Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2201, a bill that will dismantle the successful Head Start program. I am troubled that the Republican majority is trying to pass a bill that will hurt America's children under the guise of ``reform.''

The current Head Start program provides low-income children across the Nation with cost-free, high-quality early education. In my district, and other traditionally underserved communities, Head Start not only helps ensure the academic success of our children, but also provides a holistic approach to school readiness that includes individualized services in the areas of early childhood development, parental involvement, nutrition, and medical, dental, and mental health. This multi-pronged approach recognizes the fact that children need to be healthy in order to facilitate learning. Under the Republican plan, all these services are in jeopardy because guaranteed comprehensive services are made optional.

Nationally, Head Start serves more than 900,000 children, nearly a third of whom are Latino. Yet, this bill fails to provide resources for programs important to Latino and other immigrant children. For example, this bill does not include one new cent to train teachers to help limited English proficient students and provides no new resources for the more than 130,000 children eligible for the Migrant and Seasonal Head Start program.

Mr. Chairman, in closing the Republican bill not only fails to protect important provisions of one of the most successful Federal programs in the history of our country, but by all accounts, ends a program that has given countless children the opportunity to reach their full potential.

That is why, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to defeat the flawed Republican bill, known as the School Readiness Act, and to pass the Democratic substitute that will truly strengthen our children's pre- literacy, language and pre-math skills, without sacrificing essential comprehensive health and family services. The Democratic substitute, in every way, helps to ensure that every child in the United States is given all the tools needed to succeed in school.

Mr. Chairman, given my deep respect for the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and his sincere efforts to address critical needs within the restraints that he was given, I regret that I must rise in opposition to this bill.

I am particularly concerned about the funding levels for the Older Americans Act programs and their impact on the elderly of our Nation. The Older Americans Act of 1965 was passed the same year that Medicare was enacted to meet the needs of elderly Americans and to enable them to live their twilight years with dignity and respect by helping them with nutrition, transportation, and other services that would allow them to stay independent and in their homes. This bill jeopardizes that promise.

It is hard to overpraise the generation that our parents and grandparents represent. Theirs is the generation that helped to make this Nation great. Unfortunately, because this bill provides less than a 1 percent increase for programs in the Older Americans Act, even after the committee restored the $25 million cut in the President's budget, senior services critical to their quality of life will have inadequate funding; services such as Meals on Wheels, in-home support services, preventive health programs, and programs to guard against elder abuse and exploitation.

This inadequate funding will also create greater headache in the future when one considers that one-sixth of our Nation, over 46 million people, are already 60 and older, and that by 2005 an estimated 13 million more baby-boomers will join them.

I ask my colleagues to vote against this bill and to send our elderly a strong message of support and appreciation for their past sacrifices and their right to live with dignity and respect.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2555, the Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2004. As a member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee, it has been an honor to take part in the formulation of the new Homeland Security Department. I would like to commend our Chairman, Hal Rogers, and our Ranking Member, Martin Sabo, who under tight fiscal restraints did the best job possible putting together this first appropriations bill for the new Department of Homeland Security.

The Department of Homeland Security has had both success and failures. It has been successful in unifying principal border and transportation security agencies, coordinating a network of disaster response capabilities, and creating a central point for the analysis and dissemination of intelligence pertaining to terrorist threats. Beyond that however, the Department has failed to develop a useful roadmap of security goals the Department seems critical to protecting the homeland, such as securing the northern border, tracking all vessels entering American waters or insuring that airline cargo is effectively screened.

As a result, many of the windows of opportunity for terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda are nearly as wide open today as they were on September 11th. Of equal concern, is the fact that the Department seems to be stalled in its ability to put in place a program to close those windows open to terrorist attacks.

Overall this bill provides $29.4 billion in discretionary funding for fiscal 2004. That is only about 1.8 percent above the overall funding level allocated to agencies within the Department for fiscal year 2003. The Congressional Budget Office however, forecasts that prices will increase during the current fiscal year by 2.3 percent. As a result, the bill actually provides funding for the coming year that in terms of real dollars is about $150 million below current levels.

Mr. Chairman, cities such as my hometown of Los Angeles are the ones who must bear the brunt of this inadequate funding. Los Angeles is one of the largest cities and metropolitan areas in the country, and is considered to be one of the most ``at risk'' areas for terrorist attacks. With one of the world's largest port complexes and a major international airport, Los Angeles has heightened vulnerability to potential terrorist attacks.

Without adequate federal support, protecting our cities and towns is extremely costly and causes tremendous hardship on local governments. For example, Los Angeles officials have reported to me that during the days of the three Orange threat levels, the city registered $7.2 million in additional security costs. This figure includes additional costs for areas such as our city airports, our port, our public utility centers, our convention center and our police department. Although I am pleased that today's bill provides $500 million for ``high threat urban areas'' like Los Angeles, clearly this does not provide the funds needed to address the security needs of Los Angeles and other highly vulnerable urban areas.

In addition to representing the downtown portions of the City of Los Angeles, I also represent nine smaller municipalities including Downey, Commerce, Bell Flower, Huntington Park, and Vernon. Like other small cities and rural communities across the nation, these smaller cities are often overlooked in the urgent rush to protect the homeland and to establish emergency preparedness plans. These smaller cities, have increased security needs since September 11, 2001, and have also had to incur additional costs in response to our nation's heightened security alerts. Protecting our small cities is just as important as protecting our large cities, and national landmarks. To highlight this fact, I successfully included language in the bill's report which establishes a process that ensures local governments will be included in the development and

review process of each state's emergency preparedness and security response plan.

Mr. Chairman, another areas of concern is the fact that the funding for our nation's commercial seaports continues to be dangerously inadequate. Our ports are one of our nation's most vulnerable assets. Yet this administration, and the leadership of this Congress continue to underfund our ports. While critics focus on the cost of providing this security, I want to highlight the cost of not providing this security. The labor shutout at the port complex of Los Angeles and Long Beach last fall is estimated to have cost $1 billion per day nationwide. This was only one port complex and yet the daily cost was staggering. If our ports experience a terrorist attack, international commerce would grind to a standstill. The Coast Guard has estimated that the infrastructure security needs at our ports will cost $1 billion in the first year and some $4 billion over a ten year period. Yes, this bill provides only $100 million in port security grants.

Congress was swift about providing funding to secure our nation's airways following the events of September 11, 2001. We must not wait for a similar tragedy at one of our ports to finally provide the necessary security funds.

Mr. Chairman, I must also express my displeasure that the Homeland Security Subcommittee was unable to hold a budget hearing with the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. This bureau was created under the Department of Homeland Security. Its responsibility is to build and maintain a service system that provides immigration information and benefits to the more than seven million annual applicants in a timely, accurate, consistent, courteous, and professional manner.

Having never met with Mr. Aguirre, the Acting Director, this committee has no way of knowing if this bureau is fulfilling its stated mission. Consequently, I am fearful that without adequate oversight and funding this new bureau will fall into the same bureaucratic trap that made the INS inadequate to meet the needs of this nation's immigrant community. I am hopeful that the subcommittee will have a hearing and receive a full budget justification from the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services before this bill comes to the floor for a vote next year. I am also hopeful that next year the President's budget will request enough funds to realistically address the thousands of cases in backlog at this bureau. Although the committee increased the President's budget request by $14 million, the amount is still fifteen percent less than what was provided in Fiscal Year 2003 for immigration services.

Mr. Chairman, I am also concerned about the ongoing difficulties regarding airport security screeners at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). These difficulties stem from the poor quality of the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) security background checks. Despite assurances from TSA that their airport security workforce had been screened, authorized at LAX and other airports discovered that some members of their security screener workforce had criminal convictions. These airports petitioned TSA for the authority to conduct their own background check of the screeners at their own expense. TSA officials at first rejected the request before finally granting approval. The ongoing background checks by these airports are continuing to identify employees with disqualifying convictions. Hopefully, this issue will be resolved once and for all when the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) completes the last of its outstanding background checks on the TSA airport screeners.

Until such time, I am pleased that the bill includes language I offered that urges the TSA to work cooperatively with airport authorities that wish to conduct their own background checks of their TSA screener workforce.

I am also pleased that the bill includes report language that provides guidance to the Department of Homeland Security on two issues critical to the immigrant community. The report language expresses concern about the pattern of harassment, excessive use of force, and racial profiling by private vigilante groups that conduct paramilitary- like operations along our Southwestern border. In San Antonio for example, the sheriff recently arrested vigilantes who were charged with assault for their illegal arrest of two migrants from El Salvador. Vigilantes taking immigration law into their own hands is illegal, and their activity can lead to serious violations of fundamental rights. It can also interfere with the legal activities of protecting our homeland. For that reason, I am pleased that the report includes language I offered expressing concern that vigilante operations against migrants along the Southwestern border should not be tolerated, and may interfere with the work of the Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. Chairman, I am also pleased that the report contains language I requested directing the Department of Homeland Security to improve the processing and resettlement of refugees. Since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, increased security checks on individual refugee cases, combined with greater limits on the travel of refugee and immigration officers, have resulted in a slowdown of interviews necessary for U.S. resettlement. Many of these precautions are understandable, but as the Department of Homeland Security begins to shape its policy and procedures, we need to find a safe and acceptable method to quickly process legitimate refugee claims.

The world is looking to the United States for continued leadership in providing a safe environment free of abuse and persecution for many of the world's refugees. I am pleased that the report requests a plan from the Department of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the State Department, to overcome the hurdles encountered during the processing of refugee claims.

Mr. Chairman, while I am disappointed in this bill's inability to fully fund many of our countries initial national security needs, I support the efforts of the Chair and the Ranking Member to best allocate these limited resources. We have much more work ahead of us. I urge the conferees to address this issue of limited funds. In closing, I want to reiterate that I have enjoyed working with Chairman Rogers who I know did his best given the limited resources the subcommittee was provided.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the 35th anniversary of the East Los Angeles Community Union to recognize its president and CEO, David Lizarraga, and to commend TELACU on the 20th anniversary of its scholarship program.

TELACU is a nonprofit community development corporation dedicated to rebuilding the East Los Angeles community. Despite complex challenges, TELACU's approach is simple: to provide people with the tools for self- empowerment and self-sufficiency and to create opportunities to use those tools to improve their lives.

Under the leadership of Mr. Lizarraga, TELACU has become the largest, most successful Hispanic community and economic corporation in the Nation. With nearly $400 million in assets, TELACU has created thousands of jobs, brought affordable hopes to untold numbers of families, leveraged millions of dollars in small business loans, and, most importantly, provided numerous educational opportunities for young people and veterans, not only in my congressional district, but throughout the United States.

As a prominent national Latino leader, Mr. Lizarraga is a leading voice in the revitalization of inner-city communities and a beacon of hope for young people searching for a path to a brighter future.

Mr. Lizarraga is an example of the American spirit through which dedicated, hardworking, and enterprising individuals do not just get ahead, but, in striving for a better life for themselves, they empower others to realize the American dream.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to acknowledge TELACU and Mr. Lizarraga for their dedication to creating jobs and opportunities in our communities, and to wish them continued success for many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today for the best and most notable announcement a Member of Congress can ever make about a constituent: my grandson, Santiago Roybal Olivarez was born on Friday, May 16, 2003.

Santiago is blessed to have a full contingent of doting family members ready to spoil him as soon as circumstances allow. My husband, Ed Allard, and I constitute one pair of loving grandparents. We are joined in our admiration of little Santiago by his maternal grandmother, Josefita Prietto. Santiago's great-grandparents--my father, former Representative Edward Roybal, and my mother, Lucille Beserra Roybal--and all his aunts and uncles, help complete the circle of Santiago's extensive admiration society.

Better yet, Santiago has an admiring big brother in 1-year-old Diego. Diego has undergone major health problems since his own birth, causing real worries for his parents, Ricardo and Rory Olivarez. I hope very few parents will ever know the anxiety that Ricardo and Rory have experienced as the parents of a child inexplicably and unexpectedly born with an undiagnosed birth defect as they went forward faithfully with a second pregnancy. So everyone in the Roybal family, as well as Ricardo's and Rory's many friends who understand what they have gone through during the past 18 months, now share their joy that 7 pound, 6 ounce Santiago is healthy and happy.

Last Friday, I was fortunate to be with Rory and Ricardo on the wonderful day of Santiago's birth, and I intend to exercise my prerogatives as grandmother, to be first in line for babysitting duty for newborn Santiago and big brother Diego.

Speaking on behalf of baby Santiago, I know that he is well prepared, along with big brother Diego, to provide Ricardo and Rory many joyous days and sleepless nights in the weeks and months to come. I know my colleagues join me in wishing the Olivarez family the very best in the years ahead.

Mr. Chairman, the issue of homeland security affects us all, and the need for adequate homeland security funding must be a priority for Congress.

Perhaps no set of installations is more important to the economic well-being of the nation than our nation's port--and perhaps none is more vulnerable to the threat of a terrorist attack.

In California, the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach comprise the largest port complex in the nation, handling over 6 million cargo containers each year--over 15,000 each and every day. These containers represented more than $100 billion in goods entering the U.S. economy last year.

The threat of a terrorist device entering the port through one of those 6 million containers is very real, and the impact of such an attack at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach would have far- reaching and devastating effects on our nation's economy.

For example, during the 10-day lock-out in July of last year by the pacific Maritime Association, the nation's economy lost an estimated $1 billion per day because container cargo was not moved. Container ships were anchored outside the breakwater at the port for several days, creating a backlog in ships waiting to berth and unload. Because of just 10 days of inactivity, container throughputs for the year were down nearly 10%.

The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach move cargo that is destined for businesses across the united States that have just-in-time inventory systems. These businesses, as far away as Michigan and Ohio, were affected by the port lock-out and slow-down. Some manufacturing lines cut back and furloughed employees during that port slow-down; some were forced to shut down.

A catastrophic terrorist event that shuts down the port for a significant period of time would have a disastrous impact on the U.S. economy.

The City of Los Angeles has responded aggressively to this threat. Following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Los Angeles Mayor James Hahn assembled an 18-member Seaport Security Task Force that included the U.S. Coast Guard and federal, state and local law enforcement officials, to devise a plan to assess the port's vulnerabilities and upgrade the port's security in case of terrorist attack.

Since that time, the port has invested more than $2 million to upgrade its security infrastructure, train additional port police, and acquire the necessary equipment to provide the required security at the container and cruise ship terminals and berths.

However, the port's importance is clearly national in scope, and the federal government should contribute its fair share for the increased security needs at the port.

How great is the port's need?

During the first round of Seaport Security Grants, the Port of Los Angeles identified $48 million in priority security improvements. Chief among these was the construction of a high-risk container inspection facility that would permit immediate inspections to take place on-site. Under current procedures, questionable containers must be transported along city streets and regional highways to the current inspection site located 15 miles north of the port.

Unfortunately, the Port of Los Angeles was awarded only $750,000 in federal money towards construction of a container inspection facility. The port has applied for $11 million under the second round of Seaport Security Grants. The security needs of the Port of Los Angeles and ports across the nation remain great. Until we make these needed security improvements, the Post of Los Angeles will remain just as vulnerable to a terrorist attack as on September 11. If a terrorist attack were to take place in Los Angeles or in any other of the nation's ports, we would be justly criticized for not having moved more quickly to provide the resources necessary.

I am pleased that H.R. 1559, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill, contains funding for port security. But I would contend that the $35 million for container security provided in the bill is inadequate for the nation's needs in light of the fact that the Port of Los Angeles alone has identified $48 million of necessary security improvements, and the Coast Guard has indicated that $1 billion is probably a more realistic figure for what would be required to provide adequate port security across the U.S. this year.

As a member of the Appropriations Committee that considered this bill earlier in the week, I supported the Obey Amendment to add $250 million in port security funding. Had Congressman Obey been permitted to offer his amendment today, I would have voted for it on the House floor.

Mr. Chairman, I will support this bill today to provide our military leaders and our servicemen and women the tools they need to complete the job that has been given to them. Our military is strong, we support our military, and our military will prevail in the war in Iraq.

While making sure our forces are secure abroad, we must also strive to protect our people at home. The funding in this bill for port security is inadequate for the demonstrated need, and I will continue to fight with my Democratic colleagues for the necessary resources so our people, our commerce, and our economy will continue to be strong, too.

Mr. Speaker, would not every Member of this House love to have a campaign in which they could run 93 TV ads for every TV ad run by their opponent? There is no doubt which candidate would win.

So it goes with the contest between alcohol commercials and responsible drinking ads purchased by the alcohol industry.

As reported by the Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth, in 2001 America's youth were 93 times more likely to see an ad promoting alcohol than an industry ad discouraging underage drinking. Although the liquor industry tells us their ads are not targeted at children, our children see plenty of them, and they have enormous impact on our young population. On average, in 2001, an American youngster saw 245 ads promoting alcohol products to only four ads discouraging underage drinking.

The amount of money the liquor industry spends on advertising alcohol is also astounding; and compared to what the industry spends on warnings about underage drinking it is, at best, disappointing.

For example, in the year 2001, the alcohol industry spent $811 million to air 208,000 alcohol ads, compared to $23 million for a mere 2,379 responsible drinking ads. In other words, the alcohol industry spent less than 3 percent of its total advertising dollars on responsible drinking. As a result, our youth saw more commercials for beer than for juice, gum, chips, sneakers or jeans, product ads that usually target a young audience.

The power of liquor advertising has been effective. While drinking under the age of 21 is illegal in all 50 States, a recent report by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University found that kids illegally spent over $22 billion a year on alcohol and they account for 20 percent of all alcohol consumed in our Nation.

These numbers attest to the negative impact of the extensive investment the alcohol industry is making to attract consumers to their products while ignoring their responsibility to be equally diligent about ads warning about the dangers of underage drinking.

Mr. Speaker, why does it matter? It matters because the consequences of underage drinking are devastating to our youth and to our society. According to an NIH study, over 10 million kids in the U.S. consume alcohol illegally, starting, on average, at age 13. The NIH study also found that kids who began drinking before the age of 15 are four times more likely to become alcoholics than those who begin drinking after the age of 21, 22 times more likely to use marijuana and 50 times more likely to try cocaine than kids who do not drink. That, Mr. Speaker, is why it matters.

In order to counter the alarming assault on our youth, Congress has commissioned the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences to develop a strategy to reduce underage drinking with a national media campaign at its centerpiece. The report is expected in May.

In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, the beer wholesalers and others representing the alcohol industry will be visiting congressional offices in the coming weeks to lobby for a reduction in alcohol taxes. When they do, I urge my colleagues to make it clear to the liquor industry that our children are an important and critical asset to our Nation and that we cannot afford to lose them.

I urge my colleagues to put the liquor industry on notice that it must do more than pay for their token underage drinking ads and seriously invest to inform parents and children about the dangers of underage drinking.

Mr. Speaker, I, like many of my colleagues, worked to keep America's sons and daughters out of harm's way and to protect the innocent civilians of Iraq by encouraging the continuation of U.N. inspections and diplomatic efforts to gain the support of the United Nations Security Council.

I am deeply disappointed that the President instead has chosen to begin military action. But the fact is, since the decision was made to go to war, we must do everything in our power to support and protect our troops and to prevent civilian casualties.

I, like all Americans, am deeply grateful for the patriotism of our troops, their courage and the sacrifices they are willing to make. I join all Americans in praying for their prompt and safe return home to America and to their families.

Since September 11, 2001, Congress has worked in a bipartisan fashion to provide the tools necessary for our military forces to accomplish the difficult tasks given to them. I have supported these efforts because our fighting men and women deserve the very best. With our troops now engaged in conflict, Congress and the President must make certain that our armed force continue to promptly receive the necessary resource to end the war and to secure the peace when the conflict ends.

As the wife of a former Marine and as the stepmother of a proud member of the Army, I also want to thank our country's military families who share fully in the sacrifices of our military personnel. I will work with congressional leaders to continue to address the particular needs of these families during these difficult times and work to insure that full veteran benefits are available to them when they return.

The United States must continue diplomacy to bring together the broadest coalition to aid our efforts during and after the military conflict. America will need the support of our allies to help the people of Iraq rebuild their country.

Mr. Speaker, tonight our prayers and thoughts for our troops and innocent Iraqi civilians are perhaps best expressed by the American poet, Longfellow, who wrote so poignantly:

Our hearts, our hopes are all with thee.

Our hearts, our hopes our prayers, our tears,

Our faith triumphant o'er our fears,

Are all with thee--are all with thee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk to my colleagues about an important subject that has a significant impact on our national public health and on our children: underage drinking. My interest in this topic began as a member of the subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations with jurisdiction over ONDCP, the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

During my first year on the committee, I was surprised to discover that although Congress had appropriated $2 billion to conduct a media campaign directed at the illegal use of drugs by children, ONDCP had inexplicably left out their illegal use of alcohol. I was surprised by that because while drinking under the age of 21 is illegal in all 50 States, over 10 million kids in the United States consume alcohol illegally, starting on average at age 13.

The research on the damage caused by underage drinking is dramatic, and let me cite just two examples: The first is based on research by the National Institutes of Health that found that young people who begin drinking before the age of 15 are four times more likely to become alcoholics than those who begin drinking after the age of 21. The second, and perhaps most compelling finding, is the one with a direct relationship to illegal drug use based on the study by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, known as CASA. This study found that underage drinkers are 22 times more likely to use marijuana and 50 times more likely to try cocaine than kids who do not drink under the age.

In 1999, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and I attempted to add underage alcohol use to the ONDCP's youth antidrug media campaign. The Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the National Crime Prevention Council, and a number of other organizations long associated with these issues, supported our efforts. Unfortunately, very powerful interests in the alcohol industry lobbied against the amendment to include warnings to parents and kids about the dangers of underage drinking, and our amendment was defeated by the Committee on Appropriations.

Since that time, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), and I have introduced legislation to establish a separate national media campaign to reduce and to prevent underage drinking. Over 80 of our colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, have sponsored this bill. Unfortunately, we have not been successful in passing the bill to date, but we will continue to make this fight.

The importance of this fight was again highlighted last week when the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, CASA, reported extremely troubling findings newsworthy enough to have appeared in the media across the Nation. CASA at Columbia University reported that teenagers account for nearly 20 percent of the alcohol consumed in the United States every year. Adding to this troubling finding is the fact that Dr. Susan Foster, who led the CASA study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, said that she believed that these new estimates were very conservative.

The President of CASA, Joseph Califano, a former secretary of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare and co-author of the CASA study, reported that approximately 5 million high school students admitted that at least once a month they consume five drinks on one occasion. This is extremely alarming since research suggests that alcohol, especially in large amounts, can harm the still developing teenage brain, not to mention the huge toll alcohol abuse has on the Nation, due to car accidents, injuries, high-risk sexual behavior and alcohol poisoning.

To address this looming crisis, Mr. Califano and three former U.S. surgeons general; Dr. Julius Richmond, who served under Jimmy Carter; Dr. David Satcher, who served under President Bill Clinton; and Dr. Antonia Novello, who served under George W. Bush; issued a nationwide call to action, asking parents, the public health community, and the alcohol industry

to join forces to stop this looming tragedy among our youth. Among their recommendations were that information about the dangers of excessive and underage drinking be included on labels as is now done for cigarettes. They also recommend that the nutritional content of alcohol products including calories appear on the labels. Mr. Califano and the surgeons general further recommend that Federal and State governments mount a public health campaign to curb alcohol abuse, particularly among children, teens, and college students.

Mr. Speaker, we need to do everything we can to stop the illegal spending of $22.5 billion on illegal alcohol in this country, and we will continue to work together with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) and others to make sure that we address the serious crisis.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk to my colleagues about an important subject that has a significant impact on our national public health and our children: underage drinking. My interest in this topic began as a member of the Appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over ONDCO--the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

During my first year on the committee, I was surprised to discover that although Congress had appropriated $2 billion to conduct a media campaign directed at the illegal use of drugs by children, ONDCP had inexplicably left out their illegal use of alcohol. I was surprised by this because while drinking under the age of 21 is illegal in all 50 states, over 10 million kids in the United States consume alcohol illegally starting, on average, at 13 years of age.

The research on the damage caused by underage drinking is dramatic. Let me cite just two examples. The first is based on research by the National Institutes of Health that found that young people who begin drinking before the age of 15 are four times more likely to become alcoholics than those who begin drinking after the age 21. The second, and perhaps the most compelling finding, is the one with a direct relationship to illegal drug use based on a study by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University--CASA. This study found that underage drinkers are 22 times more likely to use marijuana and 50 times more likely to try cocaine than kids who do not drink.

In 1999, Congressman Frank Wolf and I attempted to add underage alcohol use to the ONDCP'S youth anti-drug media campaign. The Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the National Crime Prevention Council, and a number of other organizations long associated with these issues, supported our efforts. Unfortunately, very powerful interests in the alcohol industry lobbied against the amendment to include warnings to parents and kids about the dangers of underage drinking, and our amendment was defeated by the Appropriations Committee.

Since that time, Congressman Frank Wolf, Congressman Zack Wamp and I have introduced legislation to establish a separate national media campaign to reduce and prevent underage drinking. Over 80 of our colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, have sponsored our bill. Unfortunately, we have not been successful in passing the bill to date, but we will continue to make this important fight.

The importance of this fight was against highlighted, last week, when the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University--CASA--reported extremely troubling findings newsworthy enough to have appeared in the media across the Nation. CASA at Columbia University reported that teenagers account for nearly 20 percent of the alcohol consumed in the United States every year. Adding to this troubling finding is the fact that Dr. Susan Foster, who led the CASA study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, said that she believed the new estimates were very conservative.

The President of CASA, Joseph Califano, a former secretary of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, and co-author of the CASA study reported that approximately 5 million high school students admitted that at least once a month they consume 5 drinks on one occasion. This is extremely alarming since research suggests that alcohol, especially in large amounts, can harm the still-developing teenage brain, not to mention that huge toll alcohol abuse has on the Nation due to car accidents, injuries, high-risk sexual behavior and alcohol poisoning.

To address this looming crisis, Mr. Califano and three former U.S. surgeons-general--Dr. Julius Richmond, who served under President Jimmy Carter, Dr. David Satcher, who served under President Bill Clinton, and Dr. Antonia Novello, who served under President George W. Bush--Issued a national call to action, asking parents, the public health community, and the alcohol industry to join forces to stop this looming tragedy among our youth. Among their recommendations were that information about the dangers of excessive and underage drinking be included on labels, as is now done for cigarettes. They also recommend that the nutritional content of alcohol products, including calories, appear on the labels. Mr. Califano and the surgeons-general further recommend that Federal and State governments mount a public health campaign to curb alcohol abuse, particularly among children, teens and college students.

In order to create a barrier to the purchase of alcohol, particularly among teens, who illegally spend $22.5 billion a year on alcohol, the former surgeons-general recommend increasing state and federal taxes on alcohol, so kids can't afford to spend a lot of money on illegal drinking. I believe these are common-sense recommendations that will help to curtail the severe problem in which 20 percent of our Nation's alcohol is consumed illegally by our children. Morally and practically we cannot afford to continue losing our children to alcohol abuse. Working together, buttressed by the best scientific evidence, I believe we can identify effective methods to protect our kids. I, with Congressman Frank Wolf and Congressman Zach Wamp, and the many other colleagues who have joined us will continue to work on this issue until we successfully address this public health crisis in our Nation.

I thank my colleagues for their interest in this important matter affecting our Nation's children and our Nation's future.

Mr. Chairman. I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4, a bill to reauthorize the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Program.

The purpose of this program is to move people from welfare to work; however Democrats and Republicans approach this effort very differently. The Democratic plan moves welfare recipients into real jobs and out of poverty. Republicans focus only on adding work hours, even if it means pushing recipients into minimum wage jobs that keep them in poverty.

The Democratic plan provides education and training to workers, so they can move up the economic ladder into decent paying jobs. The Republican plan ignores the need for training.

The Democratic plan increases access to quality child care, which is critical for families moving from welfare to work. The Republicans underfund child care programs by 9 billion dollars.

Finally, the Democratic plan provides States with the flexibility to tailor their services based on past experience. The Republican plan forces states into a one-size-fits-all program full of unfunded mandates that ignores the unique needs of individual states.

Mr. Chairman, it is clear that the Democrat approach will reform welfare in a way that helps move people from welfare to work with the hope of improving their quality of life. I urge my colleague to vote against this punitive Republican bill that fails to offer hope, and support the Democratic substitute.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to honor the career of Mr. Robert Vilmur, who retires this week after 38 years of distinguished service to the Los Angeles community.

Mr. Vilmur began his public service career in 1965 with California's first community action agency, the Economic and Youth Opportunities Agency. As part of the agency, he helped administer a variety of poverty reduction programs, including employment training and Head Start.

Additionally, he committed himself and the agency to work toward improving community based organizations in impoverished and underserved areas like East and South Central Los Angeles. Mr. Vilmur later continued helping community based organizations working as staff for the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act Program, where he evaluated employment and training programs to ensure that they served our community's needs.

In the next stage of his career, Mr. Vilmur joined forces with then Mayor Tom Bradley to combat homelessness. As head of Los Angeles' Homeless Steering Committee, he worked in collaboration with the City's growing shelter system to create a network of government and nonprofit organizations dedicated to ending homelessness. He was also instrumental in shaping the committee's direction by developing new operational procedures. During this tenure several of his efforts, including the City's Mobile Ombudsperson program, received national recognition.

In the spring of 1987, Mr. Vilmur became manager of the City's Outdoor Homeless Encampment, and he was later asked to serve as the City's first Homeless Programs Coordinator. As coordinator, he helped increase funding for the Community Service Block Grants and he redirected traffic funds to safety programs. Under his guidance, California's Traffic and Safety Program drastically reduced fatalities, injuries, and economic losses resulting from motor vehicle crashes.

The City of Los Angeles is grateful for Mr. Vilmur's service and dedication to improving our quality of life. On behalf of the City, I thank him for his many years of public service and I wish him well in all his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 141, a bill to improve the calculation of the federal subsidy rate with respect to small business loans of the Section 8(a) program.

As a member of the Commerce-Justice-State Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee which has funding jurisdiction for the Small Business Administration and its loan portfolio, I know that this is an issue we have wrestled with from year to year. I am pleased to see that we are finally acting affirmatively on behalf of small businesses. Everyone recognizes that small businesses represent the engine of U.S. economic growth.

The issue has to do with credit subsidies for small business loans. Unfortunately, the Office of Management and Budget has refused to modernize its credit subsidy calculation models. A recent General Accounting Office study reported that OMB's models do not take into account historical data and recent statutory and regulatory changes that have improved default rates and program performance. As a result, OMB over-estimates the current subsidy rate that, in turn, limits the level of loans that can be guaranteed.

SBA loan programs are especially critical in California, and I was contacted by a number of large banks in Los Angeles County about the detrimental impact that these poor calculations would have meant to small business start-up loans. The Section 7(a) program provides more than 50% of the long-term credit that goes to small businesses in California. Our costs are higher than many other states, so a 50% cut in loan levels required by OMB's policies hit California and other high-cost states disproportionately.

Last October, I was pleased to work with Rep. Darrell Issa and the California Bankers Association in organizing a letter to Speaker Hastert pointing out this problem and the severe impact it would have on California's small businesses. Over 30 of my California colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, joined us in signing and sending the letter to Speaker Hastert. I am pleased to see that Speaker Hastert has responded to our concerns and the concerns of other states to place this bill before the House today.

This legislation directs the Office of Management and Budget to calculate the federal costs of guaranteeing small business loans. OMB would be required to use the most recently approved subsidy cost model and methodology in conjunction with the program, economic assumptions, and historical data which were included in the president's FY 2003 budget request. More importantly, the Small Business Administration would implement the new subsidy rate and deem it to have been in effect since October 1.

The bill is intended to provide a new cost calculation methodology, which is expected to reduce the subsidy rate from 1.76% to 1.04%, thereby expanding the size of the program from $4.9 billion to $8.2 billion.

That is good news for small businesses in my congressional district, in California, and across the Nation.

I urge my colleagues to support this important bill. This bill will give a big lift to small businesses, and they, in turn, will help lift our economy out of its current slump.

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues and all America in extending heartfelt sympathy and sincere appreciation to the families of the Space Shuttle Columbia crew and the entire NASA family. We are honored by the sacrifices these families have made supporting their loved ones in the space program.

When the Columbia did not return as scheduled on February 1, 2003, the former employees of a now closed aerospace plant, as well as the local residents, felt a particularly painful loss. Key portions of the mighty Space Shuttle Columbia were built in my Congressional District at the former Rockwell International plant in the City of Downey.

Years before most Americans would become familiar with NASA's space shuttle program, construction of Columbia was in full swing at the Rockwell plant in Downey. The crew modules, the rear fuselage and the forward reaction control system were all constructed locally with dozens of subcontractors contributing to the effort. At its peak, the project employed 14,000 local residents.

The men and women who helped build the Columbia took great pride in their labor and in each of the shuttle's successful flights. It was their work that built the shuttle, that put it and its crew in space and that safely brought them all home again. For them, the Columbia truly was a labor of both love and pride.

Losing the Columbia was a particularly emotional blow for workers of the former shuttle-manufacturing plant since they had also worked on the Space Shuttle Challenger. For the people of Downey and the former employees of Rockwell, the crews of the Columbia and the Challenger will forever have a special place in their hearts and in the history of the city.

I commend Downey's civic and business leaders for their current efforts to utilize the now-empty birthplace of the early shuttles as the linchpin of their economic revitalization efforts. Their plans to include a space museum

and learning center on this site to honor the crew of the Columbia and to remember the important role this great city played in the history of our Nation's aerospace program is now all the more appropriate and poignant. The Columbia and the Challenger will live on for local residents and visitors alike when the space museum is built.

Mr. Speaker, today we are all humbled by the ultimate sacrifice the courageous men and women of the Columbia made on behalf of their Nation. I salute the crew of Columbia and the men and women of my district who helped build the shuttle and deliver it into space and into history.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a point of personal privilege to exercise my rights, responsibilities and pride as a grandmother to note a significant occasion in the life of the Roybal- Allard family--the first birthday of my beloved grandson, Diego Vincent Olivarez.

Diego is my first grandchild and the first great-grandchild of my father, former Rep. Edward Roybal, and I can with great modesty and accuracy report to my colleagues that he is the most beautiful baby in the world.

Diego's first birthday is notable because he was diagnosed at birth with microcephaly, and not expected to live more than a few months. While the birth and first year of a grandchild are always joyful, this year has been a particularly challenging one for his loving parents, Ricardo and Rory Olivarez. To Ricardo and Rory's everlasting credit, they rejected medical advice to institutionalize Diego. At home, they have provided a stimulating and nurturing environment for Diego, helping him to thrive. As a result, Diego's progress has far surpassed the original pessimistic medical opinions.

As I'm sure is true for all grandparents, Diego has brought real joy and meaning to our lives. His medical affliction, while an on-going concern for us, has been a blessing in disguise because it has emphasized, in a way that nothing else probably could, how precious each day is that we are given on this earth.

Diego, although your grandmother is in Washington today serving her constituents, she is thinking about you and wishes you a Happy Birthday.