Lois Capps

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, today the House debates the Budget Resolution. This critical legislation lays out the framework for the federal budget and spells out our nation's economic priorities. I cast my vote for a budget that is fiscally responsible, provides tax relief for all Americans, and invests in the programs that improve our quality of life. The prosperity that we have enjoyed over the last decade has produced today's record budget surpluses and projections for huge future surpluses. These projections present us with the opportunity to keep our fiscal house in order, while meeting the key important needs of the American people. The budget I support will allow us, first of all, to pass substantial tax cuts. Since coming to Congress, I have voted repeatedly to cut taxes. At a minimum, we should lower overall tax rates, fix the marriage penalty, and reform the estate tax laws. Secondly, I voted for a budget resolution that devotes a third of the surplus to debt reduction. Clearly, we must continue paying down the $3.4 trillion national debt. Our progress in debt reduction has kept interest rates down and allowed families to pay less for their homes and cars. Finally, the budget framework provides the funding necessary to address the most pressing needs of families on the Central Coast and across our nation. It invests in education, strengthens Social Security, Medicare and national defense, and provides the funding needed for an affordable prescription drug plan for all seniors. Mr. Chairman, I pride myself on working in a bipartisan manner to address the concerns of my constituents. But I cannot, in good conscience, support the President's budget, as proposed today by the majority party. The $2 trillion tax cut proposed by the President is simply too big. It won't allow us to pay down the debt. I also fear that a tax cut of this magnitude could open the door to a new era of runaway deficits that would cripple our economy and saddle our children with the burden of crushing debt. In addition, I opposed the majority party's budget proposal because it depletes the resources we need to keep Social Security and Medicare solvent and provides only a slight increase in education. Finally, the President's budget will actually bring about deep cuts in several key areas, like veterans, agriculture, and environmental protection. Mr. Chairman, today the House was faced with starkly differing proposals for setting the economic priorities of our nation. I truly believe that the votes I cast were in the best interests of our families and our future.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to the honorable gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I brought my pilgrimage book with me. I was hoping there would be this opportunity to have a Special Order. In a way it is a little bit like our pilgrimage can continue and can come even to life here in this place where we do our business, because that is actually what it was. It was a pilgrimage down into that countryside, to Montgomery, to Birmingham and to Selma and then to cross that bridge, and to do so with the leadership of one who was there, an esteemed Member of Congress, a leader here now. A few decades ago the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) was 20, 21 years old, just a young boy, when he took upon himself that historic role. I see the gentleman with a different light now.

Mrs. CAPPS. The gentleman was very brave to do what he did then, and that kind of bravery is rare. I do not go on pilgrimages every day, and I do not see that kind of bravery around me very often; but I see it here. To have the leadership of our colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), the Faith and Politics Institute, the Reverend Doug Tanner and the leadership of this place, it is remarkable. It is an honor to serve in the House of Representatives. It is an honor to represent my district, as each of us feel that so keenly, to come and do our constituents' business here, to enact legislation. But this place is so much more than that. This place breathes and lives the history of brave men and women who have made this country great, who have made this country, the United States of America, what it is today. We are so fortunate that some of that history is still alive with us and our colleague here, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), the wonderful men and women we were able to meet in Alabama as we visited the Civil Rights Institute, Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, Civil Rights Memorial, First Baptist Church, Rosa Parks' visualization of her experience on that bus, Brown Chapel AME Church; and then, arm in arm, to walk across, after the church service, it is really impressive to me how much this living history that has given us the voting rights that we enjoy in this country now came out of places of worship in the South, and in the North as well, because that was the inspiration, that was the moral force that enabled this bravery to occur and this hard- fought freedom to be won. That is the inspiration that it was. I was so pleased that our family could include many of our family members, and that my daughter Laura could join me, because it is very personal; and it is religious, it is moving, to be called upon to examine in ourselves where was I during this time in our country's history, and where am I now. As our leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), was stating, the challenges are not over; and in many respects the pilgrimage has not passed either. It is still going on, and we must reexamine. My colleague talked about inequality in health care, a basic right that we want for all of our people around the world, and surely in this country; and the voting issue is still before us. Election reform is much needed now, and here we are in the House talking about this. I believe the leadership is called for from us, in a bipartisan way, to address this most fundamental right. If people were killed, and it was a bloody Sunday indeed, that was the impetus for the Voting Rights Act of the sixties, then surely we cannot defame that spilled blood by resting on the laurels of that day; but we must reexamine the inequalities which exist today, whether it is in machines or whether it is practices; and we have a responsibility to make sure that when we see injustice, that we put a stop to it, that we ensure that every single citizen of this great land has every access to vote, to express that most fundamental right of democracy. After all, people died for that. They died for that in our lifetime. I believe now that we must, in this dawning of a new century, live up to their expectations of us and our leadership. So, again, I was one of the fortunate people to take that pilgrimage; and if it ever occurs again and there is an opportunity, I hope that others will join with us as well. I commend the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) and the leadership that as a young person the gentleman showed so mightily with his friends and his fellow folks there who did a brave thing, and that we can have this opportunity through the Faith and Politics Institute and the corporate sponsors that make that happen for us as well. This is a big commitment on folks' part, and so I thank the gentleman for letting me take part in that.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring to the attention of the House the impending shortage of nurses. I am one of three nurses currently serving in Congress. Before I was elected, I served the people of Santa Barbara as a public health nurse over 20 years. My experience gives me a distinct perspective on nursing issues. I know firsthand the challenges facing the nursing profession and the consequences if we fail to meet them. Nurses are the first line of defense in our health care system, and the importance of this role cannot be overstated. Today the nursing community is facing a dire situation. There is currently an ongoing shortage of nurses in the work force. In the past, this type of shortage has been resolved when pay and benefits have risen enough to attract new nurses into the field. But that is not the case this time. While some compensation levels have been rising, these improvements have not attracted enough nurses back into practice. We are also facing a looming crisis in a profession that will strain the health care system and threaten the quality of care. We have an aging nursing work force and a dwindling supply of new nurses. Right now, the average age of employed registered nurses is 43 years. By 2010, 40 percent of the RN work force will be over 50. Unfortunately, and in contrast, the number of young nurses is decreasing. Under 30 years of age, it has now declined by 41 percent. With this combination, we are facing an incredible shortfall of well- trained, experienced nurses in all fields. To make matters worse, this will happen just as the 78 million members of the baby boom generation begin to retire and need an even greater amount of health care. In my home State of California, the problem is even worse. Less than 10 percent of the RN work force back home is under the age of 30, and nearly a third are over the age of 50. California already ranks 50th among the States in RNs per capita. Part of the problem is that the nursing work force is so homogeneous. The vast majority of nurses are white women. Fifty years ago, a smart young woman had only a handful of career options available to her, including nursing. But as our society's views on women's equality have progressed, we have not escaped the perception that nursing is women's work. As young women have explored different careers, very few young men have entered the nursing work force to replace them. So right now less than 6 percent of the nursing work force is comprised of men. Likewise, even though the percentage of minorities in our national work force has arisen close to 25 percent, minorities still only represent 10 percent of RNs. In order to deal with this looming shortage, we are going to need to address a number of issues and to be very creative in our solutions. We need to draw more people into the profession, particularly the young men and women at the high school level who are just choosing their career paths. We need to reach out to minorities and disadvantaged youth. We need to retain those nurses who are already in the work force. We need to make sure we have enough nursing school faculty, mentors and preceptors to properly education and train our work force. I have been working with various working groups, with Senator John Kerry, and other Members of Congress to develop a set of measures that can help deal with both the immediate and the long-term problems that we face. Soon I will be introducing comprehensive legislation to address these shortages. This legislation will include proposals to improve access to nursing education, to create partnerships between health care providers and educational institutions, to support nurses as they seek more training, and to improve the collection and analysis of data about the nursing workforce. But we will also need to look at creative new ideas to truly address this problem. In my home town, Santa Barbara, Cottage Hospital and Santa Barbara City College have joined with San Marcos High School to create a health academy. This is a perfect example of the kind of creative solution we need. In their sophomore year, 60 students will start taking health-care courses taught by professionals from the hospital and college. When they graduate, they can be certified nursing assistants or continue their nursing education in SBCC's 2-year nursing education RN program. For its first class in this high school, there are already 128 applicants for those 60 spaces. This program can serve to recruit young men and women into the nursing profession as well as change misperceptions among other students and teachers about the value of a nursing career. With support, this program could be replicated in other high-need areas, or other types of public-private partnerships could be developed. The challenges we face in the nursing and public health communities are becoming more and more evident and the need for national action on them is equally evident. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort so we can achieve a bipartisan solution to these problems.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, as a member of the Hellenic Caucus I am pleased to address the House in recognition of the 180th anniversary of the revolution that freed the Greek people from the Ottoman Empire. This Sunday, on March 25th, people of Greek heritage all over the world will celebrate Greek Independence Day. In 1821, the Greeks rose up against the oppressive Ottoman Empire, which had occupied Greece for nearly four centuries. This was the beginning of a successful struggle for freedom and independence. The Greek people sought the right to govern themselves and to determine their own destiny. It is important that we recognize this day not only because the Greek people are a vibrant community which has made lasting contributions to the United States, but also because the ancient Greeks forged the notion of democracy. They believed in the right of self-governance--one of the pillars of our great nation. In fact, when forming a fledgling democracy, our Founding Fathers relied heavily on the political wisdom of the ancient Greeks. Thomas Jefferson once called ancient Greece ``the light which led ourselves out of Gothic darkness.'' This day is doubly significant for many in Greece and for Greek- Americans, because it was on this day in the Orthodox calendar that the archangel Gabriel appeared to Mary and announced that she was pregnant with the divine child. Churches in Greece celebrate the Festival of the Annunciation with pomp and circumstance, and Greek Independence Day is celebrated with parades and celebrations in cities across Greece and the United States. Greek Independence Day is historically significant in other ways as well. It marks the first major war of liberation after the American Revolution. It was also the first successful struggle for independence from the Ottoman Empire. Madam Speaker, I am pleased that we have taken time out today to recognize this very important day in Greek history.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of House Resolution 67, which recognizes the importance of combating tuberculosis on a worldwide basis and acknowledges the severe impact TB has had on minority populations in the United States. Leading experts on tuberculosis agree that in order to control this deadly disease in the United States, we need to control TB in the developing countries that make up the vast majority of the global TB burden. No one thinks this will be easy, but it is possible. The global community successfully eradicated smallpox and many soon get rid of polio. If the international community contributes the necessary resolve and resources, we can eradicate tuberculosis as well. In 1999, there were an estimated 8.4 million new cases of tuberculosis--up from 8 million in 1997. This increase was due in large part to a 20 percent increase in incidence in African countries with high HIV/AIDS rates. Most countries with rapidly growing HIV epidemics also have high TB rates. This is true for countries such as Brazil, Ethiopia, and Nigeria. This is typically because these countries lack the proper health care personnel, infrastructure, and funding. The link between HIV and TB rates means that we can expect several million additional new cases of TB as HIV continues to spread in high- prevalence countries. TB is the leading cause of death from infection among young women worldwide. One third of the world's population is infected with the tuberculosis bacteria--including 10-15 million people in the United States--and every year between two to three million people die of this curable disease. On March 16, Archbishop Desmond Tutu officially launched World TB Day, and, on March 24, the international community will recognize World TB Day. The theme, ``DOTS (Directly Observed Treatment, Short-course)-- TB cure for all,'' call for equitable access to TB services for anyone with this disease. Access to treatment should be available to men and women, and rich and poor alike. It should also be available to vulnerable groups such as people with HIV or drug-resistant TB. The theme of a TB cure for all contributes to the fulfillment of everyone's right to the highest possible standard of health. TB rates tend to be significantly higher in the poor and disadvantaged worldwide, and TB rates are substantially higher for minorities in the United States. In fact, Asian Americans are fifteen times more likely to suffer from TB than Caucasians, African Americans are eight times more likely, Latinos are six times more likely, and Native Americans are five times more likely to suffer from this disease. I would like to take this opportunity to commend an organization in my district called Results. Results is a non-profit organization that seeks solutions to world hunger and poverty. Results is actively working to eradicate TB. I support this goal, and I want to make sure Congress provides the resources to assist in this effort. Madam Speaker, Congress has a duty to substantially increase the U.S. investment in international tuberculosis control, and to expand domestic efforts to eliminate TB in the United States. I am committed to making this happen, and I am pleased that this important resolution was brought to the House floor today.

Mrs. CAPPS

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

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I would comment also that I join my colleague in agreeing that this is a very timely topic to be discussing right now.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 725, the Made in America Information Act. I commend the leadership of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), my colleague, for this time on the floor. Mr. Speaker, I also commend the persistence of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), my colleague, on this topic that we are dealing with today. H.R. 725 provides for the Secretary of Commerce to establish a toll- free number to help consumers identify which products are ``Made in America.'' This new program would operate as a pilot program for 3 years. It would not cost taxpayers anything. It would be paid for entirely out of fees collected for manufacturers who wish to register their products as ``Made in America.'' This legislation is predicted on one simple premise and belief, that consumers will choose to buy products made right here in the United States by American workers, if they are given that opportunity. In a 1997 rulemaking, the Federal Trade Commission reported that 84 percent of the respondents to a National Consumers League survey said that they were more likely to buy an item that was made in the USA than to buy an equivalent foreign-made product. A majority of those surveyed also said that they find the made in U.S. label either frequently or always meaningful when they are shopping. Congress also long ago recognized that made in the USA label is both meaningful and important. Mr. Speaker, I want to cite the same example that my colleague did in pointing out that, out of respect and honor both for American workers as well as those who serve our country in uniform, Congress has required military uniforms to be ``Made in the USA'' for the past 50 years, except in time of crisis. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I was also shocked to learn that the Pentagon has recently awarded $26 million in contracts mostly to foreign producers for 2\1/2\ million black berets that are now to become the official new headgear of all of the Army troops. According to the Army, these new berets will be made in plants in China, Romania, and Sri Lanka, among other foreign countries. I was also disturbed by press accounts that cited that awarding this contract to these foreign firms could even be more expensive for American taxpayers. It has been reported that the overseas beret is nearly twice as expensive as one which could be ``Made in America'' but could not be ready in time for the deadline that was imposed. For the first time, most American men and women serving in the Army would soon see a ``Made in China'', for example, or other such label when they take off their berets, rather than a ``Made in the USA'' label. This decision will harm U.S. companies and American workers and may, in fact, waste taxpayer dollars. That is why the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), my colleague, and I have been circulating a letter to the President asking that this short-sighted decision be reconsidered. I hope all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in this effort, and it is a way of underscoring the importance of H.R. 725 as a good bill that will help consumers to buy American if they so choose. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleagues, the cochairs of the Women's Caucus in Congress, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald), for organizing this time to speak on women's health issues. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that many members of the Women's Caucus are participating today on this important topic. As a nurse, I have made access to health care one of my highest priorities in Congress, and I think it is particularly important to focus attention on women's health. Last year, we had a number of victories for women's health. The House was able to pass the Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act. This legislation will allow us to provide the necessary resources for low- income women to fight these deadly diseases. We were also successful in reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. These are two major accomplishments, but we still have such a long way to go. Until recently, women's health resources were often concentrated on women during their reproductive years. However, with the average life expectancy of women now in the United States approaching 80 years, it is increasingly clear that we need the resources to protect a woman's health at every stage of development. Each new life stage poses its own unique developmental demands upon a women's body. This is why further research on women's health is so critical. Certain diseases and conditions are more prevalent among women than in men or affect women differently. Studies show that women are suffering from heart disease, breast cancer and depression at alarming rates. And as women live longer they are more likely to suffer from chronic conditions such as arthritis, diabetes and osteoporosis. There are countless initiatives here in Congress that seek to improve the health of women. I want to touch on just a few. For example, President Bush's recent reinstatement of the Mexico City policy is, I believe, a huge step backwards for millions of women around the world. The Mexico City language imposes a gag rule on other countries who wish to use their own reproductive resources for abortion and instead use the needed assistance from the United States to assist with family planning. Family planning saves lives by helping women plan their pregnancies for the healthiest and safest time. Of course, in so doing, it reduces the need for abortions. As my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), was just speaking about, we need to pass the Patients' Bill of Rights. This legislation would guarantee that patients and doctors control critical health care decisions, not HMOs. This will improve health care options for millions of American women. We also need to provide prescription drug coverage for Medicare recipients. The majority of seniors are women, and many of them cannot afford the skyrocketing costs of multiple prescriptions. Proper treatment of depression and mental illness is another important issue for women. Depression afflicts twice as many women as men. As many as 400,000 women each year suffer from postpartum depression alone. We need to raise awareness about postpartum depression in order to lower the chances that women and their families will suffer from this condition. Parity for mental health is another important topic and an issue that affects women. It is time that health insurance plans recognize mental illness as just that, an illness. I am so pleased that courageous women like Tipper Gore and the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Rivers), our own colleague here in Congress, have worked hard to increase public awareness about mental illness and to work on destigmatizing depression. Another major concern for health concern for women is hypertension. It is a major risk factor in cardiovascular disease, and it is two to three times more common in women than in men. Mr. Speaker, I am now the cochair of the Congressional Heart and Stroke Coalition, and I am working closely with American Heart Association to raise awareness of and response to cardiovascular disease and stroke. This spring here in the House of Representatives we will be conducting some hearings on the effect of women and heart disease together. Increased research on these and other women's health issues can and will improve the quality and length of our lives. Mr. Speaker, I, along with my colleagues in the Women's Caucus, are committed to raising awareness about women's health issues and to increase funding for women's health research; and today is an opportunity for us to speak on different topics but with a united voice. We, colleagues in the Women's Caucus and men as well and Members of Congress, are talking about and raising the awareness of issues pertaining to women's health.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, the Army is preparing to outfit every soldier with a new black beret. Some people oppose this policy, but whether or not it is a good idea, one thing we can all agree on is that these berets should be made in the United States. So why is the Pentagon acquiring 2.5 million berets from companies who make these berets in countries like China, Romania and Sri Lanka? This is very troubling. The Pentagon has waived the law which requires domestic production of military uniforms. This decision is costing American companies millions of dollars; and even worse, the overseas berets may actually be more expensive so U.S. taxpayers will get stuck with a bigger bill. Mr. Speaker, I am circulating a letter to President Bush urging him to review this shortsighted decision. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join with me.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I am honored to be here with my colleagues from Maine, from New Jersey, from Oregon, and from California; all across the country. Mr. Speaker, we are disappointed that we spent the entire day discussing a tax package that is not right for this country; and the passage of such a large tax reform bill out of a budget context will mean, no doubt, that we will have fewer dollars to pay down our national debt, to strengthen Social Security and Medicare, and to improve our education system. And of course a centerpiece of education in our country today and for the past 26 years has been IDEA, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. I travel up and down the central coast of California, which I am proud to represent, and I spend time on school campuses. And when I do, I hear a common refrain: we need to fully fund IDEA. I hear this from parents, I hear it from classroom teachers, from administrators, from school boards, and I hear it from the community. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act requires the inclusion and equality of one of our most disenfranchised groups, kids with disabilities. IDEA ensures, and this is a good thing, it ensures that children with disabilities can attend a public school in their hometown alongside their peers. In my years of being a school nurse, I saw the value and the importance of this wonderful idea, IDEA, that we in Congress, our predecessors in Congress, put into place. This is a value for families and for a community, for children with and without disabilities, to have this kind of education within the least-restricted environment. With over 6 million students in our schools who have special needs, we should be appropriating over $17 billion in Federal funds each year. We promised that when we authorized this education act. And what are we giving them? Only $6 billion, as the gentleman said. Because this is a right that we declared, that these children will have this opportunity, local and State budgets are forced to absorb the shortfall. That is a terrific cost to our communities. While the Federal Government is authorized to pick up the tab for fully 40 percent of these costs associated with special education, currently we are only paying 14 percent of these costs. It was in 1975 that this law mandated that all children receive a free and appropriate education, public education, and that 40 percent would be attached to it; that that was our fair share as a Federal Government. But in the last 25 years, we have failed to provide the necessary funding to support this pledge that we made to local school districts. I believe, along with my colleagues, that it is time to put our money where our mouths are and to fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. When States and schools, local schools, are forced to pick up the difference in the costs for the needs of these children, they often have to shortchange other children. We should not have to be forcing them to make such a choice in providing an appropriate education for one group of children and not for the other. It is our responsibility to provide a good, free education to all of the students in this country. I want to share a local story to tell my colleagues about a situation in San Luis Obispo County and their school district. They are currently working with and providing resources for 13 children with autism. These children need special assistance to be able to reach their educational goals. In my district, the minimum cost of service for a child with autism is $40,000 per child per year, and the San Luis Obispo school system has only $200,000 for this program. They need more than twice that amount to adequately provide the educational resources for these children. Because of situations like this, this particular school district, San Luis Obispo, ends up spending 25 to 30 percent of their general funds for children with disabilities. The kind of resentment and tension that that creates within a local school setting is one of the unfortunate by-products of our lack of taking on our own responsibility. So school districts across this Nation are facing these terrible choices. It is putting an unnecessary burden on the local school district, costing them precious dollars, and it is pitting parents with students who have disabilities against parents of children who do not. What an unnecessary and unfair burden. I am committed to working with all my colleagues here in Congress so that we can assure that all of our children get the best education, the best resources that our public schools have to offer them. One way, one very specific and concrete way that we can do that is to own up to our own responsibilities here in Congress and to fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. So I thank the gentleman for holding this session so that we can express our concerns about this matter, particularly timely, I believe today, in the face of this enormous tax budget cut, which is really going to wreak havoc on our opportunity to do this very thing.

Mrs. CAPPS. If I could just respond in saying that when we are doing this in Congress, when we fund to 14 percent, we are not saving money by doing that. These are obligations and responsibilities that local school districts have. They bear the bottom line. It is the children in the local communities who have the right and come up to the school door and say, or the family say, here is my child, these are the needs, now you provide the resources. We ask them to do that, sometimes in very difficult circumstances. When we do not meet our needs, it just foists that responsibility on overburdened districts that have many other obligations to make as well.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, today I voted to cut taxes for all Americans. And I voted in support of fiscal responsibility. I believe we need to cut taxes and have voted to do so repeatedly during my short time in Congress. At a minimum, we should lower overall tax rates, fix the marriage penalty, and reform the estate tax laws. But tax cuts must be done in the context of an overall budget framework that will allow us to meet other pressing priorities. And we must remember that much of this surplus is still only a projection-- it's not money in the bank. We must continue paying down the $3.4 trillion national debt. Our progress in debt reduction has kept interest rates down and allowed families to pay less for their homes and cars. We must also ensure the long-term solvency of Social Security and Medicare, provide prescription drug coverage for our seniors, improve education and protect our environment. The proposal I voted for today will allow us to do all these things, while providing tax cuts for all taxpayers. I fear that the tax cut bill being pushed by the House leadership and President Bush is too big and won't allow us to accomplish these other important goals. I also fear that it could open the door to a new era of runaway deficits that would cripple our economy. And I am disappointed that the House leadership has chosen to bring tax cuts to a vote before we have a budget in place. The prosperity we have enjoyed over the last decade has produced the record surpluses we have today and are projecting for the future. Let's take advantage of this moment and give American families the tax relief they deserve. But let's not squander this opportunity by passing irresponsible tax cuts that our families, and our nation, can ill afford.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to recognize an educational institution that deserves praise for a century of distinguished teaching, research, and public service to the state of California and the nation. On March 8, 2001, California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo will begin an 18-month celebration of its centennial. Indeed, Cal Poly, as the university is often called, has a great deal to celebrate. In the 1890's, Myron angel, a San Luis Obispo County chronicler, was dismayed by the practical ineptness he experienced in spite of his college education. He campaigned for a local facility that would ``teach the hand as well as the head, so that no young man or young woman would be sent off in the world to earn their living poorly equipped for any task.'' Angel's prominence reinforced an earlier proposition of the district state senator, Sylvester C. Smith, to build a polytechnic institute in San Luis Obispo. Southern Pacific Railroad had just completed the last link in its coastal route and subsequently backed the proposal as an effort to increase business for the new line. On March 8 in the first year of the 20th century, legislation founding the California Polytechnic School was signed into law after six years of debate. The law included the practical mandate of its founders, ``To furnish the young of both sexes mental and manual training in the arts and sciences, including agriculture, mechanics, engineering, business methods, domestic economics, and others such branches as will fit the students for non-professional walks of life.'' A great deal changed in the ensuing decades--including the definition of a professional-- California Polytechnic School, a vocational high school, grew into California Polytechnic State University, a premier undergraduate institution. The essence of the original charge is still part of the state law, and has remained constant in the university's present philosophy. A tour of the modern Cal Poly campus traces the progression of ten decades, and confirms the strength of the original ``learn by doing'' philosophy. Among the facilities spread across the university's 5,051 acres are fourteen research centers and institutes. The founders would be pleased to observe the activity, for example, in the Urban Forest Ecosystems Institute, where students apply their knowledge and research to assist the community's landowners and public agencies in improved urban forest management. They would also marvel at the Dairy Products Technology Center, where hands-on student research provides new and improved safety methods and technologies for the dairy products used by all Americans. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of relevant facts about Cal Poly that warrant recognition. Its first enrollment of 20 students has grown to 17,000, and the institution has bestowed more than 107,000 bachelor's and master's degrees since 1942. And during World War II, 4,700 cadets were trained at the Navy's pre-flight programs located at Cal Poly. Remarkably, 97 percent of Cal Poly graduates are successfully employed or admitted to graduate school within a year of graduation. Cal Poly nears the end of its first century still focused on its founding purpose, which is an achievement that has not gone unnoticed. Last year, US News and World Report named California Polytechnic State University the Top Regional Public University in the Western United States for the eighth consecutive year. Cal Poly also received the 2001 designation for Best Undergraduate Computer Engineering Department without a Ph.D. Program awarded by the same publication. The National Science Foundation has recognized Cal Poly's science program as among the most innovative in the nation. And the University Center for Teach Education is the only program in the state selected to join the prestigious National Network for Education renewal. As California Polytechnic State University rises among the ranks of major American universities, time continues to test and prove the worth of a Cal Poly education. The centennial slogan, ``A Century of Achievement, A Tradition for the Future'' clearly expresses the school's pride as an evolving institution, while remaining true to the school's original vision. Cal Poly graduates possess the knowledge and skills to step right into professional careers of planning, designing, building, operating and improving whole structures as well as entire communities, of managing farms and businesses, of developing minds and expanding knowledge. In short, Cal Poly and its graduates are making a profound contribution to the quality of life in California, the nation, and the world. Mr. Speaker I hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating California Polytechnic State University on a century of remarkable achievements.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule and to the resolution for overturning the new OSHA standards for worker safety. Repealing this standard would not only eliminate this important worker protection, but it would effectively prohibit OSHA from ever issuing a similar standard to protect workers from musculoskeletal disorders. How appalling. OSHA's standards for worker safety is critically important to working men and women. The lives of workers who suffer from disorders like carpal tunnel syndrome, tendinitis or back injuries are changed forever. Many workers lose their jobs, are permanently unemployed or forced to take severe pay cuts in order to continue working. This injustice must end. As a public health nurse, I know how debilitating these injuries and illnesses can be. For example, nursing home employees experienced more on-the-job back injuries as a percentage of their overall injuries than any other occupation. Most of them are women. Mr. Speaker, I support the OSHA standard because it is based on sound science and good employer practices. It is the most effective means to prevent workplace injuries. And under this standard, I believe that businesses will save money in the long run through reduced workers claims for compensation and other health insurance claims. Mr. Speaker, I am so disappointed that Congress is attempting to repeal this important safeguard and to deny significant medical and scientific findings. These objective studies all agree that workers need safety protection for repetitive motion injuries. Injuries like these are only going to increase in our economy as so many sit at computers or stand at assembly lines. It is time to stop the pain, to start the healing and to protect workers from workplace injuries. Let us vote down this rule and this resolution.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, I rise also in support of H.R. 727, a bill to provide that low-speed bicycles are appropriately regulated as consumer products under the Consumer Product Safety Act. I am an original cosponsor of this legislation, initially introduced by my good friend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection. This bill has five other cosponsors, including three other Democratic Members, the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). I want to thank them for their support of this important legislation. Identical legislation passed the House floor by voice vote under suspension of the rules. However, the Senate took no action on the bill at that time. Electric bicycles generate no pollution, are virtually silent, and can increase transportation and recreation options for millions of citizens. These relatively new products are a welcome transportation alternative especially, as my colleague mentioned, for older or disabled riders and many commuters. Right now, electric bikes are caught in a regulatory trap between the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The CPSC has responsibility for human-powered bicycles, including pedal-assisted electric bicycles. However, power on demand, low-speed electric bicycles are currently defined as motor vehicles and come under the jurisdiction of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, or NHTSA. The bill establishes a definition of electric bikes, a vehicle with two or three wheels, operable pedals and electric motor of about one horsepower. With the motor alone, the bike's top speed is less than 20 miles per hour. The bill also provides CPSC with authority to issue new requirements necessary to protect consumer safety. Both NHTSA and CPSC agree that all low-speed electric bicycles are more appropriately regulated as consumer products by the CPSC. If NHTSA were to establish a standard for electric bikes, the rules could force manufacturers to meet safety regulations intended for motorcycles and similar kinds of vehicles such as requiring brake lights, automotive-grade headlights or turn signals. Requiring these unnecessary features on an electric bike would add hundreds of dollars to the retail price of an electric bike, and this would certainly discourage their use. This bill fixes that problem by giving jurisdiction over electric bikes to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, where it belongs. Here they can be regulated like the consumer products that they are. Madam Speaker, I know about electric bikes. Some are manufactured in my district, and bike-friendly Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties have many electric-bike users already. I hope this bill will encourage most of our citizens to use these innovative and environmentally friendly vehicles. This is certainly common sense legislation and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mrs. CAPPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, today I bring to the attention of my colleagues, a thoughtful article by Frank Kelly that appeared in the Santa Barbara News-Press, entitled ``Moving Humanity Toward a Great Future'' on October 1, 2000. Mr. Frank K. Kelly has been a journalist, a speechwriter for President Truman, Assistant to the Senate Majority Leader, Vice President of the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, and Vice President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following article: The sight of 152 national leaders streaming into the United Nations headquarters for a Millennium Summit meeting filled me with rejoicing. The leaders were called together by the Secretary General to develop plans for action to move toward lasting peace and a sustainable future for every one on Earth. They endorsed an eight-page plan to deal with the world community's hardest problems--and the U.N. staff has responded to the Summit mandate. That gathering was particularly encouraging for me because it came close to being what I had envisioned 33 years ago in articles for the Center Magazine and the Saturday Review. Those articles focused on the signs I saw then of the coming transformation of humanity--when people everywhere would act to meet the needs of every member of the human family. I saw the creative power of human beings being released in a glorious surge of new achievements. In the Center Magazine articles, I proposed that the Secretary General should be authorized by the U.N. to present annual reports on the state of humanity--reports based on information drawn from all the nations and broadcast around the world each year. I contended that the reports should emphasize the noblest deeds and wisest statements of human beings in every field. It should salute Heroes of Humanity-- men and women who were highly creative and compassionate, who served one another and helped one another, who broke the bonds which kept others from developing their abilities, who displayed the deepest respect for the inherent dignity of each human person. The Millennium Summit was certainly based on the transforming principles that I expected to see. Secretary General Kofi Annan asked leaders there to take every possible step to enable the people of every country to move upward in health and prosperity, and to make a strong effort to reduce the number of people living in dire poverty by 50 percent by the year 2015. His goals were clearly similar to those of an American president--Harry Truman--who declared in an inaugural address in 1949: ``Only by helping the least fortunate of its members to help themselves can the human family achieve the decent, satisfying life that is the right of all people.'' The gathering of the world's political leaders at the U.N. this year must be followed year by year by reports to humanity from the Secretary General. Year after year, the people of this planet must be reminded of what wonderful, mysterious, amazing beings they actually are. There must be continuing celebrations of human greatness. I do not believe that political leaders--even the best ones among them--can adequately represent the brilliance, the beauty, the enormous diversities of human beings. Future Summit meetings and future reports must involve singers and dancers, choirs of voices, painters and sculptors, novelists and historians and poets, musicians and composers, mystics and spiritual servants, mediators, theologians, retreat masters, and scientists, homebuilders and architects, craftsmen and teachers, administrators and fire wheelers-- people from every field. And every celebration should proclaim and reflect the inexhaustible energies of love. The Millennium Summit revived for many the people the torrent of hope with which we began the New Year. One the first day of the year 2000 there were television broadcasts from places we had never seen before--showing people welcoming the new era with songs and dances, with outburst of exuberant joy. We felt the kinship of belonging to one human family--but that wave of linkage subsided as the patterns of previous centuries took over again. The new perspectives which we had glimpsed through global communications were not absorbed into our thinking and acting. But the gathering of leaders at the U.N. brought back our awareness of the fact that we do live in a time of transformation. With all their capacities and their limitations, the leaders made informal contacts with one another than they had never experienced before. When Fidel Castro came close to Bill Clinton and shook Clinton's hand before anyone could stop him, there was a moment of change that would not be forgotten. And the President heard comments from other leaders who milled around him and approached him as person, he responded to them and he had a personal impact on each one of them. The effects of the Millennium Summit will be felt in countless ways. The U.N. has already gained new vitality from it--new attention from the media, new understanding from people who had largely ignored it. The leaders who mingled there, who talked in the halls and encountered one another unexpectedly, will feel wider responsibilities to the world community as well as to their own nations. Yet this time of transformation goes far beyond the repercussions from a conference of presidents and prime ministers. It has started dialogues in the homes of people everywhere--and around the Earth through the Internet. It calls for a continuous recognition of the creative events occurring in all countries. It demands a wider awareness of the fast currents of change that are carrying us into new circles of conflict and compassion, new embraces new surges of evolution, tall feelings of hope that great things are coming. In July, 50 passionate advocates of long-range thinking and constructive action took part in a three-day meeting at La Casa de Maria, a conference and retreat center in Santa Barbara, with the purposes of connecting their lives to one another and becoming more effective in benefiting humanity and a threatened world. Much attention was given to the ideas of Joanna Macy, a Buddhist philosopher and activist, who believes that many signs indicate a great turning in human attitudes. She asserts that many people are turning away from destructive habits of an The men and women in the sessions at La Casa cited these goals: ``To provide people the opportunity to experience and share with others the innermost responses to the present condition of our world: to reframe their pain for the world as evidence of their interconnectedness in the web of life and hence their power to take part in its healing; to provide people with concepts--from system science, deep ecology, or spiritual traditions--which illumine this power along with exercises which reveal its play in their own lives . . . to enable people to embrace the great turning as a challenge which they are fully capable of meeting in a variety of ways, and as a privilege in which they can take joy . . . '' The soaring presence of joy permeated the gathering in Santa Barbara. We danced and we sang, we looked at one another face to face, finding deep realities in each other's eyes; we imagined what the people of the next century might ask us if we were confronted by representatives of future generations. We went far forward in time and in our sharing of our thoughts and emotions. We laughed together and some of us came close to tears. We felt the potential greatness of the human species. That experience in the beautiful surroundings of La Casa de Maria on El Bosque road reinforced my conviction that Summit Meetings for Humanity should be held annually or possibly more often. It made me determined again to uphold a right of celebration as a human right essential for a full understanding of the immortal power in the depths of human beings. Walter Wriston, author of ``The Twilight of Sovereignty,'' has given us a vivid description of the increasing impact of the global communications system which now provides unlimited channels for education and illumination: ``Instead of merely invalidating George Orwell's vision of Big Brother watching the citizen, information technology has allowed the reverse to happen. The average citizen is able to watch Big Brother. Individuals anywhere in the world with a computer and modem can access thousands of databases internationally. And these individuals, who communicate with each other electronically regardless of race, gender, or color, are spreading the spirit of personal expression--of freedom--to the four corners of the Earth.'' Noting that we are now living in what can be called a global village, Wriston observed: ``In a global village, denying people human rights or democratic freedoms no longer means denying them an abstraction they have never experienced, but rather it means denying them the established customs of the village. Once people are convinced that these things are possible in the village, an enormous burden falls upon those who would withhold them.'' This is the Age of Open Doors--and the doors cannot be closed against anyone. More than 50 years ago, the U.N. General Assembly endorsed a revolutionary statement drafted by committee headed by an American woman, Eleanor Roosevelt-- the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Assembly called upon all member countries and people everywhere ``to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories.'' The Declaration is now part of the human heritage--an essential element in the aspirations of people all over the planet. The Declaration proclaims a bedrock fact: ``Recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.'' Every Summit Meeting for Humanity in all the years to come should begin with a reading of the 30 specific articles of the Declaration. It encourages us to become intensely aware of our own marvelous gifts--the package that came to us in the process of becoming human. It sanctions the pleasure of trying new thoughts, of taking new steps on new paths, and tossing our fears behind us. In the light of it, we welcome the hunger to know and to grow that we see in all the glorious beings around us. Many scientists now acknowledge that human beings embody the creative power of the universe in a special way. We are connected with the divine power that shaped the stars and brought all things into existence. We limited only by the range of our imaginations--our visions of what can be done. Herman Hesse, a great novelist, described our situation most beautifully. In one of his books, he wrote: ``What then can give rise to a true spirit of peace on Earth? Not commandments and not practical experience. Like all human progress, the love of peace must come from knowledge.'' It is the knowledge of the living substance in us, in each of us, in you and me . . . the secret godliness that each of us bears within us. It is the knowledge that, starting from this innermost point, we can at all times transcend all pairs of opposites, transforming white into black, evil into good, night into day. The Indians call it Atman; the Chinese; Tao; the Christians call it grace. When the supreme knowledge is present (as in Jesus, Buddha, Plato, or Lao-Tzu) a threshold is crossed, beyond which miracles begin. The war and enmity cease. We can read of it in the New Testament and the discourses of Gautama. Anyone who is so inclined can laugh at it and call it ``introverted rubbish,'' but to one who has experienced it his enemy becomes his brother, death becomes birth, disgrace honor, calamity good fortune. . . ``Each thing on Earth discloses itself two-fold, as `of this world' and not of this world. But `this world' means what is outside us. Everything that is outside us can become enemy, danger, fear and death. The light dawns with the experience that this entire `outworld world' is not only an object of our perception but at the same time the creation of our soul, with the transformation of all outward into inward things, of the world into the self.'' As humanity moves from one summit to another, as the deep connections of the human family shift from the outward world to the world within us, as we know one another fully at last, the inner knowledge enfolds all of us. A glorious age is around us, and in us and we will take it all into ourselves.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, on this day devoted to matters of the heart, I remind my colleagues that February is American Heart Month. We recognize the millions of Americans today struggling with heart disease and recommit ourselves to helping them. And we acknowledge the efforts of organizations like the American Heart Association which help all of us prevent and treat heart disease. The theme for Heart Month is ``be prepared for cardiac emergencies.'' Each year more than 1 million Americans will suffer a heart attack. Too many of us are not even aware of the warning signs. And too many of us do not know what to do to help someone who has suffered a heart attack. To that end, today I will reintroduce legislation, the Teaching Children to Save Lives Act, to encourage training in the classroom. This legislation will teach our children about the dangers of heart disease, how to prevent it, and how to respond in a cardiac emergency. So I urge my colleagues to support this and other efforts to address the scourge of heart disease.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on rollcall vote No. 12. Had I been here I would have voted ``yea.''

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, it is with such sadness that I rise today to speak of the enormous tragedy which has befallen the Indian people. The earthquake that struck Gujarat on January 26 has taken such a toll and the suffering continues. I recently had the opportunity to travel to India and witnessed firsthand the grandeur of this great nation. I experienced the generosity and warmth of the Indian people and benefitted from their friendship. The Indian people have overcome many challenges to become a great leader in technology and commerce. As the world's largest democracy, India is a great friend to the United States and an important ally. I trust we all are and will do all we can to help our friends in this, their time of need. I commend the efforts in my district through a nonprofit agency, Direct Relief International, where shipments of medical supplies are on their way in a coordinated effort. I know that this aid we send cannot end their suffering, but we must reach out a helping hand and our prayers to our friends in India and to Indian Americans here at home.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Federal Firefighters Retirement Age Fairness Act, a bill which would raise the mandatory retirement age for Federal firefighters to the same age as Federal law enforcement officers. As a proud cosponsor of this bill, I appreciate the House taking up this significant legislation. Currently, federal firefighters must retire at age 55. The Federal Firefighters Retirement Age Fairness Act would correct this oversight by raising the retirement age to 57. This will allow more firefighters to remain on the front lines in the battle against devastating fires in my District and across the country. As the recent wildfires, which ravaged much of the West, have shown, firefighters are in great demand. Many of our Nation's firefighters are quickly approaching retirement age, highlighting the growing shortage of well trained, quality firefighters. In fact, a recent report issued by the General Accounting Office stated that because of an aging work force there will be a shortage of qualified firefighters in the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, and that the situation could have a direct impact on firefighters' safety. Because it takes 17 to 22 years of experience to become eligible for firefighters leadership positions, an extra two years of service will give federal firefighters the option of continuing their careers and bolster fire fighting capabilities by having more experience in the field among our chiefs and commanders. Madam Speaker, I offer my heartfelt gratitude to every person who has taken part in combating destructive fires--these heroes deserve our strongest support. Their work in protecting our lives, our families, our property, and our environment is deeply appreciated by the residents of the Central Coast and by all Americans.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, today I bring to the attention of my colleagues, a thoughtful article by David Kreiger which appeared in The Santa Barbara Independent, entitled ``An Open Letter to the Next U.S. President: Abolish Nuclear Weapons.'' I submit the following article into the Congressional Record. [From the Santa Barbara Independent, Oct. 12, 2000] An Open Letter to the Next U.S. President: Abolish Nuclear Weapons (By David Krieger) The city of Hiroshima's Peace Declaration on August 6, 2000, stated, ``If we had only one pencil we would continue to write first of the sanctity of human life and then of the need to abolish nuclear weapons.'' The citizens of Hiroshima have horrendous first-hand knowledge of the devastation of nuclear weapons. They become the unwitting ambassadors of the Nuclear Age. If we wish to prevent Hiroshima's past from becoming our future, there must be leadership to reduce nuclear dangers by vigorous efforts leading to the total elimination of all nuclear weapons from Earth. This will not happen without U.S. leadership, and therefore your leadership, Mr. President, will be essential. Also in the Peace Declaration of Hiroshima is this promise: ``Hiroshima wishes to make a new start as a model city demonstrating the use of science and technology for human purposes. We will create a future in which Hiroshima itself is the embodiment of those `human purposes.' We will create a 21st century in which Hiroshima's very existence formulates the substance of peace. Such a future would exemplify a genuine reconciliation between humankind and the science and technology that have endangered our continued survival.'' With this promise and commitment, Hiroshima challenges not only itself, but all humanity to do more to achieve a ``reconciliation between humankind and science and technology.'' The place where this challenge must begin is with the threat posed by nuclear weapons. At the 2000 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, the U.S. and the other nuclear weapons states made an ``unequivocal undertaking . . . to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals.'' This commitment is consistent with the obligation in Article VI of the Non- Proliferation Treaty, and with the interpretation of that obligation as set forth unanimously by the International Court of Justice in its landmark 1996 opinion on the illegality of nuclear weapons. In addition to moral and legal obligations to eliminate nuclear weapons, it is also in our security interests. Nuclear weapons are the greatest threat to the existence of our nation and, for that matter, the rest of the world. The American people and all people would be safer in a world without nuclear weapons. The first step toward achieving such a world is publicly recognizing that it would be in our interest to do so. That would be a big step forward, one that no U.S. president has yet taken. In the post-Cold War period, U.S. policy on nuclear weapons has been to maintain a two-tier structure of nuclear ``haves'' and ``have-nots.'' We have moved slowly on nuclear arms reductions and have attempted (unsuccessfully) to prevent nuclear proliferation. We have not given up our own reliance on nuclear weapons, and we have resisted any attempts by NATO members to re-examine NATO nuclear policy. One of the early decisions you will be asked to make, Mr. President, is on the deployment of a National Missile Defense. While this resurrection of the discredited ``Star Wars'' system will never be able to actually protect Americans, it will anger the Russians and Chinese, undermine existing arms control agreements, and most likely prevent future progress toward a nuclear weapons-free world. The Russians have stated clearly that if we proceed with deploying a National Missile Defense, they will withdraw from the START II Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. This would be a major setback in U.S.-Russian relations at a time when Russia has every reason to work cooperatively with us for nuclear arms reductions. In fact, Russian President Putin has offered to reduce to 1,500 the number of strategic nuclear weapons in START III. Well-informed Russians say that he is prepared to reduce Russia's nuclear arsenal to under 1,000 strategic weapons as a next step. We have turned down this proposal and told the Russian government that we are only prepared to reduce our nuclear arsenal to 2,000-2,500 strategic weapons in START III. This is hard to understand because reductions in nuclear weapons arsenals, particularly the Russian nuclear arsenal, would have such clear security benefits to the United States. The Chinese currently have some 20 nuclear weapons capable of reaching U.S. territory. If we deploy a National Missile Defense, China has forewarned us that they will expand their nuclear capabilities. This would be easy for them to do, and it will certainly have adverse consequences for U.S.-Chinese relations. Additionally, it could trigger new nuclear arms races in Asia between China and India, and India and Pakistan. North Korea has already indicated its willingness to cease development of its long-range missile program in exchange for the development assistance that they badly need. We should pursue similar policies with Iraq, Iran, and other potential enemies. We should vigorously pursue diplomacy that seeks to turn potential enemies into friends. Rather than proceeding with deployment of a National Missile Defense, we should accept President Putin's offer and proceed with negotiations for START III nuclear arms reductions to some 1,000 to 1,500 strategic nuclear weapons on each side. Simultaneously, we should provide leadership for multinational negotiations among all nuclear weapons states for a Comprehensive Treaty to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons. This would be a demonstration of the ``good faith'' called for in the Non-Proliferation Treaty. In addition to these steps, there are many more positive steps that require U.S. leadership. Among these steps are de- alerting nuclear forces, separating warheads from delivery vehicles, providing assurances of No First Use of nuclear weapons, establishing an accounting for all nuclear weapons and weapons grade materials in all countries, withdrawing nuclear weapons from foreign soil and international waters, and providing internationally monitored storage of all weapons-grade nuclear materials. The United States is a powerful country. It will have enormous influence, for better or for worse, on the future of our species and all life. Continuing on with our present policies on nuclear weapons will lead inevitably to disaster. Millions of Americans know that we can do better than this. Because these weapons are in our arsenal now does not mean they must always be, if we act courageously and wisely. We need to set a course for the 21st century that assures that it will be a peaceful century. The lack of leadership to end the nuclear threat to humanity's future is unfortunately augmented by other unwise policies that we pursue. Our country must stop being the arms salesman to the world, the policeman for the world, and the chief trainer for foreign military and paramilitary forces. We need to become an exporter and promoter of democracy and decency, human rights and human dignity. If these values are to be taken seriously abroad, we must demonstrate their effect in our own society. To do this, we need to reduce rather than increase military expenditures. We are currently spending more on our military than the next 16 highest military-spending countries combined. This is obscene and yet it goes unchallenged. It is another area where presidential leadership is necessary. We live in a world in which borders have become incapable of stopping either pollution or projectiles. Our world is interconnected, and our futures are interlinked. We must support the strengthening of international law and institutions. Among the treaties that await our ratification are the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Land Mine Prohibition Treaty, the Treaty on the Rights of the Child, the Treaty on the Law of the Sea, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Treaty for an International Criminal Court. Mr. President, I have watched many of your predecessors fail to act on these issues. You have the opportunity to set out on a new path, a path to the future that will bring hope to all humanity. I urge you to accept the challenge and take this path. Be the leader who abolishes nuclear weapons. It would be the greatest possible gift to humanity.