Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the achievements of Victor Garza and would like to recognize his extraordinary and tireless service to the people of Santa Clara County.

Victor, who has been called the ``Latino Voice of San Jose,'' retired last month after 26 years as a Veteran Services Officer for the County of Santa Clara.

Victor has served on numerous boards of directors and community committees related to education, youth and health, including his current role as chairman of the La Raza Roundtable, boardmember for the Center for Training and Careers, and as a leader in the American G.I. Forum.

Victor is a former Navy mechanic who served in the Korean war, and has been an outspoken advocate for veterans throughout Santa Clara County, fighting for access to services and recognition for our veterans.

Originally from Eagle Pass, TX, Victor came to San Jose in 1971 when, after leaving the Navy and farm work, Garza enrolled at San Jose State University. At 34, the man who never graduated from high school worked full-time as a foreman at a bus manufacturing company in Hayward while taking a full load of classes at night. He graduated with a master's degree in public affairs.

Throughout his career, he has also organized Latino job fairs, boycotted against job discrimination and founded an organization to send Latinos to college.

Victor has devoted his life to enrich and advance his community, and his contributions

deserve to be honored to serve as an inspiration for our youth, veterans and for the residents of Santa Clara County.

I wish to thank Victor Garza for his tireless service to the County and wish him the best in his future endeavors. Furthermore, he has my personal thanks for our years of friendship. Though we will all miss his compassion, expertise and commitment, his dedication has left its mark on Santa Clara County.

Mr. Chairman, one year ago, Congress considered whether to authorize the President to use the armed forces of the United States to attack Iraq. The President asked us to pass a resolution that gave him unprecedented war powers at a time when he had yet to make the case for war. I voted against the resolution.

Today the President asks us to pass an enormous spending bill to fund the ongoing war in Iraq and the continuing reconstruction of both Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet, everyday, American lives are lost while the President fails to garner broad international support and create a coherent exit strategy for a war that is less about self-defense and more about the President's obsession with Iraq. All along, our economy continues to remain on the ropes.

Therefore, like my previous vote on authorizing the use of our armed forces in Iraq, I cannot support this supplemental bill to give the President a huge blank check to continue the occupation of Iraq and risk the lives of our troops. As Members of Congress, this is our opportunity to tell the President what our constituents are telling us--we won't spend another penny in Iraq until our President gives the American people a plan on how he intends to win the war, minimize costs, and most importantly, bring home our troops as safely and as quickly as possible.

As we were debating whether or not to grant authority to the President to go to war in Iraq, I asked some serious questions that this Administration continues to have difficulty answering. Was the United States acting in self-defense against an imminent threat in Iraq? Did the United States have to pursue near unilateral action in Iraq without strong international support? And most importantly, what is our exit strategy?

The President and his Administration repeatedly told us Iraq posed an imminent threat of safety to America. But where are those nuclear weapons?

Before the war, the Administration also told us there was strong, credible evidence to link Saddam Hussein to September 11th. Yet, the President himself now admits there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September 11th.

We were told Iraq had thousands of weapons of mass destruction that could easily be

used against friends, our allies and the United States. But where are they?

Worse yet, we were never told about an exit strategy and still don't have one today.

Instead the President spent his time playing ``Top Gun'' by landing on an aircraft carrier to declare the major conflict in Iraq over. Yet, more courageous men and women have died in these last few months than before that dubious, made-for-political-campaign-commercial event.

And now the President comes to us asking for enormous amounts of money to continue what is supposedly no longer a major conflict.

Even if we agree to send money to Iraq, we shouldn't send it to contractors that are ripping off the American taxpayer. Why should the American taxpayer pay $15 million to Halliburton to repair a power plant when the Iraqi people can do it, and did, for $80,000?

More importantly, we've already appropriated over $70 billion for the war in Iraq and related efforts, virtually every penny the President asked for to win this war and protect our troops. So why does the Army lack Kevlar protective plates for 40,000 of our troops in Iraq? Why do we continue to hear stories about parents sending their children better protective gear, basic supplies, and food and water at their own cost? Why does the Defense Department refuse to pay travel costs for soldiers returning from battle for a brief, two-week visit with loved ones? The President has given us no assurances that his new funding request will not be mismanaged and, instead be used in strong support of our troops.

There is no question that we need to allocate whatever funds are necessary to support our troops in the field.

But there is only one real opportunity for the Congress to have a say in the course of war or foreign affairs and that is when the President comes to us and asks us to appropriate the taxpayer's money for war.

That time is now and this Congress must insist that the President deliver his exit plan and detail how he plains to get equipment, food and water to our troops.

If this appropriation is defeated today, the President will be with us tomorrow delivering the exit plan that he should have provided to the American people one year ago.

As I said during the debate over the war with Iraq, we are at our best when we are first among allies standing tall for the free world. Let us be at our best when we deal with Iraq, but always dedicate ourselves first and foremost to the freedom and prosperity of our great United States.

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, resolving the current instability in the region is in the long-term best interests of all Americans--failure in Iraq would lead to irreparable consequences.

This emergency spending bill raises a host of critical concerns that must be addressed.

More than 138,000 American troops are currently in Iraq and I believe that they absolutely must be adequately provided for and able to return home to their families as soon as possible.

Today, I am offering an amendment to this bill so that Congress receives a detailed description of purpose for all projects over $1 million. My amendment also calls for a comprehensive survey of security and infrastructure needs, including progress reports on previous projects. Finally, my amendment asks for necessary estimates on additional funding required and troop levels projections.

We cannot maintain our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan without a clear understanding of our longer term needs. We must know how many troops will be needed and how much this entire operation will cost, including contingency plans, and decide how our nation will pay for the entire cost of the operation.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that America understand what is going on here today. This is more about 30-second ads in the next political campaign than it is about what is right and wrong.

I was a member of the conference committee, and we offered to reach across the aisle and do something that I think we can all agree on, which is to say that late-term abortions should not be an elective procedure; and I actually strongly believe that. You should not have a late-term abortion unless there is some overwhelming need, either you are going to die or there is going to be a very serious health consequence if it is not done. Only then, if that is not the case, does the government have a right to step in.

I look at this bill and I see the findings are just not correct. To say that this is never medically necessary is simply not true.

Mr. Speaker, the Congressmen in the conference committee and here in the House talk about these circumstances as if they actually knew what was going on. As it turns out, I actually know Vicki Wilson personally. Her mother-in-law, Susie Wilson, and I served together on the board of supervisors, and I remember when Susie found out that her daughter-in- law's pregnancy had gone terribly wrong. It was in the eighth month. They found out that the child they hoped to have, they had picked a name already, Abigail, that the brains had formed completely outside the cranium. There was no way that they were going to have a healthy child. And so the question soon became how was Vicki going to survive this, number one; and, number two, survive it so she and her husband, Bill, who is also a doctor, might have a child. They wanted to have a daughter.

Susie Wilson called me and my colleague on the board, Dianne McKenna, throughout the 2 days that this procedure, which, by the way, is not called partial-birth in the medical terminology, was going on; and Susie stayed with her daughter-in-law throughout the procedure.

To say that a bunch of Congressmen know what is best for this family is really an insult to the American people, and especially to women. So American women, watch out, these Congressmen are wanting to decide whether you survive and have a chance to have another child, and really to make the most personal decision for you instead of you making it with your husband and doctor. I think it is wrong, and I hope that we turn this bill down.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize the achievements and invaluable contributions of Zonia Sandoval Waldon over the last 30 plus years in Santa Clara County. Her dedication to families, adults and children has been laudable.

Born and raised in El Salvador, Zonia Waldon came to the United States at age eight and went to school in San Francisco and Daly City. She is a proud mother of twin sons and has resided in Santa Clara County most of her adult life.

Ms. Waldon began her career with the Social Services Agency in 1972 starting out as an eligibility worker--what was then referred to as the ``blind unit.'' The unit was unique in that it combined the efforts of all staff members including eligibility, social workers and supervisors in resolving issues.

Learning to work well with people, both clients and staff, Ms. Waldon was given increasingly more responsible positions such as: Supervisor for General Assistance, Supervisor for Aid to Families with Dependent Children, and Supervisor for the Medi-Cal Unit at Valley Medical Center. Zonia's ability to ``get the job done'' led to her next assignment as District Office Manager of the East Valley Office of Social Services. Her role in management of facilities led to other managerial roles such as branching into labor management issues. She served as Steward, State Delegate, and Negotiator for the Union Local 535, SEIU. Zonia created the first Supervisory Chapter of Union Local 535. She was a co-founder and served as the first President of the Supervisory Chapter.

Other projects Zonia was involved with included a Family Preservation Pilot Project awarded by the State Department of Social Services. Highlights of accomplishments included: parent education, child respite care, counseling, development of Family Resource Centers, community- based child welfare services and community collaboratives. She also helped to initiate the Youth Leadership Gang Prevention Program funded by the State and the City of San Jose Mayor's Gang Task Force. This program currently serves youth

throughout Santa Clara County and has graduated more than 2,000 youth to date.

In February of 2001, Zonia Waldon was promoted to Deputy Director of the Department of Family and Children's Services. Zonia believes that her greatest accomplishment in her career was her never-ending desire to mentor people around her and to assist them in carving out their career paths. She has been a true leader and extremely instrumental in improving the quality of Social Services our community has today. I wish her all the best in the next chapter of her life. She will be sorely missed, but never forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) for all of their hard work to bring this bill to the floor today.

I represent an area in California that has been affected in the past by earthquakes. In fact, I remember very well the 6.9 Loma Prieta earthquake that shook the Bay Area in 1989. It was really an awesome experience, and I think anyone who has been through an earthquake like that can remember exactly what they were doing and how it felt. And to know that that level of earthquake is not the big one really does emphasize the need to take this whole area very seriously. That is what this bill does.

The bill is to make sure that the Federal Government provides the necessary resources and support needed by those in the earthquake research community who have dedicated much of their life's work trying to understand the causes of earthquakes, to anticipate when and where an earthquake may happen, and, most importantly,

how we can best prepare ourselves to survive the potentially devastating results of earthquakes.

The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program was first created in 1977 in response to growing concerns about the threat of damaging earthquakes. Initially, the program focused on research in the areas of geotechnical and structural engineering and earthquake prediction. Over time, researchers acknowledging that earthquake prediction was a huge challenge and began to emphasize activities like seismic retrofitting and rehabilitation, risk assessment, public education, and outreach and code development. And the fact that San Jose, California, did not fall down in the Loma Prieta earthquake is testimony that good code enforcement and structural engineering does work and does save lives.

The program has achieved great progress since its inception and is considered by most to be a very successful undertaking. Through the efforts of those involved, we have seen a substantial decrease in the loss of life and injury. The capabilities of seismic risk assessment have improved greatly. We have learned important lessons in mitigating earthquake hazards as a result of technological advances in areas like performance-based engineering, information technology, sensing and imaging.

In the Committee on Science we were faced with many challenges in order to make this program even more helpful in our understanding of and our ability to mitigate the effects of earthquakes. Some have argued that the new knowledge and tools have not translated into a decreased overall vulnerability. The adoption by end-users of NEHRP innovations has been incremental and slower than expected. The cost of rehabilitating existing structures to be more earthquake resistant has often proved to be too high as is the cost of building new facilities to minimize risk.

We know that the private sector has not had adequate incentives and that most State and local governments lack adequate budgets to address these challenges.

I will be following these issues with great interest particularly when it comes to ensuring that the Federal Government provides sufficient funding and leadership to meet the research needs of this program. That a future large earthquake in a major U.S. urban area could result in damages of $200 billion should provide us here in the Congress with sufficient incentive to encourage our research in this vital area. This is a historic case where we know that we must not be ``penny wise and pound foolish.''

I remain concerned as to whether or not NEHRP can be reasonably expected to meet its goals at the level of funding it currently receives. And I look forward to working to increase the level of funding.

I was happy to work with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) as well as the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) in a bipartisan manner to make sure that the funding in the fiscal year 2004 was increased for the Advanced National Seismic System. I think they did a great job. And, actually, I think our committee worked well together to improve this bill. I look forward to continuing to work with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) and the rest of the committee to try to make certain that those who are doing research in the sciences have the funds and support they need from our Federal Government.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, I introduced H.R. 1481, which would have extended the Internet tax moratorium for another 5 years. I introduced a 5-year extension because at the time, I believed that politically, it was the longest extension that we could get. But I am now convinced that we must make every effort to extend the moratorium permanently. That's why I am a strong supporter and cosponsor of H.R. 49.

Let's be clear on what H.R. 49 does and does not do. It prohibits states from taxing people for simply logging onto the Internet. This is absolutely essential to the growth of the Internet. It is also important because access taxes hit those with lower incomes the hardest. We need to find ways to bridge the digital divide in this country, not make it harder for lower income Americans to get online.

H.R. 49 also prohibits multiple and discriminatory taxes on Internet transactions. This is simply a matter of fairness. If I buy a CD on the Internet, it should not be taxed at a higher rate than if I buy that CD in a store. There should be an even playing field.

That's what H.R. 49 does. What it doesn't do is affect the ability of a State to impose and collect sales taxes on Internet transactions. Over the years, there has been a lot of confusion on this point. Some have tried to link the moratorium with the sales tax issue. But they are separate and distinct issues. The ability of states to impose sales taxes is not limited by H.R. 49, it is limited by the Supreme Court's Quill decision, which prevents taxes on remote sellers unless they have a ``substantial nexus'' to the taxing authority.

We cannot risk harming the future of the Internet by conditioning an extension of the moratorium on resolution of the sales tax issue. Let's deal with the separate sales tax issue separately.

A toll to enter the information superhighway is not good policy today, and it won't be good policy in a year, two years, or 5 years. I urge my colleagues to support a permanent extension.

Mr. Speaker, as the House prepares to go out on recess, I leave dumbfounded by many of the actions this House has taken in these last days. Last night, this Republican led House took the first steps in the destruction of an important program whose aim is to help the children of low income parents be better prepared to succeed when they go to school and ultimately succeed in their lives. Instead of making these changes that can only hurt this program, we should have been working together, regardless of party, to strengthen a program that has served so many children so well for almost forty years. Many in this House talk a great game about being ``Compassionate Conservatives''. What they did last night to Head Start was neither.

If this was the only mistake we were going to make this week, it would be one thing. Yet today, this House is poised to step up its attack on the lives and hopes of our most precious resource, the young people of this country. President Bush often speaks about the need to expand another program that directly benefits many of our younger constituents. That program is AmeriCorps.

President Bush often speaks about his respect and devotion to the concept of national service. Indeed in his last two State of the Union addresses and in numerous speeches around the country, this president has urged Americans to devote time and energy to community projects. In issuing this challenge he pledged his best efforts to expand government programs of national service.

It is difficult to understand how the main instrument of such service--the AmeriCorps program--could possibly be allowed to shrink on his watch. Indeed, the program is wildly popular among many local and faith-based agencies that often place AmeriCorps workers to help organize and coordinate local volunteers. We know that governors and mayors of both parties praise AmeriCorps daily. When President Bush was Governor Bush he often praised AmeriCorps.

Yet today, this House will be asked to approve a supplemental spending package that contains no additional funding for Americorps. I wonder why President Bush has not used his leadership skills to convince his Republican colleagues that having a vibrant, properly funded Americorps is indeed vital to our national interest.

If these two actions were not bad enough, today we will vote on a bill that dramatically skimps on programs for Americans who have answered our country's call to arms, our proud veterans. We should never break our promises to veterans. This VA-HUD Appropriations bill will not meet our veterans' needs. Its increase from last year is $1.4 billion, and does not even keep pace with hospital inflation or the growth in the numbers of veterans enrolled.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my fellow Americans know that an average of 200,000 veterans are forced to wait six months or more for an appointment at Veterans Administration hospitals. Some even die before they get to see a doctor. A new report, released by the American Legion this month reminds this Congress that veterans are waiting six months or more for medical care, as the overburdened Veterans Affairs health system fails to keep pace with an ever growing demand. All members of this House should be ashamed to face veterans when we return to our districts for considering this awful budget for our veterans.

Even the President's own Task Force to Improve Health Care Delivery for Our Nation's Veterans acknowledged the problem, stating ``there is persistent concern about the inability of VA to provide care to enrolled veterans . . .''

The President's Task Force also noted that ``the Federal Government has been more ambitious in authorizing veteran access to health care than it has been in providing the funding necessary to match declared intentions.''

The VA-HUD bill that we will consider today contains a very disappointing but not surprising outcome for housing programs. Appropriators assert that if anyone is to blame it is HUD for an inadequate request, but Congress approved the budget request after hearing from advocates that the Department's request was inadequate.

This bill provides inadequate funding to address rising housing costs and the increasing number of low income people who are unable to afford a home. Funding for the Housing Choice Voucher program will not fully fund all vouchers currently in use. Two of the President's much-touted initiatives were not fully funded: The American Dream Downpayment initiative received only $125 million of the $200 million the President had requested, and his Samaritan Housing Initiative received no funding at all.

While public housing programs would receive slightly more than what the President requested we know that the funding needed for capital needs remains wholly inadequate, given the $20 billion estimated backlog in capital needs.

I am happy that the HOME production and rental assistance program was increased by $77 million from last year's funding level. Unfortunately, the committee lacked the funds needed to match the Administration's request of $2.2 billion, instead funding the program at $2.064 billion.

Mr. Speaker, in this time of increasing unemployment and economic turmoil, more people need our help in making certain that they have the opportunity to live in a home they can afford. Yet for some reason, this House is

unwilling to face reality and provide adequate funding to address this nation's housing needs.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is time for Congress to adjourn for the August recess. This way we can be assured that this Republican led House will not be able to inflict anymore of its ``Compassionate Conservativism'' on America.

Sadly, President Bush's promises to America are just talk, not action. He should be ashamed.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2210 would cynically dismantle Head Start, so I rise in opposition to the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong opposition to proposed changes to Head Start that will lead to the dismantling of this important program for children. Instead of making these changes, we should be working in a nonpartisan manner to strengthen a program that has served so many children so well for almost 40 years. Turning Head Start over to the States who already face growing record budget revenue shortfalls can only lead to deep, unacceptable cuts in State government support for early childhood education and development programs.

Countless studies show that Head Start is effective at an early age and continues to be effective into adulthood.

One study shows that only about one-fourth as many female Head Start participants as nonparticipants failed to obtain a high school or GED diploma and only one-third as many were arrested for crimes.

The Administration itself said in a 2002 report by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that Early Head Start programs consistency enhanced cognitive development and reduced negative aspects of children's social-emotional development.

HHS reported that the Head Start program received the highest customer satisfaction score of any government agency and even had a higher score than many major companies.

HHS also found that the children and families served by Head Start are diverse in culture and language and that parents have been pleased with the program's attempts to respond to linguistic and cultural uniqueness of their children.

We must not by persuaded by word games involving Head Start. I do not believe that we should attempt to ``improve'' Head Start by breaking it up and diverting its funding to the States for use in untested and unproven programs that may not survive deficit-driven State budget cuts over the nest few years. Our constituents will be watching to see how we work to best serve their children.

It is inconceivable that we would strive to serve fewer children than Head Start does not or provide less comprehensive services to those children who are served. These outcomes are simply not acceptable since these at-risk children who rely upon Head Start require special assistance in order to be ``ready to learn'' when they start kindergarten and elementary school. Why, Mr. Speaker, should we support spending funds on state administrative costs that would be better spent serving children in the classroom? Perhaps, someone can explain to me how reducing teacher educational requirements and other key standards and providing no role for Head Start parents and volunteers will strengthen this program.

Rather than this dangerous bill, I support making Head Start work better rather than dismantling Head Start. This House should make sure that this program survives and is properly funded to serve all eligible children, including the two out of five 3- and 4-year-old children who could be in the program, but are not, today. We should be building on the success of Head Start, not rendering it useless. Mr. Chairman, Head Start deserves the funds it needs to serve all eligible children and to put more teachers with top qualifications into the classrooms where they are so urgently needed today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I note that H.R. 1437 does indeed, as the chairman has indicated, make technical corrections to the United States Code that were suggested by the Office of Law Revision Counsel. None of the changes are substantive. No one on the Committee on the Judiciary on either side of the aisle had any objections to this bill. I support the legislation and would urge its swift passage.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a technical amendment, it seems to me, to the PROTECT Act signed into law, as the chairman said, on April 30, and it merely clarifies the legal liability of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children when it conducts background checks on volunteers that work with children.

The PROTECT Act, which I and 400 other Members of the House supported, creates this pilot project which the chairman has described; and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children has been selected to conduct these checks on volunteers who work with children.

I think it is important that the pilot program will provide safeguards that ensure the volunteer consents to the background check and allows the volunteer to correct erroneous information in the criminal history database because we want accurate information and that is part of accuracy. But we also need to establish clear criteria for the circumstances in which an individual could be deemed unfit to volunteer to work with children.

This amendment simply clarifies that absent proof of knowing malicious or intentional conduct, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and its employees will not be liable for the actions they take in conducting these background checks in deciding whether an individual is fit to volunteer to work with children.

The other body passed this bill by unanimous consent, and I believe this

is a noncontroversial bill. I support the bill.

Since this is a pilot project, we will know in 18 months' time how things have worked, and we will have an opportunity to make further adjustments should they be warranted. I think it is important that we all support this act today so that we do not disrupt the beginning of the pilot project.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, today Mr. Honda, Ms. Eshoo, and I rise to recognize the achievements of Jim and Ann McEntee for their contributions to Santa Clara County. Jim McEntee is retiring as the Director of the Office of Human Relations after 27 years of dedicated service to the people of Santa Clara County and Ann is retiring after 40 years in teaching.

Jim and Ann have been happily married for 30 years during which time they have served the community as a team. He and his wife Ann, a teacher, have raised a large multi-cultural family.

Jim's first career was as a Roman Catholic priest, during which he served as an Associate Pastor in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Francisco for 16 years before working for Santa Clara County.

Jim has a long history of building bridges between communities, bringing programs and services to the people in Santa Clara County. He is a founding member of the Confederation de la Raza Unida, founding chairperson of the Second Harvest Food Bank of Santa Clara County, a founding member of the Emergency Housing Consortium and the Help House the Homeless Coalition. Jim has also worked very closely with the United Farm Workers of America since 1965.

Jim and Ann worked together to help organize and actively promote many community activities that serve to promote an appreciation of local ethnic cultures, e.g. The Martin Luther King Celebration, Cinco de Mayo Celebration, and the Tet Festival. They also take a leadership role in promoting social justice in the community through a church- based organization called ``Just Faith.''

Ann has dedicated her career to teaching, and for the past 11 years she has taught Special Education at Lee Mathson Middle School where she reaches out to students and families by making regular home visits. Ann also developed a school dispute resolution program at Lee Mathson to help students develop the skills to resolve their problems constructively and peacefully.

We wish to thank Jim and Ann McEntee for their tireless service to the County and wish them the best in their future endeavors. Furthermore, they have our personal thanks for our years of friendship. Though we will miss their compassion, expertise and commitment, their dedication has left its mark on Santa Clara County.

Mr. Speaker, the President, in the State of the Union in 2002 vowed to increase opportunities in AmeriCorp, and he went all over the United States saying that he would increase AmeriCorp by 50 percent, from about 50,000 members to 75,000.

However, this program is being destroyed. It has not been funded, the GAO has caused problems, we have not funded the scholarship program, and, in fact, the President's request for fiscal year 2004 actually asked for $40 million less in AmeriCorp grants than he requested in 2003.

In San Jose, California, AmeriCorp volunteers are helping young students with tutoring, recycling, doing volunteerism and really making our community better.

So I am here today to say the President did not tell the truth to the American people in the State of the Union. He lied to the American people around the country when he promised to expand this program.

Please, Mr. President, let us come forward--

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

I would hope the President would take steps to make sure that what he promised the American people actually comes true, instead of the sad state of deception that exists today.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.

(Ms. LOFGREN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, the question is not whether there have been problems with coupon-award cases; there have been. The question is whether this bill is the remedy for those problems. I have two concerns about the bill. One, it goes too far; and secondly, I do not see how the bill really addresses and solves the coupon settlement problem.

But what is really offensive to me is the scorched-earth approach of the bill does not just stop at class actions, it also targets California's prosecutors.

California has strong consumer protection, section 17200 of the Business and Professions Code, and it provides that not just AGs, but district attorneys, can sue in the public interest. District attorneys are not bringing abusive class actions to collect attorneys' fees; they are trying to protect their constituents.

For example, in People v. National Travel, two California DAs shut down an unscrupulous Florida travel agency. In People v. Providian Bank, the San Francisco district attorney stopped predatory credit card practices and recovered $300 million for California consumers. In People v. Rite-Aid, DAs stopped the sale of expired baby formula. In People v. Cook Brothers, DAs stopped an Illinois company from selling illegal weapons through a mail-order catalog. These are a few examples of how local DAs use consumer protection actions to safeguard Californians. Their ability to bring these cases in State court would be eliminated under this bill.

Put simply, if my amendment is not passed, this will have a chilling effect on local DAs, and that is why it is opposed by the California District Attorneys Association. I want to read from a letter I received from the California District Attorneys Association. They say, As currently written, H.R. 1115 would severely limit our ability to protect the public. Under the definition of class action, our consumer protection cases would be eligible for removal.

They wrote, That if these offenders remove our cases to Federal court, the cost of prosecution and inconvenience to the victims will make pursuit of many such cases a practical impossibility.

So the question is not whether there are problems with class actions, but whether this bill is the remedy. I say it is not.

California District

Attorneys Association,

Sacramento, CA, June 11, 2003.

Re HR 1115, oppose unless amended.

Hon. Zoe Lofgren,

House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Lofgren: The California District

Attorneys Association (CDAA) has taken an Oppose Unless

Amended position on HR 1115 (Goodlatte), the Class Action

Fairness Act of 2003.

As you may know, District Attorneys in California and many

other states are charged with protecting the public from

unfair, unlawful, and predatory practices used by

unscrupulous businesses. In California, our Business and

Professions Code Sec. 17200 allows District Attorneys to

bring civil actions against such businesses in the name of

the People of the State of California, and thereby seek civil

penalties, restitution, and injunctions on the People's

behalf. This law has been successfully used by California's

District Attorneys to protect the public from false

advertising, predatory lending, fake cures for cancer, and

other shameful scams perpetrated by out-of-state businesses.

As currently written, HR 1115 would severely limit our

ability to protect the public from these wrongs. Under the

definition of class action currently used by HR 1115, our

consumer protection cases would be eligible for removal to

Federal court. If these offenders remove our cases to Federal

court, the cost of prosecution and the inconvenience to the

victims will make pursuit of many such cases a practical

impossibility.

We appreciate that HR 1115 currently exempts actions

brought by Attorneys General from its provisions. For this

reason, we are hopeful that the supporters of HR 1115 did not

intend to extend its provisions to actions brought by

District Attorneys and other public prosecutors. Therefore,

we ask that the author considers amending page 15, line 20 to

read ``. . . attorney general, state or local district

attorney, other governmental prosecutor, or group thereof . .

.'' We would also ask that the following text be inserted at

page 13, between lines 6 and 7; ``(D) the action is brought

by a State attorney general, state or local district

attorney, other governmental prosecutor, or group thereof.''

With these amendments, HR 1115 would preserve the ability of

California's District Attorneys, and those of many other

states, to protect the public from unlawful, unfair, and

predatory practices disguised as legitimate businesses.

We also appreciate the recent efforts of Senators Feinstein

and Specter to address our identical concerns with S 274

(Grassley). We look forward to continuing to work with the

Senators, and any other interested party, to resolve this

issue. Please feel free to contact us if we can be of any

further assistance.

Very truly your,

Gilbert G. Otero,

President.

District Attorney, Imperial County.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez), my colleague on the Committee on the Judiciary and a cosponsor of this amendment.

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

I wanted to quote from a letter I received from Senator Feinstein. This amendment is identical to what Senator Feinstein wrought in the Senate, and she has pointed out that she will not support this bill unless this amendment is adopted and that is to protect section 17200 of California's Business and Professions Code in its entirety. There is no rationale, no reason, there have been no problems with section 17200; and I would urge all members of

the House, and especially the Californians, to stand up for federalism and protect California State law.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of our troops who serve our Nation in both peace and war and to support their families who must endure the loneliness and fear of losing a loved one to uphold the strength of our Nation.

I support this bill that not only eases requirements for immigrant soldiers to become U.S. citizens, but also extends immigration benefits to surviving family members of soldiers who gave their lives to defend our Nation. I can't think of a better way to recognize the service of immigrant soldiers and honor the memory of those that have died fighting for their country, while also showing our appreciation to their families for their tremendous sacrifices.

Although the Armed Forces Naturalization Act does much to help immigrant soldiers and their families, we could and should have done more. And we tried, but the Republican majority, so intent on limiting immigration benefits, wouldn't even allow some mothers of soldiers killed in combat to legally remain in this country.

How about this Republican logic? When an immigrant proudly serves in the military and dies for the country, it is obvious that he or she has shown devotion to our country. What about the families of soldiers whom so proudly serve our Nation? If the mother of the soldier has overstayed her visa, she is excluded from the benefits of this bill.

How about this? Your son is killed in combat: but you are deported. How are you to put flowers on your son's grave? Republicans, so caught up in anti-immigrant philosophies, want to short-change them and limit their immigration benefits. What a shame.

There are 37,000 immigrants currently serving in our military and at least 10 who have been killed in recent combat. It is time for us to recognize and honor their service to our country by granting them full and complete citizenship that extends full immigration benefits to their families.

This bill is certainly a step in the right direction, but I know that if it wasn't for the Republican majority, we could have done more.