Floor Statements

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

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, since George W. Bush got his job and Republicans took over the entire Federal Government, nearly 3 million Americans have lost their jobs. So, under these circumstances, you might think the Republicans who control the town and the government and CBS would be very conscientious about doing their jobs. But here we are, once again, passing yet another continuing resolution to keep the government running because the Republican Congress refuses to do the most fundamental job the American people have given to it. While millions of Americans cannot find any jobs, Republicans refuse to do the jobs that they have and the taxpayers pay us to do. The House has not put in a full week's worth of work in months.

So what is the problem Mr. Speaker? After all, the Republicans control this body, the other body, the Presidency. Are they stuck haggling with each other over how much to shortchange schools this year? Or looking for an excuse to continue penalizing disabled veterans? Or arguing over which slick procedural trick to use to try to hide the hundreds of billions of dollars in debt they have run up?

Well, one thing is for sure, you know this is not a Republican Party priority, because when the Republican Party wants something, the Republican Party is ruthlessly efficient.

Just take a look at the record. When it comes to Republican priorities, like tax breaks for the small, elite group of big contributors who fund Republican campaigns, this Congress has been tremendously successful. But when it comes to the priorities of the American people, like tax relief for the military and working families, this Congress cannot or will not get it done.

Mr. Speaker, Republican leaders have protected big corporate tax dodgers, but Republicans will not do anything about the high health care costs or help the millions of Americans who need unemployment insurance in the midst of President Bush's jobless recovery. They actually blocked a Democratic pay raise for the military, which would have given the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan a $1,500 bonus.

Mr. Speaker, I fear this is not a government of the people, by the people and for the people. It is a government of the Republican Party, by the Republican Party, and for the Republican Party.

Unfortunately, the rest of America does not seem to matter. Today, millions of hardworking Americans no longer share in the prosperity they enjoyed during the Democrat-led economic boom of the nineties. George W. Bush has compiled the worst record of job loss of any President since Herbert Hoover in the Great Depression. Some 1.4 million Americans have been unemployed for so long in this economy that they have exhausted their unemployment insurance. After the end of this year, Americans who lose their jobs, people like the nearly 3 million jobs lost since President Bush took office, will not be able to enroll in unemployment insurance.

Over that same period, the Republican fiscal irresponsibility turned record surpluses into astronomical and out-of-control deficits, increasing the debt tax on all Americans and threatening the future of Medicare and Social Security. And it is getting worse. In the coming years, the tax breaks for the wealthiest few will become even more expensive, at the same time that the Bush administration will be asking taxpayers to send untold hundreds of billions of dollars to Iraq.

This government has no plan to clean up the mess it has made of America. Instead, they just keep offering more of the same and hope the American people will not notice that their Congress has stopped working for them, because it is too busy using the power of the people's government to protect the privileges of their party.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay special tribute to the Rochester General Hospital located in Rochester, New York, a 526- bed Center of Excellence within the boundaries of the 28th Congressional District of New York. The hospital, which is home to the Rochester Heart Institute, is New York's fourth largest cardiac center, providing complete diagnostic services, medical, invasive, and non- invasive treatment, three progressive levels of cardiac rehabilitation and state-of-the-art cardiothoracic surgery.

This year, the century-old teaching hospital has been named a 2003 Solucient 100 Top Cardiovascular Hospital. Although the hospital has received this designation three previous times, the 2003 distinction is especially meaningful, as it is one of only two hospitals in New York State so distinguished.

The fifth annual study, Solucient 100 Top Hospitals Cardiovascular Benchmarks for Success--2003, used publicly available data, statistically adjusted for illness levels, to track performance in seven key cardiology/cardiac surgery areas. Specifically, hospitals that cared for at least 20 cases in each of the four categories of acute myocardial infarction (heart attack), congestive heart failure, angioplasty (PTCA) and coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) were rated by the seven following indicators: procedure volume, risk- adjusted medical mortality, risk-adjusted surgical mortality, risk- adjusted complications index, percentage of CABG patients with internal mammary artery use, severity-adjusted average length of stay, and wage and severity-adjusted average cost.

Rochester General Hospital's designation as one of America's Top 100 Cardiovascular Hospitals is particularly important to health care consumers. The aforementioned study concluded that facilities found worthy of this distinction consistently outperform their peers, especially in terms of mortality and complication rates. This specific achievement is evidence that the skilled performance and excellent outcomes in cardiovascular services at Rochester General Hospital of Rochester, New York have propelled the hospital to the top one per cent of acute-care hospitals in the United States of America.

It is indeed my great privilege, as the elected Representative of the 28th Congressional

District of New York, to formally honor Rochester General Hospital of Rochester, New York, for having achieved excellence in the area of heart care, as an integrated source for patient cardiovascular needs, from prevention and education to diagnosis, treatment and recovery.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2898, the E-911 Implementation Act of 2003.

As a member of the Congressional E-911 Caucus, I want to thank my colleagues Anna Eschoo and John Shimkus for their leadership and tireless advocacy on this critical public safety issue.

I would also like to recognize the efforts of a leader on this issue that many of you may not know--New York State Assemblyman David Koon.

Long before there was a Congressional E-911 Caucus, David was championing wireless enhanced 911. My constituents in Rochester have long appreciated David's tireless advocacy to get local government the resources they need to deploy E-911.

Today, 911 calls made on cell phones account for nearly a third of all emergency calls. By 2004, cell phones are expected to be the main source of 911 emergency calls. Most Americans with cells phones will tell you that they bought them for emergencies. They fully expect that if they have a health emergency or are in an accident--they can dial 9- 1-1 and help will be on the way.

Back in 1999, Congress tried to make sure that happened by passing the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act. However, today, most wireless phones still do not provide emergency dispatchers with automated caller location or identification information.

There's strong consumer demand for E-911, the technology needed to identify and locate wireless callers has long been available, and so Congress had to ask ``why the hold-up?''

The chief barrier to universal E-911 deployment is money. Many localities will tell you they have had to put off implementing E-911 because it is too costly.

This was not supposed to happen.

Under the 1999 Act, States were given the power to collect surcharges on all cell phones, blackberries and other wireless devices to fund E- 911 service. Unfortunately, the E-911 fund has become an easy target for looting by states that are struggling to cover shortfalls in law enforcement and emergency service budgets.

In New York State alone, over $200 million has been collected in surcharges since 1991.

This money is supposed to be earmarked for setting up a state-wide Wireless Enhanced 911 system, but instead the money has gone to the state police, who have spent the funds on departmental dry cleaning bills, ballpoint pens, travel, are leases, grounds maintenance for precincts and winter boots, according to the New York State comptroller's office.

I strongly believe that the millions of New York residents who pay the ``E-911 surcharge'' on their monthly cell phone bills are owed E- 911 service when they need it. That's why I am an original cosponsor of

Mr. Speaker, Breast Cancer Awareness Month is an opportunity to celebrate the great strides breast cancer education, treatment, and survival that American women enjoy today. It must also serve as a reminder not to take our health for granted--to schedule a mammogram, perform a breast self-exam, and call a friend to urge her to do the same.

In the United States, every 2\1/2\ minutes another woman is diagnosed with breast cancer and every 13 minutes another woman dies from this dreadful disease. Almost one-third of these deaths could have been prevented if the disease had been discovered in the early stages. The lives lost are those of wives, mothers, daughters, and friends.

Thankfully, a breast cancer diagnosis is no longer a sure death sentence. When discovered and treated in the early stages, the five- year survival rate is 97 percent. Today, there are more than two million breast cancer survivors in the United States. These women live to celebrate birthdays, holidays, every day with their families and friends.

Early detection opens the door to beating breast cancer, and mammograms are the key to that door. Mammograms can find 40 percent of cancers not detectable during a breast self-exam or a doctor's exam. It is the most effective method of early detection, yet only 63 percent of American women between the ages of 40 and 64 had a mammogram in the past year. Furthermore, we must search diligently for more effective detection technology to improve upon the mammogram.

Sadly, many women cannot pay for essential screenings. I was proud to be an original cosponsor of the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection program. Due to this program and other initiatives, a lack of insurance is no longer a barrier to breast cancer survival.

Let's make the most of October, Breast Cancer Awareness Month; let's seize this opportunity to take control of our health and our lives. Every one of us is at risk for breast cancer, regardless of age, health, or family history, simply by being women. Let's say goodbye to needless cancer deaths and hello to breast self-exams, clinical breast exams, and mammograms. Let's say hello to the thousands of women who are here today and will

be here tomorrow thanks to early breast cancer detection and treatment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the 150th anniversary of Bausch & Lomb--a community institution, an outstanding corporation, and a global innovator.

In 1853, a German immigrant named John Jacob Bausch started a modest business selling optical goods. He got off to an uneven start, and borrowed $60 in capital from a close friend, Henry Lomb. Bausch promised to make Lomb a full partner if the business prospered. Indeed, the business grew beyond its founders' wildest dreams. Today, Bausch & Lomb is the premiere name, recognized around the world, for excellence in eye health products.

Headquartered in my district of Rochester, New York, Bausch & Lomb employs over 11,000 people and generates annual revenues of almost $2 billion. B&L, as it is affectionately known, is also deeply committed to our community and its future. More than 5,000 schools nationwide participate in the Bausch & Lomb Science Award, which is bestowed on selected high school sophomores for excellence in science. Along with a medal, winners are eligible for a Bausch & Lomb scholarship for study at the University of Rochester, and associated paid summer internships in B&L labs. The B&L science awards and scholarships promote science scholarship and foster the next generation of scientists and researchers.

At its facilities in Rochester, B&L has created some of the most innovative optical equipment and goods in the world. During World War I, B&L produced the special sunglasses for military men. B&L researchers invented the first optical-quality glass. And in 1971, Bausch & Lomb introduced the first soft contact lenses, a product that has improved the quality of life for millions of people around the globe. Today, tens of millions depend upon high quality B&L products to improve and maintain one of their most precious assets: their vision.

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply proud of the fine work done by my constituents at Bausch & Lomb every day. One's sight is a precious thing, and it speaks volumes that more people entrust their vision to Bausch & Lomb than to any other company in the world. I salute Bausch & Lomb--company CEO Ronald Zarrella, his leadership team, and every one of his outstanding employees--on their 150th anniversary. We all look forward with great anticipation to seeing what the coming years bring to and from Bausch & Lomb.

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

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, again the Committee on Rules has trampled on the rights of the minority and the voices of millions of Americans. Last night, the Committee held an emergency meeting to consider a rule for the Interior appropriations conference report. The Democrats had only an hour to skim the contents of the lengthy report before a quick hearing was held and the rules hastily approved along party lines. Now, this morning, the entire membership of the House is expected to consider the Interior appropriations conference report, even though Members had only a few late-night hours to scan the report.

It is almost November, and we are well into the new fiscal year, with only three of the 13 appropriations bills enacted into law. But inefficiency does not justify our hurriedly passing a bill appropriating almost $20 billion. The American people expect their elected Representatives will have more than a handful of dark hours in the late night to consider vital legislation.

Mr. Speaker, in the few hours I have had to read this conference report, I saw several problems with the bill. Back in 1992, the funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Endowment for the Arts reached its funding zenith, $176 million for each agency. Over the years, the NEA and NEH budgets have been slashed again and again, but for the last 2 years this body has voted to increase the funding for the arts and humanities.

In July, the House adopted the Slaughter-Dicks amendment in increasing the funding for NEA by $10 billion and funding for NEH by $5 million. However, the $10 million budget increase for NEA has been reduced by $4.5 million and the funding for NEA has been reduced by $5 million from the levels that the body endorsed.

Investing in the arts, Mr. Speaker, is a smart business. The $232 million the Federal Government invested in the NEA and NEH last year had an economic impact of $132 billion and billions in Federal, State, and local tax revenues. Every dollar the NEA invests in local theater groups, orchestras, or exhibitions generates $7 for the arts organization by attracting other grants and private donations and ticket sales.

Investing in the arts is also smart for our children. Over and over arts education has proven to increase academic performance, regardless of socioeconomic background. The NEA provides the grants for local arts activities in every State and in every congressional district. In Buffalo, New York, the NEA provided a small $10,000 grant to a community arts group to support a program to offer weekend classes in visual arts and jazz music for the African American children in Buffalo's low-income, inner city east side. Another small community grant to a group in Buffalo provided weekly workshops in media literacy and digital arts for girls age 9 to 15. And in the district of my colleague, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), an 8-week summer residency program that provided psychiatrically and emotionally impaired children with instruction in creative writing, mask-making, and theatrical improvisation received a community arts grant from the

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the 17 years I have been in Congress, most of that time on the Committee on Rules, that things have changed in such an incredible way, I can hardly recognize it. I remember the times when just the defense budget alone, we

would take testimony from the beginning of the morning until late at night for days at a time, hundreds of amendments. We thought that was just fine. It was wonderful. We wanted everybody to get a chance to talk about what was one of the most important things we do in the country, and certainly one of the most expensive.

But it seems to me lately that because we can only work 2 days a week in Washington, next week I think we are going to be here a day and a half, that we have to condense everything. It is sort of the Reader's Digest version of the House of Representatives.

And so we cut out everybody's rights to speak. We make sure that nobody has a chance to be in any way distasteful by saying something that another person may not like.

We are elected by the people of the country to come down here and speak for them, nobody here, nobody in the gallery, nobody else can get up on this floor and speak except those of us they sent here to do it for them. And yet we are being stifled at every turn. And, believe me, I have never seen anything so egregious to us as what happened last night at about 1 a.m. in the morning when they said that this, the largest bill, the money we pass and what many of us believe is a debacle, and for reconstruction and so much malfeasance going on that it almost rivals Teapot Dome, that we will not be able to discuss it, and we will not be able to do much about it.

I want to close with a quote that is one of my very favorites here. Quote, ``I rise in strong opposition to this rule. It is unfair, undemocratic and elitist, disenfranchising nearly every Member of Congress and the voters whom they were elected to represent.'' This description was from the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) the chairman, of a rule from 1994, and, boy, is it applicable today.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, last spring we appropriated $79 billion, it was just this past spring, to fund the war on the reconstruction efforts in Iraq. And again the administration is asking us to open up the Federal purse and hand over billions more. The Federal Government is already facing record deficits, the highest deficits the country has ever faced. But the President now wants our permission to charge $18 billion more, which would have to be charged, by the way. We have no money to pay for that, pay for Iraqi reconstruction on the American credit card. What happened to the $79 billion that Congress handed to the administration? One might well ask. Why are American soldiers being sent into life-threatening situations without the body armor or adequate training?

We do not know the answers to these questions, but we do know the conditions in Iraq for our military is shameful. I have received volumes of calls and letters from the families of soldiers serving in Iraq. They are concerned about their children, their brothers, sisters, husbands, and wives suffering from heat exhaustion and dehydration. We just heard that they are just now beginning to study the possible 12 suicides of our service people since they have been in Iraq. Some soldiers are rationed only two bottles of water a day despite the 120 degree weather, and we have been told that they have often had to survive on one meal a day.

I was flying back to D.C. this week to go to work on this appropriation. At the airport a TSA official told me of her recent assignment at the airport in Baghdad. She, a civilian employee, was housed in an air-conditioned trailer; but the U.S. soldiers had no relief. She felt so bad for the Army that she would let them sleep on the floor of the trailer just to get a little nap and escape the sweltering heat.

Just this morning, The Washington Post reports that many soldiers have very low morale. In fact, a poll was done by ``Stars and Stripes'' that says that only half the people in Iraq now think that the morale is any good at all; 48, 49 percent say the morale is very low; and the same number, about 50 percent of those who are there now, say they will not reenlist. They claim that their mission lacks clear definition and they characterized the war in Iraq as of little or no value. These are the people who are there fighting it. Fully 40 percent said the jobs they were doing had little or nothing to do with the training that they had received.

The largest proportion of this appropriation that has been asked for, some $60 billion, is for the troops; and they desperately need more. They need more water, more food, more adequate shelter, more body armor to save their lives, and other essentials. We were also told this week that ammunition dumps are all over the country of Iraq where we know where they are, but we do not have sufficient troops to guard them. These are supporting the ammunition which is being used to shoot at our soldiers. These men and women have to be our top priority.

Congress must demand and receive a full accounting of the reporting on the Federal dollars appropriated for our brave troops and for rebuilding Iraq. No one has been able to tell us that they know where the $79 billion has gone. Congress must demand to receive a full and thorough accounting and justification for any Federal taxpayer dollars spent anywhere, but it is as part of a contract that did not go through a proper competitive bidding process that is particularly egregious. I intend to offer an amendment to ensure that Congress receives the specific information on no-bid contracts that our oversight duties and obligations to our constituents demand.

Mr. Speaker, I find it odd we cannot find the funds to pay for the mandates of No Child Left Behind or fully fund Medicaid or upgrade America's electrical grid, but somehow there is money to build schools and hospitals and an electrical grid for Iraq. The people of New York will pay $1.26 billion of the $18.6 billion to rebuild Iraq. That could be used to place almost 150,000 children in Head Start programs.

This money could also be used to fund healthcare for over 150,000 New Yorkers. We cannot forget the great needs at home. If State and local governments received matching funds for the $18.6 billion to rebuild Iraq, New York State would receive approximately $2 billion in State and local government budget relief. That is why I am cosponsoring the American Parity amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

We are seeing a trend where the Pentagon is contracting out services at a higher rate than we have ever seen before. A recent study by the Brookings Institute found that there is one contractor for every 10 soldiers in Iraq. In fact, it has been widely reported that the USA began secretly soliciting bids from a limited pool of contractors even before the war started. Let me say that again. They were secretly soliciting bids from a limited pool of contractors before the war started.

Whether one agrees or disagrees, as I do, with this trend, we should all be troubled that many of these contracts are being awarded on a no- bid or sole-source basis. Contracts to repair and rebuild Iraq should not be the spoils of war. The awarding of no-bid or sole-source contracts to companies with known ties to prominent executive branch officials certainly gives that impression.

We should all be concerned that the pool of engineering and construction firms considered for the $680 million contract to rebuild Iraq's power grid and the water system and airport were limited to seven companies. These contractors collectively contributed $306 million to Federal election campaigns.

I am pleased that the Committee on Appropriations recognized that there needs to be more transparency. They adopted a provision that would require congressional and public notification on future Iraqi reconstruction contracts awarded on a no-bid basis, if there are any more to be awarded. But more needs to be done, and it falls on this body to keep the administration honest. Congress, who should control the purse strings, must be the check on whether the administration abuses its capacity to enter into sole-source, no-bid contracts.

With the cost of rebuilding Iraq estimated at over $100 billion, we need to ensure that lucrative contracts are not viewed as political favors. The selection of contractors with close ties to the members of the executive branch risks creating that very impression.

Specifically, the fact that the two most prominent beneficiaries who stand to profit from USAID sole-source or limited-source contracts are Halliburton and the Bechtel Group has not gone unnoticed. We should all be concerned about the costs associated with the no-bid contract that USAID entered into with the Houston-based Halliburton in March of 2003. As of September 25, the contract was valued at $1.2 billion. It is steadily climbing and is projected to reach $2 billion by the end of the contract term.

Now, why is the cost of this contract exploding? A report released today by my colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), sheds some troubling light on Halliburton's practices. I would note that the General Accounting Office has found that contracts entered into in secret, outside the framework of standard Federal contracting processes, rarely are the best buy.

Now, let us look at the Bechtel Group, which was USAID's choice for overseeing Iraq's entire electrical infrastructure. Recent reports suggest that Bechtel may not be up to the job. In a recent New York Times column, Paul Krugman attributes the frequent blackouts in Iraq to the fact that Bechtel has excluded local experts and institutions from their repair business. In August, Iraqi officials told The Washington Post that Bechtel has not only been slow to undertake repairs, but continues to ignore the pleas by Iraqi engineers for essential spare parts.

What is to become of the contract for the wireless telephone service? The announcement of a sole-source contract recipient was scheduled for September 5, but it keeps being delayed. Recognizing a vacuum in cell service for the Iraqi people, two Middle Eastern firms filled the void to set up a wireless system in July. However, the Coalition, led by the United States Government, promptly shut down the service, waiting for a contractor of their own choosing. I hope the fact that MCI was selected to provide cell service to Paul Bremer does not mean they will have the inside track on the Iraqi contract. Should we really be rewarding a company that perpetrated one of the largest accounting frauds in history?

As good stewards of tax dollars, we, the House of Representatives, have a responsibility to ensure an open, competitive bidding process is utilized on Iraqi reconstruction and, in those rare instances where no big contracts are entered into, a full and timely justification is made to the Congress. We must take concrete steps to reject the no-bid model and bring an end to real or perceived cronyism and war profiteering.

My amendment is a technical correction to the committee's action. It spells out that the administration must disclose to Congress prior to awarding a no-bid contract.

Under this amendment, the administration must notify Congress about the amount of the contract and a brief description of its scope. The justification would have to set forth how the executive agency identified and solicited offers from contractors. A list of the contractors solicited must also be provided.

I hope that this important amendment will pass, Mr. Chairman. I think it will greatly enhance our ability to contain no-bid contracts.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize a dual milestone in the history of Compeer, Inc., an outstanding organization based in my district of Rochester, NY. Compeer was founded to foster friendships between its caring volunteers with adults and children with mental illness. Since its establishment, Compeer has mushroomed into an international program with chapters in 100 cities, 30 States, Canada, and Australia. This year marks the 30th anniversary of Compeer's founding in Rochester, its 20th anniversary of operations across the Nation.

Individuals with mental illness often face a daunting array of challenges. In addition to their diagnosis, they may be faced with difficulties in finding or keeping employment opportunities, housing, and other basic necessities. Too many lack a support network of family and friends to buoy them during tough times. Compeer helps to fill that gap by enabling friendships to form and grow. Isolation and loneliness often accompany mental illness, but they do not have to be inevitable.

Compeer has enabled hundreds of people to live independently as mentally and emotionally healthy individuals. Under the Compeer model, patients, volunteers, therapists, and staff work together to promote the total health of a client. In an era of rising health costs, Compeer provides an affordable, effective method of improving the quality of life for individuals battling mental illness.

The Compeer program has been replicated many times across the Nation, and has received numerous awards, including being named a model program by the National Institutes of Health in 1982. In 1999, executive director Bernice Skirboll represented Compeer at the landmark White House Conference on Mental Health, where the program was praised.

Indeed, no tribute to Compeer would be complete without acknowledging the unparalleled devotion of CEO and Founder Bernice Skirboll. Bernice, or ``Bunny'' to the many who know and love her, has been the driving force behind Compeer's success. Her tenacity, compassion, and commitment to individuals with mental illness are legendary. Her great legacy will be the continuation of Compeer's good work for decades to come.

Compeer staff and volunteers should take great pride in the knowledge that they have made a difference. Through their selfless work, they have shown that the power of love and friendship can triumph over loneliness, isolation, and mental illness.

I invite my colleagues to join me in celebrating the 30th anniversary of Compeer, Inc., and in honoring the volunteers, therapists, and staff of Compeer for their concern, compassion, and tireless efforts.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for rollcall votes 538 and 539 for personal reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 538 and 539.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to direct my colleagues' attention to the re-entry of the United States into UNESCO--the U.N. Educational, Cultural, and Scientific Organization.

As Democratic Co-chair of the Congressional Arts Caucus, I congratulate the Administration on this important step toward playing a more active role in working with other member nations in the international cultural arena. I am heartened, as well, that First Lady Laura Bush led the U.S. delegation at the flag-raising ceremony at our new UNESCO Mission in Paris on Tuesday.

UNESCO promotes international co-operation based upon respect for commonly shared values. In the area of culture, it promotes arts education for children and supports artists, arts organizations, and the arts industry. It sees the arts as vital tools for economic development as well as international understanding. UNESCO's director general, Koichiro

Matsuura, recently saluted America's vast intellectual and cultural resources and good will. He termed America ``a great nation so diverse that each of us can see himself in it; America holds up a mirror to the world.''

As our country takes this important step to further international understanding through education, culture, and science, we should all look forward to working with the U.S. Mission in any way possible.

Unfortunately, ignoring the House's lead, the other body's Appropriations Committee has voted against funding to cover our UNESCO dues. I urge the White House, having sent Mrs. Bush to Paris, to weigh in--heavily and soon--to prevent the Senate from making her appearance into little more than a photo opportunity. Failure to do so would send a signal that the Administration does not truly recognize the important role that our country's best mirror to the world--arts, education, and science--plays in promoting international understanding.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a historic day for America, for more, I think, than most people in here realize. For the first time in the history of the Republic, the Congress of the United States is poised to outlaw a medical procedure. A majority that wants the government off everybody's backs, wants to preserve privacy, is inserting itself between a woman and her family and her physician.

I wonder what is next. Perhaps they will decide that one cannot have a hysterectomy during child-bearing years, even though one may have some serious disease, or maybe we will outlaw vasectomies. That would be something we could do in here today too. And maybe we would not even like gallbladder operations. Who knows? There may be some reason we would not want to do those. All of them are pretty gruesome to describe.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday was the beginning of a new fiscal year and only three of the 13 bills appropriating funds for the new year have been signed into law. Millions of Americans are unemployed. Jobs continue steadily to disappear. More families living in poverty for the second year in a row, another historic day for America that has not happened before. Tens of millions of families live without any health insurance. The Federal debt is projected to reach $5 trillion. Thousands of American troops are in Iraq working in dangerous conditions. And instead of addressing these pressing issues, we are once again considering legislation that violates fundamental constitutional rights and threatens women's health.

Three years ago, the United States Supreme Court settled this issue, they thought once and for all, when it struck down similar legislation that banned safe and effective abortion procedures. The Court again confirmed the constitutional foundation of women's reproductive rights as recognized in Roe v. Wade and reaffirmed 2 decades later in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. At the end of their last term, in the Lawrence v. Texas decision, the Court relied on the right to privacy that was recognized in Roe.

Despite the minor tinkering of the conference committee, S. 3 still suffers from the same constitutional flaws as the Nebraska statute thrown out by the Supreme Court, and this one we hope will meet the same fate. The ban on medical procedures is vague and overbroad and does not contain an exception to perform the procedure when a woman's health is threatened, and it goes so far as to give the father of the fetus the right to sue the woman or the doctor for money damages, even if he is not married to her or if he beats her or rapes her.

Obstetricians and gynecologists say that the term ``partial-birth abortion'' is not a medical term, and they are right. It is a political creation. We will not find the definition of the procedure that S. 3 seeks to ban in a medical dictionary or textbook. The nonmedical language in S. 3 could cover at least two different kinds of procedures, one of which is the most commonly used abortion procedure. This vague and overbroad definition would create so much confusion in the medical community that doctors would not know which medical procedure might land them in jail, and we should not make our doctors criminals.

S. 3 brazenly seeks to sidestep the Constitution. The Supreme Court has plainly determined that the Constitution requires an exception when the woman's health is endangered. Pages and pages of congressional findings will not change or will not fulfill the constitutional demand to protect a woman's health.

The authors of this bill hope that the Federal courts, most especially the Supreme Court, will defer to these congressional findings and waive this constitutional requirement. But the Court has squarely said that ``the power to interpret the Constitution in a case of controversy remains in the judiciary.'' And the Court has said that simply because Congress makes a conclusion does not necessarily make it so. Just because the findings in the bill assert that there is no medical reason for a health exception does not make that true, and it does not change the demands of the Constitution.

Last June, when the House first considered this bill, Ruth Marcus noted in The Washington Post that ``just as Clarence Thomas wrote in a different context that, if Congress `could make a statute constitutional simply by finding that black is white or that freedom is slavery, then judicial review would be an elaborate farce.' ''

Despite what politicians may say, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the doctors who perform these procedures, say that the procedure this bill seeks to proscribe

``may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life,'' I want to emphasize that, ``to save the life or preserve the health of a woman,'' and that ``only the physician, in consultation with the patient and based on her circumstances, can make this decision,'' not the Congress of the United States. We are not physicians here. I think we think we are omnipotent; we are not. Medical professionals in every Federal court in the country that has heard this issue, except for one, all have agreed that these are safe procedures and they may, in fact, be the safest procedure in some circumstances.

This, as I pointed out before, is the first time in the history of this Republic that Congress is banning a specific medical procedure. Physicians, and not politicians and pundits, should provide women and their families with medical advice. Women and their families, not the government, should make these difficult and private and medical decisions.

This bill would deprive doctors of the ability to care for their patients. By outlawing safe and effective medical procedures, Congress would subject women to more dangerous medical procedures, putting their health and their lives in jeopardy. Do we really want to do that? Women deserve the best medical care based on the circumstances of their particular situation. Instead of making abortion more difficult and dangerous, we should pass legislation that helps reduce the need for abortions; but we will not do that, by reducing the number of intended pregnancies. We should increase the funding for title X, and health insurance should cover contraception. It covers Viagra. Why not contraception? Emergency contraception should be more available. And research on other contraceptive methods should be fostered.

So why are we here today considering a rule for an unconstitutional bill? Richard Posner, Chief Justice of the U.S. Court of Appeals of the 7th Circuit who was appointed by President Reagan, gave us the answer when he wrote that the proponents of similar legislation ``are concerned with making a statement in an ongoing war for public opinion, though an incidental effect may be to discourage late-term abortions. The statement is that fetal life is more valuable than women's health.'' Let me say that last sentence again: ``The statement is that fetal life is more valuable than women's health.'' Judge Posner went on, writing that ``if a statute burdens constitutional rights and all that can be said on its behalf is that it is the vehicle that legislators have chosen for expressing their hostility to the rights, the burden is undue.''

The deliberate actions of the conference committee underscore the real aim of the bill. The majority of the other body passed a version, S. 3, that said, ``The decision of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade was appropriate and secures an important constitutional right, and such decision should not be overturned.'' Tuesday evening, the conference committee, along party lines, quickly stripped the Roe-supportive language out of the bill. This emphasizes the true purpose of the legislation: targeting a woman's right to privacy, with the hope that a Supreme Court with a new justice or two will weaken or reverse Roe. A Washington Post article said it plainly: ``The political agenda is clear. Ken Connor, president of the conservative Family Research Council, spelled it out in an e-mail after the Senate voted last March. With this bill,'' he wrote, ``we are beginning to dismantle, brick by brick, the deadly edifice created by Roe v. Wade.''

As a mother, grandmother, and a long-time advocate for women's health, I strongly believe that this bill is a threat to women's health, and an attempt to whittle away at a woman's constitutional right to her privacy and control of her body. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and to oppose S. 3.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes and 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I need really to respond to the previous speaker.

First, Roe v. Wade does not allow abortions after the first trimester without a doctor's permission. These are fetuses in many cases with no brains, with no lungs, who may live for a moment or two. These are not children that are born and run around the room.

It is outrageous to stigmatize women who have had this procedure so that they can protect their fertility system so that maybe they, too, can have 12 children and not have to stop with one. Have a little compassion.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, does the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) have any further speakers?

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is left on either side.

Mr. Speaker, do I understand the gentlewoman has no more speakers?

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

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

First, let me say that no one is advocating the killing of disabled children. That is offensive to all of us. The fact is that a fetus that is being born with no brain or one with no lungs is one that will not live. I believe even the OB/GYN would admit to that.

Let me then go on to say that this decision to terminate a pregnancy in the late term is an agonizing decision. Parents who have carried a child to late term desperately want that child. In many cases, they have already named that child. Listen to the story of Viki Wilson and her family.

She told in her own words: ``In the spring of 1994, I was pregnant and expecting Abigail, my third child. My husband, Bill, an emergency room physician, had delivered our other children, and would do it again this time. At 36 weeks of pregnancy, however, all of our dreams and happy expectations came crashing down around us. My doctor ordered an ultrasound that detected what all of my previous prenatal testing had failed to detect, an encephalocoele. Approximately two-thirds of my daughter's brain had formed outside her skull. What I thought were big, healthy, strong baby movements were in fact seizures.

``My doctor sent me to several specialists, including a perinatologist,'' I am sorry, I am so upset about this I can hardly speak, ``a pediatric radiologist and a geneticist, in a desperate attempt to find a way to save her. But everyone agreed, she would not survive outside my body. They also feared that as the pregnancy progressed, before I went into labor, she would probably die from the increased compression in her brain.

``Our doctors explained our options, which included labor and delivery, C-section, or termination of pregnancy. Because of the size of her anomaly, the doctors feared that my uterus might rupture in the birthing process, possibly rendering me sterile. The doctors also recommended against a C-section, because they could not justify the risks to my health when there was not hope of saving Abigail.'' No hope of saving Abigail.

``We agonized over our options. Both Bill and I are medical professionals. I am a registered nurse, and Bill is a physician. So we understood the medical risks inherent in each of our options. After discussing our situation extensively and reflecting on our options, we made the difficult decision to undergo an intact D&E.

``Losing Abigail was the hardest thing that ever happened to us in our lives, but I am grateful,'' I am grateful, ``that Bill and I were able to make this decision ourselves and that we were given all of our medical options. There will be families in the future faced with this tragedy. Please allow us to have access to the medical procedures we need. Do not complicate the tragedies we already face.''

Oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me the customary half hour, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, this legislation has been described as historic because it is the first bill appropriating funds for the new Department of Homeland Security. But because of an economy that continues to lag and the largest deficit in history, and the mounting costs of rebuilding Iraq, this government is in bad fiscal shape. Nonetheless, we have to do whatever is required to secure the country. Does this bill provide enough money for aviation security, for safety around the perimeter of the Nation's airports, for security at our economically-vital ports, and for the Coast Guard to fulfill its previous and additional duties? This body agreed that all cargo traveling on passenger planes would be fully screened, but that security measure was dropped from the bill; and full screening of cargo on passenger planes will not be required.

Are we providing enough money to prepare our first responders, the local police departments and emergency medical agencies? Recently, the Council on Foreign Relations issued a comprehensive report on the status of America's first responders. The council found that its dedicated police officers, firefighters, and emergency personnel are underfunded and underresourced. In fact, it determined that the first responders need an additional $98.4 billion to meet their needs. We know, Mr. Speaker, that regardless of whether or not we train them adequately or provide them with the equipment that they need, when called upon, they will go. But surely they deserve from this government a chance to increase their odds to the greatest extent possible.

Are we dedicating enough resources to secure our northern border? I represent the second biggest gateway between the United States and Canada, and I see the need to increase the resources along the over 4,000-mile border between the United States and Canada. For years, we did not need to pay attention to our northern border because our Canadian friends and the United States were such good, compatible friends. In fact, it was the largest unguarded border in the world. But if we are going to maintain the $1.5 million trade between the United States and Canada every single day and still maintain the United States' and Canada's safety and security, we have to provide enough resources to do it.

In conference, an additional $1.25 billion for airport and seaport security for first responders and for more Customs officials on the northern border was sought. But, unfortunately, the proposal was refused.

Mr. Speaker, the creation of the Department of Homeland Security was also a historic event. The Department was recently described as the ``government's hobbled giant.'' Will DHS be known for its disorganization? Will the Department be able to use effectively and efficiently this nearly-$30 billion investment in homeland security? Will the Department perform a complete national threat assessment, which has been required for 2 years and we still do not have, but is a necessity to develop and implement a comprehensive homeland security plan? Will the Department develop the criteria for the evaluation of our preparedness so that local and State governments are able to determine the readiness and needs of first responders? And will the Department quickly get the grant money to the local first responders?

The testimony that we have had at our hearings recently does not give us much hope.

Also, Mr. Speaker, it must be noted that next week is the end of the current fiscal year. And, in fact, fiscal year 2004 begins one week from today. However, Congress has not sent any bills making appropriations for fiscal year 2004 to the President's desk for his signature. If we are lucky, we might have three of the 13 appropriations bills ready to become law by October 1.

Mr. Speaker, finishing only 23 percent of our work on time is not acceptable, and we can and should do better for the people of this great and wonderful country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), who is the ranking member on the Select Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

I am proud to be a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security; but having attended all the hearings that we have had, I have been struck by the fact that, basically, in 2 years, we have not achieved a great deal. The watch list is one item that particularly concerns me, and I do not think we are paying enough attention to what I would like to call the enemy within.

I was struck this week by the two men who were charged with espionage who worked at Guantanamo, one a chaplain, the other working for the United States Government. And as we work to make America safe, if we do all our concentrations and spend all of our money on securing the borders from people coming in and forget and do not put adequate emphasis on the people who are here already, then I

think we are missing the chance to do our job adequately, nor should the American people feel any safer.

I agree with what the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) said, this could be a better bill. I wish it could be. And certainly I want to reiterate what the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) said. It has been one of the sorrows of my life watching the inability of Congress to say to corporations who have the gall to incorporate overseas to avoid paying Federal taxes yet are awarded Federal contracts. Surely, surely we can do better than that and finally at least stop that hemorrhage.

It has troubled me all the way through to see some of the contractors out here doing the work on the Capitol itself and who are working for corporations that have gone to Bermuda. If they are saying to the United States residents, here, you go ahead and pay for the war yourself, we opt out, but please give us the contracts, we ought to be smart enough, we ought to be intelligent enough to put a stop to that.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the body is considering legislation to increase tax incentives for charitable donations. Charitable organizations across the country are responsible for improving the lives of individuals and entire communities. These dedicated, hard-working groups provide shelter to those without homes, provide food and clothing to families in need, and care for the sick and the dying. They work with our children, providing opportunities for them to develop through art and music programs, teaching them to read, and so much more.

In east Buffalo, the tenacity and leadership of Sister Mary Johnice and others created the Response to Love Center. This community outreach center is a family center. The thrift shop clothes the needy. The kitchen feeds the hungry. The food pantry stretches families' thin budgets. The food stamp worker helps those in need to fill out the applications. The visiting nurse takes blood pressures and addresses health care issues with a client. It is right and good that this body seeks to support these great works by increasing the donations of individuals and community-minded companies.

I am also gratified that the bill before us today is without provisions allowing religious organizations that receive Federal funds to discriminate. Discrimination is not charitable. Discrimination should neither be allowed nor encouraged, particularly by the Federal Government. The invidious evil of discrimination erodes groups' charitable mission.

During these bad economic times, when millions of jobs have been lost and millions of people suffer unemployment, the demand for the charitable work rises.

It is my hope that this legislation will provide additional assistance to meet the additional demand. The women and men who lost jobs at local manufacturing plants are not the only ones suffering. The Federal Government's fiscal house is in complete disorder. The enormous tax giveaways to millionaires and the mounting costs of rebuilding Iraq are draining the Federal coffers, and the ailing economy has yet to generate enough revenue. In fact, the budget deficit for this fiscal year is going to be over $400 billion, and the deficit for next year should be around $500 billion, one-half trillion. The predicted $5.6 billion surplus has become an anticipated $2.3 trillion deficit.

So how are we going to pay for the $12.7 billion cost of this bill? H.R. 7 does not address this issue, but the Democrat substitute does, fortunately. The substitute amendment would add revenue offsets by closing tax loopholes and curtailing abusive tax shelters. It would even increase funding for community programs that, among other things, prevent child abuse and provide child care to low-income families. This is a fiscally responsible approach for encouraging charitable giving and providing assistance to vulnerable families during these particularly difficult times.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my personal displeasure and sorrow that the Committee on Rules did not make in order the amendment by my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) that would have forgiven the one-time tax on the CDBG grants for the businesses in Lower Manhattan who suffered so much on 9/11.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I did have speakers requesting time but they are not on the floor.

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