Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 134, I was detained by constituents which is the reason for my not voting. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask that I utilize the 5 minutes, that I am on the list, at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of this Congress legislation that I have recently introduced.

The Geothermal Energy Initiative of 2004, H.R. 4094, is legislation that addresses a critically underdeveloped energy segment of our national renewable energy portfolio. The problem was cited in a January 2004 Associated Press article which stated that the Federal Government has a backlog of 230 lease applications for the prospect of the utilization of geothermal energy.

This Associated Press article also stated that the average age of an application for the prospect of geothermal sites is 9 years.

February 2004 supply projections from the American Gas Association show that natural gas supplies will remain tight into the foreseeable future and will result in continued high prices. The high cost of natural gas affects electricity and home heating costs.

In March of 2004, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's climate monitoring laboratory reported that carbon dioxide levels in our environment are rising at alarming rates. Carbon dioxide contributes to global warming that disrupts climate and causes seas to rise.

The last national resource assessment of geothermal sites in the United States was completed in 1978. There have been substantial improvements in technology and advances in geological sciences in the intervening 26 years.

Clearly, there is a lack of resources and priority in the Department of the Interior concerning geothermal energy efforts.

Now, in the current situation, most of our Nation's geothermal power plants were built in the mid-1980s and early 1990s when our energy markets were searching for alternative energy investments. Unfortunately, since that time, there has been a significant decline of focus on geothermal energy. Specifically, the Department of the Interior has steadily de-emphasized the geothermal energy program in the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Geological Survey.

We must restore that focus. I believe we have an important opportunity to reemphasize this vital energy sector and greatly enhance our Nation's renewable energy portfolio.

For example, the Bush administration has repeatedly championed the need to expand our renewable energy sources and to prioritize the development of our country's geothermal energy sources.

Department of the Interior Secretary Gail Norton and Department of Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham have jointly stated their commitment to increasing our energy security by expanding the use of indigenous resources on Federal lands, while accelerating protection of the environment.

That is not a true assessment as I see it, however. In fact, a 2003 report from the Department of Energy found that California, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Washington State have the greatest potential for quick development of geothermal resources. Both those Secretaries, Norton and Abraham, should look at this report. In fact, the study listed nine top sites in California and 10 in Nevada.

Unfortunately, progress has not been made by either one of these departments. That is why I have introduced the Geothermal Energy Initiative of 2004, so that Congress, this administration and States can all work in concert.

The Geothermal Energy Initiative Act of 2004 is straightforward legislation that will do the following: authorize the update of the 26- year-old national assessment of geothermal resource. Significant advances in energy development technology and advances in geological sciences need to be harnessed to better understand and manage our geothermal resources.

We must provide financial incentives to encourage the development of geothermal resources by expanding the production tax credit to include geothermal resources.

Direct the Federal land management agencies to responsibly consider geothermal resources in their land use planning process. The initiative also provides direction to assist in streamlining the permit approval process.

Provide provisions to defray costs associated with preparation of documents and analysis for compliance with Federal environmental protection regulations.

Speaking from a California perspective for a moment, the immediate benefits of this initiative is the enormous positive impact that it will have on air

quality and quality of life. For example, it has been estimated that when geothermal resources associated with California are developed, they will replace half the fossil fuel-generated electricity for California.

This benefit alone would help thousands of asthma sufferers in the Los Angeles basin. Also, the addition of geothermal energy will help relieve the high cost of electricity and provide families with more disposable income.

Jobs continue to be a top priority for States and localities. As our country works toward rebuilding our job base, due to the loss of textile and manufacturing jobs that have moved overseas, my legislation offers communities a new economic base and the opportunity for economic growth.

Most geothermal generating facilities are located in rural areas where jobs tend to be scarce. A recent economic development study documents the tremendous job opportunities associated with geothermal generation facilities. Building a 50 megawatt geothermal power plant would create hundreds of immediate construction and related development jobs as well as approximately 30 to 50 permanent full-time jobs at the facility.

Considering the economic multiplier effect, this would mean at least 150 to 200 new jobs in the community.

Given the long operating life of existing geothermal plans, they are a stable and reliable part of the community's economic base. These facilities have a proven record of providing millions of dollars in property taxes and royalties to county and State treasuries. These funds help schools and community infrastructure.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, geothermal energy development sustains renewable energy efforts including compliance with renewable portfolio standards. It is consistent with the wind energy sources. Geothermal power plants recycle their spent hot water back into the aquifer they are developed on. So this is truly renewable.

I ask my colleagues to strongly support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, as we commemorate Women's History Month, it is of critical importance to note that the incidence of violence against women is still too high around the globe. Many women in the United States and in other nations live in terror, are afraid to speak up to protect their health and wellbeing, and are unable to shield their children from the effects of domestic violence.

The impact of violence against women of all social and economic classes worldwide is chilling. According to Amnesty International, 120 million women and girls are subjected to female circumcision annually, and over 700,000 women in the United States are

raped each year. Further, the World Bank reports that at least one in five women and girls have been sexually violated or beaten at some point in their lives. Violence against women is one of the world's most pervasive and yet least addressed human rights abuse issues. Women worldwide expend their energy, compromise their health and sacrifice their self-esteem due to the impact of domestic violence on their lives.

In 1993, the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women, Article 1 defined violence against women as ``any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivations of liberty, whether occurring in public or private life.'' Given this definition, and the evidence that women are more likely than men to be attacked by an intimate partner or family member to whom they are emotionally tied and economically dependent upon, it is incumbent upon those of us who are elected leaders to ensure the physical, emotional and financial stability of women everywhere.

The threat of violence extends to pregnant women, and is compounded in the treatment of mother-to-child transmission of HIV. As reported by the Center for Health and Gender Equity, a study of pregnant women in six African nations showed that the women's fear of rejection and domestic violence was responsible for their refusal to take AZT to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV. The women surveyed declined to inform their families and friends about their HIV status because they feared being assaulted.

Around the world, too few women fail to seek adequate medical care, nor are they willing to share pertinent information about their experiences of domestic violence with healthcare providers for fear of retaliation from male partners or family members. We must work together on behalf of women everywhere to create an atmosphere free of the threat of violence where women can seek the care they need to safeguard their health and that of their children.

Mr. Chairman, let me rise to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their leadership and also the subcommittee chair and ranking member. I am talking about the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski). These are the leaders that put this bill on the floor today. They are the ones who have heard from the mayors and the county supervisors about the congestion that is on our roads. They are the ones who have brought forth this very principled and balanced bill.

This bill speaks to, and the initial bill that we had for $375 billion, Mr. Chairman, did speak to recommendations and needs, assessments, provided by the Department of Transportation. That first bill was based on the administration's own numbers. But this bill speaks to the traffic congestion that costs American motorists some $67.5 billion a year in wasted time and fuel cost. Americans spend an additional 4.5 billion hours a year stuck in traffic.

This bill addresses the immediate needs of our communities. Our communities have spoken loud and clear: They want congestion relief. This bill also speaks to projects of national and regional significance.

I want to thank the leadership again, the chairman and the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin and the gentleman from Illinois, of the subcommittees, for their leadership in bringing this particular language to the bill. This bill and that language, Mr. Chairman, speaks to a new program that will go a long way in relieving our Nation's congestion on the roads and those choke points that will help to reduce that congestion in our cities and in our communities.

This program and funding addresses the increasing importance of moving goods safely, securely and efficiently among our freeways and highways. It also speaks to the mobilization of people. This bill is good for not only communities, mayors and county supervisors but also for businesses. This is why the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Conference of Mayors and all are supporting this bill as it is. They recognize that when we go to conference, there will be some adjustments made, but they want this bill to go out as it is because it represents all that is necessary for a balanced approach in the national scope of providing relief from congestion.

This bill also speaks to I-710, which is a high-priority corridor in California. Fifteen percent of our Nation's total commerce of inbound and outbound containerized goods are moved along I-710. This is truly a high-priority corridor.

This is also a jobs bill, Mr. Chairman, because we recognize that over 3 million jobs have been lost. This bill creates the type of opportunities for jobs. What else can we say? This is a win-win bill, and this bill should pass off the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their leadership. They have fought long and hard to make sure that they heard the cry of small businesses.

Small businesses have been crying throughout this country, saying that they needed the 7(a) loan programs so that they can do business; and we all recognize that small businesses are the engine that creates the jobs in this country. So to the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Manzullo) and the gentlewoman from New York (Ranking

Member Velazquez), I thank them so much for bringing this to the floor and all of the staff members who have worked so hard.

Mr. Speaker, this critical measure will help reopen the Small Business Administration's core lending vehicle which is the 7(a) loan program, and it will provide funding for the agency through June 4. While we grapple with the budget, we recognize that there are shortcomings in terms of it, but at least it will begin to address those applications that have come to us from those small businesses that critically need the financing through the 7(a) loan program.

This bill also makes a number of important changes to the program, including lifting the $750,000 cap on loans and gets the program running at an adequate level. It removes the regulatory restriction, also known as the ``piggybacking,'' on SBA loans being part of larger financing packages.

This bill also creates a new financing tool by increasing the size of the loan guarantee to $1.5 million, which provides more options for lenders providing these loans.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill extends the 504 loan program and the SBIC program through the end of this year.

We cannot thank the ranking member and the chair enough for the hard work that they have done, because these are important loan programs for small businesses.

As the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Tax, Finance, and Exports, I have long understood the critical role this program plays in keeping our Nation's economy vibrant and strong. These loans are the only source of affordable, long-term financing for many of our Nation's small businesses, and loans spur economic development in underserved areas.

In addition, the 7(a) loan program can be used for long-term working capital, including accounts payable, just allowing small businesses to do business.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to pass this very important piece of legislation, H.R. 4062.

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned about my colleagues on the other side in bringing to the floor House Resolution 557, which was just passed out with a ``no'' vote for me. This resolution is another attempt to divide this House on the Iraqi war while our young men and women continue to die, while parents, spouses and children suffer in their grief, and while we mourn their losses as a Nation.

Mr. Speaker, the Republicans did not involve a single Democrat in writing this resolution and, further, proposed a rule that allowed not a single amendment to be offered. We are here in this great House as a collective body to represent the people of America, and as the President constantly states, we are a Nation at war. Yet this House has chosen to ignore the Democrats and the people we represent in not involving us and including our position on this resolution. This is shameful, undemocratic, and an affront to our sons and daughters serving in this war.

Mr. Speaker, I share the view that the people of Iraq and the world are better off with Hussein in custody and his regime destroyed. Everyone agrees with that. However, the President told everyone in the Nation that combat was over on May 1, 2003. Yet every day young men and women continue to die in Iraq. Just today, a car bomb rocked Baghdad and killed more than 20 people. Over 500 Americans have died and over 3,000 have been injured, some seriously, during this war.

Our mission in Iraq has not been accomplished, the administration had no clear plan, our soldiers did not have the basic equipment that they needed, and returning veterans are being shortchanged on the benefits that they rightfully deserve. This resolution did not speak to any of these issues.

Resolution 557 states that Americans and the world are safer now that Saddam has been captured. Mr. Speaker, the facts simply do not support this. The world has become a much more dangerous place. Just this past weekend, over 200 people died in Spain as a result of a terrorist attack. The invasion of Iraq has become a breeding ground for terrorists, and we live here in America under a cloud of constant fear. We are not safer. We are also raising a generation of children living in fear instead of relishing the joy of the innocence of childhood.

I have heard my colleagues in the House state that Libyan leader Mommar Qaddafi decided to disarm because of the invasion of Iraq and the capture of Saddam Hussein. This is another attempt to twist the facts. It is well known that Mommar Qaddafi began negotiations with the United States and Europe to disarm long before the Iraqi war and the capture of Saddam Hussein. Even Secretary Colin Powell recently acknowledged that. This claim is akin to the claim that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

This resolution clearly shows the Republicans are in denial as to why we went to Iraq and denial as to the constant state of security and stability in the world and are delusional as to how this war is affecting other countries. This resolution also failed to mention how isolated we are in the international community. The people of Spain just showed the world what they thought of this war when they voted out the power of their government that supported President Bush on the war.

I stand behind our courageous men and women in uniform who are bearing the burden of this military action in Iraq. I am deeply grateful to their patriotism, their courage, and their sacrifice. I regret that they were placed in the position of fighting a war for weapons of mass destruction that did not exist, but I honor their service.

I have recently introduced legislation that would provide $50 million in funding to enable military families to get personal counseling upon return from this war and return from the service they have provided so admirably. I will continue to support our military men and women as they serve our country in this dangerous mission.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, our men and women in uniform deserve more than one line in this resolution that was passed on the floor. Surely our men and women in uniform, who have made the ultimate sacrifice, given their lives, deserve to be recognized and honored far greater than this. This was not outlined in the resolution just passed.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to join India in celebrating India Republic Day. The United States and India share a common colonial history, and today we are both strong democracies that serve as a model for other nations. I am pleased that President Bush and Prime

Minister Vajpayee have agreed to work in partnership on civilian nuclear activities, civilian space programs, and high-technology trade. As we work together towards building trade, peaceful uses of space technology, and combating terrorism, our cooperative efforts will have global benefits, spread prosperity and enhance international security.

With a population of over one billion people speaking over 114 different languages, cultural differences and significant poverty among her people, India faces enormous challenges. However, India has shown her strength, resiliency and vision for over fifty years since adopting a constitution in 1950. She has taken affirmative steps to promote equal and social justice for all, and to improve the plight of the poor. These are values that we share as democratic nations and partners working together to ensure that people have hope and freedom.

Finally, I commend India for the steps she has taken to open relations with Pakistan and work towards a resolution over Kashmir. My best wishes for success in this endeavor that is important not only to the people of India and Pakistan, but also to the rest of the world.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

I am joining my colleagues because I see now that the President's budget is cutting about 20-plus programs, and those programs are critical to our districts. And you are absolutely right, our districts do not comprise all African Americans. We are talking about Cambodians, Filipinos, Samoans, Vietnamese, Guamanians; and they are all concerned about the loss of jobs.

In L.A. County alone, which is the largest county in California, we have lost over 136,000 jobs. In the State of California, we have lost over 300,000 jobs. No State, no city, no county can be sustained with those types of job losses; and so this budget is absolutely the most outrageous budget I have ever had to deal with because it has no funding in there for No Child Left Behind to any great degree. We know the last budget was $8 billion short. I think now it is $9 billion short; and so here

we are trying to grapple with educating our children, some 53-plus million children in this country. California has over 6 million, and we do not have the funding to do that.

I think it has just gone off the chart, and so I thank the gentleman for allowing me to come and speak on this because I have never seen a budget that is so ill-fated, that has absolutely nothing to speak to the American people, when we have 11 million children who are uninsured, and over 44 million adults, and this budget does not speak to insuring them. It is an atrocity, and so I join you in saying this administration's budget is a hoax; it is not for the American people. It is everything but for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman and I sit on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. That bill alone would bring the types of jobs for folks that have good wages and good benefits, and yet we have asked for over $375 billion for that bill. He has now cut that bill down to some $258 billion. How can we get Americans back to work if we are not going to put the type of funding in programs and on bills to support that?

So we are just outraged. It is outrageous to even speak of the fact that they are going to have so many jobs per month, because that growth is not coming.

That work takes place right here in America, in the heartlands, in the rural, in the urban areas of our cities and States; and this is why, if the President is really interested in getting jobs to the American people, he would invest in this transportation bill that will keep those jobs right here. They are great construction jobs. There are other suppliers jobs that come from that, and it is a multiplying effect. So if you get those jobs, those jobs create other jobs and, therefore, will bring back a lot of those jobs; but if he is not willing to invest the $375 billion in a transportation bill, then he is not really anxious about getting jobs back to Americans.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield once again. The other thing that would create the climate for jobs would be small businesses. And yet here at the end of last year, the 7(a) loan program, which is really the driving force for financing for small businesses was absolutely turned out. No money in it. It was eliminated. But because we raised so much havoc on it, they have brought that back, but with fewer dollars. So we still do not have the infusion of money for this powerful engine that drives the economy through job creation, which are the small businesses.

So, again, the President is not operating in the true sense of helping Americans to get back to work.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my condolences to the families of the terrorist victims in Madrid, Spain.

This heinous act of violence is becoming all too common an occurrence. This morning, as we are all painfully aware, a series of explosions ripped through several packed commuter trains in Madrid during the morning rush hour. The blast killed at least 173 people and wounded 600.

Last month, in an all too familiar circumstance in Moscow, a bomb exploded inside a crowded subway train during the morning rush hour, killing at least 39 people and wounding more than 130.

Securing our Nation's public transportation system has been a top priority of mine. At the outset of the 108th Congress, I introduced the Public Transportation Systems Vulnerability and Reduction Act of 2003, which is H.R. 1148. For years, Mr. Speaker, governments around the world have recognized that public transportation is a major terrorist target. Until 9-11, the United States had been largely spared the kinds of terrorist campaigns waged against public service transportation. However, we cannot wait for a tragedy to happen to prompt us to address our vulnerabilities.

In October 2001, a study released by the Mineta Institute, Protecting Public Surface Transportation Against Terrorism and Serious Crime: An Executive Overview, cites that between 1920 and 2000, there have been approximately 900 terrorist attacks and other significant criminal incidents involving public surface transportation systems. However, all but 14 of these attacks occurred after 1970, the year that marks the beginning of modern terrorism.

Attacks against transportation and transportation infrastructures accounted for about 42 percent of all international terrorist attacks according to the most recent statistics provided by the U.S. DOT Office of Intelligence and Security in 1998. We are seeing these statistics play out before our eyes on CNN.

My legislation, the Public Transportation Systems Vulnerability and Reduction Act of 2003, will provide our Nation's transportation systems and workers with the training and funding to help protect our homeland. This legislation will provide funding for ongoing vulnerability assessments which would build continuously on information collected, allowing for easier implementation of new technology that will assist in averting terrorist attacks on all modes of public transportation. It will have training programs for front-line transit employees, ensuring that these employees, who are the eyes and ears of transportation systems, are prepared to respond to emergency situations. And it will develop and have implementation of local and regional emergency preparedness plans that fully utilize a community's transportation resources.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all my colleagues to join me in continuing to work to give our Nation's transportation systems and employees the resources to protect our communities. I urge my colleagues to support the Public Transportation Systems Vulnerability and Reduction Act of 2003.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for his interest.

Mr. Speaker, each February our Nation celebrates Black History Month. African-Americans have a rich and deep history, and many individuals should be recognized. This year marks the 50th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision of Brown versus the Board of Education, and it is my pleasure to speak about a very special woman who blazed a trail in completing her education.

While the Supreme Court decision allowed for equal access and opportunity to education for African-Americans, long before this decision was handed down, Mary Eliza Mahoney, was the first African- American registered nurse, graduating from the New England Hospital for Women and Children Training School for Nurses in 1879.

Mary Eliza Mahoney was born in Dorchester, Massachusetts in 1845. At the age of 33, Ms. Mahoney was admitted as a student into the hospital's nursing program, which had been established by Dr. Marie Zakrewska, notably, one of the first women doctors in the United States.

Ms. Mahoney completed a strenuous and rigorous 16-month program, becoming one of only three people to actually complete the program.

In 1896, Mr. Speaker, Ms. Mahoney became one of the first African- American members of the American Nurses Association (ANA). In 1908, she co-founded the National Association of Colored Graduate Nurses, an organization working toward complete integration of Black Nurses in the ANA. Additionally, Mahoney participated in the campaign for woman suffrage and in 1921, was one of the first women in line to vote after the ratification of the nineteenth amendment.

Ms. Mahoney spent her life caring for the sick until her death on January 4, 1926. In 1993, Ms. Mahoney was inducted into the Women's Hall of Fame.

The indomitable courage of this African-American woman has set an example for equality, dignity and respect for African-Americans in nursing, as well as women's rights. I urge all of my colleagues to reflect on all the great African-American individuals who helped shape this great Nation during Black History Month.

Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the President's message last night on the critical need for security enhancement around our seaports and airports, I am introducing legislation today, the United States Seaport Multiyear Security Enhancement Act, and I ask all of my colleagues to support it. This is a bipartisan issue. Seaport security continues to be an ongoing national concern that Congress cannot afford to ignore any longer.

The United States Seaport Multiyear Security Enhancement Act is much- needed legislation that seeks to provide a steady, predictable stream of funding for port security projects. In short, this legislation creates a port security grant program within the Homeland Security Department. Our Nation's 361 seaports are considered a major terrorist target. It is known that al Qaeda has strong ties to the shipping industry and that one of the aims of this terrorist network is to weaken the economic security of our country. Our Nation's coastline is our longest border, which is a 95,000-mile coast that includes the Great Lakes and inland waterways.

Protecting America's seaports is critical to the Nation's economic growth, vitality and security. Seaports handle 95 percent of our Nation's overseas trade by volume, support the mobilization and deployment of U.S. Armed Forces and serve as transit points for millions of cruise and ferry passengers. Maritime industries contribute $742 billion per year to the U.S. gross national product.

The United States Coast Guard has issued final regulations that call for immediate and long-term investment in securing our seaports. According to the U.S. Coast Guard, implementing these regulations that directly address our seaport security needs will cost $1.125 billion in the first year and $5.45 billion over 10 years. To date, security funding to our seaports has been woefully underfunded. Congress has provided $442 million in seaport security funding through three rounds of competitive grant funding and from the Office of Domestic Preparedness. Given our Nation's economic dependence on our seaports and our ongoing national security concerns, Mr. Speaker, seaport security funding and the need for Federal support for our Nation's security should be ongoing.

Given the enormity of these seaport capital infrastructure projects, my legislation seeks to do the following: Establish a multiyear seaport grant program that resembles the letter of intent measures established in the aviation security program. And it calls for multiyear grants and $800 million per year for port security grant funding. The program would be authorized for 5 years.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is much needed. According to the Department of Homeland Security, to date, $1 out of every $10 requested for port security grants is funded. That is one out of 10. The continuing security and economic needs that face our Nation and our seaports should be recognized by the establishment of the U.S. Seaport Multiyear Security Enhancement Act, the legislation that I am introducing today. I ask all of my colleagues for their support of this very important piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak today to object to consideration of the Omnibus Appropriations bill. I am specifically concerned with provisions in this legislation that would result in the removal of overtime pay protection for many American workers.

A few months ago, this House voted to instruct conferees to remove unfair provisions on overtime pay. Despite the will of a majority of Members, those provisions still remain in this bill. This does not reflect the true position of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking on what has been called ``the Harkin amendment.'' This amendment to the FY2004 Labor-HHS appropriations bill would have prohibited the Department of Labor from issuing regulations that would disqualify overtime protection to workers protected under current law.

The opponents of overtime pay protection would require employees to work more than 40 hours weekly without being paid time and a half for their work. The Department of Labor claims that only 644,000 current workers will lose overtime pay benefits under the provisions of this legislation.

In sharp contrast, the Economic Policy Institute reports that over eight million eligible workers are earning overtime, and will be adversely affected by these regulations. This figure includes 5.5 million workers paid hourly and 2.5 million salaried employees. We all know that we live in a time of scarce resources and few job opportunities. Therefore, this drastic pay cut, especially during the holiday season, is fundamentally unfair and wrong for American workers.

Over 1.4 million Americans are also faced with the expiration of their unemployment benefits at the end of this month. We cannot in good conscience go home to celebrate the holidays with our families while unemployed Americans face a grim future and a bleak holiday season.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members of this body to take action today that will give hope to American workers, and protect the wages they earn and extend the benefits they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Department of Veterans Affairs Long-Term Care and Personnel Authorities Enhancement Act of 2003. I would like to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman Smith) and the gentleman from Illinois (Ranking Member Evans) for their commitment to veterans issues and their steadfast leadership and dedication to those men and women who have served us admirably in this country and throughout the world.

I want to also thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), subcommittee chair, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez), the ranking member, for their dedication and leadership. They are all steadfast in ensuring that veterans have their proper stay in terms of care.

Another person who has worked tirelessly for the committee and for Filipino veterans is my colleague and friend from California (Mr. Filner). His commitment and resolve has been stellar on behalf of these veterans whom we both serve.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, is a long time coming. There are many, many good measures in this bill. I applaud the committee for doing good and timely work.

Mr. Speaker, addressing the current and future needs of our veterans must continue to be a national top priority. There is one important measure in this bill, though, that has been particularly close to me for the past several years. I want to applaud and thank members of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs for including the authorization to provide hospital and nursing home care and medical services to Filipino World War II veterans of the Philippines Commonwealth Army and former Philippines New Scouts in the same manner that is provided for other U.S. veterans and who reside permanently in the United States.

Currently, there are 11,000 World War II Filipino veterans who are citizens or legal residents of the United States. Many of these brave veterans are in their seventies and eighties and in desperate need of health benefits, and I am proud to represent many of them in my district. Passage of this language provides health benefits to these brave men, as well as benefiting our communities across the country.

I represent a district with approximately 35,000 Filipinos, the largest population of Filipino veterans in America. And for several years now, I have put my heart and soul into the welfare of many Filipino veterans who have asked me to help them in their struggle for recognition and equity in acquiring benefits.

I have witnessed firsthand how providing these long overdue health benefits will affect our families, our neighborhoods, our friends and, ultimately, our communities. I urge my colleagues to support this very important legislation on behalf of all of our veterans, and especially these Filipino veterans who have waited long enough.

Finally, I want to commend the committee on H.R. 2297, the Veterans Benefit Act of 2003, which passed the floor last night. This legislation addressed many issues that are also very important to the Filipino community. H.R. 2297 included language that extended eligibility for burial in the National Cemeteries to new Filipino scouts.

For this, Mr. Speaker, and for all other reasons and the great provisions of this bill, I want to thank the committee, and especially thank the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Secretary Principi, for his leadership and guidance.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks about the premium support provisions in this conference report that will undermine the Medicare system on which elderly women in my district depend.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to H.R. 1. This conference report represents the beginning stages of this Administration's withdrawal from its promise to seniors. This report being considered on the House floor today, sets the stage for a gradual pullout of the federal government providing benefits to seniors and shifting the responsibility to private insurers.

As our nation's population ages and the baby boomer generation places additional burden on our healthcare infrastructure, we can

no longer provide a ``one-size fits all'' level of healthcare. I am a strong and passionate advocate of a Medicare program that would cover all of our nation's seniors and provide a comprehensive prescription drug benefit. This is not that benefit. Mr. Speaker, this is not a better solution than ``no benefits''--it's worse. It gives our seniors false hope. It makes seniors think that this government is expanding Medicare services, while it takes a backdoor approach to privatization of the Medicare program.

Mr. Speaker, in my home state of California, hundred of thousands of Medicare beneficiaries will lose their retiree health benefits. Medicaid beneficiaries will pay more for the prescription drugs they need. Hundreds of thousands of Medicare beneficiaries will pay more for Part B premiums because of so-called income relating provisions.

Last night, Mr. Speaker, I spoke with my Congressional Seniors Council which represents leaders from senior associations in the 37th congressional district. This council has expressed its deepest concerns with H.R. 1. On behalf of the more than 51,000 seniors in the 37th Congressional district, this council fears Seniors, who should otherwise qualify for a drug benefit, may no longer qualify because of the asset provision in this report. Seniors, who have saved their hard- earned money for use during retirement, who relied on the promises of this Administration, become disqualified from receiving the prescription drug benefit. Very poor and very sick dual eligible beneficiaries will lose wrap around coverage for prescription drugs making out-of-pocket costs more than they can afford.

I urge my fellow colleagues for the sake of Medicare beneficiaries in their districts, to vote against H.R. 1. Our seniors deserve better.