Marcy Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and rise in strong opposition to this rule today. Imagine, a bill that will affect over 40 million people. But not until 2006 they tell us, which is very interesting, and we do not even get a chance to read the bill before we vote on it. Last night, I was one of those people that managed to stay in the Committee on Rules until 5 a.m. this morning trying to amend this bill. I thought: ``What a punitive process.'' Yet this is how they are treating the American people, too. It will be harder on them than it was obviously on us staying up all night on this measure that is so vastly important to grandmothers, grandfathers, to older citizens across this country. They want to privatize Medicare. They want to take this prescription drug benefit and put our seniors into Medicare HMOs. Try to find one that still exists in your area. And they denied me the opportunity to offer my amendment to permit the Secretary of Health and Human Services to have negotiated prices for prescription drugs. Everybody knows bulk buying gets one a better price. They denied me that ability, and not only that but in the base bill in section 8-1800 they forbid the Secretary of Health and Human Services to have negotiated prices to get people the best price for prescription drugs, moreover, in their bill, if a person's drugs cost over $2,000 a year, well, it's just too bad. Seniors will have to pay between $2,000 and $4,000 for what they cannot afford. How many seniors earning $8,000 a year on Social Security can afford that? What is the matter with you people? What is the matter with you? And then they try to limit the amount of time for debate on the floor here. Let's look at negotiated prices on this accompanying chart, which I am trying to get in this bill, take this medicine for high blood pressure, for example, in Canada that costs about $152. In our country it costs about $182 if one goes to the regular drugstore. And if one has a negotiated price like the Department of Veterans Affairs has, you can get it for $102. The consumer saves all that money. All my amendment tries to do is to use what the Department of Veterans Affairs does to have bulk buying, to have negotiated prices, and apply it to this program so we use the power of the people, the consumer power of the people, to get them the best price for prescription drugs. They will not allow my amendment on this floor today. I should at least have the right to offer my amendment. You can vote no on it, but you have no right to do this to the senior citizens of our country. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this rule.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) and to say it is important to remind ourselves why Medicare was first set up. The gentleman talked about actuarial soundness. We have Medicare because the private market will not serve this segment of American society. That is why Lyndon Johnson worked so hard after 50 years of Democratic effort to enact Medicare in this Congress. To say to seniors you can go out in a private HMO Medicare, we will call it Medicare but it is really not Medicare because it is not guaranteed, all of the HMOs dealing with Medicare in my region have collapsed. They are not going to be there. It is just like physicians trying to take assignment. How many physicians do not take assignment even today? Do we think that without Medicare we are going to be able to serve this population? We have to have the strength of group buying and of the Medicare program nationally for this drug benefit or, indeed, for all seniors across this country to be helped. I want to thank these fine Members of Congress, but Americans first, who are here tonight, to be voices for those who expect us to do the job for 40 million people who cannot be in this Chamber tonight; and I am proud to be here a few minutes before midnight with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), who understand the Johnson-Roosevelt legacy and refused to cower before this radical right wing which has taken control of this Chamber.

Ms. KAPTUR. It will just become an entitlement program for all of these pharmaceutical companies to load up and raid the pockets of seniors across this country, bankrupt them, really.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to thank my very able colleagues, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), who led this fight in the committee, and also the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), who has helped turn this into a major national issue, finally, as it should be. The sad fact is that here in the House the bill that is going to be produced is, I suppose you could say is a mouse. It will not be a lion that roars for all Americans seniors. If you earn $8,000 a year on Social Security, the Republican plan will cause you to pay whatever is left over after $2,000 of expenses up to the level of, I think it is over $3,500. You are not covered. Where are you going to get that kind of money if you only earn $8,000 a year on Social Security? The amendment I am waiting here to offer, it is now 11 p.m. at night here in Washington, would require the executive branch to negotiate price across the government for Medicare part D, in the same way as we negotiate for the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense. They call it the FSS negotiated price. And I will just go through a couple of these drugs here, but the main point is that the Republican radical right bill forbids negotiated pricing in Medicare. It actually, in title VIII of the bill, forbids negotiated pricing, which we already do in the VA, in the Department of Veterans Affairs. Let us go through a couple of the costs. If you look at a drug like K-Dur 20, which helps if you have low potassium levels, U.S. retail price for that is $55.99, the Canadian price is $29, and the price that is negotiated through the Department of Veterans Affairs is $25.58. A negotiated price, because you have group buying, reduces the cost to all. To send an individual senior out there in their own little canoe in a very big ocean, they have very little consumer power. Only with group buying, as we do through the Department of Veterans Affairs, do you really get the same kind of prices that the Canadians have. Group buying. Yet the Republican bill denies that negotiated price. Another drug. If you look at Prozac, for depression, U.S. retail price over $300. The VA negotiated price $186.98. It is obvious. It is obvious, is it not, that a negotiated pricing is what should be embedded in the bill? But it is not in there. In fact, it is forbidden. If we really want to understand why, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) have really become experts at identifying what is going on around this Capitol, we should take a look at the contributions of the major pharmaceutical companies. Take a look at a company like Bristol-Myers Squibb, who gave over a $1.5 million in the year 2002 for lobbying Members of Congress. Eighty-three percent of those funds went to the Republican side of the aisle. Millions and millions of dollars from companies that make billions by overpricing the American consumer. It is very clear that they have at least six lobbyists here for every one of us. So here we stand at a few minutes to midnight waiting for the Republicans to produce a bill. Nobody knows where they are. The doors are closed. Such an important bill that will serve our people, hopefully serve our people, for generations to come. We cannot even find the bill. What are they doing? Where are they? I would say to the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), this is no way to run the country. You should have had this bill on the floor 2 weeks ago. We should have gone through every line so every Member here would understand what is in it. But rather than that, you are having your fund-raisers. And, in fact, Pfizer Company just contributed $200,000. That was the price of one of the big seats at the roundtable dinner President Bush just had, and they were able to contribute. You think there is no connection? We were not born yesterday, were we? So we have a bill that forbids negotiated pricing, even though we know that is one of the few protections we can offer seniors. The Democratic bill provides a real defined benefit. Every senior qualifies. It has a $25 premium per month. It does not force you to pay those high costs, over $2,000. It has negotiated pricing. It is for everyone. And it lets you keep your doctor. It lets you have negotiated pricing, and it does not make you go into an HMO, a Medicare HMO, which have all failed in most places in the country. And that is what the Republican bill does, it tries to privatize that and put you out of the overall Medicare system. So I just want to thank my colleagues for being here tonight and allowing me to share in this special order, and thank you both for your royal, royal fight to in order to get fair and affordable prescription drug coverage for all of our seniors.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Ms. KAPTUR. I would like to make an inquiry of the Chair as to why the gentleman from Ohio's parliamentary request to adjourn the House was not received by the Chair.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, here it is in Washington, nearly 10 o'clock at night and the Republican leadership of this institution does not even have a prescription drug bill ready for us to read as homework tonight. They tell us that we are going to debate this tomorrow, maybe 2 hours at the most, one of the most important changes in our country's history in terms of health care for our seniors. They tell us maybe after midnight tonight we might be able to go up to the Rules Committee to offer our amendments and to have them considered. They will deny most of those amendments, but the interesting thing about going to the Rules Committee after midnight, no press is there. Nobody will know, in one of the most significant pieces of legislation that will be considered in this 21st century. So the American people will not know. The press will not know. I am here tonight to say I intend to offer an amendment before the Rules Committee that is likely to be rejected, but it is a very important amendment. This amendment says that whatever prescription drug plan is considered here tomorrow, under their very restrictive rules, should do exactly what we do in the Department of Veterans Affairs and exactly what we do at the Department of Defense and that is have negotiated pricing for the drugs that our seniors will buy. Why? You get the best price. Everybody knows when you buy in quantity, you get a cheaper price. It is a very simple concept. But what has the Republican majority in this House, the radical right, done? They have actually put a provision in the bill and here it is. This is the bill that was before the committee and we know this provision will be retained in whatever the Rules Committee considers tonight, but it basically says that it prohibits our government, our Secretary of Health and Human Services from negotiating with the biggest drug companies in the world to get the best price for prescription drugs for our seniors. So what they are going to do, imagine they have got a provision that prohibits what we do at the Department of Veterans Affairs already and it prohibits what we do at the Department of Defense already in our financial purchasing system which gets our people the best prices. That is in the base bill. My amendment would get rid of that and it would say, hey, if you are going to do it and we have success across our government, just like Canada has success in their country by negotiating with the most powerful pharmaceutical companies in the world, why should we treat seniors any differently? Why should we make them pay higher prices? Indeed, in the Republican bill they make seniors pay any cost of drugs over $2,000 a year up to a level of perhaps $3,500 and it might be more because they are drafting the bill somewhere here in the Capitol. I do not know where they are. I went up to the Rules Committee to find the bill and the doors were all locked to the chairman's office. But in any case here is what is currently being paid, for example, in the United States. Let us just take one of these drugs here, Norvasc, which is for high blood pressure. Normally it sells in one of our pharmacies for about $182.99, the Canadian price is $152.82, and the price at the Department of Veterans Affairs is $102. It is a definite savings. That is true with a whole series of pharmaceutical products that could be available to our seniors. So what the Republicans are basically saying in their bill to our seniors is, you have to pay the higher price because we won't permit you to negotiate price, we won't negotiate it for you, because our bill fundamentally denies it. This provision was written by the pharmaceutical companies themselves. Gee, does that surprise anybody? I am only one Member of Congress representing 660,000 beautiful people in the northern part of Ohio. I am only one. Do you know there are six lobbyists for the pharmaceutical companies in this town for every one of me that there is? So basically many times I go home at night and I say to myself, folks back home, I am all you got and I am sticking with you. And I say to the pharmaceutical companies, I don't take your money, I don't want your money, but I'll show the public where your money goes. Is it any wonder why they put the provision in the base bill that went through the Committee on Energy and Commerce like lightning the other day? Let us take a look at PhRMA. This group is so powerful that just in the last election cycle, just in one year, 2002, they contributed over $3 million. Ninety-five percent of it went to, guess, which party? The Republican Party. I happen to be a Democrat. Too bad for the Democrats. They only get 5 percent of the $3,100,000 that was donated just in the fiscal year 2002. Why do you think they gave all that money to the leadership of this institution? Take a look at Pfizer. They gave 80 percent of the $1.8 million they just contributed in 2002 to one party, the Republican Party. You can go down the list. Almost all the money goes to one party. So is it any surprise to us why the bill that we cannot find here in the Capitol and we will not even be allowed to talk about until after midnight and we are all staying up late to do that for our constituents, do you really wonder whether this government is on the level? I urge my colleagues tomorrow to vote ``no'' on this bill and to vote ``no'' on these pharmaceutical companies until we can get negotiated pricing in this bill. TITLE VIII--SECTION 1809(c)(1)(D) Noninterference--In carrying out its duties with respect to the provision of qualified prescription drug coverage to beneficiaries under this title. The Administrator may not: (i) require a particular formulary or institute a price structure for the reimbursement of covered outpatient drugs; (ii) interfere in any way with negotiations between PDP sponsors and Medicare Advantage organizations and drug manufacturers, wholesalers, or other suppliers of covered outpatients drugs; and (iii) other wise interfere with the competitive nature of providing such coverage through such sponsors and organizations.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, if the American people needed evidence that the war in Iraq and its associated tragedies are not over, it arrived in a front page picture Saturday that was carried across our country. In my hometown paper, the Toledo Blade, but also the Chicago Tribune, the Boston Globe, the Washington Post, and the New York Times. This is the photo, First Class Sergeant Bryan Pacholski comforting David Borell, career Army guard, both from Toledo, at a military base in Balad, Iraq. The Associated Press photograph caught an emotional moment, a Toledo career soldier being consoled in his grief by a buddy after military doctors allegedly refused to treat three Iraqi children with painfully serious burns from some sort of explosive device. The soldier, Sergeant David Borell, of our 323rd Military Police Company, later wrote home an e-mail with his personal thoughts on the incident, specifically that the children had been unjustifiably denied medical treatment. The Blade printed the story and a request on my part of our Secretary of Defense for a full investigation and a meeting with him in order to discuss how to prevent this type of situation in the future. Such an investigation is warranted because the incident, if true, flies in the face of numerous stories from the war zone telling of humanitarian acts by U.S. troops under hostile circumstances. We know our troops want to do the right thing. Mr. Speaker, is it really U.S. policy to refuse treatment of Iraqi civilians with serious but nonlife-threatening injuries? Who made that decision? Who were the doctors involved, and why did they handle the situation as they did? Were the kids callously refused care, or was the sergeant simply overcome by witnessing their great pain? These are some of the questions that deserve straightforward answers. The Blade, in its editorial, goes on to write, ``Given frequent news reports about the destruction of Iraq's hospitals and emergency services, of which we are all aware, and the 10-year embargo preceding the war that caused all of their hospitals to lack medical equipment and supplies, it is difficult to give much credence to a spokesman for the U.S. Central Command who contended that Iraq now has a better health care system than before the U.S. occupation. It is entirely believable that in the words of the same spokesman, U.S. forces in Iraq `are providing health care to Iraqis, but we do not have the infrastructure to support the entire Iraqi civilian population.' '' So whose fault is that? And what do we do? What do we do to build friends, more friends than enemies inside Iraq? Most Americans probably would say that defenseless children should be taken care of in any circumstance. They, after all, did not cause the war. There are plenty of adults around to blame for that. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld has agreed that we will begin with a meeting with Under Secretary of Defense Chu, who is in charge of personnel and deployments. Hopefully, that first meeting will begin tomorrow. My proposal will be the same, that we move some of the funds we have already appropriated because we thought the war would last longer with the siege of Baghdad, divert some of those funds to move some of our temporary field hospitals in different places in Iraq, and to put medical supplies there to treat this type of injury that Sergeant Borell saw, children who are burned, people who are bleeding, civilians who we want to be our friends. We now hold the ground in Iraq. The question is, in the future, will we win the hearts and minds of the people? There is no greater way to do that than one by one ministering to their tragic health needs. That time is long overdue. And so I welcome the opportunity to discuss this with Under Secretary Chu, with Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and to make sure that no other soldier in service to this country will have to experience what Sergeant Borell experienced with no alternative given to him. There were no kits, no medical kits that were available to the platoon other than their own small emergency kits, because they are military police. There were not hospitals in the area where these people could be referred that had decent medical supplies and backup. And so he was forced as an American to turn the family away. How do you think America is perceived by those civilians? I think they are beginning to wonder, at least that family, will America really make a difference? Yes, America really can make a difference, just give us a chance. I would welcome the opportunity as one Member of Congress to mobilize my community to provide the supplies for that first field hospital right near where Sergeant Borell and Sergeant Pacholski are serving. These are part of our flesh and blood from our community. We want to give them all the support we can. I know the Secretary of Defense will find a way to help us.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, this weekend in our local newspaper and across this country, a major story appeared with a photo that is unforgettable, a photo of Sergeant David Borell and Sergeant First Class Bryan Pacholski, both deployed outside of Baghdad, both members of the 323rd Military Police Company based in Toledo, Ohio, the center of my district. The title of the article is ``Children's Suffering Wounds GIs; Toledo Soldier Frustrated by Lack of Response to Medical Need.'' I am going to include this article, the full article, in the Record tonight along with Sergeant Borell's comments; also a letter I am sending to Secretary Rumsfeld this evening asking that based on these reports out of Iraq, I am requesting a personal meeting with the Secretary to propose an expedited schedule by the United States to establish temporary field hospitals in Iraq, perhaps in concert with our Arab allies, serving the wounded and the suffering. With Baghdad's early fall, sufficient funds have been appropriated by our Appropriations Committee to accommodate these facilities. We can work with other organizations around the world, but without question the United States is in the lead now. It is important that we rise to this moral imperative. It is our sacred obligation to do so. Let me report what Sergeant David Borell says, who, by the way, should get a promotion by the Department of Defense for his honor. He works close to a sign that reads: ``Working Together With the Iraqi People for Peace and Prosperity.'' That sign is placed near the North Gate to Sustainer Army Airfield northwest of Baghdad. He says, ``The implications of those words, 'Working Together With the Iraqi People for Peace and Prosperity,' it would seem, are far-reaching. Perhaps even all-encompassing. To me, it would seem to say that we, the Americans, are here to help. Help restore the Iraqi economy, help restore law and order, help the Iraqi people build anew that which has been taken from them. And, surely, help them in their times of dire need. Help them when there are truly none others for them to turn to.'' The photo says it all: ``Sergeant First Class Bryan Pacholski comforts Sergeant David Borell, both from Toledo.'' Why is he comforting Sergeant Borell? And it says, Sergeant Borell ``saw something that flies in the face of every moral lesson I have ever learned from my leadership in the military.'' He says, ``I used to be proud of what I'm doing and of being an American soldier, but after today I wonder if I will still be able to carry the title soldier with any pride at all. Or simply with the knowledge that a soldier couldn't even help three small severely burned children.'' He says, ``We came here to depose Saddam Hussein, a mission we accomplished. But the second mission was one of greater importance and purpose, to be part of a force that would serve to provide the Iraqi people with a freedom that they have never known.'' It seemed to him to be the noblest mission of all. In almost 14 years of military service, the Army taught him many things, duty, honor, obligation; and though he was also taught to be a warrior, at the same time he thought he was taught to be a humanitarian. But he saw something during his service in the last week which caused him to question all of that. While working at that North Gate, he was approached by an Iraqi father in need of assistance who took him to the back of his car where his wife and three children waited with a patience which could only have been borne out of a life of adversity. Once there, the father showed him his first son. He was a boy of 10 or 11 years of age. His eyes were a deep shade of brown, and he stared at the sergeant without tears. His mother held him in her arms and gently fanned him with a piece of cardboard both for comfort and to keep flies off of him. Across his body were wounds of unimaginable origin. Most of his legs and arms were singed clean of the top layers of flesh. His face was contorted with the same manner of burns. The sergeant says, ``I can only imagine the intensity of the pain he was in. He said nothing to me, but his eyes pleaded with me nonetheless. He was in need of help, the very help I was trained to offer.'' And so the sergeant called the doctors in the field and it took them an hour to arrive. In the front seat of this same car were his two sisters equally burned, one around 5 years old and the older 8 or 9. One blister on her right hand was the size of a baseball. Like their brother, they did not even complain. They made no sound at all. And the chain of command decided they deserved no treatment, and they turned them away. Mr. Speaker, I would like to end my remarks tonight and read the last two sentences that say, ``The Army failed three young children in Iraq today for no reason. After today, I wonder if I will still be able to carry the title soldier with any pride at all, because this soldier couldn't even help three small children.'' Secretary Rumsfeld, we need your help. We need field hospitals in Iraq now. Sirs: The following incident occurred on 13 June 2003. Any exposure you can create for this would be greatly appreciated. Also there when this happened were correspondents or representatives of FoxNews, the Associated Press, the New York Times, the LA Times, the Chicago Tribune, and various foreign media. working together with the iraqi people for peace and prosperity. That's what the sign reads at the North Gate to Sustainer Army Airfield Northwest of Baghdad. The implications of those words, it would seem, are far-reaching. Perhaps even all- encompassing. To me, it would seem to say that we, the Americans, are here to help. Help restore the Iraqi economy, help restore law and order help the Iraqi people build anew that which has been taken from the. And, surely, help them in their times of dire need. Help them when there are truly none others for them to turn to. As a military force, we came to this country under two pretenses. One, to rid the world of what has been termed a dire and immediate threat to world peace. This threat was embodied in Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party he led. We accomplished, if not completely, then at least practically, that goal. Saddam is no longer in a place of power here. Instead, we created, hopefully, a foundation for the Iraqi people to rule themselves. Our second pretense was much more enigmatic. We came to give the Iraqi people peace and freedom such as many Americans have known all their lives. This second mission was, to me, one of greater import and purpose. I came to be a part of that force that would serve to provide the Iraqi people with a freedom that they have never known. It seemed to me a noble mission at the least. In almost 14 years of military service, the Army has taught me many things. Most of what I believe about duty, honor and obligation has come from those things I learned as a young soldier. I was taught to be a warrior and an unstoppable, indefatigable combat power, but, at the same time, to be a humanitarian. To give any assistance I could possibly provide to those people who were innocent of hostilities or even those who were not but who no longer represented a threat to U.S. forces. I learned that the American military was meant to be much more than a combat force. That we are a peacekeeping force, trained and equipped not only for the perils of combat, but also, and sometimes above all else to help. To build instead of destroy. I came to Iraq as a Military Policeman to rebuild and practice that which has been so deeply ingrained in me throughout those years of military service. And to be a part of that greater purpose I believe we all seek. But today, I saw something which caused me to question exactly where the Army as an institution places it teachings. I saw something that flies in the face of every moral lesson I have ever learned from my leadership in the military. Moreover, it flew in the face of simple human dignity and obligation. While working at that North Gate of Sustainer Army Airfield, not far from the sign at the entrance, I was approached by an Iraqi father in need of assistance. He took me back to his car where his wife and three children waited with a patience that could only have been born of a life of adversity. Once there, he showed me first his son. He was a boy of perhaps 10 or 11 years old. His eyes were a deep shade of brown and stared at me without tears. His mother held him in her arms and gently fanned his with a piece of cardboard both for comfort and to keep flies off of him. Across his body were wounds of unimaginable origin. Most of his legs and arms were singed clean of the top layers of flesh. His face was contorted with the same manner of burns. I can only imagine the intensity of the pain he was in. He said nothing to me, but his eyes pleaded with me nonetheless. He was in need of help. The very help that I was trained to offer. In fact, the very help I was taught, and fervently believe, it is my duty to offer. He didn't ask much, or so I thought. Only some relief from the pain that a boy his age should never have to endure. But the damage didn't end there. In the front seat were his sisters. The youngest was around 5 years old and the older one around 8 or 9. They too were covered in burns. The five year old had hands covered with burns. The right half of her face had also been burned. On her right hand was a blister the size of a baseball. The eight year old suffered the same agonizing injuries. Both her arms and hands and the left side of her face were covered. Like their brother, they did not cry nor even complain. They made no sound at all. One look into their eyes, though, and no word of complaint was necessary. No verbal communication could possibly have conveyed the amount of pain or suffering they were going through. But, looking into their eyes, I knew that they were pleading with me to help. If not as an American soldier, trained and equipped to do so, than as a fellow human. They were asking me and they were asking America. I could not more ignore this pleading than if it were to have come from my own daughters. And it was my own daughters I saw when I looked at these young girls. Without hesitation, I made contact with the only people available to me and requested assistance. My chain of command contacted the base hospital and, after what seemed an eternity to me but was more realistically probably only an hour or so, assistance finally came in the form of two Majors, both doctors, from the base hospital. But even an hour of so seemed too long to me. Judging from the traffic on the radio, there was apparently lengthy discussion as to whether or not any assistance at all would be forthcoming. But it did finally come, and I fully believed that these children would receive at least some care. At minimum, a token amount to relieve their suffering until something else could be done. My beliefs, my faith in the Army were not to be realized. Both ``doctors'' looked briefly at the son. Perhaps a minute. No probing, no questioning as to the extent of the injuries. No discussion as to how they could help. And, without so much as a cursory examination of the girls, announced that there was nothing they could do. ``Long-term care'' is what they said was needed. ``These wounds are not life-threatening'' was emphatically pronounced. And, most injuriously to my conscience, that we, as Americans, had not caused the wounds and, thusly, would not treat them. I was informed that the ``rules of engagement'' for the treatment of local nationals was that the wounds had to threaten life, limb or eyesight or had to have been caused by Americans. The children were coarsely sent on their way with no treatment administered. I was left with nothing to answer the pleading of these children but to empty my first aid bag of anything useful to give their father. And empty it I did, but to what end? It wasn't enough and he and I both knew it. What would it have cost us to treat these children? A few dollars perhaps. Some investment of time and resources. But are we not here for just that purpose? Did we not depose the ``evil regime''? Or did we just replace it with one of our own making? I cannot imagine the heartlessness required to look into the eyes of a child in horrid pain and suffering and, with medical resources only a brief trip up the road, ignore their plight as though they are insignificant. Only Iraqis seeking that which they should be able to provide themselves. ``We are not here to be the treatment center for the country.'' These words were actually spoken to me by one of the ``doctors''. But, if not us, then who? The local ``hospital'', if it can even be called that, had already refused them treatment. There was no one else. The last time I checked, prior to the arrival of American and coalition forces, the Iraqi people had a government, albeit an appalling one. And they had an infrastructure, albeit a surely inadequate one. But, we, in our ``noble'' effort to give the Iraqi people freedom and secure peace for the world, have taken what little they had away. They no longer have any real form of government, and, lacking that, no true infrastructure. So who is to provide these things taken from them? By virtue of the morals and standards taught me by the Army, we, as Americans, are. It is we who are here to ``work together''. It is we who mean to give the Iraqis ``peace and prosperity.'' Apparently, working together does not mean medical treatment for children who have done nothing wrong and have nowhere else to turn. I wear a silver bracelet on my arm. It was given to me by my wife before I was deployed here. On one side is engraved ``Duty, Honor, Country'' and on the reverse is ``With Love, Rachelle''. I wear it to remind me of why I'm here. Why I'm so far from my wife and children, why I'm sacrificing my time and my energy and placing myself at personal risk of injury or death. ``Duty, Honor, Country'' is what I have been taught for almost 14 years. But the Army failed 3 young children today for no reason. And, in so doing, they betrayed those values. I used to be proud of what I'm doing and of being an American soldier. After today, I wonder if I will still be able to carry the title ``soldier'' with any pride at all. Or simply with the knowledge that a ``soldier'' couldn't even help 3 small children. David J. Borell, Sergeant, US Army, 323rd Military Police Company, Balad, Iraq, North Gate Sustainer Army Airfield, (Northwest of Baghdad)

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote 275, the motion to instruct, I would like the Record to show that I intended to vote ``yea'' and inadvertently voted ``no.''

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Illinois for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, in 1 minute I cannot possibly do justice to our dear colleague and friend, Patsy Mink. But the other day in Ohio I had an experience; and I said, Patsy, if your amendment had passed, we would not be in this situation where we have hundreds, indeed thousands, of students lined up in our community awaiting admission to nursing school and they cannot be admitted because the Workforce Investment Act does not allow the funds to be used for education for career training, only for storage of people at bottom feeder jobs in this economy. I thought, Patsy, if your amendment had passed, thousands and thousands and thousands of people across this country who are in the unemployment lines, who are unable to advance their careers, would already be in the workforce. I thought, I miss you so much. You tried so hard. What a great woman. She accomplished so much--Title IX, her leadership here on education issues, the first woman of color ever elected to the Congress of the United States. What an incisive intellect, what an intelligent and persevering woman and someone who made a difference in the lives of people across this country. It is my deepest, deepest privilege to say I support the proposal to name the post office in Hawaii in her name. She is missed every day here. We thank her, and we thank her family for her devoted service to our country.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and state that unless a bill comes to this floor that has a mechanism in it to have a negotiated rate for large numbers of buyers, as we do with our Department of Defense buying and our Veterans Department buying, we are going to force Americans out there in the drug market in their tiny little canoe on an ocean that is very, very rough. They cannot get a good price unless there is a mechanism within a bill which is cleared here which would provide for negotiated rate buying. I thank the gentleman for bringing this problem up.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, to win the war on terrorism ultimately America must be able to make more friendships and reduce the number of enemies that face us. In places very far from home, friendship is a matter of the heart, and it is a matter of the mind. And thus it was with some dismay that I read a poll last week, the results of which I wish to place in the Record tonight, done by the Pew Research Center going and interviewing over 16,000 people across the globe, largely in the Muslim world, but also in Europe and other places, asking them whether they had a favorable opinion of the United States or not. And in the very places where we need to make friends, the numbers are not good. Take Morocco, a country of 31 million people, where there have been, unfortunately, some terrorist attacks, 73 percent of the people have an unfavorable opinion of the United States. In Lebanon, so key to regional peace, 73 percent of the people have an unfavorable opinion of the United States. In Turkey, where the future remains uncertain, one of our staunchest allies from a military standpoint, but 85 percent of the people with an unfavorable opinion of the United States. That is a country of 67 million people. In Pakistan, where we know there are al Qaeda cells, where we know we have madrasas operating, spewing hate every day and instilling young children that they should give their lives in the cause of terrorism, a country of 147 million people, 87 percent, 87 percent have an unfavorable opinion of the United States. In Jordan, right next door to Iraq, a country of 5 million people, over 5 million people, 99 percent of the people have an unfavorable view of this country. And in the Palestinian Authority, where we continue to see such great violence, there really is not any support for the United States. In fact, the number shows zero percent favorable rating for the United States. I must ask the question, how does one make peace in these circumstances, lasting peace? In that regard, I wish to place in the Record a really beautiful article written by David Ignatius in The Washington Post last Friday. I will not quote all of it here, but I will just read it to you in part. It was written from the steps of the American University of Beirut, a place I have personally visited, the university in that region that has produced the leaders, the leaders that have tried to make ties to the West. The writer says he found himself sitting on the steps talking to some of the students whose generation will have to transform our hope for peace into reality. And the most hopeful thing he could say after visiting with them was that they had an understanding of how powerful America is. But the question seems to be in his mind after speaking with the students that we have a long way to go to restore America's credible role as a peacemaker. The students, to put it bluntly, he says, do not believe that America is serious about its values. Suggest to them, for example, that America really wants to advance democracy and freedom in Iraq rather than grab the country's oil and you get smirks and guffaws from the students. For these students, America has come to stand for jobs and income, not human rights. It is a way to get paid, they say. That is why these kids are happy to be going to an American university because it is the best way to get on the global gravy train. For them, America is a good market, one of the students he talked to said, rather than a place with admirable values. In fact, one of the students told him, might makes right in America, does it not? We were talking under the main gate, he says, of the American University of Beirut, which is inscribed with the words of its founders: ``That they may have life and have it more abundantly.'' But this is the generous spirit that educated generations of Arab leaders, and for decades the United States has been living off the good will that that helped to create, and it is beginning to wane. He talks about how former presidents of the American University of Beirut have been killed, have been kidnapped and always live under threat. And yet, students are saying to him today, freedom in America has been abolished. One of the young girls said, Look at civil liberties. They do not exist any more in the United States. He says the degree of cynicism among these students is frightening. Madam Speaker, as I close my remarks tonight, the writer encourages us to look at our basic values of human rights, of freedom and democracy, and give those precedence in all of our efforts towards peace, not just making money in the marketplace. [From the Washington Post, June 6, 2003] America's Doubters in Beirut (By David Ignatius) Beirut.--As President Bush was proclaiming America's role as a peacemaker between Arabs and Israelis this week, I found myself sitting on the steps of the American University of Beirut, talking to some of the students whose generation will have to transform this vision into reality. The most hopeful thing I can say is that the students seem to understand how powerful America is. And while Bush is far from popular here, there seems to be growing respect for his orneriness--for that laconic manner that just possibly might be a match for the stubbornness of the Israelis and the Palestinians. But judging by the students' comments, Bush has a long way to go in restoring America's status as a credible peacemaker. These students, to put it bluntly, don't believe that America is serious about its values. Suggest to them, for example, that America really wants to advance democracy and freedom in Iraq, rather than grab the country's oil, and you get smirks and guffaws. For these Arab students, America stands for jobs and income, not human rights. It's a way to get paid. That's why these kids are happy to be going to an American university-- because it's the best way to get on the global gravy train. ``We still feel proud to be here. We're getting the best degree in the best university in our region,'' says Maurice Haddad, a bright 24-year-old majoring in information systems. Like almost all the students I met, he wants to go to graduate school in the States. But for him, America ``is a good market,'' rather than a place with admirable values. In America, ``might makes right,'' said one student bluntly. We were talking under the main gate of AUB, which is inscribed with the words its founders used in 1866 to describe its mission: ``That they may have life and have it more abundantly.'' The generous spirit educated generations of Arab leaders, and for decades the United States has been living off the goodwill it helped create. I am a shameless fan of AUB. I sat here more than 20 years ago with AUB President Malcolm Kerr shortly before he was assassinated; I talked with AUB President David Dodge before he was kidnapped; I began debating Arab bureaucracy with the current AUB president, John Waterbury, in 1981. I deeply admire these men and the university they have bravely struggled to maintain. But I had the sense this week that for the students, the tank is beginning to run dry. ``Freedom in America has been abolished,'' said a 21-year-old medical student named Lamia. She offered a summary of court cases to buttress her argument that civil liberties in America have been compromised in Bush's jihad against terrorism. The degree of cynicism among students is frightening. We began talking about the 9/11 terrorist attacks, for example, and nearly every student expressed doubt that Osama bin Laden's suicide bombers had really toppled the twin towers. ``It was a play to make it look like the Arabs did it,'' said a young woman named Natalia. When I asked the students how they could believe such conspiratorial nonsense even though they had seen the buildings collapse on television, they shouted our alternative theories. ``The tape was altered,'' said one. ``Technically those two buildings couldn't have collapsed unless there were bombs set at the bottom,'' insisted another. ``How could someone in a cave in Afghanistan have done all that?'' Asked a third. ``It's your fault!'' argued one young woman in a ponytail. ``Your movies have taught us that any image can be manipulated.'' Students can be forgiven for saying crazy things. But I worry that their comments reflect a deeper problem. Sociologists distinguish between the ``normative'' and ``instrumental'' attributes of an institution or nation. For past AUB students, America appeared to stand for normative values. For this more cynical generation, America is instead an instrumental machine for getting jobs and making money. Waterbury took a laudable step this week in trying to reconnect the Arab world with America and its values. Thanks to a $5.2 million gift from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, AUB will soon found a new center for American studies. Maybe that will help. AUB is an example of what people mean when they say ``soft power.'' All the armor in America's awesome hard-power military will end up rusting in the sand if Arabs don't come to believe that those tanks represent a culture that promotes freedom and democracy--and that America lives by those values.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding me this time, and I rise against the rule on this check-cashing bill. And the reason I rise against the rule is because we are not afforded the opportunity in this House to bring up H.R. 2286, the Rangel-DeLauro bill, that would allow us to include all of America's working families in the relief for child tax credits. Who is left out? Who is left out are people who earn between $10,500 a year and $26,600 a year who have children. The bill that passed last week left them out. The gentleman from Texas is wrong. Democrats did not even know what was in that bill. The ranking member on our sides of the aisle had to find the room the conference committee was being held in. No Democrat read that bill, and we know the Republicans cut a deal. My Republican colleagues left out working families who live at the bottom of this economy, and they have 19 million children, not a single one of whom are going to get the extra $400 refund, where those checks are going to be cashed out of this government when they are sent out this summer. Not a one. They left out 6 million families, 19 million children. The Republicans refuse to see them, but we see them. We really believe in not leaving any child behind. But now, Vice President Cheney, what does he get? He gets $93,700. Republicans are leaving 19 million children twisting in the wind, but that is par for the course. One of their favorite sports is golf. They leave a lot of people out there in the sand traps. But the defining difference between Democrats and Republicans is we include everybody. Everybody. We think some people got too much out of your bill. Vice President Cheney does not need that money. He will just go out and buy another yacht. But who do we see this bill leaves out? The bill leaves out moms who work at McDonald's. They will not get any refund from the child tax credit refund. It leaves out the janitors that clean the World Trade Towers who have children. They do not get anything either. And the Republicans' bill leaves out our privates and specialists in the Army, Navy, and Air Force who are at the bottom of the pay scale in our Armed Forces. They will not get the child tax credit refund either. These folks pay taxes. They not only pay Social Security and Medicare taxes, they pay property taxes, the Federal gas tax, and the cigarette tax. They do not have anybody giving them taxes back. They do not have lobbyists coming in to lobby on their behalf, who are the winners in this bill. Mr. Speaker, we have a right to include all families. We ought to vote down this rule and demand that the leadership bring up H.R. 2286 to include all of America's children and families.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, Thomas Saam will long be remembered by local school children, union workers, Vietnam Veterans, family, friends and hundreds of children in Vietnam. Tom was a patriot who took great pride in America and his service in the U.S. Marine Corps. Always a strong voice for organized labor, Tom was a 26-year employee of General Motors Power Train in Toledo, OH. He was a proud United Auto Worker, UAW, and trustee who believed strongly in the quality of life for workers and their families who remained active as a member of the UAW Local No. 14 Retirees. Seven years ago, in 1995, Tom Saam underwent a heart transplant. Following successful surgery, Tom became a spokesperson for transplants and a volunteer with the American Heart Association, receiving their prestigious Heart and Soul Award. He served with pride the American Red Cross, Life Connections of Ohio and the Mended Hearts Association. Upon his death on December 7, 2002, Tom Saam became a donor also. During the last 7 years as a proponent for organ and tissue donation, Tom Saam spent a great deal of time speaking to groups as an advocate for donation and educating children about the dangers of smoking. Tom's concern for our children and youth was always present in all that he did. Tom Saam, a former U.S. Marine, served two tours in Vietnam. Tom Saam never forgot his veteran buddies as an active member of Veteran of Foreign Wars Post No. 3265, Toledo, OH, and VFW Department of Ohio P.O.W./M.I.A. Chairman 1992-1995. Tom served as Post No. 3265 Americanism Chairman from 1990-2002 and served as UAW Region 2B Veterans Representative 1995-2002. On Veteran's Day in 1999, Tom Saam and several other Vietnam Veterans joined me in our District Congressional Office and placed a conference call to then U.S. Ambassador to Vietnam Pete Peterson. From that conversation and meeting, Tom Saam and his core group of veterans formed the D.O.V.E. Fund, a non-profit humanitarian organization dedicated to helping the children of Vietnam in the areas of health care, improving water quality and building schools. As a charter member and member of the D.O.V.E. Fund Board of Directors, Tom worked diligently to provide the extras such as writing tablets, pencils, toothbrushes, soap and other like items that the children of Vietnam need. Tom never hesitated to approach anyone he felt could provide assistance for a child. His dentist, his insurance agent, his union, his buddies and a variety of local veteran's groups were frequent donors of school supplies, ball caps, candy and anything else that kids needed to improve their quality of life. In May of 2001 Tom traveled with other veterans on a return trip to Vietnam. Tom had arranged through a Vietnamese-American contact to obtain what was believed to be the remains of 2 American M.I.A.s' and return these remains to our government in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. As a result of his efforts, Tom was named the June 2001, Citizen of the Month by Toledo's Mayor and was awarded the UAW Walter P. Reuther Distinguished Service Award for his courageous efforts. The D.O.V.E. Board of Directors is planning to build a school in Quang Tri Province, Vietnam and dedicate it in Tom Saam's memory. Tom is the father of Thomas, Jr., Jeremy, Laura and Jamie and the husband of Barbara. He will always be remembered as a loving husband and father, a veteran's advocate, a tough Marine and union member, a gentle spirit and mentor and a proud American. Mr. Oscar Bunch, President of Local No. 14 and long time friend of Tom said, ``Everyone who had anything to do with Tom just loved him.'' Many of us in Northwest Ohio share Oscar's sentiment. Tom Saam will be missed.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the fine gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for yielding me time, the ranking member on Defense, and also the chairman, my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), for allowing the inclusion in the en bloc amendment, our Buy America Enhancement Provisions as well as our Technical Assistance Provisions. Let me just say that these dual amendments direct and require the Department of Defense to consciously at the highest level support the continuation and enhancement of our domestic industrial manufacturing capabilities, particularly those defense industrial companies that are essential to war production and face stiff foreign competition. It specifies that when application of the Buy American Act is inconsistent with the public interest, the Defense Secretary shall not consider the provision of any trade agreement between the U.S. and a foreign country that is in effect at the time of the determination. We particularly ask the Department of Defense to focus on critical technologies such as industrial molds, special dies and tools, cutting tools and machine tools and accessories. Of course, in the foundry area, attention is needed as well. The technical assistance provisions and the center that is proposed will also require the Department to reach out to the over 7,000 such firms in our country that comprise our defense industrial base, many of them small and medium sized companies, and connect them directly to the Department of Defense so that contracts and subcontracts have broad application, and small and medium size businesses are included. The dual amendments thus require both a ``topdown'' and ``bottomup'' approach by the Department to engage this critical sector of U.S. defense manufacturing. I also want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) for their wonderful investigative work on the Committee on Small Business that has supported strongly the necessarity for these provisions.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to this martial rule, which essentially restricts debate. It does not permit the Democratic economic program to even be debated today. Why not? What is the opposition afraid of? They have the votes on their side. Why not even allow us to talk about our program? Here is why. I remember back to that old saying, if you fool me once, shame on you. If you fool me twice, shame on me. But if you fool me thrice, well, my gosh, it is just a sad and deadly shame. If we think back to 1981, when Vice President Dick Cheney was then a Member of this House and head of the Republican Policy Group, he was involved in the Republican tax program enacted back in 1981. We had the worst job washout in American history. I was elected in 1983. It took us 15 years to balance this budget and to bring employment up, with the election of Bill Clinton and 8 years of economic growth inside this economy. And it was not easy. When this administration took over, they blew $1.3 billion in the first year and a half. Fifteen years of work flew out the window. Then with their tax bill that they passed back in 2001, what have we gotten in terms of employment? None. We have got the biggest job loss since World War II, over 3 million more jobs lost in this country. We have three people in this economy looking for every single job that is being created, and most of those jobs do not pay a living wage and they do not have health benefits. So, fool me once, fool me twice, and now we have the third version that they are bringing up. This bill, what will it do? It is going to create more unemployment. It is no different than what was done back in 1981, no different than what was done back in 2001. Strike one, strike two, strike three. They ought to be out. If we take a look at our country, we might ask ourselves the question: With 150,000 of our men and women, of our troops, now deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq, is it not amazing that what we do here at home under the Republican plan is reward the Wall Street brokers who just stole your 401(k) money? There is not a single American family that has not been affected. So we say to them, take more of our money. Take more of our money. The interesting thing about the Republican bill is that not a dime that is given to them has to be invested in the USA. We are going to have more job washout to China, to Mexico, and every single American community and worker knows what I am talking about. So the Democratic plan provides a million jobs this year alone. It invests in the United States. It gives families security. It does not borrow against the Social Security trust funds, which is how they are covering their growing deficits, and it enacts responsible economic programs. That is what the Democratic bill does. It creates jobs this year, it does not add a penny to the deficit, and it preserves Social Security and Medicare, our Democratic legacy. Fool me once, not me. Fool me twice, not me. Fool me thrice? How about you?

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I come to the House floor this evening to talk again about the Republican raid on Social Security a year ago to cover their growing deficits because of the Bush administration tax breaks to the upper crust that created no new jobs. Where did they get the money to do it? This first chart goes back about a year to June 18 of last year. At that point, they had taken from Social Security's' trust funds over $218,095,890,410, or about $775 per American. We just asked the Department of the Treasury to give us the update. Now, this year already, clocking the Republican raid on Social Security to cover their tax breaks mainly to the top earners in this country, they have now taken $498,863,013,099, or about $1,714.24 per American. That is nearly a half a trillion dollars just as of May 20, just as of this week. Now, Social Security is a financial lifeline for 46 million Americans, but the Republicans continue to play a game of fiscal ``chicken'' with the Federal deficit. They are borrowing from Social Security's trust funds to give tax breaks aimed at next year's elections. Let us make one thing clear: Americans might have elected some Republicans into this House and the other body, but they did not give them a mandate to rob Social Security. Now, this past March, the Republican leadership of this House voted on a budget that will give us deficits as far as the eye can see. I thought that this particular editorial cartoon from the Rocky Mountain News was particularly illustrative, with this giant deficit that is being created for the future as a result of the type of tax program that they have put in place, with absolutely no jobs being yielded, but in fact giving us a debt that will kill jobs and weaken Social Security and Medicare, just when 77 million baby boomers start to retire. Earlier this month, the same House Republicans voted a $550 billion, more than half-a-trillion, in tax breaks, mostly to the wealthiest 1 percent of earners in this country, and there is no requirement that money be invested in this country. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Federal Government has run a deficit of approximately $202 billion in the first 7 months of this fiscal year. And where do we think they are getting the money from? Where does the money exist? In our Social Security trust funds. Now that amount of debt that has been added this year is $138 billion more than the same period last year, so it is getting worse. The Congressional Budget Office now expects that the government will end up this year with a deficit of over $300 billion. What is the biggest reason for this most radical fiscal reversal in American history and the raid that is going on on Social Security? The Bush tax program aimed at the next election, not the next generation. What is the effect of this burgeoning public debt? They are mortgaging Social Security's future payouts. They are forcing our country to cover the rest of their borrowing with more dependence on foreign investors who buy our debt bonds, starting with China and Japan and then Saudi Arabia, and they are taking away independence for this Republic and for the American people and a lot less independence for future generations. I am no longer surprised, but I am amazed at how President Bush and his fellow Republicans are so eager to chip away at Social Security, weaken Social Security, and ultimately play roulette with our people's Social Security trust funds, which we voted seven times to put in the Social Security lockbox. They are raiding the lockbox. The American people deserve better. Working families deserve better. Your grandmothers and grandfathers deserve better. They have earned a secure retirement. We have to get back to the fiscal basics and put Social Security first. Would you rather have $300 today, or Social Security for all of your retirement tomorrows? Congress is the protector of Social Security, the primary protector. It is the people's program, intended by President Roosevelt and its authors to allow generations of retirees to live with independence and dignity. It is time for the Republican Party to stop the raid on Social Security, which as of today, again, amounts to, as of May 20, 2003, out of the trust funds, your trust funds, $498,863,013,699 or $1,714.24 for each single American who has paid into the system.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, it is with the greatest pleasure that I recognize the awarding of an honorary Doctorate degree to Monsignor William L. Linder by John Carroll University. Msgr. William Linder had the vision thirty-five years ago to give new life and hope to people who lived in Newark, New Jersey, then one of America's lowest income communities, with the establishment of New Community Corporation. Indeed, the city had experienced urban riots and destruction related to the awakening of modern civil rights in America. A Roman Catholic priest for nearly forty years, Msgr. Linder has spent his ministry in Newark, New Jersey, still one of the poorest cities in the country. For 28 years, he has been the pastor of St. Rose of Lima Catholic Church, a somewhat unique congregation comprised of people from thirty different national backgrounds. A Doctor of Sociology, Msgr. Linder is an adjunct professor at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs. He has received dozens of national and community awards honoring his pathbreaking work to build a new city out of the old. When rioting in 1967 devastated much of Newark's Central Ward, Msgr. Linder founded New Community. Working with a coalition of local residents and others, Msgr. Linder grew New Community into a development encompassing fourteen city blocks in the heart of the Central Ward. New Community is a thriving venture of people in safe, attractive, affordable housing with an intricate network of employment, day care, education, training, health care, credit unions, banking and human services focused on economic development which benefits its people. New Community employs 2,300 people in sixteen separately funded efforts. Its capital assets now exceed over $375 million. New Community offers people from childhood through old age myriad opportunities for success and positive quality of life experiences. Thousands of people have benefited from New Community's operations, in addition to the hundreds who participate daily in its success. It is a true example of a community at work as they thrive, live and grow and build America's story. At the same time as it transforms the lives of Newark's Central Ward residents, so too has it transformed the ward itself into an attractive and vital urban neighborhood. New Community is the driving force behind new investment in long-term housing, day care and economic stability in Newark's central neighborhood. With a mission to ``empower low-income individuals to determine their own destiny'' New Community will continue to live the adage ``of, by, and for the people'' well into future decades. Msgr. William Linder's selfless gift is imprinted on all aspects of New Community, as his quiet strength lovingly guides it forward, block by block and life by life. His contributions as shepherd and engineer embody the living Gospel. Congratulations to Msgr. William Linder on this special recognition from John Carroll University. His legacy is one of extraordinary achievement that serves as a model of human and community development at home and abroad.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support an effort by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), one of the most distinguished Members of this House. He has called for full disclosure of the massive unbid $7 billion contract, that is 7,000 millions of dollars, that Halliburton Corporation has just received from the Department of Defense for the reconstruction of the demolished nation of Iraq. The emergency no-bid contract for Halliburton, again not competitively bid, is supposed to fight oil fires. Vice President Dick Cheney just happened to head up Halliburton Corporation after he left the first Bush administration and before rejoining this Bush administration. Reports indicate he currently receives $180,000 per year in payments from Halliburton Corporation in the form of deferred compensation. The company apparently will be able to expand this no-bid $7 billion contract, first, to operate the oil fields themselves and, second, to distribute the oil to which our Nation is so hopelessly addicted. In a letter to Lieutenant General Robert Flowers, commander of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) said he did not mean to suggest that the Corps has intentionally misled anyone about Halliburton's contract. However, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) is concerned, as all of us should be, about the reluctance of the Bush administration to provide complete information about the Halliburton contract and other contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq. The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) questioned how the long- term contracts for Halliburton could be reconciled with the administration's stated intent to give the Iraqi people control of the oil in Iraq. The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) said, ``Only now, over 5 weeks after the contract was first disclosed, are Members of Congress and the public learning that Halliburton Corporation may be asked to pump and distribute Iraqi oil under contract.'' The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) repeated the Corps' statement that the contract could be worth up to $7 billion for up to 2 years. Mr. Speaker, as the United States begins the long and expensive process of rebuilding in the wreckage of Iraq, perhaps we should reflect on the process of massive unbid contracts, using taxpayer dollars, to the company that was formerly headed by the Vice President. If the press were awake in America, they would pursue this story to the very ends of the Earth. If the Congress were more responsible in fulfilling its responsibility as a co-equal branch of government to our taxpayers, we would have hearings into this connection. If the death of Vince Foster is worthy of congressional investigations, then certainly unbid billions of dollars of contracts to Halliburton and others close to this administration deserve at least the same level of scrutiny. This Member of Congress intends to offer a bill to assure competitive bidding in any contracts related to rebuilding in Iraq or Afghanistan. It is amazing that I even have to do this, and it will be interesting to see who opposes me. The Atlanta Journal Constitution said in a recent editorial that the secret Halliburton deal endangers U.S. credibility. The Constitution questioned why a Halliburton subsidiary was the only company invited to bid on the Iraqi contract, why the contract was kept secret from the public until 2 weeks after it was signed this March, and why the true scope of the contract was not disclosed until last week. All are legitimate questions, particularly in a Nation that is trying to inculcate the rule of law and transparency as part of the nation- building process in Iraq. The Journal Constitution also raised questions about a previous contract between the Halliburton subsidiary and the U.S. Army during Mr. Cheney's reign at Halliburton. The GAO determined in 1997 that Halliburton charged the Army more than $85 per sheet of plywood for building projects in Bosnia. A follow-up report in 2000 said the subsidiary's crews were being paid to clean offices as often as four times a day, and the company receives more than $2 billion for work being done in the Balkans. Even if the Halliburton subsidiary were the only company capable of doing work in Iraq, which most oil industry people contradict, then why all the secrecy about the no-bid contract? Mr. Speaker, Reuters News Service reported Halliburton has disclosed that it made approximately $2.4 million in improper payments to Nigeria, another oil regime getting favorable tax treatment. The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) should be commended for his dogged pursuit of the truth. The American public should wish him well.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, the Commerce Department has just reported the latest economic news and the trade deficit figures, and the story is not good. America's trade deficit in March surged sharply, reaching the second highest monthly deficit in history. This means thousands more lost jobs. This chart illustrates the increasing number of jobs we are losing every year due to the imbalance of our trade accounts. In March, exports exceeded imports by over $43.5 billion, just that month, and the main culprit was oil. To feed our addiction to oil, American consumers paid out in March $9.1 billion alone for imported petroleum. Do people really understand what is happening? We are transferring wealth out of the United States and into foreign hands. For every dollar of imported petroleum, we are giving Saudi Arabia, 7\1/2\ cents; Mexico, 6\1/2\ cents; Canada, 6\1/2\ cents; Venezuela, 6\1/2\ cents; and Nigeria, 2\1/2\ cents for every single gallon of gasoline we use. In a year, this results in billions of our dollars being transferred in income to dictatorships. Over a decade we are talking about trillions of dollars of wealth transferred abroad. As my colleagues can see, much of this money is going to prop up corrupt oil regimes, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Colombia. Just imagine if America achieved energy independence here at home instead of sending $9.1 billion more out of America in March. We would be investing $9.1 billion in the economic future of our own communities, every single month, in new jobs, new fuels, new energy technologies right here at home. Again, in this Congress I am the sponsor of the Bioenergy Independence Act, which currently has 16 cosponsors representing 10 different States. Despite all the events of recent months, the Bush administration has no policy for weaning America from its dangerous and growing dependence on foreign oil. Quite the opposite. The Bush-Cheney administration is of the oil companies, by the oil companies and for the oil companies. The oil companies have eliminated the middleman and put their own people in the Department of the Interior, in the Department of Energy, and, indeed, in the Vice President's residence and the White House. The Biofuels Energy Independence Act of 2003 would authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to make and guarantee loans for biofuel production, distribution, development and storage. The goal of my legislation is energy independence for America. Energy independence is essential for our economic future and our national security. I do not want to depend on unstable foreign sources of energy. We should use our own domestic sources. The power is growing in the fields of Iowa, Illinois, Ohio, coast to coast, and farmers need income from the market, not from the government. I do not want to support dictatorships, and I know the American people do not either. No longer will we depend on corrupt foreign powers such as the House of Saud or the Obasanjo administration in Nigeria or Chavez in Venezuela. Instead, we will empower our own local communities and revitalize our agriculture economy, which is on life support now in the form of government subsidies. At the same time, we will build a stronger economy. From coast to coast, we will create American jobs and American businesses for American companies, used by American consumers, and we will lower this job-killing trade deficit which gets worse every month and the job deficit it is creating coast to coast. After the trade numbers came out yesterday, the chief economist at Wells Fargo said this: ``I don't know how long we can maintain this type of red ink year after year decade after decade without causing substantial damage to the dollar and our economy.'' Many of us in the House have been talking for years about the dangers of this growing trade deficit. We are quickly approaching the moment in history when foreign interests own half the outstanding debt of our country, and we now pay them over $400 billion a year in interest: the leading country, China, followed by Japan, followed by Saudi Arabia. $400 billion a year in interest to them every year is as much as we spend on the Department of Defense. It is huge. Imagine if we could help give that money to the State of California, which is in bankruptcy, the State of Ohio, all the States in our Union that are so short on funds. Achieving energy independence by relying on homegrown sources of energy will help America avoid the danger that an ever-increasing trade deficit poses to America's economy and our future.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, the latest economic news is out, and it is not good. The trade deficit for March was announced today. It hit the second highest level in history, $43.5 billion more imports coming into our country than exports going out. What we are exporting are more U.S. jobs. Why do we have such a high trade deficit? Rising oil prices and continued deterioration in our trade accounts because of NAFTA, especially Mexico as well as Canada. The March trade deficit with Mexico alone was a record $3.9 billion. The deficit with Canada was the highest since 2 years ago, January 2001. NAFTA is not working for the United States. NAFTA is the great sucking sound. We are exporting our jobs, not our goods, and we are importing more goods from Mexico than ever in our history. Unemployment in America has hit a 6 percent high with almost 9 million people out of work now. Just today the Bureau of Labor Statistics put out detailed information on joblessness in America. Where is Ground Zero in the Bush recession? It is the Visalia-Tulare- Porterville area in California with 18.1 percent unemployment. Of metropolitan areas with populations over a million people, the highest unemployment was found in Portland, Oregon, and San Jose, California, 8.4 percent each. I just returned from the San Jose area. Indeed, of the 272 metropolitan areas for which year-to-year comparisons can be made, the largest declines in employment were found in San Diego, followed by Tulsa, Oklahoma; Flint, Michigan; and my home community of Toledo, Ohio. Ohio is first in our Nation in lost jobs as a percentage of our workforce since George Bush came into office in 2001. No State has suffered more than Ohio from the Bush administration's failed economic policies. The dollar is hitting new lows in part due to impolitic comments made by our Treasury Secretary John Snow on Sunday talk shows. Is the Bush administration committed to a strong dollar? They say they are, but many experts are questioning the commitment in light of Secretary Snow's comment on Sunday that a falling dollar should help exporters. In fact, it is hard to make any sense of the Bush administration's economic policy. The administration seems bound and determined to start and hold a losing hand. All they can talk about are tax breaks for the wealthy. But it is the consumer that is keeping our economy out of a depression. It is the middle-class consumer that made America great. It is the great middle class that fights our wars, makes our goods, delivers our services, and keeps our country strong. But the Bush administration wants to cut taxes for the super-rich, even though we know that that policy will lead to recession and more job losses. In fact, look at what happened in our country after the first Bush set of tax breaks to the wealthy back in 2001: More and more job losses, over 2 million of them. They talked to us about jobless recovery. What is a jobless recovery? That is all we seem to have are jobless recoveries. Every time this group gets in office, they give us more unemployment. And, indeed, if the Members look back to 1981 when, under the Reagan administration, our Vice President, Dick Cheney, was the head of the Republican Policy Committee here in the House, they did the same thing. They called it the Economic Tax Recovery Act of July 29, 1981, and do the Members know what happened back then? The minute the same kind of tax program was enacted, guess what happened? More and more and more job losses. I came here in January 1983 to try to help dig America out of a hole, a job-loss hole as well as a deficit hole. It took us almost 15 years, and now we are back to the same mess we had back then. I say if it is strike one, strike two, and now strike three, they ought to be out. The Republicans in this kind of trickle-down tax program are really going to gouge the middle class again. So I would say, Mr. Speaker, just take a look at the record. It is the same old story. And what do we get? More job losses, an administration that does not want to extend unemployment benefits to those who have been out of work. They say go find a job somewhere, except for one thing: More and more jobs are being lost every day. And the Buckeye State rings in number one in terms of job losses. Mr. Speaker, America should do better, and America will do better a year from now when we elect a new President.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, Saturday, May 31, 2003 begins the centennial celebration of All Saints Episcopal Church in Toledo, Ohio. I am pleased to commemorate this momentous and joyous occasion by sharing it with my colleagues and for inclusion in the Congressional Record. On June 3, 1903, five people under the leadership of Reverend William A. Grier founded the church as an Episcopal Mission Church. It was the only Negro Mission in the Toledo Episcopal Region. The church became a parish of its own in 1952. Since then, it has grown and remained a neighborhood anchor. It even experienced a rebirth in the last decade, with a new sanctuary and office in 1998, and a new parish hall in 2002. In addition to its celebration dinner, the church has invited the members of neighboring churches to spend an evening with them in prayer, song, and scripture. On Tuesday, June 3, All Saints will observe its 100th birthday with a Holy Eucharist Service. As it has since its founding 100 years ago, All Saints Episcopal Church continues to follow the words of Matthew 5:16, ``Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in Heaven.'' It remains a beacon of hope and a sanctuary of praise while its congregants forge ahead on a path begun a century ago and built upon through successive generations. We congratulate All Saints on reaching this milestone, and look forward to its life and work in a new century.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) for organizing this stellar Special Order this evening on the important question of economic stimulus and recovery for our people and join with all of my able colleagues, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), and others this evening. I just wanted to mention jobs, J-O-B-S; and the Republican tax cut bill is a job killer. There is plenty of evidence that this plan is merely a repeat of what happened in 2001 in this Congress, in the first Bush tax bill that came before us where now we have lost 3 million more jobs across this country. It is also a debt-accumulator bill. This tax bill is not going to balance the budget. It is going to increase the deficit. I always thought Republicans were budget balancers. That is what Republicans used to be. They are not that anymore. And I just wanted to point out back in 1981 when Congressman Dick Cheney was a Member of this House, I came here 2 years later in the midst of the worst recession America had faced since the Great Depression. July 29, 1981, when Mr. Cheney chaired the Republican Policy Committee here, a bill was passed that they called the 1981 tax cut bill. And in the following 2 years, millions of Americans were thrown on to unemployment lines; and I became part of a class to try to restore economic integrity to this country. It took us almost 20 years until Bill Clinton became President of the United States. And in 1993, 1996, we began to restore those surpluses that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) referenced. In 2001 under the first Bush plan, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) said here, ``By moving quickly our hope is to have both monetary and fiscal policy pull this economy out of its nose dive.'' And again, now, we have another job-killer bill. We had a job-killer bill in 1981. We had a job-killer bill in 2001, and now we will have another job-killer bill brought up on this floor tomorrow. It seems to me that one thing Democrats stand for is full employment and good jobs. We should reject this bill tomorrow. It is a repeat of the same old hash they gave us back in 1981 and they gave us in 2001. We should not be snookered for the third time.