Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, this clearly is a better bill than we received from the White House. It specifies that money has to be used for Kevlar jackets, for example, for the jamming devices. There is no question but that there are improvements.

What this instruction would do is to improve those improvements so that this is a bill that is far more in keeping with what our constituents would like to see. I have no question about that. I know that from the perspective of Americans who want to protect our troops overseas, and from the perspective of taxpayers, they would want this entire body to support this instruction to the conferees. Because that is what it is about, troops and taxpayers.

First of all, the troops. It provides the kind of quality-of-life improvements that every single one of our constituents would want us to include in this bill. Every single one. I would challenge any Member on the Republican or the Democratic side of the aisle to show me one constituent who would not want us to have these improvements in this supplemental appropriations bill.

And then from the standpoint of taxpayers, I have yet to find anyone of any political persuasion that does not think when you sit down with them privately that we should not be fronting all this money as grants when Iraq could conceivably be one of the wealthiest countries in the world, has potentially $7 trillion of oil reserves, when the money that we are talking about, which is always used as the excuse for why it has to be a grant, why it cannot be a loan because they have got $200 billion of outstanding debt.

Who does Iraq owe that money to? Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Russia, France, some to Germany. How was that money spent? A whole lot of it was spent to build the palaces. Some we know was taken by Saddam and his henchmen. That is the way all of that works, that corruption is pervasive.

And why those countries that were dealing with Saddam should be first in line before the American taxpayer is beyond me and beyond every single one of our constituents.

That is why the Senate put this provision in the bill. We know our constituents want the provision in the bill. I know the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) wants the provision in the bill. I know I cannot speak and I should not be speaking for him, but he is doing what the White House has asked us to. I am saying we have already told the White House we can fashion a better bill. This fashions an even better bill, one much more consistent with what our constituents would want us to do.

Mr. Speaker, vote in the interest of the troops and the taxpayers; approve this motion to instruct.

Mr. Chairman, we have said it many times, we need to restate it, though, apparently, again, there is no question between the debating sides here whether Saddam Hussein was a tyrant. The world is far better off without him. And we are glad he is gone. We certainly hope he is gone. There is no debate as to the priority that we want to place on our troops. Obviously, that is our highest priority. And we will do what we see as necessary to protect their lives and provide for their families.

But, Mr. Chairman, there is something else involved here that goes beyond the issue of Iraq. This is about the integrity of this institution, the role it has to play vis-a-vis the executive branch. It is about the precedent that we establish with such important votes.

We had a hearing today with the comptroller of the Department of Defense, the Committee on the Budget did. It was similar to the hearing we had last week with Secretary Rumsfeld. We were told again that there is no time frame for when we might be moving our troops out of Iraq. Remember when the time frame was imposed on President Clinton with regard to Bosnia? Pretty tight time frame, as I recall. Today, were told that there was no estimate as to how many troops might be required or what the composition might be between National Guard and Reserve versus enlisted personnel.

I remember when we put pretty tight controls in Bosnia and Kosovo, even though it was a multilateral effort, led by NATO. We were told today that there was no estimate as to the ultimate cost of this conflict or of the reconstruction.

Now, how many times do we have to be told that we are being taken for granted, that the power of the purse that we hold, which is really all that our constituents expect us to use as leverage, is not there if we continue to give a blank check? And that basically is what the administration is asking for in this supplemental.

I support the Obey amendment because, in fact, it does provide for the troops. Even more specifically, it will not let the administration get away again with getting $60 billion and not spending it on the most basic necessities of individual and collective protection for our troops on the battlefield. And Iraq still is a battlefield.

But it also requires some burden sharing, not as much as the first President Bush required, where he got most of the war paid for by other countries because we had taken the time to build a coalition. It is time we used our leverage to require that there be some burden sharing of this conflict, some considerations for the other needs of the American taxpayer.

The Obey amendment makes sure that we use the World Bank. Seven billion will collateralize another 35 billion. It will quadruple the amount of money that we put in, that the taxpayers put in. Because it is not our money, as we are continually reminded, it is the taxpayers we are talking about.

But, most importantly, we have to acknowledge that it is not acceptable to engage in conflict, putting our troops at risk with the use of a pattern of deception. I know we do not like to hear this, but how many times were we told there was a connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein? President Bush admitted just a short while ago, no, there was no connection. We were told by the Vice President that they had nuclear capability. Now, he admits he misspoke. That is not acceptable. This is a bad precedent.

I have tremendous respect for my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, for the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). Their commitment to our troops, to our military superiority and to our military doing the right thing is unparalleled. No question. But, we have a responsibility. It is an institutional responsibility and a moral responsibility not just to do right by the taxpayer, but, to also do right by the troops, to do right by this institution, to demand answers to legitimate questions: How long? How many troops? What will be the cost? What is the commitment? We have not been given answers to those questions. And we should not approve this supplemental until we are given answers, straight answers.

I thank my friend the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I do not know, but I do not think that any Member of Congress has a son or a daughter actually serving in Iraq. If they do, I hope we hear about it. But if we did, I trust that our fatherly love would trump our political loyalties. But even though we may not have children, it is we who are responsible for sending the children of our constituents, the young men and women of America, to fight our wars. And we have to determine how much we spend on their protection and on their fighting capability.

In a recent trip by the members of the Subcommittee on Defense of the House Committee on Appropriations, they found that there was a shortfall of protective body armor for 40,000 troops in theater. That has been reduced subsequently, but there are still tens of thousands. The supplies of portable jammers used to defeat land mines and other radio-detonated bombs are woefully short. The division patrolling the most dangerous area in the Sunni Triangle had only nine where 86 were required. In the First Armored Division which is responsible for that most dangerous area, a third of the division's Bradley vehicles had been sidelined due to a lack of spare track. In that same division, 40 percent of the Humvee vehicles were out of commission due to a lack of spare parts. And overall, 46 percent, almost half of all the Army's spare parts needed in the country were not available.

All this amendment does is to take the word of the Armed Services, not of the politicians, but of the people in uniform as to what they need.

We are told that 80 percent of our troops are drinking dirty water. In a recent survey, 30 percent had dysentery. And we will not provide this relatively small amount of money specifically targeted to correct those deficiencies?

This is our responsibility, we in the Congress, whether or not the executive branch acknowledges it. This is an opportunity to accept that responsibility, to do the right thing. It is easy to talk the talk about how much we support the troops. This is one amendment that is only designed to do what we would do for our own children fighting in Iraq. This is absolutely essential. There are no excuses to vote down this amendment. It is the right thing to do. I urge the Congress to do the right thing.

Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 546, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 547, I was unavoidably detained from voting. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the leader of our caucus.

(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), a member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend and leader, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). I wish he had not told me that, because now that is all I can think of.

But I am going to begin by quoting the dissenting views of the ranking member of the full Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), because it states the reason for voting for this supplemental better than anything that I have heard stated before. It says, ``The Bush administration is still incapable or unwilling to articulate a coherent and workable underlying strategy to accomplish our mission and bring our troops home. Since the power of the purse remains the only effective means that we in the Congress have to ensure the American people that such a strategy exists, and that it has a reasonable chance for success, support for these funds prior to evidence of such a strategy would be an abdication of responsibility.'' And it will be an abdication if this supplemental passes.

We had any number of hearings in the appropriation subcommittees before this bill went to the full committee. Administration witnesses time and again told us they could not comment on a time frame to transition to decision-making with Iraqi leaders, which was the original intent, to establish a democratic government. They had no idea how many troops would be required beyond next September. They could not guess as to what contributions in terms of military assistance or cash would be forthcoming from other nations. They had no idea how much additional Iraqi reconstruction money would be requested. And they had no idea how Iraqi deployment might affect long-term priorities within the defense budget.

Yet we are asked to support an $87 billion request. This entire venture has been a pattern of deception. We went into this war unilaterally and prematurely based upon that pattern of deception. If anyone should challenge me, I can give three instances. We were told we had to go to war immediately, with or without our allies, because of Saddam's connection to, and I quote our President, ``because of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.'' President Bush has now admitted we had no evidence, and I am quoting again, ``no evidence of such a connection.''

Our Vice President said, and I am quoting, ``Saddam has reconstituted nuclear weapons.'' Now Mr. Cheney admits, ``I did misspeak.''

Secretary Rumsfeld told us that ``we know where the weapons of mass destruction are. They are around Tikrit and Baghdad.'' They were not there.

I could go on and on, but the fact is that we have no reason to truly trust even that this money is going to be used for the purposes for which it is intended, to support our troops, to do the right thing, and then to get out of Iraq and protect our country from future threats. I ask the American people to look at the dissenting views of the leader of the Democrats on the Committee on Appropriations.

The fact is, Mr. Chairman, this supplemental, if it is granted, leaves 80 percent of our troops in Iraq without clean water. We provided over $60 billion for our troops, yet they could not find a few million dollars to provide all of our troops with Kevlar jackets. 46,000 of them went into battle without body armor. They could not protect the vehicles that they were driving for a few million dollars. They could not give them hand-held devices for remotely controlled explosive devices.

They did not do that because they knew they would use it as leverage to get this supplemental. Vote down this supplemental. Teach them that that is not the right way to conduct business.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Schakowsky motion which would strike the House-passed provisions establishing new tax-free savings accounts for medical expenses, estimated to cost $174 billion over ten years.

On June 26, 2003, I voted against the Health Savings and Affordability Act, which established these new tax-free personal savings accounts that employers could offer to their employees, along with high-deductible insurance policies.

As the House and Senate conferees continue to discuss the Medicare prescription drug legislation, the facts are still coming in that this bill will be a blow to the 12 million Medicare beneficiaries who currently receive prescription drug coverage through their employer retiree plans.

In most cases, their employer prescription drug coverage is significantly better than what they would receive under the Republican Medicare Prescription Drug plans.

It is also troubling to note that about one-third of employers who are currently providing retiree prescription drug benefits will drop that coverage if H.R. 1 becomes law. This means more than 4 million Medicare beneficiaries will be worse off.

Both H.R. 1 and S. 1 exclude employer-provided coverage as counting towards meeting the catastrophic cap on beneficiary spending in their ``true out of pocket'' definition.

Retirees with employer-provided coverage will get less of a benefit than other seniors.

In fact, these retirees would need closer to $10,000 in drug costs before the stop-loss protection would apply, well after the $5800 cap that applies to all other beneficiaries.

This will, in effect, encourage employers to drop their retiree benefits, at a difficult time when steep drug prices are prompting employers to eliminate drug benefits or cap their contributions.

I urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of the Schakowsky motion to reject the creation of the Health Savings Security and Health Savings Accounts provision and use the $174 billion dollars to help save employer retiree prescription drug plans for our Nation's seniors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say thank you to a group of dedicated individuals who helped their community before, during, and after Hurricane Isabel. Boy

Scout Venture Crew 80, sponsored by the First Christian Church of Alexandria and made up of youth members and adult leaders, came together to assist in administering first aid and to operate Amateur Radio for those in the afflicted areas.

Having been highly trained by their leaders in emergency communications and first aid, Venture Crew 80 exemplified the Boy Scout Motto, ``Be Prepared.'' With the knowledge that Hurricane Isabel was quickly heading toward Northern Virginia, these young people and their adult leaders responded to the call of the Alexandria Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and the Fairfax Amateur Radio Emergency Service to assist them with their storm operations.

On Wednesday September 17, with most of the Northern Virginia area making preparations for the oncoming wind and rain, Venture Crew 80 were being briefed on how they could assist the city of Alexandria with radio communications support, and by 8 a.m. on Thursday they were on the call assisting the EOC and Red Cross shelters across the area.

Throughout Thursday, these dedicated individuals helped set up radios and other equipment needed to run a successful emergency operations center, assisted in assembling food, water, cots and blankets for shelters should they be needed during and after the storm, and helped gather emergency medical response gear for distribution. After completing the setup, they helped to handle the large amount of radio traffic between the EOC, Red Cross and the emergency shelters and monitored the amateur radio traffic. They remained at their posts, helping their fellow citizens make it through Hurricane Isabel, until 6:30 Friday morning.

Venture Crew 80 continued their support throughout the weekend at the EOC, various emergency shelters, the Mt. Vernon Recreation Center and their communities. Their first aid training was especially appreciated when neighbors came seeking aid and the nursing staff was unable to help.

On behalf of the residents of the City of Alexandria and Fairfax County, I would like to thank all the boys and girls, men and women who took their time and energy to help our community during Hurricane Isabel. It is obvious that the emergency efforts throughout the storm would not have been possible without the hard work of Venture Crew 80.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 8\1/2\ minutes.

I rise, regretfully, to say that I have a problem with this legislation. But my issue is not with title I or title II of the conference agreement, the legislative branch appropriations bill. I do not have any problem with that appropriations billing. It is actually a good bipartisan bill and a final conference agreement. In fact, the conference agreement went very quickly, as did the markup on the bill itself, done in a bipartisan manner. My problem is with the third title of the bill which provides additional supplemental funds for wildland fires, NASA's Columbia Space Shuttle disaster, and emergency natural disaster assistance. But I agree with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) that the legislative branch titles are worthy of bipartisan support. The third title, though, should be sent back to conference.

While the discretionary caps made the legislative branch appropriation bill tight, the chairman and the subcommittee acted appropriately with the funds that we had available. We are just $87 million above last year's funding level. The legislative branch agencies and offices will be able to support and improve the operations of the legislative body. The agreement does not shortchange our security needs. It provides tight but sufficient amounts for Members' offices and legislative branch agencies. Sufficient funds have been provided to cover all mandatory expenditures, and the budget assumes a full 3.7 percent COLA increase.

The architect will have the funds to complete the visitors center, but with greater oversight and accountability. The bill also supports and respects the men and women in law enforcement who serve on the Capitol Police force. I know that they have toiled under very stressful and difficult circumstances. At the same time, we all need to live within the constraints of our allocation. Since the terrible events of September 11, the Capitol Police have seen their manpower grow by 37 percent. In this bill, the police have funds to hire an additional 75 new civilian positions. Upon completion of a strategic plan and committee approval, additional sworn officers may also be hired. In this agreement the current complement of officers will receive full funding for overtime pay for the Capitol Police. The COLA increase, the longevity differential, the special training, the specialty pay, and the other recruitment and retention incentives are all preserved and fully funded in this bill. The employees and the agencies that work for us are essential if we want this great experiment in democracy to perform well.

Mr. Speaker, the conference agreement before us today is a sound and responsible measure. When we concluded the conference last Wednesday, September 17, we had a good agreement.

Hurricane Isabel changed that. The funds the agreement provides in Title III, the emergency supplemental funds for disaster assistance, are insufficient.

On this issue, I have to elaborate further. Just a few days ago, we had a very damaging hurricane, Hurricane Isabel it was called. Tragedy struck. Lives were lost, thousands of homes were damaged, businesses ruined, and daily conveniences and routines were greatly disrupted. Seven days later thousands of families and hundreds of businesses are still without power.

My hat goes off to the local fire, police, and emergency response crews that have responded in every way possible. It goes to the Red Cross, the thousands of volunteers, and to all the great neighbors who lent a hand clearing debris, cooking meals, and providing shelter.

I also want to express my appreciation to the people at FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency. They and the Small Business Administration have put in long hours responding to urgent needs. I met those Federal officials firsthand. We have toured the businesses and homes. We have talked about the local residents. I know that many of my colleagues have done the same who were also very adversely affected by Hurricane Isabel.

There are some real tragedies out there, but everyone is doing their part and then some; that is, with the exception of the Congress if we do not provide sufficient funds.

The conference agreement that is now before us fails to provide an appropriate or adequate amount of money to replenish the disaster assistance fund. So far this year there have been 62 disaster and emergency declarations.

In its supplemental request the White House stated that this has been the most costly and deadly tornado season in years. And the National Weather Service hurricane outlook suggests that disaster costs for the hurricane season we just entered could be much higher than anticipated.

We now know that the disaster costs for the hurricane season are higher than the Bush administration anticipated. For fiscal year 2003, which is going to conclude in a few days, the Congress originally appropriated $776 million for disaster relief. The President released another $500 million in emergency funding that was appropriated in fiscal year 2002, and the Congress appropriated another $983 million in the August supplemental. So a total of $2\1/4\ billion has been provided for disaster relief this year.

Historical obligations, though, for the disaster relief program, not including major disasters, have averaged a total of $2.9 billion per year on average for the last 5 years. If we provide the $441.7 million in funds contained in this conference report for disaster relief, we will have only provided $2.7 billion in 2003, or $200 million less than the historic averages, never mind the additional funding that is now needed for Hurricane Isabel.

It is too early for FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security to tell us how much Hurricane Isabel will cost, but they can point out to us the cost of disasters in the past similar to Isabel. We have the record for Hurricanes Floyd and Fran. FEMA spent about $700 million on each hurricane.

If we were to provide the $1.5 billion included in the Senate bill instead of the amount that is in the conference report, we would be providing at least some funding for Hurricane Isabel that we know is going to be needed.

So, what we have here is a low-balling of estimates in this very conference report. This conference report, within days of Hurricane Isabel, low-balls the estimates we know that FEMA is going to have to spend. That has happened in too many cases.

We should not, cannot tell disaster victims to wait until we take up the next supplemental. There is no reason why we should not do it today, provide adequate money. Today's backlog, we are now told, is $300 million. FEMA admits that it has restrictions on the disaster relief activity that is being funded. Any funding, for example, needed beyond the current month is not being provided. So we should not make those that have been disrupted by Hurricane Isabel and other disasters wait for that funding.

The disruptions are not just limited to residents and businesses either. In a strange twist of irony, it has even affected an agency within the Department of Homeland Security. Staff tells us they just got notification that the United States Coast Guard headquarters building has experienced severe electrical and infrastructure problems due to Hurricane Isabel. Coupled with flooding, fire, main system and sanitation problems, Coast Guard headquarters remains closed to all but essential personnel for the foreseeable future.

We should see to it that the Coast Guard's disaster problems are quickly fixed, as well as those of our constituents.

So I urge Members to support this motion to recommit. It is timely, it is necessary, it is appropriate, and it is the least we can do for families who have lost so much in the last few days.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 seconds to bear in mind that while we are looking at $87 billion on top of another $80 billion already provided for Iraq, what we are asking for here is well less than $1 billion for our own people. I know we are mixing apples and oranges a little bit, but not necessarily in the perspective of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

(Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to tell my friend from Illinois that the ranking member fully intends to vote for the bill; it is just such an attractive bill, but they loaded it down with the baggage of a flawed supplemental.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).

Mr. Speaker, first, I yield myself 10 seconds just to tell my friend from Georgia that the minority appreciates the majority's decision to fund the Congress's Big Dig project on their watch. So that was fortuitous.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the very distinguished ranking member of the full Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

What we are doing on this supplemental is to respond to the President's request. What we have in this bill that we were asked to vote on is less than the President himself asked the Congress to provide, and that was before Hurricane Isabel. So we know the money is going to be needed. The question before the Congress is: Do we provide it now, or do we leave future victims of national disasters waiting, wondering whether the Congress is going to provide sufficient funds?

We know the funds are going to be necessary. What we are asking for is much more consistent with what the President himself has requested.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), one of the Democratic Caucus's leadership.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I think we can finish up now and vote a little earlier than people thought. Mr. Speaker, I know that many of us recognize very few votes are influenced by floor debate; but I would like to offer a couple points to our colleagues who may be watching this on television.

The first point is that this bill includes less money than President Bush requested for emergency assistance, less money, and he requested that money before we suffered the ravages of Hurricane Isabel. We know, from FEMA's own estimate, that they are going to need more money. What we are providing today is insufficient. That is point one.

Point two is an argument that may be lost on the general public, but I think many of our colleagues are going to understand it. What we are asking for is money under the fiscal year 2003 supplemental. That means that it does not get counted against the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution. Now, it is emergency funding. So it does not come up against the caps that we would otherwise have imposed on us.

Now, if the majority wants, we will be in a position to have to get more money in fiscal year 2004, money that is going to have to compete against the money for Iraq and against any number of other domestic and foreign needs. The simplest, the most efficient, and, I think, the most responsible thing to do would be to provide sufficient money now in fiscal year 2003. There is only a few days left in this fiscal year. This is our last opportunity. There is not going to be any other train that leaves the station.

The money, of course, will be held over and available in 2004. So I think that those Members of Congress, and it includes the entire Congress, who are increasingly budget-conscious as we all should be, this is the time to do it. The money is needed, desperately needed, and anyone that had constituents that were adversely affected by Hurricane Isabel, and there is a whole lot of them up the East Coast, particularly the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, I think it would be a tough argument to explain to your constituents why, when you had the opportunity, you did not provide the money, hoping that the money might become available at a later opportunity. The opportunity is now, and it should be seized by voting for this recommittal.

Now, I want to thank some people who greatly deserve it. First, the chairman of the subcommittee. It has been a pleasure working with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston). We have not agreed totally on everything, but we got a good bill, and we reached consensus, and I want to thank him for this good bipartisan bill.

The staff is terrific. Liz Dawson knows everything going on up here on Capitol Hill, and is responsible for a whole lot of things that we take credit for. Chuck Turner. Chuck has been terrific. Kelly Wade, Jack O'Neill with the leadership staff, they all did a great job. I want to thank Tom Forhan, who is responsible for this bill on the Appropriations staff. And Tim Aiken, who has been terrific; he is on my own staff assigned to this bill. They have both been great. Beverly, David; we have wonderful staff, and that is one of the reasons why the legislative branch appropriations bill does so well.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, in my senior moment there, I neglected to mention Beverly Pheto and Dave Pomerantz.

We have got great staff. We have a wonderful institution here. We need to adequately fund it.

I support the legislative branch appropriations bill, but right now the right thing to do is to vote yes on the recommittal to provide adequate emergency assistance, and we will get that legislative branch appropriations bill funded as well.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am in its present form, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, this is a terribly important issue. We have to ask ourselves, have we no shame? This is the people's House, where we have provided trillions of dollars to the very wealthiest families in America, those who need it the least, and yet have denied child tax credits to the working class families who need them the most.

Twelve million children were denied this July when the checks went out. Three months ago, on June 5, the Senate overwhelmingly passed a measure to immediately give an increased child tax credit to 36 million working families, including the families of 262,000 military children that were deliberately left out of the $350 billion tax cuts that the House Republicans passed. The Senate was supposed to be the aristocratic part of this Congress, yet they understood that it was wrong to provide $350 billion out of a total of trillions of dollars of tax cuts to the wealthy and leave behind so many working-class families.

Now, I understand that the Speaker of the House said that we are not taking care of these families because, quote, first of all, they do not pay taxes. Well, the fact is they do pay taxes. They pay payroll taxes. Seventy-five percent of the families in this country pay more payroll taxes than they do income taxes. They pay into the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. Of course, its those trust funds that we are having to borrow from in order to pay for these tax cuts. Add the interest together, and recognize the fact we are not going to sunset these tax cuts over the next decade; we are talking about over $4 trillion in tax cuts. Yet we cannot find $3.5 billion. What is that, about one-twentieth of 1 percent of all the tax cuts that we have passed? But we cannot provide for 12 million children of families that are earning less than $26,000 a year.

It does not make sense. It is not right. Yet in July the Treasury Department sent out checks for this expanded tax credit and excluded 6 million families. Now it is time for the President to impose some compassionate conservativism on House Republicans for the sake of these hard-working and military families and for the sake of our economy, because that money is going to get spent. If you are earning millions of dollars, you do not need to spend your tax cut. If you are earning less than $26,000, you are going to spend your tax cut immediately. In fact, this September they would have been spending their tax cut on buying more jeans and buying bookbags and all the kinds of school supplies that they need to be able to buy, yet they did not get that money. The wealthy sure got their money on time.

The other thing is, and what is particularly grating in what the House Republican leaders have done, is that

there are 262,000 children of military families that were denied the expanded tax credit because we are blocking passage of the Senate bill; 200,000 men and women serving in Iraq or other combat zones. Now, what is important to understand is that if we do not accept the Senate version, it leaves in place current law under which families will have tax increases, because combat pay is not counted for purposes of the child tax credit.

For example, an E5 sergeant with 6 years of service and two children is paid $29,000 a year. Generally, both of his children would have been entitled to the full $1,000 tax credit. But if he goes to combat for 6 months, his credit would drop to $450 under the House bill. The Senate bill fixes that. It is one of the reasons the Senate bill should be passed.

Now, we want to get this economy going, too. We see the numbers, too, with 93,000 more jobs lost. We have now lost more than 3 million jobs since President Bush took office. It is the worst record since Herbert Hoover. Imagine. Under the Clinton administration more than 23 million new jobs were created. We have lost 3 million since President Bush has been in office. We want to create jobs. And one of the ways to create jobs is to put money in the hands of people who need to spend that money, and that is the working class. So that is why we need to pass this Senate bill.

Let me just conclude by making a point about the fact that we now have a deficit of over $400 billion this year. It will be almost $.5 trillion next year. What that means is that families are going to be saddled with a debt tax of almost $5,000 per family by 2011 just to pay interest on the debt that we are creating.

In addition, the last point, of the 12 million children left behind, 178,000 are children of farming families, 567,000 are children of nurses or orderlies, 337,000 are children of teachers, and behind disproportionately are minority children, with 2.4 million African American children and over 4 million Hispanic children. These are families that need the help. They are hard-working American families. They deserve it. Let us give it to them. Let us pass the Senate version.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate all of the rhetoric that we are getting on how much the majority likes military families, but they have to put their money where their mouth is. The fact is that that sergeant, that E-6 sergeant who makes less than a third of the tax cuts that you are giving to millionaires, less than a third, he makes $29,000, he did not have a choice about getting combat pay, so he goes over to Iraq. If he stayed in this country, he would have more money in his pocket because he would have been eligible for the child tax credit. If he goes over to Iraq, it is not taxable income, but the reality is, the bottom line is that he suffers. His family gets less money.

Mr. Speaker, tell me a better definition of a working-class family standing up for his country than that sergeant over in Iraq. And the other side of the aisle has made him worse off because of their legislation. That is why we need to pass the Senate version.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment offered by my good friend, the gentleman from Maryland, as well as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf); and I know several of the Senators in this area are supporting this as well. This is terribly important to our economy in the Washington region, but also to the Nation's economy.

We have pretty much recovered on the surface of things from 9-11, at least we have rebuilt the Pentagon, we are now functioning as well as we can at National Airport in terms of commercial jets and we are responding to national and international challenges. But general aviation is in the same situation it was when it was closed as a result of the tragedy of September 11, 2001. This is unfair. It is wrong. We have to do something about it.

Outside the infrequent use of official government planes, general aviation operations at National Airport are prohibited. There were more than 60,000 business aviation flights a year at National Airport. It was not the kind of mom and pop Cessnas and Piper Cubs that were bringing visitors to Washington to tour the Capitol and the museums; it was business executives, top government officials, and CEOs who need their own aircraft and need the efficiency of an airport close to the city to do their business.

This is hurting Washington's economy, and it is devastating a company like Signature Flight Support, which is the sole provider of general aviation services at National Airport. They were generating revenues of $20 million a year. They had hundreds of employees. Those people are out of a job. Signature Flight Support has lost about $3 million, $1 million a year, and it is hemorrhaging money every single day.

Under the terms of its lease, it is required to staff and operate National Airport 24 hours a day, 7 days a week regardless of whether there is any demand for its services. For 8 months, the Department of Transportation worked with them. They said that they were going to be able to open the airport, and it encouraged Signature to stay in business. But then on July 19 of 2002, Secretary Mineta informed airport officials that general aviation would remain closed indefinitely for security reasons. They have lost too much money. They have had to lay off too many people, and it is not fair to expect them to maintain Federal Government planes when that is not their job. Their job is to service all of general aviation, and we shouldn't be preventing them from doing their job.

This has not gone unnoticed by the House, and I want to thank those on the authorizing committee. There is a provision in the Aviation Reauthorization Act that authorizes funds to help general aviation activities that have been hurt by these security restrictions. With the adoption of the Hoyer amendment, we would be able to fulfill the legislation's intent and actually provide some very needed relief to those businesses that are suffering through no fault of their own.

This is a Federal responsibility. We really ought to fund the Hoyer amendment. We ought to get these businesses back on their feet. They have a right to recover from 9-11 too.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman very much and would add one last word. This is not a security threat. We know everybody that is on these planes, and they are the last people that would engage in any kind of terrorism. It is a much safer passenger list, I have to say, than the normal population that gets on a commercial airline flight. We don't really know much about them except what they might be carrying in their shoes or something.

This is not a security issue; it is an economic issue and an issue of fairness. General aviation needs to be opened.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Petri

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I also rise in very strong support of this amendment. The interstate highway system was established in the 1950s, and it has served this country very well. The Congress is very proud of what it has done. But transportation has evolved. We have other responsibilities. We need to be concerned about the traffic congestion that we are generating, the deteriorating air quality, the loss of open space, and, as some other of our colleagues have said, an obesity epidemic among our youth. This Enhancement Program is one of the most popular aspects of our entire transportation program, because it encourages communities and individuals to be creative, to take initiative, to convert old, abandoned rail lines to trails.

Rails to Trails is exciting. It has given people other opportunities when they might spend much of their weekend in an automobile to go bicycling, jogging, walking along trails. It has done so much across the country. And it is transportation oriented. But most importantly, it is community oriented. That is key. That is really what this is about. Communities have an opportunity to have some input into how the billions of dollars in road projects are used, to enhance their quality of life.

At one point, 90 percent of our Nation's schoolchildren walked to school. Today, less than 10 percent do. Many have to take buses or rely on their families or friends to drive, primarily because there are no sidewalks or safe ways to get to school. Building sidewalks is one of the many eligible activities for this Transportation Enhancement Program. If we take away this component, we are going to weaken the ability of local communities and neighborhoods to address their priorities. I also think that we are going to lose an awful lot of important opportunities to beautify our transportation corridors, rehabilitate train stations and other transportation assets, provide safe wildlife crossings, and protect our historic, our scenic, our natural resources. We can do this all for about 1\1/2\ cents per surface transportation dollar. It is important. It is a critical element of a transportation program that is also concerned about congestion, air quality, loss of open space.

Just one last thing. Many Members live in northern Virginia, Alexandria and Arlington, for example. If we provided highways to accommodate everybody that wants to drive from outside the Beltway to the inner city of D.C., it would be all asphalt. There would not be any neighborhoods. There would be no grass. What we have to do is to find ways for public transportation to relieve our highways to give people an incentive to ride a bicycle, to find whatever way they can get to work in a way

that is healthy, that reduces the amount of congestion, and that enhances our quality of life and the strength of our communities. This program does all that. That is why the Petri-Olver amendment should pass. It has many other sponsors, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) has done a great job on this. It is bipartisan. It is important. Let us make sure it continues as part of our transportation program.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my House colleague, Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton today, in introducing the ``Metropolitan Washington Regional Transportation Act.''

No one would expect the road system and limited transit service that existed in the 1970s to serve us today. Yet much of the transportation infrastructure in this region was designed and built more than 30 years ago and has already reached the saturation point. A disruption on any single thoroughfare, be it rail or road, can overwhelm other roadways and shut down the entire region. Rush hour conditions in this region are becoming a 24-hour phenomenon. For more than a decade we have suffered some of the worst traffic congestion in the nation. According to the Greater Washington Board of Trade, this increased commuting time and congestion costs each man, woman, and child in the region close to $1,600 for each rush-hour driver in lost time, wasted fuel, and environmental damage. Long commutes and traffic congestion have also become quality-of-life issues to area residents, robbing many families of the one commodity Washingtonians never seem to have enough of--time.

Some drivers facing a longer commute have even become a safety hazard as they race recklessly to cut a precious few minutes from their daily commute. For those who lack cars, the distance between employment opportunities and affordable housing has grown more and more difficult to traverse. Our economic prosperity and quality of life hinge on improving our congestion problem.

Unfortunately, as we look to the future the traffic situation only grows worse. Even with the increase in Federal funds that Virginia, Maryland and DC will receive under legislation reauthorizing Federal surface transportation programs, ``TEA-21,'' this region will still fall seriously short of meeting the growing demand for transportation improvements. For the period of 1990 through 2020, this region can expect both a 43 percent increase in population and a 43 percent increase in employment. This growth and increased dependency on the automobile is expected to increase, by 79 percent, the number of vehicle miles traveled in the region by 2020. The Board of Trade estimates that transportation spending is expected to fall short of the region's transportation needs by more than $500 million annually.

Any solution to current and future congestion demands strategic investment in both our road and mass transit system. It demands better land use and planning decisions and better interjurisdictional cooperation. And it also demands that this region come together and raise additional revenue to finance priority transportation projects that will provide immediate congestion relief. It may not be a popular idea, particularly in light of Northern Virginia's failed attempt to enact a regional sales tax for transportation improvements. I think the key to success, however, is with some healthy Federal incentives that encourage this region to do more.

The legislation I am introducing provides a new option to help the metropolitan Washington region more effectively address its transportation needs. It has seven key elements: it turns the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board into a regional transportation authority with the power to issue bonds, receive Federal grants and local funds; it directs the new authority to develop a list of critical congestion relief projects that have not been funded under current and forecasted Federal, State, or local transportation plans; it directs the authority within two years to contract out through the States, local governments or the private sector to build the approved list of projects; it allows tolls on interstate highways for the purposes of building more HOV and new HOT lanes; it grants consent to the metropolitan Washington region jurisdictions to enter into an interstate compact or agreement to create a more permanent authority that would help meet the region's long-term transportation needs; it provides $100 million annually in Federal grants to leverage more State and local funds; and it provides $5 million annually for expanding the network of non-motorized trails within the region.

This legislation provides the framework under which regional transportation needs could be addressed. It requires consultation with State and local officials at every level and in an effort to win State support, the legislation preciously guards State control of both the corporation and the authority through veto power. It does not raise anyone's taxes, but it does provide a mechanism or a ``vehicle'' through which the local jurisdictions could coordinate and commit future revenues to finance the construction of specific transportation projects that otherwise will not get built or built anytime soon.

The ``Metropolitan Washington Regional Transportation Act'' gives us a choice and helps start a debate on how we should take control and improve our future transportation system and improve our quality of life. Our failure to act and meet our transportation needs will have a much higher cost. The Board of Trade places the cumulative regional economic losses from the failure to meet our transportation needs in the year 2020 at between $70.2 billion to $182 billion. That economic loss includes: a 350 percent or $345 million increase in shipping costs; $1.3 billion to $2.6 billion in higher warehousing and inventory costs; $1,365 per household, per year, higher consumer costs; and more than $1,000 per household, per year, in higher personal travel costs.

In the past, leaders from this region have shared a vision and worked together successfully to address important transportation needs, through such institutions as the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, and the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board at the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. We need a similar vision to carry us forward another 30 years. The Metropolitan Washington Regional Transportation Act will help us craft this vision.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to be introducing legislation that would establish a federal tax refund offset program for state and local governments. Specifically, this program would require the federal government to withhold refunds from those individuals and corporations that still owe state or local government tax obligations.

Today, the reverse situation exists. A number of states allow their own state agencies, local governments and the Internal Revenue Service to submit a list of delinquent taxpayers. The state then matches these delinquent accounts against taxpayers who may qualify for a state tax refund. If a match is found, the state reduces the refund by the amount of the delinquency and remits the funds to the claimant. These programs have proven to be low-cost and highly effective. Congress recognized the effectiveness of these programs and directed the Internal Revenue Service to establish a similar program to cover claims by other federal agencies, as well as for past-due child support obligations. In 2000, Congress expanded the program by directing the Treasury Department to accept claims by states for income tax obligations.

The legislation I am introducing today builds on these successful programs by permitting local governments to participate. The local governments could submit their outstanding tax debts to the Department of the Treasury for an offset against any federal tax refund, just as federal agencies and states do now. This legislation would also permit a claim to be made for any legally enforceable tax obligation owed to the state or local government.

In an era of tight state and local government budgets, it is patently unfair to have the taxpaying citizenry bear the costs and burdens of those who do not pay their fair share. As President Kennedy recognized, ``[t]o the extent that some people are dishonest or careless in their dealings with the government, the majority is forced to carry a heavier tax burden.'' (April 20, 1961) The legislation that I am introducing today will provide a means to help distribute that burden more equitably.

I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to be introducing legislation that would establish federal tax refund offset program for state and local governments. Specifically, this program would require the federal government to withhold refunds from those individuals and corporations that still owe state or local government tax obligations.

Today, the reverse situation exists. A number of states allow their own state agencies, local governments and the Internal Revenue Service to submit a list of delinquent taxpayers. The state then matches these delinquent accounts against taxpayers who may qualify for a state tax refund. If a match is found, the state reduces the refund by the amount of the delinquency and remits the funds to the claimant. These programs have proven to be low-cost and highly effective. Congress recognized the effectiveness of these programs and directed the Internal Revenue Service to establish a similar program to cover claims by other federal agencies, as well as for past-due child support obligations. In 2000, Congress expanded the program by directing the Treasury Department to accept claims by states for income tax obligations.

The legislation I am introducing today builds on these successful programs by permitting local governments to participate. The local governments could submit their outstanding tax debts to the Department of the Treasury for an offset against any federal tax refund, just as federal agencies and states do now. This legislation would also permit a claim to be made for any legally enforceable tax obligation owed to the state or local government.

In an era of tight state and local government budgets, it is patently unfair to have the taxpaying citizenry bear the costs and burdens of those who do not pay their fair share. As President Kennedy recognized, ``[t]o the extent that some people are dishonest or careless in their dealings with the government, the majority is forced to carry a heavier tax burden.'' (April 20, 1961) The legislation that I am introducing today will provide a means to help distribute that burden more equitably.

I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment offered by my friend from Colorado, Mark Udall.

My colleagues, the reason we have so many funding limitation amendments to this bill is not because of the actions of Chairman Taylor and the Appropriations Committee in general. It's because the congressional leadership has abdicated its institutional obligations to carry out its oversight responsibilities. And, nowhere is this abdication of responsibility more prominent than in the arena of the environment.

I can understand from some in the west that the federal government owns too much land and that these states should have the first right of refusal. But let's redefine who exactly the federal government is. It's the people of the United States and it's their land. The stewardship responsibilities for these lands, these national parks, wildlife refuges, national forests, monuments and wilderness areas are the federal government's in accordance with the laws this institution has adopted in the name of all Americans and with their support. But when an administration disregards a moratorium directed by Congress and proceeds to use an obscure reinterpretation of an arcane mining law to carve up by roads some of America's great treasured landscapes and scenic lands, it has gone too far.

Earlier this year, the Department of Interior amended an existing rule to facilitate right-of-way claims under Revised Statute 2477 (RS 2477), a long ago repealed provision of the Mining Law of 1866. The new regulation will allow any entity to file claims against federal lands, yet the new rule lacks any standard for determining the legitimacy of these claims. As a result of this and other changes, the amended disclaimer rule is being used to establish thousands of new roads potentially through National Parks, Refuges, Forests and Monuments or candidate wilderness sites without even proving any actual need.

You've seen the pictures. Find a footpath, a donkey trail and you can undermine the people's and this nation's expressed desire to protect this land from development and the extraction industry. You say it is not happening, or maybe it is just limited to Utah. Think again.

San Bernardino County in California has actively begun surveying specific routes and mapping claims. This process is 80 percent complete and the county has thus far claimed 4,986 miles, 2,567 of which are in the Mojave National Preserve. The county has requested the Department of Interior waive the $100 filing fee because they have so many RS 2477 claims the cost to the county to file all of these claims would be prohibitive. I am puzzled how they may lack the money to file these claims, but will somehow find the money to build all these roads?

I doubt more than a fraction of these claims will ever give rise to a road, but the claims will prove sufficient to block federal, state and local efforts to protect the land these road claims bisect. Mr. Chairman, what the public would never support through legislation, the administration is doing by stealth. And, while these actions may succeed at removing these lands from federal protection, they will create a host of new liabilities and unfunded costs.

In some states, including California and New Mexico, state law makes the local jurisdictions liable for failure to maintain a roadway. I wonder what future lawsuits we may be inviting when these localities will be sued for injuries caused by hazardous conditions on roads that were never built?

Given the tens of thousands of claims that have been received, I fail to see corresponding increases in the Bureau of Land Management's budget to process them. Will the granting of rights-of-way, create any new financial obligations for the federal government? What costs, including environmental assessments and litigation might be involved?

Mr. Chairman, this policy is an abomination. The administration needs to be reigned in and the purse strings are all that we have available. Support the Udall amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment by my colleague from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo). Wildfires are a serious problem but we should not be undercutting an investment in our future. Build fewer roads in our national forests and I'll bet you'll have more money to fight forest fires and maybe even have fewer forest fires to fight.

Mr. Chairman, this is a cynical amendment. Why target just the NEA? What has NEA done to deserve such spitefulness? Since its creation in 1965, the NEA has issued more than tens of thousands of grants. Of this total, fewer than 20 have been considered controversial. Match that 20 against grant recipients who received 35 of the past 46 National Book Awards, National Book Critics Circle Awards and Pulitzer Prizes in fiction and poetry since 1990.

Match it against the grant recipients of PBS's Great Performances who were nominated for 121 Emmys and won 51 Emmys. The arts are vitally important to the intellectual and cultural growth of our nation. The contributions that the National Endowment for the Arts have made to such efforts are significant and should be permitted to continue at an even higher funding level. It has worked to enrich American life and culture by promoting knowledge of artistic endeavor, thought and culture throughout the nation. The endowment accomplishes this mission by providing grants for high-quality artistic projects.

Great performances or small, NEA has supported hundreds of professional orchestras, dance companies, and nonprofit theaters, where before NEA's support there were none. As a member of the Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations, I have been privileged to learn more about the NEA through congressional hearings and outside witnesses. Federal funding for music, dance, theater, literature and visual arts is not just about quality of life; it's about investments to fulfill our human and economic potential.

By directing funds toward culturally diverse, educational, community- oriented programs, for example, we provide places where at-risk youth can express themselves creatively rather than destructively. The small seed money NEA provides is an investments in communities across the country that will pay us back many fold in rich dividends. Today, we have a chance to increase our investment funding for this worthwhile program, not retreat from it.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Michigan (Mr. Levin) for his leadership on these issues.

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak both to the Chile and Singapore Free Trade Agreements. With regard to Chile, this is going to level the trade playing field for U.S. companies and workers. Chile's uniform tariff of 6 percent will be immediately removed for more than 85 percent of all U.S. exports, and the remaining tariff is going to be phased out. By contrast, 65 percent, two-thirds of Chile's exports to the United States are already duty free, and there is an average of one-half of one percent tariff on those goods that face any duty.

But the problem with Chile has been that, while the U.S. has spent years debating Trade Promotion Authority, Chile has been busy striking free trade deals with Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, and the European Union. Because of these agreements, the U.S., which was once the dominant market for Chile's foreign trade, has seen its share of the Chilean market drop by one-third since 1997, and its bilateral trade agreement has reversed from surplus to deficit.

Equally important, this is going to promote broader U.S. foreign policy goals in the Americas. Because Chile is one of the most stable, transparent and wealthy South American nations, it boasts impressive labor and environmental standards. We are also going to have the opportunity to further exercise our world leadership role by actively promoting democracy, civil rules of law, and human rights.

With regard to Singapore, again, this should be a no-brainer for the Congress. Singapore is our 11th largest trading partner. It is renowned for its world-class infrastructure and very well-educated workforce. In my congressional district, for example, and there are many such suburban technology-oriented districts like mine

across the country, it is going to have a very significant positive impact for the high-tech community.

High-technology trade between the United States and Singapore represents about half of the total two-way trade. In 2002, the U.S. exported nearly $6 billion in high-tech goods to Singapore.

The technology sector is the largest merchandise exporter in the United States, and that is the sector that is going to benefit most from the free trade agreement with Singapore.

With respect to intellectual property rights, the U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement contains protections to ensure that a rich, diverse, and competitive marketplace will be maintained throughout Asia. Singapore is our key gateway to the rest of Asia; so it is very important that they are going to grant our inventors, our writers, our artists, our business people strong enforceable property rights over the fruits of their creations.

It establishes standards of protection that are consistent with U.S. law and requires that those protections be effectively enforced. Each party has to protect copyrights, trademarks, and patents against the illegal manufacture, import and export of pirated goods. It is terribly important. This is the right thing in promoting long-term economic growth for the United States and for Singapore and for this entire region of the world.

So both with respect to Chile and Singapore, these are major advancements. This is the right thing to do for our economy, and for our foreign policy and I trust that these agreements are going to pass overwhelmingly.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the School Readiness Act of 2003, which will reauthorize the Head Start program.

I strongly support Head Start programs because they provide low- income preschool-aged children a comprehensive array of services such as child development, education, health, nutritional, social and other activities which help them receive greater advantages in life.

Some of these services include health screenings and services. Statistics have shown that children who receive crucial services such as dental and eye care, or a hot breakfast every morning, have increased school readiness.

In my congressional district, one of the most successful Head Start programs is the Alexandria Head Start. This is a collaboration among the Campagna Center, the city of Alexandria, and the Alexandria City Public Schools formed 35 years ago.

AHS serve 253 Head Start children, and because of a wonderful group of dedicated educators, parents and teachers, these children have truly been given a ``head start.''

While many of my low-income constituents in the city of Alexandria are served by Head Start, I am concerned with the devastating statistic that 40 percent of eligible children nationwide will continue to be underserved under H.R. 2210.

In fact, after a COLA adjustment for staff salaries and increased rent costs, H.R. 2210 just barely covers inflation and allows almost no program expansion. Due to ``insufficient funds,'' a large number of children who need these services will be unable to obtain them.

Let's look at the facts right now. The President's budget request for fiscal year 2004 is $7.2 billion below the level needed to maintain current services for domestic priorities.

Unfortunately with slashes in domestic discretionary spending coupled with massive tax cuts, the result has been fiscal crises at the State and Federal levels, which have translated into the underfunding of critical programs and services such as affordable housing, Medicare and Head Start.

Due to this stark economic climate, supporters of H.R. 2210 want to block-grant Head Start to eight States whose preschool programs are untested and unproven.

A year and a half ago, we all celebrated when the President Bush signed into law, the No Child Left Behind legislation, which was touted as the plan to bring stronger accountability and stronger standards to our Nation's schools.

H.R. 2210 will in fact do the exact opposite of NCLB, by allowing States that have not demonstrated expertise or the commitment to providing quality service to these children, to be eligible for this block grant.

Where are the standards? This block-grant will allow States to strip the Head Start program of the qualified services that it provides to children nationwide, and more importantly, that they and their families rely on. This was not what President Johnson intended when he founded this vital program.

It was once said that ``Education is the great equalizer in a democratic society, and if people are not given access to a quality education, then what we are doing is creating an underclass of people who will ultimately challenge our very way of life.''

This statement has never been more true than today. The Head Start program was designed to give preschoolers a quality education while also ensuring that their social and physical needs were met, which helps put them on the path to success.

Yet, the bill before us today will weaken and underfund the Head Start program while continuing to leave 40 percent of eligible children unserved.

Instead, I ask all my colleagues to support the Miller amendment which will continue to build upon the successes of the Head Start program while striving to ensure that all eligible children in our country are served by Head Start and obtain the services that they need to receive a true ``head start'' in life.