Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues tonight honoring the many contributions of Asian Pacific Americans. In particular, I wish to honor one of my greatest heroes and long time friend, former Congresswoman Patsy Mink.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand here tonight and recognize the many contributions that Patsy Mink made to the people of this country, particularly to the girls and women of this country.

I was privileged to serve with Patsy while working with her on the House Education and the Workforce Committee since the beginning of my tenure in 1992. She served as a mentor and friend to me while I have worked in Congress and I miss her very much.

Besides being the first woman of color to serve in the House of Representatives, Patsy Mink helped craft landmark legislation for women across the country during her 24 years in Congress. In the early 1970s Patsy played the key role in the enactment of Title Nine, which prohibits gender discrimination by federally funded institutions.

When most people think of Title Nine, they think of women's sports and, the impact of Title Nine of women's sports can be clearly seen. Title Nine has increased the numbers of girls and women who participate in sports in high school and college.

Even beyond school, we can see the impact of Title Nine in the impressive accomplishments of American female athletes at the Olympics, and when we turn on the TV to watch professional women's basketball and soccer games.

But, we shouldn't forget that Title Nine has also been a major tool for increasing women's participation in other aspects of education, as well.

Even as we stand here on the floor today Title Nine is being used to make sure that girls have equal access to classes which teach the skills that lead to high-wage jobs that women need to support themselves and their families.

But, Title Nine was not Patsy's only contribution to the girls and women of America.

Patsy also authored the Women's Educational Equity Act, which is still the primary resource for teachers and parents seeking information on proven methods to ensure gender equity in their schools and communities.

The Women's Educational Equity Act represents the Federal commitment to ensuring that girls' future choices and successes are determined not by their gender, but by their own interests, aspirations and abilities.

There has been no stronger voice in Congress for girls, women, and minorities than Patsy's, and it will do Congress proud to remember and honor her not only for her heritage but also for the enormous impact she made while she was here in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek).

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to highlight a security issue that has been overlooked since September 11, 2001. That would be the number of nuclear weapons in the world today.

As I speak here on the floor of this House, the United States has 7,500 nuclear weapons deployed and ready for use. Their destructive power is equal to 80,000 Hiroshima-sized bombs. At the same time, Russia has more than 6,000 warheads scattered across Asia, some of them still on hair-trigger alert. I wonder if any are pointed at this building, this building that we are standing in right now.

Even India, Pakistan, and now North Korea have joined the nuclear club. These countries are motivated to obtain nuclear weapons for several reasons: security, global influence, and pride. These countries are motivated to obtain nuclear weapons because other countries have them or are trying to get them, including the United States. It is a Catch-22 with unthinkable consequences.

But make no mistake: every nuclear weapon built by any country on this Earth was built with money diverted from a school that should have been built, a hospital that should be saving lives, and food that should be feeding the poorest of the poor. The resources that human beings pour into weapons solely intended to facilitate their very own destruction is astonishing.

These weapons threaten not only individuals and nations, but the very existence of humankind. This is a threat that cannot be tolerated. This is the father of all weapons of mass destruction.

That is why I am so disappointed that the Bush administration supports funding research on so-called low-yield nuclear weapons. This is a terrible mistake. Even the so-called low-yield weapons planned by Pentagon bureaucrats will be almost as strong as the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. These low-yield weapons will spew radioactive dust miles into the atmosphere where it falls. It will spew dust of radioactive dust on mothers, babies, brothers and sisters, men and women, all of them innocent, all of them undeserving of a personal nuclear holocaust.

Nuclear weapons are humanity's biggest threat. Their greatest strength is that they corrupt human beings with misguided visions of power and security. We are fooling ourselves if we think more nuclear weapons means greater security and smaller nuclear weapons means guaranteed safety. These are the delusions that only lead closer to nuclear destruction.

Instead of researching the new nukes, we ought to be getting rid of the ones we have. That is why I will soon introduce the Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty, NPT, Commitments Act, which calls on the United States to live up to its commitments under the NPT to take immediate steps toward a nuclear weapons convention to eliminate all nuclear weapons.

I ask my colleagues to sign on to my bill, because our world will not be safe from nuclear destruction until we turn the tables on these horrific weapons and destroy them. In the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty which went into effect in 1972, the United States committed to work toward completely eliminating the world's stock of nuclear weapons.

The fact is that as long as these weapons exist, they will spread, bringing the threat of nuclear destruction to all. The only way to keep this from happening is to abolish nuclear weapons entirely and develop a strong, multilateral organization to prevent nuclear weapons from threatening the world ever again.

The Cold War is over; but, sadly, the threat from nuclear weapons has increased. Instead of wasting our resources building more weapons that can never be used and serve only to threaten the very existence of humankind, let us take the path away from nuclear war and toward a lasting peace for our children.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to join my colleagues and to thank the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) for pulling this evening together so that we can speak out against a threat to America. It is not a threat to American lives, but a threat to American values. It is a threat to everything that this Nation stands for, every principle that this Nation was founded on, and every memory of every soldier that has fought and died or been harmed for the free exchange of ideas.

Today bureaucrats of the FCC and the overwhelming complacency of this Congress threaten that freedom. This past Monday I hosted a forum in my district, which is the two counties north of San Francisco across the Golden Gate Bridge. We had a forum with Federal Communications Commissioner Michael Copps about his agency's rules on media ownership. Nearly 400 of my constituents at 1 o'clock in afternoon, packed into an auditorium at Dominican University in San Rafael, were there to declare their opinions about what the FCC rules on media ownership will mean, and their opinion was that this is extremely important. This is an issue, however, that has been underreported by the very media that will be most affected.

In fact, as proof of that very underreporting, yesterday over a dozen concerned Democratic Members of Congress held a press conference right here on the Hill on the issue of media consolidation. I suppose no surprise, but not one member of the broadcast press showed up, and until a reporter from Roll Call, our newspaper here on the Hill, came to experience a press conference without press, we did not have anybody. So we disbanded and came back in honor of the person that was there from Roll Call.

It reminds me of the cliche about a tree falling in the forest. If Members of Congress speak out about media ownership, and the media does not cover the event, is democracy already dead?

No newspaper, radio station, or TV network is perfect. Allowing single corporations to monopolize the information that average Americans receive give big corporations like Rupert Murdoch and Ted Turner absolutely too much power.

On June 2 the Federal Communications Commission has scheduled a vote on new regulations that would break down the decades-long firewall between media ownership and single markets. Gone will be the prohibition against corporations owning newspapers and TV stations in the same town or cable TV networks and TV stations in the same town. Gone also will be the limits on number of TV stations and cable stations a corporation can own nationally.

The threat of a veto by President Clinton kept these rules from being changed in 1996, but now under the Bush Administration, FCC Chairman Michael Powell and a Republican majority on the Commission that is drunk on the ideology of the free market, these changes are very likely to be approved.

It is a sham and it is a shame that in a Nation of 280 million people, the FCC has held only one official hearing on this subject, just outside the Beltway in Virginia. If it was not for the FCC Commissioners, Commissioner Michael Copps and Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein, it is really doubtful that this discussion would have gone beyond a few lobbyists and public interest activists in the first place.

Since radio ownership regulations were relaxed under the Telecommunications Act in 1996, radio ownership diversity has decreased in our Nation by at least one-third. In the San Francisco market alone, seven stations are now owned by Clear Channel Communications, seven by Infinity Broadcasting, and three by ABC.

Across the Nation 10 companies broadcast to two-thirds of the Nation's radio audience and receive two-thirds of the broadcast revenues. Hear me: Ten companies broadcast to two-thirds of the Nation's audience and receive two-thirds of the broadcast revenues. That is not okay, and it is going to get worse.

Has the quality of radio broadcasting improved because of these changes? Is there more local programming, more local news, a greater variety of programming? Is there free flow of information? Or is there censorship? Just ask the Dixie Chicks. They know what censorship is.

Power over ideas should not be subject to individuals with only ideas of profit on their mind. In America ideas are not just another commodity like butter or steel or cloth. Ideas are the lifeblood of our Nation. The FCC should be defending the free exchange of ideas, not giving corporate executives, not always too different from Enron's Ken Lay, not giving them the power to shut off the flow of ideas to American citizens.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I are cosponsoring House Resolution 218 that calls on the FCC to examine and inform the public of the consequences of the new round of deregulation. It asks that the FCC allow for extensive public review and comment on any proposed changes to media ownership rules before issuing a final rule.

The least the FCC and Michael Powell can do is allow the people of America the opportunity to speak their mind about the elimination of freely exchanging ideas.

I thank the gentleman from Vermont for doing this Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule for excluding the conversation and debate on unemployment insurance, and I support the Miller substitute because it levels the playing field between a corporation's top executives and the rest of the employees. This substitute actually supports what is good for the captain is good for the crew.

It truly protects employees against the kinds of total pension loss experienced by Enron employees by requiring companies to give their employees full and accurate information about their pension benefits and about any employer's stock in the pension plan.

It ensures employees are armed with good information and allows for timely discussions about investing the funds in the pension plan, and, Mr. Speaker, should the employee pension funds be misused, the Miller substitute gives employees a real opportunity to get their money back.

My constituents just north of the Golden Gate Bridge, across from San Francisco, tell me they are disgusted by the special protections given to executives while employees are suffering. Only the Miller substitute provides the pension protections employees truly need, and only a rule that allows discussion for unemployment insurance being extended protects the workers in this country who have lost their employment because of a terrible, terrible economy, a war economy, caused by huge tax breaks for the wealthiest in the country.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule and vote for real reform by supporting the Miller substitute.

Madam Speaker, this past Monday I hosted a forum in my district with Federal Communications Commissioner Michael Copps about his agency's rules on media ownership. We had nearly 400 of my constituents packed into an auditorium at Dominican University in San Rafael. As their attendance testified, the FCC rules on media ownership is an extremely important issue and an issue that, unfortunately, has been underreported by the very media that will be most affected.

In fact, as proof of that, as proof of underreporting, today, just an hour or so ago, over a dozen concerned Democratic Members of Congress held a press conference on this very issue, the issue of media consolidation, and not one member of the press showed up, until, that is, a member of Roll Call, our newspaper here on the Hill, came to experience a press conference without press. We were glad that that individual showed, but that was as far as it went.

So, what is this all about? Well, on June 2, the Federal Communications Commission has scheduled a vote on new regulations that have the potential to drastically change the face of broadcasting and newspaper ownership, and, in so doing, the flow of free information.

First, the proposed changes to FCC rules would break down the decades-long firewall between media ownership in single markets. Gone will be the prohibitions against corporations owning newspapers and TV stations in the same town, or cable TV stations and TV stations in the same town. Gone also will be the limits on the number of TV stations and cable TV stations a corporation can own nationally. Also allowed would be cross-ownership of print media and broadcast media in the same media market.

In the 1996 Telecommunications Act, similar rules were proposed, but they were stopped by the threat of a veto by President Clinton. Now, under the Bush administration, the FCC Chairman, Michael Powell, who is an avowed free marketer, has said that these proposed rules should come back. Chairman Powell has scheduled a vote on the rule changes in less than a month, and, with a Republican majority on the Commission, these changes are pretty certain to pass.

It is a sham, and it is a shame, that the FCC has not scheduled official hearings across the Nation like the official one that Commissioner Copps and I hosted Monday in my district. The FCC has held only one, only one, official hearing on this subject, just outside the Beltway in Virginia.

If it was not for FCC Commissioners Copps and Jonathan Adelstein, it is doubtful that this discussion would have gone beyond a few lobbyists and public interest activists in the first place.

I am against the proposed deregulation, and I believe we should look back to the relaxation of radio ownership under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. We should use that for our guidance, because virtual elimination of radio ownership restrictions has resulted in a reduction of radio ownership by at least one-third across our Nation. In the San Francisco market alone, seven stations are now owned by Clear Channel Communications, seven by Infinity Broadcasting and three by ABC. Across the Nation, 10 companies broadcast to two-thirds of the Nation's radio audience and receive two-thirds of the broadcast revenues.

Let me say that again: Since the 1996 Telecommunications Act, 10 companies broadcast to two-thirds of the radio audience and receive two-thirds of the broadcast revenues nationwide.

Has the quality of radio broadcasting improved because of these changes? Is there more local programming, more local news, a greater variety of programming? Is there free flow of information, or is there censorship? Ask the Dixie Chicks.

Madam Speaker, my colleagues and I are cosponsoring House Resolution 218 that calls on the FCC to examine and inform the public of the consequences of the new round of deregulation. It asks that the FCC allow for extensive public review and comment on any proposed changes to media ownership rules before issuing a final rule.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 1261, especially in regard to the provisions in Section 123, which allows discrimination when a faith-based group runs job-training programs.

This provision sets a bad precedent for our Nation and I believe it does not belong in this bill. We should honor the separation between church and state set-forth by the Constitution. One of the most important rights we treasure in this country is the right to religious freedom. That's why I believe religion should continue to be a matter of personal choice and not something that is supported or dictated by the Federal Government.

Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that this provision inappropriately blurs the separation between church and state by subsidizing faith- based groups without requiring them to comply with federal non- discrimination laws. This means they could allow refuse to hire people who disagree with the organizations religious views. Employers could use religion to make promotional decisions or as a litmus test for hiring and firing. We would be allowing federal dollars to fund discrimination and that is wrong!

While proponents of this provision argue that they would be expanding opportunities for faith-based organizations, they would really be destroying a basic civil right protection that has existed in federal job training for 21 years. Religiously affiliated organizations currently participate in Federal job training programs with the non- discrimination clause in place. Yet, lifting the discrimination prohibitions will do nothing more than encourage discriminatory practices within these organizations.

Mr. Chairman, I am strongly against these Section 123 provisions and I encourage my colleagues to join me in opposing this flawed legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about this rule and this bill of the Republican leadership that clearly engages in a game of make-believe, believing that big tax cuts for the wealthiest, which will not even be enacted for years to come, will ease the pain of today's unemployed workers now.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership is clearly engaging in a game of make-believe as they push their tax plan. In their imaginary world, big tax cuts for the wealthiest--the bulk of which won't be enacted for years to come--would ease the pain of unemployed workers now.

We have already seen what happens when the Republicans legislate in a dream world. Since they passed their last irresponsible tax cut, more than 1\1/2\ million America's have lost their jobs. Only in fantasyland is that considered effective economic stimulus.

But America's working families live in the real world. They understand the real damage this plan will cause. I oppose this rule and the Republican's budget and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Johnson amendment which calls for citizen panels to examine the societal issues and effects that could emerge from nanotechnology, effects and issues that may not be able to be detected and imagined with this imaginable science but for the untrained eye, the naive person that may not know what this is supposed to do may actually see what could come up and could get in the way of this being a straightforward technology. But this is a straightforward amendment. It adds more common sense to an already good underlying bill.

The Johnson amendment taps into the unscientific expertise that our neighbors, our colleagues, our family members, our friends could offer to the exciting development of nanotech- nology.

As with any new technology, Mr. Chairman, any new technological endeavor, some of the issues and consequences we might be able to anticipate from the very beginning; but others may not emerge for a time to come. More effort is needed. More effort is needed to increase public understandings of nanotechnology in the first place in order to avoid the backlash that has plagued other new technologies such as genetically modified foods, corn and the Monarch butterfly, for example.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Johnson amendment to H.R. 766, the Nanotechnology Research and Development Act.

The Johnson amendment, calls for citizen panels to examine the societal issues and effects that could emerge from nanotechnology, that may be imaginable to the scientist, but not the untrained eye. It is a straight forward amendment that adds more common sense to a good underlying bill.

We all know that local citizens often have the best insight for what is coming straight at us. The Johnson amendment taps into the unscientific expertise that our neighbors, colleagues, family members or friends could offer to the exciting development of nanotechnology.

During committee consideration of H.R. 766 we had a spirited debate about the potential societal and ethical issues that nanotechnology could mean for us down the road. As with any new technological endeavor, some of the issues and consequences we might be able to anticipate from the beginning . . . but others may not emerge for a time to come.

At our committee's nanotechnology hearings, we also had several witnesses who indicated that more effort is needed to increase public understanding of nanotechnology in order to avoid the backlash that has plagued other new technologies, such as genetically modified foods, corn and the Monarch Butterfly, for example.

In the past, too often the scientific or technological experts have told the public ``trust us''--this won't have any adverse consequences.

But we know that's not always the case, no matter how much the experts tell us otherwise.

Whether we're talking about the early questions that surrounded biotechnology, corn and the Monarch Butterfly or what nanotechnology might mean for increasing the human lifespan, there's certainly a demonstrated usefulness to having a commonsense voice be part of the research agenda.

Now is the time to incorporate those common sense voices into the research agenda. Now, while we're at the starting gate, not when we might already be involved in public controversy.

The Johnson amendment is the answer to this need for public involvement by calling on ordinary Americans to be a stakeholder in the nanotechnology research agenda. Ordinary Americans certainly have a stake in what nanotechnology can deliver, so we should make sure they have a voice in how nanotechnology may deliver it.

I urge my colleagues to support the Johnson amendment.

Mr. Speaker, we are all part of a larger community. If the rights of one are endangered, then everyone's rights are endangered. That is why we must be concerned that across the country incidents of hate crimes continue to rise. The San Francisco Bay area, my own backyard, reported more than 357 hate crimes last year. This is up from 317 in the year 2001. Last fall a transgender teenager, a 17- year-old, from Silicon Valley was murdered by four acquaintances. Earlier this month, the body of a 30-year-old bisexual man was found buried in a shallow grave in Monterey County.

We must stop this. We must work for tougher legislation to protect those targeted for hate crimes. And we can do this by passing a Federal hate crimes law to protect all Americans. No one in America should live in fear because of his or her ethnic background, religious affiliation, gender, disability, or sexual preference. That is why it is important to pass meaningful hate crimes legislation and pass it now. We need to strengthen our existing laws to protect people against all hate crimes. We must send a message to all Americans that hateful behavior is wrong and will not be tolerated in our Nation. Our law enforcement officials need vigorous tools to fight and prosecute hate crimes because existing Federal law is inadequate.

That is why I have been, and will continue to be, a strong supporter of the gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Conyers) Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. With this bill, for the first time under Federal law, sexual orientation, gender, and disability would be added to the list of categories covered by Federal civil rights laws. In addition, Mr. Speaker, it would expand Federal civil rights laws to allow prosecution of hate crimes even if the event did not occur during a federally protected activity such as while voting or attending school. Also, the hate crimes bill would expand the circumstances under which the Federal Government could offer assistance to State and local governments to help prosecute these crimes.

Last Congress we had 208 bipartisan co-sponsors on this bill. This Congress we need to pass it into law. The Republican leadership has cast this bill aside. That is unacceptable. We have another chance in the 108th Congress, and I will continue to work with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) until this bill is passed into law.

Congress must make it clear that there is no room for personal attacks and bigotry in the United States of America. We are all part of a greater community, and we will only be protected from hate crimes when all our neighbors are protected from hate crimes.

Madam Speaker, budgeting is about choices, whether they are a working family or the Federal Government. Working families know far too well that they cannot afford everything. They often must decide between making a mortgage payment or taking a family vacation or between paying for health insurance or buying a new car. Their decisions reveal their priorities. It is more important to have a safe home for their families and to know that they can take their children to the doctor if they get sick. Parents routinely forego luxuries in order to ensure their children are safe and secure. The future of their children is clearly a top priority.

Just like working families, the Federal Government has limited resources, and just like working families, the decisions we make about how to use our limited resources say a great deal about our priorities. The tax package presented by the Republican leadership once again reveals what we have known for a long, long while: Working families are not their priority. When push comes to shove and difficult decisions are made under the Republican leadership, working families get the short end of the stick each and every time.

The message Republicans are sending with their tax package is clear: If one is wealthy, if one is heavily invested, they deserve a huge amount of permanent tax relief. If one is a working parent with a child, forget it. Not only will their tax cut be much, much less if they get one at all, it will be temporary. The $1,000 per child tax credit will be lowered in the year 2006 to $700, proving once again that families are not a priority.

The message from Republican leaders is clear: Working families are not their priority. I say that is a very bad policy. These are the toughest fiscal times that our States have seen in decades, and working families are suffering the consequences. As States are forced to tighten their belts and make cuts, teachers are losing their jobs and children are being taught in overcrowded classrooms. State health insurance programs now cover fewer children and are not providing as many services, and in many States families must now meet stricter eligibility requirements to enroll in State childcare programs, and all of this is done so the Republicans can give our Nation's wealthiest a big tax cut.

But the fact is we have a choice. We can help States meet these shortfalls or we can give tax breaks we cannot afford to the wealthiest people in this country, people who are actually not particularly feeling the pain of these bad times. The Republican message is inescapable. The rich are more important. If one is among the more than 1 million unemployed workers in this country who have exhausted unemployment benefits, this administration is saying you are certainly not a priority. Instead of extending benefits which would help care for families and immediately stimulate the economy for those who are out of work and out of their unemployment benefits, it is more important to put a little extra cash in the pockets of investors in the hopes they eventually will invest this extra money back into the economy.

Republicans may on occasion say they care about American families, but their actions expose their feelings. When offered the choice between making the rich a little bit richer or helping working families make their lives a little easier, Republicans pick the wealthy every time.

Madam Speaker, the budget process often forces us to make tough decisions, but if one asks me, the choices being made today are not difficult ones. Helping families so that they can do the best to make ends meet or enriching the wealthiest who do not even need our fiscal help is a no-brainer. In the same way that parents put the needs of their children over frivolous luxuries, it is time to adopt fiscal policies for this Nation that prove that we have our Nation's priorities in order, and that means, Madam Speaker, we need to work for hard-working families.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was not able to speak on behalf of H. Res. 161, Recognizing the Achievements of Operation Respect and the ``Don't Laugh at Me'' program, when it was debated and passed by the House of Representatives on Monday, April 28, 2003.

I strongly support H. Res. 161 and the work of the Operation Respect program and its founder, Peter Yarrow. Operation Respect and its ``Don't Laugh at Me'' program is engaged in a national effort to transform after-school programs and children's summer camps into more compassionate and respectful environments. The ``Don't Laugh at Me'' program addresses the issues of emotional and physical violence among children. It helps to prevent bullying and promotes compassion and tolerance among children.

Operation Respect and its ``Don't Laugh at Me'' program has been presented at over 200 workshops for children in after-school programs and children's camps. Over 18,000 educators in 27 states have received training materials and curriculum to increase mutual respect and fellowship and create an environment for children that focuses on their schoolwork and promotes social and emotional growth.

Peter Yarrow, the musician and social activist, who is a member of Peter, Paul, and Mary created the ``Don't Laugh at Me'' initiative. Peter, himself, has appeared before over 240 educational organizations in over 36 states on behalf of Operation Respect.

Peter Yarrow is a talented, compassionate man with a lifelong message of humanity and caring. We have had the joy of working together on several occasions. Through his music, Peter has addressed numerous social and political causes, none more significant than Operation Respect: ``Don't Laugh at Me.'' This man, whose songs have had the power to stir social consciousness and effect change, is passionately dedicated to developing an environment of safety, respect, and tolerance in American schools.

So it is with great pleasure that I join my fellow Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to recognize the work of Peter Yarrow and this outstanding program, which has the enthusiastic support of educators and school children alike.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring attention to the many hard-working families in our country that cannot make ends meet as this economy slows and the job market continues to weaken.

These families are the main reason we must absolutely extend the temporary emergency unemployment compensation program, TEUC; and they are the reason we must do it now. With the current high unemployment rate of 5.8 percent, unemployment benefits are the same as when the TEUC program was first established in March of 2002, over a year ago, and reextended in January, 2003. Just last week the Department of Labor reported that new applications for unemployment insurance hit the high number of 455,000 applicants for the week ending April 19. This is the highest level in more than a year. And it does not count families who have exhausted their benefits and still are not working.

Mr. Speaker, in March of this year, millions of workers had exhausted their regular unemployment benefits which continues the pattern of the past 24 months, where the numbers of unemployed workers receiving aid is absolutely and actually increasing. Mr. Speaker, there is no question that there is a real need for unemployed worker relief in this Nation, but we do not need numbers and we do not need statistics to alert us to this growing problem. Just listen to the words from letters I have received from my constituents in the Sixth Congressional District of California. And when the Members hear their words, they will know that there is immediacy for additional unemployment insurance benefits, and they will know that it is important that people in districts like mine, Marin and Sonoma Counties, where the unemployment is not as dire as some other areas in the country, still have needs as well as the rest of the Nation.

One constituent writes: ``I have a master's degree and have not been able to find work. I also deal with a chronic illness. I find myself applying for food stamps and soon will be unable to pay any bills. I'm not sure I will have a roof over my head before long. A lot of people are having a very difficult time. Please try to make unemployment benefits a top priority.''

Another writes: ``I have been actively seeking work since the end of March, 2002, without success. I am a 55-year-old man who has never had a problem staying fully employed until this year. I have never before been affected by the reluctance of employers to hire older people. That, coupled with the stagnant economy, has made my ability to earn a living terrifyingly difficult. Unemployment compensation has kept food on my table for my family, but I worry what will happen next month.''

These letters show how desperately workers need help. They need help just to keep their heads above water so their families can have the food and shelter they need to be healthy and safe, so their families can eat while their parents continue to search for work.

It is important that this Congress take action to make sure no family goes without basic needs like food or money for bills. That is why I support the gentleman from New York's (Congressman Rangel) bill, H.R. 1652, the Unemployment Benefits Extension Act. This would provide 26 weeks of extended benefits through November, 2003. The consideration of this bill is critical as many unemployed workers once again find themselves reaching the end of unemployment benefits. If these benefits are not extended, in most States workers exhausting their regular benefits after May 31 of this year will receive no further assistance.

Extending these benefits would also give the economy a boost, Mr. Speaker, because unemployed workers would have money for purchases. Otherwise, without these benefits, these workers, unemployed workers, will have to curtail their spending, which would weaken the economy and continue the domino effect, causing even more job loss.

Economy.com analysis found that extension of the Federal unemployment insurance benefits would be the single most effective action that Congress could take now to boost the economy and protect jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule because it will not allow Members of this Congress to vote on an amendment and to debate an amendment that would fully fund IDEA and make the funding mandatory. We all know how the funding process works around here. Authorization levels may be fine, budget numbers may help, but what really counts is appropriations. There are many, many competing demands on appropriations, so we should remove that competition when the Federal Government has made a commitment to fund an education program at any level because our schools need to be able to count on those funds. We have told them they are coming. They need to be able to count on them.

To that end, Mr. Speaker, two amendments were submitted to the Committee on Rules, one by three Democrats and the other by three Republicans. Those amendments would have phased in full funding for the part B State grants in IDEA and at the same time made all new funding mandatory. Neither of these amendments were accepted; neither will be considered today. Without the opportunity to debate and vote on one or the other of these amendments, a vote for H.R. 1350 is a vote against fully funding special education programs, which in turn leaves our schools and our parents competing for scarce funds for needed programs that are needed equally for our special ed kids and for the rest of kids that need to be educated.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote down this rule and in so doing demand the opportunity to vote on an IDEA reauthorization bill that includes mandatory full funding.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

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

Mr. Chairman, as the ranking member of the subcommittee that has jurisdiction over the IDEA, I have been struck by how very emotional people are about this very issue. In fact, before me I have a stack of mail that came to the Committee on Education and the Workforce just over the last few days, and that mail is against passage of H.R. 1350.

There are two things we can do in Congress to reduce the stress and the emotion that people feel about this issue. One is to fully fund it and make it mandatory; two is to make sure that children are treated fairly in the discipline process.

If we fully fund the Federal share of our costs and if we make funding mandatory, we will fulfill the commitment to our schools for the special education programs that we have promised here in the Congress. Unfortunately, H.R. 1350 does not do that. Without mandatory full funding, the authorization levels in the bill are meaningless because they are subject to the many,

many competitive requests included in all and every appropriations process.

Amendments were offered during the committee, Mr. Chairman. Amendments were offered by the Democrats that would fully fund IDEA and make the funding mandatory. But those amendments were defeated on a partisan basis, and we do not have before us any amendment that would fully fund and allow for the debate here today to fully fund this issue of mandatory funding for IDEA.

To me, a vote for H.R. 1350 is a vote against fully funding the issue, and I oppose it for that reason alone. But there is another good reason to oppose H.R. 1350. And talk about getting emotional, this is where parents and educators have a lot to say, and that is the discipline provisions in the bill.

In the bill, a student with special needs can be removed from school for, and I quote, ``any violation of a school's student code of conduct.'' Now, that is different in every single school, and a child can be kept out of school for an indefinite length of time. So a student with Tourette's syndrome, for example, who may shout out in class, can be expelled. A student who does not understand the dress code and wears shorts when long pants are required, could be expelled. A student with limited muscular control could be expelled for lashing out or possibly pushing another student. There is no requirement in H.R. 1350 to determine if the child's violation is the result of his or her disability.

This is going backwards. It is no way to reauthorize IDEA. Children, parents, and schools deserve an IDEA reauthorization where parents will not have to compete over education funds, where the goal will be to keep kids with special needs in school, where the legislation removes the emotion surrounding the issue, not increases it. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1350 is not that kind of reauthorization, and I will not be able to support it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), a really important member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), another important member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) who is also an important member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

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

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, actually the key here is mandatory funding because no matter what we authorize on this committee, no matter what we vote for today on H.R. 1350, whether it is 18 percent of the 40 percent Federal commitment, whether it is 21 percent of the 40 percent commitment, or if it is 25 percent of the 40 percent Federal commitment, the funding has to be spent. We can authorize it, but the Committee on Appropriations spends it. Unless we tell the Committee on Appropriations through changing the rules of H.R. 1350 and IDEA, unless we tell them that it is mandatory that they spend what we authorize, it will not get spent; and it is going to be the year 2035 before we even come close to reaching 40 percent.

Later on today the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and I have an amendment that will pass all new funding after the year 2003, pass any new funding that is appropriated directly to the school districts and to the schools. But if we do not get any new funding because indeed the appropriators do not choose to add funding, then we pass along nothing to school districts because 100 percent of nothing is still nothing.

The Federal commitment to IDEA 30 years ago was 40 percent that Federal Government would match the mandate that the States educate all kids, which is absolutely the right thing to do, and provide them a free education and equally educate all children in the public school system. That was 40 years ago. We are at 18 percent of that 40 percent today, and we are never going to get there if we do not say that it is something that must be done. And in so doing, we will be making it possible for schools to count on the funding they need, we will be removing the emotion that parents pit themselves against each other because there is so little funding available for education in the first place, and we will make sure that special education funding does not come out of the funding necessary for other programs.

We make promises. We do not fulfill them. Voting for H.R. 1350 would be another broken promise unless H.R. 1350 includes mandatory full funding over the next 6-year, 7-year period.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) and the gentleman from Delaware (Chairman Castle), and certainly my ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), for what has gone into this legislation. We truly have worked hard to make this be something that we could all vote for, and I believe in your sincerity and I know you believe in our's and our passion on all of this.

There are reasons why I will not be able to vote for this. Reason number one is the discipline provisions. This bill will allow students to be moved indefinitely to alternative placements for any violation of a school code of conduct, and we have gone over that. That could severely affect a disabled child.

This bill has no guarantee of full funding. We can say we want full funding, but if we do not guarantee it, it probably is not going to happen. And, yes, we have done a much better job over the last few years. We have just gone through some really good prosperous years in this country. Now this country is in an economic downturn and the challenges for the same dollars are going to be much, much greater.

This bill weakens due process protection for parents. It would bar parents from raising new issues at due process hearings, even if new evidence has surfaced since the hearing was scheduled.

This bill has a pilot program for 10 State waivers. It permits the Secretary of Education to waive IDEA provisions to reduce paperwork. Criteria for the approach of these pilot programs are completely open- ended and would be defined by the Secretary.

Mr. Chairman, the other thing this bill does that will make it impossible for me to vote for it is it puts a cap on attorney fee reimbursements, which makes it even more difficult for low income parents to get their due process.

Mr. Chairman, I am hoping Democrats and those on the Republican side who want full funding and want that funding to be mandatory, who want our children's discipline provisions not to go backwards, but to go forward, will vote against this bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. Chairman, we worked with the majority on this amendment. We do not oppose it, and would hope that it could be passed right now.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that we do not, on this side of the aisle, oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I offer amendment No. 4.

For the time being, yes.

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

Amendment No. 4 would change the definition of a free appropriate public education, the language changed in the Supreme Court decision known as Rowley, which states that the goal of a child with disabilities is the same as all other children, to have educational and related services necessary for that child to access the general curriculum.

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

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

For the purposes of legislative history, the intent of this amendment is to codify the interpretation of FAPE contained in the Supreme Court decision Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982).

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the DeMint amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment. Federal funds should not be used for private school vouchers for any children, but it is particularly dangerous to do this for children with disabilities.

Vouchers undermine the very foundation of IDEA. IDEA guarantees children with disabilities a free and appropriate public education and provides important safeguards to the child and the parents to ensure that education is received.

When a special education child takes a voucher to a private school, all guarantees of rights under IDEA are lost. The McKay voucher program in Florida, which allows children with disabilities to use vouchers to go to private schools, is a perfect example of the pitfalls of an IDEA voucher program.

In the Florida special education voucher program, there are no State reviews of the education and services being provided, and there are no civil rights protections if the parents are not happy with the education and services their child is receiving.

Under the Florida IDEA voucher program, private schools can and do charge parents additional tuition and fees above the voucher, making it difficult or impossible for low-income parents to benefit from a voucher program.

Contrary to what people claim, vouchers do not increase parents' choice. Private schools can and do discriminate for a variety of reasons. They can refuse to take a student for any reason, including the student's disability. So when it comes to vouchers, it is not the parents who have the choice; it is the private school. Whatever choices a private school makes, it does not have to let parents or the public know why.

Vouchers give private schools public taxpayer dollars, but the private schools are not held to any of the same standards of accountability that public schools are held to. Public schools must hold open meetings and make their test scores, dropout rates, and other basic information public. Private schools are subject to no public oversight.

Accountability to the child, to the parents, and to the public is the touchstone of IDEA, and also, supposedly, No Child Left Behind. We must not allow vouchers to jeopardize that accountability. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), a member of the Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Musgrave amendment and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment. Vouchers undermine the very foundation of IDEA. IDEA guarantees children with disabilities a free and appropriate public education and provides important safeguards to the child and the parents to ensure that education is actually received.

When a special education child takes a voucher to a private school, all guarantees and rights under IDEA are lost. The McKay Voucher Program in Florida, which allows children with disabilities to use vouchers to go to private schools, is a perfect example of the pitfalls of an IDEA voucher program gone wrong.

In the Florida special education voucher program, there are no State reviews of the education and services being provided, and there are no civil rights protections if parents are not happy with the education and services their children or their child is receiving. Under the Florida IDEA voucher program, private schools can and do charge parents additional tuition and fees above the voucher making it difficult and usually impossible for low income parents to benefit from vouchers.

Contrary to what some people claim, vouchers do not increase parents' choice. Private schools can and do discriminate for a variety of reasons. They can refuse to take a student for any reason including the student's disability. So when it comes to vouchers, it is not the parents who have the choice. It is the private school.

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

Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the Tancredo amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment restricts local schools' methods of identifying students as having learning disabilities by redefining the language ``specific learning disability'' as a disorder ``due to a medically detectable and diagnosable physiological condition relying on physical and scientific evidence.''

Learning disabilities are not simply a medical condition that can only be determined by a doctor. Current definition includes disorders with psychological processes which have severe impact on learning and behavior. The Tancredo amendment creates a new and very narrow medical condition definition that would actually keep children from getting the special education services that they need, and they need those services so they can learn and be successful in school.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

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

I would like to repeat that this amendment creates a very narrow medical condition definition, and it would keep children from getting the special education services they need to learn and to be successful in school.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment, but I do not oppose it.

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

Mr. Chairman, there is strong bipartisan support for the McKeon/ Woolsey amendment, amendment No. 10, because it guarantees that from now on, all increases in Federal IDEA funds go to local schools where they belong.

My Republican colleague and I came together to offer this amendment because we want to make certain that State do not use Federal increases in IDEA funds to solve their State budget problems. We are aware of at least 4 States, including our own California, that may be considering using IDEA funding increases at the State level for other purposes.

While we all here in this room are sympathetic to State budget problems, we agree that IDEA funding must not be used to solve those problems. The McKeon/Woolsey amendment ensures this will not happen by prohibiting States from keeping increases in IDEA funds for their own use.

Whenever I talk to the educators in my local school districts, the first thing they bring up is IDEA, and the first thing they bring up about IDEA is funding. As we all know, the Federal government has a long way to go to fully fund the Federal share of IDEA. It is our local school districts who fulfill the responsibility of providing every child with a free and appropriate public education. And it is these school districts, not the States, who must benefit from federal IDEA funds.

Local schools desperately need every penny of Federal IDEA funds, and the McKeon/Woolsey amendment makes sure that they get them. I encourage my colleagues to vote aye on the McKeon/Woolsey amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume to have a colloquy with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).

Mr. Chairman, I first want to thank the gentleman for his amendment and for his support of young children and their families. I understand this amendment retains the integrity of the team process. We want to preserve the team approach and the philosophy that the decisions of the IFSP team are to be made in partnership with the family and the providers in determining together what is appropriate for the child.

I also understand that this amendment is not meant to understate the importance of even the youngest children with disabilities being able to be with their peers in their neighborhoods, child care or Head Start, or in other settings that will give them both the special services they need but the opportunities to be part of their communities. Is this correct?

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I support the

gentleman's amendment and congratulate him on introducing it.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Boehlert- Markey amendment.

If the U.S. auto industry believes it would suffer under increased fuel economy standards, what will be the effect on the U.S. auto industry when Americans import fuel efficient autos from foreign companies?

Because--with the rising cost of gas, the detrimental effect on our environment, and the strong desire of American consumers to be independent of foreign oil--we will be purchasing fuel efficient autos.

Mr. Chairman, we shouldn't fool ourselves. Americans will purchase fuel efficient cars . . . and we should set policy today so those cars will be American-made.

Mr. Chairman, Americans realize we should not risk 1.5 million acres of pristine wilderness for a meager, 6-month supply of oil that wouldn't even be available for 10 years.

My constituents in Marin and Sonoma counties are miles from the Arctic Refuge. But there are two easy reasons why we care about land in Alaska.

First, the people I represent believe strongly in respecting and preserving all the world's environment not just for today, but for generations to come.

Second, they know that once we start to let oil interests pilfer the environment in Alaska, the Bush administration and their oil buddies might see the California coast as next.

Mr. Chairman, if we open this door today, even a crack, it will be impossible to close. Oppose drilling in the Arctic Refuge.