Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition of H.R. 2359, the Basic Pilot Extension Act. H.R. 2359 will create a new and controversial identification database that will threaten the privacy of all Americans.

The program allows employers to verify the legal status of newly hired employees by using immigration databases. Although well intentioned, the program is severely flawed. Over 40 percent of the employees denied by this program, were authorized to work. We need a program that works, not one that unjustly denies families the ability to put food on the table.

Some employers that have used this program as a screening tool, have not allowed workers to contest incorrect information, and have even refused to let employees know of their rights under the program.

Madam Speaker, the information being reported by this database is flawed and it is a result of the inaccurate and outdated information contained in the databases of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. We cannot continue to support a program that denies workers the ability to earn a living just because a computer in Washington, D.C. has bad information. But, the most troubling part of this bill is that it allows any local or state government to look up the immigration status of any American citizen or immigrant for virtually any reason.

It is clear that H.R. 2359 will place all workers, and especially minority and immigrant workers, at risk of discrimination, mistreatment and labor rights violations. Immigration experts, civil rights advocates, and even a Congressionally mandated study of the program all say that--the Basic Pilot should not expand nationwide.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of our troops and in support of the Obey Amendment to the Iraq Supplemental Bill. I urge my colleagues to allow a vote on this amendment.

This Amendment is a better plan for the reconstruction of Iraq, a better plan for the safety of our troops, and a better plan for America.

This Administration has already received $63 billion to help pay for this war and now they want an additional $87 billion, which could even be more in the future.

We have a deficit that is rapidly rising in this nation, an unemployment rate that is nearly the greatest it has been in a decade, families struggling without healthcare and a president who has drastically cut education by $9.2 billion. The American people have to make a decision between losing their home and healthcare.

We have an administration that went into Iraq without a plan. They asked the nation to trust them and now our troops are overseas dying every day. And at greater rates then when we were at war.

Our soldiers are exhausted and we do not know when they will be coming home! From my district the 1st Battalion 185th Armored Regiment, California National Guard could be shipped to go to Iraq as early as November.

One year ago when this nation was debating whether we should go to war, I questioned whether our troops had the equipment they needed to protect themselves. And I am still asking this question. We are losing American lives every single day.

Our troops are tired. We need more manpower. This amendment increases the troops from 480,000 to 500,000. The safety of our soldiers must not be ignored!

I keep thinking about a young man in my district that we recently lost. His name was Jorge Gonzales and I thought about his parents Mario and Rosa from Rialto. Regardless of the details of the reconstruction plan, we must make sure our soldiers have the equipment they need to survive and make it home safe.

But I also cannot stress enough, that I support this amendment because it makes the administration accountable for the spending they are doing in Iraq. Under this amendment, the president must give a detailed report about how the funds in Iraq have already been spent and how they will be spent.

We must know who and why the administration is granting contracts to. We must know why they have decided to ignore the competitive bidding process and award contracts secretly.

I urge my colleagues to support the Obey Amendment, an amendment that creates accountability, protects our soldiers, and does not hurt the American economy or its people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Representative Crowley's motion to instruct the conferees to grant the Child Tax Credit to thousands of needy families wrongfully ignored by the Republican majority.

When the conference report on the Republican tax cut was finished, the dividend tax cut got bigger and tax credits for working families got smaller. It is unconscionable that we are willing to sacrifice Child Tax Credits for the poorest in our society, so that we can give more money to the wealthiest.

Six and a half million families in this Nation earn $10,500 to $26,625 per year. If we do not pass a child tax credit for the families, 19 million children will be ignored. In my home State of California, nearly 1.3 million working families will not receive a child tax credit because the Republicans needed to give President Bush more billionaire tax cuts. These working families need relief!

By not passing a complete child tax credit, 250,000 kids of active duty military families, many of whom are right now fighting overseas, will be ignored. Military families need relief!

Our economy is in desperate need of stimulus. Unemployment across the Nation has remained over 6 percent and the Hispanic unemployment rate remains above 7.5 percent. America's families are suffering.

Unemployment is up. Wages are down. Poverty is on the rise. More Americans can no longer afford health care.

America's families need our help. They need a child tax credit!

During this time of economic downturn we must not leave out those who are working harder for less pay or those who have recently joined the ranks of the unemployed. It is time to put working families back into the equation.

I urge my colleagues to support Representative Crowley's motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to give tribute to the Immigrant Freedom Ride. These immigrants have crossed the country to ask Congress to allow them a process for naturalization, increase the number of visas for family reunification, and to protect the civil and labor rights of immigrants.

Immigrants need a process to earn legal status. These immigrants work hard, pay taxes, and want to be productive legal members of our society.

Many immigrants live in solitude. Work and send their money home so that their children and families can survive. That is why immigrants need more visas so we can reunite families. No parent should be forced out of necessity to miss out on the life of his or her child.

And, we must protect the civil rights of all immigrants--including the undocumented. Too many immigrant workers are fired if they speak up about labor violations. Labor protections should apply to all workers, not just citizens. These demands are just.

Immigrants break their backs picking our fruits and vegetables, building our homes, and making our clothes. But, they will no longer be silent. They demand fair treatment.

This is a wakeup call. Immigrants are angry and will not be silent anymore.

I support the ideals of the Immigrant Freedom Ride and aim to help immigrants achieve these goals.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the American Dream Downpayment Act, H.R. 1276, sponsored by the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris) and of course my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) who happens to be a Member from that area as well. His mother lives in Fontana. And of course our minority leader as well, who has been very instrumental, and that is the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), in fighting to ensure that many of the poor and disadvantaged have opportunities in many different areas. This is an area that she is fighting for to make sure that individuals have an opportunity to own a home for the very first time.

Right now, Hispanics and minorities are struggling to purchase homes at a far greater rate than the rest of the Nation. In my own district, the Hispanic ownership rate is only 59 percent. That is nearly 10 percent less than the national average, and it is 15 percent less than the national non-Hispanic white average.

In my own district, which is 58 percent Hispanic, it has become increasingly difficult for Hispanics to own businesses because there is a housing boom that is causing the prices to skyrocket. In our area, we have the majority of growth which continues to move from L.A. to Orange County into our area, but it has become difficult for them to become first-time home buyers.

The median housing price in San Bernardino County went from $116,000 in the year 2002 to $207,000 in August. That is a 29 percent increase.

Hispanics and minorities all over the Nation are struggling to keep up. Not only do Hispanics earn less in wages than the rest of the population, but Hispanic unemployment is rising as well. Right now, Hispanic unemployment is nearly 7.8.

At the same time, we have an administration that is pushing for programs to turn Section 8 low income-housing vouchers into State blocks. In California, and States with huge budget deficits, it will hurt the low-income minority population because they will not be able to rent, let alone buy a home.

But the American Dream Downpayment Act will help Hispanics and many other minorities become homeowners. It will help low-income and first- time home buyers make downpayments on their first home. We must make sure we give them that opportunity.

I know what it was like because I come from a large family of 15, and let me tell my colleagues for the very first time that my dad was able to purchase a home, while it was very difficult, we fell under that category, but it was important for me and for my family to have stability. We had a foundation for the very first time. We were able to own a home that we never owned before because we were moving from one place or project to another project, living in the ghettos and the projects, moving from one place to another, but instability had allowed it.

This act will allow individuals to have that stability we need to say, I am going to one school, I do not have to go to four, five or six different schools as I went. It will also help increase the education amongst the kids where they have the stability in terms of going to one school, having their friends that are there and being able to take pride in their home. I know what it was like, and I took pride in my home when we had it.

Let me tell my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this bill. It is a good bill, and I compliment our minority leaders and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris) in carrying this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1409, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Land Exchange. This land exchange is urgent for the Eastern Band community because it would allow them to build a new K-through-12 complex in Cherokee, North Carolina, that they desperately need.

We owe it to our children. We owe it to each one of us to make sure that every child has an opportunity to learn, to be in a safe environment. So when we look at where these tribes are and the kids are, they are in overcrowded classrooms right now. How can our children learn in an overcrowded classroom? We cannot even have wiring. We say leave no child behind, and our President has said leave no child behind. The only way we can do that is if we build new schools, modernize schools so we are able to put the kind of technology that we need to make sure that our children are able to meet the 21st century in computer and technology, and that they are in a safe environment.

When you are in a safe climate and a safe environment, it adds to your attitude and you behavior in the classrooms. You feel good about yourself; your self-esteem is built. Well, if we do not allow for this land exchange, how can we then say that we are building for our future? How can we say that every child, regardless of whether you are in a sovereign country or in another country, that you do not deserve the right to learn, that you do not deserve the right to be in that kind of environment? We owe that to every one of our children.

Let me tell my colleagues, we should all be proud of this kind of legislation that has come before us, because it has given someone an opportunity to build the kind of schools that our children need; an opportunity to allow them to grow and to develop; an opportunity for them to be proud not only of themselves, but of the school that they are doing to. When we saw the photos earlier. It is very difficult to be proud to be in that kind of environment, to say that I am in a classroom where there are potholes that are there, when we see that there are faucets that are not working, water that is not flowing. Well, it is difficult. And then when we begin to compete and bring other individuals to compete in our schools, we want to stand up and say we are proud of this school. We are proud of this school. And we should allow them to build that school.

They are overcrowded, as I stated. They have 800 students right now, and they are putting them into a 400 classroom capacity at this point. We must not forget the rights and the needs of the Americans, and that is our first Americans. This tribe that survived the Trail of Tears in the 1830s, this is a tribe that was promised this land, that was promised this land. This tribe was promised this land many years ago. This tribe deserves better than what they have been given.

Native Americans, including Eastern Band Cherokee Indians, are working hard to become self-sufficient, and we must offer them our help. This proposal is a perfect example of that. I am proud of the tribe's efforts to improve educational, cultural, and economic development in their communities. I support this bill. I applaud the efforts of the Eastern Band. I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Rodriguez motion to instruct the conferees on the Defense Reauthorization Act.

I support his motion because I strongly believe that we must expedite the citizenship process for immigrants that serve in the United States military.

If they wear the American flag on their uniform everyday and proudly fight for this nation then I believe offering them citizenship is the least we can do.

Thirty-seven thousand immigrants soldiers risk their lives everyday in defense of our Nation. These patriots may be of different nationalities but they share the same commitment to defend the United States.

As a Nation, we must respect and honor those who are willing to fight and die for ideals of democracy and the ideals of the United States of America, regardless of their nationality. If we trust immigrants to die protecting this Nation then we must trust them to become American citizens.

The Senate bill has provisions to allow these immigrant soldiers to become citizens after two years, rather than three and I support that.

The Senate provision also allows immigrant soldiers to fulfill citizen requirements at U.S. facilities abroad and I support that.

Currently, immigrant soldiers serving over seas are required to take leave, spend their own money and travel back to the U.S. to fulfill their citizenship requirements. The process is slow archaic, and wrong. No one should be punished for serving this Nation.

I served this Nation proudly and I am the child of immigrants. I know the love that my parents had for this Nation, and I know the love that I have for this Nation, and no one should be punished for wanting to proudly serve this country. No one should be punished simply because they were not lucky enough to be born on United States soil.

We owe anyone who is willing to fight for this Nation the opportunity to quickly and expeditiously become a United States citizen.

We are asking something simple--allow these proud immigrants to become citizens. At a time when we are fighting enemies abroad and at home, why deny those that are the most loyal their wish to become Americans.

On behalf of the 37,000 immigrant soldiers and families, I urge my colleagues to support the Rodriguez motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, two years ago today, we mourned and cried as we watched the horrific events that unfolded before us on September 11, 2001.

The events of that day will live forever collectively in the conscience of this country.

Like Pearl Harbor, the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. no one will forget where they were the moment they heard the news on that day.

September 11, 2003, like very few days before in this nation, will live forever in infamy.

We must never forget the thousands of lives that were lost as a result of those cowardly attacks. The passengers, the workers at the Pentagon and the World Trade Center and the many courageous rescue workers who in an effort to try to save lives, lost their own.

Our nation must always remember those who fell victim to terrorism on that day. Our nation must never forget the suffering felt on that day. We must never forget the pain of the families who lost their loved ones, and we must always keep them in our prayers.

But as I stand here on September 11, two years after the attacks, I am aware more now than ever before of the responsibilities we as lawmakers hold to this nation.

As leaders of the greatest nation on this Earth, we have the responsibility to fight to uphold the ideals that make this nation great. We must continue to protect freedom and democracy and never abandon the ideals put forth by our founding fathers.

We must continue to fight this war on terror and invest in our homeland security. We must make sure that attacks, like those experienced two years ago, will never happen again. And if they should happen again, we are able to respond to protect the lives of our citizens.

This country was united two years by an act of violence and terror. A renewed sense of patriotism gripped this nation and I feel that it is still present today.

Let us never forget this sensation. Let us use the tragedy of September 11, 2001 to make this a stronger nation, a nation that cannot be crippled by a zealous few. Let us use the tragedy of September 11, 2001 to make this a safe and freer world, not only for the children of the United States, but the children throughout the world. Freedom is a right entitled to all.

Let us never forget those who passed away on September 11, 2001.

Let us pray for the children who lost their parents, the parents who lost their children, and everyone who suffered a loss on that horrific day.

But also, on this commemorative day, let us not forget to pray for the safe return of our troops overseas. Though we may not all agree with the politics behind this past war, we can all agree that America's sons and daughters are overseas fighting with passion to protect our freedom. Let us not forget to include them in our prayers.

We must pray for continued peace and security in this nation and in all nations.

On behalf of the people of the Inland Empire of California, I offer my emotional and spiritual support to those whose lives were changed forever two years ago today.

And I would like to take a moment to mention the names of the three constituents I lost on that day. Cora Holland, mother of three and grandmother who died aboard American Airlines flight 11; Rhonda Rasmussen, who died at the Pentagon; and Navy Yeoman Second Class Melissa Rose Barnes, who died at the Pentagon.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sanders Amendment.

This amendment is simple and straightforward. It would simply prevent the Federal Government from using any funding to assist in overturning the federal district court ruling that declared IBM's cash balance pension conversion to be in violation of the pension age discrimination laws that are on the books.

This amendment would protect millions of American workers throughout the country who have been negatively impacted by illegal age discriminatory cash balance pension conversions.

This amendment has the strong support of the AARP, the largest senior citizen group in this country representing over 35 million Americans, the Pension Rights Center and the IBM Employees' Benefits Action Coalition.

A federal district court in Illinois has already ruled this practice as illegal. In the case of IBM, 130,000 employees have seen their pensions slashed as a result of IBM's cash balance scheme. The message was clear. These cash balance plans--which slash the pension benefits of older workers by as much as 50%--are illegal.

Despite this court ruling, it appears that the Treasury Department is still moving ahead with proposed regulations that would give the green light to the very cash balance pension plans that the federal court ruled are illegal. This is wrong.

Just last year, over 300 Members of the House voted to require the Treasury Department to protect older workers in cash balance pension conversions, and over 200 Members of Congress recently wrote a letter to urge President Bush to withdraw the proposed cash balance regulations that are at issue here. Congressional intent is clear-- these conversions hurt our nation's pensioners and this practice must stop.

But, there are some in Congress who may believe that cash balance plans are good for American workers. Well, according to a CRS report the Speaker of the House, the distinguished Majority Leader and others would see their pensions slashed by as much as 69% under a cash balance plan.

We do not tolerate discrimination against workers based on race, based on gender and based on other criteria, and we must not tolerate discrimination based on age.

I urge my colleagues to support the Sanders Amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hastings amendment.

I support this amendment because it will allow agencies to move forward with the implementation of Circular A-76.

This amendment does not end efforts to reduce wasteful government spending as many Republicans claim. It simply ensures that Federal employees are on a level playing field with the contractors they are bidding against.

Under the current draft of A-76, Federal employees are severely disadvantaged during any public-private competition.

This amendment is a moderate approach toward reforming the administrator's privatization process by prohibiting funds from being spent to penalize Federal employees and stifle the competitive process.

Federal employees don't want to be given an advantage, they simply want a fair shot.

I stand by Congressman Hastings and the Democrats who have consistently stood with Federal employees.

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

Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of the elimination of these funds and that we put these funds into public schools. Public schools is where we need a fix. We need to fix our public schools. We do not need to take money and resources away from public schools. We want to make sure that every child has an opportunity to learn, that every child is given the same tools that they are given somewhere else.

The answer is not to take those privileged kids and put them into private schools. It is not going to change the system. And many of the kids who are in the public schools will not have an opportunity to go and use a voucher system. What happens to many of

those other kids in that area? Have we really fixed it?

I have heard us say, well, our schools are failing, the system is failing. Well, it is our responsibility to fix it. It is our responsibility to train teachers. It is our responsibility to motivate the students. It is our responsibility to make sure that no child is left behind.

Let me state that it is a shame when we go to school and a lot of our children are not learning. There are many of our children that are learning and those who are not. It is our ability and our responsibility to make sure that those students have an opportunity to progress. They want to do the same things that everybody else wants. Let me state that if we take those funds away from public schools, what is going to happen? We take those $10 million and we have kids to which we say we want to prepare them for the 21st century, and they are not prepared because they do not have the tools or instruments because we have taken funding away. This is wrong. This is wrong for the District of Columbia. This is wrong, and it will probably happen to other portions of the States.

Is this what we want? No.

We want to invest in public education. We have good teachers who are out there. We need to give them the funding. We need to give them the tools. We need to give them the motivation. We need to give them the support. They need to know that we stand behind them, that we want to fix the schools, that we just do not want to take the easy answer. Like our parents always said, if you have a difficult time, it is time to get involved and do something about it. Do something that is going to help the schools, not run away. This is just running away from the problem, it is not fixing our school systems.

What happens? As our President said, I want to make sure that we leave no child behind. We are going to leave more children behind because what happens to the student if a student is expelled? Do you think that student is going to be accepted at a private school under the voucher system? Do you think that parents can then take that child and put him into a private school under the voucher system? No. They are only going to take the top of the crop. And what happens to this school system? We still have the responsibility to fund it. We still have the responsibility to make sure the infrastructure is there. Who pays for that? We as taxpayers pay for that, and we are taking money and resources from our schools.

Let me state that this is bad legislation. It is terrible legislation. It should not even be up before us right now. We should be making sure that we spend more money on education, therefore, we should eliminate the funding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Quinn Amendment to the Transportation Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004.

If we do not pass this amendment, Amtrak is guaranteed to close because of lack of funding. Amtrak is a valuable resource to this nation and to my home state of California. It carries millions of passengers every year and employes thousands of workers. This nation is not in the position to lose such a valuable resource. We must continue to fund Amtrak and fund it 100 percent.

Last year Amtrak shut down because of lack of funding. This bill is certain to close Amtrak's doors once again this year because it simply provides $900 million in funding. That is not enough to keep Amtrak operating. Amtrak needs $1.8 billion in survive.

Amtrak is a company that has not been fully funded since its creation in 1970. We have never given this company the full resources that it needs to survive and it is time to change this.

Amtrak provides a valuable resource to commuters and travelers all over this nation, and yet it only absorbs 1 percent of the federal transportation budget. 1 percent!

Amtrak last year covered nearly 65 percent of its own operating costs. No rail system in the world is that self funded! It is a good program and it must continue to keep its doors open.

We need more job creation right now, not job elimination. Amtrak employs over 20,000 workers. If we allow it to close, what will happen to these families? How will these families replace the loss of income and the loss of benefits? Our economy simply isn't in the position to keep closing doors on workers.

In California, 3.5 million people used Amtrak last year. That is 16 percent of its total ridership!

Amtrak employs over 4000 people in my state and represents over $100 million dollars in salaries. My state simply cannot afford to see anymore job loss and it cannot afford to see any more families lose their benefits.

We must think about the consequences of our actions today. We must think about what the abandonment of our national rail system will do to commuters, workers, and families in this nation. At a time when other nations are expanding their intercity passengers rail systems, we should not guarantee the shutdown of ours. At a time when Americans are traveling more than ever, we cannot turnour backs on affordable transportation. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me this time, and I stand in opposition to the Singapore-Chile Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. Speaker, this agreement will do nothing to promote fair trade and nothing to help working families in this Nation. We need to create jobs here in the United States. We have seen the damage and what has happened when Congress passes free trade agreements. We have lost over 3 million jobs since NAFTA came into existence. In California alone, we have lost over 80,000 jobs. We currently have an unemployment rate right now of 6.4 percent. A 6.4 percent unemployment rate right now. Hispanics have an 8.4 percent unemployment rate. African Americans have an 11.8 percent rate. We need to create jobs here in the United States, not somewhere else. We cannot let this happen to us again.

The Chile and Singapore trade agreements will hurt American manufacturing jobs here in the United States. At one time we used to be proud to go into our stores and buy American products that said ``Made in America.'' We are not seeing that any more. What happens when those products are not made and manufactured here in the United States? We lose revenue right here in the United States. What happens to Social Security? What happens to Medicare? It affects the kinds of income that we need in the future when we look at the services that we have to provide if we are going to some other country.

We continue to give exporters in foreign countries an opportunity to build there but not to create the jobs here in the United States. We need to protect working families right here in the United States. We need to create jobs right here. Our families need to put food on their tables. They must not fear that they are going to lose their jobs to some foreign country.

The agreements are an insult to workers' rights. This agreement will change immigration rules, which have no place in trade agreements. The Singapore agreement will label and import raw materials from countries like China and assemble them and import them into America duty free.

We must not let this become the future example of free trade. We must stand together and fight against unfair and unsafe agreements that hurt American workers.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Democratic substitute to protect Head Start. I oppose H.R. 2210, because this bill will do nothing to help African American, Latino, and low-income children get a head start on education.

Head Start has been helping minority and low-income families for over 38 years.

It has helped millions of children from our families have access to quality education.

Ninety percent of the families served by Head Start are below the poverty level and 30 percent are Latino. We must fight to protect this program.

Head Start helps our children compete on a level playing field with children from more privileged backgrounds.

Our families deserve a level playing field. Our children deserve a quality education.

If we truly cared about all children, we would simply expand Head Start not leave it up to the States.

There are nearly 1 million children from Spanish speaking homes that could use a Head Start, but because of funding it can only serve 21 percent of them.

We must not let Republicans block grant this program. It is too important to minorities and low-income families. We must pass the Miller substitute and stop the destruction of Head Start.

Right now, States like my State of California are facing huge deficits. They have their hands full. They cannot adequately protect this program.

All children deserve a better chance at life. We should simply expand this program.

Right now, Head Start only serves 60 percent of all eligible children.

I am tired of watching legislation be passed every day that hurts minorities and hurts the poor. This doesn't make sense.

We must provide more money to our Latino communities since we are now the largest minority in the country.

We need more money to train teachers to meet the needs of children with limited English skills.

The only way to improve Head Start is to invest in our children. Giving control to the States simply doesn't make sense.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Democratic substitute and ``no'' on H.R. 2210.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Democratic substitute to protect Head Start and oppose H.R. 2210.

Basically, one of the reasons why I am behind it is because we are talking about monies going into block grants right now. We are talking about monies that are going to be going there, because States are in a deficit right now. It is a time we should pour monies into education, invest more money into education; and Head Start should receive a lot more money.

Let me tell you, a lot more kids are receiving help when they go into Head Start. It builds their self-esteem, it gets them involved, it builds their confidence, it allows them an opportunity to progress and advance in education.

I can talk about my personal experience. I was put in a slow- learners' class. I was not put in the regular classes during that periods of time. Had there been a Head Start class, I would have been able to build my self-esteem, my confidence and my ability to go on and learn. It is important that we do.

The Republicans now are saying we want to reach out to the Hispanic community. Well, you are not reaching out to the Hispanic community. You say we want to include you; we want to leave no child behind.

You are going to leave more children behind, because what you are doing right now is you are cutting off support for them, giving them the ability to learn, giving them the ability to progress by putting it into block grants, putting it into States that have deficits right now, and making those decisions.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for 5 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Singapore- Chile Free Trade Agreement. The Singapore-Chile Free Trade Agreement will do nothing to promote free trade and will do nothing to help workers in this Nation. We need jobs right here in the United States, right here, not in another country.

We have seen the damage that has happened when Congress passed free trade agreements. NAFTA cost the Americans 766,000 jobs, 80,000 from California alone. We need to create jobs for working families here in the United States. We must not let this happen again. Our people need jobs. They need to put food on the table, not fear that their jobs are going to be lost to some foreign country.

By negotiating this agreement, it is clear that the administration has overstepped its authority by creating an agreement that does not protect the rights of the American worker, I state, does not protect the rights of the American workers.

These agreements will further hurt the American manufacturing jobs at a time when we watched 56,000 manufacturing jobs disappear last month.

They are an assault on workers' rights. In the Singapore agreement, there is only one enforceable provision that attempts to protect workers, one, I state one; but that provision ultimately will do nothing to protect workers because it merely says that Singapore should uphold its labor regulations. Furthermore, it does not even say what those regulations are; and under this agreement, Singapore is allowed to define what rights workers have.

This is unacceptable. What will happen to workers if Singapore decides to ban unions? What will happen to workers if Singapore decides to allow sweat shops and child labor? What will the United States be able to do under this agreement? Nothing, absolutely nothing. This agreement ties our hands. This agreement will allow countries to weaken labor standards and exploit workers all in the name of profit. It is not safe, and it is not fair; but the lack of labor standards is not what is wrong with this agreement.

The Singapore agreement contains a provision that has no reason to be included. Under this agreement, Singapore will be able to import raw materials from countries like China and assemble them and import it into America duty free. Why is this provision there? China has a horrible labor standard and runs prison labor camps. Why are we allowing China to benefit from this? We are giving China, who has very few protections for its workers, the right to piggyback on this agreement and bring goods to America duty free.

Is this a free trade agreement with China, or is it with Singapore? Why must we support China's poor labor standards? There is no reason and no excuse for this unfair, dangerous provision. This agreement should be about trade and improving economic interests of both nations.

So why is it that there are immigration rules included in this agreement? The administration tried to slip one over on Congress by negotiating a new rule for temporary foreign workers. They overstepped the bounds set by the Trade Promotion Authority and reduced Congress' role to a rubber stamp. Well, I will not stamp it.

Immigration legislation demands debate. It demands the attention of our committees. The safety of our country is at risk when immigration rules are decided in back rooms and dark corners. We want safety, and we demand fairness. It is not fair to transfer workers all the way from Singapore and Chile to take away jobs while an entire workforce, ready, willing and able, stands behind a fence at Mexico's border.

These agreements are not safe, and they are not fair. America should be worried. Its workers should be worried. We must not let this become the future example for a free trade agreement with America. We must stand together and fight against unfair and unsafe agreements that hurt the American workers. We must support our workers, the American workers. We need to improve the quality of life here in America.