Diane Watson

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the so- called partial-birth abortion ban conference report. This legislation is dangerous and deceptive; it is politically driven and filled with mischaracterizations for the sole purpose of inflaming the abortion debate. I strongly urge my colleagues to defeat this report. Everyone in this House knows that ``partial birth'' is a political term, not a medical term. It was invented as political rhetoric designed to erode the protections of Roe v. Wade. In fact, the bill that passed the House this Congress would apply to more than just a single abortion procedure, the intact D&E or the D&X procedure, to include prohibitions on abortions well before viability. It is clear that the bill opens up a slippery slope where its ultimate goal is to ban abortion entirely. The partial-birth abortion ban is opposed by numerous medical and health organizations. Among them are the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Medical Women's Association and America Public Health Association, and the Medical Association of my State, California. All of these groups understand how the ban prevents women from receiving the level of medical care that would ensure their safety and their well-being. Most importantly, they recognize the fact that such medical care decisions must be left to the judgment of the physician and the woman. We need to stop playing doctors here in this governmental institution. It is an intrusion into the woman's physical and mental health. No one on this floor is qualified to make that decision. The access to abortion is a constitutionally guaranteed protection. It is a private medical decision that should not be dictated by the Federal Government. I urge a strong ``no'' on this conference report.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will work with my colleagues to see that the upgrading of this post office happens. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1882 designates the facility of the United States Post Office located at 440 South Orange Blossom Trail in Orlando, Florida, as the Arthur ``Pappy'' Kennedy Post Office. I am pleased to join with our colleagues in the consideration of this bill that will name the post office after Pappy Kennedy. The bill was sponsored by the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown) on April 30, 2003. The bill has met the Committee on Government Reform policies, and has been cosponsored by the entire Florida delegation. Arthur ``Pappy'' Kennedy was born in River Junction, Florida, in 1913. Ten years later, Mr. Kennedy moved to Orlando. He attended high school and college in the Florida area, and returned to Orlando to work at the Orange Court Hotel. A lifetime member of the NAACP, Mr. Kennedy volunteered with many organizations: Meals on Wheels, United Negro College Fund, among others. He served as a deacon in his church, Shiloh Baptist, and spent time working with young people. In 1972, Mr. Kennedy was elected Orlando's first African-American City Commissioner and had the distinction of being elected by the largest percentage between contestants in the 101-year history of the city. A tireless public servant and advocate, Arthur ``Pappy'' Kennedy passed away on March 28, 2001. Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for seeking to honor the late Arthur ``Pappy'' Kennedy in this manner, and I urge the adoption of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings.)

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. General Leave

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am representing the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) as a member of the Committee on Government Reform, and I am pleased to join the gentleman in consideration of H.R. 2075, legislation naming a postal facility in West Palm Beach, Florida, after Judge Edward Rodgers. H.R. 2075 was sponsored by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) on May 13, 2003. The bill has met the Committee on Government Reform policy, and has been cosponsored by the entire Florida delegation. Edward Rodgers has lived in West Palm Beach since 1950 when he married West Palm Beach native Gwendolyn Baker. Mr. Rodgers began his career as a teacher, later becoming an assistant principal. In reaction to the injustices of teaching in a segregated society, Mr. Rodgers became an attorney, graduating from Florida A&M University Law School in 1963. He went on to become the first black county prosecutor and the first black judge in Palm Beach County. Judge Rodgers served on the bench for 22 years before retiring in 1995. On his first run for office in 1999, Judge Rodgers won a seat on the Riviera Beach City Council, where he presently serves as council chairman. Mr. Speaker, Judge Rodgers has spent a lifetime working hard to assist those in need, championing the rights of those with drug addictions and those who are suffering from mental illness. Judge Rodgers has used his legal and judicial talent to improve his town, establishing a Saturday drug court, working as a mediator and court- appointed special master in arbitration and investigating back-room judicial appointments. Passage of H.R. 2075 maintains our tradition of recognizing those very special and deserving individuals. I applaud our colleague for seeking to honor Judge Edward Rodgers in this manner, and I urge the swift passage of H.R. 2075. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. TIERNEY). (Mr. TIERNEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, we have no additional speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the son of a stonemason and an aspiring concert singer, Bob Hope had a career that stretched across the decades. His casual careers included a butcher's delivery boy, a soda clerk, shoe salesman, pool hustler and boxer, but it was the stage where he was most at home. Bob Hope began performing in vaudeville in the 1920s, performing what he called songs, patter, and eccentric dancing. He made his Broadway debut in 1933 with the musical Roberta. He appeared in the 1935 production of the Ziegfeld Follies and starred with the legendary Ethel Merman in a production of Cole Porter's Red Hot and Blue. In addition to his work on the stage, Hope landed a profitable stint hosting the popular Pepsodent show on NBC Radio. His program would air in some form or another from 1938 until the 1950s. Bob Hope's radio fame led him to Hollywood, where he appeared in his first film, The Big Broadcast of 1938. He starred in more than 50 films, but he is best known for the road movies with Bing Crosby and Dorothy Lamour. Though Bob Hope never won a Best Actor Oscar, he has been awarded two honorary Academy Awards and a humanitarian award. He made his first appearance on television in 1947 when he headlined the inaugural broadcast of KTLA, the first TV station on the West Coast. In the early 1950s, he appeared frequently on ``The Tonight Show'' with Johnny Carson and alongside Lucille Ball on her sitcom ``I Love Lucy.'' Beginning in 1953, Hope hosted an annual Christmas television special, many of which were broadcast internationally for the sake of the United States troops stationed around the world. During World War II and the Korean and Vietnam wars and even during peacetime, Bob Hope toured with a number of USO shows, entertaining U.S. troops and earning the title of USO's Ambassador of Goodwill. Over his lifetime, Bob Hope has been awarded more honors than any other entertainer, an achievement that earned him a place in the ``Guinness Book of Records.'' Since 1934, Bob Hope has been married to Delores Reade, whom he met when they appeared together on Broadway in ``Roberta.'' The couple has four children. Our condolences go out to the Hope family and his legion of fans. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time. General Leave

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise to support H.R. 3011, that will designate the facility of the United States Post Office located at 135 East Olive Avenue in Burbank, California, as the Bob Hope post office building. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in the consideration of H.R. 3011, legislation naming this post office after Bob Hope. The bill was sponsored by the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) on September 4, 2003, and it has met the policy of the Committee on Government Reform and has been cosponsored by the entire California delegation. Bob Hope was born Leslie Townes Hope in 1903 in Eltham, England. He emigrated to America 4 years later. For more than 60 years, Bob Hope traveled around the world entertaining and supporting our military personnel. From World War II, to the Korean War, to the Vietnam War, and the Persian Gulf War Bob sang, danced, joked, comforted, and took picture after picture with our men and women who were fighting for our country. But Bob Hope did not just give of his time and his talent, he also gave from his heart and his pocket. Throughout his career he raised more than $1 billion for war relief and various other charities. Sadly, Bob Hope, the friend of presidents and a living legend in radio, TV, film, and on Broadway died at his home on July 27, 2003. However sad it was, he met the century figure, 100 years. Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleagues for seeking to honor the late Bob Hope in this manner; and, as a representative of Hollywood, we will all cherish his memory and his works and hope that we can give back to humankind what he did. I urge the swift adoption of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, it has been a year since the President began pressing to invade Iraq. At the time, many of us pressed the President to fully account for the cost of his planned war. Most Americans would agree that if the issue of Iraq was important enough to start a war over, it was important enough to pay for. For a year, Congress has asked for hard numbers on the cost of occupying and rebuilding Iraq, and for a year the President has given us nothing but blandishments and pie-in-the-sky forecasts. At the time, experts, including the President's own chief economist, predicted the war and reconstruction would cost as much as $200 billion. But the President and his aides actively downplayed those numbers, saying it would only cost around $50 billion. Well, guess what? Last week the President finally admitted that he had low-balled the cost of the war when selling it to Congress a year ago. The President is now asking for an additional $87 billion, billion with a B, to extricate our troops from what is beginning to look like a quagmire. Let me be perfectly clear: The current situation in Iraq should not have come as any surprise to anyone in this administration or in this Congress. Last fall, the Chief of Staff of the United States Army, General Eric Shinseki, told Congress that it would require close to 300,000 troops to secure Iraq after toppling Saddam. Today, only about half that number are in Iraq. As the toll of American soldiers killed in the occupation of Iraq rises, our young men and women in uniform are paying the price of trying to wage war on the cheap. I was just reading a news report referring to a young man from Micronesia, Hilario Bermanis, II, and how he was injured in Iraq. He has lost an eye, an arm and both legs. He is being honored by being made an American citizen. And a few weeks earlier, the proposal was made to reduce veterans' services. I cannot understand that. This additional $87 billion comes on top of the $78.5 billion Congress gave the President just 5 months ago, bringing the grand total so far to $165 billion, and we would cut the cost of veterans' services. If that sounds like a lot of money, hold on to your hat for this piece of information: A recent analysis by the Committee on the Budget shows that the entire cost for rebuilding Iraq could rise to as much as $400 billion over the next 5 years. Now, this new $87 billion alone is a big number by itself. That is a number most people will never encounter at any point in their lives. So it is important to put these numbers into context. Eighty-seven billion dollars is more than twice what the President requested to protect the United States from the terrorist attack that might come at any time. Eighty-seven billion dollars is about three times what the request was for highway and road construction across the country next year. Eighty-seven billion dollars is about twice the net worth, not annual income, but total net worth of America's wealthiest man, Bill Gates. Eighty-seven billion dollars is almost six times the profits of America's largest corporation, General Electric. Eighty- seven billion dollars is more than $300 for every man, woman and child in the United States of America. That is a lot of money to spend on a country halfway around the world, when our local schools, hospitals, fire and police departments are struggling to make ends meet.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the bill, H.R. 1209, to extend the authority for the construction of a memorial to Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., on the National Mall. The authorization set by Congress in 1996 to raise funds for the memorial will expire on November 12, which happens to be my birthday, so I would like to extend the authorization until November 12, 2006. The tireless efforts by the King Memorial Foundation to raise $100 million for the construction and maintenance of the project have been strong, but more time is needed to reach its fund-raising goal, and I believe it is our job as lawmakers to ensure that Dr. King will be memorialized in a manner that befits his legacy. The idea of putting a King Memorial in the Tidal Basin on the National Mall between the Lincoln and Jefferson Memorials is a privilege within itself, and Dr. King deserves such an honor. However, Congress must authorize more time for funds to be raised to build the King Memorial, and it is a huge project. Our National Mall is representative of the rich history and the strength of our Nation. Dr. King is one of our Nation's most important leaders, and this monument should carry the same weight and significance as other distinguished Americans who have been honored with memorials. Congressional leaders, including the Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), also support the effort to put Dr. King's legacy at Washington's forefront. They, along with several other of my colleagues, sit on an honorary bipartisan congressional committee for the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial. Dr. King's preachings of nonviolent civil disobedience to combat segregation and racial equality affected not only minorities but every culture and creed in this Nation. In 1963, Dr. King led the march on Washington, very near the site where we wish to honor him today. Dr. King's leadership also helped in the passage of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Dr. King acted on his dream for America and succeeded in making the United States a better place. We must ensure that Dr. King's valiant efforts will be remembered by generations yet to come. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in keeping the dream alive set forth by Dr. King and help continue to honor him amongst our Nation's finest.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, two years ago to the day after the tragic terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, this date will always be etched in the minds of every American as a new day of infamy, when over 3,000 innocent people lost their lives. My most heartfelt prayers go out to the victims, survivors, families, friends and the representatives who suffered losses on this tragic day. The debris has been cleared and buildings repaired, but none of us will ever forget the massive loss of lives and the real fear that confronted each of us on that fatal day. In particular, my thoughts and prayers go out to thousands of our Nation's first responders, our firemen and women, emergency medical personnel, our police officers, who selflessly put themselves in harm's way, and in numerous instances paid the ultimate sacrifice with their own lives. Despite these terrible events, we as a Nation must remain strong, and we have; we must persevere, and we have; and we must remain resolute in our thoughts and actions, that never again will this happen on America's soil. The anniversary of September 11 also provides a time for an honest assessment of where we stand on our own Homeland Security. Providing for the security of our homeland must be the number one priority of government today. Despite the steps that have been taken to improve homeland security, I believe we must do more. In memory of the thousands who perished innocently when they got up that morning, not knowing what fate had in store for them, we must concentrate on how we protect our borders. We currently have 600,000 containers coming into our ports each day, but less than 3 percent of the cargo containers entering America's ports are ever checked to determine their contents. And, tragically, our Nation's first responders still do not have the equipment and training they need to respond to another terrorist attack. Mr. Speaker, I ask that as we memorialize all of these innocent Americans, that we pay attention to what their sacrifices mean and interpret it as meaning we must concentrate and move ahead. Finally, to better protect our people, we must learn everything we can about this fatal date of 9/11. So I am looking forward to seeing the report that came in on lessons learned. We must honor the people who were sacrificed, and we must see and put in place those necessary programs and projects, and we must have a philosophy that we start here today in memory of our dead to protect our own, as we protect others around the globe. May God bless their souls. May they all rest in peace.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise in the strongest support of the Norton amendment. I have listened very closely for the last hour and a half and I have heard very few people who are in opposition to this amendment support public schools. I heard them admit to the disaster that public schools are here in Washington, D.C. We invaded Iraq and it is costing us a billion dollars a week. The White House is going to come here and ask for multibillions of dollars in just a few days. Why does this coalition that is in so much support of the vouchers here, that will only address 2,000 students out of 70,000, not ask that we put money into what you consider a broken school district? We are going to go and build up the school system in Iraq, the health care system, the infrastructure, and you will not do that for the Washington, D.C. schools, where the seat of government operates? I am appalled. And you want to cut and run. We already know that the D.C. schools are suffering from a $40 million budget cut and a $100 million shortfall. Why do you not argue and support more money to fix all the schools, because we indeed will leave all of our children behind. Two thousand students going into private education is ludicrous. If you really believe that education is the way and you have that commitment, then argue for additional dollars for the D.C. school district. The Mayor is only one person. The city council has a letter on hand that says they do not support the D.C. voucher program. And why? Because it will siphon money away. Do not treat us like we cannot add and subtract. If we take $10 million to put into the private sector, that is $10 million away from the public schools. I urge my colleagues to support the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia who has worked so hard, who is the heart and the soul of this district and cannot even vote. So we must vote for her. Let us save our schools. Let us save all of our children and not cherry-pick 2,000 children for private education and send those public dollars into the private sector. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Norton amendment and remove the funding for vouchers in D.C. that will only shortchange our teachers, our students, and our schools. Let us improve all of the system.

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong opposition to the provision in the District of Columbia appropriation bill authorizing $10 million in funding for school vouchers. Having worked as an elementary school teacher, a school psychologist, and having served on a school board of the largest school district in the State of California, I have seen firsthand the need to strengthen standards in our public schools and to demand more from our teachers and our students through better accountability and adequate resources. However, voucher programs that divert precious funding away from the public school system, and particularly here in D.C., would do exactly the opposite. First, vouchers lack accountability. Private schools funded by vouchers are not subjected to the same standards established by the Leave No Child Behind Act. Second, vouchers can discriminate. Private schools have the ultimate say in deciding which students they want to enroll, and they can screen out applicants based on any factor without obeying Federal antidiscrimination laws. The children that need to be focused on are not going to be admitted in these private schools. Trust me when I say that. Finally, vouchers simply do not have a proven record of success. There is no discernible difference in achievement between students and voucher programs and students in public education program. Every time vouchers have appeared on the California ballot, they have been voted down. Senator Feinstein's support of this provision is not reflective of the will of the people in California in this regard. So how else could we use this $10 million? We could use it to improve the public schools which are already facing a $40 million budget cut.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about how H.R. 2210 will dismantle Head Start and take thousands of beloved Head Start teachers from the children who depend on them so greatly. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 2210, the wrongheaded Republican Head Start Bill that represents an unprecedented attack on our federal preschool system I want to bring to your attention two important reports that were released this week by the Government Reform Committee of which I sit on, one commissioned by members representing Los Angeles area, and one by the congressional Black Caucus. Both of which demonstrate that H.R. 2210 is detached from reality and does little to address the programs' existing challenges. The reports released by the Government Reform Committee track the success of current Head Start program. They tracked studies that showed how Head Start children are more likely to receive medical services than other low-income children, and they are less likely to repeat a grade, require special education, or be convicted of a crime. Head Start children are also more likely to graduate from high school and college, and that the program narrows the performance gap between disadvantaged children and other children in vocabulary, writing skills, and social behavior. So why is this Administration trying to dismantle a successful and popular 40-year old program? Studies after studies have showed that when states run their own pre-school programs, they fail to provide the services guaranteed under the comprehensive standards of Head Start. For example, 60 percent of the states do not require dental care referrals, while 40 percent of the states fail to provide mental health referrals. Under H.R. 2210's proposal to block grant Head Start in eight states, hundreds of children would lose the protection of federal standards providing that they receive preventive and primary health care. They would lose the protection of federal standards providing that they receive all necessary immunization, and they would lose such protection for dental care. This is simply not acceptable! The President is trying to hoodwink the American people into believing that one of the most successful child development programs ever needs to be ``fixed.'' Head Start isn't broken, but it is under threat from Republican meddling. My constituents have seen the Bush bait and switch before--on education, on the economy, and on prescription drugs. They won't be fooled this time.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of the Kilpatrick amendment. I just want to remind Members that we spent $4 billion monthly to rebuild Iraq and we are quibbling over $300 million to rebuild the lives of people who surely need them. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hinchey- Price amendment to the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, The Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. This amendment will deny funding to the FCC for the purposes of implementing its new cross-ownership and local TV ownership rules. I believe this amendment is just the first in a series of extremely important steps to ensure that diversity in the media, both nationally and locally, will not diminish further. The FCC's newspaper-broadcasting cross-ownership rule and the local TV ownership rule will exacerbate the current minority ownership crisis. According to the newspaper-broadcasting cross-ownership rule, one company will be permitted to own a local newspaper and local TV and radio stations in one single market. If this rule is allowed to stand, it is possible that all local print and broadcast news could be controlled by a single company. The new local TV ownership rule will allow one company to own two TV stations in the same market as long as there are three other independent voices within that same market. The new rule will make creating a duopoly easier for a large corporation, while greatly limiting the number of independent voices on TV, including those of minorities. Minority owners' share of the commercial television and radio market is already at a historical low. At the end of the 1990s, minorities owned only 1.9 percent of the country's licensed television stations. In the year 2000, minorities owned only 4 percent of the Nation's commercial AM and FM radio stations. Many of these minority owners are single-station operators. I believe their voices, as well as the voices of other independent operators, will be silenced as large corporations are granted virtually unimpeded access to media markets under the new FCC rules. The American public supports a diverse and competitive media. Over 2 million Americans have contacted the FCC to voice their disapproval of the June 2 decision to ease the limits on media ownership. The newspaper-broadcasting cross-ownership rule and local TV rule will further stifle minority voices in the media. Congress must respond and protect the public's access to diverse sources of information. Please support the Hinchey-Price amendment to the CJS appropriations bill to protect diversity in the media and to allow dissenting voices, minority voices, small voices to be heard. The public owns the airways.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the distinguished gentleman from Maryland and the distinguished gentleman from California and the Chair of our Black Caucus who will be coming up in a minute for organizing this important discussion on the future of Head Start. Later in the week, the House of Representatives will consider H.R. 2210, a bill that radically alters the Head Start program. H.R. 2210 is ill-conceived and ill-devised. It sacrifices accountability and oversight in favor of standardized testing of 4-year-olds. It teaches our children a wrong lesson on discrimination by repealing current civil rights protections and allowing programs to discriminate in their hiring practices based on religion. It gambles with our children's future by diverting already limited resources into experimental block grants that can be diverted to other Federal programs. H.R. 2210 is a classic bait and switch bill. The major changes in and new requirements under title I are not contained in title II of the bill, which creates an experimental block grants program for Head Start in eight States. This overhaul reverses the precedent in achievement that was created by the No Child Left Behind Act. NCLB seeks to close the achievement gap through strong standards and stronger Federal oversight. H.R. 2210 will only damage the integrity and efficiency of the program by redirecting resources to a block grant system and neglecting Federal standards and oversight. Indeed, changing the funding formula to block grants under Title II creates a daunting scenario for Head Start. The four eligibility requirements under Title II do not address quality or expertise. The legislation requires the bare minimum of the eight participating States. All that a State has to do is to have an existing preschool system, a basic standard for school readiness and basic requirements for the allocation of Head Start funding. All 50 States meet these minimum requirements, but too few provide quality service. For example, only three States currently provide all the services needed to get at-risk children ready to learn. These States provide the same set of eight comprehensive services required of Head Start through State-run pre-K programs. At present, there is simply no clear body of research demonstrating the effectiveness of State pre-kindergarten programs. Let me also elaborate on other shortcomings of the proposal to change Head Start into a block grant program. Title II of H.R. 2210 does not specify minimum thresholds on class size, class-staff ratios or curriculum content. It calls on each State to create its own school readiness standards and own criteria for measuring achievement. With State preschool programs varying greatly in content and quality, how can we ensure that low-income children from across the Nation will receive a quality education? H.R. 2210 also does not contain adequate evaluation and oversight requirements. Instead of annual reports and on-site evaluation by the HHS every 3 years, States under the block grant program will not be held to any minimum threshold requirements on quality or appropriateness of their State plans. This is a giant step backwards for the Head Start program. Finally, the bill allows the States to use Head Start funds to supplement other Federal programs. Governors may be able to use this money to cover budget deficits in their States. My home State of California receives over $800 million in Federal moneys for Head Start. California is now suffering from a budget deficit in excess of $38 billion. With the block grant proposal, my State could divert TANF and Title I preschool funds to offset the State's budget deficit, then use the Head Start block grant to fund TANF and Elementary and Secondary Education Act. This loophole allows States to reduce Head Start funding legally, which severely shortchanges our low-income children. Mr. Speaker, this is the wrong way to go.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my time out of order.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I, too, feel the unease of those who spoke before me about the information the President gave us on a reason for going to Iraq. I think it requires investigation. It requires us to know the truth. I do hope when Tony Blair comes on Thursday, we will begin to know the truth. But in the meanwhile, I want to inform American seniors about the Medicare reform bill that will be considered by the House/Senate conferees. I want to protect and respect our seniors, but I am shocked at the bill the House majority passed by only one vote just over a week ago. Medicare beneficiaries have waited a long time for help; but, unfortunately, the proposed legislation falls short of what seniors and disabled Americans have been waiting for. We are at a time when we know the miracle of science. Prescription drugs can be miraculous in their power to cure and improve the quality of life of our seniors. We in government have the responsibility to capitalize on the advantages of science and help our seniors. By adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare, a program that seniors know and trust, seniors will have an improved quality of life at a reduced cost to taxpayers over the long term. A Medicare prescription drug benefit should be affordable, reducing the exorbitant prices of drugs, meaningful with guaranteed benefits, within Medicare, and available to all regardless of where they live. So it is with great disappointment, Mr. Speaker, that I look at the proposals that were on this floor for Medicare reform. The House Republican bill fails to meet each one of the basic standards. The House bill does nothing to reduce the cost of prescription drugs. It creates a coverage gap so wide that almost 50 percent of seniors will fall into it. Under the House bill, seniors pay the first $250 of their drug costs, then 20 percent up to $2,000. They will receive no assistance at all between $2,000 and $4,900. The bill also allows insurers to vary their benefit levels and prices around the country. Insurers will be able to limit access to specific drugs and pharmaceuticals. The House bill fails to guarantee the same benefits for the 9.2 million Medicare beneficiaries in rural communities, and it even prohibits the Secretary of HHS from negotiating a better price for seniors. The bill that was passed by the House is designed to privatize Medicare, leaving seniors at the mercy of the HMOs and private insurance plans. This bill uses private drug-only plans to administer the prescription drug program. These are plans that do not exist anywhere today. These plans could force seniors to leave trusted doctors and hospitals. Even worse, by 2010 the House bill turns the traditional Medicare program into a voucher program. The Federal Government should provide a safety net for the citizens of America. Unfortunately, the House-passed bill does not include any important fall-back provisions. Under the Senate-passed bill, if at least two private plans fail to enter the market in a region, the Federal Government will step in and offer beneficiaries a Medicare prescription drug benefit. Private plans have not worked in many parts of the country, and over the past 5 years more than 2 million seniors have been abandoned by private HMOs seeking higher profit elsewhere. I urge my colleagues to recognize this failure and vote accordingly. American seniors, do not be fooled.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I announce the passing of the legendary musician, Benny Carter, this past Saturday at Cedars-Sinai Hospital in Los Angeles. He was 95. Benny Carter's life and career literally spanned the 20th century. His music encompassed the history of jazz and much more. Ranked with the likes of Johnny Hodges and Charlie Parker, Benny Carter is considered one of the greatest alto saxophonists of all times. Ella Fitzgerald described him as ``everything a musician would want to be''; while Miles Davis said, ``Everybody ought to listen to Benny. He is a whole musical education.'' And the great Ben Webster said about Carter, ``He is the only person that I get the shakes trying to play my horn behind or with him.'' Born in New York in 1907, Carter received his first music lessons from his mother, but was largely a self-taught musician. In the late 1920s he joined Fletcher Henderson's seminal orchestra and in 1931 became musical director for McKinney's Cotton Pickers. Returning to New York in 1938, Carter formed his own top-flight orchestra and spent much of 1939 and 1940 at Harlem's famed Savoy Ballroom. His arrangements were much in demand and featured on recordings by Benny Goodman, Count Basie, Duke Ellington, Glen Miller, Gene Krupa, and Tommy Dorsey. We will miss this outstanding and this exemplary musician. May he rest in peace.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, for the next week, Africa will be on page 1 news due to the President's trip to the continent. Then, once again, news on Africa will most likely recede to the back pages of our major newspapers and disappear for good. However, what many Americans do not realize is the increasing importance of Africa to the world and the United States. Americans now import more than one-quarter of their oil from the African continent. In the coming years, due to new major oil discoveries in the Gulf of Guinea off the west coast of Africa, the percentage of African oil Americans consume will most likely rise. It will rise because there are quantities of untapped oil reserves on the continent, and it will rise because the United States realizes that oil from the Middle East can easily fall prey to the vagaries of wars and politics. Africa is so important to us, in part, because it is a continent rich in natural resources. Copper, diamonds, gold, and wood are all in abundance throughout the continent. The Congo River itself has enough potential hydroelectric power to supply the electrical needs of the whole continent. And the continent still has abundant rainforests which have been described as the lungs of the world. We as Congresspeople can no longer afford to ignore Africa or view it solely through the lens of disaster and peril. Yes, we cannot deny that there are serious health problems in Africa with HIV/AIDS and malaria leading the list. There is crushing poverty throughout the continent. Africans living on less than $1 a day now number over 315 million, according to a recent World Bank survey. Serious conflicts in the Congo, where not thousands, but millions have perished, and West Africa still plagues the continent and puts a serious drag on the development of human resources and capital. We cannot afford to ignore Africa, because people are beginning to realize that failed states and crushing poverty are fertile breeding grounds for terrorists and criminal groups. We cannot afford to ignore Africa, because the world is smaller and more interconnected. From the war on terrorism to the supply of crucial resources, from the campaign against threatening diseases to the opportunities for economic trade and investment, Africa is a key global player. We cannot afford to ignore Africa, because we now ignore it, and if we continue to do it, it is at our own peril. Africa really matters in many ways. Not all of the news coming out of Africa is gloomy. Trade and investments with Africa are growing. U.S. exports totaled over $5.8 billion last year, while U.S. imports were $18 billion. Nigeria alone is the fifth largest supplier of oil to the U.S. Despite appearances, Africa is more peaceful today than in the 1980s and the 1990s. Democracy is also taking root in many parts of Africa. But Africa needs increased resources to deal with the multitude of problems. U.S. assistance to Africa has been stagnant for many years, and real development assistance to the continent is less than $500 million. Although total U.S. assistance to Africa may total about $2 billion, a large chunk of this is for humanitarian and health-related programs. Many programs, including the areas of agriculture, democracy, conflict resolution, trade, and investment have suffered from significant cutbacks. In short, Africa needs increased assistance if it truly is to be brought into the mainstream world economy. The Congressional Black Caucus has been a staunch advocate and played a pivotal role in strengthening the cultural, political, and economic ties between Africa and the United States. I am therefore concerned, but not surprised, that President Bush did not seek out the guidance and assistance of the CBC before making his sojourn to Africa. This is not surprising because, as our chairman recently noted, ``the President has declined all of our offers to meet with him since our last discussion of January 31, 2001.'' In closing, I want to make a few remarks on the President's proposal to send in U.S. peacekeepers to Liberia. First, I recognize the longstanding historical ties between the U.S. and Liberia. I do not believe it will be as difficult to win the hearts and minds of Liberians who are predisposed to look upon the U.S. with favor. I generally support the concept of a peacekeeping mission to Liberia. However, I believe that a U.S.-led peacekeeping mission should be placed under the auspices of the United Nations. The United States by itself cannot be the policeman of the world, and our forces are already spread thin by our other significant commitments around the world. Any U.S. action in Liberia will have greater credibility if they have the seal of approval of an international body. We must also think through very carefully our commitment to place U.S. forces in Liberia. We must have a mission that is clearly defined, and we must have an exit plan that is articulated and understood by the American public. I also believe that any plan to introduce U.S. forces in Liberia should be subjected to serious congressional oversight and approval. The devil is in the details. The administration must first clearly articulate its methods and goals before any U.S. troops are put on the ground.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Elijah Cummings, Chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, for once again holding this very timely and important discussion on Africa. For the next week Africa will be page one news due to the President's trip to the continent. Then, once again, news on Africa will most likely recede to the back pages of our major newspapers and disappear. However, what many Americans don't realize is the increasing importance of Africa to the world and the United States. Americans now import more than one quarter of their oil from the African continent. In the coming years, due to new major oil discoveries in the Gulf of Guinea off the west coast of Africa the percentage of African oil Americans consume will most likely rise. It will rise because there are quantities of untapped oil reserves on the continent, and it will rise because the U.S. realizes that oil from the Middle East can easily fall prey to the vagaries of war and politics. Africa is so important to us, in part, because it is a continent rich in natural resources. Copper, diamonds, gold, and wood are all in abundance throughout the continent. The Congo River itself has enough potential hydroelectric power to supply the electrical needs of the whole continent. And the continent still has abundant rain forests, which have been described as the lungs of the world. We as legislators can no longer afford to ignore Africa or view it solely through the lens of disaster and peril. Yes, we cannot deny that there are serious health problems in Africa with HIV/AIDS and malaria leading the list. There is crushing poverty throughout the continent. Africans living on less than a dollar a day now number over 315 million, according to a recent World Bank survey. Serious conflicts in the Congo--where not thousands but millions have perished--and West Africa still plague the continent and put a serious drag on the development of human resources and capital. We cannot afford to ignore Africa because people are beginning to realize that failed states and crushing poverty are fertile breeding grounds for terrorist and criminal groups. We cannot afford to ignore Africa because the world is smaller and more interconnected. From the war on terrorism to the supply of crucial resources, from the campaign against threatening diseases to the opportunities for economic trade and investment, Africa is a key global player. We cannot afford to ignore Africa because we now ignore it at our own peril. Africa matters in many ways. Not all the news coming out of Africa is gloomy. Trade and investments with Africa are growing. U.S. exports totaled over $5.8 billion last year, while U.S. imports were $18 billion. Nigeria alone is the fifth largest supplier of oil to the U.S. Despite appearances, Africa is more peaceful today than in the 1980s and 1990s. Democracy is also taking root in many parts of Africa. But Africa needs increased resources to deal with the multitude of problems. U.S. assistance to Africa has been stagnant for many years, and real development assistance to the continent is less than $500 million. Although total U.S. assistance to Africa may total about $2 billion, a large chunk of this is for humanitarian and health related programs. Many programs--including in the areas of agriculture, democracy, conflict resolution, trade and investment--have suffered from significant cutbacks. In short, Africa needs increased assistance if it is truly to be brought into the mainstream world economy. The Congressional Black Caucus has been a staunch advocate and played a pivotal role in strengthening the cultural, political and economic ties between Africa and the United States. I am therefore concerned, but not surprised, that President Bush did not seek out the guidance and assistance of the CBC before making his sojourn to Africa. This is not surprising because, as our chairman recently noted, ``The President has declined all of our offers to meet with him since our last discussion of January 31, 2001.'' In closing, I want to make a few remarks on the President's proposal to send in U.S. peacekeepers to Liberia. First, I recognize the longstanding historical ties between the U.S. and Liberia. I don't believe it will be as difficult to win the hearts and minds of Liberians who are predisposed to look upon the U.S. with favor. I generally support the concept of a peacekeeping mission to Liberia. However, I believe that a U.S.--led peacekeeping mission should be placed under the auspices of the United Nations. The United States by itself cannot be the policeman of the world, and our forces are already spread thin by our other significant commitments around the world. Any U.S. actions in Liberia will have greater credibility if they have the seal of approval of an international body. We must also think through very carefully our commitment to place U.S. forces in Liberia. We must have a mission that is clearly defined, and we must have an exit plan that is articulated and understood by the American public. I also believe that any plan to introduce U.S. forces in Liberia should be subjected to serious congressional oversight and approval. The Devil is in the details. The administration must first clearly articulate its methods and goals before any U.S. troops are put on the ground.