Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Military Families Financial Security Act. This bill will ensure that the brave men and women who serve our country will not have to worry about losing the critical services their children need.

The men and women who serve in our Armed Forces are everyday heroes. I know about the valor of military families from my own experience as a military wife when my husband was stationed in Japan during the Vietnam War. As a wife and mother in a foreign country with two young children, I was truly grateful for the support of other military families. The most striking quality of these families was the sense of pride in serving our country even in a time of strife and stress. I can honestly say that I met extraordinary individuals in extraordinary circumstances.

The resilience and patriotism of military families is inspirational. Their unwavering courage in answering the call to serve our country is even more inspiring when one realizes that many of these men and women are leaving families back home. We must remember that many of our service personnel also answer to the title of ``mom'' or ``dad.'' Just as these brave men and women are working to protect our Nation, we must likewise protect them and their loved ones through the laws and policies we enact.

In San Diego and around the country, many military families who have children with disabilities rely on assistance from the Federal Government to help cover the costs of health care, day care, and care for special needs. Eligible families receive Supplemental Security Income, or SSI, to ease the financial burden. However, these military families are in danger of losing this much-needed assistance because of a bureaucratic quirk. They face a unique risk of losing their benefits because service members can receive numerous types of additional pay that can increase their income. The Social Security Administration regards this extra pay differently than extra pay for non-military employment. Since eligibility for SSI is based on income, the difference of a few dollars can mean having health care or no care at all.

The Military Families Financial Security Act would change how the Social Security Administration calculates income to determine eligibility for Supplemental Security Income. This simple change in the treatment of income will keep families eligible for SSI benefits and resolve an existing disparity between military and non-military families.

In addition, the Military Families Financial Security Act would also expand SSI eligibility to disabled children who are born to or who apply for benefits while living with parents who are military personnel stationed outside the United States. Currently, children of military personnel stationed overseas are eligible for SSI if they received SSI while they were in the United States. Such an extension would eliminate the disparate treatment of children of military personnel who were born or became blind or disabled outside of the United States.

With our sailors and soldiers in harm's way, there is not a worse time for them to be concerned about whether loved ones are getting the care they need. This legislation offers them the peace of mind that comes with knowing their families will always have the critical support they need.

I urge my colleagues in Congress to act quickly in passing the Military Families Financial Security Act into law.

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

Mr. Chairman, I join my distinguished colleagues once again in making a strong plea for the high value that the arts and humanities bring to the quality of our lives. Indeed, we must provide the level of support contained in this amendment.

In San Diego, these funds have made significant contributions to a whole range of small and large arts organizations, dance companies, and museums, museums like the Museum of Photographic Arts, theater companies like the San Diego Repertory Theater, as well as the Playwrights Project, which supports budding writers.

Importantly, many grants have gone to provide outreach to new audiences organized by the San Diego Opera Association and the San Diego Performing Arts League.

Two humanity projects in San Diego are giving the opportunity to young people to develop their oral history interviewing skills by developing a record of some of our recent immigrant groups.

While we are a city proud of our existing museums, theaters, and music and dance organizations, funds from the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities are essential to extend the availability of these institutions to our young people. Indeed, a review of recent grants reveals that the efforts emanating from these resources enable the kinds of experiences that are so important for an enlightened citizenry.

Mr. Chairman, we all join today to say how important these grants are to our communities, and each and every one of us I know can point to a number of projects, a number of opportunities that have been available that would not be there were these grants not part of the NEH and the NEA. So, today, I think all of us join in saying, let us do

what we can. Let us provide the funding that is essential to creating the kind of environment and the kind of community that we all believe in so dearly today.

Mr. Chairman, Imperial Beach, the city which is the brilliant cornerstone on the Southwestern point of our country, has a beautiful beach as well as a unique location. However, for too many days of the year, this natural resource cannot be enjoyed by its children, families, and visitors.

Unfortunately, the burgeoning city of Tijuana located just across the border and the source of the Tijuana River lacks adequate sewage treatment. As a result, particularly when rain falls on the mesas and canyons along this border, raw sewage and other pollutants are washed into the Tijuana River, flow across the Tijuana Estuary on the Imperial Beach side of the border, and empty into the Pacific Ocean just next to the beautiful sand of Imperial Beach.

Congress enacted Public Law 106-457 in 2000 to authorize the International Boundary and Water Commission, composed of representatives of both the United States and Mexico, to complete a new Treaty Minute for creation of a public-private partnership to construct and operate a wastewater treatment facility in Mexico. However, this has not occurred.

As members of Congress, our San Diego delegation has sought to resolve this issue through repeated questions of members of the IBWC. However, they have not been forthcoming. Therefore, this amendment is needed to make completion of this agreement not only obligatory but also to require monthly reports from that Commission on its progress to the appropriate congressional committees.

The community of Imperial Beach has been prevented from fully using its natural resource for too many years. It is time to require action.

Mr. Chairman, I must oppose the appropriations bill before us today because it shortchanges the children of America. This legislature has promised to fund its broad mandate called No Child Left Behind, NCLB. Compared to the authorizations promised when that vote was solicited, Every Child Is Left Behind.

Let me be specific for the children I represent.

Title I is the foundation of NCLB. Of course, the total dollars have been increased by $1 billion. However, the administration deleted $1.5 billion worth of over 40 specific, successful programs whose continued existence had been promised to gather support for the bill. It was then suggested that those programs could be paid for under the smaller increase in Title I, which was designed to cover additional programs the federal government has mandated for those students. However, even that increase does not match the promise. Others have noted that the appropriation for Title I is more than $6 billion less than the FY 2004 authorization. For California, that is $872,616,000 less than promised for the neediest, low-income children.

Similarly, when this House passed its reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, the FY 2004 authorization was to be a $2.2 billion increase. Yet, only six weeks later, you are offering an increase of only $1 billion! Why would you cut your commitment by 60% in six weeks? This amounts to a $129,826,000 reduction in federal support to California districts to pay this federal mandate. We continue to break the promise made in 1975 to fund 40% of the excess costs these special needs students require in order to be able to learn.

I represent a district with one of the largest aggregations of military bases and personnel in the country. The Impact Aid program helps provide for the school costs of military children whose families do not pay state income taxes, local sales taxes for commissary purchases, and property taxes if they live in federally supported housing. We are proud to have these families in our communities, but federal support to offset this loss of taxes is critical. Yet, this bill cuts is authorization commitment by $62,421,873 for California children.

After-school programs are critical to the children in my district. I was able to author legislation in the California legislature to provide funding to launch these after school services, and San Diego County has a wonderful program coordinating organizations and services for children before and after school. However, we still reach a small proportion of eligible and needy children. Federally promised funds are critical. Although NCLB authorizes $1.75 billion for FY 2004, this bill only appropriates 57% of that amount. California children lose $102,831,000.

The list could go on and on--just with promises made in NCLB--such as to fund teacher quality grants in order to be sure that every classroom will have a highly qualified teacher. Failure to adequately fund the level of Pell Grants for college students compared with the percentage of cost at a public institution that these grants initially provided is also highly disappointing.

There are other critical shortfalls as well. I must mention, in particular, the failure to continue the improvement in funding for the National Institutes of Health. In San Diego, we are privileged to have several eminent research institutions--Scripps Institute, the Salk Institute, The Burnham Institute, and the University of California at San Diego, to name a few--working on critical issues such as bioterrorism, cancer, diabetes, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease and the health of minority populations.

I understand the significance this funding holds for NIH to continue its work and for the numerous patients and communities that benefit from the results of this research. The scientific inquiries that these grants underwrite are the critical crucible for the incredible discoveries that have enabled many people with chronic and serious illnesses to continue to lead productive lives because of the resulting discoveries in drugs, medical devices, and health care strategies. Children will lose to preventable disease by undercutting scientific research.

Though I am pleased to see an increase in funding for our nation's mentoring programs, I am disappointed to see that this amount still comprises only half of the Bush Administration's request. The President took an important and long-overdue step towards recognizing the significance of mentoring in the lives of our children by proposing a robust increase in these programs. The mentoring relationship provides children and young adults with a stronger sense of self and instills them with new optimism for the future. All young people can benefit from the support of a mentor, and we should be doing all that we can to encourage the expansion of these critical programs.

We have heard repeatedly how many more dollars in specific programs under No Child Left Behind are appropriated in this bill. What those speakers don't say is how many dollars other programs authorized by the bill have lost. What else those speakers don't acknowledge is how much was promised as recently as week ago for the children of America. Smoke and mirrors don't belong in this debate.

The children of California are being shortchanged by over $1 trillion just in these programs. Under this bill, Every California Child Is Being Left Behind.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule for the simple reason that I believe in the process of representative government. The public quite rightly believes that, as their representatives, we take part in the process of legislation by offering meaningful amendments to the bills before us and that all of the representatives of this body will have an opportunity to consider and vote those amendments up or down. This is simply not the case.

As a member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, I had the opportunity to speak and vote in support of extending the loan forgiveness provisions contained in this bill to Head Start Teachers. While that amendment failed in the committee on partisan lines, I believe it is such an important companion provision that all of the members of this Congress should have had the opportunity to vote on this issue.

In the Head Start reauthorization bill, which may be on the floor next week, the committee has included a requirement that 50 percent of Head Start teachers have a Bachelor's Degree and all of them to have an Associates Degree or equivalent certificate. Many of these teachers will need additional coursework. Historically, many Head Start personnel have been recruited from the parent body, who are, by definition, low income. Because pay for personnel in Head Start is so low, it is imperative that we support this mandate financially.

A loan forgiveness provision for Head Start personnel would match that for other critically needed teachers. It is the right place to begin.

I regret that not all of my colleagues will have the opportunity to consider this proposal because the amendment to do so was not ruled in order.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the University of California--San Diego (UCSD) Cancer Center Luau and Long Board Invitational annual event for their continuous exemplary work in furthering the efforts of cancer treatment and research at the Rebecca and John Moores UCSD Cancer Center.

This year marks the 10th Anniversary of the Luau and Long Board Invitational, which each year brings together varying groups, from world-renowned surfing legends to corporate executives, to unify around the same cause. The many activities of the day include a ceremony honoring the recipient of the Queen of Makaha Award, recognizing an individual for his or her efforts to fight cancer and dedication to helping others in ways that embody the true ``aloha'' spirit.

This year's 10th Anniversary event serves as a milestone of success and a measure of the many contributions of supporters both in and out of the San Diego community toward the struggle against cancer. Through a good deal of time and effort, the Luau has earned a worldwide reputation as one of the finest and most soulful surfing-themed philanthropic events to be found anywhere. The challenge of organizing the Luau year after year is successfully accomplished by a passionate grassroots network of local volunteers, many of whom are cancer survivors. Additionally, the Luau is generously supported by a diverse collection of prominent, community-minded companies, organizations and individuals.

Since its founding in 1994, the Luau has raised more than $1 million to finance promising cancer research projects at the Rebecca and John Moores UCSD Cancer Center. In 2002 alone, over $170,000 was raised. Today, scientists and doctors are making great strides in the battle to fight cancer, but the disease continues to be one of the most widespread diseases in the United States. We must do our part to keep up the fight, and this Luau serves as a perfect means for all San Diegans to get involved.

I applaud the UCSD Cancer Center Luau and Long Board Invitational for their continuous efforts in the fight against Cancer. To all those who have spent countless hours on this important event year after year: Mahalo!

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this unacceptable bill that is particularly harmful to senior women.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to talk about older women and their need for a real prescription drug benefit. The legislation we have before us represents a hollow substitute for a bona fide Medicare prescription drug benefit. Some will claim that the Republican Medicare reform

legislation provides a prescription drug benefit and declare success. Well, Mr. Speaker, we aren't fooling anyone.

We aren't fooling Donna Koski, from San Diego, who cannot afford her medication. She wrote to tell me, ``HMOs are no longer helping us with the cost [of drugs]. I worked and paid taxes all my life, raised five kids in California and now have five grandkids. I can't afford rent or so many things that I once took for granted would be there when I retired. What is to become of senior citizens [like me]?'' We aren't fooling Sidney and Edith Horwitz, from La Jolla, who told me. ``Figure out a way to give us drug benefits without joining a HMO. Deregulation and outsourcing to private companies has been a travesty to consumers.''

Mr. Speaker, my constituents want an affordable prescription drug benefit that will be there when they need it. They do not want to privatize Medicare. However, the bill we will discuss dismantles Medicare and does nothing to lower prescription drug prices. This proposal eliminates the security of traditional Medicare by requiring it to compete with private plans in 2010. It would transform Medicare from a defined benefit to a defined contribution program and ultimately eliminate Medicare as we know it. Because, private Medicare plans tend to aggressively recruit younger and healthier seniors, open competition will mean rising out-of-pocket costs for the vast majority who would choose the stable benefits and premiums of traditional Medicare. The result of open competition will be the transformation of today's universal, national risk pool into a multitude of regional pools segmented by age, income, residence and health status. To many, this transformation sounds more like a scheme than meaningful reform.

Our seniors need more stability and certainty than this--especially older women who are counting on Congress to provide a real solution to the rising cost of prescription drugs. Women, literally, are the face of Medicare. They constitute 58 percent of the Medicare population at 65. They constitute 71 percent of the Medicare population at 85. Women have a greater rate of health problems since they live longer. They have lower incomes, which make access to affordable prescription drugs more difficult. More than 1 in 3 women on Medicare (nearly 7 million) lack prescription drug coverage.

The Republication Medicare reform plan will only perpetuate these health care disparities. Where is the benefit for our seniors who are living on a fixed income and cannot afford to pay out-of-pocket during the coverage gap? Where is the benefit for the women who, because they were stay-at-home mothers and did not earn a pension, cannot afford the prescription drugs they desperately need?

For my constituents, the Republican proposal is not good enough. I cannot support this legislation when I know we can do better. We are doing more than providing prescription drugs, we are legislating the future of Medicare.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Filner amendment to the Homeland Security appropriations bill. This amendment would provide the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection with critical funding to reduce the backlog of applications for the SENTRI program. I acknowledge the words that were just spoken about the need to use administrative funding; but, Mr. Chairman, we use less than 1 percent of that budget for this program. I want to tell you how important it is. The gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) and I are well acquainted with the merits of the SENTRI program. I thank him for his work on this amendment and for his continued support on border management issues. The gentleman from California is a cosponsor of the SAFE Border Act, legislation that I introduced to modernize SENTRI. I would also like to thank Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Sabo for the inclusion of report language regarding SENTRI.

So what does SENTRI do? It prescreens applicants. The program accepts only low-risk travelers who pass a background and a vehicle check, and it focuses enforcement efforts on those travelers who are not prescreened. Moving low-risk travelers into SENTRI lanes permits border agents to concentrate on other border crossers. It allows the entry of thousands of San Diego and Tijuana residents who cross the border every day and play a vital role in the area's economic and social life as commuters, shoppers, or visitors. Unfortunately, our border infrastructure has not kept pace with the booming traffic volume, and travelers frequently encounter delays and congestion at the border. SENTRI is an innovative program. It integrates security with efficiency. In this program we have a model of best practices that enhance national security and facilitate legitimate traffic. Why would we not direct resources to this program? Why would we not take every advantage, every opportunity to increase security?

To some extent SENTRI has become a victim of its own success. Enrollment increased, as we know, by more than 100 percent after September 11 and currently prospective applicants must wait several months. Next March, SENTRI will certainly need funding to handle the heavy processing demands caused by both renewals and new enrollees. Our agents at the border shoulder an enormous responsibility every single day. We owe them the appropriate resources and support they need to carry out their duties. We must also think about the technology and equipment needs of a program like SENTRI. This type of investment in our ports of entry results in greater border security and better trade flow.

Supporting this amendment, Mr. Chairman, would not only allow agents to reduce the SENTRI application backlog but means that the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection could do more background checks and improve national security. The ability to control our border is national security. It is trade and it is commerce for our region. It is an investment in the future of our ports of entry. It is communities seeking solutions to address our border management issues.

I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the Filner amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I thank the Member for pointing out the fact that this is a phased-in process, and it is true that we will be doing it in a gradual way. But it gives people a sense of hope, a sense of knowledge, a sense of commitment that they and their businesses will be cared for as they move forward and as they try and increase commerce along the border, the good commerce that we all look forward to.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendments offered by the Members from New York. While it is true that we do not know where the next attack may be and that the entire Nation is vulnerable, I believe that it is important to recognize those areas considered as high-threat and high-density. The gentleman mentioned that there are other cities involved and, of course, we know that. Take my own city of San Diego as an example. San Diego is home to nearly 3 million residents and hosts millions of tourists annually. It is one of the regions that I believe Secretary Ridge has spoken about. In fact, he voiced those concerns when he visited San Diego recently. We have an international border and ports of entry, a coastline, a seaport, a busy airport, several major highways, a mass transit system, large public venues such as SeaWorld and Qualcomm Stadium, site of the Super Bowl. We have numerous military bases and military housing areas, and even a nuclear power plant. Protecting such an extensive list of vulnerable areas requires significant resources. Yes, we are applying for a lot of that money. We are trying. We are doing our best.

Like all of my colleagues, I have heard from my first responders, from the sheriff's department, the police department, the fire department, the Coast Guard, the port authority, the Navy, the Marines and others about their struggle to protect our critical infrastructure. I believe that they are doing a fabulous job. But they need more, and they need our help. This is an important amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it.

amendment offered by mr. brady of texas

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the life of a valuable San Diego leader, Dr. Charles Nathanson. He was a unique individual because he developed the capacity to create dialogue among important leaders of differing views on the critical issues of our region.

Chuck was valued not only by a host of San Diego's leading citizens but also by those in Baja California and our metropolitan partner Tijuana.

At the University of California San Diego in 1991, Chuck founded the San Diego Dialogue, which brought over 150 regional leaders together on a frequent basis for panel discussions on the challenges to our community. He fostered the binational Forum Fronterizo Council, which held well-attended bilingual luncheon meetings to hear distinguished speakers from both sides of the border.

Baja California Governor Eugenio Elorduy Walther, co-Chairman of the Forum Fronterizo Council, quoted in a local newspaper obituary, recognized Dr. Nathanson as ``the spark plug'' of San Diego Dialogue as its Executive Director.

President of San Diego State University, Stephen Weber, also noted, ``He understood we can never be separated from our friends and neighbors in Mexico . . .''

While his work building human bridges across our international border was his best known focus, he also volunteered his skills to create dialogue between the opposing sides on San Diego issues and gave endless personal energy to resolve differences. He formed a distinguished panel of city leaders, leading educators, and legislators to develop a common understanding of the critical issues we faced locally in education.

As both a journalist and a professor of Sociology, Chuck understood the importance of facts and of making those results part of public discussion. Realizing that basic information was critical to good educational decisions, he found the resources to have his staff undertake an important study of how minority parents interact within their school community.

I particularly appreciate that Dr. Nathanson sponsored a study of the reasons people cross the border into San Diego. It showed that many people repeatedly enter San Diego for education and shopping, and this led to the development of a fast-track, electronic inspection lane called SENTRI. Indeed, I am currently working on legislation to expedite access to this successful program.

He was hailed in the local press by Robert Dynes, the Chancellor of the University of California San Diego, as serving ``town and gown superbly as strategist, ambassador, activist and taskmaster.''

Born in Detroit August 22, 1941, Charles E. Nathanson graduated from Harvard and worked as a journalist and manager of a chain of weeklies before earning a doctorate in sociology at Brandeis University.

The broad spectrum of his interests included serving on a number of cultural and civic boards addressing the breadth of issues affecting the future of the region including education, business, transportation, and housing. Typically, he had become a member of the advisory group for one of San Diego's newest projects, development of the Immigrant Museum of the New Americas.

San Diego and Baja California have been uniquely served by this determined visionary. Chuck Nathanson has left an indelible heritage for our region.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege today to come to the podium in support of the measure to honor a truly memorable colleague, the Honorable Patsy Takemoto Mink by naming the post office in Paia, Maui for her.

When I came to Congress as a freshman member, it was so inspiring to serve on a committee with a role model who has made a real mark on our society through her lengthy service in the House of Representatives.

Whenever Patsy took the microphone in the Education and the Workforce Committee, everyone knew that her comments would be principled, measured from the institutional knowledge of years working on persistent issues, and delivered with articulate passion. I admired her penchant for considering strategy--was it better to accept half a loaf this year or wait until next year to try to get the whole loaf. I respected her willingness always to stand up for people who were disadvantaged. Her priorities for education, housing, and health care match mine, and I valued her leadership in keeping that focus clear.

It was an honor for me to join her at this podium on June 19, 2002 in the commemoration of the thirtieth anniversary of Title IX. Seldom does one get to join forces with one of the original sponsors of legislation that was not only landmark legislation for our country but was so formative for my children's generation. When I was a local school board member, we had to work hard to change the culture of our society to implement the equality embodied in this bill.

As we all spoke that day of the importance of this legislation, little did we imagine that her influence on the national conscience was soon to end. But, surely, she lived the battle for equal opportunity that Title IX codified.

I am awed by the fact that in 1951 she earned a law degree from the University of Chicago, one of the country's premier institutions. Most of us know that the two women members of the Supreme Court who subsequently earned their law degrees struggled to find openings to practice their profession. She, too, demonstrated that equal opportunity was right for women in a field where women were not well appreciated.

It is important that in addition to practicing law, her skills were valued so that President Carter invited her to serve the executive branch in the Department of State.

Naming a post office in her beloved Maui in her honor will remind us all of the issues which empowered her life--working for children--their education, their homes and their health care. I thank her for showing us the way.

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues today to support the expansion of the child tax credit, a goal that was unfortunately not met as part of the $350 billion tax cut that we passed just last month. While some have argued that there was simply no room in that bill for a more comprehensive child tax credit, I still believe that our commitment to meeting the basic needs of our children should never be compromised. One out of every six children under the age of 17 lives with parents who will never see the benefit of the child tax credit that passed as part of last month's tax package.

And, Mr. Speaker, who are the parents of these children? They are hard-working Americans. They pay Federal taxes, and they do the very best they can to provide for their families. Yet we have chosen to ignore them to accommodate tax breaks for those who are far less likely to reinvest them back into our stalled economy or to rely upon that money to carry them into their next paycheck.

To address this glaring inequity, I cosponsored legislation to extend the tax credit to the families of 19 million children left out of the last tax bill. This bill, which was sponsored by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), would also expand these tax privileges to many of the families, many of the families of the courageous military personnel serving in Iraq and other combat zones. These patriotic men and women have sacrificed precious time with their own families to protect ours, and I believe that this is the very least that we can do to show them our respect and our appreciation.

We have spoken virtuously of their selfless actions overseas; yet when we have an opportunity to match those actions with anything more than words, we are AWOL. We are AWOL.

Clearly, we recognize how critical it is to provide families with the resources they need to ensure the well-being of their children. Yet we have failed to follow through on our good intentions by leaving out those who need this help the very most.

Interestingly enough, today marks National Hunger Awareness Day, and in this country there are nearly 16 million children who ate free or reduced-priced lunches through the School Lunch Program last year. Many of these children, however, cannot rely on such consistent or well- balanced meals during the summertime when school has adjourned.

I would encourage us all to keep this in mind with summer just weeks away and schools already beginning to close their doors because, Mr. Speaker, there could not be a more appropriate time to expand the child tax credit to the families of these children.

As a parent and a grandparent, I personally feel, and I believe that all of my colleagues feel, that all children are important; that no matter how much their parents make, that they are important. That is why I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting legislation that treats them this way.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 5 o'clock and 15 minutes p.m.) under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, June 9, 2003, at 12:30 p.m., for morning hour debates.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule. First, on the issue we have been dealing with around civil service, none of the lessons learned and the myriad projects that we are talking about would necessarily be part of the law as it is drafted in the civil service part of the provisions in this bill. So we did have that debate and some of that discussion, but in fact none of that is relevant to the bill at all.

Second, I object to the fact that the Committee on Rules deprived this body of the opportunity to have a substantive debate on the environmental provisions, a debate about the facts.

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, wrote in a March memo, ``We have demonstrated that we are both able to comply with environmental requirements and to conduct necessary military training and testing.'' The administration's own EPA agrees, and that is the fact.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, for 3 years I have worked to close the military pay gap. This year at the Committee on Rules I offered an amendment to close that gap permanently, but that amendment was denied. My amendment is identical to language passed in the Senate. Over 4 years each of the quarter million soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who fought in Iraq were making a decision whether or not to stay or go in the military. Now is the time to send them and their families a message that the Members of this House care about them and the quality of their lives. Instead, we send a hastily different message with empty promises. Why is the majority silent on closing the pay gap permanently?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 1170 on very simple grounds: It is a solution without a problem. The bill is based on the assumption that a substantial number of educators require students to take medication in order to attend school.

At a hearing 2 weeks ago, I asked all of the witnesses if they had any statistical evidence of the frequency with which this happens. Mr. Speaker, not a single one did. All they offered were anecdotes, often anonymous ones. I believe it is irresponsible to rush to legislative judgment without facts; and, indeed, I am requesting that the Government Accounting Office report, based on its ongoing research, whether there are verified instances of this being a cause for due process hearings.

Let us be clear: If parents believe that a school has pressured them to seek a medical evaluation for their child due to the child's behavior, and if a physician evaluates the child and prescribes appropriate medication, and if the parent nonetheless does not want to give the medication to the child, there may be a conflict about the child's placement in a regular classroom. Should that happen, the parent has clear due process rights to seek an evaluation through the special education process whether or not the child will ultimately qualify for special education services. If the parent is dissatisfied with those results, an appeal to a due process hearing officer is available.

Please note: Teachers educate. They cannot medicate; and physicians, as we know, must do that.

What happens in real life if a parent is unhappy with a school's placement of their child? As a former school board member, I can tell you that they pick up the phone and they call their school board representative. And that is exactly what they should do. Where a problem may indeed exist, the problem needs to be addressed specifically with the involved personnel and known circumstances.

Are there bad apples in the world of education who may have put inappropriate pressure on a parent to seek a pharmaceutical solution to a behavior problem? Well, yes, there possibly are. Bad apples do exist. But if we think of every one of tens of thousands of schools in our country as having a barrel of apples, the teachers of our children, is it fair to castigate all of those barrels of apples as being rotten because across the country there is one bad apple in a barrel here or there? I think we discredit the tens of thousands of wonderful teachers in our country when we legislate based on this false assumption.

But I want to thank, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns) for having accepted changes to his original bill that mitigate the most alarming issue contained in the original language. He has accepted a provision that clearly states that it is the right and responsibility of teachers to counsel parents about the educational, physical and emotional attributes of their child as compared to the norm of children and to recommend professional evaluation, if warranted.

If a child is having trouble seeing the blackboard, the teacher must advise the parent to seek professional help. Teachers cannot prescribe glasses, but they certainly must identify the need. It is the same if a child with diabetes or asthma is having trouble regulating the medications he takes, and this affects the child's ability to learn. It is the same if the child's mental health needs require evaluation so that that child and the class can function beneficially.

The reason that this section is so important is that it appeared that the measure as originally proposed had provided an opportunity for groups who openly oppose all mental health evaluation to seek to affect the teacher-parent counseling relationship by chilling the teacher's right to speak of these matters to parents.

While the measure before us today contains some mitigating language, what is so alarming is that when the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act came before the committee, this bill's original language was offered without notification and was voice-voted without the benefit of hearings or study. It is thus part of the House-passed IDEA bill; and it is critical that, should that language be included in the conference bill, that the mitigating paragraph contained in today's separate bill be included in that language as well.

Although today's bill has been improved, I would still ask Members as legislators to consider the process of this legislation. I believe that legislation should be based on the documented existence of a problem, not on hearsay and innuendo; and I believe that all of the wonderful, caring teachers in our country should be celebrated for their compassion for children's needs and not tarnished by the stated assumption of this measure.

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Sanchez amendment.

As a mother and military spouse who lived overseas during the Vietnam War, my heart breaks when I read about the experiences of American military women who are left on their own to seek reproductive health services in a foreign country. As a member of the Committee on Armed Services, I am moved to change the law and offer these servicewomen safe medical care for services they are even willing to pay for.

One woman wrote to me the following after being turned away at her base: ``The military expects nothing less than the best from its soldiers, and I expect the best medical care in return. If this is how I will continue to be treated as a military servicemember by my country and its leaders, however, I want no part of it.''

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Sanchez amendment.