Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished ranking member for yielding me the time, and Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the Democratic motion to instruct conferees so that we can fix the budget so narrowly passed by the House of Representatives, a Federal budget that is supposed to reflect our values and our priorities, but this House budget resolution does not do that and so we need to change it.

The Republican budget resolution embraces the administration's irresponsible tax cut package at the expense of our Nation's health care needs. This is part of our national security, our health care security, and despite the protests of many Members of this Chamber, the majority resolution still requires Medicare and Medicaid to be cut, Medicaid to be cut by $93 billion, and the appropriating committees are charged to either cut Medicare by almost $200 billion or to shortchange an already weak prescription drug coverage benefit. Terrible choices.

These cuts endanger health care for almost 90 million Americans, among them the most vulnerable members of our society. This is unconscionable. This does not reflect American values.

As we move toward conference, we need to eliminate these terrible cuts, and among them, these health care cuts include cuts to our veterans, even as we are sending our young men and women off to war, and they will one day come back to be our Nation's veterans. We are cutting health care benefits to today's veterans, wheelchair bound, frail, elderly. Promises made should be promises kept.

We need to reflect America's values in our budget, in our budget resolution, and we need to support the Democratic motion to instruct conferees so that we can do that.

Mr. Speaker, what an honor it is for me to follow after my esteemed colleague from Ohio, the ranking member of the subcommittee that I am also a member on, where we would have very much appreciated being able to debate and discuss this legislation before we find it today on the suspension calendar.

Later today, we will take up the legislation and will be addressing the matter of smallpox vaccine compensation. It goes without saying that during the past week, with tragic incidents of death as a result, some serious concerns have been raised about the safety of this vaccine. These incidents speak even more forcefully for the need to do more research, find more information, and provide more screening about the smallpox vaccine. But if the administration insists that America's nurses, firefighters, and other first responders must be vaccinated against this disease to provide a protection, a bioterrorism protection shield, then now more than ever it is critical that we provide the peace of mind that these first responders need. Our first responders must know that in the event of an adverse or even fatal reaction, their needs and the needs of their families will be taken care of.

The overall goal of the administration is to make sure we are prepared for a possible outbreak of smallpox as part of a terrorist attack.

But this initiative is failing. These medical and public safety professionals know very well the risks of this disease and the vaccine, and few have been

willing to step up and take it. Understandably, they want to know that they and their loved ones will be taken care of in case something goes wrong. It is not a lot to ask, but they do not at this moment have that assurance, and these recent tragic cases show that their concerns are not unfounded.

The bottom line remains that we must pass a fair compensation plan in order to make the smallpox vaccine program more attractive and palliative to those who are asked to be first responders and to take this protection. That is the goal of all of us in the House today.

The Institute of Medicine has reported that the absence of such a plan is a major barrier to an effective vaccine program; but the bill that is on the floor today is not going to give nurses, firefighters, and other first responders the assurances that they need to be vaccinated. It imposes unfair caps on lost wage reimbursements. It does not guarantee that the promises in the bill will be funded. And it will not work.

First responders in our communities have spoken clearly. In fact, a few hours ago we stood together on Capitol Hill as they told us what plan will work. The House of Representatives needs to listen to these people. The nurses are my colleagues. I served with them on the front lines for over 2 decades in my community in Santa Barbara, California. They tell me that the House should reject this bill. We should pass this legislation that the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and I have crafted with our colleagues and with our first responders' input, again, the goal being that the President wants our first responders to be prepared in the event of a smallpox attack, and we want to help them. But this bill and the efforts to block alternative proposals are simply making our nurses, our firefighters, and our other first responders feel even more uncomfortable about stepping up and volunteering to take this vaccine.

The bill before us today provides a $262,000 lifetime cap at $50,000 per year. This could perhaps in some instances last only 5 years. Consider this: as someone who perhaps is the bread earner for their family, perhaps the sole support for their children, who weighs this compensation package against the risks, albeit small, but if they are, they could be devastating, and to know that is the bottom line that is going to be offered under this legislation and with that no guarantee that the funding will be there year after year as more and more first responders are asked to take this extra step.

As a contrast, our alternative provides nurses and first responders with the confidence they need because it guarantees that the funding will be there for them. If it is a small number who are at risk, as the administration and as the Centers for Disease Control say, then we should be generous with these people. The alternative that we had hoped to propose provides a compensation of up to $75,000 per year, but with no lifetime cap, and this is the legislation that we ask that we be allowed to debate and vote on on the floor.

We ask that our colleagues reject the bill before us today and let us debate this measure in fairness to our first responders.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important issue, important to the health and safety of our Nation.

Recent tragedies in the health care community have underscored the need for us to address it and pass a robust compensation package for victims. The President has called for America's nurses, firefighters, and other first responders to be vaccinated against smallpox. Ensuring our frontline health care responders are resistent to smallpox would enhance our ability to respond to an attack resulting from this kind of an outbreak. But this initiative is failing, and to make the program work we need to guarantee our first responders that they and their families will be compensated if they are harmed or killed by the vaccine.

If the administration insists that these people be vaccinated against the disease, then now more than ever it is critical that we provide the peace of mind that these frontline people deserve and need. They do not want handouts. They just want to know that if something happens to them, they and their families will be taken care of. It is not too much to ask. But I can tell you that the bill before us, as it is currently drafted, will not provide that level of assurance.

Before I came to Congress I worked as a public health nurse for many years. These are my colleagues that we are speaking of. And I know what it is like to be on the front line. If you will not take my word for it, listen to the American Nurses Association. They represent the interests of 2.7 million nurses across this country, and they have heard from their members. They oppose this bill because it is insufficient to make the program work.

First, the bill before us does not guarantee that this compensation program will be funded, and without a guarantee of funding, nurses and other first responders who serve their country and become harmed by the vaccine will have no assurance that the bill's promises will be kept.

Second, this bill puts unfair caps on the wage compensation an injured nurse or other first responder can receive. These caps would unfairly penalize those families who lose their main source of income.

We should reject this bill; and instead, we should pass legislation such as the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and I have crafted with our colleagues and with input with direct guidance from these first responders. Our legislation would ensure that medical benefits and the compensation in this bill are funded for years to come. It would recognize and compensate the longer-term loss of wages that could result from such an adverse effect, and it would allow families who lose their main source of income because of the vaccine that they be fully compensated for their loss.

This bill would tell nurses that if they take this risk and serve their country that their families will not be left without resources or hope. Ultimately, the risk of adverse effects is low. Perhaps 200 people out of the 10 million that we want to vaccinate could be affected, but it is so important that we provide the assurance that if a person is one of those 200 people they will be compensated adequately.

Congress now has before it the opportunity to instill, first, confidence in our first responders and truly prepare us for the possible nightmare of a smallpox outbreak. The administration has been disappointed thus far in the turnout for the vaccine. If the wrong kind of legislation is passed, the turnout runs the risk of remaining small, thus, not meeting the goal of the administration.

If this bill before us is not effective, this is our opportunity to fix it. Let us take the time to get it right so that we can create this shield against a bioterrorist attack in the form of smallpox.

I urge my colleagues to support their first responders, to protect America from the threat of smallpox. Defeat this bill. Let us take the time to get this right.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mrs. CAPPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, I insert for the Record letters from the following groups which I have before me. These letters are written by the American Public Health Association; the International Union of Police Associations; the American Nurses Association; the International Association of Firefighters; the American Federation of Teachers; the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; the Service Employers National Union; and the Infectious Disease Society of America.

American Nurses Association,

March 28, 2003.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Nurses

Association (ANA), I urge you to oppose the Smallpox

Emergency Personnel Protection Act (H.R. 1463). This bill

does not provide adequate education, prescreening,

surveillance, and compensation--therefore it will not result

in an increase in the number of nurses volunteering for

vaccinations. As this bill will be considered under the

suspension of the rules, you will be denied the opportunity

to vote in favor of the Capps/Waxman substitute that ANA

supports.

The ANA is the only full-service association representing

the nation's RNs through our 54 state and territorial

constituent member organizations. Our members are well

represented in the Administration's plan to vaccinate 10.5

million health care workers and first responders.

ANA supports efforts to ensure that our nation is prepared

for a possible terrorist attack. ANA has, since November

2002, been trying to work with the Administration to

formulate a strong smallpox vaccination program that will

encourage nurses to volunteer to be immunized. Since the

Administration's plan was first announced, ANA has repeatedly

raised questions about the health and safety of nurses who

are vaccinated, as well as their patients and families. ANA's

concerns have been echoed by many in the public health

community and reinforced by an expert panel from the

Institute of Medicine. Unfortunately, the Smallpox Emergency

Personnel Protection Act (H.R. 1463), fails to address these

questions.

The smallpox vaccine is a live virus. It has the worst

record of negative side effects of any vaccine in the world.

It is imperative, as a matter of public health, that those

being vaccinated understand the risks of the vaccine to

themselves and their loved ones, and be prescreened for

conditions that require them to refuse the vaccine. The

smallpox inoculation site can shed the live virus for up to

three weeks. In the 1960s, more than 20% of the adverse

vaccination events occurred in secondary contacts. Therefore,

the vaccination program poses a risk not only to nurses, but

also to their patients and families.

Members of the armed services have received personalized

education, and free and confidential prescreening prior to

the administration of the vaccine. This process properly

screened out one-third of the potential recipients. The

Smallpox Emergency Personnel Protection Act fails to require

a similar program. In addition, H.R. 1463 fails to require

sufficient funding needed to ensure that state and local

public health officials can actually implement the crucial

education, prescreening, and surveillance programs. The

recent death of a Maryland nurse, a Florida nurse aide, and a

National Guardsman only underscore the need for this robust

education, prescreening, and surveillance effort. Nurses and

other first responders will continue to feel uncomfortable

about the vaccine until they receive the reliable information

needed to make an informed decision.

Furthermore, H.R. 1463 contains an insufficient, unfunded

compensation program. The Administration is basically asking

healthy nurses to place themselves (as well as their patients

and families) at risk for the common good. The vaccination

has no tangible benefits for nurses; it is sought in the name

of homeland security. ANA does not believe that nurses should

be made to bear this public risk without the guarantee of a

real compensation program. H.R. 1463 contains an unacceptable

lifetime cap on wage replacement and fails to ensure that

funds will be available for the compensation fund.

ANA urges you to vote against H.R. 1463. Your no vote does

not mean that you oppose a smallpox compensation program. In

fact, the solid disapproval of this bill will demonstrate

needed support for a real smallpox vaccination program, such

as the Capps/Waxman substitute. Please feel free to call Erin

McKeon (202) 651-7095 or Christopher Donnellan (202) 651-7088

on my staff with any questions regarding this letter.

Sincerely,

Rose Gonzalez, MPS, RN,

Director, Government Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire what time remains?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to

say, with all due respect to my chairman, for whom I have a great deal of respect, that I commend him for his sense of urgency about the timing of this. The first responders, my colleagues who are nurses, have told us that they want confidence before they are going to roll up their sleeves and take this vaccine, and that this bill does not give them the confidence and that is why we stand in opposition to this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) for a response.

Could I beg of the Chair to consider then, because I was generous in yielding to my colleague, that we be given more time, because we have several people who still wish to speak?

Mr. Speaker, could I now inquire how much time is remaining?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), a member of the Subcommittee on Health.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I stand here with my colleagues in opposition to this bill, drafted by the leadership with a kind of arrogance that presumes to know what is best for our first responders than they themselves know. With their testimony, with their letters, with their anguish, they implore us to give them the confidence that they need if they are going to be asked to take a risk to become a part of the shield to protect this Nation against terrorist attack.

We need to defeat this legislation for them so that they can have confidence in this House that we can do what is right, not just for them but for our Nation in this time of peril. And so I will close by using some of the language of my colleague, the ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) who says in his written statement, ``Right after we defeat this bill, I hope that we can set about the task of creating bipartisan legislation that all Members of the House can support. The very people this bill purports to help, nurses, EMTs, police officers, firefighters, find this hastily crafted legislation lacking. Why? Because it fails to address their very significant concerns.''

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. The Federal budget reflects our priorities. It demonstrates our values, our commitments to those less fortunate in our society, and our ideas for building a better America for our children and our grandchildren.

The Republican budget resolution before us today makes a mockery of these ideals. It would not spur economic growth, it would underfund the country's critical challenges, and it would lead to chronic deficits for the foreseeable future.

Mr. Chairman, I must say I find it incredulous that this resolution is before us today. Just last night hostilities began against Iraq. We are asking our men and women in uniform to make incredible sacrifices, including leaving their families behind, to serve their country. Sadly, we worry that some may make the ultimate sacrifice. But where is the sacrifice from those who benefit from these tax cuts? Many of them are the wealthiest in our society. This is shameful.

The Republican resolution embraces the administration's irresponsible tax cut package that will not encourage economic growth, and this country simply cannot afford it. These provisions are ill-considered and so unfair to the vast majority of working American families. They should be rejected.

Mr. Chairman, I say this as one who has often voted for tax cuts, including the last tax bill. I believed then and I believe now there were many excellent provisions in that measure, but we were also in a very different time.

The huge surpluses have morphed into huge deficits, and we are now in a war on terrorism and in Iraq, both of which will have huge mounting costs. The cost of the war in Iraq is not even mentioned in this budget. And our domestic challenges, prescription drugs, education, veterans' health care, are still unmet.

We should not proceed with more tax cuts while we face chronic deficits and critical unmet domestic and international challenges.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say something to my moderate Republican friends. Many of you have spoken convincingly on this floor about the dangers of unchecked deficit spending and the irresponsibility of passing these costs on to our children. We have worked together on countless issues, like funding for schools, protecting our environment and addressing rural health care issues. I know you are all deeply committed to meeting the needs of this country, and doing so in a fiscally responsible manner.

I do not see how you can support this budget. The tax cuts called for in this

budget will bring endless deficits, robbing us of our ability to meet our country's needs now and for the foreseeable future.

We can do better. We need to reject this Republican budget today.

I believe that the Spratt substitute meets the priorities that our country values. The tax cuts are targeted to those which will jump- start our economy. Programs are funded, education and veterans' health care and the environment, that the people of this country need and demand, and this is done in a fiscally responsible manner.

Mr. Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to reject the Republican budget and to vote for and support the Spratt substitute.

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

We should not be capping the awards for pain and suffering that an injured patient receives when they have been harmed by their doctor. This puts the burden of rising insurance rates onto the innocent patient rather than the insurance company.

Mr. Speaker, I offered an amendment to the Committee on Rules which was not made in order. My amendment would set caps in the bill of $250,000 or the total compensation package of the CEO of the insurance company representing the doctor in the case, whichever is highest.

It is not fair for insurance companies to pay their executives millions of dollars, give them bonuses, increase their pay when they are trying to deprive victims of their rightful compensation. In these days of Enron and MCI WorldCom, I believe that Congress should be siding with injured patients over corporate executives.

The Nation's largest medical malpractice insurance company pays their CEO $9.7 million, but even so they apparently cannot keep paying for the pain and suffering of patients their clients have injured and so they keep raising their rates. You have to wonder about priorities.

This is about Nathaniel and Linda. This amendment that I propose promotes corporate responsibility. It is a more fair approach, and I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to rise in support of H.R. 389, the Automatic Defibrillation in Adam's Memory Act.

As co-chair of the Congressional Heart and Stroke Coalition and Caucus, I was proud to join with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) in introducing this bill last year and again this year. And I want to thank my colleague from Illinois for his leadership on this issue. For the last few years, Congress has passed several bills to expand the use of automatic external defibrillators, or AEDs.

We have provided protections for good Samaritans, encouraged State and local governments to place AEDs in their buildings, and provided funds for their communities to purchase these devices.

The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) and I have recently been urging the Architect of the Capitol to acquire AEDs and place them around the grounds.

We hope we will see movement on this very soon, and now, with this legislation before us, we are starting to get them into schools. Some have suggested that AEDs will become as prevalent as fire extinguishers. We can only hope so. Rescue professionals know firsthand their cost effectiveness.

This bill would create a national clearinghouse of information about AEDs and public defibrillation so that schools can begin placing them throughout their facilities. We do not usually think of children at school as being a high risk group for heart attack, but it has been known to happen, and schools, let us keep in mind, often serve as community meeting places where the public can gather at various events. Think of the times when schools are used as disaster centers. Add to this the parents, teachers and staff at the schools, and it only makes sense to be assured that they have the life saving devices such as AEDs available.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise honored to wear the special scarf today to highlight the global fight to stop violence against women.

We know that women account for 85 percent of the victims of domestic violence, but only half of all female victims of violence report an injury, and of those, only 20 percent seek medical assistance.

I will shortly be reintroducing legislation to provide women over 18 with domestic violence screening and treatment services. Routine screening by a health care provider for domestic violence would unlock options a woman might not otherwise pursue and allow her to see that shelter and advocacy services may be useful to her.

Mr. Speaker, this year, Lifetime Television recognizes the importance of including men in the dialogue to combat violence. This is critical.

I encourage my colleagues to participate in the week's events and reiterate the need for fathers, coaches and other male role models to teach boys early and teach them often that there is no place for violence in a relationship.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and to the underlying bill. No one in Congress supports cloning a human being, but we cannot afford to block research into important scientific areas that may have critical medical benefits to American citizens.

The millions who are currently suffering from diseases that have no cures, Parkinson's, cancer, Alzheimer's, diabetes, spinal cord injuries, and their families, these millions are desperately hoping that new medical research can provide them relief.

The best hope for many of these people may lie with research into somatic cell nuclear transfer or therapeutic cloning. This process may allow doctors and scientists to duplicate human stem cells to create medical therapies for diseases, therapies that will not be rejected by patients' bodies. This research and these therapies do not require or result in a cloned human being; but the bill before us would ban that research and take away hope for millions of Americans, just because of fear of the unknown.

We can increase understanding of the science involved here and at the same time provide protections against its untoward use. Congress should take its time and consider these issues. We should ban human cloning, as we have, and allow research to go forward. We should set the ethical parameters for scientific research. That is our job, set these parameters which will lead to saving lives and restoring health.

On behalf of those millions who suffer and wait and hope, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Weldon bill and to vote for the Greenwood amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina, and it is a pleasure to be here with my colleagues. I could be no place else. We are really at a crossroads in this country, facing a budget such as we have received from the President to deal with.

I want to echo what my esteemed colleagues are talking about with respect to the budget, and I have asked that this chart be left here. It has been referred to already, but it points out clearly the huge deficits, as far as the eye can see is the way we phrase it, and this, after we finally did bring our Federal budget into line in the late 1990s.

Maybe this is a good time to mention a quote by the Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan, last fall. ``History suggests that an abandonment of fiscal discipline will eventually push up interest rates, crowd out capital spending, lower productivity growth, and force harder choices upon us in the future.''

The administration has no plans to address this budget deficit and, in fact, in this latest budget is proposing to make it much worse. The reckless tax cut that we cannot afford that will not help to restart the economy and, for the most part, goes to precisely the people who do not need it, is what they are proposing.

I must be up front and admit that a couple of years ago I did vote for the tax cut, the big one. I believed then and I continue to believe now that it had some good provisions: increasing the child care tax credit, getting rid of the marriage penalty, dealing with estate taxes. At that time we were told we had a $5.6 trillion surplus and that we could afford a tax cut. Clearly, things have changed. Everything, that is, except the administration's approach.

I believe it is so irresponsible to propose these kinds of tax cuts to a Nation at war. We are at war in Afghanistan and in other parts of the world against terrorism. We are asking all Americans to sacrifice, and yet this tax cut will fatten the wallets of a few. This is not shared sacrifice. The tax cut that the President is proposing will cripple our ability to deal with an important part of the war on terrorism: our homeland security. We are facing a possible war with Iraq for which there is no mention in the President's budget, and we have ongoing needs such as some I will address in my time today: health care needs of our senior citizens, and others. These are some real problems that we are facing of economic security in our land, of health security, environmental security.

I want to talk about just one small example, and I brought it up today with our Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson. Our country has a huge shortage of nurses, all kinds of nurses. They are the backbone of our health care system. They are critical to our efforts to provide everyday health care to millions of Americans, and they are on the front lines of our efforts to fight bioterrorism. They will be the ones to identify victims, to vaccinate the healthy, to assist doctors in treatment. We have 19,000 nurses in Armed Forces Reserves. We are going to face a continued crisis as they are called up.

So last year, Congress passed my Nurse Reinvestment Act. It was a bipartisan effort by my committee chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), and lots of Members worked hard on it, the President signed it into law, Tommy Thompson raved about it and was glowing about it. I want to just read two sentences from his ``Budget in Brief: Fiscal Year 2004'' from the Department of Health and Human Services addressing the national nursing shortage:

``The Nation continues to face a nursing shortage. In 2000, the estimated national demand for registered nurses was over 100,000, 6 percent more than the supply. Demand for nurses is rapidly increasing as a result of a growing and aging population that needs more health care as well as continued medical advances that heighten the need for nurses. The nursing supply is not keeping pace with demand due to a decline in nursing school graduates and an aging of the work force.''

At the time that the bill was signed into law, the omnibus bill of last year, the amount of the budget was increased to a nice size; but then, in this year's budget, it is again reduced. So these are empty words, empty rhetoric, that have come from the administration, just one piece of our complex but very important health care delivery system.

This budget request that we are facing this year has a 13 percent cut in the nurses' education and training fund. It slashes funding for advanced practice nursing in half, and it defunds programs to train nurse faculty and geriatric nurses. I talked with Secretary Thompson about this today. I like him; I think he is an innovative thinker and committed to the issues. I asked him about these cuts and his response was, ``Well, yes. We will be sticking with this proposal to cut funding for these programs,'' despite their assessment that the nurse supply is not keeping pace with the demand. They are just not going to do anything about it.

I believe, I say to my colleagues, that this is plainly irresponsible. We need to provide the funds to train new nurses, which we desperately need both for our ongoing medical needs and health needs, but also in the event of a bioterrorist attack. We should not be cutting this important program. I urge my colleagues who worked with me to get this Nurse Reinvestment Act to step up where the administration has not.

I told Secretary Thompson that we were going to adjust the budget to include sufficient funds for the nurse program. I apologize for making this sidebar. It is part of an overall budget that is way out of kilter, but I think it speaks in a precise way to a matter of great concern to the health and security, really, of our Nation at this time in our history.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. We cannot ask mothers with small children to put in more hours of work without ensuring that their children will be cared for. This bill does not do that. It is unreasonable and flies in the face of family values.

We must increase funding for child care to ensure that we do not harm poor families and single parents. Additionally, the abstinence-only provisions of this bill should be removed. Our children should be taught abstinence, yes; but they also need to learn the facts about sex so that they know how to make good choices to protect themselves. Otherwise they will simply get misinformation from television, the movies, and their friends. We must trust parents and teachers to know how to educate their own children.

This morning at a hearing here on Capitol Hill, I heard the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, address the Global AIDS Initiative. He said that in addition to promoting abstinence, our U.S. AIDS programs abroad also emphasize full education and protection. If these are our policies abroad, should they not also be our policies here at home?

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to rise in tribute to the memory of a wonderful friend and resident of Santa Barbara, California, Dr. Shirley Kennedy. Dr. Kennedy passed away on January 20, 2003, leaving a void in the Santa Barbara community that will be felt by many.

Dr. Kennedy, a long-time resident of Santa Barbara, was well-known for her dedication to political, cultural, and social causes. Born in Chicago in 1926, Dr. Kennedy and her husband, Jim, moved to the Santa Barbara area in 1972. It did not take long for Dr. Kennedy to become a dynamic presence in the community. In 1986 Dr. Kennedy completed her doctorate at Claremont Graduate University and worked as a lecturer at UCSB, teaching classes in political science, black studies, and constitutional law. In addition to teaching, she was also involved in founding the Black Studies department, as well as the Black Cultural Festival which brings art, plays, and other exhibits to the university.

Dr. Kennedy was a devoted political activist as well. In 1988 she ran Rev. Jesse Jackson's local presidential campaign, and served as a delegate to the party's national convention. Dr. Kennedy has also dedicated countless hours of volunteer time to numerous local, state, and federal campaigns. She was a longtime member of the NAACP and created two local organizations, Not in Our Town and the Building Bridges Community Coalition, both dedicated to fighting racism and building tolerance.

In 2002, through the Building Bridges Coalition, Dr. Kennedy was able to bring an exhibit on a slave ship, the Henrietta Marie, to a local museum in Santa Barbara. This exhibit was visited by hundreds of local schoolchildren and residents, and brought a new understanding of the slave trade to thousands of people. It was her dedication to education and community involvement that made Dr. Kennedy such a special person and I am confident that her legacy will live on for many years to come.

The Santa Barbara community suffered a great loss with Dr. Kennedy's passing last month, yet because of her activism and involvement in the community Dr. Kennedy's spirit and teachings will remain among us forever. Dr. Kennedy was a wonderful woman and an inspiration to us all and I am fortunate that this special individual touched my life in so many ways.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time; and I rise grateful for this opportunity today to speak on behalf of my own constituents, to give voice to their tears and their tributes to the seven astronauts we have lost.

While this is a blow to the entire Nation, I am especially mindful of the unspeakable loss suffered by those who know them best, especially the 12 children who lost their beloved mothers and fathers. The seven Columbia crew members had embarked on a journey of science and discovery so that we all might benefit from their experience. These men and women have made the ultimate sacrifice for our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. space program has long flourished on California central coast, my home. Our region is home to Vandenberg Air Force Base and countless businesses and research centers that have benefited from and infused vitality into NASA's programs. In the name of the seven and in their memory who have given their lives for this pursuit, I pledge to do whatever I

can to help our space program recover from this terrible setback so that these important endeavors can continue.

Mr. Speaker, the Book of Isaiah teaches us that the righteous ``shall mount up with wings as eagles.'' Our fallen heroes flew like eagles. They came very close to heaven before coming very close to home. May they forever rest in peace.

Madam Speaker, let me first thank the gentleman from Utah and all of his colleagues from Utah for bringing this resolution to the floor, for their wonderful and warm words about Wayne Owens; and I wish to extend my condolences to his family, his wife, Marlene, his five children and 14 grandchildren.

Unlike many in this Chamber, I was only privileged to know Wayne Owens a very short time; but in the weeks since he has died, I have learned a great deal about this man and his career, how he campaigned in 1972 by walking his entire district, about his courageous vote in the Judiciary Committee to impeach President Nixon, about his commitment to environmental protection which was way ahead of its time, and such a tribute to the land he represented in Congress.

I came to know Wayne Owens because of his work on another important issue, the cause of Middle East peace. As a Member of Congress and as a founder of the Center for Middle East Peace, Wayne Owens never lost sight of his dream, that one day Israelis and Arabs would put down their weapons and take up the mantle of peace.

Because of Wayne's decency and fair-mindedness, he was a rare Middle East expert with credibility in the American Jewish and the American Arab communities. He was respected by Israelis and Palestinians alike.

Wayne Owens was the right messenger with the right message, that it is in the United States' interests to vigorously pursue peace with Israelis and Palestinians; that the cycle of unspeakable violence, illustrated so horribly just 2 days ago in Tel Aviv, will only be broken through a negotiated

settlement; that Israelis deserve to live in security, and Palestinians in dignity, side by side in two sovereign states.

How touching it was that Wayne Owens passed away while accompanying these two of our colleagues who have just spoken on one of his countless missions to the region, that he passed away on the soil of the land he loved so much.

In my last conversation with Wayne, we agreed that I would travel with him to the Middle East early this year, and although we will not take that trip together, I hope to honor, in my own way, the memory of this great man and his legacy by continuing on this path. That path will bring us to the day when we can take up and we will wake up to the dawn of Middle East peace.

I thank my colleagues again for remembering their cherished colleagues in this fitting tribute. He did the State of Utah proud. His legacy gives pride to our Nation, and his message of negotiated settlement for peace gives hope to our world.