Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my concerns about the effect that Diabetes is having on the Latino Community.

Right now, 16 million people in the United States are suffering with Type 2 Diabetes. About 3 million of them are Latinos. Due to diet and genetics, Latinos are twice as likely as the rest of the population to contract Type 2 Diabetes. I am horrified by the statistic that one in ten Latinos will contract Diabetes at some point in life, but I am even more horrified by the fact that most often the disease is preventable.

Both of my parents died from complications related to Diabetes. As the parents of 15 children, I believe that they didn't have the time or the resources to adequately care for themselves. With all of those mouths to feed, I believe that they were too busy trying to simply put food on the table to worry about proper nutrition. While that is undoubtedly noble, stories like this must change. My parents, because they did not have the proper care, suffered loss of vision, amputations, and eventually death.

We must make sure that Latino families are educated about prevention and have the resources to combat the disease. Prevention is key to fighting this disease but we cannot ignore the fact that eleven million Latinos still lack health insurance. How can a person get tested for Diabetes when they are uninsured? How can a person seek out a doctor when they can't even pay for the visit? This is something Congress must fight to change.

If we want to combat Diabetes, we must focus on prevention, education, and cultural changes. No one is saying that as a culture we can't enjoy our frijoles and tortillas. We simply must learn and teach our children, that moderation is the best approach.

We must educate our communities. We must spread the word about prevention. And we must help the uninsured. If we do not make these necessary changes, we won't have to worry about one in ten Latinos having Diabetes, we will have to worry about one in five.

Mr. Speaker, the Federal Communications Commission voted along party lines to put more power in the hands of a few corporate giants at the expense of the American people.

If the FCC's goal was to line the pockets of Disney, General Electric, AOL-Time Warner, Viacom, and News Corp. then I say to them ``congratulations!'' because they have succeeded.

By allowing these corporate interests to own more newspapers, more TV stations, more radio stations, and more of our public airwaves, we are taking this country down a dangerous path.

We all learned at a young age that knowledge is power. But now, the flow of knowledge will be controlled by a handful of media giants.

They will have almost total control of our news, information, and entertainment.

They will determine what we get and when we get it.

They will determine what we see, read, and hear. That is unacceptable!

And why have they done this?

They say that the rise of cable TV and the internet made the former rules obsolete.

That's the kind of conclusion you reach when the only people you listen to are media moguls.

Who is listening to the American people?

We have been shut out of the process.

In its haste to protect these company's financial interests, the FCC has failed to defend the public interest.

We must take action to right this wrong.

If we do not, our media will have less local content, less diversity of opinion, and fewer opportunities for minority ownership.

It is time for the American people to stand up and be counted. It is time for those who represent the American people to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 4 to protect our nation's flag.

Our flag is a symbol of pride to all of the veterans who have bravely fought for this nation. It is a symbol of hope and prosperity to the many immigrants who have traveled to this land seeking a better way of life. But most of all, it is a symbol of freedom to all Americans.

We must ensure that our symbol, representing all of the things Americans hold sacred is respected. We must stand up and protect our flag from destruction.

Just as no one has the right to take away our freedom and democracy, no one should have the right to burn our flag.

Many soldiers have died protecting our freedom and democracy. The rights and freedoms that we enjoy today are because of the courage of our brave soldiers. Our flag, flies as a constant reminder of our military's victories.

We must not forget that all of our soldiers have not yet returned from war. Many of our men and women are still in the Middle East trying to safeguard Iraq. Many of our soldiers are still in Afghanistan, searching for Osama Bin Laden. The battle for peace in the Middle East is not over.

Our soldiers are still risking their lives and dying in the name of this nation. Now is not the time to question patriotism. We must be united and stand behind our soldiers and our symbols of freedom.

When a soldier or a veteran dies, his family receives a flag honoring the loss of their loved one. We proudly drape the flag over their coffins. We must make sure the families know that their loved one did not die in vain. The American Flag is the symbol that represents the soldier's sacrifice and a nation's respect.

Many people come to this land seeking religious freedom, freedom from oppressive governments, economic prosperity and a better way of life for their children. Many people come to this land and join the military because they know America is a land worth protecting. To them the flag is a promise of liberty, security, and opportunity.

Our flag flies high symbolizing the hopes and dreams of immigrants all over the world. We must keep our flag sacred to welcome those believing in the American Dream.

Just as you would not melt the Liberty Bell, tear up the Declaration of Independence, or destroy the Statue of Liberty, we must protect our nation's flag. I stand in support of this legislation for the soldiers and veterans who have fought to protect it, the immigrants who believe in its promise, and all of the Americans who pledge their allegiance to it. We must keep our flag flying high.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 195, a resolution to congratulate Sammy Sosa of the Chicago Cubs for hitting 500 major league home runs.

I am proud to honor Sammy because he embodies the Latino values of family, hard work, and perseverance, and for being a great role model for all children, Latino and non-Latino alike.

Sammy has overcome tremendous obstacles to achieve greatness. He was born the fifth of seven children in a poor family. When his father died, Sammy was only seven and he had to support his family by selling orange juice and shining shoes to help his family keep food on the table.

He learned baseball like most kids in his poverty stricken neighborhood, fielding with gloves made out of milk cartons, batting with a tree branch, and hitting a tightly rolled and taped sock. Who knew that he would grow up to be the baseball star that he his today?

Sammy demonstrates what we can do when we try hard enough. Despite being sent back to the minors several times, he worked hard to improve himself. In 1989, he batted .238 an only hit 2 home run in 84 turns at bat. But just four years later, he showed us that hard work pays off when he hit 33 homeruns, 93 RBI's and made the All-Star Team.

Today we congratulate Sammy Sosa not only for being a great ball player or for his great story of personal triumph, but we also give tribute to him as a humanitarian. In 1998, he worked with Red Cross to send those suffering from Hurricane Georges 60,000 pounds of rice and beans and barrels of potable

water. He helped rebuild countless homes with his financial assistance. Moved by the suffering in his homeland, he created a charitable foundation to further the education and health of poor children in his native land of the Dominican Republic and in his new home, the United States.

Mr. Speaker, for these reasons I stand in strong support of this resolution. We must congratulate Sammy for what he is--a model of hard work and perseverance first, a distinguished humanitarian second and a stellar baseball player third.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 231. The resolution supporting the goals and ideals of the Peace Officer's Memorial Day.

One hundred and forty eight law enforcement officers were killed in the line of duty this past year, including ten officers from my home state of California. Their names are inscribed upon the National Law Enforcement Officers' Memorial, in Washington, D.C., forever visible, to the public in recognition of the sacrifices peace officers make for our safety.

We must not forget that law enforcement officers are vital to our Homeland Security. Like our veterans, law enforcement officers are involved in a battle to protect our communities. Like our veterans, peace officers deserve our continued support and recognition for their sacrifices.

Our law enforcement officers deserve respect and gratitude for protecting our communities. We must honor and remember the sacrifices that they make, especially if they lose their lives in the line of duty. We must preserve their memory and let their families know their deaths were not in vain.

I support H. Res. 231 in honor of the many men and women who have lost their lives enforcing the law and preserving the safety of our nation.

Mr. Speaker, since January 2001, 2.7 million people have been put out of work and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are doing nothing to change it. H.R. 2185 is an unemployment package that will not help our Nation's economy or our Nation's unemployed.

In just the last 3 months, nearly one half million people have lost their jobs. Our unemployment rate is at an astounding 6 percent. That is the highest unemployment rate we have experienced in 10 years. And in response to this, all the Republicans can do is extend unemployment benefits for merely 13 weeks. 13 weeks. This is intolerable.

We need legislation that is going to stimulate growth and create jobs. We need to invest in research and technology to try to get this economy moving. We need to find realistic solutions that help the working and unemployed people of this Nation--not merely the wealthiest 5 percent.

We need to help the people that have been out of work for more than 6 months or more because this job market simply has nothing to offer. By the end of this month, it is estimated that well over 1 million people will have exhausted both State and Federal unemployment benefits without finding jobs.

As Democrats, we want to start passing legislation that creates jobs. We want to make sure that the unemployed have benefits. We want to make sure that people can feed their families and clothe their children. But the Republicans simply will not let us do it. Under our plan, we would strengthen unemployment benefits offering a permanent solution not merely temporary aid. Research shows that each dollar dedicated to strengthening unemployment benefits would boost the economy by one dollar and seventy-three cents. But the Republicans have closed their door on this plan and will never let it reach the House floor. This is a tragedy.

I am tired of temporary solutions. We need to fix this problem and make sure that the hard working people of this Nation get the help that they need.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Goode amendment.

The United States is battling the forces of international terrorism. This amendment hurts this battle by reallocating resources that already exist in our border patrols.

The Department of Defense opposes this bill. Why? Because it is not intended to secure our border, it is intended to affect immigration and to intimidate the millions of Mexican-Americans and Latinos that live in our Nation's border region.

Let us remember little Ezequiel Hernandez who was shot dead by Marine snipers while he was herding his goats.

I am deeply concerned that by placing combat ready troops at our borders, our borders will become a war zone. Our Nation will be perceived, and rightly so, to be engaging in a war against Latino immigrants. This is nothing new.

We must take urgent measures to protect our Nation, but we cannot do so at the expense of our values, traditions, and freedoms. We cannot do so at the expense of ending what little goodwill exists with our border neighbors.

Our challenge is to keep out terrorists who want to destroy this country while welcoming the newcomers who want to help build it. Putting troops on the border will not make our borders safer. Putting troops on the border only guarantees more accidental deaths of Latinos like little Ezequiel. This child deserved to grow up, graduate from school, marry, have children, and live a long fruitful life. He definitely did not deserve to be shot dead.

It is certain that others like little Ezequiel will die if we pass this thin-veiled anti-immigrant amendment.

Military personnel are not trained for border patrolling they are trained for war and combat. They are not trained to be sensitive to civil liberties. They are trained to fight terrorists and we need to let them do their job--abroad. The U.S. military does not police civilian populations lest we forget the lessons of history from the Soviet Union and its satellite nations.

If we really want to secure our borders, we should increase funding for local law enforcement. We should not divert funds and shift the focus away from the war on terror. Our enemies are terrorists, not immigrants.

Mr. Speaker, we have only three more days to provide an extension of unemployment benefits before millions of hard working men and women lose their only remaining way to put food on the table.

Congress created the temporary extension of unemployment benefits last year in response to continuing poor economic performance. The need has only increased since then!

The total job loss in the Bush economy has risen to a staggering 2.5 million private jobs since the President took office.

Instead of doling tax cuts to the wealthy and allowing corporations to steal their employee's pensions, our government should be granting another extension of unemployment benefits.

These are benefits that millions of Americans are depending on to pay for groceries, utilities, and rent.

The unemployment rate is now at 6 percent, and still climbing. In many states, like California, the rate is even higher. Yet, many of these hard working Americans have already exhausted their unemployment insurance (UI) benefits.

Americans are finding themselves without jobs!

Without health insurance!!

The only thing they are finding is a growing sense of frustration, despair, and fear of their government.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my disappointment at the administration's and the Republican Congress' economic policy, a policy that leaves the working class and our nation's minorities behind.

We need an extension of unemployment benefits now!

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question. Defeating the previous question will allow us to bring up today legislation on Temporary Extension of Unemployment Compensation (TEUC) authorized by Ways and Means Ranking Member Charles Rangel.

Thousands, if not millions, of hard working Americans stand to loose their only lifetime in just 6 days. And, what do Republicans do? Where is the compassion?

Thousands, if not millions, of hard working Americans stand to loose their only lifetime in just 6 days. And, what do Republicans do? Where is the compassion?

Congress created the temporary extension of unemployment benefits later year in response to continuing poor economic performance. The need has only increased since then!

The total job loss in this Bush economy has risen to a staggering 2.5 million private jobs since the President took office.

Instead of doling tax cuts to the wealthy and allowing corporations to steal their employee's pensions, our government should be granting another extension of unemployment benefits. These are benefits that millions of Americans are depending on to pay for groceries, utilities, and rent.

The unemployment rate is now at 6 percent, and still climbing. In many states, like California, the rate is even higher. Yet, many of these hard working Americans have already exhausted their unemployment insurance (UI) benefits.

Millions of American families are working hard to succeed, but they need relief to help them find new jobs, save for the future, and invest in their family's future.

While the shelves at food banks are empty Republicans are cutting back on government programs like food stamps, welfare and others that help people during difficult times.

While school districts are suffering from a nationwide state budget crisis, Republicans aim to deny states the money owed to them from the No Child Left Behind act.

On top of that, President Bush is looking to privatize a significant portion of the Federal workforce and prohibited legal immigrants from working many Federal and civilian jobs, for example: airport workers.

President Bush parades around the nation telling working class families that he cared for

them. Yet, it is his policies that are increasing working class tax burdens, taking away their right to overtime pay, and making it so employers can take back their employees retirement pensions.

President Bush's disastrous economic policies and risky tax schemes are coming straight from the Enron playbook--deceive those at the bottom, so those at the top can prosper.

This is a tale of two Bushes. One is gentle and caring for the workingman. The other takes away our right to unionize, endangers our retirement pensions, and wants to privatize social security. This administration seems intent on saying one thing, and doing the exact opposite.

Yet this much is clear, unemployment is growing and it is hitting our community the hardest.

Americans are finding themselves without jobs!

Without health insurance!

The only thing they are finding is a growing sense of frustration, despair, and fear of their government.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my disappointment at this administration's and the Republican Congress's economic policy, a policy that leaves the working class and our nation's minorities behind.

We need an extension of unemployment benefits now!

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to please support S. 870, a bill by Senator Harkin that will continue funding the Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program until the end of 2003-2004 school year.

This is a great pilot that the Agriculture Committee strongly supported, and I fully intend on fighting to extend this project in the Children's Nutrition Reauthorization.

The pilot provides fresh and dried fruits and fresh vegetables to children in 107 schools. Of the 105 schools that have reported back results, 100 are asking USDA to keep the program.

This program is popular with schools and nutrition advocates, in light of the growing problem of childhood obesity. But, more important, the program is popular with the kids! Eighty percent of the students were very interested. Parents are excited about the program since 71 percent of the students are now more interested in eating vegetables and fruits.

Mr. Speaker, this is a successful program for which we need to extend funding until the end of the next academic year. It would be a pity to take these nutritious and healthy foods away from the children halfway through the school year.

I urge my colleagues to please support S. 870.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition of H.R. 1000, the so-called Pension Fairness Act.

Congress adjourned last year after failing to address the faults in our pension system. A pension system that has been laid bare by catastrophic losses for thousands of workers, the tumbling stock market, and corporate abuse of retirement plans. We are now setting ourselves up to make the system even worse with this bill.

Proponents of this bill claim that the bill will prevent future Enron's and increase retirement security for workers. That is completely false. Despite the recycled and tired rhetoric, the bill would do nothing to prevent the kind of devastating retirement losses suffered by millions of employees and retirees at Enron, WorldCom, and other companies. In fact, it would weaken and even eliminate existing safeguards.

To make matters worse, this bill combined with the Treasury Department's decision to all conversions from traditional pension plans to cash balance plans, is a deadly two-hit combination against our Nation's workers. I thought the purpose of this bill was to benefit workers, not to leave them poor and with a black eye.

Evidence shows that older workers who are employed at companies that have made this switch have seen their retirement nest eggs shrink by 20 percent to 50 percent. In other words, these regulations would undermine a relatively safe retirement benefit and add to households' retirement security woes.

This proposal does not address the three primary problems with today's pension system: lack of coverage for half the workforce, inadequate pension income for low- and middle-income workers, and an unacceptable risk of pension losses for all workers. Clear strategies exist to address each of these issues, but the Pension Security Act of 2003 and the proposed regulatory changes miss the mark entirely.

Only half of America's workers have pension coverage at any given time. Just 50 percent of private sector workers had pension coverage in 2000, a level that has increased only slightly since 1970.

In 2000, 73 percent of our Nation's highest earners had pension coverage, compared with just 18 percent of our Nation's lowest earners. Hispanic workers are covered at a startlingly low rate of 29 percent, compared with 43 percent and 55 percent for their African American and white counterparts, respectively.

Like pension coverage, levels of retirement wealth depend on several factors; however, our retirement income level is still primarily determined by race, income, and gender. Hispanic retirees are far more likely to experience poverty in retirement. As of 1998, a startling 43 percent of Hispanic workers age 47-64 could expect retirement incomes below the poverty line, compared with 13 percent of whites.

The Federal Government spent over $89 billion in 2000 alone, to subsidize employee pensions. Under current law, employers that receive these Federal subsidies must pass a ``non-discrimination test,'' under which firms can exclude some lower-income employees from coverage, but not all.

But H.R. 1000 will effectively destroy this already thin layer of protection for low-income workers.

Under the guise of the now-familiar refrain of ``increased flexibility,'' a goal that has meant more money for employers and less money and fewer rights for workers, the House bill would allow companies to exclude more of their employees from pension coverage and avoid the test for fairness.

This bill is not flawed; it is deliberate. Deliberate in its intention to destroy what few pension protections exist for workers.

H.R. 1000 deliberately intends, like the tax cut, to deceive the working class by claiming to work in their favor, but instead shift those benefits to the wealthy.

I urge my colleagues to defeat this thinly veiled effort to legalize Enron pension scams.

I urge my colleagues to stand up for workers and vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2. This is simply another tax cut for the rich that will have no real effect on the economy. Its only effect will be to put more Americans out of work, and leave more Americans out of luck.

Let's be honest with the American people, this bill is about overhauling the Tax Code bit by bit until working families pay the lion's share of the taxes. It has nothing to do with getting the economy moving again.

This package fails to create jobs or create the conditions for an economic recovery. Ironically enough, this bill that the Republicans are calling an economic stimulus plan actually does the exact opposite.

It fails to extend the unemployment benefits that millions of Americans are depending on to pay for groceries, utilities, and rent, and makes it more difficult for Americans to get back to work.

And it pushes us into the abyss of deficit spending, which will only create more drag on the economy.

It just doesn't make sense.

Four hundred economists, including eight Nobel Prize winners and FED Chairman Greenspan, have all expressed severe doubts about whether this bill will do anything other than jeopardize Social Security and increase the deficit to $1.4 trillion.

While school districts are suffering from the nationwide State budget crisis, Republicans aim to deny States the money owed to them from the No Child Left Behind Act. While the shelves at food banks are empty Republicans are cutting back on government programs like food stamps, welfare and others that help people during difficult times.

How is this bill going to stimulate the economy? Only 9 percent of the tax cuts would take place this year. The rest of the plan centers on the President's dividend tax cut. It cuts the tax on stocks and dividends by more than 50 percent. American working families don't live from dividend check to dividend check; they live from paycheck to paycheck.

Last, we should remember that the war in Iraq didn't cause the massive budget deficit. The deficit is due to the millionaire-only tax cut that Congress passed 2 years ago. The deficit has only grown worse because of the Bush economy, the war, and corporate scandals in the last year.

We cannot afford to make the same mistake twice. American working families deserve better.

Mr. Speaker, I will not vote for this, and I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to call for a real economic stimulus plan and a budget that will help put American working families back on their feet.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1261.

H.R. 1261 is a flawed proposal that cannot be fixed. There are too many unemployed Americans today that need services and support for their families to pass this bill.

With a suffering economy and rising unemployment, the workers under this proposal would be called upon to work harder than ever before, yet receive fewer benefits and support when they are down than ever before.

The administration and GOP have adopted the reckless policy of kicking American working families when they are down. The GOP seems to think that during this time of high unemployment, we should cut back on employment assistance and training.

This bill eliminates the Adult and Dislocated Worker Programs and the Employment Service State Grants and substitutes them with a block grant.

While the total amount for the block grant would be the same as the sum of the individual programs, the administrative changes will actually result in a net loss for beneficiaries.

Our national unemployment rate is 6 percent, but these numbers don't account for the millions that have been forced off the labor force or are not considered ``active'' enough in their job search.

Also, Republicans would have us believe that when a person's unemployment benefits expire, they are then magically employed because they are not counted as unemployed!

All of you here know how bad it is out there. We all have constituents who need work, need resources to take care of their families, and who need a helping hand.

I call on my colleagues that remember the legacy of Cesar Chavez to oppose this bill that eliminates the Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Programs.

I call on my colleagues that care about our children to oppose this bill that starves the Youth Opportunity Grant program to death.

I call on my colleagues to oppose this reckless $700 million dollar cut to Title I programs.

This is about people! This is about the economy! This is about our children!

This is about American working families, families that have to eat and take care of their children, but that barely earn enough to pay for food, shelter, and clothing.

This piece of legislation is not an acceptable or responsible proposal to provide needed services to our Nation's unemployed. Please join me in voting no on final passage.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the DeMint and Musgrave amendments. These are thinly veiled efforts to privatize special education in our public schools by means of vouchers.

Not only would vouchers divert much-needed funds from our public schools, but children with disabilities who attend private schools with these vouchers will be enrolled selectively and that is discriminatory.

The DeMint and Musgrave voucher amendments drain resources for special education costs. Under these amendments, federal funding for special education services for all disabled children would instead be siphoned off to pay for private school tuition. These amendments would take away Federal dollars from public schools, and place additional burdens on schools and communities to serve more children with less funds.

These voucher amendments would allow discrimination by private schools and fail to provide real parental choice. Worried mothers of disabled children from across the country have called my office concerned that this bill and these amendments will make it harder for them to educate their very dear and special children. These children ought not to be ignored because of their special needs. How can we justify to a mother of one of these beautiful children that their kid is not deserving of an adequate education?

No child with a disability would be entitled to go to a private school of their choice under the DeMint or Musgrave amendments. These voucher amendments give veto power to private schools. The schools choose which students they will accept, not the parents.

Children with multiple disabilities and those that require high cost services would likely be excluded from the program. Further, the DeMint voucher program will not pay the entire cost of tuition at a private school, meaning that some families could not afford for their disabled child to go to private school.

For these reasons and the fundamental unfairness of these amendments, I urge my colleagues to oppose these amendments that deprive our Nation's disabled from the education they deserve.

Mr. DeMint. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to emphasize the need to revitalize the telecommunications industry. In February, the FCC voted by a three to two margin to allow state regulators to decide how much competitors should pay for leasing networks.

Is this fair? Should long-distance companies be allowed to piggyback on the hard work and investments of other companies? How will this ruling affect consumers? Phone companies will not have any additional incentive to invest in new networks. This ruling will stifle technological change and hurt an industry that already suffered an 11 percent decrease in capital spending last year.

When the FCC issued new regulations in mid February to promote competition, it failed miserably. It missed an opportunity to create jobs in the struggling telecommunications industry. The FCC also missed an opportunity set a national policy to promote facilities-based competition that would have encouraged investment.

As evidence of the weak policy adopted by the FCC, on that day when the FCC issued its decision, the telecommunications industry lost $15 billion in worth. The move to shift decision-making to the States regarding Unbundled Network Elements will only create a quagmire of regulations that will not encourage investment and the creation of jobs.

The people who will suffer the most are the hardworking men and women who depend on this industry. As the Communications Workers of America state, there needs to be a Federal telecommunications policy that will boost the telecommunications industry and national economy.

The FCC missed their opportunity. I hope my colleagues in Congress will revisit this issue in the future.

Thank you Mr. Speaker, and I yield back the balance of my time.