Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the Do-Not-Call Registry was crafted as a balance between

the rights of businesses to market their products and the right of consumers to avoid unnecessary harassment. Today, due to a judicial decision, we are back here on the House floor to reaffirm the validity of the registry.

Telemarketers have, like everyone else in this country, the right to free speech. They have the right to say what they want. What they don't have is the right to force Americans to listen to their sales pitches.

Americans, on the other hand, should have the right to a little peace and quiet. They should have the right to not have to get unwanted advertising pitches over the phone during dinnertime.

Telemarketers already have the tools they need to exercise their right to free speech--they have autodialing computers, prerecorded messages, phone registries, and legions of operators. In creating the Do-Not-Call Registry, the FTC was merely trying to provide consumers with the power to truly exercise this right. The Do-Not-Call Registry is just one simple, effective tool that will give consumers the ability to exercise their right to a little peace and quiet.

Unfortunately, Judge Lee R. West of the Western District of Oklahoma recently ruled that Congress did not give the FTC explicit authority to create the do-not-call list. Of course, Judge West has the right to make that ruling, if he thinks that is the correct interpretation of the law. Congress then has the responsibility to clarify that it has indeed given the FTC authority to protect consumers by creating the registry, as we are doing today.

While I strongly support the continued implementation of the Do-Not- Call Registry, I should mention that the FTC left some loopholes. If you've bought, leased, or rented something from a company in the past 18 months, they can still call you until you say, ``Stop.'' They can also call you if you've applied or inquired with them over the past three months--even something as mundane as asking for a store's hours.

Telemarketers have jumped to these loopholes, showing the lengths that many of them will go to in order to call people during dinnertime with unwanted ads. The FTC should revisit its rules and see if these loopholes can be closed.

Even still, it's critical that we reaffirm the validity of the do- not-call list. I want to commend Chairman Tauzin, Ranking Member Dingell, and all the members of the Energy and Commerce Committee, for bringing this clarifying legislation to the floor. I'm sure my constituents will be pleased to see this body reacting so quickly.

I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this bill so it can be signed into law and we can avoid delaying implementation of the do-not-call list.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and neighbor from New Jersey for highlighting this issue and all the good work he does, and let me just pick up on the last point he was making about whether these child tax credit benefits should go to families that, in the words of some in this Chamber, do not pay taxes.

I would think that it would be embarrassing to the authors of the rule that resulted in this bill that 250,000 children of active duty servicemen and -women would not be eligible for this. We have heard this before, and at risk of repeating some of what the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) has said, I really want to emphasize this. I mean, the Children's Defense Fund and others point out that hundreds of thousands of children of teachers, nurses, farmers would be left behind.

It really gets at the heart of what these tax cuts are. They are not to stimulate the economy. They are not to inject some fairness in a very complicated tax code. Quite simply, they are to provide some benefits to the upper-income segments of American society in some misguided hope that will trickle down to benefit the families of teachers and nurses and farmers and servicemen and -women. It does not work that way.

178,000 children of farming families, 567,000 children of nurses or hospital orderlies, 337,000 children of teachers are calculated to be left out in this child tax credit. The rationale given by the leaders on the other side of the aisle for preventing these families from receiving the expanded child tax credit was that the total cost of the tax legislation could not exceed $350 billion over 10 years. Adjustments had to be made. Adjustments had to be made. So these nurses, orderlies, servicemen and -women, farmers, teachers are categorized as adjustments or, more to the point, their children are somehow less worthy and adjusted out of this.

Other tax analysts have noted that the cost of the tax credit provision of what we are talking about here with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and this child tax correction, the cost of this correction is less than 3 percent of the total cost of the dividend and capital gains provisions. It did not take much of an adjustment to fix this, but I guess adjustments had to be made.

At a time when American families are struggling to make ends meet, at a time when if we really want to stimulate the economy we would put money in the hands of people who need it most and, therefore, would spend it the quickest, at a time when families of Reservists and other military personnel are facing financial difficulty, at a time when jobs continue to be lost throughout the country at an alarming rate, what could be more important than helping America's families by putting a few extra dollars in their pockets?

I thank my colleague from the neighboring district in New Jersey for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the career of Gary T. Puma, the president and chief executive officer of Presbyterian Homes and Services of Princeton for his more than twenty-five years of service to New Jersey's senior citizens and their families.

Mr. Puma's dedication to meeting the needs of the elderly began when he was an undergraduate at John Fisher College, where he was active in creating a gerontology department. His dream of helping the elderly led him to service on the N.J. State Department of Health and Senior Service--Assisted Living Task Force and the N.J. Housing Mortgage and Finance Authority--Assisted Living Financing Task Force. His expertise has also resulted in testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives and in assisting with the drafting of affordable housing regulations for New Jersey.

Mr. Puma's own Italian immigrant grandparents were his inspiration. Knowing how hard they worked to create a good life for his family here in America gave him a life-long determination to help other older people at a time when they were in need and deserved first-rate housing and care. Because of his grandparents, Mr. Puma has worked tirelessly to bring to life his vision of an organization with a wide spectrum of care and housing options to assist as many seniors as possible. Mr. Puma has refused to accept anything less than excellence in every aspect of the Presbyterian Homes and Services. Under his guidance, Presbyterian Homes and Services received the 1996 New Jersey Governor's Award for Excellence in Affordable Housing.

Wanting to help seniors age in place at home, Mr. Puma conceived of and championed the State's first subsidized assisted living program for seniors who lived in affordable housing. This innovative program has served as a model for other communities in New Jersey and throughout the country, and it has been recognized by AARP and the Assisted Living Federation of America.

As an inspiration to individuals in New Jersey and throughout the country, Gary T. Puma has contributed significantly to the quality of life of thousands of senior citizens regardless of their income or denomination. He has earned our heartfelt appreciation for his efforts. Please join me in congratulating him for his many years of service.

Mr. Speaker, on May 7 of this year, the House debated and passed an important piece of legislation, the Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003 (H.R. 766). During debate of this bill, it became clear that there was a misunderstanding regarding the conclusions of a scholarly study conducted at Rutgers University. The author of that study, which was cited during the debate, has written to me with the request that he be able to clear up the confusion.

I am enclosing for the record the attached letter from David Guston, Associate Professor and Director of the Public Policy Program at Rutgers. Professor Guston's letter clarifies the scope and conclusions of his study, and will help us move forward on issues related to nanotechnology in an informed and thoughtful way in the future.

Rutgers, Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and

Public Policy, Public Policy Program,

New Brunswick, NJ, September 17, 2003.

Hon. Rush Holt,

Longworth House Office Bldg.,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Holt: I write regarding the debate on

the House floor on 7 May on the Nanotechnology Research and

Development Act of 2003 (H.R. 766).

It has come to my attention that, in responding to

Representative Johnson's proposed amendment to the bill to

provide for regularly occuring consensus conferences or

citizens' panels, Representative Burgess cited (at CR H3727)

``[a] scholarly review of the Danish-type citizens' panel

process convened to study telecommunications and democracy

[that] judged the process to be ineffective.''

In later remarks on the amendment, Chairman Boehlert

referred to the same ``scholarly study,'' saying that he was

told the study ``concluded that not even those engaged in

organizing the US citizens' panel thought it had any

impact.'' Chairman Boehlert then quoted from the study the

following passage (at CR H3727-28): ``The single greatest

area of consensus among the respondents was that the

Citizens' Panel on Telecommunications and the Future of

Democracy had no actual impact. No respondent, not even those

government members of the steering committee or expert

cohort, identified any actual impact.''

I am the author of the study in question (which can be

found in pre-published form at http://policy.rutgers.edu/ papers/ and via http://www.loka.org/pages/panel/htm and in

peer-reviewed, published from in Science, Technology, & Human

Values 24(4):451-82). I believe that these comments indicate

real confusion about my findings. I am therefore writing to

correct the record and to ensure that no misunderstanding

about my study damages efforts to provide public input into

the future of nanotechnology R&D.

There are three important aspects of my study on the

Citizens' Panel on Telecommunications and the Future of

Democracy of which you should be aware.

First, the study concludes that the citizens' panel had no

actual impact on policy decisions because, in large part, it

was not designed to. The sentence from the study immediately

following the one Chairman Boehlert quotes reads: ``A primary

reason for this lack of impact is that having one was not a

primary goal of the citizens' panel.'' The organizers of the

panel designed it as a proof-of-concept, and they were more

interested in understanding how to implement such a panel and

in seeing how the experts and lay-citizens would interact

than they were in having an actual impact on policy. Although

conducting citizens' panels is not quite rocket science,

questioning their effectiveness by claiming that this panel

did not have an actual impact is like blaming the Gemini

program for not going to the Moon: Its designers did not

intend it to do so.

Second, my study distinguishes between what I call ``actual

impact,'' defined as ``a concrete consequence to any

authoritative public decision,'' and three other impacts: (1)

those on the ``general thinking'' about a problem; (2) those

on the ``training of knowledgeable personnel''; and (3) those

that result in an ``interaction with lay-knowledge.'' I

develop these other measures to evaluate the impact of

citizens' panels for two reasons: (1) because--just as with

more traditional research--the education of participants is a

primary output of citizens' panels; and (2) because even very

formal, expert studies such as those conducted by the

National Academy of Sciences or by national commissions often

fail to have an ``actual impact.'' The comments made in the

floor debate by members of both parties emphasize that

scientists and lay-citizens need to learn from each other

about nanotechnology, and my study finds that such learning

can indeed occur in citizens' panels. To question the

effectiveness of citizens' panels by pointing to no ``actual

impact'' of this pilot panel misses the study's finding of

``tantalizing evidence that many kinds of impacts can be

achieved.''

Third--and most importantly--rather than undermining the

possibility of providing public input into technical

decisions, my research concludes that citizens panels are

real opportunities for productive interaction between experts

and lay-citizens. My research concludes that future citizens'

panels would need better ``connection to non-participants''

and ``higher profile institutional partners'' in order to

achieve their potential. If citizens' panels were authorized

by H.R. 766 and conducted by NSF and its partner agencies,

then they would indeed have the institutional support my

research indicates they require to succeed.

I hope that the record can be corrected to indicate that my

research provides evidence and analysis to support the

productive use of citizens' panels under the conditions that

H.R. 766 envisions them, rather than providing evidence

against their effectiveness.

Please let me know if I may be of any assistance on such

matters in the future, and I thank you for your work on H.R.

766 and for your attention here.

Sincerely,

David H. Guston,

Associate Professor and Director.

Speaker, as an educator and avid reader, it's always a special pleasure for me to visit a library or a museum. Libraries and museums safeguard our freedom and keep democracy healthy. They preserve the past and offer brighter futures to all of us, and their resources surely benefit every community member. That is why I was pleased to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 13, the Museum and Library Services Act.

Libraries are often referred to as the ``People's University.'' It is a fitting name. Libraries provide all of us with free access to a fabulous wealth of information. In this increasingly technology-driven society, they speak directly to what we call the Digital Divide. A recent survey by the Department of Commerce found that our libraries are the number one point of access for those who do not have Internet access at home or at work. Today, 90 percent of public libraries have some kind of Internet connection.

Research also shows us that Americans visit libraries 3.5 billion times each year; 1.6 billion items are borrowed annually from public libraries; and research librarians answer 7 million questions every week. Clearly libraries are responding not only to the daunting challenges of the Information Age and to the changing needs of our communities, but they are continuing to serve all of their traditional roles as well.

Libraries are also true community centers. They create environments where students can do their homework, townspeople can gather, families can interact, seniors can learn new skills, and job seekers can find advice. They are forums building partnerships, linking with everyone from garden clubs to Head Start programs to extend their reach throughout our communities.

Throughout our country, libraries serve as the catalyst for economic revitalization, bringing together our communities civic and social leaders. They provide reading material for people of all ages by sending books into maternity wards, setting up reading stations in pediatrician's offices, developing teen centers, and establishing mobile book carts in nursing homes and senior centers.

At my own public library in Princeton, I can see improvements that are traceable to this authorization bill. The library is in the process of constructing a state of the art library security, inventory, and circulation system that will allow library users to automatically check in and check out books. Because of the Museum and Library Services Act, New Jersey residents will gain greater access to the resources available at their local public library.

Similarly, our nation's museums serve as community centers that offer people of every age access to our nation's cultural and natural heritage. Museums' special role in public education fixes on their unique capacity to provide the public with an interactive environment in which to better understand our communities, our nation, and our world.

From local art museums to the National Zoo in Washington, D.C., museums are gathering places for people to meet and spend meaningful time with families and friends.

The educational role of museums is at the core of their service to the public. People of all ages and backgrounds come to learn from the collections, exhibits and programs created by museums through their research and scholarship. Museums across the nation provide more than 18 million instructional hours of educational programs, including professional development for our nation's teachers, guided field trips to our students, staff visits to local schools, and traveling exhibits in our communities. Annually, they spend more than $1 billion to share these activities with us.

Museums also have forged a deeply-rooted connection to the local communities that have created and cherished them. Americans from all income and education ranges visit museums, and each visit provides a wealth of information about our nation's heritage and our opportunities for the future. Across the country, there are 2.3 million museum visits each, adding up to 865 million visits per year. There are more than 15,000 museums in the United States and 90 percent of counties in America have at least one museum--75% of them considered to be small and 43% located in rural areas.

The 12th District of New Jersey is home to the New Jersey State Museum in Trenton, which was recently awarded a Museum Assessment Grant. This grant will provide the museum with technical assistance that will be invaluable in fulfilling its goal to educate the public. The New Jersey State Museum was one of the first state museums founded with this educational mission, and today it is home to a large collection of artifacts detailing archaeological, cultural, and artistic history. For all residents of central New Jersey, this museum offers exciting opportunities to learn about local history, to explore the far reaches of outer space at its planetarium, and to share time with family members at educational workshops. This museum--and the numerous others in the 12th District of New Jersey--enrich the lives of thousands of residents each year.

Mr. Speaker, Carl Rowan, a noted journalist, once said, ``The library is the temple of learning, and learning has liberated more people

than all the wars in history.'' With the passage of H.R. 13, the Museum and Library Services Act, future generations of Americans can enjoy the rich cultural and educational opportunities available to them through our nation's museums and libraries.

Mr. Speaker, I marvel at the degree of party discipline in the majority and the degree to which they insist on the correctness of their positions. The majority does not want to admit that fighting terrorism requires sacrifice. They do not want to admit that the U.N. can actually help us. They do not want to admit that we may have to go hat in hand to other countries to ask for financial and diplomatic help. They do not want to admit that our leaders did an inadequate job of planning for the post-Saddam occupation and transition to democracy in Iraq.

They do not want to admit that exorbitant tax cuts are not stimulating the economy and, in fact, are costing Americans jobs.

Some may think it is weakness to admit mistakes, but many Americans

instead think it is arrogance and a lack of touch with reality.

I ask myself why I would even want to give the majority party advice to do better if, in fact, the electorate is likely to make them pay for their arrogance. But I must say the longer they persist in this denial, the harder it will be for America to correct their course. Maybe the majority party will suffer for their arrogance, but the U.S. will suffer more.

Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman points out, economists are trying to pull this apart to understand how this perfect storm occurred. This will be the subject of economic studies for years to come, but one thing that is already apparent and will be apparent is this is not something that just happened to America; this was something that was created. It was created by the budget resolutions of 2001 and 2002 and 2003 and the appropriations and the tax bills that fulfilled those budget resolutions.

Mr. Speaker, the deficit ties our hands not in some theoretical way. This is very real money borrowed, mostly borrowed from other countries, from other governments and individuals overseas.

I was talking with someone from my district who was proudly telling me about how much money he is saving for his children's college education. But what he was not thinking about was how quickly his share of the national debt was growing. In fact, it turns out it is growing faster than what he is saving for his children's college education. So in a very real sense, these self-inflicted wounds, as you described the budget policies of the past 3 years, are taking this family's college savings away from them.

Mr. Speaker, a newspaper article put this in perspective for me. The writer pointed out when the President went before the American public a week ago to say that he would be asking for $87 billion this year to pay for rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan, and that would require some sacrifice, the writer pointed out that those who are being asked to make the sacrifice did not hear the President because they had already been put to bed by their parents. It is those children who will bear that burden, who will be asked to make that sacrifice and not just for rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan; it is for this multi- trillion tax cut to one segment of our society.

I seem to recall standing here on the floor with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) 3 years ago saying that the majority should not be so quick to spend this surplus. They began salivating at the sight of this projected surplus. I recall my friends here saying number one, it is projected; number two, things happen. We should not spend it all down. We should not give it all back in tax cuts; there might be some unforeseen events. Well, indeed there were. It happened on September 11; it happened with a stock market bubble popping. We were caught unprepared because the budget allowed absolutely no leeway. It was built on the most optimistic of circumstances and predictions, as well as, I would say, the greediest of ingredients.

The gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case) said it very well, it would be easier for us to deal with this with the $87 billion, with all of the economic problems facing us, if the leadership here and the leadership down the avenue would level with the American people about how this happened. I think that is what the American people ask, is that their leaders level with them and not just go on as we go further into debt have the leadership say and now we need tax cuts more than ever. I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for this very useful discussion.

Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained and failed to vote on rollcall No. 495 (the Sanders amendment to the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act). Had I been present I would have voted ``aye.''

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Kanjorski

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, today I am offering an amendment that would help ensure adequate winter access to Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks.

Yellowstone, America's premier park, is being loved to death, and there are many Members here who are concerned about the effect of vehicular pollution, traffic, on Yellowstone Park. In fact, precisely half of the Members here recently voted to ban snow machines. This amendment, that I have before the body at the moment, would do nothing with the number or type of snowmobiles allowed in the park. It is not unrelated. As I point out, half of the House voted to ban snowmobiles, and all of those Members should support this amendment. Some, who voted otherwise because there was insufficient alternative transportation available, should also support this.

Since that discussion a few weeks ago, there is new information. The Environmental Protection Agency, having done tests shows that the new generation of snowmobiles approved for use in Yellowstone Park after being promoted as cleaner and quieter, in fact, emit more pollution. Said a spokesman for Yellowstone Park, ``We started all this in good faith. We based our decision on the fact that the machines would continue to be cleaner and quieter and the industry would work toward that end.'' In fact, none of the new machines tested by the EPA meet the park's standards. They are dirtier than before.

What I am trying to do is to see that we have adequate access to Yellowstone Park whether my colleagues support snowmobiles or not. There exists now some multipassenger vehicles for access in the snow, over the snow, into the park. They range from the old-fashioned, and I would say classy, red Bombardier vehicles to the newer models adapted from Ford Econoline vans.

Just this year, the new prototype of snow coaches has been unveiled. These new vehicles are environmentally friendly and can run on diesel, gas, compressed natural gas or ethanol. And they include big windows and a fabric top that folds back so passengers can get a good look around. What is more, the vehicles can be lowered to accommodate disabled individuals. This means that people who could not enjoy Yellowstone Park's winter beauty before can now fully experience these national treasures.

The Federal Transit Administration, in a private-public partnership along with the Heart Corporation of Michigan, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Park Service have designed and developed this new prototype. My amendment is intended to provide $2 million for the Park Service to use 12 new coaches of this type.

As I said, this amendment, I believe, should be acceptable to everyone. Anyone here in this body who voted to ban snowmobiles from Yellowstone should support this. Anyone here who voted against the ban on snowmobiles should also support this because it provides alternative means of travel.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the committee consider approving this transfer of funds within the Federal Transit Administration for this important purpose in our major, premier national park.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

It is precisely because those single-passenger and dual- passenger vehicles to which the chairman refers do not meet the environmental guidelines of the National Park Service that the Transit Administration and others have developed these multipassenger vehicles which do emit less pollution per passenger, per recreation enthusiast. So, in fact, they would be a substitute.

With regard to the point that this would be used in Yellowstone Park, yes, indeed they would. In fact, all mass transit is used somewhere, where people are, where people want to travel, and that is an appropriate use of, I think, the Transit funds. But with the chairman's assurance that we can continue this discussion, I would be pleased to withdraw my amendment at this time.

Offered By: Mr. Holt

Amendment No. 7: Page 2, line 8, after the first dollar

amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.

Page 43, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Holt

Amendment No. 8: Page 2, line 8, after the first dollar

amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.

Page 43, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.

Page 43, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, as our nation honors and supports the ongoing efforts of our troops in Iraq and prays for the safety of all of our uniformed men and women still in the Gulf and Afghanistan, now is also an opportune time for Congress to do more to help our nation's new and old veterans in need. To this end, I am introducing legislation to urge the establishment of a ``National Hire a Veteran Week'' and to urge a presidential proclamation calling upon employers, labor organizations, veterans service organizations, and federal, state, and local governmental agencies to employ more veterans.

In spite of the best efforts of the U.S. Departments of Defense, Labor, and Veterans Affairs, imposing barriers continue to impede many deserving veterans from securing employment and achieving self- sufficiency. Unfortunately, many veterans struggle to find jobs, even with opportunities for increased training and education offered through government programs. Little more than half of our nation's veterans are employed today. Most startlingly, according to the 2000 Census, nearly 20 percent of Gulf War veterans are unemployed.

Moreover, it is troubling and shameful that so many of our veterans who risked their own lives to defend our freedom can't find jobs and must endure homelessness and lives of poverty after they return home. Indeed, American veterans comprise one-third of the homeless male population in America, while an estimated 250,000 veterans live on our city streets. In fact, the number of homeless Vietnam War veterans today exceeds the number of service persons who died during that war.

Mr. Speaker, even as we tend to the well-being of our men and women currently on active duty, we cannot forget those who have already served their country and deserve more assistance in moving to the next phase of their civilian lives. A presidential proclamation of ``National Hire a Veteran Week'' would provide an effective and more focused way to do more to help all of our veterans find good jobs and ensure better living standards for themselves and their families. I hope that all of my colleagues will support this legislation and will take one more step to help repay the debt we owe to all of our nation's defenders. I also hope it can be promptly enacted and signed into law in the next few weeks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the courage, career and commitment of Douglass College's first black student, Julia Baxter Bates. Ms. Bates died earlier this month at the age of 86 after a distinguished life.

Julia Baxter Bates became the first black student admitted to what is now Rutgers University's Douglass College due to her courage, her resolve, and thank goodness, due to a fortunate error. In 1934, Ms. Baxter Bates sent her application, along with the required photograph, to the Admissions Office of Douglass College. In reviewing her application, an admissions officer mistook Bates, a light-skinned black woman, for a white woman, and invited her to interview. At that interview, administrators suggested she attend a school where she would be ``more comfortable.'' At this moment, Ms. Baxter had a choice. She chose the more difficult path. With determination and courage and the assistance of her father, she convinced administrators to let her stay.

Displaying resolve and purpose, Ms. Bates succeeded in the face of intolerance. In 1938, she graduated magna cum laude. When she could not get her teaching license because no school district would let her student-teach, she earned a master's degree at Columbia University and began teaching English and American literature at Dillard University in New Orleans.

In response to her continued encounters with racism, Ms. Baxter Bates left the field of education and entered the world of legal justice and social activism. She joined the staff of the New York headquarters of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the NAACP. There she spent a quarter-century helping form the research sector that later wrote the winning brief in the now-famous Brown v. Board of Education. She considered her involvement in Brown v. Board of Education her greatest achievement.

Bates returned to education in 1965 at Columbia's School of Social Work to work on urban education, and a few years later she finally became a New Jersey schoolteacher, in Newark. In 1984, she joined Essex County College as an administrator.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Julia Baxter Bates for her long career of social change and her commitment to education. From the courage and perseverance of individuals such as Julia, the institutions and the attitudes of our society progress. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing one of New Jersey's most significant daughters.

``To bind up the Nation's wounds, to care for those who have borne the battle.'' Those are the words of our greatest Republican President. It was the beginning of a national promise, a promise, an obligation, a sacred obligation to look after those who bore the battle. The result is today we have in the VA excellent doctors and nurses, excellent facilities as far as they go, but it is not far enough.

Patients have unacceptable waits. And when it comes to medical care, to delay is to deny. Those who served in uniform did not wait to serve. This bill effectively cuts veterans health care. Do not just take my word for it. The DAV, the VFW, Paralyzed Vets say this cuts health care. The rule denies waivers to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) to try to address this. That is reason enough to justify defeating this rule. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) have done their best; but we must not forget, these cuts were not an accident. They did not happen in the Committee on Appropriations just yesterday. They are the deliberate result of a partisan budget that was rammed through Congress a few months ago. It was passed with some empty promises to some of our colleagues that veterans would be taken care of later.

But this budget, despite the words of the chairman, who a moment ago said, ``We would like to do more,'' this budget that was rammed through Congress months ago cut veterans benefits.

Here is what they said: You know, we found several trillion dollars of money that we don't need. It's your money, Americans. We'll give it back to you. You know how to spend it better than we do.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether these young and old millionaires who get 80, $90,000 will spend it better than the government to take care of those veterans, to see that they do not have to wait at their local clinic at Fort Monmouth; or Brick, New Jersey; or Lyons Hospital in New Jersey. Do they know how to spend it better?

Defeat this rule. We owe it to those who served in the Second World War, in Korea, in Vietnam, in the Gulf War and in a number of other actions; and we owe it to the new veterans who are coming home every day. Defeat this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about a glaring omission from this emergency supplemental--funding for AmeriCorps. We must include $100 million in funding for AmeriCorps. Without this funding AmeriCorps will suffer a nearly 60 percent cut and 20,000 service members will be eliminated.

Cutting AmeriCorps at a time when Americans are facing a stagnant economy, the worst unemployment in more than a decade, and deep cuts in State and Federal social programs is not just inconsiderate and wrong, it is unwise. That's why I have signed a letter along with many of my colleagues in Congress calling on the President and the Congressional Leadership to push for emergency funding for AmeriCorps. Young people who are qualified and willing to serve our communities should not be turned away. We should not be trampling on the spirit of service that AmeriCorps has inspired in so many of our young people to give back to our communities. Since 1994, more than 250,000 men and women have served in AmeriCorps, providing needed assistance to millions of Americans.

President Bush has called for expanding AmeriCorps from 50,000 to 75,000 volunteers. Volunteerism was a major theme of his State of the Union address and as recently as April 9, while speaking at a Connecticut community center where AmeriCorps volunteers mentor students, President Bush said, ``We need to encourage programs to expand, to give people an outlet, a chance to participate.'' Words are cheap--the efforts of these volunteers are dear.

Without additional funding the service programs, as well as the volunteers and communities that rely on their help, will be devastated. The infrastructure of many small programs, which do not have the resources to sustain a significant budget cut for even one year, will be destroyed.

The people of central New Jersey will lose if this funding is not restored. In Trenton, New Jersey, the Crisis Ministry, the Trenton Soup Kitchen, and the ARC (which helps kids and adults with mental disabilities) could all face cutbacks in AmeriCorps volunteers. These programs provide services that are vital to my district all the time, but especially in tough economic times. AmeriCorps is an outstanding program with a proven track record of meeting the critical needs of New Jersey's communities. We cannot allow it to be downsized. I ask my colleagues to include funding for AmeriCorps in the conference committee.