Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding leader in Michigan's labor community on the occasion of his retirement after over 30 years of service. Sam Hart, Business Manager, International Union of Operating Engineers Local 324, is an operating engineer through and through. Starting as a pipe liner in Michigan, he rose through the ranks to distinguish himself within the state and the nation as a thoughtful and effective labor leader.

Mr. Hart was initiated in the International Union of Operating Engineers in 1959. He was appointed the Business Representative for Local 324 in 1971 and was first elected to the Executive Board in 1977. His leadership in organizing members in the Operating Engineers and on issues of health care and retirement security, so vital to the working men and women he represents, catapulted him to the highest tier of leadership and gained the local union a reputation throughout the state and nation.

Local 324 is considered one of the strongest local unions in Michigan, with the largest percentage of its workers organized throughout the skilled trades. Local 324 is consistently listed as one of the top 25 locals in the State.

Sam Hart's good work has called him into numerous positions of service. He was elected Secretary-Treasurer of the North and Central States Conference in 1990, the largest conference of operating engineers in the United States. He served on the negotiating Committee for the National Pipe Line Agreement for the entire U.S. and Canada. He served as President of the Michigan State Building Trades and on the Detroit AFL-CIO Executive Board. He was elected as a General Vice President to the International Union of Operating Engineers beginning in 1994 and was appointed Chairman of the General Pension in 2000.

I have been honored to know Sam Hart as a friend over so many of these years. What friends say about Sam Hart is probably most telling about the man whose career will be honored on Saturday, September 6, 2003. He is ``thoughtful,'' ``level-headed,'' ``decent,'' a ``gentleman'' and a ``family man to the core.'' I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to the work of Sam Hart and to wish him, his wife, Darlene, and their entire family health and happiness in the years ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the 75th anniversary of the parish of St. Mary Magdalen in Hazel Park, Michigan. The history of St. Mary Magdalen is one that reflects a deep dedication of the community at large and its parishioners. Volunteers worked for decades to create not only a place of worship, but an institution.

In 1928, the Catholic Church established a new parish in the growing community of Hazel Park. The first Mass of St. Mary Magdalen Church was held in the Odd Fellows Hall on Christmas Day of that year. Less than one year later, on Easter in 1929, St. Mary Magdalen Parish occupied their first new building.

In 1932, the Sisters of Christian Charity arrived from Wilmette, Illinois. They worked hard to ready themselves for the first school classes to start in September of that year. Their first school buildings were purchased from the Clawson Board of Education, dismantled and reassembled in Hazel Park by men from the community donating their time.

The Parish continued to grow, the first hall was built in 1933 using second-hand and recycled lumber. In 1958 the present church was completed, followed three years later by the convent. The next decades saw the establishment of a number of important traditions in the church. The first Fall Festival, now an annual event, was held in September 1971.

Surely, since its establishment 75 years ago, St. Mary Magdalen Parish has continued to grow, flourish and serve the community of Hazel Park. It is indeed my great honor today to recognize those who have made it all possible.

Mr. Speaker, let me just be sure of the procedure here so that we are clear. I want to be sure that all the Members who want to speak on both sides of this have a chance to do so. I think the way we worked this out, the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) would go next, and after the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) will go, and then I will go.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 25 minutes to my distinguished colleague from California (Mr. Stark).

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

Clearly, the Chile and Singapore Free Trade Agreements have many strong provisions, including comprehensive commitments by Chile and Singapore to open their goods, agricultural and services markets. This will be beneficial to American businesses, workers and farmers, commitments that will increase regulatory transparency and act to the benefit of U.S. investors, intellectual property holders, businesses, workers and consumers.

So what is the major source of controversy, especially since the economic impact of the two agreements combined will account for less than one-

quarter of 1 percent of U.S. GDP? I believe that it is mainly the potential and the existing inappropriate use by this administration of provisions in these agreements as models for other agreements.

For example, the Singapore FTA includes an integrated sourcing initiative. As first drafted, ISI would have allowed in listed instances components from any country in the world imported directly into Singapore to be treated as Singapore content, i.e., Singapore as a proxy for other nations not signatory to the FTA. This local content feature has been restricted through amendments to the agreement and by this legislation at our instigation, making it difficult to use as a practical matter. And, importantly, Democrats took the initiative to prevent any expansion of the ISI list without congressional approval. These efforts should send a clear message: Do not negotiate a similar provision in any future FTA.

Second, both agreements contain provisions relating to the temporary entry of nationals which required the creation of a new H1B visa program for workers from these countries. We were able through the implementing legislation on a bipartisan basis to significantly tighten these provisions. As a result, they are not now, in my judgment, a sufficient reason to vote against these agreements. But in this day and age of heavy loss of American jobs, the changes insisted on by this House must send a clear message to the administration not to negotiate immigration provisions in future FTAs, especially where the number of such visas involved would be larger without the active involvement of Congress.

Third, both agreements contain separate dispute settlement rules that place arbitrary caps on the enforcement of the labor and environmental provisions. This is a mistaken approach, the difficulties of which would only be magnified if used as a precedent for future FTAs involving very different circumstances.

Fourth, while substantial progress was made in the critical area of investment, these agreements should not be a model for all future FTAs. Additional steps should be included in future trade negotiations to ensure fully that foreign investors have no greater rights than U.S. citizens have under U.S. law.

Fifth, of great concern about these agreements is the actual use by USTR in the ongoing Central American negotiations of the ``enforce your own laws'' standard in the Singapore and Chile FTAs relating to basic labor standards. The laws of Chile and Singapore incorporate five internationally recognized core labor standards, prohibition against child labor, forced labor, discrimination, and, vitally, the right to associate and bargain collectively; and they basically enforce them, though there are cultural differences in their doing so.

In clear contrast to Chile and Singapore, the laws of most Central American countries irrefutably do not embody these five standards and the inadequate laws that exist are poorly enforced. Indeed, there is a pervasive antiworker-rights culture that prevents workers from getting a livable piece of the economic pie and climbing the economic ladder to the middle class.

So use of an ``enforce your own law standard'' where opposite conditions exist is a contradiction that would lead to contradictory results.

Central America does not need to suppress its workers to compete. To say that it does, whether with neighbors or with China, is untrue, and such an argument only gives ammunition to those who say that expanded trade, indeed globalization, inevitably leads to helping the rich and continuing to exploit the poor.

CAFTA is the real test and provides a real opportunity to shape expanded trade so that it leads to a leveling up, not a leveling down, with FTAA following next. So there is not a race to the bottom. So people in developing nations, as is basically true now in Chile and Singapore, can move up the ladder. So it is clear to workers in our Nation that when they compete, it is not with workers in other nations suppressed of their basic rights to associate and bargain together to get a decent piece of the economic action.

There are two ways to respond to this situation.

One is to acknowledge the many positives in these agreements, voting a green light while making very clear a red light against misapplication of Chile and Singapore to CAFTA, FTAA, and other future agreements where the conditions are very different. Different conditions, different agreements. Or, to vote ``no.''

My judgment is that the message is more clear, the distinctions between different situations remain starker and less blurred, and efforts to make these distinctions more likely to succeed with a ``yes'' vote in the manner described above. Either way, there must be a similar message: Do not negotiate an agreement with Central American nations on the assumption that conditions are like those in Chile or Singapore when they are not.

We oppose such efforts. They would not lead to the breakthroughs that Central American or FTA nations need in access to U.S. markets. They would result, in my judgment, in the eventual defeat of CAFTA. And they would throw away an opportunity, a major opportunity for those Central American nations and others, and for ours, and an opportunity to move U.S. trade policy forward, with the broad base of support necessary for a healthy future for expanded trade.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), my distinguished colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz).

(Mr. ORTIZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), a colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 25 of our 50 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) for the purposes of yielding time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley).

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes and 15 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a distinguished colleague of mine on the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), my distinguished colleague on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).

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

Singapore is not the same as Chile. Each negotiation has to be taken on its own. In Singapore, there was a provision relating to the integrated sourcing initiative, and we were concerned about that. We on the Democratic side initiated efforts to make sure that there could not be use of that provision so that it was misused, so that Singapore would become a vehicle for essentially evasion of the rules. Working together, we were able to very much address, I think, the most major problem, and that is any addition of components or products unless there was the approval of this Congress in the same course as with any other piece of legislation.

In both cases, there were immigration provisions. They were of major concern to us. Again, we on the Democratic side initiated a discussion of these concerns, and we worked on a bipartisan basis within the Committee on Ways and Means and between the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on the Judiciary. As a result, virtually all of these concerns have been, in my judgment, essentially addressed with the additional proviso, which the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has indicated, and that is a warning to the USTR that Chile and Singapore, in terms of immigration provisions, should not be a template, should not be a model in the future for any agreement.

The same is true of core labor standards. Here I want to be very clear. Jordan is Jordan. Singapore is Singapore. Chile is Chile. The agreement as to Jordan was satisfactory. It was, however, changed to some extent by the administration through an exchange of letters. We voted for it anyway, despite the exchange of letters, with some hesitation because Jordan, in fact, has core labor standards in their lasws and enforces them. Chile does also. In its own way, so does Singapore.

I do not think the Jordan or the Singapore or Chile agreements would be satisfactory as applied to Central America and the conditions for workers in those countries. They are suppressed, and to apply even Jordan to Central America would be a serious mistake because the provisions regarding enforcement of core labor standards by Jordan talk about striving to ensure. That may be okay for a country that has them; it is unsatisfactory for most countries in Central America that simply do not have, in laws or in practice, core labor standards.

So, in my judgment, the best way to approach these trade agreements is to take them on the terrain that exists and is likely to exist. In that respect, I am going to vote for these two agreements, as many of my colleagues will, but I think for almost all of us on this side, whether we vote ``yes'' or ``no,'' there is a similar message to USTR and, that is, do not consider these agreements as a model or a template for Central America or FTAA. If you do so, you are likely to jeopardize an important agreement, CAFTA, you will not bring about the benefits that these Central American countries need, and you will have the strong opposition not only of the workers of America but virtually everybody on this side of the aisle.

Under those circumstances, I close, urging the Democrats to vote ``yes.'' However we vote, I hope the stated message is clear to this administration and, indeed, to everybody who is concerned.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to reconsider the vote by which engrossment and third reading was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill. The Bush Administration and many in this Congress have said over and over that the education policies of this country should leave no child behind. The President pledged to leave no child behind, and then proposed more than a billion dollars of education cuts. If the legislation before the House today passes, the Majority will once again fail the kids who need our help the most.

Head Start was created to help secure a good start, a good education, and good prospects for at-risk youth. Not only does it help children develop cognitive learning and social skills, but also provides comprehensive health, dental and nutrition services which are vital to educational success. This bill before the House would undo the foundation of a program that has been a glowing success for nearly 40 years.

In addition, this bill seriously underfunds Head Start. With already limited resources, Head Start struggles to serve two our of every five eligible children. Without additional funding, we will leave nearly 1 million children behind. It is ironic that the Majority will push to pass billions in tax cuts that chiefly benefit the very rich, yet is unwilling to provide the necessary funding to school kids. This speaks volumes about the priorities of the Majority.

In contrast, the Democratic substitute which I support would build on the success of Head Start. It does so by strengthening school readiness, improving program quality and accountability, and expanding access so more eligible children will be served. It does all this while maintaining local control and high program performance standards.

I ask you to defeat the Republican-sponsored legislation. If you vote for this legislation, not only are you voting to undermine the foundation of Head Start, you're voting to undermine the future of the children who depend on it.

Mr. Speaker, tonight I vote for H.R. 2427 with some reservations. I have put those reservations aside because this is not the final step in the process.

I would have much preferred if the Republican leadership had not blocked a vote on the Emerson ``Save Our Seniors Act'' and all other amendments. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership decided to block a vote on Emerson and all amendments in the hopes of shutting this effort down and saving the pharmaceutical industry's policy of charging Americans the highest drug prices in the world.

Our senior citizens are more likely to need prescription drugs and less likely to have insurance to cover them than any other group. As a result, many of them pay high prices or go without needed medication. That is wrong.

In recent years, many seniors in my district have tried to solve this problem by traveling to Canada, where drugmakers charge lower prices for the same medications. Some of them have been able to purchase medications, especially for chronic illnesses, at a thirty to 50 percent discount. I strongly support allowing them to continue doing this without interference from the Food and Drug Administration or the U.S. Customs department. I believe that Canada's system of regulating prescription medications sold at its pharmacies is safe and reliable for my constituents.

But bus trips to Canada should not be the answer to the serious problem facing our seniors. The real answer is a Medicare prescription drug benefit so that they can get the drugs they need here at home. I have cosponsored H.R. 1199, which would add a comprehensive prescription drug benefit to the Medicare seniors know and trust. If H.R. 1199 becomes law, the federal government will be able to negotiate lower prices for medications and help seniors afford to buy them.

Last month, the House instead passed a bill which uses an inadequate, unreliable drug insurance program for seniors as a decoy to distract people from the bill's real purpose--privatizing Medicare and turning it into a voucher program. I voted against that bad bill. That bill is now in a House-Senate conference, which is charged with combining it with a very different Senate bill. If H.R. 2427 passes the House tonight, it will become part of the discussion for that conference committee and increase the pressure for that committee to address the issue of affordable drugs, rather than focusing on privatizing Medicare.

I believe we must address the issue of real drug coverage for seniors and the issue of unreasonably high drug prices. The Republican leadership hoped to avoid that issue by only allowing a vote on the broadest possible approach. Tonight, I stand with my colleagues in refusing to play games, and I will vote for H.R. 2427 to keep this issue alive and force action.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the very distinguished and vibrant leader of the minority.

Mr. Chairman, I spoke last night, and I will be very, very

brief. I disagree with the gentleman's analysis of what is appropriate here under the rules.

I also want to mention, last night when we discussed the provision that says there shall be no funds made available for negotiating a CAFTA or an FTAA that does not require adoption and enforcement of the basic prohibitions on exploitive child labor, forced labor and discrimination and guarantee of the right to associate and bargain collectively, that the important matter was a job, and not what was in that job, what payment there was for the job or under what conditions the job was carried on.

I think that is terribly wrong. If people are going to have a chance to climb up the ladder, they have to have a chance to be able to associate and to bargain collectively. We should not base a trade agreement on the suppression of the workers of Central America or of any other place in the Americas.

So, I urge that the Chair rule this in order, and we are now prepared to hear the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I want to respond very briefly. In those respects, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) is very wrong. This does not change existing law. Our USTR representative is not prohibited by the present Trade Promotion Act, is not prohibited from carrying out the provisions that are spelled out here that there shall be no greater rights for foreign investors than Americans in the U.S. There is nothing in TPA that prohibits his doing just that; and there is nothing in the present TPA, which I opposed, but there is nothing, and we had an alternative, that prohibits the USTR from requiring adoption and enforcement of the basic prohibitions on exploitative child labor, forced labor and discrimination, and the guarantee of the right to associate and bargain collectively.

We are saying in this amendment that that is exactly what the USTR should be doing, and I ask the Chair to rule in our favor.

Mr. Chairman, I move to appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is being offered for a clear set of reasons. Expanded trade is critical. It is critical that the terms of this expanded trade be effectively shaped. The pace of trade negotiations is indeed increasing. This heightened pace needs to take a global economy and all of its people, and I emphasize all of its people, in the right direction upwards.

This amendment is not a case of tying the hands of our negotiators. It is a matter of Members of Congress showing their hands, showing what should be the course of these negotiations.

So this amendment underlines, on behalf of this House, some priorities: protection against piracy of copyrights, open markets for agricultural goods, open markets for high-tech and other manufactured exports, no greater rights for foreign investors and Americans, and guarantee of the right of workers to associate and bargain collectively.

Since CAFTA, the Central America Free Trade Agreement, is the next trade negotiation that is farthest along, let me discuss it in terms of this amendment.

In this negotiation of CAFTA, there is a particular relevance of the provision in this amendment relating to the rights of workers to associate and to bargain collectively. CAFTA represents a major opportunity, and I emphasize that, to integrate further the economies of our Nation and the nations of Central America. Such integration includes sensitive areas such as apparel and textiles and agriculture. This further economic integration of Caribbean nations, including the United States, beyond that in the CBI arrangements, cannot be achieved unless there are some basic standards negotiated into the new CAFTA trade agreement. This expanded trade and further integration of our markets cannot be achieved based on the suppression of the workers in Central America in the sectors I mentioned or any other.

There is clearly such suppression of workers today in the three Central American countries I visited 3 months ago: El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Guatemala. That is verified clearly by both the State Department and ILO reports. Laws in those countries that are woefully weak, that clearly violate ILO standards, woeful enforcement of these clearly inadequate laws, putting forth in the negotiations of CAFTA as the U.S. is doing as a standard, enforcing your own laws can only lead to the opposite of strong laws and strong enforcement.

If this does not change, one, workers in these Central American nations will not be able to climb up the ladder, cannot become part of an expanded middle class so important to them, so important to their countries, and important to the U.S. in terms of ability of people in those countries to buy our goods and services; two, there will be a race to the bottom among the nations as to which Central American nation can have the worst conditions, the most suppressed workers; three, workers and an increasing number of consumers in our Nation will oppose any trade agreement.

Mr. Chairman, we have a chance, and I emphasize this, an opportunity, to build integrated economic structures that can compete with all nations, build on standards that uplift the people of the United States and Central America, and eventually all other nations.

This amendment says the Congress wants USTR to seize this opportunity. I urge support of this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

Mr. Chairman, I just want to be sure about the time since the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and I are both reserving a minute at the end and the minority leader is going to take that minute tomorrow.

Mr. Chairman, do I have 4 minutes left?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I hereby notify the House of my intention to offer a resolution as a question of the privilege of the House. The form of my resolution is as follows:

House Resolution--

Whereas during a meeting of the Committee on Ways and Means

on July 18, 2003, for the consideration of the bill H.R.

1776, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means offered

an amendment in the nature of a substitute;

Whereas during the reading of that amendment the chairman

of the Ways and Means Committee directed majority staff of

the committee to ask the United States Capitol Police to

remove minority-party members of the committee from a room of

the committee during the meeting, causing the United States

Capitol Police thereupon to confront the minority-party

members of the committee;

Whereas pending a unanimous-consent request to dispense

with the reading of that amendment the chairman deliberately

and improperly refused to recognize a legitimate and timely

objection by a member of the committee;

Now therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives disapproves of

the manner in which Representative Thomas summoned the United

States Capitol Police to evict minority-party members of the

Committee on Ways and Means from the committee library, as

well as the manner in which he conducted the markup of

legislation in the Committee on Ways and Means on July 18,

2003, and finds that the bill considered at that markup was

not validly ordered reported to the House.

Mr. Speaker, I support the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003, H.R. 2330, because I believe that it is essential to demonstrate that the United States refuses to help perpetuate the brutality of Burma's military junta against the Burmese people. The junta, which ironically calls itself the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), has recently stepped up its anti-democracy activities by violently cracking down on pro-democracy activists, and re- imprisoning the opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi.

Ms. Suu Kyi, a Nobel peace laureate, has already spent much of the last 15 years with her movements and speaking restricted under house arrest. I understand that a month ago, after spending only one year free from 20 months of recent house arrest, Ms. Suu Kyi was again detained and is now being held in a Burmese prison notorious for its poor conditions and the mistreatment, and even torture, of political prisoners. The United States must take every opportunity to be a leader in pressuring the SPDC to free Aung San Suu Kyi and her fellow opposition leaders.

The import sanctions created by the Act will hit the military junta where it can be hurt worst--by taking strong action against the SPDC- controlled economy and depriving the military of a source of revenue.

The slave-like labor conditions in Burma are one indication of the extent of the junta's cruelty against the Burmese people. In 2000, after reviewing the working conditions in Burma, an International Labor Organization (ILO) team of experts found that the junta continued to restrict worker rights and to use forced labor on a widespread basis. After receiving the report, the ILO took the unprecedented step of invoking Article 33 of the ILO Charter and formally urged its 174 member states to review their relations with Burma. This is as close as the ILO can come to urging sanctions upon a country.

It is likely that more than a million people in Burma are subjected to forced labor on construction sites for roads, railways, military installations and tourism. The military is particularly notorious for imposing forced labor on villagers living near military operations. Even more outrageous is that this forced labor is often accompanied by brutality, such as torture, arbitrary and extrajudicial execution, rape, and population displacements. Non-compliance by one individual has been known to bring the junta's wrath upon a whole village. For example, the transport of food and other market goods to and from a village could be blocked, or a whole village could be faced with the threat of relocation. Forced labor has the additional effect of forcing villagers to neglect their own fields, making hunger an ever-present concern. Sometimes, even during harvesting times, they are forced to travel far from their village to work. If and when they return, they often do not have the ability to sustain the needs of their own homes and communities.

The current regime's policies of ethnic cleansing, rape as an official tool of repression, the growing and producing of heroin, the forced labor conditions--they all must end. We have tried other methods to encourage the military regime to change its course, to no avail. Only if the United States and others in the international community come together to impose sanctions and deprive the junta of its economic power can the Burmese people hope to have any relief from the long list of atrocities being committed upon them.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Speaker, indeed, the gentleman from California's (Mr. Thomas) chief of staff stood nearby where we were meeting with a member of the Capitol Police and said this to the police and at least one member of the staff, that the chairman has asked me to get the police to remove Democrats from this room.

This is the United States of America. This is not a police state. This is supposed to be the people's House, and you call members of the police to evict us from having a discussion. We were discussing that bill that we had only seen a few minutes before, because it was delivered at midnight, delivered at midnight and maybe the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the rest of you did not like our insisting that the bill be read; but the rules say that we have the right to have a bill read word for word, and you have no right to trample, once again, on the rights of the minority of the United States House of Representatives.

That is what is at stake here, and you can try to change the subject. You can try to gloss over it. You can try to make excuses. You can try to say the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) said such and such to so and so. No, the issue, this is not a partisan squabble. This is not a matter of personality. This is a matter of our basic rights as representatives of the people of the United States; and darn it all, we are going to stand here and stand here to defend not only our rights but the rights of the people of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad I was here for the remarks of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin). We do not have to destroy Medicare to add a prescription drug benefit. Add prescription drugs to Medicare. We do not need to change Medicare to add a prescription drug benefit. Keep Medicare. It is not outdated. Bring it up to date, if we want to put it that way, by putting in a prescription drug benefit in Medicare. But you do not do that. You are using prescription drug benefits to change and destroy the Medicare system.

The actuary says, under the Republican plan, by 2010, the likely increase in costs for the present Medicare will be 25 percent. You are not only eroding the possibility of use, you are, in the end, destroying Medicare as we know it. And we Democrats will be glad to go

to the electorate in 2004 with the Republican notion that Medicare is outdated, I say to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) or to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the notion that Medicare is failing, ask the seniors of this country whether it is outdated or whether it is failing. They are going to say, we need prescription drugs; give it to us.

Our Republican colleagues do not do that, though they use it as an excuse for changing or destroying Medicare. What they do is have a prescription drug program that is an insurance program without any assurance whatsoever. There is no assured premium, there is no assured deductible, there is no assured set of drugs, and there is really no assured plan. There is no assured plan. The insurance carriers are supposed to come into this, and if they do not, what is there? There is an empty container of pills, I guess. That is what we are left with.

So essentially what our Republican colleagues are doing is using the alleged bankruptcy of Medicare as a smoke screen to destroy it. They are talking about 2036 to wreck Medicare 25 years earlier. That is what you want us to do in the conference committee. Go ahead, try it. If you try it, I hope you fail. If you succeed, we Democrats are all going to vote no. It was not very overwhelming, I think it was one vote, was it not, that took you 45 extra minutes to pass your bill?

Mr. Speaker, we will be glad to go to the country with the Republican plan against ours, destroying Medicare versus our determination to save it and make it even better.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 215, to honor this nation's chambers of commerce for their contributions to help strengthen communities and local economies, and in particular to congratulate the Detroit Regional Chamber on celebrating its 100th anniversary.

Originally established on June 30, 1903 as the Detroit Board of Commerce, the Detroit Regional Chamber was formed with 253 charter members. The Chamber has seen many changes since that time--the organization has grown to include more than 19,000 businesses and has had several name changes. What has not changed is the chamber's record of service to the residents and businesses of the Metro Detroit area.

The Chamber has taken a leadership role in public policy in dealings with both the Michigan State Legislature and the U.S. Congress on legislation that may impact the business community. In recent years, they have effectively focused their efforts more broadly on coordinating the vital effort around efficient and secure operations at the U.S.-Canada border. Their annual Leadership Policy Conference, brings together business, government and community leaders to discuss a wide array of issues, from health care to energy policy and economic development to ethics. In attending these conferences, I have seen how the Detroit Regional Chamber has been increasingly involved in discussing and confronting the wide variety of challenges facing the City of Detroit and relations with the entire metropolitan area.

The Chamber also provides small business and international trade counseling and works to develop the region's economic viability by attracting people, money and jobs. The Chamber is also heavily involved in working toward transportation solutions to improve the ability of the workers in the region to get to their jobs.

It is fitting that we should take the time to recognize the 100th anniversary of the Detroit Regional Chamber and I offer my best wishes for their continued success as they begin their second century of service to Metro Detroit.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 215.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in commemorating the City of Lathrup Village, MI, on the 50th anniversary of its incorporation as a city. As the city celebrates this auspicious occasion, I would like to take a moment to reflect on the ways in which Lathrup Village's past shapes its future.

The history of Lathrup Village dates back to 1923, when Louise Lathrup Kelley acquired 1,000 acres in what was then Southfield Township. Originally called Lathrup Townsite, the area followed Mrs. Kelley's unique development plans. Unlike most other cities, which develop in a haphazard, chaotic pattern of initial settlement followed by gradual and disorderly expansion, Lathrup Village was, from the very beginning, a planned community. Mrs. Kelley sought to balance the desire for development with the needs of the residents who would eventually live there. To this end, she reserved space for parks and planned the streets to provide access to all parts of the city and the larger metropolitan region. Under Mrs. Kelley's plans, which were quite progressive for the time, all houses were to be made of high quality brick, stone or masonry, and garages were required to be attached to the homes. From these initial plans, a beautifully ordered community grew into a charming city of just over 4,200 residents.

The residents' desire to maintain the atmosphere of a village was reflected in their decision to keep the name Lathrup Village even after it incorporated as a city in 1953. For many of its residents, Lathrup Village is synonymous with close community, friendly neighbors, and cozy convenience.

In the half century since Lathrup Village incorporated, its leaders and its residents have upheld the original intention of Mrs. Kelley's

plans: to build a pleasant place to live. In the past 50 years, the City of Lathrup Village has lived up to that mission. Mr. Speaker, I commend the leadership of the City of Lathrup Village and its citizens who have indeed progressed with the times and maintained the values of a friendly, close-knit community.

Mr. Chairman, the completely inadequate appropriations bill before the House speaks volumes about the Majority Party's priorities. Over the last three years, they've locked in tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the very richest families in America--those with incomes of over $1 million a year. As a result of this reckless tax policy, the federal deficit has ballooned to over $400 billion this year and these budget shortfalls are projected to continue as far as the eye can see.

Another result of this tax policy is that we don't have the resources needed to fulfill the promises this Congress has made to the American people. The Republican budget passed earlier this year, which enabled the latest round of tax cuts, promised a $3 billion overall increase for education. The bill before us breaks that promise.

Funding for special education in this bill is $1.2 billion short of what was promised in the budget resolution. Funding for Pell Grants to help families afford the rising cost of a college education falls $410 million short, and the maximum Pell Grant award is frozen. Title I funding promised in the budget to help school districts meet the new accountability requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act falls $334 million short of what was promised. Funding for improving teacher quality and after-school programs is likewise significantly less than what was promised in No Child Left Behind.

The bill before the House also shortchanges medical research, low- income energy assistance, and healthy care for unemployed workers. The Majority likes to pretend that it can pass more than $2 trillion in tax cuts without any consequences. This is simply not true. The tax cuts-- again, the lion's share of which disproportionately benefit the very wealthy--are being paid for by breaking promises made to adequately fund education, medical research, health care and energy assistance.

This bill is not worthy of anyone's support. I urge the House to defeat it.