicaid block grant proposal will do to the Latino community.

Nationwide, 37 percent of non-elderly Latinos are uninsured, a rate that is double that of whites. Medicaid is a critical source of health care for Latinos. Forty percent of poor Latinos are covered by this program.

If we scale back Medicaid coverage, we are going to be scaling back the health care for many young families, Latino families; and as we know, when we scale back access to health care in the guise of saving money, it ends up costing us more in the long run. When people do not have access to doctors in order to prevent disease, we end up paying much higher costs when people have to go to the emergency room, which is happening right now in my district.

Uninsured children are 70 percent more likely than insured children not to receive medical coverage for common illnesses like ear infections. Thirty percent are less likely to receive medical attention when they are injured. It simply does not make sense to scale back Medicaid at a time when we have over 40 million people without health insurance in this country.

In addition, the Medicaid proposal in the administration's budget either largely ignores or endangers the health priorities of the Latino community. The budget misses a critical opportunity to lift the ban on health care for legal immigrant children and pregnant women.

The President's budget also reduces funding for environmental health programs at the CDC by $2 million. These programs help us combat and prevent diseases caused by toxic substances in our neighborhoods. This is very critical in my community, where we are faced with heavy air pollution and water contamination and we have many children facing high rates of asthma.

Bush's budget does not prioritize the well-being only of the Latino community, but of millions and millions of people. In fact, the President's budget proposal represents a substantial setback for the Hispanic Americans and their aspirations for a future that includes greater economic opportunity, quality education for their children, and access to better health care.

For example, the President's budget also fails to reform the unemployment insurance system for which many Latinos are ineligible due to the program's restrictive rules that prevent part-time and low-wage workers from qualifying for employment insurance. After all, they have earned it. They worked, but they are not eligible to receive this benefit.

In terms of education, the President proposes budget cuts in programs that have proven to lead to academic gains for Hispanics. The 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program provides funding to community-based organizations and schools to sponsor after-school programs. He plans to cut this. In his budget this year, 570,000 children will not receive this benefit.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to work with us so that we can ensure that all Americans have access to quality health care, education, and a clean environment.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to commemorate National African American History Month. Since its inception in 1926, this period has provided all Americans with a valuable opportunity to discover, cherish, and reflect on the many accomplishments of African Americans. Their contributions are as vast as they are diverse. From the arts to education to public service to entertainment, African Americans have left an indelible mark on all areas of American culture and history.

During this difficult time in our nation's history, we pay special tribute this month to those African Americans serving in the United States Armed Forces. As they have in every military conflict in American history, African Americans continue to play an essential role in defending our freedoms and protecting our homeland. Over 21 percent of the United States military is African American. In the Army alone, 30 percent of enlistees are African American. We also commend the 2.6 million African Americans veterans who have served our nation with great valor and distinction.

Earlier this month, we lost seven courageous American explorers in the Space Shuttle Columbia tragedy. Among them was Lieutenant Colonel Michael Anderson, one of the African American astronauts in the space program. His successful rise at NASA and his scientific contributions to our world will certainly inspire a new generation of children of color to follow in his tremendous footpaths.

I encourage all Americans this month and throughout the year to recall and treasure the important contributions of African Americans to our nation's history.

Mr. Speaker, I proudly introduce the Cesar Estrada Chavez Land Legacy Study Act. This bill will look for ways to honor Cesar Estrada Chavez, founder of the United Farm Workers and passionate champion of human and civil rights.

Specifically, the bill directs the National Park Service to look for ways to recognize Chavez's contributions to our society through historical sites and park areas. It is the first step in honoring his tremendous accomplishments and the local communities where his footprints were made.

Cesar Chavez was a humble man. Little did anyone know the greatness that he would bestow on future generations.

In his early childhood, Cesar Chavez was raised as a farm worker in Yuma, Arizona. Raised during the Great Depression, his family lost everything and was forced to join the thousands of farm workers that wandered the Southwest to find work. During his youth, the Chavez family migrated throughout the Southwest, working in various farms that fed our country.

The young Cesar Chavez experienced first hand the hardships and injustices of the thousand of farm workers at that time. His home was barely livable and his school hardly fit to be called schoolhouse.

Unfair labor practices--harassment, abuse, long hours, low pay, hazardous working conditions and limited education opportunities kept farm workers from being self-sufficient and empowered citizens.

Witnessing and experiencing this lifestyle, Cesar Chavez sought to make changes in the way farm workers were treated.

He united many others who also suffered similar atrocities with those who empathized with the struggle to become part of the union movement. In 1952, he left the fields and joined the Community Service Organization. There he conducted voter registration drives and campaigns against racial and economic discrimination.

In 1962, he took his vast experience, his compassion, and his brothers and sisters in this multi-ethnic struggle and started the National Farmworkers Association--today's United Farmworkers of America.

The UFW succeeded in organizing the oppressed. They overcame this oppression through boycotts and pickets, and when all else failed, hunger strikes.

Chavez was a student of Mahatma Gandhi's non-violent philosophies. He knew that you cannot unite people through violent means, but you can connect them by joining hands in peaceful demonstration.

Since its inception, the UFW has achieved incredible results through its organization. Fair wages, health care coverage, pension benefits, housing, pesticide regulations, and countless other rights and protections are more a reality because of the UFW and in turn because of its founder--Cesar E. Chavez.

In the past, we have honored other heroes, like Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Civil Rights Movement, through national parks and land. The life of Cesar Chavez and his family provides an outstanding opportunity to demonstrate and interpret the history of agricultural labor in the west through the National Parks Service.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support the Democratic alternative to the welfare reform bill.

Our alternative gives families the tools they need to lift themselves out of poverty--I'm talking about education and quality child care.

Individuals working to leave welfare must have access to higher education, GED courses, and English as a Second Language programs in order to make a successful transition to the world of work.

The facts are clear--women who obtain GED certification, participate in on-the-job training, or attend college have higher average annual earnings and a greater probability of employment.

Individuals with limited English speaking skills earn 24 percent less than their employed counterparts who are fluent in English. Language barriers limit non-English speaking workers to jobs that tend to be low-wage and seasonal, making it difficult to attain self-sufficiency.

It's time for us to enact a welfare law that recognizes that families want to work--they simply need the proper tools to succeed. I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic alternative.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to recommit. I am especially supportive of provisions that would encourage funding of the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery (UPARR) program. This program has helped communities across the United States rebuild and repair blighted areas in an attempt to create open and green space opportunities for working families.

In my community, children are often forced to play in abandoned lots or next to superhighways. They literally share their playgrounds with drug dealers on grounds that are unsafe.

One project funded by UPARR near my district renovated a hazardous park electrical system, repairing damaged and dangerous wiring, and improving and installing walkway safety lighting.

Thanks to the UPARR program, children like those in my community have been able to experience more opportunities in a safer, cleaner environment. Despite UPARR's success and far-reaching impacts in our communities, this omnibus bill will essentially shut down the entire program by eliminating almost $30 million dollars in funding for the program.

I support the motion to recommit and am hopeful that this body will remember the importance of our urban parks--not only for their recreational value but for the health and well being of our children.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, and I also want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez), who led us in this final night here this evening with the American public to try to shed some light on a process that I think has been tainted very negatively, especially towards my other colleagues who serve with us in the Hispanic Caucus. And I would like to say before I begin my discussion, we did go through a very laborious process trying to figure out exactly what kind of candidate we would be supportive of, and I want to just run through that very quickly.

As you know and was said earlier, we assess nominees, their qualifications in the following areas: one, diversity in the judiciary, whether they have shared our views that Latinos are underrepresented in the Federal courts. Is there an acknowledgment of that? Involvement in the Hispanic community. Someone alluded to Mr. Estrada as being a leader in the Hispanic community. I would like to see that proof. Leadership, whether they have any intention to remain in the greater Latino community after being appointed to the bench. Fourth, opening the doors, whether they have worked to advance the number of Latinos in the legal profession through mentoring, through internships and through outreach efforts in our community. And, fifth, key cases, what are their views on key court cases that have heavily affected the Latino community, and what have they done to advance the issues of Latinos in the courts?

Supporters of Miguel Estrada's nomination for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals tout that the League of United Latin American Citizens is supportive of his nomination. These supporters should be aware that in my own State of California, as was mentioned earlier by the chairman, that the California LULAC delegation is not in support of this nominee, and we have a letter to that effect that we received today and was read at one of our meetings that we had earlier today.

These supporters should also know that Mr. Mario Obledo, the past National President of LULAC, stands in strong opposition to the confirmation of Mr. Estrada. Mr. Obledo is a strong advocate and well known nationally throughout the Latino community for his work on civil rights and his leadership in our community and issues that we care most about. Mr. Obledo has been an attorney for 34 years. He is co-founder of the Hispanic National Bar Association and was one of the first general counsels and past president of the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund. He was also co-founder of the Southwest Voter Registration. He was also former Harvard Law School professor.

Let me just share with you some of his thoughts. Mr. Obledo wrote to us and said his opposition to Miguel Estrada's confirmation is based on Mr. Estrada's unwillingness to give full answers to many of the questions posed to him by the Senate Judiciary Committee. In a statement released by Mr. Obledo, he outlines his concerns and says the following:

``There are serious questions raised by his sparse record on basic civil rights and constitutional matters. It is unclear that Mr. Estrada would recognize that the first amendment protects the rights of youths to congregate and associate on public streets. It is also likely that Mr. Estrada would not place proper limits on law enforcement as required by the fourth amendment. Given his views of enumerated rights, there are serious questions whether he would recognize a suspect's right not to make incriminating statements. His record leads me to conclude that he would not take seriously and fairly Latino allegations of racial profiling by law enforcement. Based on his actions in pro bono litigation, there is a question whether he believes that organizations which have long represented the interests of communities would have the right to represent those interests in court. In addition, his views concerning the continued viability of affirmative action programs is also suspect.''

These words all come from a long-time advocate who is known nationally who represents our community and who was past national president of LULAC.

I also want to share with my colleagues here that when we were reviewing the nomination of Mr. Estrada before the Hispanic Caucus meeting that we held back in June, one of the things that came to light for me was that this individual, while not having a lot of background working in the community, did mention his affiliation with other groups; and he mentioned those and I want to reiterate those. He said that he was a member of the Federalist Society, which is a form of conservative legal professionals and law students who wished to dismantle existing civil rights, one of the very important premises that we base our vote on, the protection of civil rights. He has also stated that he was a member of the national board of directors for the Center

for Community Interest, which as we know is dedicated to defending antiloitering ordinances which have been introduced in many communities, some in southern California, to clear the streets of Latino day laborers seeking to find jobs. These are things that raise questions and issues for me personally as well as other Members.

I want to also set the record straight that our Hispanic Caucus has indeed and in fact supported other Republican Hispanics for appointments, and I would proudly say that I can go down the list here and name them. Rita D. Martino, who was nominated but not appointed for U.S. Treasurer, who also is very active in the community, the Latino community. Gaddy Vasquez, who I know personally from Orange County, was a county board supervisor, very proudly involved in our community and sits on numerous boards related to Mexican Americans and the Hispanic community, was nominated for Peace Corps director. We proudly supported that nomination. Richard Carmona, who came in and went through also a very laborious process with us. I even got on the phone with him to ask him his personal views on a woman's right to choose. He was not specific, but everything else convinced me that he would certainly do his best to defend those issues with respect to the Latino communities like diabetes treatment, health care and access, and tearing down barriers for Latinos, poor Latinos, to receive health care in this country. I proudly supported his nomination and so did other Members of our caucus.

And lastly, Jose Martinez, whom we also supported in his nomination to the U.S. District Court of South Florida. I am proud to say again that here we were supporting a Republican Hispanic. All of them I believe came forward and said that they would defend our community, but most of all the American public; and I think that we truly base our ideals on the premise that this country should treat everybody fairly. Equal protection under the law should be guaranteed no matter what robe they wear and if one stands in a courtroom that one be treated fairly and justly and not have to go before someone who has already made up their mind because of where they come from or because of experiences that they have not had.

And I want to say something lastly tonight. I was very, very personally hurt to hear statements made last night on this floor from individuals that would call us the left, and I want to quote, if I can: ``The left is inflamed by any prospective judicial candidate with the courage to oppose their unrelenting, small-minded, intolerant hostility to the traditional foundations of American life, faith in God, reverence for tradition, respect for the true rule of law and the recognition that we are all ultimately accountable for our actions.''

I stand here to say, nothing could be so completely far from the truth. Many of us here have taken our oath of office as Members of Congress to uphold the Constitution and to do the best thing we can and to be objective; and I am insulted to know that people are thinking that members of our Hispanic Caucus do not take their job seriously, that we stand here and take an oath of office to defend every American regardless of the color of one's skin, the language that they speak or where they were born.

I am a proud Latina. My parents are both immigrants. My father came to this country as a brazero under the brazero program and worked the fields in Colorado, on the railroad, and ended up in Los Angeles where he met my mother, who is a central American. I am proud of my heritage, and I know the value of having individuals in leadership positions to bring about change in our society, and one of the ways you do it is by instilling pride and opportunities to open up doors for young people to serve. And one capacity that I see lacking in this gentleman, in Mr. Estrada, was that at every step of the way in his career he did not reach out. He did not extend a hand. He did not allow for future Latinos or Latinas to come up that career ladder, and that to me is very shocking because everybody else that we have interviewed for these positions and others that have been nominated and appointed could go back and recite exactly what they did to help improve the situation for Hispanics in this country.

So I agree with my colleagues and with those that serve in the other House that we have to block this nomination because we can do better. Americans here are expecting the best. We want the best, and we want to see that there is evidence to prove or disprove, disprove, anything that we have said here tonight. I thank the chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to again just clarify that one of the misleading advertisements that is out there being presented to the public is that there are various Hispanic national organizations that are in support of Mr. Estrada and his nomination. I would like to just clarify that many of those organizations have bipartisan representation, and I would venture to say that many of them happen to agree with the Hispanic caucus position.

I have personally spoken to members of the GI quorum, the LULAC organization in my own State, and talked to various other organizations. So the ones that are purporting to say that they as Hispanic organizations are the voice for Hispanics alone I think is very misleading. I will not say that I am the voice for all Hispanics in the country, no. But I do want to make it very clear that one of the premises behind our caucus, the Hispanic caucus, is that we support the advancement of our community through means of protecting our rights and our liberties in this country, through actions that the court has taken to provide us with our civil rights, the right to vote, the right to be able to lead a life here in this country. I think that that is something that has to be made clear.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be here with my distinguished colleagues, including the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez), who led us in this endeavor this evening. Our Hispanic community appreciates the work of our leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzales), the chairman of the Hispanic Civil Rights Task Force.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the life and career of one of the Monterey Park Police Department's finest officers, Sergeant Gregory W. Verbeck.

Sergeant Verbeck graduated from the Southern California Peace Officers Academy at Riverside City College in 1971. That same year, Sergeant Gregory W. Verbeck began his 31-year career with the Monterey Park Police Department. Sergeant Verbeck rose quickly in the force and on September 21, 1974, he was promoted to the rank of Police Agent. From 1978 to 1980, he was assigned to the Investigations Bureau working juvenile investigations and on January 24, 1980, he was promoted to Sergeant. Sergeant Verbeck also served as a K-9 Handler, a department firearms instructor, the department's fleet manager and the Monterey Park Emergency Communications Coordinator.

Outside of his official duties on the force, Sergeant Verbeck was a member and served as President of the Monterey Park Police Officers Association. He has also been active in the community as a member of the Eastside Optimist Club, as a board member of the Japanese Amateur Radio Society and Chair of the Community Relations Commission.

During his career, Sergeant Verbeck received over fifty letters and commendations for his unwavering commitment to service. These awards included Basic, Intermediate, Advanced, and Supervisory Police Certificates. In 1996, Sergeant Verbeck's excellence earned him the Public Safety Employee of the Year Award.

Sergeant Verbeck has been a true professional, mentor and a friend to our community. He will be greatly missed by his many friends at the Monterey Park Police Department and the community. Mr. Speaker, I ask you to join me in expressing my appreciation for Sergeant Verbeck's lifetime of service and commitment to our community.