Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Cooper- DeLauro-Kilpatrick amendment to H.R. 2989. This amendment would transfer $75 million from the Internal Revenue Service's EITC enforcement initiative The money would instead be used to audit large and medium-sized corporations.

In former IRS Commissioner Rossotti's end-of-term report, the IRS lacks the resources to address 28% of the mid and large corporation workload that should be accomplished each year. This lack of enforcement translates into the government losing $6.5 billion in direct tax revenues on an annual basis, according to the GAO.

The $75 million provided under the Cooper-DeLauro-Kilpatrick amendment would give the IRS just over half of the $180 million that the IRS needs to conduct nearly 7,000 more mid and large corporations audits.

Given that the IRS lacks adequate resources to perform audits and investigations, I cannot understand why the IRS has recently launched a new program to overhaul the EITC program.

As you know, the EITC is the government's primary assistance program for low-income working families. Last year, about 19 million taxpayers claimed more than $32 billion in EITC benefits. This money can be the determining factor for whether a low-income worker's family will live above the poverty line. This is a vulnerable population.

Mr. Chairman, I can tell you that many of my constituents who are eligible for the EITC are already deterred from claiming the credit because of existing filing requirements. I fear that forcing them to submit a new form will only increase the likelihood that eligible low- income parents will be further dissuaded from claiming the credit.

That would be a terrible shame.

Mr. Chairman, as I said before, given the IRS' limited resources, I cannot, for the life of me, understand the rationale behind spending $75 million on overhauling EITC procedures especially since EITC overclaims account for less than 3 percent of the estimated total taxes that go uncollected. Why hasn't the IRS made a similar commitment to capturing the $40 billion that the GAO says that businesses underreport on an annual basis?

Finally, Mr. Chairman, as a matter of fairness, the IRS should not require low-income Americans to meet a higher standard than every other taxpayer, while at the same time they fail to crack down on fraud in business and higher income taxpayers.

I call on my colleagues to join me in support of the Cooper-DeLauro- Kilpatrick amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 2309 and the designation of the United States Postal Service in Signal Hill, California as the ``J. Stephen Horn Post Office Building.''

I had the distinct pleasure of serving with Congressman Steve Horn throughout his ten years in the U.S. House of Representatives. From my personal experience, I can attest that Steve is an honest, genuine, and upstanding man. He stood up for his principles and represented his constituents with decency and humanity. His background as a university professor was evident in his thoughtful, reasoned approach to issues great and small. From 1997 to 2002, we served together as co-chairs of the Congressional Arts Caucus, where Steve did yeoman's work for arts programs across the nation. Steve never hesitated to reach across partisan, geographic, or other lines to build the alliances that would allow him to achieve our mutual goals.

I urge all my colleagues to support this resolution, which salutes our friend and colleague Steve Horn--a man of courage, integrity, and dedication.

Mr. Speaker, if we are to maintain the most advanced military force, with the most advanced weaponry, we must have a dedicated stream of domestically produced parts. Regrettably, today this simply is not happening. We can blame it on the reluctance of the Department of Defense to ``Buy American'' or on the dearth of domestic electronic component producers. Either way, our armed forces dependence on foreign parts has major security ramifications. From missiles to computers, much of our crucial defense and homeland security equipment relies on sophisticated electronic components to function. We must act now to eliminate our reliance on foreign electronic components in our defense systems.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I am taking a bold step to keep America secure and rebuild our domestic electronics sector. I am introducing the ``Keep America Secure Act,'' legislation that directs the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to purchase electronic components, including computer chips, communications devices, and guidance systems, that are manufactured in the United States. As an active member of the Defense Industrial Base Caucus, I see this bill as the perfect complement to ongoing efforts to enhance the ``Buy American'' requirement so that at least 65 percent of DoD equipment contains U.S.-made parts. My bill would go even further-- requiring all component parts for all DoD and DHS equipment to be Made- In-America.

During the first Gulf War, the United States was forced to turn to Japan--not once, but on three separate occasions--for essential parts in the production of the Patriot Missile. Similarly, when Operation Iraqi Freedom began in March, a Swiss company stopped shipments of a crucial guidance system component for U.S. smart bombs. Both these incidents could have resulted in U.S. forces being in harm's way without necessary tools to defend themselves. Fortunately, neither incident caused threats to our troops, but they clearly demonstrate the need to protect our production supply lines from being cut, especially in times of war.

Additionally, Mr. Speaker, as one who is very concerned about the state of domestic manufacturing, I strongly believe that the Keep America Secure will help re-ignite our high-tech sector. Over the last two years, our economy has lost 2.6 million manufacturing jobs. The Keep America Secure Act would help promote the remaining U.S. high tech firms. We need to rebuild the domestic electronic components industry, and this bill will help us do it.

As our troops continue to rebuild Iraq and our first responders focus on homeland security, Congress must make a commitment to rebuilding our domestic manufacturing base and to ensuring that our courageous defenders continue to have the best equipment available. And as our economy suffers, let us give the manufacturing sector a needed shot in the arm. Unless the Congress stands up and puts a halt to it we will eventually be at the mercy of any adversary who controls the manufacture of our weapons or critical components of our weapons.

Mr. Speaker, in the days to come, I will look to my like-minded friends, on both sides of the aisle, to get action on this vital measure. I say to my colleagues: let's work together to keep America secure.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, part of the cost of waging war is the cost of caring for our veterans when they return home. Today, American troops are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and this body is considering an appropriations bill that grossly underfunds the veterans health care.

It is projected that 600,000 veterans will enroll in the veterans health care system this year. However, the veterans health care system cannot meet the medical needs of the number of veterans who are already enrolled because of inadequate funding.

More than 235,000 veterans are waiting 6 months or more for doctors' appointments. Embarrassingly, many veterans have reported waiting 2 years before they were able to see a Veterans Affairs doctor. The VA has reached capacity at many health care facilities and has closed enrollment for new patients at many hospitals and clinics. The VA has also placed a moratorium on all marketing and outreach to veterans.

According to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, because the veterans health care system is underfunded, 1.1 million veterans will either be pushed out or not even bother to try to access the VA health care. The funding allocated for veterans health is simply not enough and our veterans pay the price.

With this bill, we break many promises that we made to the veterans. The budget resolution for fiscal year 2004 pledged billions more for veterans medical care than has been allocated in H.R. 2861. Whenever America's men and women are sent off to war, they leave with the promise and the expectation that a thankful and grateful America will provide them with quality and accessible health care at least when they return home. We break this promise if we do not provide the funds necessary to ensure that no veteran waits months for a doctor's appointment or is denied admission to the VA health care system.

Late last night, the Committee on Rules prioritized tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans over the health care needs of America's veterans. Along party lines, the committee rejected an amendment by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) that sought to increase the funding for veterans medical care by $2.2 million. A small reduction in the tax cut for people making more than $1 million would provide the needed additional health care funds with no pain to the millionaire. We should not accept the proposition that the government is able to pay for a $350 billion tax cut for the wealthiest Americans but is unable to fund $2 billion more for veterans health care needs.

The Committee on Rules also rejected an amendment by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), again on party lines. This amendment would have increased funding for veterans health care by $1.8 billion, bringing the total funding level for veterans health care to the level set in the budget resolution. Meeting the budget funding levels would ensure that the VA is able to continue to treat all of the veterans currently enrolled and ensure that the VA is able to maintain nursing home care levels for the aging veterans, and indeed, it recognizes the fact that more veterans will be coming home from the present wars needing help.

Mr. Speaker, it is heartbreaking that we have American soldiers in Iraq and around the world who will find the system they count on crumbling when they return home. We need to fix the inadequacies in the underlying legislation. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, and I hope that I can tell the 60,000 veterans in my district that we honor our commitment to them and will provide them with the health care we promised them.

I do want to say that I think both the committee chair and the ranking member on the committee tried extraordinarily hard in a bipartisanship that is really the way our House ought to

operate, and I want to give them my thanks for their hard work. Nonetheless, I would like to call for the defeat of this rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) a member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds to say to the gentleman, the Chair of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), that we do know what a wonderful job that he does with what he has been given, but we do believe we could make the bill a little better if we were allowed the Edwards amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

(Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons).

(Mr. SIMMONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield my remaining time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I rise to say that I think the supplemental appropriations bill makes an irreversible mistake by letting one of our Nation's preeminent volunteer programs die.

AmeriCorp helps thousands each year, and now it is our turn to help them. AmeriCorp members dedicated thousands of hours, providing health care, tutoring, food and public safety services to some of our neediest citizens. We must resolve the accounting crisis that put them in danger in the first place, but we need not destroy the program in the process.

At a time of record unemployment and rising poverty, it is foolish to deny our AmeriCorp volunteers the opportunity to serve. These are Americans who have not asked what their Nation can do for them; they have asked what they can do for our Nation. And the answer they are getting back is basically, nothing.

In Rochester, this funding crisis means a loss of over 100 AmeriCorp volunteers by the end of August. Each year the members much the Rochester, New York, AmeriCorp and other volunteers contribute over 150,000 hours of service to our community. Their services reach over 10,000 children and young people.

Volunteers help to revitalize communities in countless ways. They mentor youth, they build affordable housing for families, they teach computer skills to people of all ages, they clean the parks and the streams that have been polluted, and they run the after-school programs.

The value of even one AmeriCorp participant is simply staggering. A single AmeriCorp volunteer can create a reading program to help dozens, even hundreds, of students at a school. AmeriCorp has made thousands of American cities and towns safer and cleaner and better places to live.

In Buffalo, the AmeriCorp volunteers increased the capacity of 225 small community and faith-based organizations. One example is the Response to Love Center on Buffalo's east side, which was founded by Sister Johnice.

She told me when heavy snow paralyzed the city last winter, she worked with AmeriCorp volunteers packing thousands of food bags, delivering heavy packages of food to the homebound that she could never have managed on her own. ``I saw AmeriCorp volunteers walk miles,'' she said, for a prescription for a new mother after having a baby. I looked at the workers shuffling snow for hours so the emergency vehicles could move, and I witnessed faith and love in action.''

It is not only our community as a whole that benefits from AmeriCorp. In return for serving our community, the volunteer members receive an education award of up to $4,725 to help pay for college or pay back student loans. What a cheap price we pay for all that help.

Today, more than 13,000 New York residents have qualified for those awards. Now, when the State budget crunches are hitting and we expect college tuition to rise, it is not the time to make it more difficult for people who have public service in mind to be disallowed their education benefits.

Social programs are being cut to ribbons in the United States, Mr. Speaker, as the deficits mount on all the levels of government; and we should not close AmeriCorp, which gives so much for so little.

If I might be allowed a personal note, I am so proud of my granddaughter, who graduated last year from Wake Forest, and was so pleased to be accepted into the Teach for America program. Unfortunately, as AmeriCorp dies, so does Teach for America; and that child, who was so excited about that program, waits now in some limbo again to start her future, hoping that somehow some miracle will happen and that program, which will mean so much to so many children, will be saved.

Mr. Speaker, I simply want the record to reflect that it is not correct that AmeriCorps volunteers make $30,000. They have a small stipend to pay for their living expenses and $5,000 on their college loans. That is it. It is a bargain.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Singapore and Chile Free Trade Agreements. Such flawed bilateral agreements risk further weakening our economy at a time of record trade deficits and when our nation's unemployment rate is at its highest point in nine years. I cannot support these agreements, which will simply send millions of American manufacturing jobs overseas. I will not put the economic security of my constituents at stake.

Our domestic manufacturing sector has been decimated by the so-called ``liberalization of world trade.'' Since enactment of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and China's entry into the World Trade Organization, the U.S. has experienced a net loss of three million jobs, according to the Economic Policy Institute. In the manufacturing sector alone, we have experience a free fall, with more than 1.7 million jobs lost. The liberalization of world trade and the emergence of nations like China, India and Mexico as centers of manufacturing and technology for U.S. firms has certainly played a role in speeding the decline of U.S. industry.

Mexico and China are not solely to blame for the fact that my own district of Rochester, New York, in my district, has lost half of its manufacturing base in the past two decades. However, I doubt that Eastman Kodak would have moved its entire disposable camera manufacturing operation, ``lock, stock, and barrel'' to Mexico and China last year, in the absence of NAFTA and WTO trade preferences.

My constituents will, no doubt, appreciate the bitter irony that Congress is considering these bills--that are being touted as job- creating initiatives--when, just yesterday, Kodak, which has a long, storied history in Rochester, announced that between two and three thousand jobs would be eliminated in Rochester (6,500 worldwide). Kodak attributes its decision to the fact that its film business has been significantly weakened, with the emergence of the digital camera market. Where are those jobs going? Certainly, Kodak is not going to abandon its film manufacturing altogether? No, those jobs are going overseas, to our trading partners--where wages are low, labor standards are spotty, and the environment is free for the poisoning.

I cannot help but be struck by the glaring reality of what has happened to Kodak's Rochester workforce, about 40,000 jobs lost--never to return--since 1990. In the days leading up to the vote on NAFTA, Kodak tried to assure me that NAFTA would be a ``job-creator''--that Rochester would be booming--that the only jobs that would move abroad would be low-skilled, low-paying. I take no pleasure in saying that Kodak's vision has not come to pass.

At the same time, there's more bad news from Kodak. Kodak is again poised to leave behind its loyal employees and a region that has treated it well as it ships new technology overseas. On Monday, Kodak announced that it plans to begin manufacturing part of its revolutionary new display technology in China. The company has entered into a licensing agreement with a Hong Kong firm to manufacture Kodak's organic light emitting diode display (OLED). This technology, developed in the U.S., represents a major breakthrough in display technology with untold potential for consumer and military products. Making matters worse, Kodak's OLED production facility will be the first of its kind in China--a move that could foreclose any hope of OLED production ever growing in the U.S. This decision represents another missed opportunity to rebuild our electronic component sector.

Mr. Speaker, regrettably Rochester's experience with Kodak is not unique. As an active member of the Congressional Manufacturing Caucus, I know that this issue cuts across party lines, state lines, and economic class. Given what we know about the costs of trade liberalization, enactment of these two bilateral agreements would be tantamount to aiding and abetting in the destruction of our manufacturing base.

When we look at the agreements themselves, I am very disappointed that they fail to establish sufficient enforcement of labor and environmental protections and would loosen U.S. immigration policy regarding temporary entry of workers. Rather than building on the positive labor and environmental provisions in the U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement, these agreements place no requirement on Chile and Singapore to adhere to internationally recognized labor principles. With the Central American Free Trade Agreement and the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) in the pipeline, these agreements are a terrible model. Simply put, a vote for the U.S.-Chile and U.S.-Singapore agreements would send a signal that the weak labor standards in them are acceptable.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting these flawed agreements.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2210. Head Start has more than paid for itself over these years, giving children precisely what it says, a head start on education and a much better society for the rest of us. I ask that it not be dismantled.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the 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, after listening to my colleague, I can hardly believe that this is the same bill that passed the House twice. I had no idea that the Canadians were posing such a danger to us. That is really quite frightening. It strikes me, I think probably the danger is that the drug companies think that they may lose some research money; but since a great deal of it comes from the taxpayers of the United States, I do not know why they are so worried.

But anyway, Mr. Speaker, we are here again today with a rule that silences debate and deliberation. Late last night, along party lines, the Committee on Rules passed a closed rule for this bill. The closed rule prohibits anyone from offering amendments, including the gentlewoman from Missouri, who is, in large part, responsible for the consideration of this important legislation. The floor procedure muffles the voices of millions of Americans suffering under the outrageous cost of prescription drugs. And each side, for and against, deserves equal time and equal treatment.

Mr. Speaker, we are fortunate to live in an age when the wonders of science produces medicines that cure illness and improve the quality of life. Yet, the promise of the wonder drug is meaningless if you cannot buy them. The soaring costs of prescription drugs is a cancer on the body politic, threatening public health and our health care system. Prescription drug spending is the fastest growing component of health care spending. This spreading affliction harms everyone: seniors, working families with children, and small businesses that are doing everything they can to provide medical insurance for their employees.

A few years ago as a temporary Band-Aid, I organized a bus load of seniors to travel to Canada to purchase medications at a fraction of the cost charged in American markets. We had far more people interested than we could accommodate on our trip, but those who went saved anywhere from $100 to $650 on 3-month supplies of medication.

Right now, 10 million Americans are looking outside of the United States for affordable medicines. My constituents continue to write to me desperately looking for information on how to buy cheaper prescription drugs from Canada.

The U.S. market constitutes half of the worldwide revenue of pharmaceutical corporations. In 2001, for every dollar earned by the top 10 largest drug makers, 60 cents came from the U.S. market. U.S. consumers are routinely charged 20 to 80 percent more for prescription drugs than consumers in other industrialized nations.

If a woman from Niagara Falls fills a prescription at a pharmacy near her home, she could pay 67 percent more than she would if she crossed the Whirlpool Bridge and filled her prescription in Ontario. Tamoxifen is a highly effective, state-of-the-art medicine used in breast cancer therapy. An average prescription costs $340 in the United States, $340. In Canada, the same prescription is $40. Women in the United States should not have to pay 750 percent more for this lifesaving medicine.

People with diabetes and high cholesterol and arthritis and osteoporosis and other chronic illnesses should not be forced to buy needed prescription drugs at inflated prices just so that the pharmaceutical company executives can enjoy gargantuan profits. H.R. 2427 could reduce an average drug price by 35 percent and reduce drug spending by $635 million over 10 years.

The impact of these drug prices is particularly harsh on older Americans. Seniors disproportionately rely on prescriptions, and many have no drug coverage. It is estimated about one-third of the Medicare beneficiaries have no drug coverage at all, and others have partial coverage. Seniors are forced to pay most or all of their drug costs out-of-pocket.

Due to the ever-increasing costs, many older Americans go without filling prescriptions. Disturbingly, a study found that many seniors with serious health problems reported that they skip doses to make prescriptions last longer. According to a study released just today, African American Medicare beneficiaries age 65 and older are more than twice as likely as white beneficiaries to fail to fill prescriptions merely because of the cost.

The opponents of the legislation have put forth several arguments against drug reimportation. And, after hearing some of these arguments, I feel like I should call my friends and my colleagues across Lake Ontario and warn them about the grave danger posed by the prescriptions in their medicine cabinets.

But the fact is that drugs from Canada are safe. If the U.S. was faced with a medical crisis and a shortage of medicine to deal with it, I assure my colleagues we would not hesitate a second to import the drugs we needed from Canada to save our population.

Opponents claim that drug reimportation will result in a boom of counterfeit drugs. But the vast majority of counterfeit operations have been broken up here in the United States, not Canada, perhaps because the unaffordable cost of drugs in the U.S. creates a market for cheaper and sometimes counterfeit drugs.

Opponents are also saying that lower drug prices will impede research. The U.S. taxpayer already pays for much of the research through the National Institutes of Health, and the pharmaceutical industry remains by far the most profitable sector in the United States' economy. From 1994 to 1998, the after-tax profits averaged 17 percent, compared to 5 percent for all other industries. The high drug prices in the United States enabled pharmaceutical companies to spend more on marketing and administration than on research. And in the year 2000, the pharmaceutical industry spent more than $15 billion on marketing.

A few years, Schering-Plough spent more money marketing Claritin than Coca Cola spent advertising Coke, and more than Anheuser-Busch promoting Budweiser beer. The pharmaceutical companies have the funds necessary to continue research to discover the next breakthrough treatment, but consumers do not have the funds to buy the medicine at the inflated prices.

Some opponents of drug reimportation question the safety and efficacy of medicines brought into the United States. The underlying bill restricts the exporting countries to other industrial nations like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the countries of the European Union. And the United States imports guns, it imports explosives, it imports lethal chemicals and uranium and food and medical devices like pacemakers and heart valves. If we can safely and effectively import these, we can safely import prescription drugs.

The technology to ensure the safety and efficacy of imported medicines exists; we just need to use it. Even the Federal Government shops for pharmaceuticals in foreign markets. When the Federal Government needed additional doses of Anthrax vaccine after our domestic supplies had run out, where do you suppose the Pentagon bought the vaccine? From Canada.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2427 is an effective remedy for the crippling cost of prescription drugs and is an immediate treatment that benefits seniors, working families, and small businesses. In the end, the only loser is the inflated profits of the cash-rich pharmaceutical industry. We can and we must do better for the American people. We owe it to them to pass this legislation for the third time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

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

That is fine, Mr. Speaker. We would be happy to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).

(Mr. WYNN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the time, please.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

(Mr. TIERNEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, before I start I would like to clarify with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), we had a conversation, and he has one more speaker for the remainder of the time; is that correct?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to remind the House that this is probably one of the most important votes that they are going to take because their constituents are waiting to see where we fall. Are we with the pharmaceutical companies, or are we with them? The safety issue absolutely will hold no water anywhere, and they know it. And I think that there will be a lot to answer to if we do not support this tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, Head Start works. In my home district, over 3,300 children benefit from Head Start programs. Ninety-seven percent of these children are part of families that live below the poverty level or receive public assistance. For these children in Western New York and the other million children enrolled in Head Start across the Nation, I oppose the Head Start Reauthorization Act and its attempts to dismantle Head Start.

Countless studies have shown that Head Start is an effective program that helps some of our Nation's neediest youths succeed. It takes a holistic approach to children's welfare by proving early childhood education in reading, writing, mathematics, and language skills, providing medical and dental care, providing mental health services, and providing disability assessment and treatment. Virtually every single child in Head Start programs in my district has received appropriate preventative and primary medical care and comprehensive dental care. This is health care they likely would not receive otherwise.

The comprehensive approach to preparing children for academic success is itself a success. Dollars spent on Head Start produce taxpayer dividends for year. Children who go through Head Start are better prepared for elementary school. Without Head Start, many of these children would be far behind their peers from the first day of kindergarten. Head Start children are less likely to repeat a grade, require special education, or be convicted of a crime. Head Start children show IQ gains when compared to low-income children who are not in the program. In addition, Head Start children are more likely to graduate from high school and college.

H.R. 2210 is the first step toward destroying Head Start. The bill would hand control and responsibility for Head Start to eight states-- states that are facing the severe budget crisis gripping almost every state and local government. However, these states would not be required to meet minimum federal standards. Without these federal basic requirement, states are likely to weaken educational standards, cut services like medical and dental care, and shift more funds to cover administrative costs--especially during this jobless recovery that is squeezing state budgets. It is irresponsible to hand states such a substantial sum of money without ensuring that it will be spent for the optimum benefit for the 900,000 children currently enrolled in Head Start and the thousands of eligible children who are not enrolled.

The Head Start programs in states that are not part of the block- grant experiment continue to be severely underfunded. The lack of sufficient funds denies many eligible children access to Head Start programs. Only 60 percent of eligible preschoolers are enrolled in Head Start; Early Head Start only serves 3 percent of eligible infants and toddlers; and Migrant and Seasonal Head Start only serves 19 percent of children or migrant and seasonal farm workers--all due to insufficient funds.

Further, I am incredibly disturbed that this bill promotes discrimination by allowing Head Start programs to hire and fire teachers based on religion. This country has an admirable history of advancing the fundamental principle of nondiscrimination, particularly when the federal government spends taxpayers' money. It is irresponsible to allow religious organizations using federal dollars to run secular Head Start programs which could discriminate against people of other faiths. The landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits many insidious forms of discrimination. It also permits religious organizations to hire people of their own faith for religious functions. It protects synagogues from discrimination suits for not hiring a Catholic priest to serve as a religions leader. This is as it should be. But Head Start is not a religious program--it is a secular education program. The faith of the teachers in Head Start is irrelevant to their jobs. It is a terrible lesson to teach thousands of children that discrimination against peoples of a differing religious faith is desirable. How are Head Start teachers supposed to teach their students that discrimination is wrong when a federal statute validates it? Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Woolsey/Edwards/Frank/Scott (VA)/Van Hollen amendment that would restores civil rights protections to Head Start teachers and oppose H.R. 2210.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, former President Theodore Roosevelt,

one of the fathers of American conservation, said, ``In utilizing and conserving the national resources of the Nation, the one characteristic more central than any other is foresight.''

Unfortunately, in many areas H.R. 2691 is a myopic bill, lacking this essential foresight. H.R. 2691 does not protect our natural resources, America's lands and its native animals. This appropriations bill breaks promises of funds for conservation, and the bill abandons the conservation trust agreement reached and enacted into law in response to the 315 Members of the House who voted for the Conservation and Reinvestment Act.

The agreement provided for adequate funding for conservation programs that protect public lands and cultural artifacts and preserve endangered and threatened species and that assist States in their own conservation and recreation programs.

Unfortunately, this bill breaks that promise by underfunding the conservation efforts by approximately $569 million less than funding levels promised in the conservation trust agreement. Funding levels for conservation are an even $208 million less than the appropriations for fiscal year 2003. This seriously jeopardizes conservation programs like the Federal Land Acquisition, which is funded at its lowest level in 20 years. City parks are the anchors of our neighborhoods. They provide a variety of activities for youth, and the city of Rochester wrote to me requesting that Congress fund the Urban Parks Program at $50 million. The program provides supplemental funding needed by city parks and recreation departments to strengthen the recreation opportunities. But, unfortunately, the Urban Parks Program gets no funding, despite the request by 104 Members that it be restored.

We have heard a lot about the terrible plight of our national parks. This bill will do nothing to ease that. H.R. 2691 does not protect our seniors and low-income families with children. The Department of Energy's Weatherization Assistance Program reduces the energy costs for low-income families, seniors, and people with disabilities. These savings are gone and they are critical because low-income households spend 14 percent of their total income on energy compared with 33.5 percent for other households.

Since the creation of the weatherization program, 395,000 homes in the State of New York have been weatherized, but 1.5 million more are eligible and waiting for assistance. I have spent more than a few winters in New York, and I know the importance of weatherizing your house against the icy gales of winter. With the weatherization program funded at $63 million below the level requested by the President, millions of Americans will literally be left in the cold.

H.R. 2691 does not protect our American culture and history. Back in 1992, funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities and for 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, and for several years the body has voted to increase the funding for the arts and humanities; but, unfortunately, the strong statement of the will of the body has been ignored. Even the President requested $152 million for the National Endowment for the Humanities, but the allocation in this bill is $15 million dollars less than the President's request.

The funding for NEA is only minimally increased and this insubstantial sum will pay for administrative overhead costs; no new grants will be created. The National Endowment for the Arts enriches our Nation and establishes cultural heritage by supporting the works of artistic excellence, advancing learning in the arts, and, importantly, strengthening the arts in communities throughout the country. They benefit our children and over and over the education given in art has proven to increase academic performance, regardless of socio-economic background.

The NEA provides grants for local arts activities in every State and 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 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 ages 9 to 15.

In my colleague's home State of Washington, 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 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, shortly I will ask Members to vote no on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will make in order the Obey amendment to restore funding for the conservation programs that have been shortchanged in the bill.

This amendment would add $569 million to the bill's conservation programs in order to bring them up to their authorized spending levels. The Obey amendment offsets this spending increase with a 3.21 percent reduction in the tax breaks received by taxpayers earning more than $1 million a year. This amendment was submitted to the Committee on Rules last night and rejected by the majority.

The cost of this amendment is fully paid for. The money would come by slightly reducing the 2004 tax cut for those with incomes in excess of $1 million. It seems to me these millionaires could easily spare a small part of their very large tax breaks to help protect our precious national resources.

So I will urge Members on both sides of the aisle to vote no on the previous question. A no vote will not stop the House from taking up the Interior appropriations bill. However, a yes vote will prevent the House from considering the Obey amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that by all rights should provoke no argument from the body. Last year a strong bipartisan majority voted for a modest increase for two Federal agencies that provide critical support for the arts organizations and its activities across the country. To keep the arts vibrant and flourishing, 234 Members of Congress agreed that the National Endowment for the Arts should receive a $10 million increase and that the National Endowment for the Humanities should receive an increase of $5 million. It is indeed regrettable that in the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations bill, the will of the House was ignored and these increases for both NEA and NEH were rejected.

Now the time has come to rectify that mistake. This amendment simply restores the funding that the House agreed to last year. Meanwhile, I want to remind my colleagues that these agencies remain well below the funding level of a decade ago. As the chart clearly shows, in 1992 both NEA and NEH received $176 million in funding. That is $60 million more than NEA receives today and some $50 million more than NEH receives. Yet a majority of this body also recognizes that the nonprofit, and I emphasize nonprofit, arts industry has become an economic engine that drives $134 billion into our national economy every year.

This chart, which shows a recent economic impact study conducted by the Americans for the Arts, illustrates some very important figures. The nonprofit arts industry is responsible for almost 5 million full- time jobs, $89.4 billion in household income, $7.3 billion in State government tax revenues, and $56.6 billion in local government tax revenues.

Here is the most impressive figure of all: The arts community contributes $10.5 billion in Federal income tax revenues. So for the very small amount of money that we put in, $10.5 billion comes back to the Federal Treasury. The arts mean business. They mean big business for every district in this country.

It is critical to remember that this funding will help build local economies across America. NEA nurtures artistic excellence in every corner of the country, as its grants flow to each of the 50 States and to each of the 435 congressional districts. Because NEA requires State and local arts agencies as well as private organizations to provide matching funds, the process ensures that dollars will continue to flow to the arts even during difficult economic times.

Now, a word about these difficult times, and we know that they are. With our economic recovery stalled and the largest job loss in 20 years, one would think that people responsible for rebuilding State and local economies would put fuel into this enormously successful arts engine. But, unfortunately, that is not so. But the lesson for us is obvious. In the era of declining State funds when corporate and charitable giving is dangerously low, the money we provide will not only safeguard the organizations but help them to spark our local economies back into black ink. In fact, what the House should really do is triple our funding for the arts, considering all of the money that we get back and what it does for local governments. As it is, we are only asking to restore the funding that the fiscal year 2003 conference took away.

Give back the $10 million we voted for last year for NEA. It will be used to expand the Challenge America grants to make the arts more widely available in communities throughout the country.

The program has a special emphasis on extending the arts to the underserved populations, those whose opportunities to experience the arts are limited by geography, ethnicity, economics, or disability.

Give back the $5 million we voted last year for NEH. Along with the $10 million increase provided by the Interior Committee on Appropriations, it will be used to support the We the People initiative which will advance the understanding of America's history, culture, and civics, a thing we sorely need. The President has requested a total of $100 million for We the People over the coming years, and this will be just a small down payment on his request.

Please restore the funds we provided last year, and the rewards will be boundless. I do not mean just economic rewards, although they are incredible. I will not have enough time to talk about how the arts contribute to the lives of every American citizen, how they enrich our lives, spark our imagination, inspire our dreams, and calm our fears. There is not time to discuss how much better our children learn to read and write and add and subtract when the arts are part of the core curriculum.

Let me just remind my colleagues that SAT scores go up some 57 parts, just think of that, when art is part of a student's high school experience. That is a cheap price. If we really want to leave no child behind, we will send them all ahead with the arts leading their way.

Voting for this amendment is the right thing to do, and it is also the smart thing to do. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment cosponsored by my good friends, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), and also by the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), who fights very hard every single year. Please, please, vote yes on this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, control of one's reproductive autonomy is a fundamental human right. But the basic right is meaningless without the knowledge and means to exercise reproductive autonomy. The United Nations Population Fund, known as UNFPA, works with governments and nongovernmental organizations in over 140 countries, supporting programs that help men, women and young people to plan their families, undergo pregnancy and childbirth safely, avoid sexually transmitted disease, including HIV/AIDS, and to combat violence against women.

Each of these principled goals is embraced by the United States and many countries around the world. In fact, as we have heard throughout the Presidential trip to Africa, the President has committed $15 billion to fight the pandemic of HIV/AIDS on the African continent.

The Committee on International Relations recently adopted an amendments by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) which would facilitate U.S. contributions to the United Nations Family Planning Fund. The Crowley provision clarifies current law which bars U.S. funds from any international organization the President determines ``supports or participates in the management'' of forced abortion or sterilization. Crowley's proposal provides strict safeguards against the use of any kind of coercion in U.S.-funded family planning programs; second, clarifies the current law to enable U.S. funding to be used to help to end coercion in China; and provides badly needed maternal health and other services in poor countries.

This language is necessary because Congress authorized U.S. funds for UNFPA, but the President refused to release them. Just last year, the President blocked $34 million for UNFPA activities around the world. The opposition to this funding is premised on the false notion that UNFPA supports coercive abortions in places like China. UNFPA does not provide abortion services anywhere in the world. Not one penny of UNFPA funding is used to promote abortion. Unfortunately, this fallacy diverts attention from the real issues and blurs underlying opposition to comprehensive family planning. All UNFPA activities are based solely on voluntary participation. UNFPA rejects coercion in any form in its activities and works to end the coercive practices of others.

The Chinese Government's so-called one-child policy unofficially involves some coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization practices. The United States and United Nations do not tolerate these practices. We stand on the side of human rights and work to put an end to these abuses. The U.N. population fund program in China was developed with the express purpose of moving China away from coercion and toward delivery of voluntary reproductive health services to its people, just as it did in India in the early 1990s.

UNFPA has operated in 32 Chinese counties and the government of China has agreed in each one of these counties it would lift all birth quotas and recruitment targets; improve the delivery of voluntary family planning information and services; eliminate the use of coercive measures; allow independent confirmation that targets and quotas have been lifted; allow independent investigation of any reports of coercion and suspension of the UNFPA program in any county where violations have occurred; and allow regular independent monitoring to ensure compliance with the principles of informed choice and voluntary participation.

This is a remarkable achievement. No Main Street human rights organization has ever accused UNFPA of being complicit in China's human rights violations. In fact, in May 2002 President Bush sent a three- member State Department team to China to investigate claims against the work there. The team found ``no evidence that UNFPA has knowingly supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion in the People's Republic of China.'' The team recommended that the $34 million which has already been appropriated be released to