Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I just got the good news that in the first inning the Cubs versus Marlins, that the Cubs are three to nothing, scored three runs. So Chicago fans are very, very happy after waiting since 1908 to win a World Series. We think this is the year, and it would be great if it were the Chicago Cubs and the Boston Red Sox.

But I am here for another purpose this evening, and that is, I wanted to read some of the letters that have come from constituents of mine regarding the war in Iraq, the ongoing war in Iraq, as has the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and others.

The letters and e-mails that have been largely generated by moveon.org, that has an online petition asking people, and hundreds of thousands have responded to sign on to their online petition, that says that Congress must withhold the $87 billion requested by President Bush until he dismisses the team responsible for the quagmire in Iraq, starting with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and ends the U.S. occupation of Iraq by transferring authority for rebuilding to the United Nations.

I know that the writers of these letters did not mean just a kind of shuffling of the players, that is, to move Condoleezza Rice up one and Donald Rumsfeld down one, but rather, that the team that has gotten us into this situation in which day after day Americans wake up to news of more of our troops being killed and still no plan. These are the sentiments that are expressed in these letters from my constituents.

David from Chicago says, ``Do not authorize the spending of any additional American citizens' money on this madness until the people in charge make a drastic personnel change, draft a complete and detailed game plan directly involving the United Nations, and apologies made to all peoples and nations caught up in this disgraceful and bloody mess!''

Dorothy from Evanston says, ``Please zip the open purse closed before our billions and billions of dollars go into the quagmire which is Iraq, largely because of the policies of Secretary Rumsfeld, and President Bush's espousal of same. Secretary Rumsfeld ought to be removed from office as quickly as possible, and we should ask the United Nations to join us as full partners, in authority as in other ways, in trying to normalize Iraq. Thank you very much.''

Mary from Chicago says, ``I am appalled at the amount of money this administration paid to companies that have such close ties to Bush and his friends. As this atrocity drags out, it is clear that their agenda has always been to get their hands on Iraqi oil and they don't mind sacrificing our servicemen and -women to do it. It is an insult to those men and women, to the American people, and to the world to give this administration the money they have the audacity to demand. If you give it to them, why not make the check directly payable to Halliburton care of Dick Cheney? Please do not give your stamp of approval by voting to give this money, especially before all of the 'players' in this disaster are held accountable for their lies and deception.''

David from Chicago says, ``The people of Iraq deserve our continued commitment to helping them redevelop their country. However, we must recognize that we can't do it alone and that the United Nations must be legitimately engaged in leading us out of Iraq. Secretary Rumsfeld and his team are clearly unwilling and/or incapable of taking this course and therefore are unfit to continue in their current role.''

Another David from Chicago says, ``I hear story after story of parents of our men and women serving in Iraq sending regular care packages with things like sunscreen because their children are not being provided these items by the military. It is clear that the money being sent is not being targeted to those in the service and apparently not to the Iraqi people who still lack power, food, water and medical facilities. It does appear that Halliburton is profiting quite nicely from its no-bid contract.''

Catherine from Chicago, ``I have already voiced my opinion on the issue of the $87 billion in aid to Iraq in phone calls to my representatives in Congress. This is an outrageous, egregious use of American and my tax dollars. I support appropriate aid. This is a completely inappropriate boondoggle turning into a disaster!''

Keith from Chicago says, ``Please do not fund another cent for the occupation of Iraq. It is immoral to expect future generations to pay for a war that does virtually nothing to make Americans or other peoples safe from terrorism.''

Jonathan says, who is from Chicago, ``Don't reward failure! The war in Iraq was won handily, but the Defense Department's hamfisted attempts to run things in Iraq, over the objections of the more experienced State Department, has been dismal and embarrassing. By all means, fund the continue rebuilding efforts in Iraq, but not while the architects of the current mess are still choosing how to spend the money.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak out loudly in opposition to the conference report on S. 3 and to urge my colleagues to vote against the report.

Once again, we have before us an unconstitutional and harmful bill. This bill would prevent doctors from being able to perform medically- necessary abortions. The government would prohibit doctors from acting to protect her patient's health, intruding into the doctor-patient relationship. The Supreme Court recognized this inequity and has already made such a law unconstitutional.

The leadership in this body insists that we ignore the Constitution and vote on this bill. Proponents of this bill refused to allow an exception for cases in which the mother's health was seriously at risk, and they refused to include language affirming the long-standing Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade.

Let's forget about the rhetoric we've been hearing from the proponents of this bill and talk about the truth. For us to be true to the Constitution, to be true to the sentiments of equality and freedom, women and must have control over their bodies. Instead, proponents of this bill, including the Bush Administration, are using this bill as part of a broader agenda to take away a women's Constitutionally guaranteed right to choose. This assault on a woman's right to control her body and her health must stop. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Conference Report.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) for offering this motion and for standing up for senior citizens and persons with disabilities.

We just heard that a motion that would put the money into closing the huge gap in coverage that seniors citizens are going to face if this so-called Medicare prescription drug benefit passes, that it would be somehow a violation of the budget agreement, that, instead, we would rather have some sort of another tax shelter that takes another $74 billion away in lost revenue is typical of the kind of proposals and the solution that have been offered.

Yes, the budget resolution says that we can give huge tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans; and now the way we are going to deal with the prescription drug plan is we are going to allow, again, people who have more money to be able to put it in a tax shelter so that they do not have to pay taxes on it.

What the Democrats are talking about, what the gentleman from New York is talking about is let us look at what the problem is. Senior citizens, persons with disabilities cannot afford the prescription drugs that they need. So if we have $174 billion that we can use, why not just close that gap? That is the choice. The choice is between a $174 billion tax shelter, unavailable to lower-income people, or using $174 billion to try and redirect that so that Medicare beneficiaries get the coverage that they need. It is really as simple as that.

One thing that has not been noted in this $174 billion tax shelter, that is the money lost to the Federal Government, is that it is also going to add about $20 billion to $30 billion in lost revenue to the States, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Those lost revenues could further exacerbate the health care problem for low- income people. It might force States to make cutbacks in critical health programs, hurting, once again, the uninsured and the underinsured.

This kind of health savings account, this tax shelter, will also erode on-the-job coverage, because it will encourage employers to replace existing health coverage with high-deductible coverage. And it will especially hurt low-income families who cannot afford to pay those high deductibles, who cannot afford to contribute to a health savings account. What they are designed to do is to provide tax shelters and not to provide affordable coverage for the uninsured.

It is also very important to note, by the way, that the hole that exists in coverage for senior citizens and persons with disabilities for their prescription drugs does not exist in the health plan that is offered to Members of Congress. So if we want to make sure that President Bush is accurate when he tells senior citizens that he wants to give them what we have, what we have in our Federal employee plan, then we have to fill that gap. The hole in coverage right now is big enough so that 48 percent of seniors and persons with disabilities fall right in it.

We also know that nearly half of the Medicare beneficiaries live on less than $18,000 a year. Many of them are low-income women living alone; and for them, a $2,900 coverage gap is an insurmountable barrier to care.

That is what we have got right now. We will have senior citizens going to the pharmacy and saying I want the same medicine as I ordered last month, and the pharmacist will say, Mrs. Jones, that will cost you $75.

What do you mean, I thought I had a prescription drug coverage?

Oh, it has run out for awhile now. You already have used it up. We will not pick it up again until you spend another $2,900. Hello, people cannot afford that, nor can they afford a $174 billion tax shelter that will provide help only to those who really can afford it, not to the millions and millions of seniors who cannot afford their prescription drugs. This is the choice that we have in front of us today. Let us do the right thing and support the Bishop motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the first day in which residents of Cook County, Illinois will have the opportunity to register their domestic partnerships with the Bureau of Vital Records. This is an important first step towards full equality for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people and I am proud to stand in solidarity with them on this historic day.

This day does not just represent a political victory for the LGBT community or a day in which, finally, same sex partners will be able to obtain proof of their relationships in an effort to get health and other benefits. It is also a day when friends and family will come together to celebrate two people's love and commitment to each other. It is a day on which a couple who committed themselves to one another years ago can finally make it official.

I would like to recognize and congratulate a few of my friends and constituents who will be registering: Gary Cozette and Joe Lada, Brandon Neese and David Wick, Mary Morten and Willa Taylor, Jackie Kaplan and Ann Perkins, Kelly Cassidy and Alex Silets, Gail Morse and Lauren Verdich, Phil Burgess and Jim Nutter, Mark Ishaug and Micah Krohn, and Michael Bauer and Roger Simon.

It is my hope, however, that our progress will not stop here. It is my hope that one day all couples in all states and counties will have the opportunity to register their partnerships and receive all the legal benefits currently enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. No one should ever have to spend time convincing a doctor to be allowed to see her partner in her hospital bed. No one should ever again have to go without health insurance if his partner's employer provides it. No one should be separated from a life partner because immigration laws don't recognize the relationship.

So, congratulations to all the couples celebrating today. This is a major victory in the fight for equality and justice.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to share my concerns about H.R. 49, the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act. I support extending the moratorium on internet access taxes, but this legislation goes far beyond that. It will costs cities around the country millions of dollars. This bill could have a lasting impact on our states and localities ability to collect existing telecommunications taxes.

Illinois and Chicago do not charge internet access taxes, however, the bill's definition of ``internet service'' is so broad and open ended that it could prevent state and local governments from collect existing telecommunication taxes. I am afraid that localities and states will not be allowed to charge existing taxes on voice and fax transmissions that are bundled with internet service.

In the City of Chicago, for example, the expansion of the term ``internet access'' could mean millions of dollars in tax revenue annually, which is currently used to pay for first responders, education, and other essential services.

Declining federal support and the failed economic policies of the Bush Administration have placed an awful burden on states and localities across the country. In the past few years Chicago and Illinois have been forced to cut funding for essential services. This legislation could make a bad situation worse.

Extending the moratorium on internet access taxes is prudent public policy. Nonetheless, I am concerned that the bill's definition of ``internet access'' would have a detrimental impact on cities and states across the country. The rights of our states and localities to collect existing telecommunications should not be placed in jeopardy.

Madam Speaker, I wanted to join my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), who, along with him, I have been reading some letters and e-mails from constituents regarding their view on the ongoing war in Iraq, and their views about the request for $87 billion. A number of these e-mails that I have gotten have been generated by moveon.org that has an online petition where hundreds of thousands of people have signed on, and many of them have written comments regarding their unwillingness to spend $87 billion, particularly while the leadership team that got us into Iraq is still in place, and as long as we fail to internationalize the effort in rebuilding Iraq.

So I thought it would be useful to read some of the letters and the e-mails that I have gotten.

Rebecca from Park Ridge says, ``This Congress has a responsibility to ensure that our tax dollars are used well, but President Bush is demanding another enormous blank check. Congress must withhold the $87 billion requested by President Bush until he dismisses the team responsible for the quagmire in Iraq, starting with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and end the U.S. occupation of Iraq by transferring authority for rebuilding to the United Nations.''

Doralee of Evanston says, ``I beseech you as moral people who care about the survival of this world to deny Bush's request for $87 billion and fire Rumsfeld and develop a whole new approach to restoring Iraq by involving the United Nations. This is such a serious matter that you cannot give Bush blanket authority anymore. He has not handled this situation in a competent manner.''

And Barbara from Wilmette says, ``I was stunned and disheartened to read that President Bush is asking for $87 billion from Congress for an occupation in Iraq that has only lead to the death of our soldiers and Iraqi civilians and further bitterness of the Iraqi people toward the United States.''

Oletta from Chicago says, ``This war has been fiscally and morally mismanaged and should not garner any further financing without an exact budget and defined timelines. Don't let Bush and his administration continue to bankrupt America because he still doesn't know what he is doing or is going to do.''

Pamela says, and she is from Chicago, ``I believe we need to invest in rebuilding Iraq and protecting our troops, but we need to do it in a sensible way, in concert with the world, and in a way that benefits the people of Iraq. So, the quid pro quo for the money is a change in policy and in leadership.''

Cecelia, also from Chicago says, ``I don't begrudge funding, as long as I feel that the war is properly managed. I don't. Our soldiers are vulnerable, the Iraqis seem to hate us, the terrorists are picking us off, and we don't seem to have a plan to change any of this. Firing Rumsfeld would be a start.''

David from Chicago says, ``I hear story after story of parents of our men and women serving in Iraq sending regular care packages with things like sun screen because their children are not being provided these items by the military. It is clear that the money being spent is not being targeted to those in the service and apparently not to the Iraqi people who still lack power, water, food, and medical facility. It does appear that Halliburton is profiting quite nicely from its no-bid contract. I object to sending more money until Mr. Rumsfeld is removed and we get an accounting of how the money is being spent and who is getting their pockets lined with it.''

Janice from Chicago says, ``Congress must withhold the $87 billion requested by the President until he dismisses the team responsible for the quagmire in Iraq, starting with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and ends the U.S. occupation by transferring authority for rebuilding to the United Nations.''

Jonathan from Chicago says, ``Don't reward failure. The war in Iraq was won handily, but the Defense Department's hamfisted attempts to run things in Iraq, over the objections of the more experienced State Department, has been dismal and embarrassing. By all means, fund the continued rebuilding efforts in Iraq, but not while the architects of the current mess are still choosing how to spend our money.''

And David from Chicago says, ``Please make sure we don't alienate the rest of the world more than we already have. Please make this administration admit that it has made a misstep by not involving the world community in the Iraq situation from the outset.''

Jeffrey from Chicago said, ``This is outrageous, given the fiscal crisis our States are in, and the fact that the money would go a long way to shore up education or help programs that confront the issues of homelessness or poverty. Get up and do something about this. I'm keeping track.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, but, more importantly, today I thank him for his nearly decade- long leadership on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan legislation. I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin) and the full committee ranking Democratic Member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), for their outstanding leadership in quickly advancing this pro-consumer legislation.

Yesterday's decision by the Federal District Judge blocking the FTC from implementing its national do-not-call registry was, I believe, incorrect. Earlier this session we passed the National Do-Not-Call Implementation Act with overwhelming bipartisan support. The new law explicitly gave the FTC the authority to collect fees and create a national do-not-call list.

I am actually confident that the court's decision would have eventually been overturned on appeal. But, fortunately, we are not waiting for that process to occur. Today we are removing any uncertainty about Congress' intent. With the passage of this legislation, the Federal Trade Commission will be able to add more people to their list, and they will be able to implement its do-not- call registry without interruption or delay.

Mr. Speaker, we all appreciate the very precious time that we have at home with our families after a long day at work, but who has not been interrupted by an unwanted telemarketer? We all know from personal experience how intrusive these calls can be.

I think it is important to note that it will not block the calls from companies with whom you already do business. I received a telemarketing call from a credit card company offering me a deal that could lower my rate, et cetera. I was happy to get that call, and we actually made that change. Those calls will be able to continue.

But we all know the calls. My last name is ``Schakowsky.'' My key is when they say, ``Is Mrs. Schakowsky home,'' or all kinds of funny names, I just say ``no,'' and hang up. We all have our strategies for dealing with those.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this pro-consumer legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor our Nation's small businesses. Today we are marking the 50th anniversary of the SBA, an agency with the critical role in our country of supporting and promoting small businesses. Twenty-three million small businesses nationwide produce more than two-thirds of all new U.S. jobs; generate more than half of our Gross Domestic Product; represent 99.7 percent of all employers; and provide almost all workers with their first jobs. Small businesses in America form the backbone of the American economy and they are economic anchors in our communities.

In my home State of Illinois, close to 98.2 percent of our almost 280,000 employer businesses are small businesses with fewer than 500 employees. Currently, there are an estimated 6.2 million women-owned businesses in the United States, accounting for 28 percent of all privately held firms. These firms generate $1.15 trillion in sales and employ 9.2 million workers. Minority-owned businesses have quadrupled over the last decade. Minorities now own 15 percent of American businesses and 99 percent of these firms are small businesses. The fact that small businesses make a substantial contribution to our economy is undeniable.

America's small businesses could also act as a driver for our weakened economy. But they are struggling. They are struggling to cover the soaring cost of providing their employees with healthcare and they are struggling to simply survive in the Bush economy. Only 3 percent of the benefits of the $350 billion tax cut package that President Bush sold as a ``job creation plan'' went to small businesses. Instead of benefiting those companies that create the most new jobs, the President's tax breaks go into the pockets of the wealthiest Americans.

We should do more than mark the 50th anniversary of the SBA. We should take immediate action to help our small businesses and their employees. We should pass this resolution today, but we must then follow through with real relief to small businesses. Our small business owners and employees know that if you expect to succeed, you don't keep your customers waiting. We can't allow President Bush to keep our small businesses waiting much longer.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 352, a resolution honoring the March on Washington of August 28, 1963, a turning point in the long road to justice and equality. In the struggle for civil rights, the March will forever hold a place in American history, and in the eyes of the world, as a day that showed that individuals united can affect change and progress without violence.

On that hot August day forty years ago, thousands of people converged on our nation's capital to stand up for civil rights, workers' rights, voting rights, equality in education, and fair pay. They marched for equality with a unified message that they as African-Americans would no longer wait patiently for civil rights to be delivered and practiced in society, but that they were demanding that the federal government take bold steps to ensure that the Constitution's promise was delivered to all Americans; that they would no longer be second-class citizens.

The words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. continue to resonate today and to serve as an inspiration for his generation and future generations to create a society in which all are treated equally because we are all created equal. I want to especially commend the work of Congressman John Lewis, my friend and colleague, who spoke on that day and who continues to inspire others and to fight for justice everyday.

The resolve of the speakers, the sheer number of marchers, the strong commitment to nonviolence, and the intensity of the sentiment on that day created an energy that spread throughout the country in the coming months and years. It allowed all Americans to see the struggle for civil rights articulated in a manner that was uninterrupted by violence and chaos and was highlighted by peace and unity and strength.

The March gave life to a Movement that continues to manifest itself today. While the March was successful in helping to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the fight for justice and equality is far from over. Today we are fighting to hold on to our civil liberties as the Bush administration works to chip away at our right to privacy, free speech, and freedom of religion. Immigrants, the people who bring diversity and strength to our nation, must fight to live free from harassment as the administration advocates unfair and discriminatory policies against them. People of color continue to fight for the opportunity to get a good education and to be treated fairly by the criminal justice system while President Bush opposes affirmative action. Low-income working families fight for fair treatment under the tax code as Republican Congressional leaders continue to deny them the child tax credit. And many, including elderly adults, persons with disabilities, and people of color, continue to fight for the right to have their vote count while our nation's election system has yet to catch up and meet the needs of all of America's voters.

Today, we remember the people who were at the March on Washington forty years ago--their perservance, their commitment to justice and nonviolence, their courage, their hope, and their success. But we must do more than just remember; we must use their example to continue the struggle today until Dr. King's dream of equality truly comes to life for all who live in the United States.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Nadler- Velazquez amendment. The amendment restores $150 million in funding for the Section 8 voucher program. The underlying bill cuts funding for housing vouchers. If this bill is passed into law in its current form, 85,000 people will lose their vouchers, including over 3,200 families in Illinois. I strongly believe that we should expand, not reduce, funding for the Section 8 voucher program and low-income housing in general. The Nadler-Velazquez amendment would help restore voucher funding for thousands of families in need.

In a letter I received today, several faith-based organizations wrote, ``As faith-based organizations, we are committed to strengthening our communities by assisting those who are the most vulnerable, and we believe that our work is not simply a matter of charity, but of responsibility, righteousness, and justice. We urge you to assist us in our work by renewing Congress' commitment to fully fund and expand the Section 8 voucher program.'' I encourage my colleagues to read the full text of the letter and urge all members to support the amendment.

July 25, 2003.

To: Members of the U.S. House of Representatives

Re: Funding for the Housing Choice (``Section 8'') Voucher

Program

As members of the faith community, we are writing to

express our concern about funding for the Section 8 housing

voucher program. Our organizations serve millions of low-

income individuals and families who, despite their best

efforts, are struggling to meet their basic needs and to

achieve economic stability. To many of those we assist, the

lack of affordable housing presents a considerable obstacle,

and the Section 8 voucher program offers in turn a critical

form of assistance. Through our work, we are witness to the

important role that housing vouchers play in preventing

homelessness, and in helping low-income individuals and

families to make progress towards economic stability.

Congress has for many years expressed a strong commitment

to the Section 8 voucher program, consistently voting to

increase the number of vouchers authorized and to fully fund

all authorized vouchers. This commitment has been important,

as the need for housing assistance has continued to expand.

In most communities, there are long waiting lists for Section

8 vouchers, and it is estimated that only one third of

eligible households receive voucher assistance.

To our disappointment, however, Congress appears to be

retreating from this commitment. In the appropriations law

for 2003, Congress failed, for the first time in recent

memory, to include funding for incremental Section 8

vouchers. This week, the House Appropriations Committee

reported out a VA-HUD appropriations bill for 2004 that

would, by its own estimate, fund only 96 percent of

authorized Section 8 vouchers, and again includes no funding

for incremental vouchers.

Moreover, while we appreciate that the House Appropriations

Committee has made a sincere effort to improve on the

President's budget request for the voucher program, and we

recognize that estimating future voucher costs is difficult,

there is reason to believe that the Committee's estimate is

overly optimistic. Recent analyses performed independently by

the Congressional Budget Office and the Center on Budget and

Policy Priorities (CBPP) suggest that the Committee's

estimate is based on voucher cost assumptions that are too

low. For example, in an analysis of the most recent voucher

cost data from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development, CBPP estimates that the Section 8 appropriation

in the House bill would be sufficient to renew only 91

percent of authorized vouchers, and is approximately $580

million short of the funding that will be necessary to fully

renew vouchers leased in 2004. A shortfall of this magnitude

would have a destructive impact on thousands of vulnerable

households--85,000 households, by CBPP's estimate--the great

majority of which are working families, elderly, or disabled.

We therefore urge you to renew Congress' commitment to

fully fund the Section 8 voucher program. Specifically, we

ask that you increase the Section 8 appropriation

sufficiently to ensure that all authorized vouchers will be

funded, and to make certain that no households using vouchers

in the coming year will be denied funding.

As faith-based organizations, we are committed to

strengthening our communities by assisting those who are the

most vulnerable, and we believe that our work is not simply a

matter of charity, but of responsibility, righteousness, and

justice. We urge you to assist us in our work by renewing

Congress' commitment to fully fund and expand the Section 8

voucher program.

Sincerely,

American Baptist Churches USA; Call to Renewal; Catholic

Charities USA; The Episcopal Church, USA; McAuley

Institute; NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice

Lobby; Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Washington Office;

United Jewish Communities; Volunteers of America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion to instruct conferees offered by the distinguished gentleman from Michigan. The gentleman is not only well suited to offer this motion because of his position as the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Energy and Commerce; but in addition, his district was one of those most affected by the August 14 blackout.

On August 14 I was in Israel watching CNN International very late at night when the first blackout was announced. And as one city after another was mentioned as being affected and thousands and thousands more people were being affected, my first thought, and I am sure that is true of many Americans, was, oh no, this feels like it was another terrorist attack. And while I was relieved, as many people were, of course, to find out that that was not the case, I was not really comforted then or now.

Life as we know it virtually stops when we have this kind of catastrophic event. Life stops as we know it when the power goes out. Commerce and industry stop, elevators stop, subways stop, home respirators stop, water from the tap stopped in many places. And though Americans rose to the occasion, the vulnerability of our entire economy, our health and our safety was made devastatingly clear to each and every one of us. It became clear that our very national security is now depending on an unreliable electricity grid.

Now, that is the bad news. The good news is that even before we know exactly every detail on how it happened, there are steps that we can take to make our system more reliable and our people more secure. And the further good news is that this is not bad news, this is good news; that there is a broad consensus around what to do. So let us do it.

I do not find compelling at all that this is not the total answer to everything; that we have to worry about gas prices; that we have to worry about gasoline prices. Yes, we do. But we are facing a crisis that could cripple us right now. So let us do it. This is a simple, noncontroversial, constructive solution. And it does not mean that we have to deal with what we know to be controversial issues. Drilling in the Alaska wilderness is not going to prevent the kind of blackouts that can cripple our country. So why not deal with something clear and simple and constructive right now?

So I would urge my colleagues to put aside what may be very partisan differences on things that we cannot agree on. We will deal with those. I am convinced that we can come to an agreement on those, and, yes, separate out now that which we can deal with that may avert a catastrophe that could cripple our Nation, jeopardize our security, and the health of our people. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the motion to instruct that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) has offered.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition and my outrage over the rule designed to govern the debate over the FY04 VA-HUD Appropriations bill. This rule, by not allowing two amendments to be made in order, severely restricts the ability of this body to take care of its obligations. These two amendments, one by Representative Smith of New Jersey and Representative Evans of Illinois would have increased the funding for veterans' health care to the level that we promised in the budget resolution passed earlier this year. The other, by Representative Edwards of Texas, would

have provided an additional $2.2 billion for VA medical care by reducing the recently-passed tax cuts for taxpayers with yearly incomes in excess of a million dollars. Both amendments were shut-down by the Rules Committee on a party line vote. I am shocked that the House Republican leadership would make such a choice, but I am not surprised.

Repeatedly, we have seen the Republicans in this body choose to break their promises to millions of Americans so that they can give tax cuts to the already wealthy. They passed a Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations bill that left millions of children behind by failing to live up to their promise to provide enough funding to ensure that every child would receive a decent education. And now my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have turned their backs on veterans so that they can give their rich friends a slap on the back. I have heard my colleagues from the other side of the aisle speak at length about their deep respect for the service our veterans have performed for our country. But, I must ask if breaking promises to our veterans is the Republican way of showing them that respect. Is it respectful to mouth the words of respect while allowing our veterans to wait months for doctors' appointments and pay more for services?

These amendments offered a very clear choice: would you rather provide enough money to ensure that veterans receive decent healthcare services or would you rather provide massive tax cuts that benefit millionaires? Who really cares about our nation's veterans? Who is really concerned about the people who have honorably served our country? Our veterans can not afford any more empty respect. I ask my colleagues to put the money where their mouths are and make the financial commitment to get veterans and their families the benefits they deserve.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule, to work to fulfill our obligations to our veterans and to show them our real respect.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill that would help prevent needless death and injury of young children. My bill would require that infant and toddler products are tested before they reach the marketplace. This bill is long overdue.

Many consumers believe that, because a product is on a shelf, it is safe. This is not always true. In most cases, manufacturers are not even required to test the safety of children's products, including baby carriers and high chairs, before putting them on the market. As a consequence, according to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), an average of 65 children under the age of five die each year in incidences associated with nursery products. Furthermore, an estimated 69,500 children under the age of five were treated in U.S. hospital rooms in 2001 for injuries associated with nursery products.

Unfortunately, issuing a voluntary recall once one or more children have been hurt often becomes the only way to know if a product is unsafe. This is unacceptable. Parents and caregivers must have assurance that when they buy a product, it will be safe. Therefore, this bill would not only require the CPSC to issue mandatory safety standards for infant and toddler products, but it would require the testing and certification of these products by an independent third party.

Parents should not have to worry that the products they buy will threaten their children's health and safety. Nor should parents have to wait until they hear on the news that the carrier or crib or high chair that they use has been recalled before they become aware that their child could be in danger. Children's products were recalled, on average, nearly two times per week in 2002 and they accounted for over 11 million individual units. Instead of using recalls as the answer, we should require that the CPSC take steps to ensure that products do not present safety hazards to our children.

I would like to recognize and thank Kids In Danger, an organization in Chicago dedicated to protecting children, for their invaluable input and expertise on children's product safety. It is past due that we give parents the security they deserve and children the safety they need. This bill will accomplish those goals.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) and I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for making it very clear about whether or not we in this country really value work and ordinary workers.

Today is the day, July 25, that millions of child tax credits are going to start to be delivered to families around the country. President Bush went to Philadelphia to highlight those checks, to claim credit for getting some extra money into the pockets of working families.

My two children, each of whom have two children, are probably going to get checks in the mail, and I am happy about it. They are modest- income earners, and they are going to get their tax credit.

But this family, the Narvaez family, Maria and two of her three children, she makes $20,000 a year. She works in a day-care center, she works 40 hours a week. She is not going to get a check in the mail. There is no check in the mail for her family. I want to tell Members that this hardworking woman, I would think, is as deserving of getting a check in the mail.

Let us compare that to Vice President Cheney who made the deal in the dark of night to say well, let us see, the tax breaks went too high. It exceeded our budget; who are we going to cut out? I have got it: Let us cut out families like the Narvaez family.

Vice President Cheney will see a tax break of about $116,000 for 1 year. I am not talking income, I am talking tax break. Mrs. Narvaez, Maria, would have to work 5.8 years to get as much as Vice President Cheney is going to get in 1 year in a tax break.

Let us see, who is more deserving; how about all those people, millionaires who go to work; no, maybe it is millionaires whose work is to cut open those envelopes that have dividend checks in them. Those people, do they deserve it more than the Narvaez family? I do not think so. Let us pass this motion to instruct, and let us get a child tax credit to the Narvaez family.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment that I am so proud to cosponsor along with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), who has done so much on behalf of low-income families.

The Bush administration's budget request for homeless programs was actually slashed in this appropriations bill. In this legislation, funding for homeless programs is $133 million below the administration's budget request, a total request that really does not even come close to addressing the critical problem of homelessness, and the growing problem of homelessness.

A modest amendment would increase HUD's homeless assistance and prevention programs by $83 million to provide desperately needed services for 20,000 homeless children and adults.

Homelessness does not discriminate. It affects people in rural and urban communities, and every single Member of Congress represents constituents who cannot afford a roof over their head. I do not care how wealthy Members think their district is, there are people who do not have a permanent residence.

Despite stereotypes, 39 percent of the homeless are children, and half of all homeless women and children are the victims of domestic violence. Over the course of a year, 3.5 million people will experience homelessness in the United States.

The underlying bill will actually increase the number of homeless people because it takes away vouchers from 85,000 families, including 3,200 families in Illinois. Our amendment would take $83 million from HUD's working capital fund and direct it right to homeless people.

The working capital account, which the money comes from, helps pay for computer upgrades and consultants. While I am sure that the capital account is helpful for HUD, there is no doubt that it is more important to provide housing for those that need it the most. $83 million could fund transitional housing and supportive services that could permanently end homelessness for 20,000 children and adults.

In 2002, Chicago alone had a 22 percent increase in requests for emergency shelter and a 35 percent increase in requests for shelter by families, compared to 2001. In Illinois, 1 million renters in need of housing assistance compete for 230,000 assisted housing units, while 80 percent of the shelters throughout the State reported an increase in family homelessness in the past year. As a result, families with children are being forced to choose between paying their rent, food, heat, and other necessities. This money would help emergency providers give aid to those who need it right now.

The Bush administration itself has stated on several occasions that it wants to end homelessness, and it can. This is not some sort of a problem like a hurricane or a tornado. We can decide to end homelessness, but the problem is, we consistently underfund the housing programs.

In communities like Chicago where our mayor, Mayor Daley, and community leaders have developed an historic 10-year plan to end homelessness, it will not succeed if it does not receive Federal support. I urge the support of this modest amendment to end homelessness.