Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in reluctant opposition to this rule and to this bill.

We, in the House, have specific rules against approving spending that is not approved in either a House or Senate version and then comes to the floor in a bill like this, yet we routinely waive the rules and waive all points of order against this kind of spending. This is to our shame. I am ashamed that we are doing this today. This bill has about, at last count I believe about 7,000 earmarks within it for particular spending items. Under Republican control, we have gone, I believe, in 1994 from about 2,000 earmarks per year to over 10,000, and that is not the way that we ought to conduct business. I think that it is going to come back to bite us. It well ought to.

With that, I think that we ought to oppose this rule because it goes against procedures that we have established in the House, and we ought to vote against the bill as well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with great reluctance today to oppose this bill, particularly because of the respect I have for the chairman and for the main sponsor on the Democratic side. I certainly support the goals of this legislation, but I think it is appropriate to ask, why is Congress authorizing $100 million in Federal funds to operate a State program?

There seems to me to be no reason for Congress to finance the State public defender system. Basic precepts of federalism dictate that each level of government should finance its own operations. Once States become accustomed to and budget for Federal funds, they can never reject the money, and Federal funding inevitably comes with increased Federal strings. We have seen that in every other area, most notably public education.

In the long run, States risk losing control over their own public defender programs. I believe there is no reason to start down that path.

I would like to yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), who has direct experience in the State Attorney General's office.

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I voted ``no'' on final passage of H.R. 3161. While acknowledging my opposition to this bill is unpopular--even in my own household--I believe I voted correctly.

Telemarketing calls bother me as much as the next person and I understand the desire to prohibit them. But I do not believe that asking the government to take care of this problem is the answer. New products are now on the market (Caller ID, voice mail systems, answering machines, Privacy Director, Call Reject, etc.) that inhibit the activity of telemarketers, and states are passing their own laws to address this issue. In fact, Arizona began enforcing the state's own telemarketing restrictions on October 1, 2003.

Most people know that H.R. 3161 provided authority to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to implement and enforce a national do-not-call registry. What many do not know, however, is that the bill allows government bureaucrats to pick and choose which calls consumers can block. It is not surprising that consumers cannot sign up to not be bothered by politicians. I would be willing to bet that consumers will find those calls to be just as annoying as any others. When government sets the rules, it must not discriminate based on the content of the calls. That's what the First Amendment means.

I consistently vote against additional federal regulations. Granting the FTC additional authority to further regulate on this matter, however popular, would be inconsistent with my record.

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in condemning Syria for its support for international terrorism. I do not support the Syria Accountability Act, however, because I believe it limits the President's options in dealing with Syria at a time when he should have flexibility. Furthermore, I do not believe that unilateral economic sanctions are effective--especially against regimes who are only concerned with remaining in power. Such regimes will still have food on their plates and roofs over their heads while the ordinary people of their countries are left to suffer even more.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.

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

I rise today to make this motion to instruct the conferees. We are dealing now with a prescription drug benefit to Medicare that is simply uncontrollable in terms of cost. We believe that we ought to control that cost by means-testing the program. There is no reason in the world why we ought to be paying the prescription drug benefits for the wealthiest in society, the Bill Gates, the Barbra Streisands, the Ted Turners, the Warren Buffetts.

Think about this: With this prescription drug benefit that is part of Medicare if this bill passes, we will be paying the prescription drug benefits for the wealthiest in society.

Let me tell you what that means. The current drug bills are estimated to cost $400 billion over the next 10 years. That is $400 billion over the next 10 years to add this prescription drug benefit. If we look beyond that 10-year window into the next 10-year window, then it gets even uglier. From the years 2014 through 2023, that 10-year period after the first 10-year period, the drug benefit is projected to cost $772 billion. So $400 billion the first 10 years, $772 billion the next 10 years. That rapid growth rate will continue all the way through the year 2030.

In fact, what it means in the year 2030, let me just give you a scenario here. Married couple, 40 years old. This strikes home because I am 40 years old myself. This particular couple already pays 15.3 percent in payroll tax to fund current Medicare and Social Security beneficiaries. Because the payroll tax will not provide enough revenue to fund Medicare for all retirees, this couple also faces $39,894 in additional taxes between now and their own retirement in the year 2030.

Think about that. Because we are going to run out of money, because we do not have enough money in the Treasury and in trust fund accounts to fund this, one couple between now and 2030 will have to pay $39,894.

The proposed prescription Medicare drug benefit will make up, of this amount, $16,127. Sixteen thousand extra dollars between now and 2030 will be paid simply to pay this prescription drug benefit, largely because it is an entitlement. It is an entitlement. That means that we give the benefit to everyone.

Entitlements are out of control simply because you set a level for benefits and you say whoever enrolls will get that benefit and they are labeled uncontrollable in terms of what the costs are. We simply cannot control it, because it depends on how many are eligible and what the benefit levels are, and we are setting the benefit levels here, and so we have that kind of cost to look forward to.

When we look back to 1965 when Medicare was created, it was projected to cost $10 billion annually. It is costing $244 billion annually at the moment. That is on a pace to double over the next decade, and then it will expand exponentially beyond that time when the baby boomers start to retire. We simply cannot afford to do what we are proposing to do.

When we look at what we are proposing to do as well, it does not make any sense, given how demographics have played out. Census Bureau figures show that poverty among the elderly has plummeted. In 1959, 35 percent of the elderly lived in poverty compared to just 10 percent today. That is a reversal in relative position of the general population. In 1959, 35 percent of the elderly lived in poverty compared to 25 percent of the general population. In 2001, 10 percent of the elderly lived in poverty compared to 12 percent of the overall U.S. population.

And what this means is that we are shifting a huge financial burden to those who can least afford it, the young, from those who can most afford it at this point, the elderly. That is simply unwarranted.

During the break when I was home, I ran into a gentleman who was in his 80's and he pulled me aside and said, ``I know you are a Member of Congress.'' He said, ``Let me tell you, my wife is ill, and we spend about $600 per month for prescription drug benefits.'' And I thought, oh, no, here it comes. He is going to say get back here and vote for that bill. Instead, he said exactly the opposite. He said, ``We can afford it. Don't you dare saddle that burden on my grandkids.'' And I know there are a lot of people who feel the same way, a lot of people who say there is no way we should saddle this burden on generations to come. It is simply unconscionable.

When I announced my intention to vote against the House version of the bill in its present form, I gave a quote from George Washington after the Constitutional Convention. He simply said, when asked, when he was defending the kind of government that was set up, when it was a different kind of government than the people expected he said, we cannot do what we know is wrong; otherwise, how will we defend our work later? In particular, he said, ``If to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disprove, how can we afterwards defend our work?''

We as, Members of Congress, know the costs. We know the history of Medicare. We know what this new benefit will cost. And unless we means test it, unless we make sure that it is not a benefit for everyone, that it is simply targeted to those who can least afford it now rather than everyone, we know what will happen. We know that we cannot afford it. We know that future generations and ourselves, our own kids are not going to be able to afford the tax burden to sustain it. We know that it will make an already insolvent situation for Medicare insolvent all that much faster. So we simply cannot afford to go on the road we are going. And I think we ought to heed George Washington's word and do what we know is right, regardless of what we think the people want, regardless of what the last poll says, regardless of what we hear at one meeting or this one. We are sent here to do what we know is right, and we know that this will bankrupt us. So we know we have to take a different course, and I would submit that the course we need to take is to means test it.

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

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

Let me say I have never heard so much concern for the rich coming from the other side of the aisle here. I just am overwhelmed with the concern that is over there that people like Arnold Schwarzenegger and others will not be able to afford prescription drugs without Government help.

And if you are concerned about the health of Medicare as a program, do not go with this program as it is outlined without a means test, because this will bankrupt it, and it will all be gone unless we do something to bring down the cost, and the best way is to ensure that it is targeted to those who need it most, not the wealthy who do not need it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), who has been a leader on this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to note that our motion to instruct contains no income figures or thresholds at all. The $60,000 figure that is cited is simply part of the Republican base bill that was passed in this House. We are simply establishing the principle of means testing. Now, I would suppose that if that was set at $100,000 or $200,000 or $300,000 or $400,000 or a half a million dollars, the cry from the other side of the aisle would be the same: do not means test it. Do not means test it. We want an entitlement. And that is what we are fighting about here. We simply want to say that we ought to target those who need it most, not spread it out so we bankrupt the system too quickly.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out I am a little confused myself in terms of what is rich. On the other side of the aisle, they argued throughout the entire tax debate that the same middle-class individual, $60,000, $70,000, $50,000, are not going to benefit from taxes for the rich? What is rich? We set no standard in this motion to instruct. We simply say that we ought to have a means test. We have not pegged it at $60,000, at $70,000, $200,000, $300,000. We are simply establishing the principle that it should not be an entitlement.

If people are worried about it being a slippery slope, set it at $200,000. By the time that slippery slope ends, someone starting at 65 surely will not be around to collect. But set it somewhere, establish a principle that we should not be paying prescription drug benefits for the Bill Gates of the world.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank those who have participated in this debate. I want all Americans to know that tonight they will all get a big raise. It seems that tomorrow that those on the other side of the aisle will come back and talk about how those who are earning $60,000 who are decidedly middle class when it refers to this bill, will be rich when it comes to talking about tax cuts. Which is it? Which is it?

I want to remind my colleagues here, again, that this motion to instruct says nothing about which income levels we ought to set this at. It simply says we ought establish the principle that this be targeted at those who need it the most. And this debate about whether or not we ought to look at the income of older Americans will probably be moot in another 30 years because, as I pointed out before, someone 40 years old today, like me, will spend, like me and my family, will spend about $40,000 in additional taxes, in additional taxes over the next 30 years. We will spend $40,000 in additional taxes because the payroll tax does not provide enough revenue to fund Medicare. This adds fuel to the fire. This simply blows it up out of control.

Now, anybody who has watched my voting record, or the voting record of my colleague from Indiana (Mr. Pence), knows that we are not proud of our fiscal restraint here in this House, be it Republican or Democrat, over the years. But we ought to look at this program right now. This is what is up for debate. We cannot say, well, Republicans have grown the deficit or Democrats have done this, so it is okay. We are going to take this program, and we are going to blow it up over the next 30 years and even greater beyond that. That is simply not acceptable. We know better than to do that.

If we are spending $40,000 in additional taxes for the average family of four over the next 30 years, we will not have a debate about whether to means test anything in the year 2030 because too few seniors will have enough disposable income to actually fund it. We will all be dependent on Government. Maybe the other side of the aisle would like that, but I do not.

I think people ought to have the ability to save for themselves. There is a difference between tax cuts and benefits like this. Tax cuts, you are taking money that somebody has paid, or will pay, in taxes and saying, You do not have to pay that any more.

This benefit is taking from people who have paid in already, and you are taking that money and saying, We will give it to this person, instead of giving it back to you who earned it.

Madam Speaker, I would conclude and simply urge support for this motion to instruct. Let us do what is right. Let us do what we know is right.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourn today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. tomorrow, Friday, October 3, 2003.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Friday, October 3, 2003, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, October 7, 2003, for morning hour debates.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the call of the private calendar be dispensed with on Tuesday, October 7, 2003.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. Speaker, subject to rule XXII, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 1, the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003.

The form of the motion is as follows:

Mr. Flake of Arizona moves that the managers on the part of

the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the

two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 1 be

instructed within the scope of conference to include income

thresholds on coverage.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Arizona for arranging this special order and for all of those who have spoken. The most important part about this tonight, I think, is to hear from so many who have been there, and given what we hear in the news, I think that is particularly important because just watching the news channels, we simply do not get a good picture of what is going on there. We get a much better feel from those who have just returned. So I have appreciated this opportunity to hear that.

And I appreciated the concern that was raised before that not only do we make sure that we do not impose more debt on the Iraqi people, but that we ensure that the other debt that is held already is forgiven. It is extremely important. When we look, estimates vary anywhere from $60 billion to $150 billion and some more as far as outstanding debt. A lot of it is held by countries that are friendly with us and are on our side here, most of them, in fact. And I would hope that the administration, and I know they will, would exert all the pressure they can on these countries to make sure that we are not the only ones who are leaving Iraq debt-free and with an opportunity to grow and progress, that they have a responsibility to do so as well. I think if we want the support of Americans in this endeavor, we have to make sure that our partners around the world participate in this regard as well.

I would also encourage the administration to do what it can to exercise with us in Congress, and I think we need to remind our colleagues continually here to exercise fiscal restraint domestically. The primary function of the Federal Government, we all know, is national security. That is our first and primary function. This is important, what we are doing here. And we need, because of the situation we are in with a large deficit and a big debt, to make sure that we husband our resources properly and spend them where we need to and where the Federal Government has priority, and that is in our national defense. Again, I just want to thank my colleague from Arizona and all of the others who have appeared so far, and I just appreciate learning more myself and also to lend my support to this effort.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of C.E. ``Pep'' Cooney, an Arizona television icon. Pep's career in broadcasting spanned more than 45 years, taking him from advertising to president to general manager at KPNX, where he led that station to its stature as the number one rated television station in the State.

Pep's nightly commentaries, or ``Pep talks,'' made him one of Arizona's most recognizable figures. Pep was also the quintessential community leader. Whether he was lending his talents to the Valley Big Brothers, United Way, Boy Scouts, the Fiesta Bowl, or countless other organizations, Pep was constantly engaged in activities to benefit the Valley and the State of Arizona. When the history of Arizona is written, Pep Cooney and the institutions he help to build and maintain will be a prominent feature.

It is a rare individual who can be successful with his career, while devoting so much time to his community. It is truly an exceptional individual who can succeed in these areas while putting his family first. Pep was admired and respected by his colleagues and community. Most importantly, however, Pep was adored by his family. As a neighbor and friend to some of Pep's children and grandchildren, I have had the good fortune to watch them together. Surely the youngest of Pep's grandchildren knew little of his career success or his standing in the community. They just knew that they were his priority.

That, Mr. Speaker, is Pep Cooney's most enduring legacy. May it be ours as well.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

The Flake-McGovern-Emerson-Delahunt amendment is very simple. It prohibits any funds in this bill from being used to enforce the regulations that restrict United States citizens from traveling to Cuba. Under current law, ordinary Americans cannot travel to Cuba unless they fit into narrowly defined categories and endure an arduous bureaucratic application and screening process.

In March of this year, while a sweeping crackdown in sentencing was going on in Cuba, the Office of Foreign Assets Control, under the direction of the State Department, eliminated the people-to-people category of travel licenses to Cuba. This is in direct opposition to the administration's stated intent to increase people-to-people contact with ordinary Cubans. My amendment would effectively end the travel ban and allow ordinary Americans to travel to Cuba and to take their ideals and values to ordinary Cubans.

This is an issue of freedom for Americans. Let me repeat that. This is an issue of freedom for Americans. We allow for freedom of travel to North Korea, to Iran, to Syria and to other countries where the human rights records are despicable and where animosity toward the U.S. is the basic foreign policy. Restricting travel to Cuba is not only ineffective, it curbs the basic American freedom to travel and to export American ideals and values.

This past March, the Castro regime carried out a sweeping crackdown on democracy and human rights activists, journalists, independent library operators and other dissidents who were exercising basic rights.

Following the roundup of more than 80 people, they were subjected to summary trials that flew in the face of justice and were sentenced to several years in the horrible Cuban prisons. These prison sentences carried terms of up to 28 years and, given the health of some of these individuals, they are in effect death sentences.

The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) introduced a resolution that was quickly brought to the floor after this crackdown. Several of my Cuba Working Group colleagues and myself eagerly supported the Diaz-Balart resolution and joined him at these podiums in condemning the Castro regime and again demanding the release of Cuban political prisoners.

The crackdown left many speculating about Castro's timing and his motives. Some expressed shock and utter disappointment, as if Castro had at some point turned away from being the oppressive dictator that he is. I do not think many of us were surprised because, sadly, Castro has been doing this kind of thing for over 40 years.

There is an old saying, Mr. Chairman, ``if you want to keep getting what you're getting, just keep doing what you're doing.'' What we have been doing is isolating Cuba for more than 40 years. And what we have been getting is this kind of attitude from that regime. I do not think any of us ought to be surprised that Castro is not a reformed man. What we should not do is emulate Castro's heavy-handedness by curtailing the freedom of our own citizens.

Critics suggest that allowing Americans to travel to Cuba will provide the Castro regime with the financial resources it needs to sustain itself, but that regime has had enough resources to sustain itself for over 40 years, including beyond the post-Soviet era in which many predicted a sure demise within only months. That regime will sustain itself without American travelers going there, but ordinary Cubans will continue to be deprived of contact with Americans.

Whether we like it or not, Cuba's economic troubles will not lead to political instability. We should not base our policy on the hope that economic catastrophe will cause suffering, political unrest and ultimately political change. If we base our policy on this hope, we will be waiting a long, long time over and above the period that we have already waited. Instead, we ought to unleash the real source of American influence by allowing all Americans to travel freely to Cuba, just as Cuban-Americans are currently allowed to do.

In July of this year, 12 Cubans who fashioned a 1951 Chevy into a boat nearly made it to America, but they were sent back to Cuba after State Department officials reportedly negotiated 10-year prison terms with the Cuban government for these individuals. Upon returning to Cuba, I understand that six were promptly sentenced to these 10-year terms.

Keep in mind that this is our own State Department officials, the same ones who pore over applications for travel licenses and purport to know what is best for ordinary Americans who wish to travel to Cuba. Think about it. If you vote against this amendment, you are turning over your right as an American to travel to the same bureaucrats who do not have enough sense but to negotiate prison terms in Castro's jails for the Cubans it sends back to the island.

Under Democratic and Republican administrations, it has been a bedrock principle of American foreign policy that travel is a device that opens closed societies. American travelers are our best ambassadors. They carry the idea of freedom to people in Communist countries.

It is interesting to note that among the sentencing documents used by the Cuban government to consign nearly 80 political prisoners to jails in Cuba were written materials like Time Magazine, the Miami Herald, speeches by President Bush and other U.S. publications. These were considered subversive by the Castro regime.

Cubans want contact with Americans. Cuban dissidents regularly tell us that they oppose the travel ban because they believe that American travelers have a positive impact in Cuba.

It is time to listen to the Cuban people, and it is time to return to our basic American values. Americans deserve the freedom to travel to Cuba to see the island for themselves. I urge my colleagues to support the Flake-McGovern-Emerson-Delahunt amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a man who has worked tirelessly on this issue for years.

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

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.

I just heard that those who support this amendment were silent when Castro jailed over 80 dissidents in Cuba just months ago. I would remind the gentleman from New Jersey that the same individuals who are here in support of this amendment came to the floor and argued on behalf of the Diaz-Balart amendment condemning Castro for this action. So we have stood firm, the Cuba Working Group, and others who support this amendment against the atrocities that have happened there.

I also wanted to respond to whether or not this is a good use of taxpayer dollars to actually use these dollars to enforce the travel ban as opposed to actually wage the war on terrorism.

The Office of Foreign Assets Control at the Treasury Department currently spends between 10 and 20 percent of its resources actually enforcing the Cuba travel ban. This is the office charged with the task of tracking down al Qaeda money, to actually shutting down the international war on terrorism, the financial war; yet they are spending over 10 percent of its resources tracking down, in essence, grandmothers from Iowa who are going on a biking trip to Cuba or the gentleman from Washington who spent less than 24 hours in Cuba to scatter his parents' ashes at the churches they built in the 1950s. The man returned home to a fine, enforced by the Office of Foreign Assets Control.

I would submit that if we are serious about the war on terrorism then we will stop this charade of actually limiting Americans' ability to travel.

Let us stipulate that Fidel Castro is a bad guy. He is a horrible guy, he is a thug, I have said it many times from this podium; but our hatred for Castro should not cause us to punch ourselves in the face, and that is what we are doing in essence here, by imposing upon the American people a ban on their right to travel. We simply should not do that.

It has been mentioned through here that some of the dissidents actually support what we are doing and with regard to travel. I should note here that many do not. In fact, I would submit that a majority do not. As Oswaldo

Paya has mentioned, the leader of the Varela Project and leading democracy activist said, we appeal to all foreigners who come to our country as tourists to show solidarity, to take part in demonstrations to support the opening up of Cuba.

Members have mentioned that some people go to Cuba just to lay on the beaches of Varadero. This is certainly true. Some of them, however, go down to protest or some go down to take books to independent libraries. We do not know who is going to. We should not pretend that we know, and for us to pretend that we do makes us look like Fidel Castro. Let him do this.

It is often submitted that if we lift this travel ban that surely Fidel Castro will impose his own. I have no doubt that he will, that he will try to limit those who are coming down to Cuba. He will try to determine who is a sunbather and who is a protestor. That is a policy befitting of Fidel Castro. It is not a policy befitting of this great country.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

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

Mr. Chairman, has all time expired for the other side?

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

I appreciate the comments from the other side. I would maintain that none of us really know when Fidel Castro is telling the truth and when he is not.

I do not think that we should pretend that we do. I do not think we should even try. Therefore, we simply ought to adopt a policy that is right and consistent with our objectives. That is what ending the travel ban is all about. It is doing what is good policy regardless of whether we think Fidel Castro supports it or whether he does not.

I should mention there are others that have called for an end to the travel ban, other dissidents. Oscar Espinosa Chepe has been cited here a couple of times. This is a man I met just weeks before he was imprisoned in what for him may be a life sentence. He said, ``When the travel of Americans to Cuba is approved, the struggle for democracy and freedom will by no means end. To the contrary, these measures create better conditions to achieve these objectives.''

That is what we are trying to do here. We are trying to comport with the wishes of the dissident community in Cuba and to do what is right for us as well, to lift the ban on Americans to travel.

We need today to strike a blow for freedom. We can do that by allowing Americans to travel freely as they wish.

If it is freedom that we want for the Cuban people, let us start by exercising a little more of it ourselves by allowing our citizens to travel to Cuba and to take their values with them.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for bringing this important amendment forward. We should not be in the business of limiting family charity. We should not tell Cuban Americans in this country how much they can send to their families in Cuba.

As the situation now is, individuals in Cuba are only given a certain amount that they can get through the government ration card. That does not allow for some to have meat in their diet. Allowing individuals to send money to their families simply allows that basic necessity. Unless there is a child under the age of 7, for example, you are denied milk. There is no powdered milk available for families without children under 7. This allows Cubans as a humanitarian gesture to obtain that.

Also, it should be mentioned, this is rarely enforced. I doubt anybody in opposition to the amendment believes that families sending in excess of $1,200 a year ought to be prosecuted. If we want respect for the law, let us bring the law into conformity with what is happening on a humanitarian basis.

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

I am pleased to be here for this debate, and I was pleased to hear the gentleman from Illinois recognize the primacy of our involvement here, that the Constitution does grant the U.S. Congress authority to move on matters such as this for the District of Columbia.

I have found it interesting to listen to the debate and to listen about this amendment in particular. This amendment is based on the premise that no one in the District of Columbia wants to have a voucher to travel to anything other than a public school, and we have heard that argument again and again and again from the other side, nobody wants this program.

On this side, polls are quoted. There were 57 percent, 60 percent, 75 percent, various numbers of people who want to see this program move ahead. I say the only way to settle it is to offer them, and if it is true as the gentlewoman who offered this amendment proposes, that nobody wants these vouchers, then nobody will accept them, nobody will take them. An affirmative action has to be taken for a voucher to be used. They are imposed on no one. They simply have to be used by a parent. So if it is the case that nobody wants them, that the parents of the District of Columbia do not want to have vouchers, this appropriation of funds will have no effect because the money simply will not be spent. But if it is, as is the case as we maintain, that there are parents who do want them, then they will be used. So it is up to the parents.

I found it strange in the hearings leading up to this on the bill that I offered, and then later on the bill that we had before us, both times those on the other side of the aisle stood and said parents in D.C. do not want vouchers, and each time the parents lined up at the back of the room said otherwise. Parents, lined up outside in the hall, said otherwise. I say if my colleagues really believe in choice, that parents ought to have that choice, then let us put this to the test, allow this to go forward. If it is the case that parents do not want them, they simply will not be used; but if they do want them, they will. So it is up to the parents in the District of Columbia.

I applaud those who have helped put this bill together and to put it on the floor today.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman mentioned how we feel about accountability. The ultimate accountability is portability, the ability to move to a different school if you do not like the school you are attending now. That is the ultimate accountability and that is what this provides.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I would advise him that in reading the bill he will see that there are extensive reporting requirements in the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I would submit that this is real accountability. Portability is the best accountability.

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

There has been a discussion about who wants these vouchers. Is there anybody who wants them? I can tell you I just left a meeting in the Rayburn Building, just a few yards away, where there are a few dozen D.C. parents who want these vouchers, who are waiting, pleading, hoping that the vote is right today. One of them gave me this letter written by a little girl named Lapria Johnson. She is 8 years old. She was born as what they call a drug baby. Her mother took drugs while she was pregnant. Lapria was born and her grandmother was told that she would never read.

This is a letter that she just wrote: ``My name is Lapria and I go to Holy Temple Christian Academy. The Washington Scholarship Fund is the only way I can read. I am 8 years old. I have a lot of problems I was born with. Public school said I could not read. I read and my math is great. My handwriting is not so good. But I have an A in reading and an A in math.''

I can tell you that her handwriting is better than mine and she is one that will benefit from this. There are kids all over like Lapria that will benefit from this if we will simply let them. We need to let them.

Washington Scholarship

My name is Lapria and I go to Holy Temple Christian

Academy. W.SF. is the only way I can read. I am 8 years old I

have a lot of problems I was born with. public school said I

would not read. I read and my, my math is great my

handwriting is not so good but I have A in reading and A im

math

Lapria Johnson.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to conclude a series of commentaries I have been making on illegal immigration and to find a solution to the Nation's current immigration woes. We in Arizona feel this in particular.

Over the past 8 months, I have been working with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) to put together a comprehensive foreign worker program, a temporary worker program, which recognizes the way people organize and order their own lives, that recognizes that we need a rational policy to deal with the situation that we have along our Nation's borders.

We need to understand that we not only need to deal with those who want to come to our country to work on a temporary basis, but for those who are here illegally as well, and find a solution that will both encourage those who are here illegally to come out from under the woodwork, and to come into a legal framework and to provide an opportunity for those who wish to come and fill our Nation's labor needs to do so.

I am pleased that this will be introduced today, and I encourage my colleagues to look at it and join us in the debate and ultimately support it.