Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of my constituents, Colonel Thomas Ashman in recognition of his thirty years of distinguished service to the United States.

After receiving a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemical Engineering from the University of Akron in Ohio, Thomas Ashman was commissioned into the United States Air Force through the Reserve Training Corps in 1973. He was first assigned to McChord Air Force Base in Washington as Chief, Base Fuels Management Branch. In 1976, his service took him to Korea, and in 1977 he transferred to Andrews Air Force Base where his responsibilities included support for the Presidential fleet.

Through his initiative, Col. Ashman developed the petroleum engineering program for the Air Force Institute of Technology in 1979. After receiving his Master of Science degree from the University of Texas, Austin in 1981, he was assigned to the Defense Fuels Supply Center in Cameron Station, Virginia. During his tenure, in what is now known as the Defense Energy Support Center, Col. Ashman served as the Quality Assurance Officer for crude oil purchases supporting the United States Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and then as Center Programs Officer, among other positions.

In 1984, Col. Ashman was sent to the United States Pacific Command and served as the Chief, Sub-Area Petroleum Office within Headquarters United States Forces Korea. Due to his expertise, in 1986 he was selected for the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Energy Directorate, Professional Enhancement Program. A year later, Col. Ashman served as Chief, Allied Supply and Energy Assessment for the United States Air Force Combat Operations Staff, then as Supply Management Staff Officer within the Directorate of Logistics,

Headquarters United States Air Force, and finally, as Joint Staff Officer, Logistics Directorate, Joint Staff.

Col. Ashman served in several other capacities before beginning his duties at the Defense Logistics Agency in 1998, first as Chief, Customer Interface Support Group, and then as Deputy Executive Director for Acquisition, Technical, and Supply prior to assuming his final position, Acting Executive Director for Acquisition, Technical and Supply Directorate.

In recognition of his service in the Air Force and to his country, Col. Ashman earned the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal, the Joint Service Commendation Medal, and the Air Force Commendation Medal. On June 30th, Col. Ashman will retire after thirty years of dedicated and exemplary service. On behalf of our nation, I thank Col. Thomas Ashman for all that he has accomplished, and wish him well in his future endeavors.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.

I thank others who have advanced this legislation, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), on our side, and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), and many others.

Mr. Chairman, we know that class actions have played a very important role in advancing progressive goals, like civil rights and consumer rights. But something has gone wrong. A lot of trial lawyers will tell us, privately, that this has to be fixed, and, You guys need to rein it in.

There is an unintended loophole in the interpretation of diversity jurisdiction. That is where we are getting the abuse. We are getting a few trial lawyers who go forum shopping, and they go into the courts of judges who are elected, oftentimes with the contributions of trial lawyers. I am not saying this alone, but The Washington Post said this in their own editorial. They know what decision they are going to get. Oftentimes, they get the thing certified before even notifying the defendants, and then they wind up settling.

But who gets hurt? The consumer gets hurt. And it is not just in paying higher prices for products. They get those worthless coupons. A lot of them do not even know they are members of the plaintiff class. There is any number of consumer provisions in here. It requires scrutiny of these coupon settlements. It prohibits settlements where the class members come out as losers. It bars bounties for class representatives. Settlement awards cannot be based on geography. How unfair a system to base it on where you happen to live. It requires the settlement to be put in plain English so the consumers know what they are dealing with.

This is commonsense legislation. Let us pass it.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 275, I was unavoidably detained in traffic due to the thunderstorm in Northern Virginia. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I missed the vote as well. There was a thunderstorm. I was caught in traffic, and I had no idea that such a quick gavel would be called on such an important vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Chairman, I thank the very distinguished subcommittee chairman not just for yielding me this time but for the fact that this committee, I understand, has really been pretty fair to the Washington area, because I know the pressure that is on the committee with regard to National Airport, to expand the slots not just incrementally but exponentially because everyone would like the convenience of National Airport and a lot of the airlines would like transcontinental flights.

But we have a very serious concern. I know the chairman knows that, I know the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) is aware of that and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), all of the people that have been involved in this know that there was an agreement signed back in 1986 where the Washington area took over the financing and operational responsibility for National and Dulles airports. The deal was that the Congress would not micromanage. Yet we do have 20 additional slots here and we have 12 slots that go beyond the 1,250-mile perimeter rule which was a very basic part of that agreement. The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and I have a very serious concern with expanding those slots. What we would like at least is an agreement that we will take out the so-called ``come see me'' provision so this would be the end of the slot expansion and we would like to get general aviation opened. I know that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) has been working on general aviation. It is very important to our economy but important to so many economies throughout the country. It does not make sense to keep general aviation closed.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), for supporting this amendment.

The reason why the gentlewoman and I offered this amendment is that we really have an unfair provision here that, as the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) said, does not apply to any other airport authority. It says that we cannot receive in the Washington area any new airport improvement grants or new passenger facility charges until we come back to the Congress.

This is in violation, really, of a 1986 agreement that then Mrs. Dole, Elizabeth Dole, who was Secretary of Transportation, made with the Washington region. The words said that the airport authority, the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority, will have ``full power and dominion over, and complete discretion in, operation and development of the Airports.''

In return, Virginia, D.C., and Maryland agreed to accept operational control of the airports and raise the money necessary to modernize them. We fulfilled our part of the bargain. We have two terrific airports. We funded them and we operate them. All we are asking is that we be treated like every other airport, and that we not have to come back and get this special authority to be able to continue doing what we, under law, are doing and doing very well.

The expansion of slots is micromanaging an airport by the Federal Government that really is in contradiction to the agreement. Likewise, it is designating some of those slots to go beyond the 1,250-mile perimeter rule.

National Airport was not built to accommodate transcontinental flights. It was built for short-haul flights to serve midsized cities. Ultimately, this is going to harm those midsized cities up and down the east coast, basically east of the Mississippi River. It is going to hurt their economy. It also jeopardizes the economy, the economic viability, of Dulles Airport, which was built to handle transcontinental flights.

If we start sending those flights to National, even though it is more convenient to get to National, it really hurts Dulles. It is going to hurt the economy, not just for this region, but of the Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an incredible woman from my district who recently received a Robert Wood Johnson Community Health Leadership Program award. Sylvia Portillo earned this prestigious award through her hard work in expanding health care for the Latino community of northern Virginia.

Sylvia Portillo overcame adversity as a Spanish-speaking immigrant and low-wage worker to become a major health leader in her community. Her career in health care began in El Salvador where she worked as a nurse. Upon fleeing war-torn El Salvador, Sylvia became a home health care companion in Arlington County, to support the three children she left with relatives back home as well as her new family in the United States.

Ms. Portillo was inspired to become a health care advocate for Latinos and other underserved community residents after her experience and the roadblocks she encountered when she tried to get health care and insurance for her two youngest children. In 1996 she joined the Tenants' and Workers' Support Committee as a volunteer in the Women's Leadership Group. There she organized the Latino community's first health fair by bringing together neighbors, doctors, local groups and city officials. In its seventh year, the fair is the only source of health care for many residents. In 1997, Sylvia became lead organizer for the committee's Health Project with a goal of increasing health access for Alexandria's Latino community. Since then, she has recruited and trained more than 80 health promoters to educate the community about preventive health practices.

Ms. Portillo has also led a campaign that won $300,000 in medical debt relief from the leading area health system and persuaded local hospitals to hire bilingual staff. The project also has completed three landmark studies documenting conditions of Latino immigrants, including occupational health problems and the consequences of medical debt.

One of the most impressive testimonies about the work Sylvia has accomplished came from a woman who sought her help with a medical debt she could not pay since she was unable to work. Sylvia helped her understand our health system, despite her inability to read. ``By working with Silvia, I am no longer afraid,'' the woman said.

Sylvia and the Health Project have helped countless people throughout my congressional district and northern Virginia. I am proud to have Sylvia in my district, and I look forward to seeing what else she can accomplish in ensuring that her friends and neighbors receive the health care they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, last week President Bush signed the new tax cut law. That law is going to give $93,500 per year to the 200,000 taxpayers making over $1 million a year while the majority of all taxpayers would get less than $100 under this new Republican tax plan.

But to rub salt into wounds, there was a deliberate decision to deny every family whose income is under $26,625 a year the child tax credit. That includes most of the working class in this country. It includes nearly all men and women in combat. Their earned income is not $26,625, so they do not even qualify for the child tax credit and here they are putting their lives on the line for our country.

This is unbelievable. The fact is, the families of the 12 million children denied this credit do pay taxes. Millions of them pay into the Social Security trust fund. That is the money we are having to borrow to pay for this tax cut.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for introducing this substitute along with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).

I have voted for the ban on partial-birth abortion at every other point when it has come up. We are talking about a procedure that represents less than one-fifth of 1 percent of the abortions that are performed in this country. Every one of us wants abortions to be rare; none of us favor abortion. We would love to see not just the issue taken off the floor, but that option taken off the table so that every family could have a healthy baby and every mother could continue to live a full life.

I am changing my vote, and I could suggest it is for legalistic intellectual reasons. I could cite the Stenberg v. Carhart decision in Nebraska where the so-called partial-birth abortion law was struck down. The Supreme Court has already deemed it unconstitutional. But my decision is not coming from the mind as much as the heart. It is because I have talked to too many families I know that I represent.

These are devoted parents, loving partners that want their children, who place their family above everything else; but when a family finds that they have a seriously deformed fetus or where they find that the mother has a very serious illness, cancer, heart disease, any number of other possible illnesses, that couple sits down at the kitchen table, or lies together at night agonizing, as agonizing a decision as they could make, and what right do we have to barge into their bedroom, to sit down at their kitchen table and put our hands on our hips and preach to them what they should do.

Do we for a moment think that they love their child in the concrete less than we do in the abstract? We are talking about the abstract here. They are talking in the concrete. We have got to respect the sovereignty of the American family. That is what this is about. They have the right to make this decision, and only they do in the context of their religion, their family, what is right for their family, what is right for each other. They know best; they know better than we do. Support the substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this legislative proposal to amend the Constitution, giving Congress the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag.

For more than 2 centuries, the first amendment to the Constitution has safeguarded the right of our people to write or publish almost anything without interference, to practice their religion freely and to protest against the Government in almost every way imaginable. It is a sign of our strength that, unlike so many repressive nations on earth, ours is a country with a constitution and a body of laws that accommodates a wide-ranging public debate.

There is little question that those who would desecrate the flag have a lack of respect for this great nation. But we need not give these misinformed individuals any more attention than they deserve.

One can imagine the future protest situations that would take place should this legislation ever receive the massive support required of a constitutional change. It would be outrageous. And the contribution to the average hardworking American? More taxpayer dollars and police manpower wasted in the pursuit of little more than an offender lacking patriotism and good taste. The American flag does not need protection from such poor behavior. The principles embodied in it outshine such cowardly attempts to defame its stature.

Rather than spending time today arguing the merits of the 1st amendment, we should be focusing more attention on improving the daily lives of millions of Americans. From the rising costs of health care to a lack of affordable housing, many of our nation's veterans are struggling to make ends meet and now brace for the substantial cuts in benefits passed by this body. But instead of tackling those issues, we stand here debating a solution in search of a problem. Those brave men and women who risked their lives protecting our democracy need more than politicians paying them lip service, they need money to help pay the bills.

Heck, they can't even get a proper military burial service at Arlington National Cemetery because cuts to Veterans Affairs funding have eliminated the use of live buglers and replaced them with battery powered boom boxes. What a shame.

In short, the amendment in question is unnecessary. We don't need it and we must not become the first Congress in U.S. history to chill public debate by amending the Constitution in such a way. This issue truly tests the notion of freedom of speech guaranteed by our fore fathers. Let's pass this test and do the right thing by opposing this unmerited resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a word about what happened before we went into recess, the fact that we voted on a bill that provided hundreds of billions of dollars of tax relief, but not to the people who needed it the most.

In fact, we now see that about one-tenth of 1 percent of the very wealthiest Americans receive approximately as much tax benefit as the 90 percent of Americans with incomes of $95,000 or less. But the most outrageous thing about this tax cut was something we did not know. It took the newspapers, and I saw it in The New York Times a week later, that revealed that we actually eliminated the child tax credit for families with incomes below $26,000, the working poor, the families who needed tax cuts the most.

I mean, I cannot believe that this Congress did that to working-class families and did not even give us the opportunity to debate it. I hope that there is a groundswell of public opposition to what we do and we can reverse this. The Democratic Party is determined to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many of my colleagues listened to Warren Buffett last night. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) mentioned it. He talked about the fact that this bill is going to give him $310 million of additional revenue. It is going to bring his effective tax rate down to 3 percent. But he looked at his secretary and he realizes that her effective tax rate is still going to be 30 percent. He says, yeah, this is class warfare and my class is winning. But it is wrong. I am going to win, whatever happens. I want the people of America to be as productive as possible. And to be productive, they need to be well educated. They need to have decent health care. They need to be able to provide for their families. And they cannot be saddled by trillions of dollars of debt.

He is opposed to this because he knows it is wrong for America and he knows it is not fair. We offered something that was fair. We offered something that was fiscally responsible.

That is what America wants. But America is not going to get it because here it is at 1 a.m. in the morning talking about a tax cut of hundreds of billions of dollars, $1 trillion over the next decade. That is not the way to treat the people that elected us.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the gentleman that Warren Buffett said that money can be better spent when it is kept in corporations, not with individuals. Corporations can build jobs faster, and they will. That is why this dividend tax cut does not work.

Mr. Speaker, we all strongly support this bill as a needed and overdue national commitment. AIDS is a global crisis which threatens the security of every government in every nation, even including the United States. It has destroyed societies, and it will destabilize democratic governments. According to UNAIDS, nearly 22 million people have lost their lives and over 36 million people today are living with HIV and AIDS. Fewer than 2 percent of them have access to life-prolonging therapies or basic treatment. That is the problem. And we are the only ones with the resources to really do something about it. The number of new infections of HIV is estimated at 15,000 people a day, and it is growing.

In Africa, which has 70 percent of the AIDS cases, 22 million people are living with this disease. In some countries, 20 percent or more are infected; and in a number of countries that recently visited in Africa, 34 percent of women of childbearing age are infected. That means that an estimated 600,000 African children become infected with AIDS every single year as a result of mother-to-child transmission either at birth or through breast feeding. The deaths of parents with HIV/AIDS will result in 40 million orphans this decade alone. They have nowhere to go. They do not inherit anything. The boys go in to gangs, the girls too often into sexual slavery or some form of servitude.

This bill, while it is a terribly important step, raises concerns about the intent to limit our flexibility to do everything we can to combat this problem. Abstinence, for example, while a prevention strategy, is not a public health program. It is an education approach based on moral or religious belief. We do not argue with that moral or religious belief, but this is an urgent matter. We have to do everything possible that will work. The fact is that in the developing world, too many women do not have the option of abstinence. That is the reality they have to deal with. Their rights are almost nonexistent. Many of them do not have the option to say no to sex from men, control the number of partners or protect themselves from sexual assault. That is true, that is reality, and that is what we have to deal with. Even the restrictive provision on prostitution limits our effectiveness. We have got to get access to women who are endangered, whatever it takes to save their lives.

I urge the administration to use all the flexibility and common sense they can. We are talking about saving lives here. We are talking about a horrible reality. But we have got to roll up our sleeves and do what is necessary, do what is the moral imperative for this Nation to do today. All of us will strongly support the bill.

Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Frank Lotts. Mr. Lotts is a native Virginian who has served his nation through superior service in the military and the federal government for the past 35 years.

Born in Staunton, Virginia, Mr. Lotts completed his education at several Virginia state universities and joined the United States Army in 1967 where he served until 1970. During this time he attended Officer Candidate School at Fort Knox and served as a Platoon Leader and Troop Commander in the 4th Squadron, 7th U.S. Cavalry, 2nd Infantry Division.

After leaving the Army, Frank Lotts began an internship with the Defense Logistics Agency. His training began as an inventory manager with the Directorate of Supply Operations at the Defense Supply Center Richmond.

Due to his exemplary work, Mr. Lotts was assigned to the task force for the implementation of the Standard Automated Material Management System. In January, 1973, he accepted a position at the DLA headquarters within the Directorate of Supply Operations.

In 1974, Mr. Lotts returned to the Defense Supply Center Richmond as a member of the Operations Research Group. Three years later, he served as a Senior Program Manager and went on to serve as Chief, Requirements Branch and Chief, Logistics Division at the Directorate of Supply Operations. As a result of his tremendous work ethic, Mr. Lotts continued his ascent at DSCR by becoming Director of Plans and Policies and, in 1990, the Comptroller and Chief Financial Officer.

In 2000, he assumed his current position as Deputy Director of Logistics Management at the DLA Headquarters. He is responsible for providing the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and other federal agencies with a variety of logistics, acquisition and technical services in times of peace and war. This mission is performed by approximately 23,000 civilian and military personnel and it is through Mr. Lotts's hard work and management that it is accomplished efficiently.

Due to his service at DLA, Mr. Lotts is a Senior Executive Fellow at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and has been honored with several awards, including the 2002 and 1999 Presidential Rank Award, the 1998 Defense Civilian Distinguished Service Award and the 1993 DLA Exceptional Civilian Service Award.

As he retires from this service to the United States, I am grateful for all Frank Lotts has accomplished during his tenure with the government, and I know he has had a strong impact on several projects throughout the Defense Logistics Agency. His service will be missed. I wish him the best of luck in his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this important bill which amends the Microenterprise for Self-Reliance Act of 2000 and the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. This bill would increase assistance for

the poorest people in developing countries by authorizing $375 million in microenterprise loans.

Microenterprise loan assist people in overcoming poverty through participation in the private sector and are a successful means to combating the debilitating level of poverty in the developing world.

It has been estimated that the number of microenterprises range from one-third to one-half of the world's businesses.

However, there are major challenges for microenterpreuenurs who face several impediments to improving their productivity and standard of living such as a lack of skills and market access, legal barriers, and especially, an absence of capital.

This bill will open unlimited doors of opportunity for the world's poorest people. Many microenterprise loans are less than a $100. What may seem to Americans as a relatively small amount of money, can change the lives of families and communities.

Take for instance a woman in Ghana who tries to make a living selling donuts in her village, but is limited to how many she can make in a day with her own hands. With a small amount of money, this same woman is able to purchase equipment that can make more than one donut at a time and increase sales and profit. This in turn elevates the standard of living for herself and her family.

A relatively small amount of capital can help empower the world's poorest people and help them graduate from the lowest levels of poverty.

Microenterprise loans are an important part of our country's foreign assistance program. I commend this body for taking up this important measure.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of this bill and I urge its passage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this reckless Republican tax cut in a budget already plagued by deficits as far as the eye can see.

In light of the worst fiscal reversal in the nation's history, the Republican leadership has decided to propose more of the same failed policies. In addition, the leadership is stymieing debate by bringing a closed rule to the floor and prohibiting the Democrats from offering an alternative proposal.

This proposal to be debated today will do nothing to stimulate the economy, create jobs, increase investor confidence, or put money back in the hands of the people who need it the most. In fact, all this tax bill will do give tax breaks to people who don't need it on the backs of our children and grandchildren.

The Republican tax bill is cloaked in a series of half-truths. The leadership has placed a $550 billion price tag on this measure, but we all know that because major provisions of the bill are scheduled to expire after the three years, the true cost of the tax cut will be much higher.

How can this body even justify considering large upper-bracket tax cuts that will worsen the long-term deficit to $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years? We should be paying down the national debt to prepare for the retirement of the baby boom generation, set to begin in 5 years.

If Democrats were given the opportunity to offer our plan, the Democratic Jobs and Economic Growth Plan, people would see a true contrast. They would see a responsible economic proposal designed to stimulate the economy now. Our plan is a fair, fast-acting, and fiscally sound alternative.

The Democratic plan includes tax cuts for working families and small businesses, and creates more than one million jobs by the end of 2003 and does not inflict the long-term damage to the budget that the Republican plan does.

Finally, by providing tax cuts to working families and extending unemployment benefits, the Democratic plan helps average Americans, the people most likely to spend money and boost consumer demand, thus creating jobs.

I am sure this body will end up passing this dangerous Republican tax bill, and when it does, we will be adding another $2 trillion of debt that our children and grandchildren are going to have to pay. It is almost criminal to be saddling future generations with having to finance a tax cut for us today.

Mr. Speaker, this tax cut is reckless and irresponsible and not in the best interests of this nation. I strongly urge this body to oppose this measure.