Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2309, the Stephen Horn Post Office Building Designation Act.

This bill honors a former distinguished Member of Congress, Steve Horn.

For years, Mr. Horn fought to have the City of Signal Hill get its own Zip Code. In honor of his accomplishment it is appropriate that we designate the Signal Hill Post Office after Mr. Horn.

This is just one of many examples that illustrate Steve Horn's commitment and willingness to fight for his constituents.

With the same vigor, it is an honor for me to be representing some of his constituents.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill to honor Steve Horn's commitment to public service.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2210 will dismantle Head Start and take thousands of beloved Head Start teachers from the children who depend on them.

Mr. Speaker, let me just begin first by saying that I take umbrage to comments that were made earlier from the gentleman from Florida that the female Democratic Members of the House were ``a parade of mediocrity.'' These are amazing, talented women who are not mediocre, but extraordinary women as evidenced by their passion on this issue.

Having said that, I rise in opposition to this flawed rule. We are considering a bad bill, the so-called School Readiness Act, H.R. 2210, without any options for improvement. There are so many things wrong with this bill that I cannot even begin to count them.

A fair rule would have allowed us to fix some of those things, like providing adequate funding to expand Head Start, especially migrant and seasonal Head Start programs, and providing scholarships for Head Start teachers.

H.R. 2210 begins an irreversible process of dismantling Head Start by promoting religious discrimination in hiring, shortchanging teachers by increasing requirements and denying services

to eligible children by continuing to underfund Head Start.

Worst of all, H.R. 2210 puts in danger years of proven success. For what? An experiment, a so-called pilot program that does not require States to even abide by national Head Start standards or have a sound preschool infrastructure.

Nearly four decades of research have established that Head Start delivers the intended services and improves the lives and the development of children and families that it serves. Head Start is about preparing children for school like Pablo Robles, a constituent of mine. It is about helping parents become better parents and advocates for their children and involved in their school work. Ultimately, Head Start is about giving low-income children an opportunity to succeed in life.

Republicans are just like scam artists trying to sell us an oceanfront property in the desert, but now they are trying to sell us a phony Head Start bill. We must not fall for it, especially when it is gambling with the lives of children.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule for H.R. 2210 and on the underlying bill. Let us not play with the future of our most vulnerable children, like Pablo Robles.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and to the Chile and Singapore trade agreements. I oppose these bills because of the inadequate labor provisions embodied in both. These agreements yet again point to the fact that the Bush administration is determined to undermine not only worker protections here in the United States but also abroad as well.

Under the current language of these bills, only one workers' rights provision is enforceable through dispute settlement, the obligation that a country enforce its own labor laws no matter how weak these labor laws may be. These FTAs give each country involved the option to gut their current labor laws to gain a trade advantage and face no consequences at all.

The FTA with Jordan proved that a trade agreement could win the support of labor, but to do so it needs to contain a commitment that each country follow the guidelines set forth in the International Labor Organization's core labor standards.

The trade agreements before us today are a gigantic step backwards and are vehemently opposed by labor groups. Why in our current economic situation are we putting American workers at risk? Is it not enough that the unemployment rate has skyrocketed to 6.4 percent? Is it not enough that the Bush administration has presided over the loss of 3 million private sector jobs, has failed to raise the minimum wage, allowing millions of older workers to lose half of their private pension benefits, and has denied unemployment benefits to millions of workers who exhausted their Federal unemployment workers benefits? One would think so but apparently that is not the case.

My other concern is that these FTAs create new immigration policy in the context of a free trade agreement. This is a step into unchartered territory. The fact is there is no specific authority in the Trade Act of 2002 to negotiate new visa categories or impose new requirements on the current temporary entry system, but that is exactly what has been done in the negotiations of these two agreements. I urge my colleagues to vote no on both agreements.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct conferees on the child tax credit. Time is running out for House Republicans to fix this mess. The GOP's irresponsible tax law leaves millions of working Americans out in the cold. It tells them quite frankly that they are simply not a priority for this administration. I am calling upon the conferees to immediately adopt the major aspects of the bipartisan Senate-passed child tax bill. Working and military families need real tax relief, not lip service. Particularly this is the case with the rising unemployment rate and our sluggish economy. The simple fact is that the economy continues to remain stagnant. The national deficit continues to rise at an astronomical rate and the unemployment rate remains at a high 6.4 percent. There seems to be no end in sight to these economic problems. Yet the Republicans continue to give tax cuts and child tax credits to the very wealthy in this country.

I support the Senate-passed child tax credit bill. The bill would immediately help 6.5 million hardworking families, including many military families. In California, for example, expanding the child tax credit would help an additional 21 percent of families. One of the 4 million families that would greatly benefit from the expansion of the child tax credit lives in my district. The Ramirezes are like many families across the country that work hard to make ends meet every day and play by the rules. Mrs. Ramirez works full-time as a teacher's assistant and her husband is a mechanic. Both of them work full-time. They are raising five children on an income of $24,000 a year. I spoke to Mrs. Ramirez and she told me, quote, that any additional money that they would receive through the child tax credit that right now does not apply to them would allow her to buy clothes, school supplies and food for her five children. Times are hard for her family, she told me, so any money that they would receive back in the form of a child tax credit would greatly help them make ends meet.

We must act now to enact the Senate child tax credit bill. Families like the Ramirezes need and deserve our help. They need to be a priority for this administration. Conferees must adopt the Senate- passed child tax credit bill to help these families. Republicans should

stop refusing to provide hardworking families like the Ramirezes with any tax relief whatsoever.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the motion to instruct conferees on the child tax credit. Let us for once show families like the Ramirezes that they matter to this country just as much as the millionaire families do.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct conferees on the Child Tax Credit proposed by my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bell).

Mr. Speaker, I am calling on the conferees to immediately adopt the major aspect of the bipartisan Senate-passed child tax bill. Working families need real relief, especially in these difficult economic times when we are experiencing an unemployment rate that has jumped to 6.4 percent. Amazingly, despite the sluggish economy and our moral responsibility to help working families, House Republicans continue to stall the Senate-passed Child Tax Credit bill in conference.

House Republicans got us into this mess in the first place since they deliberately chose to drop the Child Tax Credit from their millionaire tax cut bill, and they should get us out of it. Starting on July 25, millionaires will be getting their rebate checks. However, 4 million families across the country will not get a single dime, even though they are in the greatest need of a tax break.

One of those 4 million families lives in my district. The Wolfalks are like many families across the country that play by the rules. Mrs. Wolfalk works full time as an administrative assistant, and her husband is disabled. They are raising five children on an annual income of $25,000. Mrs. Wolfalk told me that any additional money means that her son will not have to wear shoes with holes in the soles. It means that she will be able to buy additional uniforms for her children who currently wear hand-me-downs. With this extra money her children will be able to have new uniforms for school, school supplies and books. Things are tight for her family right now, so she assures me that any additional help would make a huge difference in her family.

It breaks my heart to know that Congress can do something to help these families and Republicans are refusing to provide for families just like the Wolfalks. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the motion to instruct conferees on the Child Tax Credit. Let us show families like the Wolfalks that they matter as much as millionaires.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my time out of order.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the so-called School Readiness Act of 2003, H.R. 2210. This bill does not provide the adequate funding for Head Start or for the much- needed expansion of early Head Start and migrant and seasonal Head Start programs.

H.R. 2210 begins an irreversible process of dismantling Head Start by promoting religious discrimination in hiring, shortchanging teachers, and denying services to eligible children by continuing to underfund Head Start.

Nearly 4 decades of research have established that Head Start delivers the intended services and improves the lives and development of the children and families that it serves. To illustrate how effective Head Start can be, let me tell you about one of my constituents.

Ms. Robles is a single mother with three children. She works full time while her children attend school. Pablo, the youngest of her three children, has been fortunate enough to participate and be enrolled in the Head Start program. Before Pablo started Head Start, he was quiet and withdrawn, a very shy boy who was very much dependent upon his mother. Pablo is now a confident and expressive little boy. He wants to do things independently and enjoys playing puzzles and building blocks.

Ms. Robles told me, ``The transformation in Pablo is amazing. I see the difference in Pablo and my other two children who were not lucky enough to participate in Head Start.''

In addition, Ms. Robles is grateful to Head Start because of the services it provides. She receives help from the social workers, including the emotional support she needed ever since leaving her family and friends behind in her country to make a new start in the United States. The nurses and teachers who participate in Head Start are also attentive and helpful to her and her children. Ms. Robles now feels she is a better mother to her children at home and a more prepared parent advocate to her children in school.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill that skimps on children, H.R. 2210. As the old saying goes, if it ain't broke, why fix it.

Let us not play with the future of our most vulnerable children like Pablo Robles.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to stand before the Members today in support of H.R. 2396. This legislation designates the post office located at 1210 Highland Avenue in Duarte, California, after a courageous young marine, Lance Corporal Francisco Martinez Flores.

Lance Corporal Flores was killed in the line of duty near Nasiriyah, Iraq, on March 25, 2003, protecting the rights, beliefs, and values of a Nation that he could not yet call his own. He was just 2 weeks away from gaining his U.S. citizenship, which was granted posthumously on April 6, 2003.

According to the Department of Defense, an estimated 37,000 legal permanent residents are currently serving on Active Duty in our Armed Forces. These young men and women have willingly volunteered to carry out one of the most solemn duties any nation can ask of its people, and they have more than earned the right to become citizens of the Nation they have sworn to uphold and protect. Their contributions should always be remembered.

Naming the post office after Lance Corporal Flores is not just a way to honor his memory, but also a small way to show appreciation and respect to the other 200 soldiers who have made the ultimate sacrifice. Each day when a person walks through the Highland Avenue Post Office located in Duarte, California, they will be able to read about this hero and remember that it is the people in their community who contribute to the freedoms that we all enjoy as Americans.

I would like to thank every man and woman currently serving in the U.S. military. I hope they stay safe, and I wish them a speedy return, and I sleep better at night knowing that they are doing such a tremendous job, and I sleep better at night knowing that people like Francisco Martinez Flores are there serving our country. I urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 2396.

Mr. Speaker, this sham Republican prescription bill provides elderly women with nothing more than a false sense of security.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1, the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act. I want to thank Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey for her hard work in bringing Democratic women together to speak against the Republican's shameful Prescription Drug bill.

As a freshman Member of Congress, I came here with a tremendous sense of optimism. By nature, I am an eternal optimist. But I am no fool, and the American people shouldn't be fooled either. Unfortunately, that is exactly what the Republicans are trying to do with their sham Prescription drug bill.

If you believe the Republican bill solves the prescription drug crisis facing our seniors . . . If you think that seniors will get the medications they need, at a price they can afford . . . If you believe private insurance companies--the same people who brought you HMOs--will provide better coverage for seniors than a reformed Medicare system . . . or if you think you can get all the drugs your doctor prescribed, including the most expensive, at your local pharmacy. . . . Then you should be listening to that old country song by George Strait called ``Ocean Front Property.'' It goes something like this:

I've got some ocean front property in Arizona from my front

porch you can see the sea.

I've got some ocean front property in Arizona and if you'll

buy that I'll throw the Golden Gate in free.

Republicans are just like scam artists trying to sell you an ocean front property in the desert. But now they are trying to sell you a phony prescription drug package. We must not fall for it, especially when this is not what seniors want.

I say to my Republican colleagues, it is time to stop this heinous scam on seniors! It is time to show the greatest generation in our country the respect they deserve. After all, they are the people who served us in times of war, got us through the Great Depression, raised their children and made countless contributions to this country.

Worst of all, the Republican bill ignores the reality of older women, the face of Medicare. Women constitute 58 percent of the Medicare population at 65 and 71 percent at the age of 85. Since women normally outlive their male counterparts and many women spend time out of the workforce, caring for their children and sometimes, their own parents, Medicare beneficiaries are disproportionately female.

We need to make sure that every prescription is covered without a gap. Seniors, particularly women, must retain their right to see their

doctor of choice. We must empower seniors to make the right choices, not insurance companies. This is exactly what the democratic plan does and exactly what seniors want. In fact, according to a survey conducted by AARP: 4 out of 5 seniors don't want the GOP proposal.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues not to support H.R. 1. Let's tell the Republicans don't try to sell seniors something they don't want.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of this amendment. I agree that there are some problems with our class action system, but the so-called Class Action Fairness Act is not the solution.

I am particularly concerned because the bill intrudes on a specific provision of California law, one which allows State laws to be enforced by district and city attorneys as well as private attorneys general. This California law has been used successfully to protect the public from false advertising, predatory lending, fake cures for cancer and other shameful scams perpetrated by out-of-State business.

For example, in People v. Life Alert, California's district attorney stopped Life Alert, the purveyors of the ``I have fallen and cannot get up'' advertisements from aggressive door-to-door sales tactics. Those tactics included refusing to leave elderly people's homes until they bought the product, and refusing to issue refunds to consumers who complained about such tactics.

Unfortunately, the Class Action Fairness Act takes away California's ability to protect consumers in this way. It does so by defining private attorney general actions as class actions and removing them to Federal court. Why does this matter? Because private attorney general lawsuits are less likely to proceed if they are deemed class action lawsuits. That would force the private attorney general to certify a class when in fact he or she is bringing the suit to protect consumers from harm. In addition, Federal court is more expensive and time consuming for plaintiffs, especially when it involves greater travel.

This bill is also an insult to States' rights. It usurps decisions made by States regarding their court system and their class action system. Some members of Congress talk about the importance of States' rights, but in the end it appears that that is only true when it is convenient for their purposes. Apparently federalism is not as important when consumer protections are at stake.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to oppose the underlying bill. Voting for H.R. 1115 is like trying to address automobile fatalities by dumping gasoline into the ocean. It fails to do anything about the first problem while creating a second one. If we are going to fix the class action system, then let us do it right. This bill is not the way to do it.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand here and support this bill, but I just want to bring people's attention to one part of the bill in particular I am concerned about, and that is parents of legal permanent resident soldiers killed in combat who are not eligible for citizenship if they were outside the United States at the time their child was killed. Those same parents would be eligible for citizenship if they are here in the United States. It makes no sense to differentiate between the two.

A parent is a parent, whether or not they happen to have gone to their home country for a short time, or whether they are in the process of waiting for a visa application renewal, or whether some other circumstances have forced them to be outside the U.S. when their child was killed.

I urge the other body to correct this aspect of the bill, but I rise in support of the bill and urge my colleagues to do the same.

In this country, non-citizens have worn our military uniforms and fought in our battles throughout our history. One of my uncles served in the military as a legal permanent resident during the Korean War. Now, approximately 3 percent of our military are legal permanent residents.

I am a strong supporter of measures that provide opportunities for legal permanent residents serving in our military to become U.S. citizens. These individuals are making enormous sacrifices. Without being citizens, and without having the protections that status would give them, these immigrant men and women are willing to risk their own lives to defend this nation. The least we can do is give them something in return.

What this bill does is to provide them the opportunity to apply for citizenship after 2 years of military service, instead of the 3 years requirement in current law. It also allows for the spouse and children of legal permanent resident soldiers, killed in action, to apply for citizenship.

I commend Chairman Sensenbrenner, and other Members of the House, for introducing legislation to address this issue. I appreciate Chairman Sensenbrenner's willingness and diligence in working closely with Democrats to produce a bill that we can support. I still have some concerns with aspects of this bill, however, and hope that we are able to work out these issues.

In particular, I am concerned that parents of legal permanent resident soldiers killed in combat and not eligible for citizenship if they were outside the U.S. at the time their child was killed. Those same parents would be eligible if they are here in the U.S. It makes no sense. A parent is a parent, whether or not they happen to have gone to their home country for a short time, or whether they are in the process of waiting for a visa application renewal, or whether some other circumstance has forced them to be outside the U.S. when their child was killed. I urge the other body to correct this aspect of the bill. In addition, during consideration of this bill in the Judiciary Committee, I joined with Mr. Berman in offering an amendment to provide a discretionary waiver to the Secretary of Homeland Security for three categories of people. Unfortunately, that amendment failed. I will work with Mr. Berman to encourage the other Body to include this provision in their version.

Again, I applaud Chairman Sensenbrenner and other Members who have worked so diligently on this issue. I hope that, with continued work in conference with the other Body, we can produce a bill that truly honors our legal permanent resident soldiers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and to the underlying bill.

For 30 years, women in this country have had the right to make reproductive choices over their bodies. H.R. 760 is a horrifying attempt to seize those hard-earned rights away from women. What this legislation claims to do is ban a medical procedure used in late term pregnancies, but it does not. Instead, this bill is drafted in such a way as to effectively ban a woman's right to choose at any point in her pregnancy.

Let us be clear: this bill opens the door to outlawing all abortions, regardless of the circumstances. Furthermore, this bill makes no exception for cases when a woman's health is in grave danger or when carrying a no-longer viable fetus to term would jeopardize a woman's ability to conceive children in the future.

Equally disturbing is the fact that this bill is blatantly unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that, when dealing with restriction on reproductive procedures, an exception must always be made to protect both the life and the health of the mother.

I cannot support a blatantly unconstitutional bill that tells women that their health or future reproductive health must be sacrificed, nor can I support a bill that has a clear ulterior motive of banning a woman's right to make choices over her own body.

I am pro-choice and believe that the government should stay out of people's private, personal decisions. I will protect a woman's right to choose, and so I will vote against this unconstitutional, anti-woman's rights bill. I strongly urge my colleagues to do the same and to not slam the door on a fundamental right that women have had in this country for 30 years.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and to vote ``no'' on

Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon, May 21, 2003, I was not able to cast my vote on Roll Call Vote 204. That vote was on a motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1911, to amend title 38, United States Code, to enhance cooperation and the sharing of resources between the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted Aye.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to give my Special Order at this time.