Diane Watson

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this sham Republican Medicare bill. That is why I wear my black arm band because it is the death of Medicare and it does not provide the adequate prescription drug coverage our mothers, grandmothers, sisters, and nieces deserve.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I want to stress the importance of a health safety net that has worked for the American people. It is our duty to protect the seniors that have contributed to society over their lifetimes. Our older constituents have built or supported most of what America is today and we owe them respect. We owe them the safety net that is called Medicare. I want Congress to know that not only is Medicare important for the American people, it is a huge issue for America's women. Women, indeed, are the face of Medicare. Women constitute 58 percent of the Medicare population at 65, and women constitute 71 percent of the Medicare population over the age of 85. Women can expect to live on the average 19 years into retirement, while men can only expect to live 15 years. We must take care of our mothers, our sisters, and our daughters. We can do no less. Across the breadth of the United States, the older and the poorer the woman, the higher the out-of-pocket health costs. The more she needs assistance, the less she will actually receive. Because of barriers to enrollment, close to half of older women with incomes below the poverty line are not enrolled in Medicaid. Research suggests that women on Medicare spend 20 percent more on prescription drugs than their male counterparts. Middle class women who have made wise financial planning decisions, can quickly find that high drug costs will eat away any retirement security they have worked to establish. Mr. Speaker, I want to give you some thoughts on cultural diversity in regards to women and Medicare. More minority women than Caucasian women are uninsured or rely on public rather than private health insurance. Minority women are more likely to have lower incomes and to live in poverty than other women. The percentage of women on Medicare with incomes of less than $10,000 a year is a very telling statistic. Twenty-four percent of white women, or 14.7 million; 56 percent of African women, and there are 1.8 million; and 58 percent of Latina women, and there are 1.2 million, live way below the poverty line. Clearly, not only should we strengthen the safety net but we should find out why so many women need that net. So, Mr. Speaker, a health safety net for the American person is imperative. Our older constituents have built or supported most of what America is today, and we owe them a great amount of gratitude. They should go to bed each evening feeling secure that they have health benefits when they are needed. They should know that their benefits are universal and affordable. What a shame, a shame, that our seniors have to leave the United States and go to Canada or Mexico, where the same prescription drugs, same ingredients, are much, much cheaper. We have seniors who are eating dog food rather than regular food because they have to pay the cost of these expensive drugs. In closing, Mr. Speaker, these older Americans should be given a benefit that they can rely on, that they will know they can live a quality of life with respect rather than the one they would have to live if we whittle away at Medicare. Let us honor our seniors.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 313 I would have voted ``yea.''

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I want to add my voice again to those who are lamenting the life well-lived, and the life just going into transition. It was Maynard Jackson, as my colleagues just heard, who had a vision of inclusion. Maynard was able to unite various groups and interests in building one of the most complex airport terminals in the world ahead of schedule and within budget. And as I said before, it is particularly amazing that today was the day that Maynard Jackson transitioned and also the day the Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling. In two successive votes, the Justices recognize that the most effective way to cure society of its exclusionary practices is to make special efforts to see that Americans are included, which is exactly what Maynard Jackson stood for when he mentioned the phrase ``affirmative action.'' It was first used in President Lyndon Johnson's 1965 executive order. In 1967 Johnson expanded the executive order to include affirmative action requirements to benefit women. The policy was significantly expanded in 1969 by President Richard Nixon and then- Secretary of Labor George Schultz. In 1973 Maynard Jackson began his leadership in implementing these policies, which enabled Atlanta to become a true world class city. There has always been affirmative action in public policy; but for many years it fought to exclude, rather than include, people of color. Affirmative action was put in place to not only encourage diversity but to be a minor step in the direction of justice after hundreds of years of institutional and social discrimination against women and people of color in the United States of America. Much of the opposition to affirmative action is framed on the grounds of so-called reverse discrimination and unwarranted preferences. In fact, less than 2 percent of the 91,000 employment discrimination cases pending before the Equal Opportunity Commission are reverse discrimination cases. Under the law as written, in executive orders and interpreted by the courts, anyone benefiting from affirmative action must have relevant and valid job or educational qualifications. Opponents of affirmative action also claim it is discriminatory. The problem with this myth is that it uses the same word, discrimination, to describe two very different things. Job discrimination is grounded in prejudice and exclusion; whereas, affirmative action is an effort to overcome prejudicial treatment through exclusion and to provide inclusion. The most effective way to cure society of exclusionary practices is to make special efforts at inclusion, which is exactly what affirmative action does. When thinking about affirmative action policy, it is important to keep this principle in mind. In fact, despite the progress that has been made, the playing field today is still far from level. Women continue to earn 76 cents for every dollar earned by a male. Black people continue to have twice the unemployment rate of white people and graduate from college at half the rate of white people. In fact, without affirmative action, the percentage of black students at many selective schools would drop to only 2 percent of the total student body. While I applaud the Court's decision today, our society still suffers from racial discrimination. And in the name of Maynard Jackson, we must carry on his legacy and his commitment to never waiver from equality for all Americans. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my shock and sadness at the untimely passing of my dear friend Maynard Jackson--former Mayor of Atlanta and one of our country's most charismatic political leaders. I also want to take this opportunity to remember Maynard's contribution to affirmative action on the day when the Supreme Court declared its support for the program. Maynard was a giant of his time, a trailblazer and a dedicated public servant who became the inspiration for generations of African American politicians. His election in 1974 as the Mayor of Atlanta helped usher in a new movement of racial equality and a new process of interracial understanding and co-existence where the spirit of the civil rights movement was carried forward by victories at the ballot boxes. Maynard will be remembered as the South's first big-city African- American mayor, but his legacy was much more than that. During his three terms as Mayor, Maynard oversaw construction of the midfield terminal at Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport, established a cultural affairs department, brought the Olympics to Atlanta, and all the while gave a voice to the city's in town neighborhoods. Perhaps one of the most significant accomplishments of Maynard Jackson's tenure was his early support and leadership on affirmative action. During his first term, Maynard instituted a groundbreaking affirmative action program that elevated the percentage of city contracts awarded to minorities in Atlanta from less than 1 percent in 1973 to 38.6 percent five years later. One of the great success stories of Maynard's affirmative action program was the creation of a ``joint venture'' between white and minority-owned businesses during the construction of the Atlanta airport. Working from a vision of inclusion, Maynard was able to unite various groups and interests in building one of the most complex airport terminals in the world ahead of schedule and within budget. It is particularly ironic then that Maynard passed away on the day before the Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling. In two successive votes, the Justices recognized that the most effective way to cure society of exclusionary practices is to make special efforts at inclusion, which is exactly what affirmative action does. The actual phrase ``affirmative action'' was first used in President Lyndon Johnson's 1965 Executive Order. In 1967, Johnson expanded the Executive Order to include affirmative action requirements to benefit women. The policy was significantly expanded in 1969 by President Richard Nixon and then Secretary of Labor George Schultz. In 1973, Maynard Jackson began his leadership in implementing these policies, which enabled Atlanta to become a world-class city. There has always been affirmative action in public policy--but for many years it operated to exclude, rather than include, people of color. Affirmative action was put in place to not only encourage diversity, but to be a minor step in the direction of justice after hundreds of years of institutional and social discrimination against women and people of color in the United States. Much of the opposition to affirmative action is framed on the grounds of so-called ``reverse discrimination and unwarranted preferences.'' In fact, less than 2 percent of the 91,000 employment discrimination cases pending before the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission are reverse discrimination cases. Under the law as written in Executive Orders and interpreted by the courts, anyone benefitting from affirmative action must have relevant and valid job or educational qualifications. Opponents of affirmative action also claim it is discriminatory. The problem with this myth is that it uses the same word--discrimination-- to describe two very different things. Job discrimination is grounded in prejudice and exclusion, whereas affirmative action is an effort to overcome prejudicial treatment through inclusion. The most effective way to cure society of exclusionary practices is to make special efforts at inclusion, which is exactly what affirmative action does. When thinking about affirmative action policy, it is important to keep this principle in mind. In fact, despite the progress that has been made, the playing field today is still far from level. Women continue to earn 76 cents for every dollar earned by a male. Black people continue to have twice the unemployment rate of white people, and graduate from college at half the rate of white people. In fact, without affirmative action the percentage of Black students at many selective schools would drop to only 2 percent of the total student body. While I applaud the Court's decision today, our society stiff suffers from racial discrimination. It is unfortunate that after all these years we are still fighting an uphill battle for full inclusion into our Nation's society. However, we are fortunate to have had the civil rights movement and leaders like Maynard Jackson. In remembering Maynard, we must carry on his legacy and his commitment to never waver from equality for all.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my shock and sadness at the untimely passing of our dear friend, Maynard Jackson, former Mayor of Atlanta and one of our country's most charismatic political leaders. I also want to take this opportunity to remember Maynard's contribution to affirmative action on the day when the Supreme Court declared its support for the program. Maynard was a giant of his time, a trailblazer and a dedicated public servant who became the inspiration for generations of African American politicians. His election in 1974 as the Mayor of Atlanta helped usher in a new movement of racial equality and a new process of interracial understanding and coexistence where the spirit of the civil rights movement was carried forward by victories at the ballot box. Maynard will be remembered as the South's first big city African American mayor, but his legacy was much more than that. During his three terms as mayor, Maynard oversaw construction of the midfield terminal at Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport, established a cultural affairs department, brought the Olympics to Atlanta, and all the while gave voice to the city's in-town neighborhoods. Perhaps one of the most significant accomplishments of Maynard Jackson's tenure was his early support and leadership on affirmative action. During his first term, Maynard instituted a groundbreaking affirmative action program that elevated the percentage of city contracts awarded to minorities in Atlanta from less than 1 percent in 1973 to 38.6 percent 5 years later. One of the great success stories of Maynard's affirmative action program was the creation of a joint venture between white and minority- owned businesses during the construction of the Atlanta airport. Working from a vision of inclusion, Maynard was able to unite various groups and interests in building one of the most complex airport terminals in the world ahead of schedule and within the budget. It is particularly ironic, then, that Maynard passed away on the day that the Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling. In two successive votes, the Justices recognized that the most effective way to cure society of its exclusionary practices is to make special efforts at inclusion, which is exactly what affirmative action does. We will never forget him. He will have a legacy that will live on forever in the United States of America. There has always been affirmative action in public policy--but for many years it operated to exclude, rather than include, people of color. Affirmative action was put in place to not only encourage diversity, but to be a minor step in the direction of justice after hundreds of years of institutional and social discrimination against women and people of color in the United States. Much of the opposition to affirmative action is framed on the grounds of so-called ``reverse discrimination and unwarranted preferences.'' In fact, less than 2 percent of the 91,000 employment discrimination cases pending before the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission are reverse discrimination cases. Under the law as written in Executive Orders and interpreted by the courts, anyone benefitting from affirmative action must have relevant and valid job or educational qualifications. Opponents of affirmative action also claim it is discriminatory. The problem with this myth is that it uses the same word--discrimination-- to describe two very different things. Job discrimination is grounded in prejudice and exclusion, whereas affirmative action is an effort to overcome prejudicial treatment through inclusion. The most effective way to cure society of exclusionary practices is to make special efforts at inclusion, which is exactly what affirmative action does. When thinking about affirmative action policy, it is important to keep this principle in mind. In fact, despite the progress that has been made, the playing field today is still far from level. Women continue to earn 76 cents for every dollar earned by a male. Black people continue to have twice the unemployment rate of white people, and graduate from college at half the rate of white people. In fact, without affirmative action the percentage of Black students at many selective schools would drop to only 2% of the total student body. While I applaud the Court's decision today, our society still suffers from racial discrimination. It is unfortunate that after all these years we are still fighting an uphill battle for full inclusion into our nation's society. However, we are fortunate to have had the civil rights movement and leaders like Maynard Jackson. In remembering Maynard, we must carry on his legacy and his commitment to never waver from equality for all.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Certainly one would be tempted to fill in the gap. Because of our shortfall in funds and because of the oncoming tax cut, we will have fewer revenues and we will find programs like health competing against educational programs, and I do not know how they can be separated, and other social programs that are the safety net. You have to be compelled in some way when you have some money coming in to close the gap here and close the gap there. They are not going to be closed because they are too deep, but to address the needs with these funds intended for the Head Start program.

Ms. WATSON. We have a $38.5 billion deficit.

Ms. WATSON. The research clearly shows if you invest in the early years, there will be more of a guarantee of success in the later years.

Ms. WATSON. Head Start is needed now more so than ever. With the new TANF requirements, you as a welfare recipient have to go back to work when the child is 6 months old. That means you are not in the home from zero to 5 to help nurture that child and teach them because you are working, and you are working a full day. So we need Head Start now so children can be ready to learn when they go to kindergarten, simple things like tying one's shoe, buttoning one's jacket, being able to share and work with others, those things that were done in the home that will no longer be able to be done in the home because one parent has to go to work, and these are single-parent families so they do not have the time to train their child. Head Start was created during the War on Poverty during the 1960s. It was the best thing we did to close the safety net. Why would we take a program which has had such successful outcomes, and these can be measured, and start whittling it away? I do not understand the thinking. It will cost us less in the long run to have a Head Start program and not a block grant in every State.

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address my concerns about H.R. 2210, the School Readiness Act. The major changes and new requirements under title II and title I will damage the integrity and efficacy of the program. This overhaul reverses the precedence in achievement that was created by the No Child Left Behind Act. NCLB seeks to close the achievement gap through stronger standards and stronger Federal oversight. H.R. 2210 attempts to reach the same solution by eliminating standards and oversight. Title I serves to weaken the performance standards of the current Head Start program. States will be able to lower teacher standards. H.R. 2210 decreases the percentage of funds reserved for training and technical assistance from no less than 2 percent to 1 to 2 percent. The bill requires minimal parental involvement. Head Start will become disassociated with the Department of Health and Human Services. A process of contracting out monitoring programs strikes the requirement that HHS oversee Head Start. The block grant encourages States to refer families to outside services for assistance that was once under the jurisdiction of HHS. This nullifies the 13 areas of Head Start performance standards that maintain the program's high level of quality. Under this legislation, the Secretary approves applications from States that meet the loose eligibility criteria by default. In essence there is no oversight or evaluation of the quality of the State plan. Mr. Speaker, since its inception under the guise of HHS, Head Start was designed to help the whole child. Current service offered through HHS cannot be carried out as effectively with minimum input by the Department. Above all, States will be forced to reduce the overall number of Head Start children served. States have already been forced to cut early childhood education programs outside of Head Start due to the budget crunch. The block grant allows 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. In California, that receives over $800 million for Head Start, at the same time there is a $38 billion budget deficit. With the block grant proposal, my State has the option to use $800 million to close this budgetary gap. Changing the funding formula to block grants, under title II, creates a daunting scenario for the Head Start program. The four eligibility requirements under title II do not address quality or expertise. The legislation requires the bare minimum of States: an existing prekindergarten system, standards for school readiness, allocating no less than 50 percent of funds to grantees and their interagency coordination. All 50 States meet these requirements, but too few provide the quality level of services. At present only three States 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 prekindergarten programs. Mr. Speaker, 30 States have such programs; yet only three are able to meet the standards that they created in order to prepare our children for success in school. Now we want to give all 50 States this responsibility, knowing full well that these States have not proven that they are able to do so. This will be a great disservice to our Nation's youth. We must make better investments in our children and our future instead of stuffing the pockets of millionaires. An investment in our children equals an investment in our Nation's strength, in our Nation's security, and in the future. The economic plans and the focus of the administration must be balanced between future consequences and immediate gain. We must also continue to keep the facts at the front of the debate so that the administration and Congress can make policy decisions based on the facts rather than on misguided interpretations and subjective judgments. Since 1965, Head Start has been one of the most successful anti- poverty programs. According to a recent report of the President's Management Council, Head Start received the highest consumer satisfaction rating of any government agency or private business. The program has helped millions of children prepare for school, become productive students and improve the quality of their lives. The current program narrows the readiness gap between Head Start children and their more affluent peers. Almost 70 percent of children enrolled in Head Start programs are from minority groups. One-third of these students are African Americans. Over 34,000 migrant and seasonal workers' children are served annually. Improving Head Start can be done without this major overhaul. As in the past, improvement can be done under the existing structure. Mr. Speaker, in 1998 Head Start supporters sought to ensure that at least 50 percent of all Head Start teachers acquire an associate of arts degree or better by the year 2003. The program has met this goal. The HeadsUp! Reading Network was established to train Head Start and other early childhood teachers across the Nation. These are improvements that we hope to establish through the No Child Left Behind Act. We have not yet met these goals, but Head Start has met its goals internally. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to maintain Head Start as it is. It is the duty of Congress to protect the current and the future security of our Nation. We must continue to help the children of migrant workers, at-risk youth, and their parents. By supporting Head Start in its current form, we will be doing just that.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 220 that honors the lives and accomplishments of civil rights leaders Medgar Wiley Evers and his widow, Myrile Evers-Williams. I want to thank Congressman Bennie Thompson for introducing and bringing this meaningful resolution to the floor. Although their lives and contribution cannot be simply summarized in a few paragraphs, I want to nevertheless pay tribute to these two great civil rights leaders. As a State senator from California representing parts of Los Angeles, I had the pleasure of working with Myrlie Evers-Williams during her tenure as a member of the Los Angeles Board of Public Works. As the first African American women on the Board, Myrlie oversaw the management of nearly $1 billion in city budget and a staff of 5,000 employees. However, my admiration of Myrlie's work started over 50 years ago, when she partnered with her husband, Medgar Evers, to advance racial justice in the hostile environment of the 1950s. Medgar had been one of the early principle leaders of the civil rights movement, boldly registering to vote and applying for admission to the University of Mississippi Law School in the early 1950s. In 1954 Medgar became the Mississippi State field secretary for the NAACP and, together with Myrlie, they organized voter registration drives and civil rights demonstrations. As visible leaders of the movement, the Evers became high-profile targets of terrorist acts of pro-segregationists. Despite the threats, the Evers' persisted with courage and the determination to educate the public. However, On June 11, 1963, Medgar Evers was fatally shot in front of his house, and hung juries eventually freed the killer. Myrlie began creating her own legacy in carrying on the critical work left by Medgar. She emerged in the 1980s and 90s as a political leader and an activist, founding the National Women's Political Caucus, running for Congress, and serving on the board of Public Works in Los Angeles. In 1995, she became the first woman to chair the 64-member Board of Directors of the NAACP. During her decades of activism, Myrlie never forgot the death of her husband. In the early 1990s she convinced Mississippi prosecutors to reopen Medgar Evers' murder case and eventually led to the conviction and life imprisonment of Medgar's killer in 1994--31 years after his murder. The life of Myrlie Evers-Williams has been nothing short of extraordinary. In her autobiography, ``Watch Me Fly: What I learned on the way to Becoming the Women I was Meant to Be'', Myrlie stated that ``for thirty years, my focus had not wavered. Like a tree deeply rooted on the bank of a rushing river, I had not moved.'' It is this persistence, her unwavering will to fight for equality, her determination and dedication for social justice, that has moved me, moved this legislative body, and moved the course of this entire nation. I salute you, Myrlie and Medgar, for all you have done, for fighting the good fight. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, just a few minutes ago we had the pleasure and the honor of hosting Specialist POW Shoshana Johnson. Shoshana Johnson was the young woman who we saw worldwide taken captive by the Iraqi military. She served well. She endured, shot through both of her ankles. Once she was freed, they took care of her and flew her home. She has been in the States a few weeks, and agreed to come here so we could pay the most deserving tribute to her. I want Members to know she has a 2-year-old child. She is a specialist. She will make less than $18,000 this year. She will be denied the child tax credit under the bill that just passed. These young people who were willing not only to serve their country, but to give their lives and their limbs. I want Members to know she was up there in Rayburn with a cast on her left leg. She was brought in with a wheelchair. She is proud, and did not even realize what she did for her country. But, Mr. Speaker, if we do not take care of the Shoshana Johnsons and take care of the very wealthy, we are abdicating our values under a democracy. I ask Members to please let us accept the Senate proposal for the child tax credit.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from California for allowing me time in this hour to raise my concerns about the current dismantling of Head Start. The plan to block grant Head Start will damage the integrity and the efficiency of the program. This recent tax cut does little to safeguard our children's well-being. We must make better investments in our children and our future instead of stuffing the pockets of millionaires. An investment in our children equals an investment in our Nation's strength, security, and future. The economic plans and focus of the administration must be balanced between future consequences and immediate gain. We must also continue to keep the facts at the forefront of the debate so that the administration and Congress can make policy decisions based on the facts, rather than on misguided interpretations and subjective judgments. Head Start is one of the most successful anti-poverty programs ever created. It has helped millions of children prepare for school, become productive students, and improve their lives. However, drastic changes proposed by the Bush administration will erode the effectiveness of this program. One proposal, to provide funding in block grants, will actually result in less money for Head Start. Changing the funding formula to block grants creates a daunting scenario for Head Start. Faced with the unceasing pressure of balancing their State budgets, some Governors already have indicated that they are willing to accept the administration's offer to opt in the block grant proposal. Governors may be able to use this money to cover budget deficits in their States; but overall, it will do serious damage to the program. My home State of California receives over $800 million for Head Start. There is a $38 billion budget deficit. With the block grant proposal, California has the option to use that $800 million to close this gap. There are other scenarios. Assume that six to eight States, representing 10 to 15 percent of Head Start dollars, elect to opt in and set up their own programs. That puts 148,931 current Head Start children at risk. If an additional eight to 10 States follow this lead, another 394,150 children will be placed at risk. It goes on and on, until all of the children are left behind without the Head Start program. At present, only three States 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, prekindergarten programs. Mr. Speaker, 30 States have such programs, yet only three are able to meet the standards that they created in order to prepare our children for school. Now it appears we want to give all 50 States this responsibility, knowing full well that these States have not proven that they are able to do so. States will be able to lower teachers' standards; they will not be required to involve Head Start's 800,000 parent volunteers; and, above all, States will be forced to reduce the overall number of Head Start children served. States have already been forced to cut early childhood programs outside of Head Start due to the budget crunch. This will be a great disaster and disservice to our Nation's youth. Another proposal, to remove Head Start from the jurisdiction of the Department of Health and Human Services and place it under the Department of Education, will undermine the core philosophy of Head Start. Since its inception, Head Start was designed to help the whole child. Current services offered through DHHS cannot be carried out as effectively as under the Department of Education. There is no need to change a program that has proven to be so successful. In 1998, Head Start supporters sought to ensure that at least 50 percent of all Head Start teachers have an associate's degree or better by 2003. The program has met this goal. The Heads Up Reading Network was established to train Head Start and other early childhood teachers across the Nation. These are improvements that we hope to establish through the No Child Left Behind Act. We have not yet met these goals, but Head Start has met its goals internally. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to maintain Head Start as it is. It is a success story. It is the duty of Congress to protect the current and future security of our Nation, and we must start with our children. And we must help the children of our migrant workers that are at risk, our youth and their parents. By supporting Head Start in its present form, we will be doing just that, securing our Nation by securing our children as they start their educational program. I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2030 that will designate the Patsy Takemoto Mink Post Office Building in Hawaii. I want to thank the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case) for introducing this bill so we may once again pay tribute to an outstanding United States Congresswoman. I was deeply saddened by the passing of Patsy Mink last year. Working with Patsy has been one of the highlights of my short time in Congress. As the first minority woman elected to Congress, Patsy Mink has always been an inspiration to me as an elected official. I learned firsthand the remarkable work Patsy was doing 30 years ago when title IX was passed, and as a member of the Los Angeles Unified School Board at the time, I was charged with implementing a title IX plan for the Los Angeles Community College system. Ever since then, I followed Patsy Mink's public service career closely, including her tireless fight on behalf of the Economic Justice and Civil Rights for All. During the 107th Congress, I had the opportunity to work with Patsy in putting together a comprehensive welfare reform program. I was able to spend quality time with her during a trip to Sacramento to collect data on our welfare reform program we had written in California. During the process of putting her legislation together, Patsy never backed down and never compromised on protecting and addressing the needs. Although our efforts were unsuccessful, it was a great honor to work with a true champion for American values and ideas. Thank you, Patsy, for all you have done for all of us.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Madam Speaker, it is shameful enough that the Republican leadership in Congress has chosen to gamble our children's future on a risky and unsustainable tax scheme such as the one signed into law just a few weeks ago; but what is even more shameful is that Republicans sold out the very men and women who recently fought for our country in Iraq by cutting many of them out of the tax cut. That is right, only hours before Congress was set to vote on President Bush's big tax giveaway, Republicans cut out provisions to expand the child tax credit for working families in order to give the President's wealthy friends a bigger tax cut. The child tax credit provisions Republicans erased would have benefited millions of working families, including many families of American soldiers, sailors, and airmen just as they returned from war. Just this weekend we had POW Shoshana Johnson in the Los Angeles area. During the time she was a prisoner of war, her family who lives in my district held a vigil. They tied those beautiful pink ribbons around the trees in the neighborhood so no one would forget that Americans were held hostage and were captives in Iraq. So it is outrageous, and my outrage grows when I hear members of the Republican leadership suggesting that we are formulating a new welfare program. I am talking about and referring to working families. I am referring to those who have served their country in a land so far away many cannot even find on a map, in a land that did not have any concrete connection to 9-11, in a land that was headed up by a dictator who was not friendly with Osama bin Laden and we supposedly were going to have terrorism. But still, our troops went over under the command of the Commander in Chief, and they did an exemplary job. This is the reason why we have set up an institute in Los Angeles that will work with the school district and will work with the community and it is an institute named after Shoshana Johnson, called the Institute for Heroism, Endurance and Patriotism. She had a daughter. Should she have been killed, as was rumored, that daughter would be in the care of someone else or maybe a part of the welfare system. I do not know, but she has a strong family. So in the name of the POWs, in the name of our veterans, we must vote to restore the deleted provisions that have helped millions of Americans and their children and our people who are still in Iraq and they have families back home. Believe me, their incomes currently make them eligible for Federal programs. We must be sure that they too can take advantage of the child tax credit because, indeed, they are working people. We owe it to them. They deserve it.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, it is shameful enough that the Republican leadership in Congress has chosen to gamble our children's future on a risky and unsustainable tax scheme such as the one signed into law just last week. But what is even more shameful is that the Republicans sold out the very men and women who recently fought for our country in Iraq by cutting many of them out of that tax cut. That is right. Only hours before Congress was set to vote on President Bush's big tax giveaway, Republicans cut out provisions to expand the child tax credit for working families in order to give the President's wealthy friends a bigger tax cut. The child tax credit provisions Republicans erased would have benefited millions of working families, including many families of Americans soldiers, sailors, airmen and women just as they return from war. This is outrageous, and my outrage grows when I hear Members of the other party's leadership suggesting that this is grounds to write another tax bill for wealthy investors and accuse us of a new welfare scheme. How can they in all honesty stand on this floor representing the United States and say that kind of thing? Mr. Speaker, I appeal to Members to fix this problem immediately. This House vote to restore the deleted provisions that would help millions of Americans and their children is one that needs to be taken immediately, so please bring H.R. 2286 to the floor.

Ms. WATSON of California

Ms. WATSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my utmost frustration and disappointment with the Federal Communication Commission's vote today to relax media cross-ownership rules. I am frustrated by the process through which the Republican-controlled commission sought to manipulate its rulemaking by limiting public input and discussion. I am frustrated that the majority on the commission chose to ignore the overwhelming public opposition to the proposed rules, and I am disappointed that these commissioners failed to learn from existing evidence, especially in the area of radio ownership, the dangerous impacts of unfettered media consolidation. By voting to radically deregulate media ownership, this administration has created the most unimaginable atmosphere for further national and local concentration of media outlets, leading to the erosion of localism, diversity and competition so essential to a healthy democracy. I fear that as the media conglomerates move forward with the rulings and gobble up more and more independent outlets, not only will the consumers suffer from the lack of diverse voices on our airwaves, but the core values of what it means to live in a free and open society will be greatly demolished. Many of my colleagues in both Chambers of Congress have expressed a great deal of skepticism toward today's FCC rule. Close to 150 Members of this House, including the Congressional Black Caucus, Hispanic Caucus and Asian and Pacific American Caucus have asked the FCC to delay its decision. That came in addition to nearly 750,000 e-mails, letters and phone calls from the public to the FCC expressing their opposition to the current rulemaking process and the rule. All of them, including a letter I sent on behalf of 28 other Members of the Congressional Black Caucus, have fallen on deaf ears. Over the entire course of the rulemaking process, FCC Chairman Powell has held only two public hearings while meeting 71 times, I repeat, 71 times, with top broadcasters behind closed doors. How can we say that the FCC is following Congressional statutory guidance to serve the public's interest? How is the FCC performing its special duty as mandated by the Supreme Court to protect an uninhibited marketplace of ideas? Chairman Powell says that the rule changes will help preserve free, over-the-air television, but free, over-the-air television is alive and well. Advertising revenues for free, over-the-air television were up 15 percent last year. However, it is not the job of the FCC to make sure that every network in this country makes a lot of money. It is the job of the FCC to make sure that Americans get a variety and diversity of viewpoints. The bottom line is that as the rule changes lead to greater media consolidation, small and independent companies will be drowned out. Some critics have called it ``the Wal-Mart effect,'' ``the emergence of a 21st century Citizen Kane,'' as noted by Commissioner Adelstein. The big five media companies, Disney, Viacom, AOL-Time Warner, News Corp. and General Electric Company will end up squeezing out the small companies. It is already happening. The new rules will only speed up the process. Ted Turner is right in saying that when small businesses get hurt, big ideas get lost. When the next Watergate happens, Americans need to know that a truly independent third estate will be up to the task of conducting a free and independent investigation. Minorities are deeply suspicious of the rule changes. There is ample precedent for their feelings since the passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act which resulted in a frenzy of media consolidation, radio station ownership has decreased by 30 percent. Many of the stations gobbled up were minority owned. It was a bad decision at the FCC today. Minority broadcasters believe that media consolidation has all but eliminated opportunities they need to expand their media companies. They can't expand or compete with the big players and are often left with one alternative: To sell. It would have been prudent for the FCC to allow more time for public hearings as well as congressional input. We have been presented with a backroom deal that will dramatically change the structure of our media marketplace, significantly impact media diversity, and inhibit the free flow of information. Today's adoption of media ownership rules represent a giant step backward for consumers, and as members of Congress we have a responsibility to exercise our legislative oversight role. As Commissioner Copps said today, this is only the beginning. I strongly urge my colleagues and the public to take up this important debate.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. I am very proud of that, Mr. Speaker. I thank the chairman, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), for his courage. I will just restate the problem that we see in the pricing of U.S. pharmaceuticals, which has such an enormous consequence to millions of Americans who need affordable access to prescription drugs. Americans pay substantially more for prescription drugs than purchasers in other countries, and it has been demonstrated to us this evening. We have failed in Congress to establish a Medicare prescription drug benefit, so seniors who do not have private prescription drug coverage must pay for prescription drugs out of their pockets. Research by the staff of the Committee on Government Reform has shown that seniors in congressional districts across the country pay twice as much for prescription drugs as their counterparts in other countries. For some drugs, they pay as much as 10 times as their foreign counterparts. Lower drug prices abroad have led millions of Americans to purchase drugs from foreign sources. Internet pharmacies facilitate these transactions, and their recent proliferation has raised serious concerns about whether American consumers are receiving appropriate medical supervision. In October of 2000, Congress attempted to address international prescription drug pricing disparities by signing into law the Medicine Equity and Drug Safety Act. The MEDS Act sought to permit U.S. consumers, pharmacists, and wholesalers to purchase FDA-approved prescription drugs on the international market. Opponents of the legislation, including President Clinton, noted that the MEDS Act was doomed to fail from the outset. The act stipulates that the Secretary of Health and Human Services must verify that implementation would pose no additional risk to public health and safety and would lead to a significant reduction in the cost of drugs to the United States consumer. To the surprise of no one, the HHS Secretary, under both the Clinton and Bush administrations, has been unable to fulfill this stipulation. As a result, the MEDS Act has had zero effect on the pricing practices of drug manufacturers. In fact, U.S. prices for the five most popular drugs used by seniors increased by an average 16 percent in the 20 months following enactment. The MEDS Act has, however, had other effects. In response to the bill's enactment, drug makers began requiring Canadian wholesalers and pharmacies to accept contract provisions prohibiting them from selling their products on the U.S. market or to Canadian pharmacies that sell to U.S. customers. GlaxoSmithKline's unilateral efforts to enforce its policies earned it well-publicized condemnation from U.S. consumer and Canadian pharmaceutical groups. The failure of the MEDS Act prompted the introduction of similar, but narrower, proposals in the 107th Congress. In the 108th Congress, the gentleman from Indiana (Chairman Burton) and our colleague on the Subcommittee on Wellness and Human Rights, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), have introduced Preserving Access to Safe, Affordable Canadian Medicines Act, or H.R. 847, which would prohibit drug manufacturers from using contract provisions, limitations on supply, or any other measure to limit the access to American consumers to safe, affordable prescription drugs from the Canadian market. Mr. Speaker, despite incessant pharmaceutical industry complaints to the contrary, research by the committee's staff demonstrates that international pricing disparities are not explained either by the duration and the cost of the FDA approval process or by disproportionate U.S. research and development cost. It is within our power to correct this problem if we have the will. Mr. Speaker, I know with the leadership of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and the other Members who have testified in front of me, we will be heeding the call of the American people and delivering a prescription drug benefit for Medicare. Congress must look at a blanket solution for fixing our broken health care delivery system, and Congress must act now.

Ms. WATSON. I think that is a great idea, Mr. Speaker. Maybe there are some amendments.

Ms. WATSON. Amazingly, the USDA has sided with Glaxo and seems to think the crossborder sales should be stopped. They also cite safety concerns. I want Members to know, they can only point to a single case, Mr. Speaker, in Oregon where there may have been a problem, only one case. Mr. William Hubbard, senior associate commissioner of the FDA, has threatened both civil and criminal penalties to anyone who facilitates Americans' efforts to import prescription drugs from Canadian pharmacies, health plans, or insurance companies. Even senior citizens who fill their own prescriptions in Canada because they cannot afford American prices are breaking the law, according to Mr. Hubbard. His contribution to the debate is to scare senior citizens, disabled people, and low-income people, and to cut them off from a supply of affordable prescription drugs. So we definitely need to look at that amendment, and I think my colleague is going to see the unity that he described in the beginning coming together to get a good bill. I thank him so much for his concern.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, at the end of this month, millions of unemployed Americans will begin to lose their benefits under the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation program. In my State, the State of California, 150,000 people will run out of benefits and still not have a job on May 31. Congress needs to act to extend these benefits. During a recession, unemployment insurance is one of the most efficient ways to help Americans and to keep the economy moving. Unemployment insurance puts cash in the hands of people who need it most, people who will spend the money on rent and groceries, rather than put it in the bank. Unemployment insurance is cost-effective. Unlike the Republican budget, the Federal Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund currently has a surplus of more than $21 billion. That money can easily meet the needs of America's unemployed until we can get the economy moving again. Instead, the President and the Republican Party have spent their time and energy trying to pass tax cuts for wealthy investors. This House has passed a tax cut totaling more than $500 billion. That is money that will not go to unemployed working families but, instead, to the President's wealthy political supporters. In fact, if we were to take all the money that the Republicans have set aside for their tax cut, we could create high-paying jobs for all the 1.7 million Americans who have been laid off since the President's last economic plan in 2001. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the President and his economic team have managed our economy miserably. Now is not the time to trust the President again when he says he has a jobs plan. Let us act to extend unemployment insurance and make sure that American families can get back on their feet.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the Asian Pacific American Heritage Month and to celebrate the lives and accomplishments of Asian Pacific Americans in our history. In particular, I want to recognize the contributions of Korean Americans to my district and commend them for their tireless work in improving the city of Los Angeles. Mr. Speaker, as you may know, Los Angeles is home to the largest concentration of Koreans outside of Korea, roughly 160,000. Located in my district, Koreatown is the hub of the Korean community and vital to our local economy. The rich and diverse history of Korean immigration is carefully documented by the Korean American Museum, from the first Korean arrival in the United States at the turn of the 20th century for agricultural production, to the most recent wave of Korean immigration marked by the passage of the 1965 Immigration Act. Just a few weeks ago I had the opportunity to attend the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus kick-off event and hear from many of the Asian American leaders in my district and beyond who discussed their community development projects. I want to take this opportunity to recognize some of the groups I met that day and the contributions they continue to make to our communities: the Korean Resource Center, the Korean Youth & Community Center, the Korean Churches for Community Development, the Thai Community Development Center, and the Asian American Healthcare Venture. I want to reiterate one of the key concerns expressed to me by some of those community leaders at the forum, which is the need for community and economic development projects that are geared toward Asian Pacific Americans. The diversity of the APA population presents unique challenges for housing and community development systems, and we must look for ways to better allocate scarce resources to deliver linguistic and culturally appropriate services. I strongly believe community development organizations must be sensitized to the history and experiences of the communities they serve in order to produce services that are linguistically and culturally appropriate. To that end Congress should look into federally designated funding for the APA community and economic development programs. We also need to look into better data collection and research at the national level to further understand the unique needs of the Asian American communities. I want to thank Congressman Wu and Congressman Honda, Chair and Vice Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, for organizing this special order. As we commemorate and celebrate the crucial role Asian Pacific Americans have played in the development of this Nation, we must also recognize the unique needs and challenges the 12.5 million Asian Pacific Americans in the U.S. face today and work towards improving their future and the future of our country.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, on June 2, the FCC is scheduled to meet to discuss a proposal by Chairman Powell to relax regulations on media ownership. The proposal will allow large media companies to acquire a bigger share of the national market and more television stations in any given local media market. Other restrictions on cross-ownership, owning radio stations, TV stations, and newspapers in the same local market will also be lifted. Many of us here in Congress are concerned that the rule changes proposed by Chairman Powell have not been properly vetted for public and congressional comment and that their impact on minority media ownership and content could be deleterious. Minority owners and their share of the radio and television market is at an all-time low due to media consolidation during the last 2 decades. Chairman Powell's proposed rule changes could provide the knock-out blow, not only to minority ownership, but to a diversity of opinions and viewpoints that are critical to the free flow of information in a democratic society. I am very concerned during this period of time that there is a climate that says you cannot say this, you cannot say that, you cannot dissent. It is a threat to democracy. Now, as a Member of the Congressional Black Caucus, we are getting to Chairman Powell our concerns, because the FCC, as a Federal regulatory agency for mass media communications, has long-established rules following the 1945 Supreme Court declaration that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public; that a free press is a condition of a free society. Over the past 2 decades, however, many rules designed to enhance diversity, competition, and localism have been weakened, creating unprecedented consolidation of media sources. For example, since the passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, the number of radio station owners has decreased by at least 1,100, representing a 30 percent decline. Among the remaining radio station owners, only 175 minority broadcasters owned 426 stations in 2000, or about 4.0 percent of the Nation's 10,577 commercial AM and FM radio stations. Furthermore, most of these minority owners continue to own AM, rather than FM stations, thus facing limited listenership. Minority owners' share of the commercial television market is even more distressing. As large conglomerates continued to consolidate ownership of television stations throughout the 1990s, only 23 full- power commercial television stations were owned by minorities at the end of the decade, representing only 1.9 percent of the country's 1,288 licensed stations. That level is the lowest since the tracking of such data. In addition, since most minority owners are primarily single- station operators, they face additional difficulty in competing against the larger group owners. The consolidation of media ownership has also adversely impacted programming diversity. For example, Clear Channel Communications, which controls over a quarter of the Nation's commercial radio market, has instituted homogeneous play lists nationwide, eliminated play time for local musicians, and severely cut back most local news services. Black Entertainment Television, after its merger with media giant Viacom, canceled many of its popular public affairs programs, including ``BET Tonight with Ed Gordon,'' ``Lead Story,'' and ``Teen Summit.'' These examples are object lessons on how media consolidation can limit creative voices, dissenting views, and consumer choice. Our airways need to have the widest range of viewpoints that are representative of American society. So, Mr. Speaker, it is an outrage that we would be considering even more consolidation. Where are our voices going to be heard? I am very troubled with the atmosphere in which we live in America today, because we are being muzzled, we are being gagged by the big boys, and that is troubling for a democratic system.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the 49th anniversary of the historic Brown v. Board of Education decision. On May 17, 1954, the Supreme Court unanimously declared that separate educational facilities are inherently unequal and as such violate the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution which guarantees all citizens equal protection of the law. This is one of the most important legal decisions for human rights in American history. This battle, however, did not occur overnight. The struggle for equality for African Americans began over three centuries prior to Brown v. Board of Education. In the United States from the early 1600s to the 1860s, peoples of African descent sought the most fundamental of rights, individual freedom. Despite the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation and gains made by the 13th amendment, which outlawed slavery, African Americans remained in economic and social bondage enforced by segregation. Even the passage of the 14th amendment, which guaranteed equal protection under the law, and the 15th amendment, which afforded African Americans voting rights, did little to abridge de facto segregation policies. In 1849, the father of 5-year-old Sarah Roberts initiated the legal battles for equality in education. Sarah would walk past five white elementary schools to Smith Grammar School, a segregated school in Boston. Smith was badly run down, so Sarah's father unsuccessfully tried to enroll her in one of the white schools. He selected African- American attorney Robert Morris, who was joined by noted abolitionist Charles Sumner, to represent his case, Roberts v. City of Boston. Similar cases occurred throughout the United States involving American children of African, Asian, Hispanic and Native descent in the wake of Roberts v. City of Boston. Not until 12:52 p.m. on May 17, 1954, did a court decide in favor of the plaintiff in any of these cases. On this day, the Supreme Court rejected the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision ruling, stating, ``We conclude that in the field of public education, the doctrine of separate but equal has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.'' Segregation and Jim Crow were legally dead. Yet as we celebrate this victory, we must acknowledge that we are still making strides to attain equal opportunity in education. As de jure segregation faded, pre-Jim Crow economic conditions remained which perpetuated de facto segregation that continues in many cities to this day. These conditions continue to negatively affect the educational opportunities of many of our Nation's African-American children. We cannot deny that Brown v. Board of Education afforded African Americans a better chance to receive a quality education. We cannot deny the rising statistics of African Americans going to college and obtaining postgraduate degrees. We also cannot deny the ever-increasing median income of African Americans or the rise of African-American business owners and professionals, all of which are directly related to educational opportunities. However, we also cannot deny that the gap between white and African-American achievement remains substantial. Black people continue to graduate from college at half the rate of white people. It is unfortunate that after all these years, we are still in an uphill battle over full inclusion in our Nation's society. This is why we must do more than commemorate this decision. We are obliged to be forever proactive in ensuring that the last vestiges of Jim Crow are extinguished and do not return. Mr. Speaker, on April 1, 2003, over 50,000 people, including 10,000 from Michigan alone, rallied in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in favor of the University of Michigan's affirmative action policy. Mr. Speaker, we hope that we are on the brink of a new day when it comes to quality education. Affirmative Action in higher education was put in place to not only encourage diversity, but to be a minor step in the direction of justice after hundreds of years of institutional and social discrimination against women and people of color in the United States. Similar to the 1954 case, the justices recognized in the 1978 Bakke case that the most effective way to cure society of exclusionary practices is to make special efforts at inclusion, which is exactly what affirmative action does. Mr. Speaker, as we reflect on the half century mark of Brown v. the Board of Education, I encourage all of my colleagues to take note of the fact that this court victory was not just a victory for African- American and other minorities. It was a victory for all Americans. Fifty years later we must remain mindful of these hard-won freedoms and vigilant in our protection of these hard-won gains.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, there are approximately 30,000 suicide deaths every year in the U.S. Suicide is the 11th leading cause of death nationwide, and is the 3rd leading cause of death among people ages 10-24, following unintentional injuries and homicide. Statistics of completed suicide only tell part of the story. National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) estimates that research indicates that there are an estimated 8-25 attempted suicides to one completion; the ratio is higher in women and youth. Adolescent males are 4 times more likely to actually commit suicide than females. Adolescent females are twice as likely as adolescent males to attempt suicide. Since peaking in the early 1990's, overall adolescent suicide rates have dropped. However, most of this is attributed to a drop in male adolescent suicide. Rates for females have remained constant. Fifty- three percent of young people who commit suicide abuse substances. Most people who commit suicide have a diagnosable mental illness, but are not receiving treatment. Children who are exposed to violence, experience a loss in the family, experience parental divorce, or have academic problems are at a heightened risk for mental health problems and suicide. The U.S. Surgeon General estimates that 1 in 5 children will experience a serious mental health problem during their school years. Seventy percent of these children will not receive mental health services, putting them at an even higher risk of suicide. Native American/Alaskan Native youth are more than twice as likely to commit suicide as any other adolescent racial group to commit suicide, with approximately 20 deaths per 100,000 Native Americans/Alaskan Natives ages 15-19. Hispanic adolescents are most likely to exhibit non-lethal suicide behavior. A 1999 report found that a shocking 1 in 3 Latina adolescents seriously considered suicide. Fifteen percent of Hispanic high school- age females actually attempt suicide each year. People who are homeless, incarcerated, in the foster care system, or exposed to serious violence are all at a higher risk for mental illness and suicide. African-Americans and Hispanics are overrepresented in these groups. Minorities are less likely to access mental health care, due to lack of insurance and other financial barriers and cultural stigma. For instance, only one third of African-Americans in need of mental health services actually receive them. Among Hispanic Americans with a mental disorder, fewer than 1 in 11 contact mental health specialists, while fewer than 1 in 5 contact general health care providers. Among Hispanic immigrants with mental disorders, fewer than 1 in 20 use services from mental health specialists, while fewer than 1 in 10 use services from general health care providers. Of Asian-Americans who report needing mental health services, half of them do not receive them because they cannot find a provider who speaks their language. There is a serious lack of mental healthcare providers, and an even greater lack of minority providers, who are more likely to practice in communities with high minority populations. We must invest more in our mental healthcare system in order to prevent suicide. We need more psychiatrists and psychologists. We need to screen all of our children for mental health problems and suicide risk factors. And when our children exhibit symptoms of mental illness--such as withdrawal from family and friends, academic trouble, sadness or behavioral problems--we must make sure they get the appropriate treatment immediately.