Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule provided for consideration of the VA/HUD appropriation bill with great sadness.

Sadness knowing that our veterans will not receive the health care they have earned.

Early this morning I joined my esteemed (bi-partisan) colleagues on the House Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Chris Smith and Ranking Member Lane Evans before the Rules Committee in support of their Amendment that would have added $1.8 billion dollars in funding for veterans health care for the 2004 budget.

This amendment was ruled out of order.

Mr. Chairman is ensuring that the VA is able to continue offering health care for all veterans currently enrolled--is that out of order?

Our veterans deserve better than this.

Many are old and frail and unable to afford any other form of health care.

Have no doubt if we pass this budget without this amendment we are handing the Department of Veterans Affairs serious challenges.

These challenges will include deciding which veterans will and will not be served.

Mr. Speaker it is time for us to put our money where our mouth is and support our veterans.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise on behalf of Head Start, a program which has been shown to help youngsters increase their vocabulary before they start school, a program which allows them writing skills before they start school, and to learn social behavior, a program which has been there to allow parent participation, allow health screening and services, a program that has been shown throughout the last 35 years to work for these low-income youngsters whose parents work out in the field harvesting food for this country.

What has the administration and the Republican Party decided to do? Shame on you, you have decided to go after this program designed to help the most vulnerable youngsters of this country.

As he just indicated, the intent to cut the program, that program that has been there for our kids. Shame on you. This program has been there, has worked and now you have chosen to go back and basically cut this program and put it in the form of a block grant. In Texas, we should not allow it. I

would ask for your serious consideration to look at the fact that this program has been there for us.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight because some of my colleagues have stood here on the House floor and stated they believe that working families who earn less than $26,000 do not deserve a tax relief. Shame on them.

I stand before my colleagues today to speak to those people who are blocking the efforts to extend this child tax credit for low-income working families throughout this country, to let them know that their actions are affecting some of the hardest-working mothers and fathers in our Nation.

The Bush tax cut left behind thousands of hardworking south Texans and Americans. Many jobs, good jobs, just do not qualify my constituents for tax relief.

Let me look at some of these examples. We have child care workers who make roughly $13,000 starting salaries, fast-food cook workers who make $13,000, waitresses who make $14,000, food preparers and servicers who make $14,000, preschool teachers who start at $13,000.

Mr. Speaker, once again, the needs of children and families do not make a priority in this House. They have left our children out in the cold on the number one issue of our community and that is education. Their proposal to block grant Head Start which provides money without guidelines for States and local implementation diverts attention from the critical needs of this program.

What happened to the issue of local control when it comes to Head Start? What happened to the fact that Head Start has been working well as it is now? Why now send that money to the States?

The only reason we decided to establish Head Start was because the States were unwilling, Mr. Speaker, unwilling to come up and respond to the needs of these children, unwilling to prepare them.

The State of Texas, for example, is still a State that only funds kindergarten half a day. The local community taxpayers have to come up with the rest of the money in order to pay for half day kindergarten, not to mention that they do not provide anything for early childhood. So Head Start is a critical program that has been there, and there actually has been a Head Start for a lot of the Hispanic community. Where 50 percent of our youngsters are still dropping out, Head Start has been there for them to make sure and the statistics show that kids that go to Head Start are less likely to drop out or more likely to finish when they should and go beyond.

Head Start has been a proven program, so why try to mess with it? Why try to destroy Head Start the way we know it now?

One of the top educational priorities of the members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus is to ensure that Hispanic children enter school ready to learn. Hispanic children represent the fastest-growing school age population in the Nation. Unfortunately, they are the least likely to have the participation in preschool programs, opening an achievement gap before the first day of school begins.

Soon Congress will again decide funding levels for Head Start, the premier level, early childhood education program that presents us with an opportunity to close that gap for Hispanic and African American children and low-income children.

For over 35 years, the Head Start program has proven itself. It has enjoyed great success in meeting the comprehensive development needs of low-income children. Head Start programs achieve school readiness for these children through the holistic approach and intense parent involvement, and that includes working with the parents. It includes reaching out, making sure that they understand how important education is, which is critical for those youngsters staying in school.

The range and intensity of service is assured because of the national program standards that it has. If we rely on the States for full implementation, it would fatally undermine these national standards, jeopardizing access to comprehensive services as well as making Head Start ineffective in serving low-income children and their families. Yet that is just what the Bush administration has proposed and the Republican Congress intends to do and that is to begin to destroy Head Start the way we know it now, put it into the form of a block grant.

Instead of looking for ways to remove themselves of their responsibility for Head Start, the administration and the Congress should put Head Start on the path for full funding. Currently, Head Start serves about 60 percent of their eligible children. They need additional resources to make sure we cover the other kids that are not covered by the existing program.

Migrant and seasonal Head Start programs only reach 19 percent of the eligible children. The State educational agencies are not equipped to reach out to these youngsters that are out in the field a lot of times. As a Nation, we must do better. For migrant and seasonal farm work families, access to Head Start is a public health and safety issue.

In 1992, the General Accounting Office found that at least one-third of all migrant children as young as 10 work in the fields. This is in 1992, where there are still kids working in fields with their families and either contribute to their family income or because no child care was available. Children in the field are at risk from injuries from farm equipment, overexposure to the elements, as well as pesticide poisoning and, of course, long-term health risks associated with exposure to chemicals. In many cases, if slots are not available to migrant seasonal Head Start programs, no programs exist in the area, there is no alternatives but to take the children to the fields and perhaps leave them unattended at the labor camps.

The administration's proposal to block grant Head Start would do nothing to strengthen the growing numbers of limited English proficiency children in communities across this Nation; and we now see them in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Arkansas and a lot of the States where we had not seen them before. As we have seen, with the implementation of the President's No Child Left Behind Act, States look to the Federal Government for assistance and guidance in providing services to these populations.

The recent phenomena of emerging Hispanic communities poses a challenge to Head Start providers and participants. As children move into the areas of the U.S. where there have been Head Start programs operating but without experience in servicing, it is important that we continue to provide these resources.

In addition, let me just close by saying it is important that we keep Head Start. It is important that we remain on track. It is important that this program also remain within the Department of Health and not be moved to the Department of Education.

I also want the congratulate the Congressional Black Caucus on their efforts under the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), and I thank him for being here tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I would probably not go beyond the 30 minutes, and I will yield to my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), so he will be able to pick it up right after that.

Let me take this opportunity tonight to, first of all, talk about the issue of Labor-HHS, Education appropriations bills that includes, as far as I am concerned, a very inadequate funding level for education, for health care, for job training, and other vital programs.

This administration and this President went around the country, Mr. Speaker, and talked about education being his first priority. Well, we have gotten a great deal of lip service, but we have not received the resources to fund the education bill that he himself authored, an education bill that is more than $8 billion behind in the lack of funding. And I would be ashamed to go back to the taxpayers and to our constituencies throughout this country and talk about the fact that he passed a tax bill, a very irresponsible tax bill, and at the same time has not been responsive about meeting the needs in education and health care.

H.R. 2660 fails to meet the education and health care needs of our Nation's working families. Although the No Child Left Behind Act was recently enacted and aimed at promising fulfilling the funding of the education bill, there would be a shortchange, as indicated, for 2004 of $8 billion. In fact, this legislation would provide inadequate resources for vital Federal education programs such as Title I and such as special education.

In Texas, Mr. Speaker, since I know the gentleman is from Texas, we need some additional resources in special ed since in that particular area we basically allow the local communities to take the burden since the Federal Government has mandated a lot of the needs in those specific areas, but it has failed to provide the resources.

In Pell grants in this particular bill, when our kids have tuition rates that have gone high and continue to increase, we are deciding that we do not want to fund the Pell grants at the same levels. These are the grants and resources that our students throughout the country need in order to continue their education. Moreover, this legislation would provide little or no funding increases for health programs that assist some of the most vulnerable members of our society including the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant program and most also the Ryan White AIDS Care program. The Ryan White AIDS program is one that provides assistance for the area of AIDS. And in Texas, Mr. Speaker, we have a disproportionate numbers of Latinos and Africans who are now being hit with AIDS where we still need the resources. In fact, within the Latino community there are a lack of priority programs and especially community-based programs that are needed in order to reach out to the special population.

H.R. 2660 would also fail to increase job training opportunities for our Nation's workers, especially at a time when we ought to be investing in ourselves, investing in our workers to make sure that they have the skills in order to compete in this global economy. We are choosing not to do that.

Despite our Nation's ongoing economic recession and higher unemployment rates, we have the largest unemployment rate among Hispanics of 8.2 in 9 years, and it has not taken this administration much to get it at that level in the last 2\1/2\ years.

This legislation provides no funding for increases for adults' and dislocated workers' training programs that would help the unemployed and the underemployed workers throughout this country to develop the skills that are needed to compete in this global economy. It would provide no funding to increase the Occupational and Safety and Health Administration to help protect workers that are injured and die on the jobs, despite the steep increases that we have seen in fatalities of those that are working out there, and especially among Latinos. It would also eliminate funding for the Department of Labor, international initiatives that help foreign countries fight child labor, education for HIV/AIDS and develop core labor standards.

I have heard arguments that people still argue that we are still supportive of fighting child labor, but we are unwilling to provide the resources, we are unwilling to help internationally for those countries that abuse our children and use them as child labor. This administration has failed to respond in the issues of education, in the issues of health care, in the issues of the economy and in the issues of immigration.

And as I recall, this President went around the country and talked about Latin America, and he talked about the fact that he was going to be there and that his first priority internationally was also Latin America. Well, you talk to anyone in Latin America, they have not seen him since he got elected, and they have not heard anything about him. And so it was good to see today, and I was elated and I feel hopeful today, when we met with the Democratic Senate and the Senators, that we have a joint effort in working with

them. We know now and we have decided to come together and to come together to talk about the importance of not only the Latino community, but the entire community when it comes to economic empowerment, of looking at the fact that we have to begin to work on the unemployment rate, unemployment that is continuing to grow under this administration.

We have to make sure that small businesses have access to capital that is drastically needed. That is something that is critical. Small business is what makes America. Small business is where 80 percent of Americans are working, and we are beginning to look at that, and we look forward to working on turning the economy around.

We are also looking at specifically some proposals that deal with educational opportunities. This administration, this President, has zeroed in on Head Start, a program that has been a great program, a program that has worked. And he has chosen first, he proposed to change it from the Department of Health to the Department of Education. And we said, Why, why? Here is a program that all the research says that it is working. Why mess with it? The only thing that I can come to a conclusion is that he is choosing to try to destroy it.

Secondly, now he chose to put it into the form of a block grant. Well, the reason we have Head Start is because States like Texas that I come from and that the Speaker tonight comes from have failed to fund even full-day kindergarten. In the State of Texas we only fund half a day. We hold the local communities accountable for the other half a day. Now we expect them to provide Head Start to a State that has been unwilling to even provide full-day kindergarten? I do not think so.

This administration has asked and recommended that we begin to put this as a form of a State grant. And those States like Texas are salivating at the possibility of getting their hands on those monies that are out there not for addressing the needs of our constituents in terms of those youngsters that need those resources, but for other priorities that they might personally have. So Head Start has been a program that has been there.

I will remind all Texans and all Americans that this President said he favored education, that he was going to concentrate on education. Well, to this day we have not seen that. We have seen No Child Left Behind at the expense of all the kids that he has left behind. And so he chose not to fund it appropriately, and that is not appropriate. He has chosen not to look at higher education and the importance of those Pell grants and the importance of allowing those opportunities of those youngsters to be able to reach that American dream of being able to get to college and be able to afford a college education. We have to make sure that we do that.

When it comes to health care, this administration has also talked about responding to the needs of those senior citizens in health care, and he has failed to meet this. We have worked on a bill that looks at the disparities that confront Latino Americans as well as others, as it deals with diabetes, that we have to address.

We have to also look at the uninsured. Texas has the largest number of uninsured, and at one time we used to say, thank God for Mississippi and Illinois. Well, now the Texas House is controlled by Republicans on both sides, and I am sure that the people from Mississippi and Illinois are going to say, thank God for Texas, because we are probably going to be on the bottom of the totem pole. When it comes to uninsured, the largest number of uninsured comes from Texas. These are hard-working Texans. If you work in rural Texas, you work for a small company. If you do not work for the government, you do not have access to insurance. They do not have access to HMOs. HMOs have left rural Texas and abandoned us. This administration continues to push forward on these agendas that do not meet the needs of our constituencies, that do not meet the problems that confront us.

In addition to that, this administration promised that they would start working on immigration. We have not heard anything since. We need to make sure in the issue of immigration that those individuals that are out there working and that are paying their taxes, we ought to reach out to them and begin the process of legalization.

And so as we look forward, I want to thank my colleagues, and I want to yield because I did promise that a little bit before 8:00 that I would have an opportunity to yield and leave and let my fellow colleague continue for the next 30 minutes or so because I know he has a flight.

But I did want to come tonight and say how disappointed that I was with the passage of this piece of legislation that is a step backward and does not address the needs of our constituency; and, secondly, how elated I am that the Texas Senate Democrats who are out there working with us and making things happen.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to you with the understanding that I think that you will be yielding to my colleague.

Mr. Speaker, it is an outrage that we are today considering a military

construction bill that cuts funding for desperately needed facilities by $1.5 billion from last year's bill.

It is an outrage that, as young men and women in uniform are fighting and dying every day in Iraq, we are voting on a bill that will not provide needed funds for housing for their families; for dormitories or young airmen, sailors, soldiers, and marines; and for safe facilities in which to work.

The bill we are voting on today represents a sad example of a policy that the majority seems to be pursuing of paying lip-service to the men and women who risk their lives in defense of our country--while cutting funds for family housing, for needed pay raises, for health care for veterans.

The young people who are fighting for us now in Iraq and around the world have been shut out of the child tax credit, and now it seems that we are yet again going after programs that help these brave men and women and the families they have left behind.

Mr. Speaker, this is wrong, and I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule.

Mr. Speaker, let me first of all thank my colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), for being out here. It is 11 p.m. eastern time, and people might wonder what we are doing here this late. Well, we are talking about an issue that is important. We are talking about an issue when I go to a church on Sunday where people still confront me and ask me what we are doing about this issue. I know myself and we have the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin) out here tonight to talk about an issue that continues to confront us, yet we continue to play games with the American people and with our seniors. That is not right. We need to make sure that we do the right thing.

Mr. Speaker, we know that our seniors are having difficulties. We know that the majority of them do not have the resources to pay for their prescriptions. We also know on the Republican side and on the Democratic side that the private sector, the insurance companies, cannot make a profit on our seniors when it comes to prescription drug coverage. We recognize that.

When this all first started, with LBJ, there is a little story that is told about this. When LBJ was trying to put Medicare together, the biggest obstacles were the insurance companies back then, and the doctors. He finally got the insurance companies there and he told them, look, I am going to do you a favor. You have been making a profit off of the young people and insuring them while they are healthy, and as soon as they get sick on you, you have been dumping them and dropping them off your insurance rolls. So we know that the companies were doing that then and they are still continuing to do that now. So when he got them in there he said, look, I will do you a favor. You keep taking those profits while they are healthy but allow us to establish Medicare so that we can take care of them in their later years when they become seniors and they need the assistance, and you can continue to make your profits.

And so now we have a situation where our seniors still reach that age where they need that assistance, where they need our help, where they need prescription drug coverage, and what angers me the most is that the drug companies are the ones that are making a profit off the ones who can least afford to pay for these prescriptions.

We talk about the fact that those same prescriptions are sold, Mr. Speaker, in Mexico and Canada, the same company, same brand, only cheaper. And why? Because they are sticking it to the Americans. And we have allowed that to happen. We have allowed that to continue to occur.

We talk about free trade but yet we do not allow our own Americans to cross the border into Mexico to buy prescriptions. Why not allow free trade from that perspective? It is only good for companies, but not for the average person to do that.

So we need to make sure that, number one, the bill has to be affordable for people. The senior has to be able to purchase it. I can attest to my colleagues that the majority of my district, with a median income of $23,000, $21,000, and especially my seniors, who if you live in rural Texas or rural America you do not have a pension because you did not work for a major corporation or the government, so you do not have a pension. All you have is Social Security. So you do not have extra money to buy additional coverage. And if you did, believe me, the insurance companies do not want that because of the fact that they are not going to make a profit off you. We know the data. We know the seniors sometimes need up to $2,900 per year. So if you need $2,900 per year, close to $3,000, they are not going to make a profit from you. We know that. Yet we are playing games and doing gimmicks.

But this President and this administration has to come up this coming year in November for reelection and they are going to have to tell us what they have done when it comes to prescription drug coverage. They will be asked what they have done. Because I recall the last 2 years, and I want to ask my constituents to remember this, because any Republican who had serious opposition the last time there were ads that came out. We had an ad for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) back home, and that ad said, ``Call Congressman Bonilla to thank him for the prescription drug coverage you received.'' Well, I am going to ask you right now: Have you received anything back home? No. It is a gimmick. It is all nothing but sarcasm. It angers me because they play games with the American people and they play games with our seniors.

So we have to make sure if we come up with a program that it is affordable. What the Republicans have is not affordable. Secondly, it has to be meaningful. It has to be real. It has to be guaranteed. We cannot afford to have these little gimmicks. The reality is that the bill that the Republicans have is meaningless. It is private insurers that can change the terms of the agreement.

We had the HMOs. I have rural counties. I had 13 counties, now I have 11 counties after redistricting, and those counties, wherever the HMOs and the managed organizations were not making profits, they did not cut the individuals, they cut the whole county. So we are not going to be able to have access in rural Texas, in rural America. So it is meaningless.

Finally, we also understand that we have to make sure that we guarantee our seniors the accessibility to these prescriptions. This is the most powerful country in the world. We have the capability and, yes, we have the best

health care system in the world. But what good does it do if it is not affordable; if it is not accessible; if it is just not there? Yet we do have the best health care system. It is ridiculous for us to be doing this, and it is unfair to our seniors to be playing games with their lives, especially as they reach their twilight years when they need this the most and they have to sometimes go without buying all the prescriptions that are needed.

So, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for being here tonight, and I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin) for being here and spending time talking about this critical issue. I want to personally just congratulate my colleagues and let them know that we have to keep this fight up. We have to keep talking about this, and we have to stop playing games.

When that Presidential race comes up again, we have to let everyone know what he has done for prescription drug coverage. The Republicans have control of the Presidency, they have control of the Senate, they have control of the House. What are they doing? They are playing games. This is not the time to do that.

Mr. Speaker, as the mighty San Antonio Spurs entered the arena on game six of the NBA National Championship you could tell that it was going to be an amazing game. The crowd was on their feet chanting Go Spurs Go, non-stop, it was energizing. Every player from Tim Duncan to Kevin Willis had their game faces on. There was something in their look as if they knew what was going to happen, as if they had dreams of three point shots and death defying dunks the night before. They had hoop dreams.

The New Jersey Nets put up a great fight, but the Spurs' dominance of the fourth quarter seemed too much for even the Nets to overcome. After a 19 point scoring run, from a combination of aerial and ground attacks, the San Antonio Spurs defeated the Nets 88-77.

Similar to the likes of Jordan/Pippen, Bird/McHale, Magic/Jabbar. Tim Duncan and Dave ``the Admiral'' Robinson proved to be an unstoppable force. With Duncan's field goals and amazing drives along with Robinson's dominance on the paint they helped lead the Spurs to their second championship season.

The 2003 NBA Finals MVP was Tim Duncan; he gave an amazing performance, scoring 20 points and 20 rebounds, 10 assists and 8 blocked shots. Robinson scored 13 points and 17 rebounds in the final game of his amazing Spurs career.

This propelled the Spurs to their second championship win in less than 5 years.

It is my pleasure to congratulate the San Antonio Spurs on a great season and a great championship. This is not only a great day for San Antonio and San Antonians, but for all of Texas. Great job Spurs. Go Spurs go.

I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding. His leadership has also been noticed throughout the country. I want to personally thank him. I want to also specifically thank him for reaching out to the Hispanic community across this country and reaching out to the Hispanic Caucus. To me it has been a pleasure working with him. I know we have a great 2 more years to go, and I look forward to continuing to work with him.

I want to also congratulate him on the efforts that he just conducted and we had the pleasure of this week of attending a hearing on Head Start. I want to thank him for inviting me there. We had some beautiful panels that went before the Congressional Black Caucus to talk about the needs of Head Start and to talk about the research regarding Head Start and how to best reach our young people. I want to personally thank the gentleman for the leadership. I want to thank him for that energy that he shows in reaching out. I know that we probably have had for the first time in a long time both Hispanic and African Americans, more press conferences together than anyone else, and we are going to continue to do that. I know that there are a lot of issues that confront the African American community, as well as the Hispanic community, and everyone, the entire community in the country, that we are going to continue to work on. I want to thank the gentleman for his leadership.

Tonight we are here, and I am glad that I have an opportunity to be here to talk about the importance of Head Start. The adequate care in the development of our children is perhaps the greatest hope of America. For those who lack the resources, for those who face the social barriers, the educational barriers, the linguistic barriers, the cultural barriers in the pursuit of this necessary goal, we offer them a program that has worked and that is Head Start, a program that has been there for approximately 35 years, since 1965, a program that has shown that it can reach out to our youngsters and meet the needs.

As chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and also as a parent, and I speak as a father, recognizing the importance of Head Start, recognizing the importance of starting early with some of these youngsters. I just compare myself to my daughter also, where my daughter has had some opportunities to get access to a lot of books. When I was growing up, I did not have those opportunities, and I know that Head Start provides that initial effort that allows those youngsters to be able to compete.

Head Start is a highly successful program. Since its founding in 1965, the Head Start program has provided comprehensive child development and family support services to more than 18 million low- income preschool children and their families. I stress ``their families.'' Given the broad objectives of the programs, it is difficult to compare its success against other programs with more narrow objectives. For over 3 decades, Head Start has been there for our kids. Head Start is the first and foremost federally funded comprehensive child and family development program designed to meet the needs of low- income families with preschool children. This is why it must stay in the Department of Health and Human Services. It reaches out and works with young people.

Head Start currently is only serving 40 percent of the children that are eligible due to the lack of funding, and only 3 percent of the eligible infants and toddlers. So there is still a lot that we can do. Children born into families of poverty start at a marked disadvantage to their peers in the middle-income and wealthy families. Studies suggest that they do not have that richness of books in their home, proper nutrition or access to continued health care. And so Head Start was created to address this facet of issues, improving the richness of early learning experiences for not only young children but also for their parents as well.

In fact, Head Start focuses on families in fighting poverty in a comprehensive manner that has led the program to its success at getting children ready for school, improving their literacy and improving their skills and giving their parents the skills needed to become the child's first teacher, their best teacher, their parents. Administering the program through the Department of Health and Human Services ensures greater collaboration and the integrity of all the components essential to a child's and family's development. Providing comprehensive education, health and family community resources contribute to children's readiness, especially for low-income children and families. Transferring the program to the Department of Education would undermine the comprehensive program with no guarantees that these essential programmatic components would be preserved. So it is important that this program continues to remain in the Department of Health and Human Services. I know the administration has made every effort to try to change that.

In addition, the President in his 2004 budget proposal introduced initiatives that wage a war on the poorest children of our country, Head Start. The administration purports that moving Head Start to the Department of Education would be the best thing to do. In reality, this program has been working well under the Department of Health and Human Services. We cannot see how this can be improved when it has already been doing a good job. I can only conclude that the President fails to recognize the true value of Head Start. We must ensure that Head Start continues to provide our children with comprehensive services. If the administration continues to want to move Head Start to the Department of Education, if they want to continue to push to put it into a block grant, one can only conclude that this administration and that this President does

not support Head Start and is not willing to allow it and fund it at the level where it should be and allow it to continue to make progress.

Besides trying to dismantle the Head Start program, the President also announced in his 2004 budget an increase of only $148 million for Head Start. This small increase would not cover the inflation cost that is needed in order to make things happen and in order to continue to meet the needs of more than 60 percent of youngsters that qualify under this program that are not receiving services. And so this increase is not sufficient.

Further, the President's budget proposal of 2004 includes a legislative proposal to introduce an option available to the States to participate in an alternative financing system. Under his proposal, States would receive their Head Start funds under a flexible grant. States are grappling with their own budgets at the present time. In fact, we started this program through the Federal Government because States were unwilling to be responsive.

States such as Texas, for example, fund only kindergarten at half day. The local community has to fund the rest of it. So we can imagine what they would do with the resources. They would not go to Head Start. They would go somewhere else.

At the same time, the State funding for Early Childhood is at a dismal situation. After this last session, it even got worse, so that we are really concerned that the President's effort at trying to dismantle and attack Head Start is a way of trying to get the resources away from these kids that drastically need them to provide to the States. We are concerned that those resources will be used for other purposes.

I also want to take this opportunity to talk about an important aspect of Head Start that we very seldom talk about, and that is, I would like to take a moment on the seasonal and migrant Head Start programs. Many young migrants and seasonal children in the United States are taken into the fields because the parents have no other place to leave them while they are at work.

Now we are seeing these young people in the Carolinas and other States where we did not see them before, where some of these programs are still not in effect, and I have seen recent pictures taken where young people are right there, young kids of 2 and 3 and 4 years old, next to their parents while they work in the fields. Sometimes young children take care of their younger siblings in camps and fields while their parents work hard in the fields. Migrant and seasonal farm workers in various sectors of our Nation in the agricultural industry, from harvesting, to sorting, to processing, to everything in between; it is hard work, and it takes special skills.

But these families earn about $10,000 a year. These are the ones that pick the products and pick the food that we eat. These are the ones that we take for granted when we sit down to eat each night and not recognize that there are people out there doing this kind of work.

Migrant and seasonal Head Start programs serve nearly 32,000 migrant children and nearly 2,500 seasonal children annually. Seasonal and migrant Head Start programs operate in 39 States in every region of the country. These programs offer positive nutritional child care for children ages birth to school entry age. Thirty-five percent of the migrant and seasonal Head Start enrollment is comprised of infants and toddlers. Getting migrant and seasonal children out of unsafe environments is a starting point for migrant and seasonal Head Start programs.

But they do more than that. Migrant and seasonal Head Start programs answer basic needs of migrant and seasonal children, and it is important that these programs remain within the Department of Health and Human Services. Migrant and seasonal Head Start is very different from the other programs because it is the nature of farm labor. Children need full-day services often from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. These programs have been there. We need additional resources for this area.

One of the things that I would question is that if they are transferred over to States, the fact that they exist in 39 States, the fact that they also have to have the flexibility to be able to work with these young people that come in on a seasonal basis that might be there temporarily, our schools are not geared to be able to address that need. The programs that are out there have been meeting that need for over 35 years, and they need more resources, but they have been there for those kids.

They know how to reach out to those kids, and this is one of the main reasons why this program has to remain with the Department of Health and Human Services, and it has to remain with those local communities instead of being put into a State grant.

So tonight I want to take this opportunity to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and thank the Congressional Black Caucus, in their efforts and just to continue to reaffirm that this President and this administration, when he ran for President, he promised to work in the area of education. He promised to deliver a program that would respond to the needs, and he indicated that education was one of his first priorities. But in return, his Leave No Child Behind has $9 billion of his own bill that he has not funded, and he has left us behind. When it comes to Head Start, the promise that he has is to put it into a block grant and basically destroy the program that hits us at the most vulnerable of this country.

So his promises have been empty words that have not been met. So I want to once again thank the gentleman for allowing me to be here tonight, and I want to also express my sincerest appreciation for the hard work that he does and the entire Congressional Black Caucus, and I look forward to working with him.

Mr. Speaker, as a social worker, I rise to highlight the beneficial work performed every day by social workers across this country. Social work is a unique profession, which combines a diverse skill set to serve individuals, families, groups, communities, organizations, as well as society-at-large.

Social workers help people address a wide variety of concerns, from homelessness, substance dependence and abuse, and mental illnesses to community development, employee assistance programs, emergency preparedness, and disaster relief. They work directly with individuals, couples, families, and groups to identify and overcome these and other challenges. Many social workers also aid communities, organizations, and systems in the improvement of services and the administration of social and health programs. As a result, social workers may be found in a variety of settings, among them, private practice, health and mental health, education, community, public welfare, agency administration, and policy and planning.

Social workers hold almost 500,000 jobs, with one in three found in State, county, or municipal government agencies, primarily in departments of health and human services, mental health, social services, child welfare, housing, education, and corrections. In the private sector, social workers provide services in hospitals, nursing homes, home health agencies, and other health centers or clinics. An increasing number have successfully sought elected offices in local, State, and Federal Government, to further contribute to the welfare of our country and our society. I would like to commend our colleagues, Representatives Barbara Lee, Susan Davis, and Ed Towns, who are exemplary professional social workers, and are among the almost two hundred publicly elected social workers serving their communities.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that employment of social workers is expected to increase faster than the average for all occupations through 2010. The elderly population is increasing rapidly, creating greater demand for health and social services, resulting in particularly rapid job growth among gerontology social workers. Social workers also will be needed to help the large baby-boom ``sandwich'' generation deal with the resulting pressures, depression and mental health concerns stemming from mid-life, career, or other personal and professional difficulties. In addition, continuing concern about crime, juvenile delinquency, and services for the mentally ill, the mentally retarded, the physically disabled, AIDS patients, and individuals and families in crisis, will spur demand for social workers.

Hospitals, long-term care facilities, and home healthcare services will continue to depend on social workers to coordinate and provide aftercare services for their clients. The popularity of assisted-living communities among the expanding senior population requires the expertise of social work gerontology specialists. Social workers with substance abuse and addiction skills offer those seeking treatment a better chance at successful reintegration into society. Employment of school social workers is expected to grow in order to address rising student enrollments. Outcomes-based treatment provided by social workers facilitates the cost effectiveness goals of managed care organizations, enabling those in private practice to be heavily utilized and increase access to services. The increase in employee assistance programs (EAP) has also fueled the demand for private practitioners, many of whom are contracted with small and large corporations, local, State, and Federal agencies. With the September 11 attacks and its aftermath, EAP social workers have helped survivors to deal with the uncertainty and trauma of terrorism and war, and continue to support employees and their families.

Earlier this year, I reintroduced H.R. 844, the National Center for Social Work Research Act. This act would establish a center within the National Institutes of Health to coordinate ongoing social work research, develop new methods to help social workers provide effective services to the public, and promote the use of social work research to improve public policy.

Social work research, through the coordinated efforts of the National Center, will undeniably advance both the delivery and quality of health care and social services in this country. Fiscal responsibility and accountability demand that the best practices are determined through, and grounded in, empirically-based research. Consumers, practitioners, and policymakers must demand service effectiveness and cost efficiency, facilitated by the establishment of a National Center for Social Work Research. Social workers, as front-line professionals, compile information that seeks to understand the dynamics that lead to social issues, provide empirical support for best practice approaches to improve service delivery, and translate them into public policy decisions. With the limited resources available, policy makers must depend on these problem solvers to address many complex social issues such as poverty, welfare dependence, and drug abuse.

The social work profession is truly multifaceted. As dedicated advocates for the rights

of children, minorities, the disabled, crime victims, workers, patients, women and many others, social workers continue to lead efforts that enhance human, and thereby societal, well-being. They shape programs and policies that strengthen individual lives and improve the society in which we all live.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Linda Miller, an inspirational and loving teacher in San Antonio, TX at Theodore Roosevelt High School. Today Linda Miller, who dedicates her life to the success and education of her students, is honored with Time Warner Cable's National Teachers Awards Division Crystal Apple Award.

Each year Time Warner Cable honors 20 classroom projects, and the teachers who develop them, with the Crystal Apple Award. This award recognizes outstanding teachers who create learning experiences using cable technology. Ms. Miller's project embraced Japanese animation's historical and cultural heritage as well as technology's impact on its popularity.

Linda Miller has a record of achievement reflecting her passion for teaching. She has received the Teacher of the Year award presented to her by the American legion, as well as being identified as an Outstanding Teacher by the Rotary Club. Linda Miller's immense dedication to her students speaks for itself as Roosevelt High School presented her with the Humanitarian award for identifying students with special needs and pairing them with the mainstream students, in a buddy system. According to one fellow teacher, she surprised many of her colleagues who did not even realize that special needs students even attended.

Time Warner Cable seeks ways to support the educators and institutions that help shape our Nation. By enabling the power of cable television's 21st century technology and high-quality programming to unite teachers, students and parents, both in the classroom and for the benefit of the community, Time Warner strives to enhance the level of education in the classroom. It is, however, remarkable teachers such as Linda Miller who make this possible.

Mr. Speaker, it is my distinguished pleasure to honor Linda Miller because I recognize that it is the perseverance and dedication of teachers like her that will lead our youth to a brighter future.

Mr. Speaker, 35 years ago Pete Tijerina, a bold and idealistic lawyer from, Laredo, Texas, started down a path that eventually led millions of Hispanics in this country towards access to educational and democratic opportunities and recognition in the eyes of the law. Today, it is with great sadness and a profound sense of gratitude that I rise to recognize the life of Pete Tijerina, who died on May 14, 2003. His legacy is our future.

As a graduate of St. Mary's Law School in San Antonio, Texas, Mr. Tijerina dedicated his career to fighting discrimination. His first efforts came as the State Civil Rights Chairman for San Antonio's LULAC Council, an organization he joined in 1946. While with the organization, he sought political solutions at the local level through interaction with school boards, city councils, and police departments. Hungry for change, Mr Tijerina grew frustrated with the pace and progress of his efforts. He continued, however, to work diligently through the channels available to him until he could take no more.

In 1966, Mr. Tijerina took a bold step. At the time, he was representing an injured woman who lost half of her leg in an accident in Jourdanton, Texas. Mr. Tijerina prepared his client and his case for trial. As trial drew near, it became clear that the court would not empanel a single Hispanic juror. He brought the matter to the attention of the local judge and was promised a more diverse jury pool.

When the trial reconvened at the end of that summer, the court produced two Hispanic jurors: one had been dead for 10 years and the other spoke no Spanish.

This experience led Mr. Tijerina on a crusade to end juror discrimination and secure the equal protection of the law for the Hispanic community. Armed with determination and faith in the American judicial system, Mr. Tijerina placed his own financial well being on the line and attempted to secure funds to protect the rights of Hispanics in the Southwestern United States.

After sending a young colleague to an NAACP convention to learn more about current legal tactics used to combat discrimination, Mr. Tijerina decided that what the Hispanic community needed was its own lawyers fighting its own cases. Because the community varied so much, nationwide, he believed that recruiting young Hispanics, who understood the unique challenges present in their neighborhoods, into the legal profession was crucial to ending discrimination once and for all. Mr. Tijerina worked closely with the NAACP to develop a strategy and find financial support.

His efforts produced the seeds of what would become the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), the first national Hispanic legal advocacy program, which Mr. Tijerina founded in 1968. Over the past 35 years, MALDEF has grown and to this day leads us on the path towards legal equality for Hispanics in areas like education, employment, and political access.

Mr. Speaker, it is because of pioneers like Mr. Tijerina and his vision for a brighter future for all Hispanics that many of us have had the opportunity we enjoy. He helped clear the way for generations of Hispanics, so that they would not feel the burden of oppression or fear to speak out against injustice. He sought change through our judicial system, using our courts as agents of justice.

It is with our heads bowed and grief in our hearts that we say thank you to this pioneer. We can only hope to continue along the path he began.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our educational future of America, I rise today in favor of H.R. 2238, a piece of legislation filed by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) that would allow an opportunity for us to get additional resources for those youngsters and those individuals throughout this country, Latinos, that are attending the Hispanic-serving institutions to be able to get additional resources to get their master's and their Ph.D.'s.

This bill will strengthen the Hispanic-serving institution programs by establishing a competitive grants program to extend graduate degrees program opportunities for the Hispanic-serving institutions.

The bill will support graduate fellowships, services for graduate students, facilities, and improve our college and university faculty and technology. Current law only provides for those that are attending 2- and 4-year institutions and not allows for master's and Ph.D.'s.

It is important that we look at providing additional resources so that these youngsters can go and obtain their master's and their Ph.D.'s. I ask for my colleagues' support on H.R. 2238.

Madam Speaker, approximately 2 weeks ago the administration signed into law one of the largest tax cut breaks ever for the wealthiest Americans. He did so at a time when the unemployment is on the rise. Since President Bush took office, approximately 2 million jobs have been lost, and the Hispanic community is being hit hard; and the minorities throughout this country are being hit hard. Those hardworking Americans are now at 7.5 percent unemployment, a lot more in proportion than the rest of the population.

People want to work, but the jobs are simply not there. But instead of pursuing policies to stimulate the economy, instead of looking at creating jobs such as providing resources to improve our infrastructure in this country, when we have the decaying bridges, when we have decaying infrastructure, when most of our dams are 50 to 60 years old, instead of investing in our country and in the next generation, the administration has chose to push through a plan that includes a tax cut that does nothing to address the financial problems and worries that are facing millions of Americans.

While making false promises that the tax cut will create jobs and stimulate our economy, these tax cuts are targeted primarily at the large corporations; and the wealthiest of Americans, such as those that earn $1 million a year, will see a tax cut of nearly $100,000. We understand that people who pay taxes deserve a break, but we have gone from record surpluses to skyrocketing deficits.

We get elected to come up here to respond to the problems that confront Americans, those problems that our senior citizens continue to have difficulty with, such as prescription drug coverage. Our seniors are still having difficulties in not being able to buy prescription drugs. Our seniors are still having difficulties not being able to have access to affordable health care. In a country that has the most, the best health care in the world, our seniors are having, and Americans throughout are having, difficulties having affordable and accessible health care.

We need to make sure that we address the problems that our seniors continue to confront in prescription drug coverage. We need to make sure that we continue those efforts on Social Security to ensure that the next generations will not be left without and left in poverty. We cannot meet our obligations to support critical health and education programs with a tax cut this size, as it does, because we all recognize how irresponsible it is.

Now, we find that in addition to favoring the wealthiest of this country, the administration's tax cut plan excludes those that need the assistance the most, the low- and moderate-income families. Families that make in between $10,500 to $26,625 a year are now, under law, excluded from collecting the $400 child tax credit.

Those who could benefit the most from the tax credit have been left out and find themselves unable to qualify.

In my district the median income is approximately $23,000, and so more than half would fall under this category. The child tax credit has long been crucial for working families who deeply are affected by tax burden. They also are entitled to this child tax credit.

While more than 85 percent of Hispanic males are in the workforce, which is the largest percentage for any ethnic group or anyone, many Hispanics work in low-wage temporary and seasonal jobs. Latinos are out there working hard, making things happen; yet those are the ones that are being left out from being able to participate in a child tax credit. How can the administration argue that this plan helps working men and women when working families are the ones that are left out?

The hardworking Americans may not be one of the wealthiest, but they are the future of this country. They are the ones that make the economy go. They are the workforce of this country. Our communities deserve the gratitude and respect from the leaders that represent them, and they deserve a fair share of any proposed tax relief plan, not just the crumbs left over after the Nation's wealthiest few.

We need to make sure that the tax plans are plans that are appropriate. They need to be responsive. We also need to make sure that we address the issues that confront us, such as the need for health care and other things.

Mr. Speaker, last week, the President signed into law one of the largest tax breaks ever for the wealthiest Americans. He did so at a time when unemployment is on the rise. Since President Bush took office, approximately 2 million jobs have been lost, and the Hispanic community has been hit the hardest with a rising unemployment rate of 7.5 percent compared to 6 percent for the general population.

People want to work, but the jobs are simply not there. Instead of pursuing policies to stimulate the economy and create jobs, the administration and the congressional majority have pushed through a plan that includes a tax cut that does nothing to address any of these financial problems and worries that are facing millions in this country.

While making false promises to create jobs and stimulate our economy, these tax cuts are targeted primarily at large corporations and the wealthiest of Americans. Those that are earning $1 million a year will see a tax cut of over $100,000. Half of all Latinos in this country report having an annual household income of under $30,000. Under the Bush tax plan, some of these wealthy individuals will see a tax break that equals three times what these families make a year.

We understand that people who pay taxes deserve a break, but we have gone from record surpluses to skyrocketing deficits. We cannot meet our obligations to support critical health and education programs. And a tax cut this size does not make any sense whatsoever. We have chosen also not to pay for the war. We have chosen to put it on the backs of not only those that are our young people out there defending our country but on the backs of their children.

We now also find that in addition to favoring the wealthiest of this country, the administration's tax plan excludes those who need the assistance the most, low- and moderate-income families. Families making between $10,500 and $26,625 a year are now, under law, excluded from collecting the $400 child tax credit. Those who could benefit the most from the tax credit will in fact get nothing.

Mr. Speaker, I have difficulty comprehending the philosophy that brought this about, trying to exclude the ones at the bottom of the totem pole. While others enjoy a tax cut, these individuals who make under $26,625 will not. The median income in my district is $22,000 so more than half of my constituency will not see a cent. For Hispanic families, this means that roughly 1.6 million, or 30 percent, of all Latino families who otherwise would have been eligible for the tax break are now no longer going to qualify. The child tax credit has long been crucial for Hispanic families, working families, who are deeply affected by the tax burden.

While 85 percent of Latino males are in the workforce, the largest percentage for any ethnic group in the country, many Hispanics work in seasonal, low-wage jobs, and the majority of Hispanics do not participate in the employer-sponsored retirement plans, nor do they own stock. How can the administration argue that this plan helps working men and women when working families are the ones that are left out?

The Latino community may not be one of great wealth, but we are the future of the economy and the workforce, and the Latino community deserves the respect of our leaders and deserves a fair share of any proposed tax relief plan, not just the crumbs left over from the Nation's wealthiest few. What we can do is, we will fight to fix the wrongs of this tax bill not only for Hispanic families, but for all Americans.

I am pleased to be here tonight on behalf of the Hispanic Congressional Caucus, and I am pleased to have members of the Congressional Black Caucus with me.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) and I thank the gentleman and the Congressional Black Caucus for also participating tonight and discussing some issues that confront our community.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has done a beautiful job of explaining our situation that we find ourselves in, and I want to share with Members that one of the things that we also understand in this country is that our infrastructure is hurting. One of the good ways of stimulating the economy, and we know from the last time we passed the transportation bill that there are $300 billion to $600 billion that are still needed for the dams that are almost 60 years old. Our bridges are in jeopardy, our infrastructure in this country where we could not only create jobs, but we could also invest in the next generation of kids instead of handing to them the debt that we are creating, but also handing them the infrastructure that is decaying.

We had a bill that would have allowed us to invest in schools. Our schools are 40-50 years old, built prior to the microwave, and we know that schools need more outlets for computers. There is a need to do that, and yet we have chosen not to do that. There is a real need for us to look at how we could have turned the economy around by creating jobs.

I had today a lot of contractors that were lobbying up here about the difficulties that they are having with construction jobs. Here was a great opportunity to invest. Not to mention in homeland security, there is a need where our Federal buildings, our State buildings, there is a need to look at them from a national defense perspective, to build the things that are needed to make sure that they are more secure. They need the resources, and we have not allocated the resources in homeland security which could create jobs. We need to ensure that our bases throughout the country have adequate construction which allows them to be secure.

The gentleman also mentioned the importance of leaving no child behind. As the gentleman well knows, we have already left children behind. The bill that the President promised, he promised this country that his priority is education, is $9 billion behind his funding. There is a real need to concentrate on those programs which would have allowed that money to be turned around.

As we cut taxes on the Federal level, I know back home in Texas they are cutting taxes, too. Yet the local communities, the local school boards, the local counties are having to look at how are they going to be paying for securing our cities, what are they going to be doing to secure our Nation.

I wanted to thank the gentleman for making those comments. We have misprioritized the tax cut, and I know this administration, their whole first year was spent on the priority of a tax cut based on the false premise of a supposed surplus that was going to continue for the next unforeseeable future. We had it under Clinton, but under this administration right after they came, we started downhill, and it has continued.

It has continued. Now they come back and now they have another tax cut, and now we are hearing that they might even come back next year for another tax cut.

I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for joining me here tonight. We have also been joined by our leader. I know she has been working all day and just has come from a major meeting that she was attending tonight. I do want to thank her for joining us tonight. We have been talking a little bit about our concerns with the tax cuts.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I want to personally thank the gentlewoman from California for her leadership, and I want to personally share with all Americans throughout this country that she has been a breath of fresh air to all of us. I want to personally thank her because she indicated we wanted to make sure that if we were critical about anything, we wanted to make sure we had an alternative and we have had an alternative every time. I want to thank her personally for the hard work that she has done.

That is right. Not only good alternatives, but alternatives that work and that are responsible. So I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership and coming out here tonight to join us.

I want to just share with all Americans that our leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), has been right there for us. I want to appeal to everyone to listen to the debate that is going on on the tax bill, because the debate on the tax is a serious situation. Whatever occurs on the tax bill determines what occurs on everything else. The tax bill is about the budget. The budget determines our priorities. So when this administration first came here in their first year, one of their first priorities and their main priority was the tax cut.

So, as we talk about education, as we talk about health care, as we talk about the veterans, the reality is that the number one priority was the tax cut. Everything else is secondary. So when we had, that first year, that $1.3 trillion tax cut based on anticipated surpluses, then that started the downturn. That did not create any jobs; in fact, it was just the opposite.

This year, the same. They came at it with another tax cut. It seemed to be the only approach to any problem that exists out there is a tax cut.

As we well know, this particular tax cut is also an irresponsible tax cut because it is coming at a time when we are still at war, we still have not been able to reach out and seek out bin Laden, we still have a serious situation in Afghanistan, we have a critical situation in Iraq with our soldiers out there, and we still have a situation also that is serious in North Korea, as well as other areas.

So, as we begin to dialogue, instead of solving problems, and I feel very strongly that I get elected to come up here to solve problems, not create problems, and it seems like there was a sincere effort at not dealing with the problems that confront us, but looking at the situation and shifting away from those situations.

For example, I still feel very strongly the number one and two issues in this country are education and health care. Now, because of this administration, it is the economy. But those two issues have not been resolved. We still have a problem with education.

Although the administration went around campaigning for the presidency

on education, he is going to have to come back and campaign again. I am wondering what he is going to be saying, since the same bill that he signed is $9 billion behind what he indicated he was willing to shake hands on and assure that no child would be left behind. Well, it is $9 billion behind and it has left a lot of kids behind. Yet their priority seems to be the tax cut, and after that we find ourselves in debt and in some serious problems.

Let me share with you as I talk about the debt that I have also received correspondence from Raul Yzaguirre, Executive Director and CEO for the National Council of La Raza. In his report I want to read a couple of items on there, if I can. It is in small print, so I am going to have to put my glasses on.

But in his letter, one of the things that Raul Yzaguirre of the National Council of La Raza mentions is that regarding the President's signature on H.R. 2, the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, a $350 billion tax cut package, while the administration was touting this measure as an economic stimulus that would create jobs and benefit a majority of working families, House and Senate tax writers were making room for large cuts for wealthy investors.

The reality is that it is for the most wealthy of this country, instead of earmarking it for small business. Because even if you are a strong conservative and believe that the business community needs the tax cut, then you would zero in on small businesses. You would zero in on those small businesses that really create and help in the creation of jobs. Yet the reality is that the majority of those tax cuts did not go for the small businesses either.

Especially let me indicate that he also goes on to say that at the 11th hour, congressional negotiators excluded families earning between $10,500 and $26,625 for claiming the child tax credit increases. So we continue to have these difficulties.

I am glad that I am joined here tonight by a fellow colleague who works closely together on health care and has been a leader on health care, but I know that he also has some concerns on our tax cut.

I thank the gentleman for joining me, and I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

That is what I find very difficult to comprehend, is if you really want to stimulate the economy, then you would put it in the hands of those individuals that would, as soon as they get it, spend it. There is no doubt that these are the type of individuals that would go out there and buy a pair of shoes that they need, buy additional groceries they might need, that would be getting additional items for the house.

These are not people that are going to receive $400 and, like the wealthiest and others who are going to receive a lot more, that will just decide to keep it there and not spend it.

So we question this, and I think all the economists do, and I was even looking, prior to this, even Greenspan talked about the fact that he did not think it was a good idea to do this. Yet the administration chose to go and do that anyway.

So I think our economy is in deep trouble, and I do not foresee it getting any better. In fact, I was trying to figure out why would they be doing that. The only thing I can figure out, at a time when we are at war, that they are really basically wanting to put us on a real spot in terms of some of the programs, and it does put us in trouble funding the educational programs that are needed, the health care needs of our constituencies and our seniors, the needs in terms of our Medicare and Social Security recipients. Because I know that there is a real push there to try to privatize Social Security, and I know there are investment bankers that are looking to get their hands into that.

So that really concerns me, that there might be other motives involved in the process.

They knew full well, because they had initially submitted the over-$700 billion tax cut, and then they settled on that other.

But what concerns me is that in the process of having this so-called oversight, I am wondering how many other oversights we might have that we are still not aware of.

I know that there were a lot of special interests out here walking the halls and looking at loopholes they were looking for in terms of their own special interests, so I am just concerned about what other oversights we might have for some of those special interests that were roaming the halls during that time that were looking at that tax cut.

It really bothers me, and also in a way it kind of irritates me to think that someone would stoop to that low a level not to consider these individuals that are hardworking Americans that are out there making $26,000 or less, but still hardworking. So would their kids not qualify for that child credit while someone else's would? It is incomprehensible.

In my district, it is even more than half. My median income is about $22,000, so more than half of my constituency is not going to benefit from that. Yet we see the data in terms of those that are making $1 million, how much of the hundreds of thousands they are going to be benefiting from, not to mention in terms of their investments.

So this is no way in terms of stimulating the economy, and this is no way in terms of being responsible. At a time when we are at war, we ought to be paying for the war at the present time. We are not. Not only are we asking our young people to go fight the war and go defend this country, and they are ready to do that, but we are asking them to pay for it and getting their kids to pay for the debt in the future. That is not right, and that is not American.

So we need to continue to talk about these issues. I know that the gentleman works real hard on health care, and I know the gentleman wants to find a solution to health care. The gentleman is the type of elected official and public servant that comes out here to seek solutions to the problems that confront us.

Exactly. And I think that as we look at especially next year, which is an election year, I can already see the administration going out there. I would like to see what he is going to be saying, responding to the fact that he promised our seniors a prescription drug coverage, and we still have not seen one that is a responsive approach.

I would like to hear what he is going to be saying when he talks about the quality of care in this country, when we have one of the best care systems in the world; and yet it is not affordable, and it is not accessible. I can already see them blaming the debt on the economy, when in reality they have created the economy and they have created it with irresponsible tax cuts.

The reality was that their first priority was the tax cut their first year, and this year, and possibly next year. Their priority is the tax cut. After the tax cut and after the budget is gone, there is no need to talk about anything else, because that is the priority. It was not about solving the problems on education, solving the problems of our seniors in Medicare and the problems we were encountering there, solving the difficulties of prescription drug coverage; but it was all about tax cuts, which tells me that their priorities are not in terms of solving problems out there, but to basically look in terms of how they can benefit those that provided for their campaigns, the wealthiest of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for coming out here tonight. I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for being here with me tonight. I want to also thank the leader for being here tonight.

Let me share a couple of statistics that I have. One of the things that I would like to share with Members is just some data out there. The total job loss since President Bush took office has risen to a staggering 2.5 million private jobs, while cutting taxes for the rich and not extending the unemployment insurance.

The median Hispanic household, I will share that, being chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, will receive about $30 as a result of the Bush tax cut, $30, in comparison to the others.

So we have some real startling statistics that basically reflect that the reality is that this tax cut is a real irresponsible tax cut when there is no money there, when we are not paying down our debt. It just does not make any sense for us to be doing that.

I also wanted to share that at the same time that we are deciding to make the tax cut we are not being responsible in meeting the needs of our veterans, meeting the needs of our seniors in prescription drug coverage, or meeting the needs of Medicare. I am just going to wait and see what this President says when he is coming up for reelection next year.

Today, and I want to share with the Members, because we had an opportunity to hear some testimony in our Committee on Veterans Affairs from Dr. Wilensky, who did a report. She assured, or indicated, that the reality was that the present situation ``is not acceptable,'' referring to our veterans programs.

One of the realities with our veterans programs is that depending on where they live throughout this country, they might not have access to the quality care that is available in other areas of the country, so we have what we call disproportionate forms of care in the VA. There is a real need for us to provide additional resources.

This particular report talked about the fact that the VA had not prioritized and was not meeting the needs of our veterans, because at this particular time our veterans, those World War II veterans and Korean War veterans and our Vietnam veterans, are reaching that age where they need us. The demographics show that there is a need for us to come up to the plate and be able to provide those resources. Instead of doing that, we are just doing the opposite, not coming up to the plate, cutting taxes instead of putting those resources with our veterans where they need it the most.

I also want to share that we are also beginning to cut our nursing home care for veterans and put caps on that. We continue to have problems with homeless veterans, which is an atrocious situation that we ought to be working to solve. Instead of the tax cuts, we ought to be considering that. In fact, instead of providing the $2 billion for health care for the Iraqi people, we ought to be looking at those $2 billion for our veterans services.

When veterans are out there fighting and defending our country, a lot of them will suffer from post-traumatic stress disorders. Even New Yorkers and the people in the Pentagon and throughout this country after the terrorist attack, we really need to look at resources in the area of health to help these people cope with post-traumatic stress disorders.

I would attest that especially for the people at the Pentagon and the people in New York, there is a real need for us to reach out to them. I know that a lot of them might be going through nightmares and those characteristics of what later on might be defined as post-traumatic stress disorder. So we cannot take that lightly.

Events such as this, and our soldiers as they encounter and get engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere throughout this world, they will suffer from those engagements in a lot of different ways. We have to be there for them, and we have not done that.

When it comes to homeland defense, we could easily have put some resources there that would have created and helped stimulate the economy, because our States are hurting. We need money in homeland defense. Our first defense is going to be those local firemen out there throughout this country, those local policemen throughout this country, those local health care providers throughout this country. I think it is important that we provide them with the access resources they need.

Homeland defense also has needs, especially the Coast Guard. We have been negligent in not being responsive with our Coast Guard. They need additional resources. The INS and the Customs people also.

One of the things terrorists would want to do is not only instill fear in us, but also create a problem in our economy. We have to create a balance between security and trade. I represent the Mexican border, and we have to make sure that we continue to have trade. That becomes important.