William Jefferson

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, it is important the Congressional Black Caucus address these issues tonight because many of the people who are affected by this tragedy are African American and otherwise impoverished or disadvantaged, and they are folks who need to have their concerns given voice tonight. Many of our Members will talk on different issues. I want to talk about the recovery of that area, of our area, and about an economic recovery package for New Orleans and the other areas affected by Hurricane Katrina. Hundreds of thousands of my constituents have been uprooted from their homes. More than 100,000 businesses have been shuttered, and possibly thousands of lives have been lost to the wrath of Hurricane Katrina. The extent of the damage, the human toll, property damage and economic loss is unprecedented in our Nation's history. Of particular significance, a disproportionate share of the damage in my hometown of New Orleans was meted out to parts of our great city that were already extraordinarily economically disadvantaged. The poverty and economic depression in these areas in no small way were factors in the extraordinary loss of life and property experienced by my constituents. For that reason, it is critically important at this time to come together to ensure that all areas affected by Hurricane Katrina receive the necessary resources to rebound from what could be an economically devastating blow all across the gulf coast. Now, we are talking about an economic package of $40 billion coming up. We just approved $10 billion a few days ago, but I think it is important to put the right number before the Congress. At this time, we do not know what that number is, but we know it is a lot larger than $50 billion. The Wall Street Journal reports today that through their own analysis they have come up with a figure of $150 to $200 billion. Today, at a press conference, I called on our Congress and our Nation to set aside some $225 billion for this tragedy, $100-plus billion for New Orleans alone. I believe it is important to talk about a number that is closer to the right number now so that we will not have the rest of the Congress figuring that we have already fixed the problem with 40 or 50 or $60 billion when we know it is going to be four times that number. So as the Congress moves on various relief packages, I would like to articulate a few principles and policy proposals I believe should guide our efforts and be included in any relief package. First, the urban poor in New Orleans were dramatically and disproportionately affected, as I have said, by the destruction of Hurricane Katrina. Therefore, our efforts must include provisions to improve conditions to the point that the magnitude of the damage is never again experienced in our great Nation. Second, businesses large and small have been shuttered throughout the region, leading to an economic double whammy. Not only is the region cut off from the goods and services provided by these businesses, but the tens of thousands of employees working for these businesses are cut off from their jobs and their paychecks. Third, the public health effects of Hurricane Katrina are also extraordinary. In response to the health impacts of the hurricane, we must restore health care access, health care quality, health outcomes and the health care worker force because all Americans deserve equal treatment in health care. A proper investment in health care will improve both the health and economic well-being of our region and our country. The legislation we propose ought to address rebuilding the public health infrastructure and ensuring health care coverage. We must, therefore, move to immediately counter these difficult challenges. On the economic front, I think it is important to propose measures to jump-start the economic recovery throughout the gulf coast, and in the long term to improve the lives of hardworking Americans throughout the region. Because there are a number of Federal tax benefits conditioned on the household living situation of the taxpayer, and in light of the extraordinary displacement of citizens throughout the region, I think we should recommend changes to the Tax Code that ensure that displaced Americans are not disqualified from the tax benefits to which they are otherwise entitled as a result of the hurricane. Under current law, there are limits on a taxpayer's ability to deduct casualty or disaster losses in ways that would severely affect large numbers of our constituents. Accordingly, I believe we should propose to eliminate any barriers in the Tax Code that would prevent the devastated families from the tax relief to which they are now entitled. So many of our people who lost their property back home were not home owners; unfortunately, they lived in apartments. They did not have renters insurance or flood insurance. They have lost everything. This has to be taken into account as we go about this. One of the most extraordinary effects of Hurricane Katrina ever is the unprecedented destruction of housing in New Orleans. One hundred sixty thousand homes in New Orleans alone, and across the area more than 200,000 homes have been affected by this or destroyed by this hurricane. This is going to take some extraordinary action by FEMA and HUD, and some flexibility in the Community Development Block Grant program and the HOME program to get our region back on its feet. I think we should look at the New Markets Tax Credits program and add $1 billion in 2006 and another $1 billion in 2007 to help with the restructuring there. With our businesses, of course, there are no jobs, and we ought to ensure that we provide businesses throughout the region the tools necessary to reopen and thrive, as well as incentives to provide jobs to the thousands of displaced Americans throughout the region. On health care, we ought to have a declaration of emergency to trigger emergency Medicaid provisions, and we ought to allow our States to therefore simplify the application process and eliminate other barriers to enrollment and participation. We should think about a 100 percent Federal Medicaid match to States directly affected by Hurricane Katrina or States receiving evacuees, and elimination of residency requirements as people are being scattered throughout the country. On Medicare, we ought to waive the late enrollment penalties for affected residents to sign up for the new prescription drug benefit from October of this year to some other time, if they become newly eligible. We ought to delay transition of the affected dual-eligible to the Medicare program. And we ought to create a health safety net for all people affected by Katrina. With regard to the health care workforce, we have to redirect our resources there to make sure we have people available to do the work. We ought to establish health empowerment zones, for instance, and freeze budget cuts for safety net and public health programs for two. And, finally, we ought to be concerned about the mental health of our people, because displacement is a terrible mental health issue, and we ought to make sure services are delivered there in the proper way. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to my colleague, the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi for his expert handling of this hour to help to bring to the attention of the American people the particular plight of African Americans, the particular plight of people who are impoverished, the particular plight of disadvantaged citizens who have been afflicted by this storm, and the hope and promise that our Nation holds for them and for my great city of New Orleans and the gulf coast region. I want to thank the gentleman for his attention to this matter, and I thank my colleagues for joining us in this very special and important hour.

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

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, it is indeed with a heavy heart that I rise today in this Chamber to support this resolution. I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), for his work. During my 15 years in the people's House, we have confronted many trying circumstances: runaway fires in the West, rolling blackouts across the Northeast, the extraordinary destruction of Hurricane Andrew, the horror of September 11. And the Asian tsunami. But my heart has never been as personally struck and touched as by the tragedy of a disaster as it is now. Just over a week ago when Hurricane Katrina roared ashore, it left wide paths of destruction, unprecedented in American history. The citizens of Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, and my home State of Louisiana have suffered unspeakable tragedies. Hundreds, possibly thousands, of lives have been lost. Hundreds of thousands of homes have been destroyed and shuttered. Thousands of businesses have been closed, at the risk of perhaps never opening again. The images in the news media shocked the American people, but they are only a pale reflection of the devastation experienced by our friends, families, and neighbors throughout the gulf coast region. My hometown of New Orleans, my constituents, friends and family, thought they had once again dodged a bullet when Hurricane Katrina changed course at the last minute, making landfall in another place bordering the city. But we woke Tuesday morning to a heart-wrenching discovery. The levee system that had protected New Orleans for hundreds of years had failed. Our city was inundated, 80 percent of it, with deadly water. Thousands of lives were lost, many drowned, trapped in their homes. Others were lost trying to escape the fury. Others were lost unnecessarily through neglect, and still others have now survived and are spread far and wide throughout the country, have lost their sense of place and their connection to home. Our neighbors and families are living in shelters, staying with friends or family, benefiting from the hospitality and kindness of caring Americans. Tens of thousands of homes have been destroyed, churches and businesses at the heart of many of our beloved city's neighborhoods have been flooded and lay in ruins. In sum, Hurricane Katrina was more than a destructive hurricane. It has dealt a death blow to the very fabric and culture of a grand American city and region. Hurricane Katrina has left most of New Orleans, known for its vibrant spirit and vitality, threadbare and melancholy. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal) talked about the people of our city, and I want to say something about that too. The spirit of the folks in my city, although beaten down, is still vibrant. If you saw the people who were standing and waiting for help, they were orderly. They were a model of orderliness in most cases. When I went down Friday to see folks at the convention center, they simply said to me, Jeff, help us get out of here. When are the buses coming? The few scenes you have seen of some people taking advantage of people who were there in dire circumstances are few and far between. The image that we want to remember is one of people who endured unnecessary suffering and who stood strongly and in an orderly fashion and dealt with it. I am so proud of our people for having done that. I also am proud of the outpouring of support that has come from around the country. I want to thank my colleagues for their words of encouragement, for their support, and for their prayers: from the mayor of Detroit, who told us we could bring in 500 families, to just one man from San Diego who offered his small plane to the folks in New Orleans, to pick them up and take them to safety, and one couple from Illinois who called us saying they had just sent their three kids off to college and they had three spare bedrooms for anyone who needed them. The generosity has been overwhelming. It has reminded us that the human spirit is vibrant and that goodwill is abundant in the American people's hearts. I want to thank all those who contacted my family, my office, to express concern, those who are now telling us they want to help to reach our constituents, to get our constituent services back together. And I want to thank all of you who have worked with us over the Labor Day weekend. I want to thank my CBC colleagues who have initiated unprecedented efforts to marshal resources to help dislocated Louisianans. I want to tell you that the most important thing we can do right now is to make sure that people who are displaced are dealt with with dignity, that they are taken care of properly and their needs are met, and that we try as soon as we can and as well as we can to get our people back home, back to the State of Louisiana, back connected to their way of life, back connected to their culture, back connected to their people, and that we commit ourselves for the long haul to rebuild our city, to rebuild our region, and to rebuild the lives of our people. This is our mission now in the Congress. Also, though we look at all the good things that have happened, it is not inappropriate to ask the question as to whether or not we could not have done a better job. The President himself has said that the response is unacceptable. So I am one who believes that as we do these other things and as we congratulate each other for the work we have done, and as I congratulate the Red Cross and the FEMA workers that have given a great deal, and our responders, our mayor and our State government, our police and fire people, that we recognize there is a need to do better for our people, and in the future we would make sure that things that did not go right never ever happen again. Mr. Speaker, I thank everyone for what they have done. We appreciate it very much.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, 40 years ago, on August 6, 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed a landmark piece of legislation, a turning point in our Nation's continuing struggle for equality, the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I rise today in honor of that momentous occasion. Aristotle once wrote that ``if liberty and equality . . . are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost.'' More than 2,000 years after Aristotle's death, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said that ``all men are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality.'' In 1965, this Congress passed the Voting Rights Act to ensure that all Americans, regardless of race or ethnicity, would be able to share in our government, to mutually enjoy the blessings of liberty and democracy. Nevertheless, despite a constitutional guarantee of the right to vote, before the Voting Rights Act of 1965 became the law of the land, African Americans and other minority citizens were often forced to take a literacy test, pay a poll tax or overcome other often insurmountable barriers before they could vote. Those who could not pass the tests-- which were, for the most part, absurdly unfair--or were too poor to pay the poll tax were denied the most basic right of all Americans: the right to take part in the selection of their Nation's leaders. President John F. Kennedy once said, ``Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for the future.'' It was the hope of the Johnson administration and this body that the Voting Rights Act would be a solution and bring to an end these and other measures that compromised the legitimacy of our democracy. President Johnson told his Vice President, Hubert Humphrey, that he wanted for all citizens ``the right to vote with no ifs, ands, or buts--that's the key.'' It was his dream--and that of American men and women from every walk of life--to unquestionably ensure the benefits and responsibilities of citizenship to all Americans. For the most part, the bill has been successful. Under Section 2 of the Act, for example, Congress prohibited the use of literacy tests throughout the country. They also identified those parts of the Nation with the greatest potential for discriminatory activity and mandated Federal oversight of these locations. With these measures and others, the Voting Rights Act became perhaps the most effective piece of civil rights legislation in history. In my home state of Louisiana, 31.6 percent of African Americans were registered to vote in 1965, compared to 80.5 percent of whites. A little more than 30 years later, registration rates among African Americans climbed to 77.1 percent in the State, a jump of almost 50 percent and fully 2 percent higher than the rate of registration for whites. Such change in a comparatively short period is remarkable by a number of measures, not only making our democracy more inclusive, but also changing the face of our government. The legislation also brought to fruition a government that more closely resembles the makeup of our population. The Civil Rights Coalition reports that ``in 1964, there were only approximately 300 African Americans in public office nationwide, including just three in Congress. There are now more than 9,100 black elected officials, including 43 members of Congress, the largest number ever.'' Despite these encouraging numbers, the VRA remains necessary to the continuing struggle to truly open our great experiment in Democracy to all. The results of the 2000 election proved to our country that we have yet to achieve the equality and democracy necessary, as Dr. King put it, to ``live out the true meaning of our creed.'' Every American citizen who wishes to do so is entitled to have their voice heard and their vote counted--when that right is so blatantly ignored, we appear to regress to a time when the decision making process was reserved for the few and the powerful. The passage of the Voting Rights Act 40 years ago today was a milestone in legislative history. This Congress defended the civil liberties of every American citizen, regardless of race or ethnicity. However, we cannot let our progress overshadow the very hard work that remains. Forty years on, every election still brings stories of voter intimidation, suppression and discrimination. It is incumbent upon us to secure the franchise, the most fundamental right of every American, and its exercise. Accordingly, we must continue to build on the sacrifices of ordinary men and women who became the heroes of equality and to uphold our promise to guarantee voting rights to every American citizen and ensure that it is carried out to the fullest. Mr. Speaker, on this anniversary, I urge my colleagues to renew our collective commitment to the fundamental American principles that underlie the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5--the so-called HEALTH Act of 2005--is anything but healthy. If there was even the remotest possibility that H.R. 5 could help get efficient, accessible, low-cost, timely health care to the American people, it would probably get 435 votes in this House. However, H.R. 5 does absolutely nothing to achieve the admirable goals embodied in its misleading name. It does absolutely nothing to address the specific problem it is purported to fix: skyrocketing medical malpractice insurance premiums. Let me be perfectly clear. I am in complete agreement with this bill's supposed and stated purpose: to help get efficient, accessible, low-cost, timely health care to all Americans. I agree that one of the obstacles to low-cost, accessible health care is outrageous medical malpractice liability insurance premiums charged to physicians and other health care providers throughout our Nation. I also agree that some litigation strategies contribute to the escalating costs of our Nation's health care by encouraging providers to order tests, procedures and treatments that may not be medically necessary. I agree with the supporters of H.R. 5 that high malpractice insurance premiums charged by carriers have led some physicians to abandon high-risk specialties and patients. I ask you though to look at the legislation before us. H.R. 5 contains about 4,000 words. In those 4,000 words, the word ``premium'' appears only once; the word ``insurance'' appears only 5 times; and the word ``cost'' appears 14 times, the vast majority in the definitions and not the operative clauses of the bill. I ask you to consider whether H.R. 5 is really about skyrocketing medical malpractice insurance premiums as its proponents claim. I have looked very carefully at this bill, and, after much reflection, have reached the only reasonable conclusion: It is not. I stand here today because someone needs to stand up for American physicians. Someone needs to stand up for the American health care system. The proponents of H.R. 5 tell us medical malpractice insurance premiums are skyrocketing out of control. There is no dispute that malpractice insurance premiums are increasing at an alarming rate. We agree on that. There is no question that medical malpractice premiums are escalating across the country, particularly for physicians in high-risk specialties and certain geographic centers. In some cases, premiums have increased so dramatically that physicians have relocated their practices, reduced their services, or retired early. While there is little doubt that something must be done to alleviate this crisis, H.R. 5 is no solution. Our friends on the other side of the aisle believe that if you limit the amount that insurance carriers have to pay for legitimate claims, then insurance rates will fall. But I ask you to consider the fact that the American Insurance Association--the American Insurance Association--has repeatedly and specifically denied that tort reform will result in premium savings. Sherman Joyce, the president of the American Tort Reform Association, has stated, ``We wouldn't tell you or anyone that the reason to pass tort reform would be to reduce insurance rates.'' So, by the insurance industry's own admission, H.R. 5 will not stem the tide of rising medical malpractice insurance rates. Nevertheless, our friends on the other side would have us believe that limiting the exposure of insurance carriers is a panacea. It is not. H.R. 5 is a hoax. It is a sham, and our friends on the other side know it. It is a fraud on the American medical establishment by insurance carriers who want to limit their exposure but will not commit to reducing premiums. Please read the bill. H.R. 5 has absolutely no provision requiring the reduction of medical malpractice premiums, despite the fact that our friends believe that it is these high premiums that are crippling the health care system. Nevertheless, there is not a single word in this bill that directly calls for reductions in premiums: zero, zilch, nada, nothing, and they know it. It is a scam. H.R. 5 is absolutely nothing more than a boon, a windfall for the insurance industry. Our friends on the other side tell us that damage caps will solve the premium crisis. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you consider the fact that in States that have enacted caps, the medical malpractice insurance premiums are higher than in States that have no caps. The carriers do not want us to know that. In fact, in California--the State the other side holds up as a shining example of the benefits of legislation like H.R. 5--the average premium is $27,570, fully 8 percent higher than the average of all States that have no caps on noneconomic damages. Recently, the American Medical Association issued a list of States that it concluded were in crisis due to exploding medical malpractice insurance rates. Five of those States have caps on noneconomic damages like the one proposed in H.R. 5. Yet, Mr. Speaker, they are still in crisis. One of those States is Florida, where, despite having caps of just the kind proposed by H.R. 5, obstetricians and gynecologists pay the highest premiums in the Nation for medical malpractice insurance, some in excess of $200,000 per year. Florida has caps, and Florida has a crisis. So, Mr. Speaker, damage caps alone are not the solution to the problem. If you look further at the California example, it becomes clear that damage caps alone are not an effective premium-reduction measure. In the 12 years after California passed MICRA, medical malpractice premiums rose 190 percent. Only after California passed Proposition 103--actual insurance reform--did medical malpractice premiums stabilize. Since California passed insurance reform--not medical malpractice reform--its medical malpractice premiums have been more stable than in most States. Mr. Speaker, the lesson to be learned from California is that measures like H.R. 5 do not reduce medical malpractice insurance premiums. The facts simply do not bear it out. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, our friends on the other side insist that one-size-fits-all approach of H.R. 5 is the last and best cure for the crisis of escalating malpractice insurance rates. Some of our colleagues are, like me, very deeply concerned about rising malpractice insurance rates. Some of our colleagues have expressed an inclination to vote for this bill in order to get the ball rolling, in order to take a first step toward solving the premium crisis. But I want to be very clear: If H.R. 5 is our first step, as the saying goes, it's a doozy. It is a step on the backs of doctors, hospitals and patients to help out greedy insurance carriers. It is certainly a step in the wrong direction. H.R. 5--as the best evidence proves--is an ill-conceived, ill-advised bill that will not--let me repeat--will not solve the problem. This bill helps insurance companies--period. Recent articles in newspapers across the country show in clear and compelling ways that this crisis is as complex as it is serious. ``Malpractice litigation is only part of the cause of the huge increases in insurance premiums. The insurance industry's pricing and accounting practices . . . play [at least] as big a role.'' The insurance company patrons of our friends on the other side want to hide behind what they consider out-of-control jury awards. Again, Mr. Speaker, the facts simply do not support this claim. Over the past few years, many physicians have been hit with medical liability premium increases of 25 to 400 percent. Yet, according to The Journal of Health Affairs, during the past decade, malpractice payouts have grown approximately 6.2 percent per year. That's almost exactly the rate of medical inflation: an average of 6.7 percent between 1990 and 2004. Moreover, contrary to the claims of proponents of H.R. 5, juries are not overly sympathetic to plaintiffs, as evidenced by the rate at which physicians prevail in medical malpractice suits. Dr. Barry Manuel, chairman and CEO of ProMutual Group, one of the Nation's leading malpractice insurance carriers, reported in 2001 that ``we continue to close 60 percent of all claims without payment, and of those cases we are forced to defend in court, we prevail in 90 percent.'' In addition, many of the leading scholars studying the problem have concluded that despite conventional wisdom, juries in fact often favor physicians. Neil Vidmar, a professor at Duke University School of Law and a leading scholar in the field, states unequivocally that ``the assertion that jurors decide cases out of sympathy for injured plaintiffs rather than the legal merits of the case . . . have been made about malpractice juries in the United States since at least the nineteenth century. Yet, research shows no support for these claims.'' So, Mr. Speaker, one begins to wonder what has caused such extraordinary increases on medical malpractice insurance premiums during the past few years. Well, investment losses, like those of average Americans, and a weak economy have made a greater dent in the bottom lines of insurance companies than malpractice payouts. The difference between insurance companies and average Americans is that most of us can't give ourselves a raise to cover our losses. A medical malpractice insurance company can--and does. It alone controls the premium rates it charges our country's doctors. I think you can guess what malpractice carriers have done in response to the general economic climate in the past few years. The truth is that medical malpractice insurance carriers are asking doctors, hospitals and patients to pay for underperforming investments. It is as simple as that. They know it. We have asked the insurance carriers to commit to reducing premiums in this bill. They will not do it. They will not even talk about it. That is because they have absolutely no intention of reducing medical malpractice insurance premiums. The bottom line is that H.R. 5 is a jackpot for insurance carriers, and it is the doctors, hospitals and patients that are going to pay for it. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk for just a minute about the cap on noneconomic damages. If H.R. 5 becomes law, we will be speaking with a loud and clear voice that the injuries victims of medical malpractice suffer are valued in direct relation to how much money those victims have. The unfortunate consequence of this legislation is that-- regardless of the severity of your injury, regardless of how long you suffer, regardless of its effect on even the most basic functions of your life, the things we take for granted every day, regardless of whether you can ever play with your children again, regardless of whether you can ever hug your grandchildren again, regardless even whether you or your child or your wife or mother die due to medical malpractice--no one's injury is ever worth more than $250,000. Our friends on the other side of the aisle like to equate ``noneconomic damages'' with ``pain and suffering.'' But ``pain and suffering'' is a misleading label. What is capped is recovery for disability and disfigurement, among other things, not just ``pain and suffering.'' H.R. 5 lumps together everything that is not ``economic'' and calls it ``noneconomic''--subject to a $250,000 cap that the bill does not even adjust for inflation. Our friends on the other side of the aisle go to great lengths to emphasize that H.R. 5 in no way limits economic damages as long as they are objectively quantifiable monetary damages. In other words, if a surgeon loses his hand and is unable to perform surgery again, the injury he will suffer is greater than that suffered by a carpenter who loses his hand due to medical malpractice and is never again able to do his job. Why? Well, under H.R. 5 the answer is simple: The surgeon makes more money, so his economic damages are greater. Not to worry, they tell us, both of them can get up to $250,000 in addition to soothe their wounds. The same is true in the case of an injury suffered by a working mother when compared to a mother working inside the home. Do our friends on the other side of the aisle believe that those women's husbands or children will understand the difference? At many jobs, the loss of a leg, for example, may not prevent a worker from earning a living. But it will make it difficult to enjoy ``noneconomic'' pursuits like playing soccer with your kids, or basketball and volleyball with friends, or a multitude of other things that make life enjoyable. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5 instructs that the value of life is capped at economic losses plus $250,000. That seems inconsistent with the administration's recent characterization of the value of life as ``immeasurable.'' Remarkably, our friends on the other side of the aisle have taken out their calculators, and they have measured the immeasurable. Perhaps they should call the White House, and let them know. While the proponents of H.R. 5 appear already to have figured it all out, I want to ask them: How much is hugging your grandchildren worth? How much is kissing your husband or wife worth? How much is the ability to walk or to drive or to play a round of golf worth? How much is your ability to feed, bathe and clothe yourself worth? How much is seeing your children grow up worth? How much is your life worth? I honestly don't know, and I don't think we should be answering those questions for every American either. Whether it's losing a limb, or an eye, or just the freedom to be able to go where you want and do what you want, how many of us would trade a lifetime of disability or disfigurement, not to mention pain, for $250,000? The very real consequence of this legislation is that it punishes the most economically vulnerable members of our society to the benefit of greedy insurance companies. It discriminates against children, against women, against older Americans, against ethnic minorities, against the poor. And for what, Mr. Speaker? History shows us the only winners emerging from H.R. 5 are the medical malpractice insurance carriers-- not the doctors, hospitals and patients our friends on the other side of the aisle purportedly seek to help. I urge you to vote against this ill-conceived and mean-spirited legislation.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, fifteen years ago--on July 26, 1990--our great Nation made a promise to the disabled community that we have a moral obligation to keep. We said no to discrimination. We said no to sanctioned inequality. We said yes to inclusion and equality. Today marks the 15th Anniversary of the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the most sweeping civil rights legislation since the Civil Rights Act. I am immensely proud to have been a part of reauthorization efforts of this important legislation, and I will never forget all of the advocates for the disabled at the signing ceremony on the South Lawn at the White House, This landmark law sent an unmistakable message: It is unacceptable to discriminate against someone simply because they have a disability. Moreover, it is illegal--in employment, in transportation, in public accommodations, and in telecommunications. The ADA recognized that the disabled belong to the American family; that a disability need not be disabling. Disabled Americans can share in all our Nation has to offer--equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency. Over the last 15 years, the ADA has allowed hundreds of thousands of Americans to join the workforce, attend school, travel, or drive a car--many for the first time in their lives. The ramps, curb cuts, Braille signs, and captioned television programs that were once novel are now ubiquitous. However, the first 15 years of the ADA have not been without challenge. Too often, the intent of the ADA has been misconstrued by our courts, which have given it a narrow construction that its authors never intended. To date, people with diabetes, heart conditions, cancer and mental illnesses have had their ADA claims kicked out of court because, with improvements in medication, they are considered too functional to be considered disabled. Together, these decisions represent a dangerous chipping away at the foundation of equality which we poured 15 years ago when the ADA was enacted. And they are a reminder as we commemorate this 15th Anniversary that our work is not done. This is clearly not what Congress intended when it passed the ADA and the first President Bush signed it into law. We intended the law to be given a broad construction, not a narrow one. Today, let us renew our commitment to the principles and spirit of the ADA--a law that befits our great Nation, which stands for liberty and freedom. Today, let's commit to keep the promise we made when we enacted the ADA, because while its promise remains unfulfilled, it still is within reach. Thus, I join my Congressional colleagues and demand that we commit ourselves to expanding opportunities for individuals with disabilities and all Americans. Only then will we live up to the ideals of equality and opportunity.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, as a Democrat with a firm commitment to eliminate poverty and to improve the lives of workers both here and abroad, I believe it is important to discuss the policy implications contained in the proposed U.S. FTA with the Dominican Republic and the countries of Central America. In support of the CAFTA, I support the people of my port city. I have determined that the United States can best promote improvements both to working conditions and labor standards in those countries with the commitment and the supporting capacity-building provisions of this agreement. I understand that our workers are concerned about our growing trade deficit. But CAFTA will have no negative impact here. Our trade deficit is driven by our own behavior as a Nation: massive consumption, low savings rates, and unwise borrow-and-spend economic policies of our own government, not CAFTA-like trade agreements. In fact, an ITC study concludes CAFTA will reduce overall U.S. trade deficits by $756 million. And the CAFTA-NAFTA talk is a catchy play on words, but the comparison is really inappropriate. Unlike the situation with Mexico prior to NAFTA, our market is already nearly completely open to Central American products. More than 80 percent of Central American products imported to the United States are already duty free. CAFTA will simply open their markets to our products leveling the playing field. For years, Democrats and Republicans have promoted democracy in Central America and have spoken about the need to secure commitments from developing countries on core international labor standards, on labor enforcement, and have sought U.S. commitments to substantive and comprehensive labor-capacity building programs. We have sought to ensure a role for international labor organizations in these efforts. With this unprecedented agreement, we have concluded and included all of these things. CAFTA promotes economic opportunity for the workers of the region who are facing massive competition from Asia and elsewhere in the most significant formal source of economic livelihood, textile and apparel production. With nearly half the population of these countries living in extreme poverty, with formal employment, the continued competitiveness the textile and apparel industry in our and other CAFTA industries can promote is very, very critical. I have heard my colleagues suggest that the CAFTA textile and apparel rules remain too strict to really make a difference. But the countries and the companies who invest and purchase from the region believe differently. Many of us had hoped for more flexibility. But those whose livelihoods depend on these issues believe that the new flexibilities CAFTA provides are critical to support an industry that provides some of the best-paying jobs in the region. Are we to substitute our judgment for theirs? CAFTA will also help these countries improve their investment climate through a more permanent relationship with the United States and many other provisions of CAFTA, including increased transparency, curbs on corruption and provisions that promote the rule of law, which could in fact be the single most important driver to improve the lives of our neighbors in Central America and the Dominican Republic. And there are the agreement's labor provisions. Both the commitments made by each country in the labor chapter to enforce domestic laws and the capacity-building program built into the CAFTA, which each of the six governments recently relied on in undertaking an unprecedented commitment to improve labor standards and enforcement in each of their countries in very concrete ways. But despite all of these provisions and commitments, it is argued that the CAFTA's labor provisions are a backwards step and that CAFTA should not be supported because of the CAFTA countries' histories of weak labor laws and suppressing worker rights. The biggest labor issue of the CAFTA countries is in fact the inadequacy of their enforcement of existing laws. Indeed, this is where many of the 20-plus labor problems the critics allege actually fall. They are issues of enforcement, not issues with the substantive existing labor laws; and that is where the CAFTA can do the most good. In taking a close look at the other recent trade agreements that passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, it is difficult to understand why the CAFTA countries are being held to a different standard and therefore a double standard. The labor laws in the CAFTA countries are similar to those of Jordan and Morocco. For example, foreign nationals cannot lead or administer local labor unions in Morocco. This is the case for all of the CAFTA countries, but Nicaragua. The right to collective bargaining is not recognized in Morocco's constitution, but it is in most of the CAFTA countries. And, finally, Morocco allows minors to work longer per week than all of the CAFTA countries. If we can vote overwhelmingly for Morocco and Jordan with these labor provisions on the basis that we should engage them economically because they have made progress on liberalizing their economies and on improving their human rights pictures, then why can we not support this FTA with our neighbors in the popularly elected democracies with even better laws on the same grounds? What all of these countries, Jordan, Morocco and the Centrals, share are the same challenges in enforcement and lack of resources. In fact, the CAFTA provisions are stronger than those in NAFTA, which has labor protections in the signed agreements and did not provide dispute resolutions in the main agreement. The last point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is that at our door stand our neighbors from Central America literally pleading with us to approve this CAFTA agreement. We are substituting our judgment for theirs, people who are elected by their own people as we are elected by ours. Mr. Speaker, I think instead of turning a deaf ear to them, we ought to heed them, we ought to hear them. These are our neighbors and our friends. And we ought to support them. I urge adoption of this agreement.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 175 and extend my thanks to my friend from New York for bringing this resolution before the House. The dark, sordid history of slavery in this country continues to reverberate throughout society--economically, culturally, socially. What too many in our country do not know is that the enslavement of Africans was a tragedy throughout this hemisphere, not just in the United States. This important resolution shines a bright light on the injustices suffered by the descendants of the transatlantic slave trade throughout the Americas, and particularly in Latin America and Caribbean. The United States must join with the international community to improve the living conditions of and to empower the Afro-Latino communities throughout the Americas. As a result of the slave trade and immigration, approximately 80,000,000 to 150,000,000 persons of African descent live in Latin America and the Caribbean, representing the largest concentration of persons of African ancestry outside of Africa. Individuals of African descent are a vital part of the population and economy of almost every country in Latin America, including Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela. By way of example, Brazil has the largest population of Afro-descendants in Latin America and the Caribbean, yet, tragically, only one in three Afro-Brazilians attend secondary schools. Although Afro-descendants in Latin America and the Caribbean have made significant economic, social, and cultural contributions to their respective countries, a large percentage of these Afro-descendants community live in extremely poor conditions, in marginal communities with little or no access to education, healthcare, equal employment. As a result, Afro-descendants have shorter life expectancies, higher infant mortality rates, higher incidences of HIV/AIDS, higher rates of illiteracy, and lower incomes than do other populations. Afro- descendants, for instance, account for about 30 percent of the Latin American population, yet make up over 60 percent of its poor. Afro- descendants also have extreme high rates of suicide and homicide. We, as African-Americans, share similar histories and civil rights struggles and experience similar disparities with Afro-descendants in Latin America and the Caribbean. In recognizing this, we are also recognizing that America shares similar experience with our neighbors in the Hemisphere. While we have taken strides to address racial and ethnic disparities here in the United States, our struggle continues. Unfortunately, in Latin America and the Caribbean, similar transformations and recognitions of the need to address many of these racial and ethnic disparities have yet to occur. Today, with this important resolution, we demonstrate our solidarity and we confirm our commitment to help facilitate these transformations in Latin America. Supporting this Resolution is a mutually-beneficial goal for those of us in the United States and those populations residing to our neighboring South. Creating economic opportunities, expanding growth, eliminating racial and ethnic disparities leads to greater stability and democracy in the Hemisphere. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to again thank my friend and colleague from New York, Mr. Rangel, for his leadership in bringing this historic resolution to the floor. However imperfect, ours is a nation of laws committed to equal justice for all. That commitment has never ended at the border, and it certainly should extend to our neighbors throughout the Americas. This resolution reminds us to heed the sage words Dr. King wrote from the Birmingham jail 42 years ago: ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'' Let us remember that wisdom as we cast our votes for this resolution.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join today with my colleagues, Mrs. Brown-Waite of Florida, Mr. Snyder of Arkansas, and Mr. Boustany of Louisiana, in introducing legislation that corrects an inequity in our Nation's higher education laws. The foster care system in our country is not perfect. However, for all its flaws, it does provide some very genuine benefits. For example, those youth who graduate high school while still in foster care are afforded every opportunity to attend college and receive full federal financial aid benefits. Unfortunately, those who are fortunate enough to be adopted into loving homes as teenagers are not given this same consideration. Under current law, children who are adopted and thus leave the foster care system are not considered ``independent students'' and are therefore considered for financial aid based on the income of the adoptive family. This is a barrier for families looking to adopt older children, but may not have saved for college--and it should be changed. This important legislation would adjust the definition of ``independent student'' to include foster care youth who are adopted from the foster care system after their 13th birthday. Accordingly, when the adopted children apply for federal financial aid, they will not be penalized because eligibility would be determined by the adopted student's ability to pay, not the ability of his parents to do so. Statistics show that older children who are adopted from the foster care system are more likely to attend college, have stable lives and have a permanent family. Conversely, of those who ``aged-out'' of foster care over three years: Only 54% had earned a high school diploma; Only 14:5 had graduated from a four-year college; and Between 25-44% had experienced homelessness. It is estimated that approximately 20,000 youth ``age out'' of the foster care system each year and, of that number, nearly 30% are incarcerated in the first year. Currently, there are 523,000 children in foster care and nearly half of those children are over the age of ten. These statistics show that when given the opportunity to move into a loving home, those who are still in the system are more likely to be successful. Making this minor change to current law can do so much to change the lives of these youngsters and the families looking to adopt them. But when these teenagers are forced to choose between adoption and federal financial aid to attend college, the odds are against them. Families who adopt teenagers are remarkable. But these adoptions are rare. This legislation is designed not only to create greater access to college for those who are adopted but also to encourage adoption of older children by creating an incentive--not a barrier--to parents looking to add to their family by adopting a child out of the foster care system. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join with me and my colleagues in supporting and enacting this common sense, bipartisan legislation.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I will enter into the Record a letter that a number of us in this House wrote to the Secretary of the Treasury with respect to this transaction. I am one who has supported free trade since I have been in the Congress and I support it today. If it were true that this were a market-based transaction, as the preceding speaker has said, I would not be standing here talking about this issue whatsoever. The fact of this is this is not a free market transaction. This is a transaction by a government-owned company, financed by the government of China, financed with subsidies with the government of China and it puts every other competitor for the assets that they are seeking to acquire at a disadvantage. There are substantial questions here about the motives of the Chinese as well. I have been dealing with oil and gas issues for a very long time as a representative from Louisiana, and ordinarily one thinks of the oil and gas market as one where free commodities move and oil is a very fungible commodity. But what we have here is a Chinese government with an accelerating demand for oil and gas trying to find a way to corner a market here and to put it to their exclusive use. This is unheard of in the oil and gas commodities market. No one ever thinks that one explores for oil and then uses the oil only in the place where they have their own demand and not make it available to the rest of the world. That is the scary part of what is happening here. As China seeks more and more assets that they themselves control and they themselves corner, it makes it much more difficult for us to argue that this is a free economy, a market-based economy. That is the real reason I have come to this microphone tonight. I think it is important to support this resolution, and I think the actions we are taking today by the Congress were appropriate to be taken. I think the warning signs that are going up from this House about the Chinese government's interest in cornering the market on a strategic asset such as petroleum today, is a dire warning indeed and one we should take heed of. So I urge the Members of the House and all who are within the sound of our voice to take heed of this warning and to support this important resolution. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, June 24, 2005. Hon. John W. Snow, Secretary of the Treasury, Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Secretary, Energy security is a matter of significant and ever increasing importance for the United States. In particular, we are very concerned about China's ongoing and proposed acquisition of energy assets around the world, including assets of U.S.-based energy and oil companies. China is now the second largest consumer of energy in the world, right behind the United States. In order to fulfill the energy consumption requirements of its growing population, China has developed an aggressive strategy to acquire offshore assets to supplement its limited domestice supply of resources. It will become increasingly difficult for U.S.-based companies to compete for scarce energy resoures on the world market against China's state-owned and/ or controlled energy companies. To that end, we are very concerned to read reports that the China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC)--whose majority owner is the Chinese government--is planning to make an offer to acquire one of America's leading independent natural gas and crude oil exploration and production companies. Moreover, it is our understanding that two influential Chinise government agencies have reportedly given tentative approval to this acquisition by CNOOC. As you are aware, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) was established to monitor the impact of foreign investment in the United States and to coordinate the implementation of U.S. policy on foreign investment. In 1988, CFIUS was given additional authority under Section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (the Exon-Florio Amendment) to authorize the President to conduct investigations to determine the impact of foreign acquisitions of U.S. companies on national security. Given what we know about CNOOC to date, we think this potential transaction should be reviewed immediately by CFIUS to investigate the implications of the acquisition of U.S. energy companies and assets by CNOOC and other government controlled Chinese energy companies. As the official chair of CIFUS, we would request that the Treasury Department look into this proposed acquisition to determine whether an official CFISUS investigation should be undertaken should an official offer come from CNOOC. Specifically, the CFIUS should review the following issues, among others: Whether and to what extent the Chinese government is involved in financing any potential acquisitions by CNOOC; Whether such investments by CNOOC are market-based and free of subsidies; Whether there are technology transfer implications of these investments that present national security concerns; and How CNOOC investments in the U.S. energy sector and acquisitions of U.S.-based energy and oil companies advance China's energy agenda to the detriment of U.S. national security objectives. Mr. Secretary, we know that you understand well the critical importance of ensuring U.S. energy security and the critical need to secure the future availability of energy resources for American consumers. We ask that you treat this matter with the utmost urgency and report back to us with yout findings. Sincerely, William J. Jefferson, Al Green, Dana Rohrabacher, Edolphus Towns, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Roger Wicker, Bobby Jindal, Kevin Brady, Michael Rogers of Michigan, Joseph Crowley, Devin Nunes, Ginny Brown-Waite, Richard Baker, George Radanovich, Ellen Tauscher, Gary Miller. Gregory Meeks, Gene Green, Darrell Issa, Frank Wolf, Barbara Cubin, Charlie Melancon, Ted Strickland, Geoff Davis, Gene Taylor, Ralph Hall, Bill Jenkins, Wally Herger, Charles Boustany, Walter Jones, John Tanner, Bart Gordon. John Shimkus, Michael Burgess, Paul Gillmor, Lincoln Davis, Ted Poe, J.D. Hayworth, Jim Walsh, Bob Goodlatte, Donald Manzullo, Roy Blunt, John Sullivan, Bernard Sanders, Collin C. Peterson, Roscoe G. Bartlett, John Doolittle, Peter T. King. John J. Duncan, Jr., Bart Stupak, Dennis Cardoza, Thomas Reynolds, Eric Cantor, Carolyn Kilpatrick, Darlene Hooley, Mary Bono, Mark Foley, Robin Hayes, Tom Tancredo, Ken Calvert, Melissa Hart, Mark Souder, Jo Ann Davis, Michael Rogers of Alabama.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to stress the importance of our country's participation in the World Trade Organization. Right now, it seems this resolution is destined for rejection. But addressing it today does give us a much-needed opportunity to focus on the WTO and how the U.S. can maximize its membership for the benefit of U.S. firms, workers and farmers. The success of U.S. participation in the WTO should be measured by our ability to liberalize markets and set fair trade rules for all WTO Members. Clearly, the United States has benefited greatly from its WTO membership and plays a leading role in shaping the way the world trades today. Since the creation of the WTO, U.S. exports and overall trade have expanded significantly, with a $283 billion or 64 percent increase in U.S. manufacturing exports; a $139 billion or a 70 percent increase in U.S. services exports; and an $18 billion or 39 percent increase in U.S. agricultural exports. Once WTO agreements are set and commitments are made, however, it is crucial that the U.S. ensure that the countries involved live up to their part of the deal. This is where we have fallen short. Here, the U.S. has several concerns, such as China's failure to follow through with its commitments to ensure that domestic and foreign firms can distribute products within that country as of December 2004; many countries have failed to meet their TRIPS commitments and have not effectively enforced intellectual property rights and the protection of data privacy; there is concern regarding the establishment of standards, licensing and customs barriers, including the EU's customs procedures and its proposed new chemical regulations; and there is concern about the continued proliferation of many agricultural barriers, such as the unscientific barriers to many agricultural products in Europe, China and elsewhere. The United States should continue to insist that all WTO members implement the WTO agreements in a timely and comprehensive manner. Like many of my colleagues, I hope the WTO will successfully conclude the Doha Development Round and continue to contribute to the dynamic global marketplace as a growth engine for WTO member economies. However, in the Doha Development Round, many developing countries expressed concerns regarding implementation of some commitments, and they have sought extensions and delays. Here, technical assistance and support for capacity building are critical tools needed to advance implementation goals. I will continue to work with my colleagues on the Committee on Ways and Means and in the Congress to ensure that the U.S. provides technical support and capacity building measures to assist developing countries in meeting their WTO commitments. If trade is to be a tool of development and growth for our developing-country trading partners, we must play a central role in helping the WTO facilitate compliance with member obligations. I stress this today because I want our new USTR Ambassador Portman to know that this is and should always be a priority for the United States at the World Trade Organization.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today with my good friend and colleague from the Committee on Ways and Means, Mr. English, to introduce the ``Affordable Housing Tax Credit Enhancement Act of 2005.'' Mr. English and I share a passion for and commitment to ensuring that Americans have access to affordable, quality housing in which to live, to prosper and to raise their families. I am grateful for his continuing leadership in this area, and I am honored that he joins me today in introducing this important piece of legislation. I also am very pleased that 51 of our colleagues, including members from both sides of the aisle and several from the Committee on Ways and Means, join us today in introducing this measure. Mr. Speaker, the Low Income Housing Tax Credit, LIHTC, program was created as part of the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Today, the LIHTC program is widely regarded as the nation's most successful housing production program resulting in the construction and rehabilitation of more than 1.3 million housing units for lower income households. As a direct result of the LIHTC program, 130,000 new affordable housing units come online every year. In addition to producing housing, the LIHTC program is unparalleled in contributing to the revitalization of distressed neighborhoods and communities throughout the United States. LIHTC properties are frequently among the first investments in a concerted revitalization strategy. The credit drives and catalyzes public/private/community partnerships that replace blight with safe, affordable housing, attract private capital, and prime the market for other activities, including increased homeownership and expanded retail development. The redirection of capital to affordable housing through a tax incentive creates net economic efficiencies, because the housing credit more effectively marshals private sector capital than would be accomplished through any direct spending program. Because it sets up competition among developers for credit allocations and among corporations for access to investment opportunities, the LIHTC is considerably more efficient than a direct spending program. The success of the LIHTC program is virtually unmatched. However, as a Nation, we still confront a serious affordable housing deficit--a gap that we must bridge to ensure that our most vulnerable families have access to quality, affordable housing and safer neighborhoods in which to live and prosper. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Affordable Housing Tax Credit Enhancement Act of 2005. This legislation would make two important changes to current law. Most significantly, the bill would double the current LIHTC from $1.85 per capita to $3.70 per capita beginning in 2006, which would yield twice the number of affordable housing units annually and begin to close the current gap. Second, the legislation would rename the LIHTC the `` Affordable Housing'' tax credit to remove any negative connotation and more accurately describe this effective program. If this legislation were to pass, we are assured by affordable housing advocates, investors, syndicators, and developers that there is more than enough capacity in the market to effectively use these additional credits. In fact, the need for affordable housing throughout the country virtually assures the continued success of this program. In addition, this legislation is a jobs creator. According to industry estimates, 112 jobs are created during the first year of construction of every 100 units of affordable housing, 46 of which morph into permanent positions. Based on that estimate, because doubling the current LIHTC would create 130,000 additional units annually, that translates into 145,600 new jobs nationally--59,800 of which would be permanent. America is confronting an affordable housing crunch, and many hardworking men and women continue to seek employment. This legislation would make significant strides to address both problems. Therefore, I call on my colleagues to support this important measure and to ensure its consideration and passage.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, today, Thursday, May 5, 2005, the people of the world memorialize Yom HaShoah--a special day of remembrance honoring the martyrs and heroes of the Holocaust. Holocaust Remembrance Day is a day that has been set aside to remember the victims of the Holocaust and to remind each of us what can happen when bigotry and hatred are not confronted. Mr. Speaker, I am humbled as I rise today with my colleagues to honor the memories and the lives of the more than 6 million victims of Nazi hatred and aggression during the pogrom known to us as the Holocaust. I am also humbled to stand in this cathedral of freedom and honor the lives of the many heroes who fought so bravely against unimaginable odds to defeat a genocidal madman. More than 60 years ago, Adolf Hitler and his Nazi regime set out to eradicate European Jewry. So committed were they to the accomplishment of this goal, their so-called ``Final Solution,'' that even in the waning days of World War II, when defeat was imminent, the Germans continued even more urgently rounding up Jews all over Europe and sending them to their deaths. Mr. Speaker, driven by a radical and uncompromising anti-Semitic ideology, the Nazis redoubled their efforts to reach every last Jew before the war ended. They were in a rush; time was running out. Depleting sorely-needed resources from the war effort, German forces swept across Europe, assembling and annihilating community after community, individual after individual, from their homes, ghettos and hiding places. Mr. Speaker, during the last year of the war in Europe, German defeat was all but accomplished, and yet their hatred and bigotry survived and thrived. Consequently, the Nazis murdered more than 700,000 Jews in that last full year of the war, including most of the Jews of the last large community in Europe, Hungary. There, in one of the most efficient deportation and murder operations of the Holocaust, the Nazi and Hungarian regimes deported 437,000 Jews to Auschwitz-Birkenau in just eight weeks and killed tens of thousands more later that year. Six decades have passed since Allied troops liberated the labor and death camps, and yet the memory of the horrors perpetrated against the Jewish people is seared into the collective conscious of the world. However, Mr. Speaker, sadly, we cannot undo history, and we cannot reverse the atrocities carried out by a barbarous German regime. What remains for us is to honor and preserve the memories and lives of both the victims and the survivors of the Holocaust. Out of the great tragedy of the Holocaust emerges a tremendous object lesson for humanity: hatred and bigotry can never be taken for granted or left unchecked. We must never forget. Mr. Speaker, memory is critical--our own and that of the victims of unprecedented evil and suffering. The Holocaust is a horror we must remember, but not only because of the dead; it is too late for them. Not only because of the survivors; it may even be too late for them. Preserving memory is a solemn responsibility, aimed at saving men and women from apathy toward evil, if not from evil itself. We must never forget. Mr. Speaker, sixty years ago, much of the world overlooked the deadly plight of an entire people until it was almost too late. We have a sacred obligation--in order to truly keep faith with the principles upon which our great nation was founded--to remain vigilant, to remember the horrors of the past, to learn from them, and to protect against them for all eternity. We must never forget. Mr. Speaker, Nobel laureate and Holocaust survivor, Elie Wiesel, perhaps summed it up best when he said, ``to remain silent and indifferent is the greatest sin of all.'' As Americans, we must heed his call and embrace his challenge. We must never forget.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, Benjamin Franklin noted over 200 years ago that ``in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.'' Unfortunately, the convergence of these two inescapable events, in the form of the Federal estate tax, results in a number of destructive outcomes in terms of slower economic growth, reduced social mobility, and wasted productive activity. Moreover, the costs imposed by the estate tax far outweigh any benefits that the tax might produce. For these reasons, among others, I urge my colleagues to join with me in support of permanent repeal of the Federal estate tax. The estate tax has been enacted four times in our Nation's history-- each time in response to the exigent financial straits deriving from war. In three of those instances (1797-1802,1862-70, and 1898-1902), the estate tax was repealed shortly thereafter. Most recently, the estate tax was reintroduced during World War I (1916) and has existed ever since. What was meant to bring short-term budgetary relief has become a permanent burden on America's farmers, small business owners and families. Some observers might believe that the estate tax is free from serious controversy. For example, it is often claimed that the tax only falls on the ``rich'' and thus serves to reduce income inequality. Other supporters of the estate tax point to the $22 billion in tax revenues for 2003, or to the incentive for charitable bequests. Nonetheless, there are many reasons to question the value of taxing the accumulated savings of productive, entrepreneurial citizens. Not the least of these reasons is the widely-held belief that families who work hard and accumulate savings should not be punished for sound budgeting. Additionally, it is unclear whether the estate tax raises any revenue at all, since most if not all of its receipts are offset by losses under the income tax. The freedom to attain prosperity and accumulate wealth is the basis of the ``American dream.'' We are taught that through hard work we can achieve that dream and, God willing, pass it on to our children. Unfortunately, for many the estate tax turns that dream into a nightmare. The current tax treatment of a person's life accumulations is so onerous that when one dies, the children are often forced to turn over half of their inheritance to the Federal Government. The estate tax, which is imposed at an alarming 45 to 47 percent rate, is higher than in any other industrialized nation in the world except Japan. Thus, many families must watch their loved one's legacy being snatched away by the Federal Government at an agonizing time. This is tragically wrong and nullifies the hard work of those who have passed on. In the minority community there are numerous examples of the injurious effects of the estate tax. The Chicago Daily Defender--the oldest African American-owned daily newspaper in the United States--is a good example of the unique problem presented for minority families. It was forced into bankruptcy due to financial burdens imposed by the estate tax. But, beyond that, the questions were--was the Chicago Defender family forced to sell, could a minority owner be found to purchase it, or would it become a white-owned asset, reducing the overall wealth of the African American community? On a smaller scale, another potential victim, a storeowner named Leonard L. Harris who is a first generation owner of Chatham Food Center on the South Side of Chicago is frightened that all the work and value he has put into his business will be for naught because it will be stripped from his two sons. According to Mr. Harris, ``My focus has been putting my earnings back into growing the business. For this reason, cash resources to pay federal estate taxes, based on the way valuation is made, would force my family to sell the store in order to pay the IRS within 9 months of my death. Our yearly earnings would not cover the payment of such a high tax. I should know. I started my career as a CPA.'' These two stories are not isolated. According to the Life Insurance Marketing Research Association, less than half of all family-owned businesses survive the death of a founder and only about 5 percent survive to the third generation. Another recent study found the following: Eight out of ten minority business owners questioned believe the Federal estate tax is unfair. Only one minority business owner in three has been able to take any steps whatsoever to prepare for the ramifications of the estate tax. One in four believes that his or her heirs will be forced to sell off at least part of their businesses to pay the estate tax liability. Fully half the respondents already know a minority-owned business that has had trouble paying the tax, including some that have been forced to liquidate. Those few minority-owned businesses that have been able to take steps to reduce their estate tax liability complain that it has detracted from their ability to meet business objectives by channeling time, energy and resources away from productive endeavors. Many of my colleagues who are proponents of the estate tax contend that the tax adds progressivity to the Tax Code and provides needed tax revenue. They argue that the estate tax falls on wealthier and higher income individuals and increases the total tax paid by this segment of the population relative to their income. This helps offset the regressivity of payroll taxes and excise taxes, which fall more heavily on low-income groups relative to their income. They also argue that increasing the unified credit to $4, $5, $6 or $7 million would remove small family-owned businesses and farms from the harsh impact of the estate tax. I share my colleagues concerns about protecting the tax base and ensuring that our Tax Code remains progressive. However, I find these arguments in support of the estate tax unconvincing in the face of substantial evidence otherwise. First, there is no clear evidence that the estate tax is progressive or that larger estates are paying a greater portion of the tax. Wealthier members of our society are able to reduce and or eliminate the impact of the estate tax by stuffing money away here and there at the suggestion of high-priced attorneys and accountants. Similarly, tax planning techniques such as gift tax exclusions or valuation discounts reduce the size of the gross estate but do not appear in the IRS data causing effective tax rates to be overstated for many larger estates. The Institute for Policy Innovation recently revealed evidence of this fact in a study showing that the effective tax rate on the most valuable estates was actually lower than that on medium-sized estates. Second, the insignificant amount of money the estate tax raises for the Federal Government cannot justify the harmful effects it has on business owners who spend more to avoid the tax than the federal tax revenue raised. According to the President's fiscal year 2005 Budget, the estate and gift tax brought in $22.8 billion in revenues to the Federal Government in 2003. This represents less than 1.1 percent of the total revenues out of a more than $2 trillion Federal budget and less than the amount of money spent complying with, or trying to circumvent, the death tax. In 2003, Congress' Joint Economic Committee reported that the death tax brought in $22 billion in annual revenue, but cost the private sector another $22 billion in compliance costs. Therefore, the total impact on the economy was a staggering $44 billion. And, when one calculates the amount of money spent on complying with the tax, the number of lost jobs resulting from businesses being sold, or the resources directed away from business expansion and into estate planning, it is clear why this punitive tax must be eliminated. It is also important to note that many economists believe that overall tax revenues would increase if the estate tax were repealed. According to a study of estate tax repeal proposals, which was prepared by Dr. Allen Sinai for American Council for Capital Formation and Center for Policy Research, Federal tax receipts would rise in response to a stronger economy, feeding back 20 cents of every dollar of estate tax reduction. In fact, over the years 2001 to 2008, estate tax repeal would increase real Gross Domestic Product by $90 billion to $150 billion, and U.S. employment by 80,000 to 165,000. Finally, it is not clear that increasing the unified credit to $6 or $7 million would remove small family-owned businesses and farms from the threat of the estate tax. The Small Business Administration's definition of a small business is based on industry size standards. For example, a construction company or grocery store with less than $27.5 million in annual receipts is considered a small business. Thus, families who build their businesses past the exemption amount will continue to face estate taxes that range from the aforementioned, alarming rate of 45 to 47 percent. The exemption threshold would not help these small businesses. More significantly, without significant reform or, more appropriately, repeal, these same small businesses face the prospect of estate tax rates as high as 60 percent beginning in 2011. Permanent repeal of the estate tax will provide American families with fairness in our tax system and remove the perverse incentive that makes it is cheaper for an individual to sell the business prior to death and pay the individual capital gains rate than pass it on to heirs. But for minorities, it provides much more. It will allow wealth created in one generation to be passed on to the next thereby establishing sustainable minority communities through better jobs and education, better healthcare, and safer communities. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 8 to permanently repeal the Federal estate tax and to restore fairness to our Nation's Tax Code.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a valued educational institution--Baton Rouge Magnet High School--a 2003-04 school year Winner of the Kennedy Center Alliance for Arts Education Network Creative Ticket National School of Distinction Award. This school is an institution that combines academic excellence with tradition, achieving excellence in the arts. The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts has recognized five schools as recipients for the 2003-04 award. The Creative Ticket National School of Distinction Award recognizes schools that have done an outstanding job of making the arts an essential part of the education of their students. In addition to their recognition of excellence in the Performing Arts by the Kennedy Center, Baton Rouge Magnet High School held its Blue Ribbon award ceremony on Thursday, October 23, 2003. The Blue Ribbon Schools Programs honors public and private K-12 schools which are academically superior in their states or that demonstrate dramatic gains in student achievement. BRMHS is one of only two public high schools, and five total schools in Louisiana, and one of 248 nationally recognized as Blue Ribbon schools. It is the second time Baton Rouge Magnet High has been recognized with the honor. It is an award colleges look favorably in when reviewing students' resumes. Thank you, Baton Rouge Magnet High School for your many years of dedication to quality education, arts programs and your outstanding representation of Louisiana.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is offered because the provision is dated by some 3\1/2\ years. It has been carried over year after year. It prohibits the use of engineering funds in the program for engineering work related to an additional runway. It raises an issue of concern on the part of our authority with respect to planning. It was ostensibly placed in the bill, in the legislation some years ago because of concerns about practices that a prior administration that existed some 2 years ago now, which has been replaced by a new aviation board, a new mayor, widely regarded as a reforming regime, and is simply now in the way of appropriate planning. There are issues of safety, issues of security, issues now even of evacuation as we try and move people. It is very important our airport be permitted to plan as it should. So this provision is dated and I urge that it be stricken from the bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. JEFFERSON. I wish to inform the gentleman that the airport is in the district that I represent. It is not in the gentleman from Louisiana's (Mr. Tauzin) district or the gentleman from Louisiana's (Mr. Vitter) district. It may be that a part of the runway may stretch into the area but the airport is in my district. It is not in the district of the gentleman as you have so stated. So I want that corrected. We have a vital interest in this. It is the city's property. It is the district's property that I represent and, really, we have the greatest interest in the outcome here.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to the attention of my colleagues an excellent and informative television program that featured the country of Botswana as one of the greatest success stories in Africa. It was the Today Show on NBC on Monday, Feb. 9, during the series ``Where in the World is Matt Lauer?'' Many Americans know Botswana from having seen or visited its wonderful game parks on safari, but this program told Botswana's complete story. We learned how the country protects its precious animals, how the country is courageously facing its problem with HIV and AIDS and how its diamonds are mined and secured. Botswana's diamond industry, a global leader and innovator, was featured. Mr. Louis Nchindo, general manager of the Debswana Diamond Company, told Mr. Lauer how the country has insured that its clean diamonds are kept out of the world of illegitimate ``conflict diamonds'' by carefully managing the process from mining to export. He described the elaborate security measures including the requirements for licensed dealers throughout the process. I was proud to work with Mr. Nchindo in setting up a process for labeling diamonds to keep them out of the illicit trade. Debswana and Mr. Nchindo are to be commended for their efforts in this regard. Mr. Lauer mentioned how Botswana is a stable democracy and ``all- around wonderful place,'' with first class accommodations in the game parks and which rightly boasts a rich and welcoming culture. I was pleased to see Botswana honored by NBC and commend the country, a good friend of the United States, to my colleagues.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I hope the Nation can appreciate this bipartisan effort here that is being made to bring to the attention of those who are still unconvinced that LSU is the undisputed national champion of college football. I hear no objection to that on this floor from any of my colleagues, because it is a fact. I am very proud that this event that established LSU as the undisputed national champion was held in my home district in New Orleans in the Super Dome. It was a rousing crowd and a wonderful event; and, of course, the right team won. I am also here to say for Southern University how proud we are of that university. That is a school to which I went some 35 years ago now, from which I graduated before law school and which I hold very close to my heart. Southern University has won the National Black College Championship Award for this year. So two schools from Louisiana, both from Baton Rouge, from the biggest district have distinguished themselves and therefore brought honor on our State and I believe for our entire Nation. We ought to be very proud of them. They not only distinguish themselves in football, as my colleagues know. They have wonderful records of accomplishments in academia, which is their major function. They graduate as athletes, and they do a wonderful job all the way around. So Louisiana is in the spotlight tonight for something that is very, very good. All of us are proud of them, Republicans and Democrats across this country. We are proud of our schools and proud of what they stand for and proud of the tradition that they represent, the best of competition in college football. This year that competition being rewarded in the fact that both of them are undisputed national champions in their respective fields of operation.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding American, Dr. Jewel Limar Prestage. Dr. Jewel Prestage is one of the first African American women to earn a Ph.D. She earned it in political science in the United States, and through her work and contributions since, has become one of the most important women of our times. Through teaching, mentoring, research and service, Jewel Prestage has had a profound influence in the political science discipline, in the political life of our country and on the lives of the thousands of students with whom she has associated over the years. Her talent, dedication, and good works must not go unacknowledged or unappreciated. As a distinguished professor of political science, Jewel Prestage has lectured at numerous institutions of higher education. Her service at two Historically Black Universities in the South, however, anchored her career. For 18 years, Dr. Prestage served as the Chair of the Political Science Department at Southern University. During her tenure, this academic department became the nation's leading catalyst for the development of African American Ph.D.s in political science. After 33 years of dedicated service, in 1989 Jewel Prestage retired from the Southern University system as the dean of its Public Policy School and of its Urban Affairs School. However, her retirement was short-lived, as Jewel Prestage joined the political science faculty at Prairie View A&M University, where she eventually became dean of the Benjamin Banneker Honors College. At Prairie View, she continued her impressive record of guiding students toward postgraduate education. In September 2002, she retired after a stellar academic career that spanned 46 years. Jewel Prestage has been a pioneer in academic research in the area of race, gender, and politics. She was the first person to pursue research that focused on African American women legislators and the first to offer the theory of marginality to describe the political behavior of African American women. Her book, ``A Portrait of Marginality,'' coauthored with Dr. Marianne Githens, has become the seminal work on minority women and politics and is referenced by many who are concerned about issues of race and gender. She also pioneered early research focusing on the political socialization of African American children and youth. As a leader in the discipline of political science, Jewel Prestage has served as an officer and on the executive council of many of the Nation's highly esteemed political science organizations. Her capstone accomplishment was her role in the founding of the professional organization, the National Conference of Black Political Scientists. In recognition of her service and of her achievements, these organizations have honored her with their highest awards, including the National Conference of Black Political Scientists' Fannie Lou Hamer Award, the American Political Science Association's Frank Goodnow Award, and the Southern Political Science Association's Manning Dauer Award. The Policy Studies Organization and the Southwestern Political Science Association have also elected to honor Dr. Prestage by creating awards in her name to recognize her outstanding academic achievement in the areas of race, gender, and politics. Jewel Prestage has made many contributions in the field of community service and has been an outstanding community servant. In the late 1960s and 1970s, she worked to prepare many Southern politicians for the new public service opportunities that became available in the wake of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. A Democratic Party faithful, she has also served as a delegate and as an appointed member of the Judiciary Council of the Democratic National Committee. While her distinguished career in higher education and public service has resulted in many achievements, Dr. Jewel Prestage's greatest legacy may be in the inspiration she has provided to the thousands of students she has taught and mentored. Her former students have obtained many accomplishments and can be found throughout academia, the business sector, and the government. Former students have organized academic awards and scholarships in recognition and to honor her lifetime achievements. I am proud to say that Dr. Prestage was my teacher and my dean and she has had a lasting influence on my pursuit of public service. I will be forever grateful to her for what she did for me personally and for so many others like me. When the life of a person exemplifies such a strong commitment, others often wonder about the source of their inspiration. Throughout the years, it has become clear to many that Jewel Prestage has a deep and abiding commitment to the advancement of her community. Through her activities at Southern University and Prairie View A&M University, she encouraged students to be the best that they could be so she could help them help their communities and help them to help our country meet its need for more African Americans with professional and graduate degrees. Jewel Prestage cares deeply about the diversity issues in America and believes that one way our future can be secured is by producing more committed individuals who can give back to the community while serving as an inspiration to young people. Her activities in the public sphere have been encouraged and supported by her loving husband, Dr. James Prestage, and their five children: Terri Prestage-White, James Grady Prestage, Eric Warren Prestage, Karen Prestage-Washington, and Jay Wilkins Prestage. Her efforts merit our great appreciation and our respect. I commend Dr. Jewel Prestage for her dedication and personal sacrifice that has generated so many positive experiences and wonderful memories for so many thousands. She is an outstanding model for our Nation and an excellent example of one person who has truly made a difference in our lives, in our community, and in our Nation.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, July 25, 2003, I was unavoidably detained and missed Rollcall vote No. 445, final passage vote on H.R. 2427, a bill to authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to promulgate regulations for the reimportation of prescription drugs, and for other purposes. If I had voted, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the U.S.-Singapore FTA, and I urge my colleagues to vote for it. This is one of the first agreements negotiated under the trade promotion authority or under the old term ``fast track authority.'' Many of us were concerned that the efforts we made to get labor and environmental guidance in this fast track authority would not be heeded or heeded sufficiently by the administration. I am relieved to know that this is not the case, that this agreement does address, in the way that was intended by this Congress when we passed it, the important issue of labor and environmental concerns, but it also gets to the heart of so many other concerns that I think are most important to our economy. The U.S.-Singapore FTA is a thorough, comprehensive agreement. It will remove Singaporean restrictions through the importation of a broad range of products and a broad range of services and a broad range of sectors as different as information technology, engineering, environmental services, legal and financial services. Singapore is already the United States 11th biggest trading partner, with bilateral trade of nearly $40 billion. It has one of the world's most open and dynamic economies. Its port is one of the world's most efficient. Over 1,300 U.S. companies are now doing business in Singapore; some 300 of those have made Singapore their Southeast Asian regional business headquarters, it is such a vibrant area for it. The U.S.-Singapore FTA will serve as a catalyst, I think, for broader U.S. economic engagement in Southeast Asia. It will also celebrate the progress of a multilateral trade agenda that our country has there. Singapore has been a stalwart ally of the United States and the war on terrorism. It has worked very closely with us on container security and other important trade initiatives. It is a solid agreement that deserves our strong support, deserves bipartisan support, and I urge my colleagues to vote for it today.