Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply states that emergency contact or next-of-kin information should be included in the interoperable electronic health records.

Mr. Chairman, in an instant, a wrong turn, a sudden fall, a missed step, someone, indeed anyone, can find themselves in a crisis and in need of emergency medical care. Nationwide, nearly 1 million people arrive in emergency rooms each year unconscious or physically unable to give informed consent for their care.

Consider the story of Elaine Sullivan. A very active 71-year-old woman, Elaine fell at home while trying to get into her bathtub. When paramedics arrived, she realized that injuries to her mouth and head made her unable to communicate and give informed consent for her own care. Although stable for the first few days, she began to slip into critical condition. The hospital failed to notify her family for 6 days, and tragically Elaine Sullivan died alone in the hospital.

In the aftermath of this tragedy, Elaine Sullivan's daughter, Jan, and granddaughter, Laura, turned their personal pain to public action. Jan and Laura Greenwald went to work to make sure that that never happened to their loved ones or anyone else's loved one again.

In Elaine Sullivan's memory and honor, I introduced H.R. 2560 so that in the future phone calls to loved ones will always be made. This amendment, Mr. Chairman, which includes a provision of H.R. 2560, is a modest step to ensure that this situation doesn't happen again.

Let me be clear. Most hospitals notify the next of kin of unconscious emergency room arrivals relatively quickly. However, emergency rooms are extremely high pressure and sometimes chaotic environments. In the hustle and bustle of the ER, despite the professionalism and the dedication of staff, there are real risks that a simple phone call may or may not be able to be made in a timely fashion.

Consider for a moment just one distressing but relevant scenario. Your loved one is out of town on a business trip. On the way they are involved in a serious head-on collision, unconscious and unable to communicate. They are rushed to the nearest hospital, and unbeknownst to you they lie comatose fighting for their life miles from home. Doctors and nurses work feverishly to provide emergency medical care to a patient who is only the name on a license, but to you they are the love of your life.

If your electronic health records contained emergency contact or next-of-kin information, this could help hospital staff quickly notify you about your loved one's condition. You could rush to be by their side and possibly share critical medical history and information. Emergency contact and next-of-kin information should be included in electronic medical records to ensure that family members are notified and informed decisions are made during a medical emergency.

Mr. Chairman, I ask for an ``aye'' vote on the Jackson amendment.

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

I thank the gentlewoman for supporting our amendment, Mr. Chairman.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).

Mr. Chairman, I was disappointed to learn that this bill did not contain funding for the SouthEast Service Line of Metra, the Chicago area's commuter rail service. I have provided the chairman with a letter from Phil Pagano, the executive director of Metra, which I will include in the Record.

In the letter, Mr. Chairman, Metra states that it has a package of New Start projects called Metra Connects that were authorized by SAFETEA-LU. The SouthEast Service and the Star Line are two projects in that package that are new rail projects. Both are significant commuter rail projects for the northeastern Illinois region, and both projects currently are progressing on the same time schedule and are at similar stages of development. During the deliberation SAFETEA-LU bill, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee agreed that both lines would move forward and be funded equitably. Without funding for the SouthEast Service, this agreement is in jeopardy.

I, along with the rest of the Illinois delegation, appreciate and would like to thank the chairman for the money already included for Metra's other new Star projects, and I understand that money overall is tight.

Will the chairman work with me to try to fund this funding in conference?

I thank the chairman, and I look forward to working with him to make sure that the transportation needs of northeastern Illinois are met.

Northeast Illinois Regional,

Commuter Railroad Corporation,

Chicago, IL, June 13, 2006.

Chairman Joe Knollenberg,

Appropriation Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury,

Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, and

District of Columbia, House Committee on Appropriations,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Knollenberg: I am writing to express Metra's

concern that funds were provided for the STAR Line but not

for the SouthEast Service (SES) New Start project as part of

the FY '07 Transportation Appropriations Bill.

As you know, Metra has a package of New Start projects

called Metra Connects that were authorized in SAFETEA-LU. The

SouthEast Service and the STAR Line are two projects in that

package that are new rail projects. Both are significant

commuter rail projects for the northeast Illinois region.

Currently, both projects are progressing on the same time

schedule and are at similar stages of development. During the

deliberation of the SAFETEA-LU bill, the Transportation and

Infrastructure Committee agreed that both lines would move

forward and be funded equitably. Without funding for the

SouthEast Service, this agreement is in jeopardy.

We urge the chairman to correct this in conference. Thank

you again for your support for Metra and our New Start

programs.

Sincerely,

Philip A. Pagano,

Executive Director.

Mr. Speaker, I know the subcommittee chairman, the ranking member, and the majority and minority staff, did the best they could under the circumstances. But I think cutting title VII health professions by 69 percent, eliminating some title VII programs entirely, is draconian and unconscionable.

Since I started serving on this subcommittee almost 7 years ago, I have fought to end disparities, disparities in employment, disparities in education, disparities in health. And health disparities are real. If one is black in this country, their life expectancy is 66 years. If one is white in this country, it is 74 years. Infant mortality is twice as high for African American babies as it is for white babies.

Fortunately, institutions like the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences have laid out a framework on how to end these disparities. One of the recommendations of the IOM was to increase the number of minority health professions. This mark does exactly the opposite, cutting health professions by almost $200 million.

Mr. Speaker, in the Centers of Excellence Program, this cut will eliminate 30 programs at Minority Serving Institutions, negatively impacting approximately 1,000 under-represented minority students and almost 180 under-represented faculty at these schools.

In the Faculty Loan Repayment Program, approximately 40 under- represented staff persons will lose their jobs. In the Health Careers Opportunity Program, 7,000 minority disadvantaged students will be negatively impacted and 3,000 K through 12 students will be negatively impacted.

Mr. Speaker, this assault on minority serving programs is unjustified and overtly irresponsible. I think that a society says a lot about the way it treats its most vulnerable of its citizens. I believe that we live in a United States and, like a chain, we are only as strong as our weakest link. By leaving some of our citizens behind, we prove that we are not strong and compassionate but weak and uncaring.

I keep hearing Members of this body say, Jessie, this is a tight budget year. Mr. Speaker, this is a tight year. It was not created by immaculate conception. Some of us voted to make it a tight budget year. Some of us voted to approve the budget resolution. Saying it is going to be a tough budget year is like a farmer saying he is going to have a bad harvest because he did not plant any seeds. Mr. Speaker, when Congress approved this budget resolution, we did not plant any seeds and nothing will grow this year, not because of a natural disaster like a drought, but because of our own making in this Congress. Shame on us. The chairman and the subcommittee did the best they could, but this is a terrible mark, and I urge a ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) for yielding.

At the outset, I would like to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) and his staff, specifically Ted Van Der Meid, the majority leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the minority leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and her staff, specifically Jerry Hartz, Lorraine Miller and William Little.

This legislation simply would not be possible without the leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), the chairman of the House Administration Committee, and his staff, their extraordinary steadfastness and leadership for which we are all grateful, along with the ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender- McDonald) and her staff, specifically George Shevlin and Matt Pinkus.

I especially want to thank my new friend and co-sponsor, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers) who, along with his staff, worked closely with me and my staff to garner support for this bill. I would like to thank the more than 200 bipartisan co-sponsors of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise today to speak on this very important legislation that will honor the life and work of the late Mrs. Rosa Parks by placing a statue of her in National Statuary Hall. Everyone knows the story of how Mrs. Parks helped spark the modern civil rights movement when she refused to give up her seat on a legally segregated bus that fateful day, December 1, 1955, leading to the Montgomery bus boycott and the emergence of Martin Luther King, Jr.

From the beginning Mrs. Parks led a life dedicated to social change, becoming an active member of the Montgomery, Alabama chapter of the NAACP which in the 1940s and 1950s was considered a dangerous organization. It could cost you your job and even your life.

In 1943, along with State president of the NAACP, she mobilized a historic voter registration drive in Montgomery and was later elected NAACP chapter secretary. Mrs. Parks was a courageous woman who possessed the firm and quiet strength necessary to challenge injustice.

Following the 1954 Brown Supreme Court decision which provided equal protection under the law's legal framework, her refusal to give up her seat eventually led to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the 1968 Open Housing Act, all of which helped make America a better Nation.

Rosa Parks remained a committed activist until the end of her life. In the 1980s, she worked in support of the South African anti-apartheid movement, and in Detroit in 1997 she founded the Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self-Development, a career counseling center for African American youth.

With dignity, with grace and courage Rosa Parks inspired generations and helped to make the world a more just and compassionate place. In life she received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1996 and the Congressional Gold Medal in 1999, the highest honors our Nation bestows on civilians.

This placing of a Rosa Parks statue in National Statuary Hall is a testament to the fact that the long arc of history bends towards freedom, justice and equality.

When Statuary Hall was created by law in 1864, African Americans could not be citizens of the United States. Indeed, the term ``African Americans'' did not exist. Under that law it was impossible for us to be considered favorite sons and favorite daughters of States. When Rosa Parks takes her place in Statuary Hall, she takes with her Frederick Douglass. She takes with her the United States coloreds troops. She takes with her Harriet Tubman and Sojourner Truth. She takes them there.

She takes with her countless, nameless people of African descent, who from slavery to today, sacrificed for an America many would never live to see.

As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who half statue is not Statuary Hall would implore us, Now is the time.

Let me once again, Mr. Speaker, close by thanking the many people who have worked so hard on a bipartisan basis to bring this bill to the floor. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald), House leadership, the minority leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). Their staffs, Jerry Hartz, Lorraine Miller, William Little. The staff of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald), specifically George Shevlin and Matt Pinkus. And also in his absence, the distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), who, along with his staff, made it very possible for this bill to be on the floor today.

I would also like to thank Senator Kerry and his staff for introducing the companion bill in the other body and Senators McConnell and Dodd for their leadership on this important issue.

From my staff, Mr. Charles Dujon and Sandi Pessin who have labored late into the night to make the co-sponsors of this legislation comfortable with the language that places Mrs. Parks in National Statuary Hall. Again, I thank my colleagues for their support. I urge Members to join me in honoring this extraordinary woman and voting yes on this important legislation.

Madam Speaker, did you see the headlines? ``Sox Win the World Series.''

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

I thank the Speaker. This House will never be out of decorum. I see that.

Madam Speaker, the headlines are clear: The Sox win the World Series, and I rise to congratulate the 2005 World Series Champions, the Chicago White Sox, on their first title in 88 years. Not only were the White Sox in first place in the Central Division every single day of the 2005 baseball season, but they also had the best record in the American League for the entire season as they amassed a total of 99 wins.

This team had no batters with an average above .300, they had no superstars, yet they came together as a team, led by manager Ozzie Guillen, characterized by their stellar pitching and tenacious defense. This team epitomized the work ethic of the city of Chicago.

I would like to congratulate the Houston Astros on a great season and a hard-fought World Series. Every game was close and could have gone the other way.

I would also like to congratulate the American League Championship Series MVP Paul Konerko and World Series MVP Jermaine Dye for their stellar play.

Congratulations are also in order for the entire front office of the White Sox, including Chairman Jerry Reinsdorf, Vice Chairman Eddie Einhorn and General Manager Ken Williams, who were the architects of this championship team.

Madam Speaker, last, but not least, I would like to congratulate the dedicated and long-suffering fans of the city of Chicago and the South Side who once again celebrate a champion.

And to my friends and colleagues from the other side, both Democrats and Republicans:

``Na na na na,

Na na na na,

Hey hey hey,

Goodbye.''

Maybe next year, guys.

Thanks, and God bless you.

Go Sox.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to pay tribute to the life and work of Rosa Lee Parks, a quiet but courageous woman who, by sitting down against injustice allowed a mass civil rights movement to stand up for justice.

She was a small woman who had a large impact.

Rosa Parks was more than the ``Mother of the Civil Rights Movement.''

The three civil rights workers--Schwerner, Goodman and Cheney--were inspired by Rosa Parks before they set out on their journey to register people to vote in Mississippi prior to their tragic deaths.

Viola Gregg Liuzzo, an Italian American Detroit housewife who was killed driving marchers back to Selma after the 1965 Selma to Montgomery march, knew of the witness of Rosa Parks.

In 1966 James Meredith gained strength from Rosa Parks as he led a ``March Against Fear'' from Memphis to Jackson, Mississippi--in which he was shot.

Her dignified leadership inspired those abroad to engage in courageous acts--for example, the young man who stood in front of the tank in Tiananmen Square.

Nelson Mandela knew of her actions before he spent 27 years in a South African jail.

She burst on the scene before Pope John Paul II was able to use his pontifical office to

oppose communism. And when those in Eastern Europe struggling for independence from the Soviet Union sang ``We Shall Overcome,'' they were paying tribute to Rosa Parks, not Ronald Reagan.

Believing in American democracy she affirmed that one person--without money or military might--could make a difference.

In the face of danger, entrenched racism, a ``states' rights'' philosophy--and a belief by many that any effort toward civil rights for ``Negroes'' was communist inspired--this graceful woman acted with the courage of a lion, and out of a grassroots bus boycott in Montgomery, Alabama, came a young man, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and a mass movement to end legal apartheid in America.

Rosa Parks took the legal principle of ``equal protection under the law'' for all Americans in the 1954 Brown decision and applied it to public transportation--which eventually led to a 1964 Civil Rights Act, a 1965 Voting Rights Act and a 1968 Open Housing Act, all of which helped to build a more perfect union among the states and make America better.

Do we memorialize her with tributes like this around the nation? Absolutely.

But it also occurred to me that there are few statues of people of color and women in the Capitol. I think Rosa Parks deserves to be honored with a statue in Statuary Hall in the U.S. Capitol and, therefore, today I introduced H.R. 4145, legislation to design, sculpture and place her among the greats who have helped to make America and the world a better place in which to live. I think that is the most appropriate way to permanently memorialize Rosa Parks.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to recognize and congratulate one of my constituents and the 106th president of The National Medical Association, Dr. Sandra L. Gadson.

Founded in 1895, the National Medical Association, NMA, is the largest and oldest national organization representing African American physicians and their patients in the United States. The NMA represents the interests of more than 35,000 African American physicians and the patients they serve and is the leading force for parity and justice in medicine and the elimination of health disparities. Throughout its history, the National Medical Association has focused primarily on health issues related to African Americans and medically underserved populations, as well as all ethnic groups.

Many years ago, Dr. Gadson was herself a patient, facing a battle with colon cancer. In her own words, Dr. Gadson stated: ``When my patients curse a rising wave of pain or struggle to give voice to their suffering, I understand because I've been there.'' This experience has not only influenced Dr. Gadson to be a more sensitive and empathetic doctor, but it inspired her to improve the quality of service available to patients everywhere.

While working in the Emergency Room at Methodist Hospital in Gary, Indiana, Dr. Gadson was shocked to learn that the predominately poor, African American city had a high prevalence of kidney failure but no dialysis center. She immediately took action and established the first freestanding dialysis center in northern Indiana.

In her acceptance speech, Dr. Gadson said that as president of NMA, she will work to increase its membership and mentorship, advocate for a national health plan of universal coverage, strengthen partnerships with churches and the media to promote health awareness, and to launch initiatives in kidney disease that encourage transplantation and organ donation. Dr. Gadson, a practicing nephrologist, also made note of the fact that African Americans make up 13 percent of the U.S. population but nearly one-third of all kidney patients. ``The crisis of kidney failure in the African American community mirrors the dilemma of health care disparities,'' Dr. Gadson stated.

Dr. Gadson's contributions to the health community have been enumerable. As president of the NMA, she will continue to help decrease health disparities and increase access to high quality healthcare for all Americans. We are truly fortunate to have her as a part of our community, and I congratulate her on her achievement.

Mr. Chairman, I want to start by saying that I support H.R. 3057, and intend to vote for it in its current form. I also want to recognize the majority and minority subcommittee staff for their dedicated and professional work in meeting the demands of all subcommittee members despite scarce resources.

However, in a forum such as this, I would be remiss if I did not raise the following issues that I have consistently raised over the last several years in every relevant hearing, mark-up and floor debate of this committee.

Yesterday, around the world, 15-20 thousand people died of extreme poverty. Today, around the world, 15-20 thousand people will die of extreme poverty. Tomorrow, around the world 15-20 thousand people will die of extreme poverty. Extreme poverty, like malnutrition and disease,--not conflict--are claiming these lives.

The Foreign Operations Appropriations bill has a real opportunity to turn around these numbers. Look at what has been done to date. Smallpox eradication begun in the 1960s. Control of river blindness in the 1970s. Increased child immunizations in the 1980s. Initiatives to fight Guinea worm, trachoma and leprosy in the 1990s. And the effort to end polio in this decade. Measurable results produced with the dollars the Foreign Operations subcommittee provides.

But more can be done.

There is a phrase that former Labor-HHS Chairman Porter, a member of the Foreign Ops. subcommittee, was fond of saying, ``Noblesse oblige, the belief that the wealthy and privileged are obliged to help those less fortunate. In Luke, chapter 12, verse 48, Jesus simply says, ``To who much is given, much is expected.''

We are the wealthiest country in the world. We spend more money on our military than the entire world combined with the sole mission of protecting this country, its citizens and advancing U.S. interests.

We protect this country and advance U.S. interests by embracing the three Ds to a successful foreign policy: diplomacy, democracy and development. However, looking at all of FY 06 discretionary spending, I think we have been strongly emphasizing diplomacy and democracy and only given cursory treatment to development.

Providing significantly more resources to development would only further the dollars we spend on defense. Last year, Vice Admiral Lowell Jacoby of the Defense Intelligence Agency said, ``a number of factors virtually assure a terrorist threat for years to come . . . Despite recent reforms, terrorist organizations draw from societies with poor or failing economies, ineffective governments and inadequate education systems.''

I don't want anyone to misunderstand me. Given the circumstances, this bill is a tremendous effort. Chairman Kolbe, Ranking Member Lowey and the subcommittee staff have put forward a laudable product.

But more should be done.

I keep hearing members of this committee and the House leadership say that this is a tight budget year. This tight budget year was not created by immaculate conception. Congress voted to make it a tough budget year. Congress approved the budget resolution. Saying it is going to be a tough budget year is like a farmer saying he is going to have a bad harvest because he didn't plant any seeds. Mr. Chairman, when Congress approved the FY '06 budget resolution we didn't plant any seeds. The budget allocation given to this subcommittee is not a natural disaster like a drought. This disaster was of our making.

In Matthew chapter 6, verse 21 , Jesus said, ``For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.'' If this verse is true, what does it say about us, about Congress, about our government that we pass budget resolutions each year that spend almost $400 billion on defense, and hundreds of billions on all kinds of tax cuts for the most well off, yet we can't even match the President's request for international development. I have a masters in theology from the Chicago Theological Seminary and have read my bible from cover to cover, and nowhere does it say, ``only take care of the poor if it fits into your annual budget resolution.''

Noblesse oblige Mr. Chairman.

In 1984, referring to Marxist-ruled Ethiopia, President Ronald Reagan said, ``a hungry child knows no politics.'' I would also add that

a hungry child doesn't know a 302(b) allocations from a point-of- order.'' All he knows is that he is hungry.

Again, I plan to support this bill.

But more needs to be done.

Madam Chairman, I do not know what to say about H.R. 3010. I know the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the subcommittee staff did the best they could under the circumstances. But to virtually eliminate title VII health professions is draconian and unconscionable.

Since I started serving on this subcommittee almost 6\1/2\ years ago, I have fought to end disparities, disparities in employment, disparities in education, and especially disparities in health.

Health disparities are real. If you are black in this country, your life expectancy is 66 years. If you are white in this country, your life expectancy is 74 years. Infant mortality is twice as high for African American babies than white babies.

Fortunately, institutions like the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences have laid out a framework on how to end these disparities. One of the recommendations of the IOM was to increase the number of health professions, and this bill virtually does the opposite. It essentially eliminates health professions, a cut of $250 million.

I think a society says a lot about the way it treats the weakest and most vulnerable of its citizens. I believe we live in a ``united'' States, and like a chain, we are only as strong as our weakest link. By leaving some of our citizens behind, we prove that we are not strong and compassionate, but weak and uncaring.

There is a phrase that former Labor-HHS Chairman Porter was fond of saying, ``Noblesse oblige,'' the belief that the wealthy and privileged are obliged to help those less fortunate. In Luke, chapter 12, verse 48, Jesus simply says, ``To who much is given, much is expected.''

We are the wealthiest country in the world. We spend more money on our military than the entire world combined, with the sole mission of protecting this country and advancing U.S. interests, interests which should include a high-quality education and high-quality health care for every American.

I keep hearing members of this committee and the House leadership say that this is a tight budget year. Well, this tight budget year did not occur because of immaculate conception. Congress voted to make it a tight budget year. Congress approved the budget resolution. Saying it is going to be a tough budget year is like a farmer saying he is going to have a bad harvest because he did not plant any seeds.

Madam Chairman, when Congress approved the budget resolution, we did not plant any seeds. Nothing will grow this year. This is not a natural disaster like a drought. This is a disaster of our own making.

What does it say about a society that approves tax cuts for millionaires instead of trying to solve why babies of color die sooner? What does it say about a society that approves tax cuts for millionaires instead of trying to solve what ails the weakest amongst of us?

Madam Chairman, I know the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the subcommittee staff were dealt a bad hand and did the best job they could under the circumstances, but we should be ashamed of this budget that has produced the product that is before us today.

In Matthew 6:21, Jesus says, ``For where your treasure is, there will your heart be, also.'' If this verse is true, what does it say about us, about this Congress, about our government, that we pass a budget resolution every year that spends almost half of our discretionary dollars on defense and hundreds of billions on all kinds of tax cuts for the most well off?

Madam Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to vote against this bill. In good conscience, none of us should support H.R. 3010.

Madam Chairman, I don't know what to say about H.R. 3010. I know Chairman Regula and his subcommittee staff did the best they could under the circumstances, but to virtually eliminate Title VII Health Professions I think is draconian and unconscionable.

Since I started serving on this subcommittee almost six-and-a-half years ago, I have fought to end disparities--disparities in employment, disparities in education and especially disparities in health.

Health disparities are real. If you are black in this country, your life expectancy is 66 years. If you are white in this country, your life expectancy is 74 years. Infant mortality is twice as high for African American babies than for white babies.

Fortunately, institutions, like the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, have laid out a framework on how to end these disparities. One of the recommendations of the IOM was to increase the number of health professions. This bill does exactly the opposite. It essentially eliminates health professions--a cut of $250 million.

I think a society says a lot by the way that it treats the weakest and most vulnerable of its citizens. I believe we live in a `united' states, and like a chain, we are only as strong as our weakest link. By leaving some of our citizens behind, we prove that we are not strong and compassionate but weak and uncaring.

There is a phrase that former Labor-HHS Chairman Porter was fond of saying, ``Noblesse oblige'', the belief that the wealthy and privileged are obliged to help those less fortunate. In Luke, chapter 12, verse 48, Jesus simply says, ``To whom much is given, much is expected.''

We are the wealthiest country in the world. We spend more money on our military than the entire world combined with the sole mission of protecting this country and advancing U.S. interests. Interests which should include a high quality education and high quality health care for all Americans.

I keep hearing members of this committee and House leadership say that this is a tight budget year. Well this tight budget year did not occur by immaculate conception. Congress voted to make it a tough budget year. Congress approved the budget resolution. Saying it is going to be a tough budget year is like a farmer saying he is going to have a bad harvest because he didn't plant any seeds. Madam Chairman, when Congress approved the budget resolution we didn't plant any seeds. Nothing will grow this year. This is not a natural disaster like a drought. This disaster was of our making.

What does it say about a society that approves of tax cuts for millionaires instead of trying to solve why babies of color die sooner? What does it say about a society that approves tax cuts for millionaires instead of trying to solve what ails the weakest among us?

Chairman Regula, I know you and your staff were dealt a bad hand and did the best job you could under the circumstances, but we all should be ashamed of the budget that has produced the product before us today.

In Matthew chapter 6, verse 21 , Jesus said, ``For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.'' If this verse is true, what does it say about us, about Congress, about our government that we pass budget resolutions each year that spend almost half of our discretionary dollars on defense, and hundreds of billions on all kinds of tax cuts for the most well off. I have a masters in theology from the Chicago Theological Seminary and have read my bible from cover to cover, and nowhere does it say, ``only clothe the naked and feed the poor if it fits into your annual budget resolution.'' Noblesse oblige, Madam Chairman.

In 1984, referring to Marxist-ruled Ethiopia, President Ronald Reagan said, ``a hungry child knows no politics.'' I would also add that a hungry child, or a sick child, doesn't know a 302(b) allocations from a point-of-order.'' All he knows is that he is hungry or sick.

Every day I am proud to say I am a Member of the United States Congress. Since December 1995, I have gone home every night and held my head high knowing I worked to improve the lives of all Americans. Tonight I will not be able to do that.

Madam Chairman, fellow Members of the House, I have dedicated my service on this subcommittee to ending disparities in health, education and employment. This bill will only increase them. In good conscience, I cannot support H.R. 3010.

Mr. Speaker, today I introduced legislation, H.R. 2560, that is specifically designed to save lives and reduce suffering. It is a small, but significant, measure to protect the voiceless and the vulnerable.

In an instant, a wrong turn, a sudden fall, a missed step, someone, indeed anyone, can find himself or herself in a crisis and in need of emergency medical care.

In California alone, nearly 10 million people require emergency room care every year. And of those, 1.5 million arrive in critical condition. In fact, nationwide, nearly 1 million people arrive in emergency rooms each year unconscious or physically unable to give informed consent to their care.

What happens or what fails to happen in the critical, precious, and immediate moments after the single split second of an emergency can be the difference between healing and heartbreak, between calamity and recovery, between life and death.

Consider the story of Elaine Sullivan. A very active 71-year-old woman, Elaine fell at home while getting into her bathtub. When paramedics arrived, they realized that injuries to her mouth and head had made her unable to communicate, or as the hospital later discovered, to give informed consent for her own care.

Although stable for the first few days, she began to slip into critical condition. Despite having her daughter's contact information clearly indicated on her chart, the hospital failed to notify her family for 6 days. Tragically, just hours later, Elaine Sullivan died alone in the hospital.

In the aftermath of this tragedy, Elaine Sullivan's daughter, Jan, and granddaughter, Laura, turned their personal pain to public action. Jan and Laura Greenwald went to work to make sure that what happened to their loved one would not happen to others.

From their research, the Greenwalds learned about other incidents like their own, in which families of hospitalized patients were not notified at all or notified after lengthy delay. Although uncommon, these stories were alarming; but, alas, they were avoidable.

Let me be clear. Most hospitals notify the next of kin of unconscious emergency room arrivals relatively quickly. However, emergency rooms are extremely high pressure, intense, and sometimes chaotic environments. According to statistics compiled by the American College of Emergency Physicians, more than 88 percent of emergency room doctors surveyed reported moderate to severe overcrowding in their department. In the hustle and bustle of the ER, despite the professionalism and dedication of staff, there are real risks that a simple phone call may not be able to be made in a timely fashion.

In the case of Elaine Sullivan, the phone call was not made. In her memory and honor, I have introduced this bill so that in the future phone calls to loved ones will always be made. The bill, the Elaine Sullivan Act, is sensible. It requires hospitals that receive Medicare funding to make reasonable efforts to contact a family member, specified health care agent, or surrogate decision-maker of incapacitated patients within 24 hours of arrival at the emergency department.

The bill is realistic. Modeled after State laws in Illinois and California, the bill recognizes that such notifications would be difficult and even impractical in certain instances and under certain circumstances. Therefore, the 24-hour notification requirement does not apply when hospitals implement a disaster or mass casualty program or during a declared state of emergency or other local mass casualty situation.

The bill is constructive. The legislation makes Federal grants available for the next 5 years to qualified not-for-profit organizations to establish and operate a national next of kin registry. As a high-speed, electronic free search service, the voluntary registry would help hospitals and government agencies to locate family members of the injured, missing, and the deceased.

How would the registry work? Consider for a moment just one distressing, but relevant, scenario. Your loved one, say your spouse, is on a business trip. She is out of state and on her own. On the way, she is involved in a serious head-on collision. Unconscious and unable to communicate, she is rushed to the nearest hospital. Unbeknownst to you, your wife lay comatose, fighting for her life, miles from home.

Doctors and nurses work feverishly to provide emergency medical care to a patient who is only a name on the license; but to you, she is the love of your life. If the two of you had signed up for the next of kin registry, the hospital staff would be able to quickly notify you about your wife's critical condition. You could rush to be by her side, share critical medical history and information that could help save her life; hence, the bill is necessary.

It is not intended to frustrate the mission of hospitals, but rather to facilitate it. It is about notifying the right people at the right time in order to share the right information during an emergency. Using this crucial medical information while caring for a critically ill patient reduces the hospital's own liability. So, such notification is vital.

Not only is it important to have a family member present to comfort the patient, but also to make informed decisions that the patient can't make for him or herself and to provide the medical history that could very well be the difference between life and death.

So, Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting H.R. 2560--the Elaine Sullivan Act. It is a small but sensible measure designed to save lives and ease suffering. Mr. Speaker, we don't know when tragedy will strike. But, if it does, we should know that we would not be alone. This bill provides the assurance that our loved ones will be by our side.

Mr. Chairman, I offer two amendments and ask unanimous consent they be considered en bloc.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. It adds $50 million for disaster assistance and $50 million for refugee assistance in Sudan and other African countries.

If this amendment passes, the House product would still be $550 million below the President's request. So for colleagues that argue we are spending too much money, this amendment is fiscally prudent. But more importantly, adopting this amendment is quite frankly the right thing to do.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment could be the most decent, moral and effective $100 million spent in this bill. This $100 million in disaster relief and refugee assistance would go very far in alleviating the multiple disasters and refugee crisis in Africa. Most of Africa's urgent humanitarian needs are shockingly affordable. Sadly, what we have been missing is the political will to stand up and do something.

Mr. Chairman, the President speaks often about ending evil, about reaching into your heart and doing the right thing. The number of deaths, over 1,300 a day in Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, that could be prevented would truly be ending evil and we know this is the right thing to do.

Mr. Chairman, the only way for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing. I urge a ``yea'' vote on the Jackson amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) for his extraordinary leadership on this issue. I would like to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for his extraordinary steadfast commitment to encouraging Members of this Congress to stand up and do the right thing. This would not be possible without the leadership of the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), and the thoughtful consideration that the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), has given to this very critical part of the world.

I thank the gentlemen for their support of this bipartisan amendment.

The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), my ranking member, for her commitment throughout this project and throughout this process has been nothing short of stellar, and extraordinary as well. I thank the gentlewoman, and I do apologize for interrupting the regular order.

Mr. Speaker, on May 17, 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court declared two things: (1) segregated schools are illegal; and (2) the legal principle of ``separate but equal'' was dead.

Philosophically the Court was saying if our public institutions are equal, why separate them? And, practically and historically, if they are separate we know they will be unequal.

Thus, the Brown decision laid the legal foundation for attacking all segregated institutions in America.

There had been sit-ins in the 1940s and '50s--in Chicago, St. Louis, Baltimore and elsewhere--but without the legal foundation of Brown.

During this period of increasing civil rights activity, CORE, the Fellowship of Reconciliation, and SCLC clergy trained young people in nonviolent direct action. Rev. James Lawson and others did such training in Nashville at Tennessee State, the American Baptist Theological Seminary and at Fisk University.

The students at North Carolina A & T State University, my alma mater, didn't know about the activity in Nashville. But freedom was increasingly in the air.

So, on February 1, 1960, four young African American men--Franklin McCain, Joseph McNeil, Ezell Blair Jr. and David Richmond--all freshmen on academic scholarships at North Carolina A & T, sat down at a ``whites only'' Woolworth's lunch counter in Greensboro. They wanted to be served, but were refused and physically abused. They responded to violence with nonviolence.

The media focused on what was happening in Greensboro, and African American college students across the South were inspired to begin a lunch counter sit-in movement. They filled jails, got out, sat-in again, and went back to jail. They marched, picketed and refused to stop until the ``Cotton Curtain'' fell.

Ten years after Brown, their dream was achieved when Congress passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act outlawing segregation in public institutions. But it all began with four students at North Carolina A & T. The nation owes them a great debt of gratitude.

Mr. Speaker, I ask to address the House for 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear. Today's objection is not about an individual, but our institutions. It is not about Republicans, but our Republic. It is not about

Democrats, but our democracy. It is not about an election result. It is about an election system that is broken and needs to be fixed.

Today, we are hearing the facts about voting irregularities in Ohio. In 2000, we saw a similar mess in Florida and other States. As we try to spread democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere, it is prudent and appropriate and timely to examine our own democracy.

What is wrong with our democracy? What is wrong with our voting system? State after State, year after year, why do we keep having these problems?

The fundamental reason is this: Americans do not have the explicit right to vote in their Constitution. In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore ruled: ``The individual citizen has no Federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States.'' So at present, voting in the United States is a State right, not a citizenship right.

Hence, our voting system is built on the constitutional foundation of States rights: 50 different States, 3,067 different counties, 13,000 different election jurisdictions, all separate, all unequal.

Consider this, if a person is an ex-felon in Illinois, they can register and vote. If they are an ex-felon in 11 States, mostly in the South, they are barred from voting for life. There are nearly 5 million ex-felons who paid their debt to society but are prohibited from ever voting again, including 1.5 million African American males; but in Maine and Vermont, a person can vote if they are a felon while they are in jail. Illinois, Florida, Vermont. Different States, different rules, different systems.

In contrast, the first amendment to the Constitution guarantees us an individual citizenship right, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association; and we can travel between the States with such a fundamental right. However, when it comes to voting, a person does not have such a fundamental right. They have a State right. A State right is not a citizenship right, but a right defined and protected by each State and limited to each State.

108 of the 119 nations in the world that elect their public officials in some democratic manner have the right to vote in their Constitution, including the Afghan Constitution and the interim document in Iraq. The United States is one of eleven nations that does not have an affirmative right to vote in the Constitution. Should we not be the 108th nation that does just that?

The Bible says if we build a house on sand, when it rains, the winds blow and the storms come and it will not stand. Our voting system is built on the sand of States rights. Florida one year, Ohio the next year, and no telling what is happening in 2008 and 2012.

As a result, the American people are gradually losing confidence in the credibility, the fairness, the effectiveness and the efficiency of our voting system. So we need to build our democracy, not on HAVA Democrats, not on HAVA Republicans, but build our democracy on the fundamental individual guarantee in the Constitution that every citizen can rely upon in their Constitution.

We need to provide the American people with the citizenship right to vote and provide Congress with the authority to craft a unitary system from Maine to California so we do not have so many separate and unequal systems. Mr. Speaker, it is the foundation upon which we build a more perfect Union amongst the States.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia, whose credentials on the question of voting are unparalleled and unmarked and unmatched in this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and honor my colleague from Illinois Congressman William Lipinski who is retiring from Congress after 21 years of service.

Mr. Lipinski--the congressman from the 3d District--grew up on the southwest side of Chicago and he has remained there as a lifelong resident. He began his political career with the Chicago Parks District, was elected 23rd Ward alderman and ward committeeman in 1975. First elected to Congress in 1983, Mr. Lipinski is currently the longest serving Democrat in the Illinois delegation.

Since the beginning of his career as a congressman, Mr. Lipinski has been a member of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure--formerly the House Committee on Public Works and Transportation. As a member of this committee, he has served as Ranking Member on the Railroads Subcommittee, Ranking Member on Aviation, and is currently Ranking Member on the powerful Highways, Transit and Pipeline Subcommittee.

I'm glad he's on this side of the aisle. It's easier to go to war with Mr. Lipinski on your side than on the other side.

Bill Lipinski has worked devotedly and passionately on behalf of his constituents. He has made many important contributions to the City of Chicago and the state of Illinois. I'm thankful for his service to our city, state and nation.

And I'm proud to call him my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues and thank Mr. Lipinski for his service and wish him and his family the best in the years to come.

Mr. Chairman, this emergency supplemental should contain funding for African Union peace keepers in Sudan to address the worst humanitarian crisis in the world today, but it does not. Six thousand to 10,000 Darfurians are dying each month. That is why the language should be in this bill, because this is the only bill leaving this station until after the election.

1.2 million live in overcrowded camps needing security and struggling to survive; 50,000 Darfurians have been brutally murdered, many in front of their own family. This Congress in a unanimous way went on record to declaring it a genocide and since 2003 the Sudanese Government and their murderous Arab militia, the Janjaweed, have waged a deliberate and systematic campaign of rape, torture, starvation, and murder.

In September, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and I traveled to see the devastation and destruction in Darfur. We both concluded that the first and immediate step was to provide security for the people of Darfur. This supplemental is the only bill that can provide security for the people of Darfur. So we pledged to work together for an expanded African Union and force in Darfur. But the chairman came to the floor and said that the President already has the authority. But the President just a few days ago in a debate declared that it was a genocide, so why has he not exercised the authority?

Like the distinguished minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), said, we need the help now. Now the African Union is moving forward to save lives. In the last few days they have reached an agreement to deploy 3,500 additional troops into Darfur at an estimated cost of $240 million of which the United States is expected to contribute one-third. Yes, we must help the people of Darfur, but this Congress is also on record suggesting that it is a genocide. Yes, the people of Florida; yes, the people in the southern United States. But, Mr. Chairman, not to do so would be a moral failure.

Mr. Chairman, this emergency supplemental should contain funding for African Union peacekeepers in Sudan to address the worst humanitarian crisis in the world today. But, it does not.

6,000 to 10,000 Darfurians are dying each month.

1.2 million live in overcrowded camps, needing security and struggling to survive.

50,000 Darfurians have been brutally murdered, many in front of their own family.

Since 2003, the Sudanese government and their murderous Arab militia, the ``Janjaweed,'' have waged a deliberate and systematic campaign of rape, torture, starvation and murder.

In September, Chairman Jim Kolbe and I traveled to see the devastation and destruction in Darfur. We both concluded that the first and immediate step was to provide security for the people of Darfur.

So, we pledged to work together for an expanded African Union force and mission in Darfur.

The Administration seemed to agree. In last week's debate, the president stated: ``in . . . Darfur, I agree it's genocide . . . I agree with my opponent that we shouldn't be committing troops. That we ought to be working with the African Union to do so . . . My hope is that the African Union moves rapidly to help save lives.''

Now, the AU is moving forward to save lives. In the last few days, they've reached an agreement to deploy 3,500 additional troops into Darfur, at an estimated cost of $240 million, of which the United States is expected to contribute about one-third.

But, this emergency supplemental does not provide it. What a glaring omission with potentially tragic consequences.

So, Mr. Chairman, we must amend this supplemental in conference by transferring funds from the Iraq Reconstruction and Relief Fund to support the AU peacekeeping force in Sudan.

Not to do so would be a moral failure.