Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, this past Sunday was Mother's Day. Across our Nation, America's mothers were honored with cards, gifts, flowers and phone calls. But for any mother, the most precious gift of all is a strong and healthy baby. Today, to help ensure that mothers receive that most precious of gifts, I am introducing the Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2006.

Newborn screening is a public health intervention that involves a simple blood test used to identify many life-threatening genetic illnesses before any symptoms begin. Approximately 5,000 babies are born each year with detectable and treatable disorders. Forty years ago, these disorders would have gone undetected until symptoms appeared. As a result, these children unnecessarily died or suffered lifelong disabling consequences. Today, these severe disorders, mostly inborn errors of metabolism, can be detected in newborn babies and treated in time to prevent serious complications. But due to the fact that a national newborn screening law does not exist in this country, there is great disparity and variation from State to State in the quality and number of newborn screening tests an infant may receive. Consequently, each year approximately 2,000 infants are permanently disabled or die from otherwise treatable disorders. This bill could prevent these tragedies and save millions of dollars in health care costs to both families and States.

The Newborn Screening Act of 2006 seeks to eliminate these unnecessary deaths and severe disabilities by educating parents and health care professionals about the advisability of newborn screening and improves the system for follow-up care for infants detected with an illness through the newborn screening tests. The bill encourages States to uniformly test for all recommended disorders and provides resources for States to expand and improve their newborn screening programs. It also requires the CDC to ensure the quality of laboratories involved in newborn screening and establishes a system for collecting and analyzing data that will help researchers develop better detection, prevention and treatment strategies.

Mr. Speaker, somewhere in our country today, there is a mother holding her newborn son or daughter totally unaware that her seemingly healthy baby is being attacked by a genetic disease because her State or birthing facility did not offer the one test that could have provided her with this critical information. If she knew, she could have begun the treatment needed to protect her baby from permanent disability or death.

Mr. Speaker, we have the power to help prevent this tragedy. By passing the Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2006, we can ensure that parents and health providers are knowledgeable about newborn screening and that babies receive the comprehensive and consistent testing they need. It is a challenge we simply cannot ignore.

I urge my colleagues to join me in presenting a Mother's Day gift to the 4 million women who give birth each year by becoming cosponsors of the Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2006 and helping to pass it into law.

Madam Chairman, while I would have preferred a more proactive and comprehensive plan such as that proposed by the Democratic ``Real Security Agenda'', I rise today in support of H.R. 4954, the Security and Accountability For Every (SAFE) Port Act because it is a step in the right direction.

As a member of the Homeland Security Appropriations subcommittee, I am well aware of the vulnerabilities of our nation's ports. In fact, the 9/11 Commission report concluded that terrorists have the ``opportunity to do harm as great or greater in maritime and surface transportation'' than the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Our nation's seaports handle over 95 percent of our foreign trade, more than $1 trillion annually. The ports of Los Angeles/Long Beach near my district form the largest container port complex in the nation. These ports processed more than 35,000 cargo containers a day in 2005, and accounted for some 40 percent of all container traffic nationwide.

Given the volume of our shipping trade, a terrorist attack against the ports of Los Angeles/Long Beach, or any major commercial seaport for that matter, would freeze commercial shipping business, close all seaports for an indefinite time, and have a devastating impact on our national economy. This is not a wild estimate or an exaggeration for effect. We have only to look at the work stoppage at the LA/Long Beach ports in 2002 that directly impacted businesses across the country and cost the national economy approximately $1 billion a day.

When approved, the SAFE Port Act will make progress toward protecting the physical infrastructure of our seaports as well as our national economy which is so clearly dependent on the commercial shipping business.

I believe the following three provisions in the bill are particularly important.

First, the bill requires the development of plans to address supply chain security and the resumption of trade in the aftermath of a terrorist attack. Securing the supply chain against cargo-tampering is critical to decreasing the likelihood that weapons of mass destruction make it aboard ships bound for the United States. Ensuring that our ports can resume trade operations as soon as possible following any terrorist will mitigate the economic cost of any such attack.

Second, the bill also mandates that Transportation Worker Identification Cards to be issued to port workers. Standardizing identification cards will better enable us to determine who should have access to sensitive areas at our ports and it will make it more difficult to counterfeit the ID cards.

Lastly, the bill more than doubles present funding for the successful port security grant program to $400 million At the current rate of funding, securing the physical infrastructure of our ports would take decades to complete.

Despite these and other important provisions, I continue to be disappointed that the rule for this bill did not allow consideration of amendments by my Democratic colleagues that would have further enhanced the protection of our ports and our economy.

For example, the Thompson Amendment would have added 1600 new Customs and Border Protection officers at our Nation's ports. Having adequate staff to inspect incoming cargo is a basic first step toward securing incoming cargo.

Additionally, the Langevin Amendment would have accelerated the installation of radiation detection monitors at our seaports. This is important because inspection of every incoming cargo container isn't realistic given the volume of trade. We are foolish not to maximize and expedite the full use of technology to scan containers for radiation that may reveal weapons of mass destruction.

Lastly, Democrats sought to mandate 100 percent screening overseas, of cargo containers bound for U.S. seaports to protect the homeland from hidden shipments of weapons of mass destruction.

Democratic proposals were common sense improvements to the bill and would have better prepared us for the increased security concerns facing our country. The House should not have been denied the opportunity to openly debate these important issues.

The additional inspection officers, scanning equipment, and mandated cargo screening that these amendments proposed are not inexpensive plans and would have required significant investments. However, we cannot afford to not make these necessary investments and risk a far greater cost in terms of our economy and loss of American lives.

Madam Chairman, port security is national security. This bill is a good step in the right direction toward securing our ports, our economy, and our Nation. However, I hope the conference committee will improve the bill further by addressing the issues of customs inspection officers, radiation detection monitors, and cargo screening that the Democrats proposed.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand with my colleagues as we celebrate Asian Pacific American Heritage Month. I thank Congressman Honda and the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus for organizing tonight's special order.

Our theme for this year's festivities, Dreams and Challenges of Asian Pacific Americans, speaks to the many generations of Asian Pacific Americans who worked hard to overcome economic hardship, racism and other barriers in their pursuit of the American dream.

The theme reminds us of the Chinese who endured inhumane conditions to build our western railroads, and the Koreans who did the back- breaking work on the sugar plantations in Hawaii. And it reminds us of the Filipino Americans who fought bravely for our country, and the courageous Japanese Americans who fought for their country despite the shameful treatment toward their families in internment camps during World War II.

This year's theme also reminds us that in spite of these hardships, the API community has successfully met the challenges it faced and has enhanced greatly the richness and strength of our American society.

The contributions and cultural imprint of the API community is especially impressive in Los Angeles where many of the first Asian American immigrants made their home.

I have the pleasure of representing the Los Angeles communities of Little Tokyo and parts of Chinatown, and Filipinotown. As is true for all Angelenos, my life has been enriched by the magnificent culture of Asian Pacific Islanders and their positive impact on our city and on our Nation.

Asian Pacific Islanders contribute to our economy in many ways. They are leaders, for example, in our international trade. They are pioneers in our fashion industry. They are nonprofit community leaders, restaurateurs and small business owners. They are patriots who continue to defend our Nation and our American way of life through the distinguished service in our Armed Forces.

The API community also enhances our lives throughout the year with its many cultural celebrations. In my own district of downtown Los Angeles, I look forward to riding in the annual Nisei parade in Little Tokyo and the Chinese New Years parade in Chinatown.

Mr. Speaker, Asian Pacific American Heritage Month is a wonderful opportunity for our country to honor our country's API community and its many worthy contributions. And it is a wonderful time to explore their rich and diverse culture, customs and history.

I thank my API constituents who continue to enrich my life, the life of Angelenos, and our Nation. I am proud to join my congressional colleagues in paying tribute to the API community as we celebrate Asian Pacific American Heritage Month.

Mr. Speaker, April is Alcohol Awareness Month. Therefore, I want to highlight the crisis of underage drinking in this country.

Every month 11 million youth between the ages of 12 and 20 drink alcohol. Each day over 5,000 kids under the age of 16 take their first drink. Research has shown that these kids are significantly more likely than those who do not drink to become alcoholics, use marijuana, and try cocaine.

Alcohol is also known to impact adolescent brain development and increase risk-taking behavior that results in at least nine teenage deaths a day.

To address this crisis, I sponsored the STOP Act, which makes permanent the national antiunderage drinking media campaign, which is directed at those who have the greatest influence over children: their parents. The bill provides grants to combat underage drinking in our communities and establishes a report card to track States' efforts.

I encourage my colleagues to help stop underage drinking by sponsoring the STOP Act and passing it into law.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to honor the 30 years of service that Ed Perez, Esq. has given to the City of Los Angeles. Although his retirement from the City Attorney's Office on February 17th marks the end of his City employment, it does not end a notable career in the practice of law. Indeed, his contributions to the City's telecommunications policies have been so great that several members of the City Council hope he will return as an advisor.

As the City continues to negotiate franchise agreements and shape important telecommunication policies that impact the everyday lives of all Angelinos, we understand the value and depth of expertise that a faithful employee brings to the table at this critical time.

Mr. Perez began his initial employment with the Office of the City Attorney in the Criminal Division and switched to the Civil Division 3 years later. In that position he provided legal advice regarding public utilities such as telecommunications and energy, and transactional matters for the City's Information Technology Agency.

Mr. Perez was the City's legal advisor for cable television franchising and regulation from 1981-2003, beginning with the initial wiring of the city in 1981 and culminating in the citywide franchising agreements in 1987. During this period, Mr. Perez had the distinguished honor of presenting an oral argument before the United States Supreme Court in 1986, in the Preferred Communications v. City of Los Angeles, 476 U.S. 488. For this, we offer our sincere appreciation to Ed Perez for both his commitment to and invaluable understanding of these issues on behalf of the citizens of Los Angeles.

When Mr. Perez transferred to the Department of Water and Power in June 2003, he continued to be one of the principal attorneys monitoring complex utility regulations for the City.

He looks forward to more time with his wife Patricia, and their children, Christine and David, upon his retirement. I wish him all the best as he plans for an active retirement and sincerely thank him for his noteworthy accomplishments on behalf of the citizens of Los Angeles.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support H.R. 609, the College Access and Opportunity Act. While this bill to reauthorize the Higher Education Act is by no means perfect, the bill represents an expanded opportunity and a chance to succeed for the hundreds of thousands of minority students who dream of obtaining a college degree. That is why I plan to vote for the bill today.

College degrees open many doors to the future. Students that obtain bachelor degrees have on average higher earning potentials, more competitive jobs, and higher standards of living. But many minority students are unable to obtain a college degree because they lack the necessary resources to do so, and as a result the doors to opportunity often remain closed. Data from 2000 shows that only 13 percent of Hispanics and 15 percent of Blacks in California earned a bachelor's degree, compared to 31 percent for Caucasians.

Despite its flaws, H.R. 609 contains key provisions that will help Hispanics and other minorities succeed academically from the day they enter Kindergarten to the day they receive their college diploma and beyond.

The bill supports minorities in elementary and secondary education by recruiting minorities to the teaching profession and focusing on the needs of Limited English Proficient students.

In addition, the bill creates new ``Centers for Excellence'' programs that will prepare teachers, including minority teachers, to become ``Highly Qualified'' in K-12 classrooms.

Beyond high school, the bill reauthorizes the High School Equivalency Program (HEP) that assists low-income migrant and seasonal farmworkers to obtain a high school diploma or certificate, and it reauthorizes the College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP) that provides tutoring and counseling to migrant students in their first year of college.

The bill also supports Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) by establishing a new HSI grant for graduate degrees and by eliminating the two-year wait between grant applications.

In closing let me highlight some of my concerns, which I hope will be addressed as the bill moves through the process to passage. In particular, I am concerned that the bill does not invest in critical student aid programs on a high enough level. The most telling example is that of Pell Grants, which help many disadvantaged children to go to college. This bill would set maximum Pell Grants at the abysmally low amount of $6,000. I was especially disappointed that Democrats were not allowed to offer an amendment to authorize higher funding levels for Pell Grants and other student aid and support programs.

Nevertheless, this bill does provide a much needed single definition of higher education and reauthorizes successful programs such as GEAR UP, TRIO, grants for alcohol and drug abuse prevention, and the Perkins Loan. These efforts to strengthen existing programs and provide benefits for Hispanic and other minority students who dream of a college education led me to vote for H.R. 609 today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to House Resolution 653, the Budget Reconciliation Spending Cuts Act. There are many reasons to vote against the bill today, including the massive cuts to critical programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid, and child support enforcement. But the unconscionable cuts to student aid are reason enough to vote against this bill.

Education has always been--and continues to be--the great equalizer in this country. Student loans in particular have helped to level the playing field for thousands of worthy students who cannot afford the high cost of a college education.

For that reason, it is shocking and disappointing that over 30 percent of the cuts in this bill are to student aid programs that help our kids afford a college education. To pass this bill, and cut funding for essential education programs, is to forsake our commitment to our children's future and to the future of our country.

Skyrocketing student loan interest rates and fees, including a new 1 percent ``insurance fee'' on college loans will make it even harder for many parents to send their children to college and on the road to a better and more prosperous life.

Mr. Speaker, the passage of this bill will shatter the dreams of thousands of students whose only hope for a college education is through the support of federal financial aid.

And it will weaken our country's future, because we will be denied the talents and contributions of these students, whose skills we need to compete in our highly skilled global economy. If we are to remain the greatest and most powerful nation in the world, we must educate and develop the talents of all our children.

Adding to the tragic consequences of this bill is that the cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, child support enforcement, and student aid do nothing to reduce the shocking 3.4 trillion dollars deficit. The President's cuts to these critical programs are simply for the purpose of giving more tax cuts to the wealthiest 1 percent of our country.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 653 is an ill-conceived and misguided bill that endangers the future of our children and the future of our country. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, every year in the United States, thousands of babies are born with serious, preventable birth defects of the brain and spine.

Spina bifida, the most common neural tube defect, is the leading cause of childhood paralysis. Anencephaly, a neural tube defect of the brain, is always fatal.

To bring attention to this preventable tragedy, we highlighted National Folic Acid Awareness Week as part of January's National Birth Defects Prevention Month. Since we were not in session at the time, I will take this opportunity to focus on the public health significance of folic acid and the important role it plays in the prevention of these devastating neural tube birth defects.

The value of folic acid became clear in 1991 when absolute scientific evidence showed that a daily supplement of synthetic folic acid could prevent spina bifida and anencephaly in most pregnancies. In 1992, the finding led the United States Public Health Service to recommend that women, beginning at puberty and continuing through their childbearing years, take a daily dose of 400 micrograms of folic acid.

It was in response to the Public Health Service recommendation that I authored the Folic Acid Promotion and Birth Defects Prevention Act. This act authorized the CDC to develop programs to educate health professionals and the public about the importance of folic acid consumption. I am very pleased that this bill became law as part of the Children's Health Act of 2000.

The Food and Drug Administration also responded to the need to increase consumption in the general population by requiring the addition of folic acid to enriched grain products like bread and cereal. It is important to note, however, that new evidence has found that the current fortification level of grains is not adequate for full protection against birth defects. Nevertheless, over the past 10 years, our efforts have succeeded in increasing the consumption of folic acid. This has resulted in a considerable decline in the rate of spina bifida and anencephaly.

The fact remains, however, that last year approximately 3,000 babies in the United States were born with preventable neural tube defects. Recent studies show that despite our efforts, only 40 percent of women ages 18 to 45 take a daily vitamin with the recommended level of folic acid. And Latino women, who have almost double the likelihood of delivering a baby with a neural tube defect, have the lowest reported folic acid consumption of any racial or ethnic group.

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt we have considerable work ahead of us in order to adequately protect our newborn babies from preventable neural tube birth defects. It is therefore our duty and our obligation to, first, increase our efforts to inform all women of childbearing age of the essential role folic acid plays in protecting their babies from spina bifida and anencephaly; second, to increase the required concentration of folic acid in enriched grain products as recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the CDC, and the March of Dimes.

And, finally, it is our duty and our obligation to encourage manufacturers to fortify cornmeal products with amounts of folic acid that meet the FDA requirements. This recommendation is especially critical to our Latino communities, which consume large amounts of the unfortified corn flour sold in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, we have the knowledge and the ability to prevent the majority of neural tube defects in this country. It will be a tragedy if we choose to ignore this compelling public health challenge.

I urge my colleagues to work with me in the 109th Congress to support policies that enrich our foods with sufficient folic acid and to strengthen CDC's national folic acid education campaign. By working together, we can and will save thousands of babies and families from the suffering and the pain of neural tube defects.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA, as part of the Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act. In particular, I thank the conferees for including my provision to establish a national resource center to help employers address the negative consequences of domestic and sexual violence in the workplace.

Since the Violence Against Women Act was first passed in 1994, law enforcement has enhanced its response to crimes involving violence against women, Federal prosecutors have increased actions against perpetrators of domestic violence, and many critical services and programs have been created to assist victims of such violence.

Yet, despite the protections of VAWA, every year thousands of women are forced to stay in abusive relationships because they lose their jobs and therefore are unable to provide for themselves and their children. To protect them from this negative economic impact the national resource center will provide employers with the information and expertise they need to keep their employees while helping them address the violence in their lives. This will also benefit employers who, according to the Bureau of National Affairs news service, lose $3 to $5 billion annually in lost time and productivity. I am very pleased that starting in 2007 the center is authorized to receive $1 million annually for 5 years.

Mr. Speaker, once again I thank my colleagues for working with me to include the creation of a national resource center in the reauthorization of VAWA. The center will be a critical step in protecting the economic security of victims of domestic violence and empowering them to end their cycle of violence. I look forward to working with my colleagues to further ensure the financial independence of domestic violence victims by passing my bill, H.R. 3185, the Security and Financial Empowerment, SAFE, Act.

Mr. Speaker, due to the death of a family member, I was not present for rollcalls 665 through 671 on Sunday, December 18 and Monday, December 19. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcalls 666, 669, 670 and ``yea'' on rollcalls 665, 667, 668, and 671.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005. I too am committed to protecting our borders and strengthening our immigration policies. However, this bill does neither.

Instead of offering necessary comprehensive immigration reform, this bill simply continues the same failed policies of the past. Over the last decade, from Fiscal Year 1993 to Fiscal Year 2004, the number of Border Patrol officers tripled from 3,965 to 10,835 agents, and spending on border enforcement quintupled from $740 million to $3.8 billion per year. In that same time frame, the number of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. doubled from 4.5 million to 9.3 million. Clearly our current policies have failed to stop the flow of illegal immigration. Yet this bill simply offers more of the same failed remedies to our immigration problems.

Furthermore, this bill contains several unacceptable provisions. Please allow me to outline a few of the most egregious of these.

First, by expanding mandatory detention, this bill would allow women and children seeking asylum to be held in jails or prison-like detention centers while their immigration proceedings are pending even though they are no threat to our national security. Imprisoning these asylum seekers who often times are trying to escape brutalities back home violates the integrity of what our nation stands for and undermines our history of due process of law.

Second, this bill unfairly denies admission to immigrants who legally come to the U.S. from countries that do not accept the re-entry of their citizens. This means that, even though our State Department has approved their visas, legal immigrants and refugees from communist countries such as Vietnam, China and Somalia would be refused entry into the U.S. and forced to return to the oppressive regimes they are trying to escape.

Third, this bill takes valuable time and resources away from urgent police responsibilities, such as dealing with murder, rape, and gang activity by empowering state and local police to enforce immigration laws which is currently the responsibility of the Department of Homeland Security.

Fourth, this bill would classify as aggravated felons children who through no fault of their

own are brought here illegally by their parents. While I support cracking down on criminal aliens, I cannot support the criminalization of innocent children and thus deny them the opportunity to advance their lives in the future.

Fifth, this bill can weaken our fight against terrorism by permitting Homeland Security Grant Funds to be diverted from critical personnel such as our first responders. The State Homeland Security Grant Program has already been cut in half from $1.1 billion to $550 million. Our state and local governments cannot afford further shrinking of these critical funds if they are to protect us in the event of another terrorist attack.

Finally, this bill would expand the controversial process of removing individuals from our country without a fair hearing. This flawed procedure, known as expedited removal, has already resulted in the wrongful deportation of refugees who faced torture and death when they were returned to their native countries. Rather than fix this unjust procedure and protect these vulnerable individuals, this provision further denies them due process of law.

Our great nation serves as a model for democracy, fairness, and the rule of law. Unfortunately, this bill takes us away from these ideals upon which our nation was founded. I urge my colleagues to join me in defeating this dangerous bill.

Mr. Speaker, I regrettably rise in opposition to the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Conference Report, because it grossly under funds the essential programs in education, health and human services that help improve the quality of life of the American people.

Chairman Regula has done his best to meet the needs of the most vulnerable in our society with the very limited resources he was given. Ironically, these inadequate resources are a direct result of his own Republican leadership putting tax cuts for the wealthiest in our country before the needs of working and middle-class Americans.

This is the second time that the Labor-HHS Conference Report is before this House. Three weeks ago, Republicans and Democrats defeated the original conference report in a rare show of bipartisanship. Members on both sides of the aisle voted against the injustices of this bill, and refused to allow this 109th Congress to be defined by a Labor-HHS-Education bill that turned its back on the American people. This revised Conference Report continues the policy of shortchanging the needs and priorities of the majority of Americans.

There are, however, two incremental improvements in this revised Conference Report. The report restores $37 million to rural health outreach grants and rural health research, bringing them back to last year's funding levels. It also adds $53 million to bring four of the Health Professions Training Programs back to FY 2005 levels. Nevertheless, these modest changes will have little impact on rectifying the enormous gaps created by the funding cuts in this bill. It is simply another version of misguided priorities and unacceptable choices.

If we pass this conference report, the Departments of Labor, Education and Health and Human Services (HHS) will all receive less funding next year than they did in FY 2005. For example, the Department of Labor will receive $430 million less than in FY 2005, resulting in the elimination of skills training for 100,000 personnel in growth industries, and the abolishment of job search assistance for 1.9 million unemployed workers. These are two critical programs that benefit the 7.6 million Americans who remain out of work. The Department of Education will receive $59 million less than it did in 2005, and contrary to the administration's professed commitment to leave no child behind, this second conference report will reduce the ``Even Start'' program for low-literate and low-income families by 56 percent, freeze the English Language Training program, and fund IDEA with the smallest increase in over a decade. In addition, at a time when 45 million Americans are without health insurance, the Department of Health and Human Services will receive $1.1 billion less than the FY 2005 appropriation. The result is that this revised conference report will further erode the health care safety net by terminating the Healthy Communities Access Program, cutting $24 million out of the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant, and eliminating the Health Care Planning Access Grants that help states expand health coverage to the uninsured.

The revised Labor-HHS-Education Conference Report does not even come close to meeting the health and social welfare needs of our families, the educational requirements of our children, and the responsibilities we have to our most vulnerable citizens. Mr. Speaker, this country was built on a promise of hope and equal opportunity for all of its people. If the majority continues to ignore these values that have set our country apart and contributed to its greatness, we will lose our moral high ground and jeopardize our place as the most powerful country in the world. Our children will then be forced to live with the consequences of an undereducated workforce, a weak economy, and a society where good health and social justice are only afforded to the most privileged. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this still ill conceived, unacceptable and unnecessarily under funded conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 4297, the Tax Reconciliation bill. Cutting taxes for the super rich, and ignoring the needs of the poor and middle class, as this bill does, is a dangerous deviation from fiscal and moral responsibility.

As with every American, I too would like to see my taxes cut. Therefore my opposition to this bill does not stem from a deep-seated hostility toward the concept of tax cuts. Rather, my opposition is a plain and simple recognition that these proposed tax cuts are the wrong kind of cuts at precisely the wrong time.

Why are they wrong kind of tax cuts? Because they primarily benefit the super rich with little tax relief to middle class and poor Americans who need tax relief the most.

Why do they come at the wrong time? Because today our Federal Government is unable to meet the most essential needs of the majority of Americans. For example, 45 million Americans are without health insurance, too many American families cannot afford to send their children to college, and our American communities continue to be vulnerable to terrorist attacks here at home due to the under-funding of many essential homeland security programs.

Instead of investing in American families, this bill condones massive cuts to essential health, education, and programs designed to help women and children. And instead of fully funding programs such as those designed to support our emergency first responders in the case of a terrorist attack, we are using that money to pay for tax cuts for the super rich.

Add to this reality a costly war in Iraq, unprecedented spending for hurricane relief in the Gulf, and the escalating budget deficit, and it is very clear that now is the wrong time for these kinds of cut taxes.

Mr. Speaker, the Democrats have a fair and responsible solution. It is fair because, instead of cutting taxes for the super rich, our substitute bill is designed to put hardworking middle-class Americans first in line for tax relief. For example, our substitute bill protects the majority of American families who will negatively be affected by the Alternative Minimum Tax. It is responsible because it avoids further reckless spending by eliminating the extension of capital gains and dividend tax cuts that will add to the enormous deficit that will have to be paid by future generations.

As a grandmother myself, I believe it is morally reprehensible to leave my grandchildren to bear the burden of debt-relief because we spent our money on more tax cuts for the wealthy today.

To set the right course for future generations, we must make it our priority to improve the quality of life for all Americans; not just the lives of the privileged few. This tax-cut bill before us is needless, reckless spending and should be rejected.

Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Rangel

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Conference Report on H.R. 3010. The fiscal year 2006 Labor-HHS- Education Appropriations report before the House today shortchanges America's children, its families, its workers and its most vulnerable citizens.

The Labor-HHS-Education bill embodies our priorities and values as Americans. In it, Congress provides the yearly resources needed to keep our families healthy, our children educated, our workers employed, and our most vulnerable citizens a productive part of our society. This bill is arguably one of the most important pieces of legislation Congress addresses each year.

Chairman Regula understands this responsibility. He understands that this is ``the people's bill'', and he has worked hard to distribute the limited resources he was given in a fair and conscientious way. So my ``no'' vote today should in no way be seen as a lack of respect or appreciation for the efforts of Ralph Regula, the chairman of the Labor HHS Appropriations Subcommittee.

Chairman Regula and the staff of the subcommittee have worked within this tight budget allocation to address the needs and priorities of our states and communities as best they could under the circumstances. For example, the conference report includes increases in two critical areas to help infants and their families. The first is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's folic acid national education program. This program has been instrumental in the prevention of birth defects by encouraging women of child-bearing age to take the recommended amount of folic acid daily, thereby decreasing the rate of neural tube defects. The second increase is for the Health Resources and Services Administration's newborn screening program for early identification of infants affected by certain genetic, metabolic, hormonal and or functional conditions for which there are effective treatment or intervention. In addition, for the first time, this bill also includes programmatic funding for the national media campaign to fight underage drinking, which is being conducted by the Ad Council. I thank the committee for helping our country make progress in these critical public health areas. The presence of these and a small number of other

positive programmatic funding levels, however, is simply not enough to warrant approving this conference report.

Mr. Speaker, the constraints placed on this bill by the budget priorities and decisions of the Republican leadership are not worthy of this House and the values of the American people. I voted against the House bill when it came to the floor in June precisely because it fell so short of meeting the needs of America's children, families and the most vulnerable among us. I had hoped that the bill would be improved in the conference. It is unfortunate, however, that in this conference agreement, the way they chose to improve overall programmatic funding from the original House Bill levels was to take resources away from other priorities and community needs.

This report and its funding decisions do not stand in isolation. They reflect the misguided priorities of a Republican leadership that has continually put the interests of the wealthy and the privileged before the needs and priorities of working and middle-class Americans. This Labor-HHS-Education conference report is a direct result of an economic agenda of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and it weakens America's future by under-funding key education, health and human services programs. If approved, this bill will impose cuts to essential programs important to Americans in at least three major areas.

First, this conference agreement significantly shortchanges our nation's workers. The bill cuts labor programs $430 million below the FY 2005 levels. Training and employment services for the 7.4 million Americans who are unemployed are funded well below the FY05 levels. This includes a $31 million cut to Adult Training Grants, a $36 million cut to Youth Training Grants; and a $141 million cut to Unemployment Insurance Offices. The U.S. Employment Service Office, which matches job seekers with job openings, is slashed by 10.5 percent, and the report freezes funding for dislocated and older workers. In addition, the bill slices International Labor Affairs, the program that helps eradicate abusive child labor practices and protect worker rights. by 21 percent.

Secondly, this report is simply a reaffirmation of the Administration's hollow commitment to education, slashing the No Child Left Behind funds by $784 million below the FY 2005 level. It cuts the Education Technology Block Grant program that provides access to technology in schools by a shocking 45 percent from last year's level. It reduces the Even Start program supporting services for low literate and low-income families by 56 percent. And as a final point, it shortchanges our children with disabilities by funding IDEA at $4 billion below the Republican promise to put special education on a fast track to full funding.

Finally, the report is particularly devastating to the health of Americans. Some of its most significant cuts are directed towards the critical programs that provide a health care safety net for the uninsured. The conference agreement provides $34 million less than the House passed bill and $89 million less than the Senate bill for grants to Health Centers for services to the uninsured. The Maternal and Child Health Block Grant is cut by 3 percent, reducing its true per capita purchasing power by almost 20 percent below the FY 2002 level. The conference agreement terminates the Healthy Communities Access Program that makes grants to local hospitals, health centers and providers so that they can provide better integrated systems of care for the underinsured and uninsured. Lastly, as if cutting services wasn't enough, the conference agreement virtually decimates the Title VII Health Professions Training programs, cutting overall funding from $300 million in FY 2005 to $94 million in FY 2006.

Mr. Speaker, these drastic reductions to critical programs are not necessary. Ranking Member David Obey has consistently laid out a common-sense approach to this problem. By simply reducing the tax break for those with incomes greater than $1 million, we could add funding for No Child Left Behind programs, maintain college affordability by increasing the money for Pell grants, shore up our health safety net programs, and rebuild our public health system to respond to pandemics and possible terrorist attacks. But these fiscally responsible efforts by Mr. Obey and the Democrats have been defeated by the Republican majority at every turn. The result is this grossly underfunded bill which we are considering today.

In the end, this Congress will be judged by how well we have served the needs of all our citizens and communities. As a result, this Labor- HHS-Education Bill will not reflect kindly on us. We can and must do better for the future of our families, our children, our workers and our most vulnerable citizens.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor a friend and trusted adviser, Donald McCamie DeArmon, on the occasion of his retirement from a distinguished career of 28 years of public service in the United States House of Representatives.

Don began his service on Capitol Hill following his graduation from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1977. During those 28 years, he worked for the Office of House Information Systems and six Members of Congress.

Congressmembers Bill Ketchum, Barbara Mikulski, Les AuCoin, David Price, Vic Fazio, and I all had the good fortune to know and work with him.

It was in 1999 that Don brought his wealth of experience and knowledge to my office, serving first as associate staff for appropriations and then as legislative director and currently as acting chief of staff.

Don is a team player who has mentored many junior coworkers. His political sense and institutional knowledge of the House and his familiarity with the legislative process have provided my office with wise counsel.

His many bipartisan and bicameral friendships built over years in the House have been invaluable to my work on the Committee on Appropriations. His knowledge of the numerous funding accounts has been key to my ability to serve my constituents better. In addition to his work on the Committee on Appropriations, Don has also been the lead staff person for my legislative health agenda. Through his stewardship, we have made progress in addressing the health crisis of underaged drinking and in reducing preventable birth defects through enhanced education of women on the importance of folic acid.

Don's commitment to public service and his love of politics reached its natural conclusion when he ran for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. There is no doubt that during his campaigns Maryland voters were enriched by Don's discussions of the critical issues facing our Nation.

Although his neighbors in Maryland were denied his direct representation, I can attest to the fact that his public service during the past 28 years has enriched their lives and the lives of many in our Nation.

Don is a man who has admirably met the difficult challenge of balancing the demanding world of public service with being an involved, loving father and husband. He and his wife, Ann, a teacher, have raised four successful and politically active children. Belle, 23, is an English major at the University of Maryland, College Park. McCamie, 21, will be graduating in December from the University of Pittsburgh. Alexandra, 17, is a freshman at Wagner College; and John, 13, is an 8th grader at West Frederick Middle School.

To Don and his family, I extend my deep appreciation and heartfelt congratulations on the momentous occasion of his retirement. We will miss him, his hard work, his wealth of knowledge of political history, and his wonderful anecdotes about his childhood in North Carolina, experiences on the Hill and life in Frederick, Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, I join the many friends and colleagues who have had the privilege of working with Don in wishing him happiness and success as he embarks on his new career in the private sector. Don's new work, advocating on behalf of institutions of health, clearly demonstrates his commitment to the true public servant's belief that the people's work is never done. Godspeed, Don DeArmon.