Juanita Millender-McDonald

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the Millender-McDonald/Bartlett/Forbes amendment increases funding for the National Women's Business Council to the full amount that was authorized by Congress last year. I would like to thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman, and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), the ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent), for their support of women business owners and this amendment. I appreciate having their bipartisan support. As a member the Committee on Small Business and co-chair of the Women's Business Legislative Team, I was actively involved in reauthorizing the Small Business Administration, including the Women's Business Centers and the National Women's Business Council under its jurisdiction. The Small Business Programs Reauthorization and Amendments Act was unanimously passed by the Committee on Small Business and passed by the House on the Suspension Calendar by a vote of 397 to 17. Clearly, the programs authorized through this legislation, such as the National Women's Business Council, have strong bipartisan support. I am here today to ensure that this bipartisan authorization is matched with full appropriation. The Senate passed the Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary appropriations bill with the full appropriation and so should the House. This increase for the Women's Business Council is small and reasonable and the Congressional Budget Office has assured me that it does not increase the budget outlays and it does not need any offset. The National Women's Business Council is a bipartisan advisory panel created in 1988 by Congress to provide advice and counsel to the President, Congress and the Interagency Committee on Women's Business Enterprise. As many of my colleagues who are actively involved with women business owners in their districts know, the council has played an integral role in helping us meet the needs of women-owned businesses today. The council serves as a powerful voice for more than 8 million women-owned businesses in the country that are providing jobs for 15.5 million people and generating nearly $1.4 trillion in sales. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left? Because I would like the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) to speak on the issue.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of the 37th Congressional District of California, my family, my staff and the American people, I wish to express our most heartfelt condolences and sympathy to the wives, children and extended families of United States Capitol Police Detective John Gibson and Officer Jacob ``J.J.'' Chestnut as we pay homage to the nobility of service they rendered and their ultimate sacrifice: their lives. I was deeply saddened to learn of the turn of events that led to this tragedy. Their sacrifice is a terrible reminder of the risk the men and women of the United States Capitol Police and all law enforcement personnel face on a daily basis in order to protect us and our ability to serve the American people. Words are unable to capture the breadth and depth of the sorrow I and the members of my staff feel. Yet, Friday's event is a reminder to those of us whose lives are consumed in the work of this building that real bonds of friendship, camaraderie and a sense of family can and do, indeed, develop. And, as in most families, sometimes we take one another for granted. The simple pleasantries we extend to one another can become all too routine and oftentimes, distracted by the burdens of the work we perform. Unfortunately, a tragedy like this one makes us aware of both the significance and the fragility of our relationships, our responsibilities and our friendships. Let their sacrifice not only serve as a reminder of the costs associated with duty, service and commitment, but let it also serve as a reminder of our own mortality and humanity. I hope the circumstances surrounding the events on Friday, July 24, 1998 will serve as a reflection in our having known these fine officers, who were dedicated and committed, and the reality that much too often their ultimate form of service could be their lives. Their heroism and their duty to the People's House and to all of us is the epitome of patriotism. May God grant the families the strength to endure!

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman of the Committee on Rules for making this rule in order and I would like to thank the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) for his leadership on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for the rule which makes in order the Mollohan decennial census amendment. The debate on this amendment will say volumes about the People's House's desire to conduct the census in a fair, accurate, cost-effective and scientifically based way. It will also send a message to the low-income people living in socially and economically isolated urban and rural areas, especially people of color, women and their children, children who were undercounted by 50 percent. They want to know where they stand and whether they count. If you support a census that is fair, that is accurate, and that is inclusive, then support the Mollohan census amendment. I urge its passage for the sake of all the American people.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, July 29, 1998, I was unavoidably detained while conducting official business and missed rollcall vote No. 344. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea.''

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, July 17, and Monday, July 20, 1998, I filed an official leave of absence and was not available to cast votes on either of those days. However, had I been present on Friday, July 17, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote 295, and ``nay'' on rollcall vote 296. Had I been present on Monday, July 20, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 303, 304, 305, and ``nay'' on rollcall votes 302, 306, 307, 308.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I stand, too, with my colleagues to say farewell to a giant. I never dreamt that I would be working with such a man, a man whom he has said came from humble beginnings and has stayed humble in spite of becoming a giant. We recognize that Lou Stokes has soared in terms of an extraordinary attorney, in terms of an extraordinary congressman, in terms of an extraordinary husband and father. Lou Stokes followed in his mother's footsteps. He ensured that his children would be educated. And now he has children who have made marks throughout this country in great ways. But then he did not stop there. Lou Stokes made sure that children of this country got the very best, and he saw to that through legislation. When I came to this House, I came knowing that I would get the advice and the strength of this great man. He showed me how I could introduce legislation that would help my constituents in terms of AIDS, in terms of bone-marrow transplants, in terms of the myriad of diseases that perplex our communities. Louis Stokes helped me to recognize how I could move through committees and still be humble in my presentations and yet reach a level of success. Louis Stokes, the man who has been at the Supreme Court in cases that were landmark cases. This is a giant, Mr. Chairman, one whom not only the Congressional Black Caucus has recognized, but by virtue of those who have been on this floor have recognized. He has touched many hearts and many souls. He has shown us how to be a statesman, a gentleman's gentleman. I am just all the better because I served with him, and I thank him for all of the advice that he has given me. I thank you for being part of this great body, being a great man. Thank you so much.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my colleagues tonight in explaining to the American people what the Republican leadership is doing--as opposed to claiming to be doing--to address a disturbing trend in the nation's health care system. We have heard story after story of how doctors have recommended certain medical procedures and health insurance companies have claimed that it is not necessary and not covered. We have heard over and over again about women who have not been allowed to have their gynecologist serve as their primary doctor and instead, have been forced to waste time and money visiting their primary doctor each time they need to see their gynecologist. We know the same treatment occurs when patients seek specialists and are instead dragged through a painfully slow process of going to their primary care physician every time they need their specialist. This has resulted in delayed treatment and even in the loss of lives. One issue on which I have worked extensively is creating more opportunities for children and those in need to receive bone marrow transplants. Although most health insurance companies claim that they cover bone marrow transplants, in reality, few cover the complete cost involved in saving a child's life. Every year in this country, 30,000 people are diagnosed with diseases such as Leukemia and Sickle Cell Anemia that can be successfully treated with a bone marrow transplant. The marrow transplant procedure is no longer considered an experimental procedure. It has been peer-reviewed in numerous professional medical journals, which is the basis for determining ``medically appropriate'' care that will be covered by insurance plans. Beyond meeting this standard, bone marrow transplant searches and procurement from donors must be covered as well in order to truly save lives. Bone marrow transplants are just one example of a clearly life-saving and medically appropriate and necessary procedure that needs to be covered by health insurance companies. The Republican bill leaves medical decisions in the hands of insurance company accountants and not in the hands of those who know best: the doctor and patient. The Republican bill does not ensure access to specialty care; does not prohibit HMOs from offering bonuses to doctors for denying necessary care; does not prohibit drive-through mastectomies; and perhaps, worst of all, the Republican bill does not hold the health insurance plans accountable when abusive practices kill or severely injure patients. Despite what those who would rather squander extra dollars for the health industry say, these protections would not result in a significant increase in costs. A recent congressional study concluded that the right to sue, which is in the Democratic Patients' Bill of Rights bill, would result in only an extra $2 a month per employee. These are just some of the 16 protections that are missing from this Republican fig leaf of a bill that are included in the Democratic Patients' Bill of Rights bill. The Republican bill flies in the face of those lives who have been lost or severely impaired by an incomplete, unfair and sometimes ruthless HMO system. This legislation is seriously flawed not only because it is extremely partisan and has completely circumvented the legislative process, but also because it does little to resolve some of the most daunting problems facing Americans today.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Lowey provision within the Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill. The vast majority of FEHB plans do not cover the full range of prescription contraceptives which prevent unintended pregnancies and 10 percent of the FEHB plans do not even cover any of the five major contraceptives. We all know that the FEHB program serves as a model for the nation's private health insurance plans. If we do not even cover such basic and essential prescription drugs that can decrease the number of abortions in this country, then what kinds of message are we sending the American people? Eighty-one percent of FEHB plans do not cover all five leading reversible methods of contraception. (Oral contraceptives, diaphragm, IUD's, Norplant, and Depo-Provera). Many women have medical conditions that prevent them from even having the option to use certain forms of contraception. Women deserve to be able to choose from all 5 of the major forms of contraception not only for their specific medical needs, but because she and her mate should be able to determine the form of birth control that is right for them. This should not and cannot be based on the lack of funds, which far too often results in unwanted pregnancies. Currently, women of reproductive age spend 68% more in out-of-pocket health costs than men. We need to narrow the gender gap in insurance coverage--not widen the disparities between those who have and those have not, and further expand the chasm that has hurt far too many women and families throughout the country already. The Lowey provision is a critical, yet basic necessity that has a ``negligible'' cost according to the Congressional Budget Office. I urge my colleagues to join me in making sure that we do all that we can to reduce the likelihood of abortion in this country, do all that we can to help women obtain the prescription drugs they need, and do all that we can to make this health care system more equal for women and men.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, during roll call vote number 267 on June 25, 1998, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend both sides for their leadership in bringing such an important topic to the floor. I am glad that I had a part in this markup, as I brought the issue of alcohol to this program and to ensure that we included language that would require that we had alcohol abuse prevention programs as well as drug abuse prevention programs. I also want to mention that violence in the workplace, domestic violence is a critical issue with me. I am sorry that we were unable to bring in the counseling for domestic violence in this bill because it is critical. It is an ever-increasing need to address this problem in our workplace. In one year alone, almost 4 million American women are physically abused by their husbands or boyfriends. With over half of the female population and nearly 90 percent of the male population employed in this country, domestic violence is a public health issue. I am sorry that we were unable to get this issue in the bill. Domestic violence is a public health problem that we can no longer ignore in the workplace. The issue of domestic violence must become a priority for our country and our Nation's leading businesses. I thank the gentleman and the gentlewoman for their time, and I would hope that some day we would put domestic violence as part of the Drug Free Workplace Act. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my thoughts on the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1998 which is aimed at reducing drug abuse in the workplace. The Small Business Committee marked-up this legislation in an attempt to improve its effectiveness. I am glad to say that many improvements were made. In particular, I am proud of the fact that we were able to include language that would require any drug-free workplace program developed as a result of this bill to include a continuing alcohol and drug abuse prevention program. Prior to my amendment to this bill, there was no mention of alcohol abuse. It is critically important that we address alcohol abuse and addiction when we address drug abuse in the workplace. Prevention of both alcohol and drug abuse is essential for any drug-free workplace program to be successful. Effective prevention does not occur with just one class or one discussion on the dangers of alcohol or substance abuse. We must ensure that a comprehensive approach will be utilized in accomplishing a productive, drug-free work environment that promotes and protects the life of employees. Such a continuing alcohol and substance abuse program must provide quality prevention and education programs, assess individual alcohol and drug problems, refer individuals struggling with substance abuse problems or addiction to a trained substance abuse treatment professional or facility. Furthermore, such a comprehensive approach provides all employees with the necessary information to be able to see warning signs of substance abuse problems among their colleagues. Continuing substance abuse prevention programs are a necessity when you consider that more than 70% of drug users and 75% of alcoholics are employed. This is a staggering number that can only be reduced through the use of comprehensive drug-free programs that include prevention as well as a range of effective on-going services that address the complex problems of alcohol and substance abuse. Although this measure addresses the many issues of alcohol and drug usage on the worksite, the bill could go farther to address some other related issues. One issue that deserves attention is the need to provide counseling for and information on domestic violence. There is an ever increasing need to address this problem. In one year alone, almost four million American women are physically abused by their husbands or boyfriends. With over half of the female population and nearly 90 percent of the male population employed in this country, domestic violence is a public health problem that we can no longer ignore in the workplace. The issue of domestic violence must become a priority for our country, and our nation's leading businesses agree. In a recent national survey of American businesses, 47 percent of senior executives polled said that domestic violence has a harmful effect on the company's productivity; 44 percent said that it increases health care costs; and 66 percent said that they believe their company's financial performance would benefit from addressing the issue of domestic violence among their employees. The result of these statistics indicate that this problem is affecting more than the women who are abused, but the place in which they work. Thus, there is the necessity and urgency to provide counseling and education on domestic violence. We must educate both female and male employees on domestic violence. Furthermore, there is a need to recognize the signs of potentially dangerous situations, and how to provide help once the abuse has begun. With such a program in place, we would be able to further address those problems that plague our work environments as well as our homes. It is in this spirit that I encourage my colleagues to continue to work to make the workplace as productive and efficient as possible by addressing not only alcohol and drug abuse, but domestic violence.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H. Res. 404 regarding the relations between the people of the United States and the people of the Philippines. In light of the Philippines 100th anniversary of its independence from Spain, this measure appropriately acknowledges the Philippines' efforts to improve its democracy and human rights, rule of law and expansion of the free market. Such accomplishments are reflective of a nation striving to fulfill its potential as a future leader in international diplomacy. As a nation on the rise, the Philippines has made significant strides to uphold and promote democratic ideals. From open elections to establishing diplomatic relationships with free world nations, the Philippines has accepted its role as an emerging power in the international forum. This role has been further established by its efforts to promote human rights both domestically and abroad. In the annals of U.S. military history, the Philippine people have made incredible contributions to the preservation of world democracy. Fighting side by side with American troops in World War II, the Korean War and Vietnam, Filipino troops demonstrated both valor and fighting prowess in all these engagements. In the constant face of adversity, these men and women endured and prevailed. The accomplishments of Philippine Americans have not only been noticed in military endeavors, but have also been noteworthy for their contributions to the United States. As U.S. citizens, Filipino Americans have made great contributions to the growth and prosperity of our Nation. In the 37th Congressional District of California, the Filipino American community has contributed immeasurable leadership and vision. As a result of these contributions, the Filipino American community deserves the respect and gratitude of this country's government. Unfortunately, some members of the Filipino community have not been accorded such respect. Amerasian children, children of mixed heritage borne by Philippine mothers and U.S. servicemen, have been denied the right to immigrate to the U.S. In the spirit of today's House resolution, I would ask my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join me in sponsoring my bill, H.R. 2540, the Amerasian Reunification Act. This legislation would help reunite families and children born in the Philippines. Your support of this legislation will send a resounding message to the citizens of the Philippines that Americans are willing to stand behind their democratic beliefs in assisting those less fortunate in need.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Thank you so much, Congresswoman Maloney. And let me just thank you for your leadership, along with Congressman Chris Shays, for your tenacity in ensuring that everyone is counted and everyone will be counted in this next census 2000. It is your leadership that has forced us to come and join you on this very critical issue. I am happy to stand with you tonight as you organize this special order to discuss the census. It is an important discussion because, one, I represent California; and California was undercounted by 800,000 votes, citizens I should say, last census count. 800,000 persons were undercounted in California in 1990, which has now been shown as the worst census count ever in the years that we have been doing the census count. California could ill afford to lose a seat in the House when our population has grown far beyond any other State in this Nation, and so it is important that we have statistical sampling so that we can count all of California's citizens in the next census. It is also an important discussion for African Americans and other minorities because the outcome of the controversy over the methodology the Bureau of Census uses will say a great deal about whether the three branches that make up our government truly believe that everyone counts. It will stand as a test of how far our Nation has come from the days when people of African decent were considered three-fifths of a person by our Constitution. Indeed, this whole debate would make an interesting case study about contemporary race relations in the United States. On one side we have the forces of science, two centuries of experience and political leaders committed to insuring that the census that determines the apportionment of seats in the people's House is fair and that everyone is counted. On the other side, we have the forces of tradition inspired by two centuries of experience fighting to keep some people in this country from being made whole and political leaders determined to ensure that this census undercounts some and overcounts others. Instead of using offensive terminology in a direct frontal attack on the principles of equality, fairness and respect for diversity, they resort to sophisticated and obscure legal reasoning and obstructionist tactics. And why? What do they fear? The opponents of sampling claim that the modern statistical methods being proposed in this census and overwhelmingly supported by the scientific community are subject to political manipulation. However, a memorandum prepared by Stuart M. Gerson, Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Division of the Justice Department for the Commerce Department's General Counsel, noted that a head count, quote, might be subject to political manipulation in the form of a congressional refusal to appropriate sufficient funds for census programs aimed at reducing the undercount of minorities or by an overly restrictive local review procedure. On the other hand, the Census Bureau statisticians might perform a statistical adjustment in a manner yielding highly accurate results, unquote. The opponents believe that if African Americans were counted as whole individuals using accurate methods instead of the nine-tenths they were during the 1990 census, it could shift control of the House from the Republicans to the Democrats. How else can we explain the Speaker's flip-flop from being a supporter of statistical adjustments based on sampling in 1992 to heading a lawsuit against sampling now? The opponents are using an interpretation of the constitutional mandate to conduct an enumeration in an effort to preclude the Bureau from using methodologies demonstrated to improve accuracy in the most cost-effective way. By claiming the Constitution requires a physical head count of the entire population, they deliberately seek to avoid reaching the populous in densely populated urban centers unwilling to open their doors to strangers asking intrusive questions about living arrangements and those in isolated rural communities. And we know which demographic profile predominates in these areas, do we not? What the opponents of an accurate census really fear are the American people themselves in the glory of their ethnic racial gender and socioeconomic diversity. The opponents do not believe that everyone counts, only those that look like them and live in the same types of neighborhoods they do. By assuming an accurate count of the Latino, Asian American, Native American and African American communities as well as the residents of rural areas, it will lead to unpredictable political shifts in power. They display their contempt for any notion changing their agenda in an effort to address these constituencies' needs, hopes and aspirations. Mr. Speaker, we must make sure everyone is counted in the year 2000, and no one should be left out. This is why I am joining the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and all others who are sensitive and do know the importance of counting everyone.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen from Florida, Mr. Young and Mr. Bilirakis, for their leadership.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and for his comments. Mr. Speaker, I am so proud to be able to stand before the Members today, a day when the House will finally vote on one of the most important pieces of legislation affecting the health of minorities and their families. For more than a year now I have been working to increase the number of minorities and people of mixed ancestry on the National Bone Marrow Registry, not only through legislation but through coordinated outreach efforts throughout this country. I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida for working so closely with me to make sure that when we reauthorize this program, we do everything possible to increase the number of minorities and people of mixed ancestry. Every year, Mr. Speaker, more than 30,000 people are diagnosed with one of the 60 diseases that can be cured with a bone marrow transplant. Of those, only 30 percent will have a family member who is a marrow match. That means 20,000 people each year need to find an unrelated marrow donor. There are almost 2 million registered donors in this country, an increase of more than 260 percent since the beginning of 1993. But of these impressive numbers of transplants, Mr. Speaker, minorities continue to receive far fewer transplants. In fact, in 1997, only 65 African Americans received transplants, 105 Hispanic Americans received transplants, and approximately 37 people of mixed ancestry received transplants. During that same year, however, 1,021 caucasians received transplants; so we can see, Mr. Speaker, the critical need for this. Again, let me thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for his leadership on this issue. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting yes for H.R. 2202. The day has finally come to close the gap on this critical minority health care disparity.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 2829, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act. This legislation is essential to the survival of our police officers who risk their lives daily. Mr. Speaker, this is a measure that I believe all law abiding citizens should strongly believe in and support. H.R. 2829 addresses the issue of improving officer safety. Between 1985 and 1994, 709 police officers were killed while on duty. Ninety- two percent of those murders were committed with a firearm. Since the introduction of modern bulletproof material, the lives of more than 2,000 police officers have been saved because they were wearing bulletproof vests. From these invaluable statistics, we can obviously see the impact that bulletproof vests have on saving the lives of our police officers. Thus, the need to provide every police officer with a bulletproof vest is obvious and necessary. The Bulletproof Vest Parthnership Grant Act is a legislative measure that will assist police departments in providing their officers with such protection. This bill would authorize up to $25 million per year for a new matching grant program to help state and local law enforcement authorities purchase bulletproof vests and body armor. Furthermore, the bill makes preferences in granting awards toward jurisdictions where officers do not currently have vests, and reserves half of the money for jurisdictions with fewer than 100,000 residents. This legislation is very important in light of the fact that on the average, two officers are shot every twenty-four hours. This is disturbing news simply because these figures indicate that approximately 150,000 of the nation's 600,000 state and local law enforcement officers do not currently have access to bulletproof vests. In consideration of the dangers that today's officers face, I strongly support the passage of H.R. 2829, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act. This legislation is needed by the men and women who risk their lives daily for our protection. For their commitment and service, we owe every police officer our support on this issue. As the Representative of the Thirty-Seventh Congressional District of California, I am in strong support of this important legislation. This legislation has been endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriff's Association, the International Union of Police Associations, the Police Executive Research Forum, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, and National Association of Police Organizations, the Long Beach Police Officer's Association and the Compton Police Officer's Association.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support for H.R. 3694, the Intelligence Authorization for FY 1999. However, my support is not without serious reservations, for I remain deeply concerned about allegations that have been raised regarding CIA involvement in drug trafficking in South Central Los Angeles and elsewhere. While I applaud Chairman Porter Goss, Ranking Member Norm Dicks, and the rest of the House Permanent Select Committee for convening a public hearing following release of Volume One of the Central Intelligence Agency Inspector General's report in response to the San Jose Mercury News' series ``Dark Alliance'', I have made my views about the shortcomings in this report known to the Committee and to the Agency. I am aware that Volume Two of the Inspector General's report, which deals with the more substantive issues regarding the extent of the relationship between the intelligence community and the Nicaraguan Contra resistance, has been provided to the Select Committee in classified form. I understand that it is being reviewed by the Central Intelligence Agency to determine whether any or all of it may be declassified. And, we are still awaiting release of Inspector General Michael Bromwich's report on the allegations of wrong doing that may have occurred within branches of the U.S. Department of Justice. However, I would like to take this opportunity to strongly urge C.I.A. Director George Tenet and Chairman Goss to do everything possible to declassify as much information in the report as possible as its subject matter goes to the heart of the issues raised by my constituents in the public meetings I convened following publication of the San Jose Mercury News series. I also urge Attorney General Janet Reno to release the I.G.'s report at the earliest possible opportunity. Failure to make this information public feeds the skepticism of the hundreds of consitutents in my District and throughout the nation who still want answers and who are encouraged by the Committee's expressed commitment to make public as much information as possible. Furthermore, to fully appreciate our government's efforts to fight the scourge of narcotics, the public must understand its intricacies, including the role of interdiction and intelligence. Public release of the reports, followed by public hearings, and ultimately the conduct by the Committee of its own inquiry, will assist my constituents to evaluate the role the Central Intelligence Agency played in balancing competing nations priorities. Such a process will also give Members of Congress, as policy makers, the information necessary to make informed decisions about handling such issues in the future. Consequently, I and my constituents continue to eagerly await the public release of the reports by the Inspectors General of Justice and CIA. I reiterate my hope that the Select Committee will give their content, methodologies and findings the scrutiny they deserve and in a similar spirit of openness, make themselves available to my constituents to respond to any questions these reports generate. I believe such openness is critical to restoration of the credibility and public trust necessary to allow intelligence gathering activities, which by their nature are secretive, to coexist with democracy

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support for H.R. 3694, the Intelligence Authorization for FY 1999. However, my support is not without serious reservations, for I remain deeply concerned about allegations that have been raised regarding CIA involvement in drug trafficking in South Central Los Angeles and elsewhere. While I applaud Chairman Porter Goss, Ranking Member Norm Dicks, and the rest of the House Permanent Select Committee for convening a public hearing following release of Volume One of the Central Intelligence Agency Inspector General's report in response to the San Jose Mercury News' series ``Dark Alliance'', I have made my views about the shortcomings in this report known to the Committee and to the Agency. I am aware that Volume Two of the Inspector General's report, which deals with the more substantive issues regarding the extent of the relationship between the intelligence community and the Nicaraguan Contra resistance, has been provided to the Select Committee in classified form. I understand that it is being reviewed by the Central Intelligence Agency to determine whether any or all of it may be declassified. And, we are still awaiting release of Inspector General Michael Bromwich's report on the allegations of wrongdoing that may have occurred within branches of the U.S. Department of Justice. However, I would like to take this opportunity to strongly urge CIA Director John Tenet and Chairman Goss to do everything possible to declassify as much information in the report as possible as its subject matter goes to the heart of the issues raised by my constituents in the public meetings I convened following publication of the San Jose Mercury News series. I also urge Attorney General Janet Reno to release the I.G.'s report at the earliest possible opportunity. Failure to make this information public feeds the skepticism of the hundreds of constituents in my District who still want answers and who are encouraged by the Committee's expressed commitment to make public as much information as possible. Furthermore, to fully appreciate our government's efforts to fight the scourge of narcotics, the public must understand its intricacies, including the role of interdiction and intelligence. Public release of the reports, followed by public hearings, and ultimately the conduct by the Committee of its own inquiry, will assist my constituents to evaluate the role of the Central Intelligence Agency played in balancing competing national priorities. Such a process will also give Members of Congress, as policy makers, the information necessary to make informed decisions about handling such issues in the future. Consequently, I and my constituents continue to eagerly await the public release of the reports by the Inspectors General of Justice and CIA. I reiterate my hope that the Select Committee will give their content, methodologies and findings the scrutiny they deserve and in a similar spirit of openness, make themselves available to my constituents to respond to any questions these reports generate. I believe such openness is critical to restoration of the credibility and public trust necessary to allow intelligence gathering activities, which by their nature are secretive, to coexist with democracy.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Technical Workers Fairness Act of 1998. This bill, and its companion bill, S. 1924 offered by Sens. Connie Mack (R-FL) and John Kerry (D- MA), would repeal Section 1706 of the 1986 Tax Reform Act in order to provide the necessary tax relief for the technical services industry. Since the passage of the 1986 Tax Reform Act, Section 1706 added a new subsection (d) to Section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978. For those businesses classified as ``technical services firms,'' Section 1706 removed the Section 530 employment tax safe havens that otherwise apply to all other types of businesses that use the services of independent contractors. These Section 530 safe havens were enacted by Congress in 1978 to protect business taxpayers, especially small businesses, from arbitrary IRS decisions interpreting the common law employment test in employment tax audits. Yet Section 1706 singles out one group of taxpayers. As a result of Section 1706, technical services firms must prove to the IRS that their hired workers meet the qualifications as independent contractors under the centuries-old common law employment test. Even if the firm can prove that the employment of the independent contractor is consistent with industry practice or a relevant court ruling, all of which constitutes a ``safe haven'' under Section 530--none of these factors are relevant because of the enactment of Section 1706. The harm caused to the technical services industry and its employees is real. There is no rationale as to why a business could be severely penalized by the IRS and forced to pay employment taxes despite the fact that the contractors have already paid these same taxes in full. Unfortunately, some IRS auditors have used Section 1706 to claim that even incorporated independent contractors are not legitimate. Faced with the obstacle of meeting the requirements of the common law employment test to prove a worker's status to the IRS, many technical services firms will simply refuse to hire any independent contractors in order to avoid tempting an IRS audit. In 1991, the Treasury Department issued a 100-page study of Section 1706, as required by Congress. The Study found that tax compliance is actually better-than-average among technical services workers compared to other contractors in other industries. In addition, Section 1706 is the only occasion since the enactment of Section 530 that Congress has ever cut back on the safe haven protections in Section 530. Furthermore, in 1996, Congress expanded the Section 530 protection and shifted the burden from the taxpayer to the IRS. In light of the unfairness of Section 1706, I believe it is time to move for its repeal so that technical services firms will be allowed to compete on a level playing field. As the Ranking Member of the Tax, Finance and Exports subcommittee, I am pleased to take these steps to remove this discriminatory provision.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I do hope that we can work together because there are a lot of provisions in my amendment that are not in the present bill, and I think it is critical that we include these provisions if we are going to indeed talk about professional training for teachers and ensure that teachers are qualified to teach in that discipline. And for that reason, I sure hope that I have the understanding from the gentleman that we will work with the provisions that I have in concert with what the gentleman has. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. I offer this amendment, Mr. Chairman, because we must improve the quality of teachers teaching our children. As a former educator in the Los Angeles Unified School District, I know the discouragement and despair that saps the morale and inspiration of our teachers, which directly impacts our children. I believe that we must restore the stature and importance of the profession of teaching. We must have the best-trained teachers if we expect our children to be the best. This is why I have offered the Teacher Excellence Amendment which will change the way teachers are trained and improve the quality of teaching in America's classrooms. The language implements some of the recommendations from the National Commission on Teaching in America's Future, of which I am the only Member of Congress who serves on that commission. My amendment, Mr. Chairman, will directly connect our teacher preparation system to our schools by establishing a competitive grant program for professional development partnership consisting of colleges, public schools, State and local educational agencies, teacher organizations, professional education organizations and others. If we are to make sure or to ensure that teachers are professionally trained, Mr. Chairman, we must make sure that we then have the type of professional development that will not just be weekend professional development but will be ongoing professional development. The amendment also provides for the continuing development and professional training of veteran teachers, and it also provides for mentorship of prospective and beginning teachers by veteran teachers. We recognize that beginning teachers must have pre-induction and post- induction training and support systems. Therefore, this bill and this amendment would allow for that type of professional development of veteran teachers. The amendment also increases recruitment to outreach for more diverse students toward teacher discipline. It prioritizes awarding of grants to programs serving low-income areas. It promotes the use of teachers of excellence, who have master teaching techniques in subject areas, to come back and teach those beginning teachers, as well as teachers that are certified by the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards, to assist prospective and beginning teachers. Now some of the weaknesses of the underlying bill: It prohibits a national system of teaching certification, and we from the National Commission of Teaching in America's Future recognize it is the fact that we must have a national system of teacher certification so that we will ensure that teachers are certified to teach in those prospective disciplines. This amendment also authorizes $100 million as opposed to the 18 million that the present bill has. We see this as a need, if we are going to encourage more professional development, that is sorely needed for qualified teachers. It also mandates governors to submit grant applications instead of allowing individual professional development partnerships to submit their own grant applications. Mr. Chairman, I do urge that my colleagues support this teacher excellence amendment as it ensures America's teachers be the best trained they can be to educate our children for the world of work; and for that, Mr. Chairman, I ask for the approval of the amendment.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Madam Speaker, I thank the leader of this great debate, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) for her leadership on this issue. I urge my colleagues to oppose S. 1502, the so-called D.C. Opportunities Scholarship. Scholarships are generally awarded to one on the premise of their merits and their deeds. This is not a scholarship bill, it is a voucher; and a voucher is a voucher is a voucher, despite attempts to put a pretty face on a bad bill. I really do not have to stand and speak for the people of California, my State, because they have already spoken and they have said no to vouchers, and so have many other States. School vouchers drain taxpayers' dollars from public schools into private and religious schools. This hurts the vast majority of children who are left behind in public schools. Americans oppose transferring taxpayer dollars from public to private education by a 54 to 39 percent margin. We need to provide more resources for options that are making a positive difference in public schools like charter schools which is showing great promise in my State of California. Democrats believe that we should improve public schools. Vouchers are not the solution to improve public education. This Congress should be passing legislation that affirms that quality public education should be the inalienable right of every child in America. Vote ``no'' on this private voucher; vote ``no'' on this bill. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose S. 1502, the ``so- called'' D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Act. Scholarships are generally awarded on one's own merits and deeds. This is not a scholarship bill. It's a voucher, AND a voucher IS a voucher, IS a voucher--despite attempts to put a pretty name on a bad bill. I really don't have to stand and speak for California, MY STATE, because the people of California have already spoken--no to vouchers! And so have many other states. School vouchers drain taxpayers dollars from public schools into private and religious schools. This hurts the vast majority of children, who are left behind in the public schools. Americans oppose transferring taxpayer dollars from public into private education by a 54-39% margin. We need to provide more resources for options that are making a positive difference in public schools, like charter schools--which are showing great promise in my state of California. Democrats believe that we should be improving public schools. How are we improving public schools when you leave 76,000 students behind. This DC voucher plan provides only a few DC public school students (2,000) with vouchers--while providing no answers for 76,000 students. The DC public schools need to be improved--not abandoned. Yet Republicans now want to use Washington, DC as a laboratory for their ``social experiments'' with a concept that has been resoundingly rejected by voters all over the country. Vouchers are not the solution to improve public school education. This Congress should be passing legislation that affirms that quality public school education should be the inalienable right of every child in America. Vote ``no'' on private vouchers--Vote ``no'' on this bill .

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3717. As a Member of this House, representing a region of this country with an astronomical high rate of HIV transmission and AIDS, I cannot support this bill. I cannot support legislation that is brashly written to resolve hot tempers and not to resolve the real problems here. HIV and AIDS continue to plague this country. We have not and will not see the rate of HIV transmission fall if we continue to let politics rule the legislative process. We have conclusive scientific evidence that needle exchange programs mitigate the spread of HIV and are an essential catalyst in getting people off the streets and into the life-saving substance abuse programs. Nationwide, injection drug use accounts for more than 60 percent of the AIDS cases, more than 70 percent of the HIV infections among women of child-bearing age, and more than 75 percent of babies diagnosed with HIV AIDS. Among African Americans, 48 percent of AIDS cases are related to injection drug use. The rate of HIV AIDS transmission in the African American community is 7 times that of the general population, and AIDS continues to be the number one killer of African American women age 25 to 44 years. Needle exchange programs have shown a reduction in risk behavior as high as 80 percent in injecting drug users, with estimates of 30 percent of greater reduction of HIV. Perhaps the most critical of all, these needle exchange programs help individuals stabilize their health and gain more control over the dangerous environment in which they live so that they can benefit from HIV medications and drug treatment. The needle exchange programs that have been implemented in inner cities throughout the country are playing a critical role in reducing HIV transmission, assisting HIV-positive drug users in obtaining necessary care and drug treatment, and providing essential information on AIDS. This is critical not only for those who are IV drug users, but for the hundreds of thousands of adults who do not know that their partners are using drugs and for the innocent children who are born with this fatal disease. The American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, and many more national health organizations support needle exchange programs. I encourage my colleagues to join me in voting against this bill, which is full of politics and void of reason.