Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me this time, and I rise to oppose H.R. 2739, which would implement the United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement.

I am especially opposed to the intellectual property rights provisions contained in chapter 16 of this agreement because they could restrict the access of the people of Singapore to affordable medicines for HIV/AIDS and other diseases. The agreement delays the introduction of generic competition and extends patent terms, thus extending the length of time during which people in Singapore would be required to pay monopoly prices for medicines.

The agreement also restricts Singapore's use of compulsory licensing and parallel importation mechanisms that allow governments to override patents in order to protect public health. If the United States- Singapore Free Trade Agreement becomes a template for negotiations with other developing countries, people throughout the developing world will find it harder to gain access to affordable medicines.

Currently, access to medicines is severely limited in developing countries because developing countries cannot afford to purchase medicines at the prices charged by the multinational pharmaceutical companies. More than 40 million people are living with HIV/AIDS worldwide, and over 95 percent of them live in developing countries. Yet many of the medicines that treat people with HIV/AIDS here in the United States are unavailable in most developing countries. Patients in developing countries with other diseases, such as heart disease, diabetes, and cancer, also lack access to lifesaving medicines.

The Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health affirmed the rights of developing countries to take measures to protect public health and promote access to medicines. This declaration was adopted by the World Trade Organization at the Fourth Ministerial Conference at Doha, Qatar, on November 14, 2001. The Fast Track bill passed by Congress last year specifically directs the President to negotiate trade agreements that are consistent with the provisions of the Doha Declaration.

We cannot trust this administration to negotiate free trade agreements with developing countries when the administration ignores the explicit instructions of Congress in the Fast Track bill to respect the Doha Declaration and allow developing countries to take appropriate measures to protect public health.

I urge my colleagues to support the rights of developing countries to promote access to affordable medicines by opposing the U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for allowing me this time, and I must tell my colleagues that as I stand here today, my heart is broken. It is broken because after 38 years of a successful program we allowed 90 minutes on a closed rule to destroy Head Start.

It is shameful. Republicans ought to know and understand what they are doing. It is another blow that you are striking against children, and poor children and poor families at that.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help it that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) and others do not understand how Head Start was organized, the delegate agencies, to keep it closer to the communities. We bypassed the Governors on purpose to keep them from snatching the money from Head Start, and my colleagues are throwing it back into a block grant. That money is going to be siphoned off in even States like mine where we have a $38 billion deficit.

My Republican colleagues want to throw it back into school systems and preschool programs that have no mandates, that do not mandate parental involvement, that will not guarantee nutrition programs, that will not give the physical examinations to help identify the deficiencies that these children have before we put them in the classroom and help get them ready for school.

Everyone has admitted that Head Start is successful. Each of my colleagues says that as they get up to destroy it. If it is successful, why then are we messing with Head Start? We need to try and do something about K through 12. When we send kids to Head Start, they are doing well. Sometimes they lose it because the school systems are not ready for them.

Mr. Speaker, we need more money in Head Start. It is only servicing 60 percent of the children who need it. We have waiting lists. To add insult to injury, not only do my colleagues dismantle this program by putting it into a block grant, then they bring on discrimination and only allow those parents to participate who are of the same religion of some of the delegate agencies that are trying to run a Head Start program.

Again, it is shameful. You break my heart today, and you dismantle a program that is desperately needed.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the substitute because Head Start is very dear to me. I love Head Start. Thirty-eight years ago I helped to organize one of the first Head Start programs in the Los Angeles area. Head Start happened to change my life, and I have seen what Head Start can do for families and for the children.

They talk about wanting to make Head Start better. Let me tell the Members, Head Start created new ways by which to deal with education for poor children. Five children to every one adult. In the public schools they still do not have the right ratios, classrooms all over this country, 25 and 35 and 45 children to one adult. Nutrition for every child, parental involvement for every child. All kinds of services. Physical examinations. They are going to help make Head Start better?

We have the President and people on other side of the aisle talking about Leave No Child Behind. They need to put some money into the public schools so they can receive these children from Head Start who are doing better, who are ready to learn.

This is a sad moment for me. I never thought I would come to the Congress of the United States and be involved with the demise of the Head Start program. Shame on you, Republicans.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. You don't fix what isn't broken. Head Start has achieved tremendous successes in helping the most vulnerable of our children. It does not need a legislative fix. It needs funding so that Head Start can reach the 40 percent of eligible children it does not presently serve.

With this bill, the Republican party is undermining our efforts to help these children get an education and break the cycle of poverty that plagues so many of them.

This bill is just the latest example of Republicans choosing to leave our children behind. They have consistently underfunded the President's so-called signature education program, Leave No Child Behind. And, they refuse to pass a child tax credit that would benefit millions of children.

Now, they seek changes that would ruin the most successful early childhood education program we have. It is a crime and every Member of Congress should oppose this bill.

Mr. Chairman, there are two fundamental flaws contained in this bill. The first is the block grant provision that will ruin the program. Block granting will gut the high quality, comprehensive services that are the hallmark

of Head Start and weaken the program's educational performance standards. It also will weaken oversight and evaluation of the program.

But what I fear the most, is that block granting will significantly waken the important role of parents in their children's education. We all know that teaching effective parenting strategies and involving parents in their children's education is strongly related to children's achievement in school.

The Castle substitute purports to provide for parental involvement while the original Republican bill did not. What is clear is that the Castle substitute is not as strong on parent involvement as the existing Head Start program. Why should we recklessly experiment when we have a Head Start program that effectively involves parents in their children's education? We should stick with what works.

In fact, experts have often cited the Head Start-parent partnership as one of the most successful aspects of the Head Start program. To retreat from our emphasis on the importance of this relationship, would be to turn back the clock on our commitment to improving the lives of adults. It also would be a profound insult to the millions of parents who have been inspired to improve their parenting skills, volunteer in the program or return to school.

My other concern is with section 654, which would allow Head Start programs run by faith-based organizations to discriminate on the basis of religion.

Mr. Chairman, this is appalling. One of the greatest strengths of Head Start is the diversity of individuals who participate in, and work, for the Head Start program. Yet, if the Congress supports this provision, one of the historic foundations of Head Start will crumble. Teachers will not be hired or parents will be unable to volunteer simply because they do not share the views of the religious organization's teachings. This provision will severely hamper the program and goes against what we stand for as Americans.

Mr. Chairman, the groups that understand children, who understand the struggles of low-income families, all oppose this bill. The scope of groups that oppose H.R. 2210 is truly breathtaking. Civil rights groups, labor, business, teachers, the National Head Start Association, early education experts--they all oppose this bill because they understand that the holistic approach that Head Start employs works. And it works very, very well.

We have heard it before, but I'm going to say it again: ``Head Start ain't broke, so don't try to fix it.''

Mr. Chairman, this is a bad bill. I urge my colleagues to reject it.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support section 568 of H.R. 2800, the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004. Section 568 gives the President the authority to reduce the debts that poor countries owe the United States as a result of prior loans under various foreign assistance programs. This authority is included routinely in foreign operations appropriations bills. The rules governing the debates on prior foreign operations appropriations bills always have protected this language from points of order.

Unfortunately, this year, the Rules Committee reported and the House passed a rule that fails to protect subsection (a) paragraph (3) of section 568 from points of order against the inclusion of authorizing language in an appropriations bill. Section 568(a)(3) specifically gives the President the authority to reduce debts resulting from prior loans under agricultural programs and food assistance programs. The rest of section 568 is protected from all points of order, as it should be.

As a Member of Congress who has been working on the issue of debt relief for poor countries for many years, I am especially disappointed that the Rules Committee did not protect section 568 in its entirety from all points of order. Section 568 is critical to enable the President to reduce and reschedule poor countries debts. Section 568 is especially important for poor countries that do not currently qualify for other debt relief programs, such as the Enhanced HIPC Initiative.

The President recently reduced the Congo's debts using the authority included in section 568. The Congo is an extremely impoverished country that is emerging from years of violent conflict. The Congo lacks the political institutions necessary to develop the detailed economic plans and poverty reduction strategies, which countries must develop to qualify for participation in the Enhanced HIPC Initiative. The debt reduction provided under section 568 will free the Congo from the burden of substantial debt payments and assist the Congo in developing the political institutions necessary to qualify for other debt relief and foreign assistance programs.

If section 568(a)(3) is stricken on a point of order, we will narrow the President's authority to reduce poor countries' debts significantly and needlessly. Striking section 568(a)(3) would force poor countries that receive debt reduction to continue making substantial debt payments on debts that arise under certain foreign assistance programs while debts that arise under other foreign assistance programs are reduced. The President's authority to reduce debts should not depend upon whether a loan was issued under one foreign assistance program rather than another.

The President must have the authority to reduce the debts of poor countries whenever it is appropriate. I urge my colleagues not to insist on a point of order against section 568(a)(3) and to support section 568 in its entirety.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Jackson amendment to add $480 million in emergency funds for Africa. This amendment would add $300 million for debt relief for the Democratic Republic of the Congo, $150 million for child survival programs in Africa, $20 million for economic support funds for Africa and $10 million for the African Development Fund.

This bill underfunds a number of accounts that provide assistance to the people of sub-Saharan Africa, the poorest region of the world. More than 300 million people in sub-Saharan Africa survive on under $1 per day. Almost half of the continent does not have access to safe water sources. Only one in three African children completes elementary school, and one in three people in sub-Saharan Africa does not get enough to eat every day. Average life expectancy in Africa is just 49 years. In the countries hardest hit by the AIDS epidemic, life expectancy is just 30 years.

As a member who has been working on the issue of debt relief for poor countries for many years, I am especially concerned about the lack of funding in this bill for debt relief for the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Enhanced HIPC Initiative was developed to free impoverished countries from the burden of debts and allow them to invest their resources in AIDS treatment and prevention, health care, education and poverty reduction programs. Most of the funds necessary to provide debt relief to the countries that are eligible for participation in the Enhanced HIPC Initiative were appropriated in the years 1999 through 2002. The President requested $300 million in fiscal year 2004 to provide debt relief to the Congo, but these funds were eliminated from this bill. The Jackson amendment would restore the $300 million included in the President's request and permit the Congo to benefit from the Enhanced HIPC Initiative.

The President recently returned from a trip to several African countries. During his trip, he talked about American support for Africa and American programs that provide assistance for Africa's development. However, if Congress does not appropriate the funds to implement African development programs, American support for Africa will be mere rhetoric. The Jackson amendment would provide funds to these

critical development programs that promote American goodwill in Africa, while assisting some of the world's poorest people.

I urge my colleagues to support the Jackson amendment.

Point of Order

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Kilpatrick amendment to add $300 million for global HIV/AIDS programs. I thank the gentlewoman for persevering, despite the fact that the committee did not do what it should have done in moving forward to get this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to explain to my colleagues what it is like to be African American in this Congress and have to fight, scratch, and claw for everything that we get, domestically and internationally.

Mr. Chairman, to be African American in the Congress of the United States and to watch the carnage in Liberia, to watch the children who lost limbs in Sierra Leone, to have watched the genocide up in Rwanda, with 800,000 bodies floating down the river, to watch a continent in trouble, not too many years away from just having attained independence, and a long way to go to perfect this thing called democracy; to watch them struggle; to see the men and women who die and the children, and have to come to this Congress and beg my colleagues to just do the right thing is not easy. It would be easier, Mr. Chairman, to just walk away and to say, I am tired of trying to convince my colleagues who claim to be about the same business that I am about: humanitarian efforts for the world.

It is very difficult. But we continue to do this because we must do it. If we do not do it, nobody else will do it for us.

So we are here today begging for $300 million to help fulfill the commitment that this President made for $15 billion over the next 5 years to deal with the pandemic in Africa.

We have got colleagues and Members who travel to Africa all the time. They come back from a CODEL and they tell us what they have seen and what they have heard and how they have gone to some clinic and how they have seen dying and starving children. But then, when they reach the Congress of the United States, they are willing to forget what they have seen and not to remember what they experienced and to do some kind of political maneuvering and compromising to hold back on the promises that they have made and the words that they have spoken.

Mr. Chairman, the HIV/AIDS epidemic is having a devastating impact on Africa and the world. Over 60 million people have been infected by the AIDS virus since the beginning of the epidemic, and 42 million people are currently living with this dreadful disease. In sub-Saharan Africa, more than 29 million people are living with the AIDS virus, 4 million of whom are in desperate need of treatment.

The HIV/AIDS epidemic has already curtailed the economic development of many countries in Africa. AIDS is responsible for shortages of skilled workers and teachers, high rates of absenteeism and labor turnover, and the death of workers and managers throughout business and government. Teachers and other skilled workers can be very difficult to replace. Tragically, in some parts of Africa, employers even find it necessary to hire two workers for every job opening because they expect one of them to die of AIDS.

On May 1, 2003, the House passed H.R. 1298, the global AIDS bill, which authorizes appropriations of $3 billion per year over 5 years for global HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention efforts. This bill, which is critically needed and long overdue, was signed into law by the President on May 27.

Unfortunately, the foreign operations appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004 does not fully fund the global AIDS bill. This bill includes only $1.4 billion for global AIDS programs. An additional $644 million was included in the labor-HHS appropriations bill, bringing the total funding for global AIDS programs to $2 billion, not the $3 billion that is authorized for fiscal year 2004.

Mr. Chairman, HIV/AIDS has taken the lives of over 3 million people and newly infected 5 million more in the last year. The President and the Congress promised the world community that we would spend $3 billion per year to fight this devastating disease.

Mr. Chairman, I am tired of scratching. I am tired of begging. I am tired of trying to have to leverage everything possible. But I am going to continue to do it, along with my colleagues, because fair is fair. We need the money. Our people are dying. We ask you to simply do the right thing

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, a few years ago, at the end of 20th century, the world community came together under the leadership of several of the world's most influential churches and created the Jubilee 2000 movement, a worldwide movement to cancel the debts of the world's poorest countries. The Jubilee 2000 movement included the Catholic Church, the Episcopalian Church, the World Council of Churches, Bread for the World, many other Christian, Jewish and other faith-based organizations. Student groups, HIV/AIDS activists, development specialists, business leaders and labor unions also joined this diverse movement.

In 1999, Jubilee 2000 convinced the G-8 group of industrialized countries to develop the Enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative, known as HIPC, a program to significantly reduce poor country's debt. In 2000, Jubilee 2000 convinced the United States Government as well as the governments of other G-8 countries to authorize this debt relief program and appropriate the funds to carry it out.

Unfortunately, the Enhanced HIPC Initiative has failed to provide a lasting solution to poor country debts. At least 18 heavy indebted poor countries are still spending more money on debt payments than they are on health care.

The goal of Jubilee 2000 was to completely cancel the debts of the world's poorest countries. We must do more to accomplish this goal. We must do more to proclaim Jubilee for the poorest of the poor.

Earlier this year, I introduced H.R. 643, the Debt Cancellation for the New Millennium Act. This bill would urge the President to negotiate with the IMF and the World Bank to completely cancel 100 percent of the debts of the world's most impoverished countries who owe these institutions and give these countries a fresh start in the new millennium. This bill has 45 cosponsors.

H.R. 1298, the Global AIDS bill, included a debt relief provision, Title V, urging the administration to advocate deeper debt relief within the Enhanced HIPC Initiative. Title V states that the Secretary of the Treasury should immediately commence efforts with the IMF, the World Bank and other creditor countries to modify the Enhanced HIPC Initiative to reduce poor countries' debts to ensure that poor countries are not required to spend more than 10 percent of their annual current revenues on debt payments. For poor countries facing a public health crisis as a result of HIV/AIDS, the limit would be 5 percent. The Global AIDS bill was signed into law by the President on May 27, 2003, and is now Public Law 108-025.

Title V of the Global AIDS bill, which was added in the Senate by amendment and subsequently approved by the House, reflected provisions in H.R. 1376, a bipartisan debt relief bill introduced by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Maloney). H.R. 1376 would have required the Secretary of the Treasury to submit reports to Congress describing the efforts and progress made in negotiating improvements to the Enhanced HIPC Initiative. Unfortunately, Title V of the Global AIDS bill does not require the Secretary of the Treasury to report to Congress on the administration's effort.

My amendment would require the Secretary of the Treasury to report to Congress on the progress made in modifying the Enhanced HIPC Initiative as called for in Title V. This simple reporting requirement would enable Congress to monitor the administration's effort to achieve deeper debt relief for poor countries. A reporting requirement also could provide an incentive for multilateral development institutions and other creditor countries to support proposals for deeper debt relief.

Deeper debt relief for the world's heavily indebted poor countries will remove a major obstacle to HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention, poverty reduction and economic growth. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) for his words of support. I do not think there would be any other information which would lead to opposition to the amendment, and I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for his support and superb leadership on this committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus for this and many of the other Special Orders he has organized in order to make sure that everyone in this Chamber and throughout the country understands the grave changes the President and the Republican Party are trying to make to the Head Start program.

Mr. Speaker, 38 years ago, I had the great fortune to help organize one of the first Head Start programs in this

country under the War on Poverty. My involvement with Head Start has been one of the most defining experiences of my life. Not only did I help to organize one of the first Head Start programs in the country working with the community, I went to work for Head Start as an assistant teacher and I was inspired to go back to school and to get my degree. Not only was I inspired, I saw the inspiration that Head Start did for many parents, many folks in the community.

Today I sat in the Committee on Rules where I went to try and offer some amendments to strengthen the Head Start program and to not allow the Head Start program to be block-granted to the States. I literally sat there and listened to the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce and others talking about Head Start without really knowing or understanding what Head Start is. I did not recognize the program that they were talking about. And it dawned on me that they did not know this program. It dawned on me that many of them had never spent any time in a Head Start classroom. I heard descriptions of what the Republicans would like to do with the Head Start program, talking about somehow making it a program where children would be involved with literacy and trying to prepare them for the public schools and education in new and different ways.

Mr. Speaker, they did not know that in the beginning of Head Start, a lot of work was done to determine what would be the best way to provide an early childhood education experience for children who came from disadvantaged homes and disadvantaged communities. We tested everything from Montessori to other approaches to dealing with children. Finally it was concluded, after all of the study and all of the work, that the way to deal with the children from disadvantaged communities was to focus on the whole child, the entire child, and bring the family in to helping to determine the educational destiny of their children. In doing so, we felt that all of the children needed to have a physical examination to determine their health. We also thought that it was important to have a strong parent involvement component in this program. We also knew that it was important to have nutrition involved in the program.

And we were right. And we also determined that we had to reduce the ratio of children to teachers, because at that time single-teacher classrooms headed by one teacher was trying to manage 35 and 40 kids in the public schools. So we reduced those ratios to 1 to 5. For a classroom of 15, one adult to every five students in the Head Start class. And it worked. Because we had physical examinations, we discovered learning disabilities, dyslexia, other kinds of problems, sight problems, hearing problems, all kinds of problems that would have caused children to fail, to be placed in special education classes and not to be able to succeed; and we dealt with that, with this new model that was created.

And now we have people talking about they want a program to teach literacy. They do not understand that when you build self-esteem, when you introduce children to books for the first time, when you teach them to love books and to care for books, that is the best way to get children reading. When you teach the parents through the parent involvement program to read to the children, you are developing children who not only will love reading and love books but will become great readers and will be very, very literate and be able to succeed in the public schools and in the schools that they will go to.

I listened to those who were describing how they wanted to change the program. They really do not have any good reasons for changing this program. The only thing that they are doing is carrying out a conservative Republican philosophy that gets government out of providing a real safety net for the least of these. They are not only following the line, the philosophy of the Republican Party in divesting itself from programs that invest in people. We see it every day. It is not only Head Start. It is the section 8 program where they are trying to get out of the business of helping to provide safe and secure housing for people who cannot afford it with a subsidy; and so they are marching down this conservative road, of divesting government from being involved in programs that were created under the Great Society, programs of Johnson and Kennedy and getting rid of government responsibility.

Unfortunately, we are in the minority around here and we may not be able to stop them. They were so arrogant that they are going to have a closed rule where we will not be able to offer any amendments. They are going to have a closed rule so that there will not be any discussion and any real debate about how we ought to be strengthening Head Start. And the arrogance goes further than that. They are going to debate this on a Friday when people are rushing off to catch airplanes so that they can limit the debate and shut it down and literally roll out of here having block-granted Head Start and eight of our programs. This is sinful and it is shameful. They are destroying one of the most successful programs that we have ever had in this country, a program that has been commended and supported by every President since the inception of Head Start.

There is no reason for this. Some of the amendments that I tried to offer, one was an amendment that would allow parents to count the hours they volunteer in a Head Start classroom against welfare work requirements. Another would establish a parent service awards program. The amendment would authorize a $1,000 voucher to up to 5,000 individuals to be used for the cost of any education or job training program approved by any State or the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Eligible recipients of the award are parents who volunteer in the classroom at least 5 hours a week for the entire Head Start year.

A third would require each Head Start program to establish and maintain a waiting list of all children who are eligible for and apply for enrollment in a Head Start program, but are unable to participate because of lack of funding. If there is funding remaining after the initial disbursement of funds, this amendment authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to distribute the remaining funds. And the last would remove title II of the bill and thereby ensure that Head Start can function as designed with strong educational standards, low child-to-staff ratios, and high-quality social services. In addition, the amendment ensures that funds designated for Head Start will go directly to local Head Start programs and the States will not have the opportunity to divert Head Start funds to close gaps in their budget or for other priorities.

I was not the only Member of Congress up there. In fact, I would guess there were 15 or 20 Members who were present, all interested in offering an amendment or two in an attempt to minimize the damage that the Republicans are doing to the Head Start program. Many of these amendments were well thought out and would improve the program. Yet the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), has requested a closed rule with no amendments to be permitted except maybe a manager's amendment and a Democratic substitute.

Let me just close, Mr. Speaker, by saying, if, in fact, this Congress allows the block-granting of Head Start, it will be one of the worst public policy decisions that has been made in the history of the Congress of the United States of America. Any time you have public policymakers who are willing to take a successful program that has been lauded and commended by everybody and there is nobody supporting the block-granting of the program, nobody asking that some changes like this be made to the program and undermine the ability of poor children and low-income, working families to have an experience of preschool that would help to make children more successful, then we ought to be called to task for it, and we ought to be challenged in our elections for it. We do not need to do this. I would ask the Republicans to rethink this wrongheaded policy. They may not do it, but we will all pay a price in the long run for it.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey/Miller Amendment.

Since this Administration has taken office, over 3 million people have lost their jobs; the unemployment rate is at its highest levels in 9 years. Yet to add insult to injury, the Administration is now proposing a regulation that would cut overtime wages to as many as 8 million Americans.

I urge my colleagues to support the Obey/Miller amendment which would prohibit the Department of Labor from using funds to carry out this appalling regulation. Too many Americans depend on overtime pay in order to make ends meet. We must not take it away from them.

This Administration has no shame. They continue to push their ``Big Business/Special Interest'' agenda at the expense of the working Americans that make this country great. Perhaps this helps explain why this bill is lacking adequate funding for so many programs that Americans depend on.

The Chairman and Ranking Member have worked to craft the best bill possible with the terrible cards they were dealt by the unfair and irresponsible Republican Budget Resolution. But the truth of the matter is, the President and the Republican leadership have decided that tax cuts for the few are more important than programs for the many.

They decided that to provide an average of $88,000 in tax cuts for those earning $1 million or more is more important than increasing enrollment in Head Start, increasing Pell Grants, fighting the AIDS virus, funding medical research adequately or a host of other important programs.

Time will not permit me to discuss all of the many problems with this bill, such as the inadequate funding for the NIH and for the Social Security Administration to process claims from retirees, so I'll just focus my comments on one problem: the immoral neglect of the Head Start program.

Mr. Chairman, additional funding for Head Start should be a ``no- brainer. There are few, if any, programs that have the success rate of Head Start. Government reports, early childhood experts, teachers and most important families all recognize the magnificent results Head Start has produced.

There are many keys to the program's success; from the small child staff ratios, to the nutritious meals the children receive each day, or the doctor visits that each child is afforded. However, one of the most important factors in Head Start's success is the way that the child's parents are included in the educational process. We all know that parents are children's most important teachers and involving parents in their children's education is strongly related to children's achievement in school. Head Start capitalizes on that relationship.

The only thing that is holding the Head Start program back today is the lack of funding. Today, only 60 percent of eligible students are able to enroll in Head Start; only 4 percent of eligible Early Head Start and 19 percent of the eligible Migrant and Seasonal Head Start of children are enrolled. This is much too low. Thousands of children are waiting on the sidelines, waiting to benefit from Head Start. We should make every effort to allow these children to enroll.

Yet, look at how this bill treats Head Start. The President asked for an increase for Head Start of only $140 million. This bill provides a $148 million increase. Mr. Chairman, the $148 million increase is not even enough to keep pace with inflation. It certainly is not enough to sign up new children in the program. Nor, will this paltry increase enable Head Start to ensure that its teachers and volunteers are properly trained.

Mr. Chairman, in today's economy, education is the key to success. The sooner that we get children excited about learning the better off they will be. Head Start has an exceptional track record of success in getting children excited about learning.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support Head Start. It works. We must provide the funding that it deserves and needs to extend its benefit to all eligible children. We can and must do better than this inadequate bill.

I urge my colleagues, for the sake of our children, our families, our seniors, our working people, to vote yes on the Obey/Miller amendment to protect workers' overtime pay and then vote no on this bad bill.

Mr. Speaker, tonight I want to discuss one of the best programs in America, a program that is 38 years old and has served the children of America extremely well. This program has been commended, lauded and talked about by Presidents Clinton and Bush, Sr., and even President Ronald Reagan commended the Head Start program.

This program has never served all of the children who need this program. As a matter of fact, we only serve about 60 percent, I believe, of the children who need the Head Start program. We find

this diverse program in various communities around the country. We find it in the inner cities, in suburban areas, and even in rural communities. And for those communities who are fortunate enough to have the Head Start program, we hear nothing but praises from the parents, from the people who work in the program, from community leaders and elected officials.

Head Start was instituted under the War on Poverty some 38 years ago because the educators and researchers discovered that to the degree that we are able to provide young children with a Head Start experience, they will be better prepared for kindergarten and for education. When they started this program, preschool was only available to the upper middle class, for the most part. Certainly poor people could not afford to give their children a preschool experience, nor could working parents really afford to do that.

So little children who did not have access to preschool programs did not have the opportunity to take trips to the zoo. As a matter of fact, they did not have opportunities to take trips to farms. They did not have opportunities to take a ride on a train. They found that most of the children, particularly in poor communities, had never been 20 miles away from home. So Head Start came into being under the War on Poverty, and what a wonderful program it has been.

This program was developed a little bit differently than regular education. It was decided that Head Start would address the whole child and the family and the community. In Head Start, children get a physical examination. In Head Start, children get nutrition. They get breakfast, and they are served lunch. In Head Start, not only do children have physical examinations, receive proper nutrition, but one of the most important components of Head Start is the parental involvement component of Head Start.

I know about this program, because 38 years ago I had the great opportunity to work with the Head Start program. I started with Head Start at its inception, and I started as an assistant teacher in the classroom, working with the children. But I soon learned that I really wanted to work with the parents, and I eventually became the Supervisor of Parent Involvement and Volunteer Services.

I had the opportunity to welcome parents to the Head Start site. I had the opportunity to get parents involved with the inspection of the program, in helping determine the budget of the program, in helping to give input to the teachers.

Parents soon learned that they really did have a lot to give. Many parents who thought, because they were not educated, that they could not be of assistance to their children, but they soon learned that they could determine their children's educational destiny.

What a wonderful experience it was, seeing parents getting more involved with their children, and children becoming alive. We found children with learning disabilities, learning disabilities that never would have been detected had they not come to Head Start. We found that there were children who did not see well, whose parents would never have had the money for eye examinations and who received corrections. We discovered that there were children with emotional and mental difficulties, and, for the first time, they had access to psychological and psychiatric help if it was needed.

Now we are at a point in time where this administration wants to change Head Start. Some of our Members are saying if it is not broke, do not fix it. That is absolutely true. Why do we have this administration now wanting to take our precious Head Start program and block grant it to the States?

They are simply saying we want to get the Federal Government out of the business of running Head Start programs. What they are saying is we want to dump it into the laps of the States. Please do not send it to California. We have a $38 billion deficit. If this administration block grants Head Start to California with no mandates, I will tell Members what will happen to Head Start. They are going to siphon off the money to help pay the bills.

As we look around the country, we are finding that many of our States are in great difficulty. This administration is not only talking about block granting Head Start, but also section 8 housing programs, everything they can get their hands on, divesting itself of the running of programs that are so vital to this country. I do not want this administration to make the mistake of dismantling this program.

Mr. Speaker, all I can say in closing is we have to fight to keep Head Start. We have to make sure that this program is available to the children, not cut back, not block granted, but expanded so more children will have the opportunity for this wonderful experience.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for his leadership, for his years of commitment to the continent and for the constant effort that he puts forward in this Congress to draw attention to Africa and to try and negotiate funding to help not only this administration but past administrations understand the role we could truly play in helping Africa to become the continent that it could truly become.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the eyes of the world are on Africa. Clearly everyone is watching because the President of the United States is visiting five countries in Africa. We are pleased that the President of the United States has decided to go to Africa. As a matter of fact, the members of the Congressional Black Caucus truly believe that there will never be another President, no matter Democrat or Republican, who can avoid Africa. We are very pleased about the leadership that Bill Clinton provided, and we are proud that this President is following in his footsteps.

We are in a state of confusion about this President and his policies toward Africa. While he is visiting five countries in Africa at this time, it was just a short while ago right prior to his election in a debate that I believe he said something to the effect that we have no strategic interest in Africa and, no, I would not have intervened in the genocide that took place up in the Congo there with the Tutsis and the Hutus. And so we are perplexed by this visit, that comment; but we are pleased also that we have moved this government to the point where this President came forward with significant funding for HIV and AIDS in Africa, and we hope that it gets into the budget and that that funding will become a reality.

We are perplexed by the recent revelations that, in fact, the President made an announcement in his State of the Union that a country in Africa had supplied Saddam Hussein with materials for biological warfare. We now know that that is not true, that that statement was not based in fact. And while we are pleased that the President is providing some funding for HIV and AIDS in Africa, we are perplexed by the statements and the accusation of the President about a country in Africa supplying Saddam Hussein with dangerous materials, materials for biological warfare, and we expect the President to explain that to us.

The President is visiting South Africa, but the fact of the matter is we do not have, as one of the countries in Africa, we do not have an Africa policy. We do not know where the President is going with all of this. Today he gave a stirring speech from Goree. He went to Dakar, to Goree Island where he said he understood what had happened at Goree Island. He understood that slaves had been sold there, that they had been beaten there. They had been housed and stored and stacked like animals there, and that they had gone through the door of no return where many of them were simply just dumped into the ocean because they were sick or too weak to be sold into slavery from that point.

We listened and most of us read very carefully the words in that speech. But we are wondering as we stand here whether the President truly understands that we are the descendents of those slaves that he talked about. We wonder if the President really understands the connection between our work and our history. We wonder if the President of the United States truly has an appreciation for what we have been trying to do for so many years.

Most of the Members of the Congressional Black Caucus have been working on the problems of Africa for years. Long before I came to the Congress of the United States, I was involved, as were others, in trying to dismantle the unconscionable apartheid regime of South Africa. We worked to free Nelson Mandela. There are those who are wondering why Nelson Mandela may not be meeting with the President on this trip. The President certainly needs to get to know Nelson Mandela and understand who he is and where he came from. He needs to understand the struggle that Nelson Mandela was involved in. But he needs to understand why we work so hard to dismantle apartheid in South Africa. He needs to understand why we urge this country not to support Mobutu, not to have a puppet up in the Congo that would dance to the music of the United States and kill his own people.

We tried to get the Presidents in the past to understand why we were opposed to Savimbi that was supported by Reagan and others who were up in the bush causing displacement in Angola. We tried to get them to understand. We visited these places. We have been to Dakar. We have been to Benin. We have been to Botswana. We have been in Zimbabwe and Angola and the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda and many countries in Africa. We understand.

The President of the United States needs to talk to the members of the Congressional Black Caucus. We are pleased that he is now paying attention to Liberia, and we believe that Charles Taylor needs to be dealt with. We do not know if the President is dealing with him in the proper way. And the President does not know whether or not he is dealing with him in the proper way, but he ought to talk with us. Should he be working out an agreement with Obasanjo of Nigeria to give him asylum?

There is a warrant out for Charles Taylor's arrest. He is responsible for working with RUF and the chopping off of the limbs of the people of Sierra Leone and other places. He is responsible for children being soldiers in the war. He is responsible for the rape and the pillage of many people. Should he not have to stand before the bar of justice in the U.N.-supported and -backed court that has a warrant out? Should he be allowed to have asylum and just go off up into Nigeria somewhere with the billions of dollars that he has stolen, the wealth he has reaped from the blood diamonds that came out of Sierra Leone? The President of the United States needs to talk to the Congressional Black Caucus because we understand the complications, and we understand what has been taking place in many of these spots. We would like to engage him on the future of Liberia and what should happen with Charles Taylor. We would like to help this President to build a real policy for the continent of Africa.

Mr. Speaker, we have been working on HIV/AIDS, and we are glad that the President has gotten involved in it and we will continue to do this work. We have got a long way to go.

I have been involved for years in working on debt relief for Africa. Africa needs assistance in many ways, but Africa is rich in resources and talent that needs to be developed by people who have Africa's best interest at heart.

Africa has been exploited, not only in many ways by our own government, by other governments and other countries. Everybody comes to Africa to get

a little bit of gold and a little bit of diamonds. Everybody comes for the rich resources of Africa without real thought and planning and work for the development of Africa and the utilization of those resources for the benefit of the people. We can do better.

If this President is not simply reading a speech written for him by others in a photo opportunity, talking about that which he may not really understand, if he really wants to understand what is going on, the President of the United States needs to talk to the members of the Black Caucus. It seems to me that if the President can go to five African countries and talk to Africans about what is going on in Africa, he ought to be able to talk about the descendents who are here in the United States, who are just a few blocks away from him that he refuses to meet with. Yes, some of us are concerned about why the President has not engaged us in any discussion.

I do not believe that the President would travel to Israel, would take actions on Israel without speaking with the Jewish Members of the Congress of the United States of America. We need to talk with the President not only about what he is doing in Liberia, but about the future of that continent and about the possibility, about the importance, yes, there is oil, and, yes, there should be the kind of trade relationships that would help us to benefit from some of those natural resources and oil so that we are not dependent just on one section of the world. But this will never happen unless we go to the continent with good intentions, not unless we are all engaged as a family working in the best interest of our country.

I am not happy about the fact that the President took this as an opportunity to say simply, Mr. Charles Taylor, I want you out of Liberia within so many hours. That is not the way to handle this. We do not want to simply see American soldiers deployed there. This should be an international effort. But there should be international peacekeeping efforts not only in Liberia but in Iraq and other places because we do have to be concerned about stretching ourselves too far and too thin. We do have to be concerned about protecting our soldiers wherever they are. We want to help. We want to help frame and shape how that help should be given.

With that, I know that there will be those who will say perhaps there should be no challenging of the President at this point, no criticism of the President at this point while he is traveling in Africa. If the President wants to talk about Africa, now is the time for us all to do it.

We have been working too long and too hard to get this debate on Africa. We have fought and worked. We have tried to leverage and do everything within our power to get Africa on this President's agenda. Now perhaps we can do it, and we welcome the opportunity.

Mr. President, we are waiting for you.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is a sham Republican prescription bill because elderly women are dying from preventable diseases. This is nothing more than a false sense of security.

Mr. Speaker, last night we debated the Homeland Security appropriations bill. The Republicans made excuses about not spending enough money to truly secure our homeland. Tonight, the Republicans are crying broke and claiming we do not have enough money to fund credible prescription drug coverage for our seniors.

This bill provides no coverage when a senior's prescription drug costs are between $2,000 and $4,900 per year. This huge coverage gap affects 47 percent of Medicare beneficiaries.

This bill is also a giveaway to pharmaceutical companies, as it prohibits the Secretary of Health and Human Services from negotiating lower drug prices. The primary beneficiaries of this bill are not the beneficiaries of Medicare. They are the wealthy special interests and the pharmaceutical industry and the insurance industry that give huge campaign contributions to the Republicans.

Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have given huge tax cuts to the wealthy, promised the Iraqis a universal health care plan. They are spending millions attempting to buy the loyalty of warlords in Afghanistan, and the President just gave Musharraf $3 billion.

Seniors, call your Republican Members and ask them why they do not take care of the seniors of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this Medicare privatization plan, which is masquerading as a prescription drug bill.

This bill would force seniors who want prescription drug coverage to get it from private insurance companies. It provides no guarantee that insurance plans will be available, and when they are, premiums and benefits will vary widely. The bill also provides no coverage when a senior's prescription drug costs are between $2,000 and $4,900 per year. This huge coverage gap affects 47 percent of Medicare beneficiaries.

This bill is also a give-away to pharmaceutical companies, as it prohibits the Secretary of Health and Human Services from negotiating lower drug prices. The primary beneficiaries of this bill are not the beneficiaries of Medicare. They are the wealthy special interests in the pharmaceutical industry and the insurance industry that give campaign contributions to Republicans.

However, the most outrageous aspect of this bill is what it does to traditional Medicare. The bill would increase seniors' cost for visits to the doctor's office by raising the Medicare Part B deductible and indexing it for inflation. This could cost American seniors an estimated $8 billion. While this may seem like a tiny fraction of the Republicans' $350 billion tax-cut-for-the-rich, it is a huge expense for senior citizens, many of whom live on limited incomes.

This bill also divides Medicare into 10 or more regional plans in 2006 and then converts the entire Medicare program into a voucher program depending upon private insurance companies in 2010. If the Republicans really want to privatize Medicare, they should be honest with the American people and call this plan what it is, the Medicare Privatization Act.

The Democrats alternative prescription drug plan on the other hand provides prescription drug coverage under Medicare with guaranteed and affordable premiums and benefits for all American seniors and no gaps in coverage. It is time for Congress to make prescription drugs available to all seniors who need them.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the Republican Medicare Privatization Act and support the Democratic alternative.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to ask that the Bush administration provide the American people with a full account of the events leading up to the war with Iraq.

The amendment sponsored by Representative Kucinich is a good starting point but there is still much that we do not know about the basis of our war with Iraq. Since August of last year, when the administration began beating the war drum, they have offered little concrete evidence backing up their claims that Iraq posed an ``imminent threat'' to the United States.

The rhetoric employed by the administration was strong and unwavering:

On September 12, 2002, the President told the UN: ``Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons . . . . Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon.''

On October 7, 2002, the President said: ``It [Iraq] possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.''

The Vice President said earlier this year on ``Meet The Press'' that: ``we believe he [Saddam Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.''

And the Secretary of Defense joined in saying: ``We know where they [weapons of mass destruction] are, they are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.''

Yet, despite this certainty, 3 months after the fall of Baghdad, no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons have been found. Nor have the facilities to make these weapons been found. The administration has tried to capitalize on our fears born out of the September 11th terrorist attacks, suggesting there was a link between Saddam Hussein and leaders of al Qaeda.

Even though this connection has been disproved consistently, the President still cites it as fact.

And today, we learned that at least one member of the intelligence community felt pressured to shape his reports to fit the administration's position on weapons of mass destruction even though he had no evidence to support those claims.

Congress must work to ensure that the information that comes out of the intelligence community is reliable and is not unduly influenced by anyone. This is not a partisan issue. This is about restoring the credibility of the United States both with our constituents and throughout the world.

The President has said that he is confident that weapons of mass destruction will be found; the evidence is strong he says.

I encourage him to shine the light of day on the evidence so that the world can understand why the United States went to war--unprovoked--and put the lives of thousands in danger.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) amendment had been accepted, there would be no need for my amendment. His amendment did what I think needed to be done in order to make our Homeland Security Department real.

The gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) amendment would have shored up what we say we want to do by appropriating $1 billion to improve aviation security, maritime security, infrastructure security, and border security and port security.

Now, it seems to me if this administration was serious about homeland security, we would not hear these weak arguments that we are hearing on the floor tonight. It is absolutely amazing that the people on the other side of the aisle, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle can get up and defend against needing more money to make

our homeland secure. It is really not to be understood how they can defend contracts going to foreign companies when we have Members on this floor begging for the opportunity to have these contracts in their districts to do something about this unemployment that was created by this administration.

Mr. Chairman, the day is over for flashlights and duct tape and plastic material. This is about some serious business. Some of us really do take this seriously. We want to fight terrorism. We want to spend the money on it. We want to have real homeland security, and I am absolutely amazed that my friends on the other side of the aisle do not understand that.

I come because I have got a problem in Los Angeles. The Los Angeles International Airport, which is located in my congressional district, is the third largest airport in the United States with a capacity to serve 78 million air passengers per year. On July 2, 2002, Los Angeles Mayor Jim Hahn proposed a plan to expand LAX by constructing a remote passenger check-in facility. The mayor estimated that this project would cost 9 to $10 billion. The environmental impact report on this project is due to be released in the near future.

Supporters of this proposed project to construct a remote passenger check-in facility claim that the facility is necessary to improve the safety and security of LAX and prevent terrorist attacks at LAX. However, it is even more likely that the concentration of passengers in a remote passenger check-in facility could actually reduce the safety and security of LAX.

The Rand Corporation conducted a security study of the proposed remote passenger check-in facility, which was released on May 14, 2003. The study concluded that the proposed project would not improve the security of LAX. The study also concluded that concentrating passengers in the proposed remote passenger check-in facility would make the check-in facility the likely target of a terrorist attack. The study even suggested that concentrating passengers in the remote passenger check-in facility could exacerbate the effects of an attack on airport operations.

The Rand study did conclude that limiting the capacity of the airport could reduce the overall vulnerability of LAX to terrorist attacks. However, this could be accomplished by maintaining LAX at its existing capacity, with no additional airport construction projects.

My amendment would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to review the proposed project to construct a remote passenger check-in facility at LAX to determine whether the project will protect the safety of air passengers and the general public. The Secretary will be required to transmit to Congress and the Federal Aviation Administration a report containing the results of the review.

Mr. Chairman, I am simply saying homeland security, look at this, review it, give us an assessment. If we are about the business of securing the homeland, this is a very simple request. If, in fact, my airport, which is already identified as one of the highest security risks in the United States, is attacked because we are concentrating passengers, I have been to the Committee on Rules twice. I am on this floor, and if I cannot get support for a simple review to talk about whether or not this would be safe, then something's wrong with those who purport to want homeland security.

Mr. Chairman, I am here today to say that again the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) amendment should have been accepted because this amendment will ensure that we have a real emphasis on homeland security in fighting this terrorism. Without it, we are just joking; we are playing games. We do not really mean that we want to support terrorism.

Point of Order

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of my dear friend who passed this morning, Maynard Jackson. Maynard Jackson was a dear and treasured friend. He was a man that I worked very closely with. He was a man that I had the greatest respect for. I held him in high esteem because he was a learned individual who loved politics and who loved public policy, and demonstrated his ability to lead.

As my colleagues know, Maynard Jackson was a young man that graduated from Morehouse College when he

was but 18 years old. He went on to get his law degree, and he was inspired by the death of Martin Luther King to enter politics, and enter politics he did.

He first ran against Mr. Talmadge, Herman Talmadge, and he lost that race. But he proved that there was a need for a new direction. He won the votes in Atlanta. He did that when outside of Atlanta, as a matter of fact, he lost by 3 to 1. But that really did launch his political career. Maynard Jackson went on to serve as Mayor for 3 terms in Atlanta.

I loved Maynard Jackson because he was a man of impeccable integrity. Not only did he provide a new kind of leadership for Atlanta, he opened up opportunities for African Americans and people of color. When Maynard Jackson, the first African American mayor to be elected in Atlanta, took office, African Americans were not really a part of the business community, and he actually alienated some of the white business community, because he insisted on opening up these opportunities. When I look at the airport there, I know the stories about how Maynard Jackson helped to implement affirmative action, and when we see some of the concessions that are there, they are there because Maynard Jackson led the way for much of that to take place.

Maynard Jackson loved the Democratic Party, and he served on the Democratic National Committee for many years. And as many folks know and understand, I encouraged him to run at our last winter meeting to be head of the DNC. Even though he started late, we created a conversation and discussion about what kind of leadership we needed for the DNC. Maynard Jackson certainly did not win that election. As a matter of fact, he bowed out and he supported Terry McAullife.

The debate that we created had to do with the direction of the party. Where are we going? Where is this party going? Maynard had a plan: the southern strategy plan. Maynard knew and understood that unless we increased the turnout and understand the importance of the South to the Democratic Party, then we could not win, and we will not win.

When we were in our struggle for Maynard to lead the Democratic National Committee, we finally agreed that Maynard would take over a new position that we created in the Democratic Party called the National Development Commission, of which he would be chairman. Under that, he would have the Voting Rights Institute. And Maynard set about with that designation to increase the awareness about what was wrong with the voting systems in this country.

We had just come out of Florida where votes had been stolen, where people had been turned away from the polls, where folks were identified as felons and put on lists who had never been to jail, and Maynard was convinced that we had to clean that up. And he begged the DNC to take this as their number one issue and their number one priority. Maynard identified people who were to serve with him as he tried to carry out his vision of this Voting Rights Institute. But, for whatever reasons, it did not happen. Maynard called me and he said, I am going to resign the position. I do not think that it is going to happen in the way that we thought it would happen. And I consider that one of the greatest losses for the Democratic Party. Maynard went on back to Atlanta, to Jackson Securities, a company that he had founded where he did tremendously well.

He was a fine businessman, and he worked well with so many elected officials around this country in order to achieve the kind of success that he was able to achieve in the bond business.

I am going to miss Maynard. He was a dear and close friend, and the Democratic Party and all of us who wish to see this party go in a new direction, understanding the significance of the South, are going to miss him, and unless his thoughts and his ideas are accepted by this party we are going to continue to lose.