Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1036, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. This bill unfairly grants the gun industry immunity and takes away an individual's or state's ability to hold gun manufacturers, gun dealers, and gun trade associations accountable to negligence and product liability standards that every other industry is subject to.

The bill perpetuates the gun industry's disregard for public safety and holds up their ``see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil'' approach to gun manufacturing and distribution. The gun industry should be held accountable to its consumers and victims in the same way that every other industry is. As it is, guns are one of the few consumer products that are exempt from health and safety regulations.

Furthermore, this bill would void a number of pending cases around the country which seek to hold the gun industry accountable for its actions. Specifically, if passed into law, this bill would nullify a case currently moving through the Illinois Supreme Court. The case was brought against a number of gun manufacturers, gun distributors, and gun dealers by the City of Chicago and Cook County who allege that these entities have created a public nuisance by making guns available to juveniles in the Chicago area. No one can dispute that kids have access to guns. A nationwide survey conducted by the Illinois based Teenage Research Unlimited found that 41 percent of teenagers surveyed reported that they could get a handgun if they really wanted to. Furthermore, the Chicago Police Department reported that, in 1999, 165 offenders under the age of 21 were charged with murders involving a firearm.

One death by a handgun is too many. But when 666 people are murdered in one year in just one city, as was the case in Chicago in 2001, we must wake up to reality and demand that something be done. Unfortunately, this bill takes us backwards and gives immunity to the very industry that has the power to regulate the manufacturing and distribution of its products.

I am disappointed that this bill is on the House floor today, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1036.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bipartisan bill that would establish a program for transitional housing assistance for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. Passage of this legislation is long overdue, as thousands of women and their children continue to suffer at the hands of their abusers simply because they have no where else to go.

I am proud to be joined in this effort by my colleague from the other body, Senator Patrick Leahy, who is introducing identical legislation today. I would also like to commend the 25 bipartisan cosponsors who have joined me in seeking relief and assistance for abused women and children. No time is more appropriate than the present to introduce a bill that seeks to help those who have suffered violence in their personal lives and in their homes.

Senator Leahy and I recognize and understand the complex issues facing women and their children who want nothing more than a safe and secure home. Transitional housing is often the link between emergency housing and a victim's ability to become self-sufficient. This bill opens the doors to new opportunities for survivors because, in addition to a roof and a bed, transitional housing programs also offer supportive services, such as counseling, job training, access to education, and child care. These tools are critical to allowing women to get back on their feet and to be able to support their children in a home that is free from violence.

This bill would authorize $30 million for each fiscal year from 2004 through 2008. The program would be added to the Violence Against Women Act and would be funded through the Violence Against Women Office in the Department of Justice. With 50% of homeless women on the streets because of domestic violence, it is critical that we address the unique needs of this large and vulnerable population. The Violence Against Women Office has the unique understanding and ability to help these women and children.

It is now essential that we not only pass this legislation but also appropriate $30 million for transitional housing assistance and provide this critically needed safety net for women seeking to escape abuse. The women and children of this country deserve nothing less.

Mr. Speaker, Education Secretary Roderick Paige has lost credibility. Following his deeply troubling comments in Baptist Press proclaiming the importance of teaching Christian values in public schools, it is evident that Secretary Paige cannot be an unbiased advocate for all public school students.

I am not concerned with Secretary Paige's personal religious beliefs. Many of us were raised in religious traditions and with faith-based values that have led many of us to serve in this body--the desire to help out those in need, to care for our neighbors, and to be good members of the global community.

Secretary Paige's views, however, are offensive because they reflect on how he will undertake his Constitutional responsibility: to provide the best educational opportunities for all students in the United States. Our nation was built on the idea of separation of church and state. Article I of our great Constitution requires that there be no established religion. This was not an afterthought by the Founding Fathers--it was clearly and forcefully stated at the very outset. By expressing his preference for parochial education and criticizing public schools for not teaching religious values, Secretary Paige violated that founding principle.

Secretary Paige has forcefully described his preference for schools that have ``a strong appreciation for the values of the Christian community.'' He has described Christian schools and universities as having a ``strong value system'' that is ``not the case in a public school where there are so many different kids with different kinds of values.'' How then can the parents of children in public schools--which educate 90 percent of all children in our country--believe that Secretary Paige's bias against public education will not be reflected in his policies? How can they be assured that he

will not direct funds and resources to the parochial schools to which he would prefer to send his children and away from the public schools that educate the vast majority of American children?

Clearly, Secretary Paige is refusing to embrace the diversity reflected in our public schools. In a nation that is increasingly diverse, equating good values with Christian values is disrespectful to all non-Christian believers and to all non-believers. Personal faith must never be allowed to dictate government policy.

Through his statements, Secretary Paige has shown that he cannot be relied upon to fulfill his responsibilities. He should resign voluntarily. If not, President Bush should demand his resignation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about one particular provision that I am very pleased to say has been included in this conference report, though there are several others I strongly support and others about which I have already expressed my concern.

Section 611 establishes a program for transitional housing assistance for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. My colleague from the other body, the senior Senator from Vermont, and I have introduced companion legislation establishing a transitional housing grant program. Today, I want to acknowledge and thank the Senator for working so hard to successfully get the language from these bills included in the conference report.

We are trying to protect children from violence. The AMBER Alert system is certainly one way to do it, but unfortunately, children are exposed to violence in their own homes. The transitional housing program is often the link between emergency housing and a victim's ability to become self-sufficient.

Transitional housing not only provides a roof and a bed, but it offers supportive services, such as counseling, job training, access to education, and child care. These tools are critical to allowing women to get back on their feet and to be able to support their children in a home that is free from violence. And we are also then able to get children out of homes where they may have been the victims and or witnesses of abuse.

Now, it is essential that we not only pass this bill, but that we have appropriate the $30 million provided in this legislation for transitional housing. The women and children of this country deserve nothing less, and I urge my colleagues to votes ``yes'' on this conference report.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Boehlert-Markey amendment, which saves oil by increasing fuel economy standards for autos and light trucks. Increasing the standard will reduce the amount of oil the Nation must now import.

Research tells us by simply increasing average fuel efficiencies on cars, SUVs, and light trucks from 24 to 39 miles per gallon over the next decade would save 51 billion barrels of oil, more than 15 times the likely yield from the Arctic.

The technology is there. It is about time we utilize it. Our children are looking to us to leave them with a safe and healthy environment. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Markey- Boehlert amendment, which saves oil by increasing fuel economy standards for autos and light trucks. This amendment requires the Department of Transportation to promulgate rules to ensure that the total amount of oil cars and light trucks will consume in the year 2010 will be 5 percent less than the total amount they would otherwise consume if the average fuel economy standards were to remain at 2004 levels. Raising the standard will ensure that such technology will lead to an improvement in the overall fleet rather than simply offsetting other less fuel efficient vehicles. Increasing the standard will reduce the amount of oil the nation must now import.

According to the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), by simply increasing average fuel efficiency on cars, SUVs, and light trucks from 24 to 39 miles per gallon over the next decade, we would save 51 billion barrels of oil--more than 15 times the likely yield from the Arctic. Plus you get oil savings as you ramp up to the full 40 mpg. Instead of investing in renewable energy sources and raising CAFE standards, the Bush Administration continues to increase our dependency on oil and ruin our environment. The environmental policies of the administration are detrimental to our environment, present and future, and they must be reversed.

The National Academy of Sciences said in its 2001 Effectiveness and Impact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards report that ``General economic conditions, and especially the globalization of the automobile industry, seem to have been far more important than fuel economy regulations in determining the profitability and employment shares of the domestic automakers and their competitors.'' They also stated that ``it is technically feasible and potentially economical to improve fuel economy without reducing vehicle weight or size and, therefore, without significantly affecting the safety of motor vehicle travel.''

The technology is there and it is about time we utilize it. Our children are looking to us to leave them with a safe and healthy environment and we need to start taking actions to meet this goal. I urge my colleagues to support the Markey-Boehlert amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this proconsumer substitute offered by the distinguished ranking member. This important amendment will help protect consumers from price gouging, collusion, blackouts, and anticompetitive practices in the electric energy market.

This amendment preserves PUHCA, the Public Utility Holding Company. For the past 7 decades, PUHCA has helped prevent electric energy companies from ripping off consumers by manipulating the market. This is very important because energy is not just another commodity; it is a necessity, like

food and shelter. Consumers need to be protected from unfair business practices.

This amendment enhances FERC's antifraud authority, requires FERC to ensure that consumers are not charged exorbitant rates due to market manipulation. When they are overcharged, this amendment would guarantee a chance to recover meaningful refunds.

This amendment is supported by all of the major consumer organizations. Do not turn your back on your constituents. Vote for the Dingell amendment. It is a vote for consumers, not energy executives.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The fundamental premise to this amendment is flawed. We have not successfully ordered a new nuclear reactor in this country for over 20 years. Why? Because Wall Street investment bankers have done the numbers and found that the life-cycle cost of a nuclear plant far exceeds the costs of a modern combined-cycle natural gas turbine, a coal plant, or even a wind generator. The free market has said no to new nuclear reactors, and the gentleman's amendment is an attempt to overturn the verdict of the free market with governmental intervention into private electricity generation markets.

I would suggest this is not the direction we should be moving in. We have deregulated electricity generation in many parts of the country. Why should we get the DOE into the business of generating electricity for the civilian power grid at a Federal facility?

This amendment is clearly bad energy policy, but it is also bad nuclear nonproliferation policy. This country has long had a strong policy of maintaining a clear distinction between the civilian and military uses of nuclear energy. Eight years ago, in 1995, the House voted to kill funding for the so-called ``triple play'' reactor being planned for the DOE Savannah River site. This reactor would have burned fuel fabricated from dismantled nuclear weapons, produced tritium for the existing nuclear weapons stockpile, and generated electricity for the civilian electricity grid. At that time, the House recognized the need to maintain the historic separation between atoms for peace and atoms for war. Now is not the time to reverse that policy.

We are nearing the end of a war whose principal objective has been to halt the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, a war in which our Armed Forces destroyed bomb factories while leaving civilian power plants standing. Let us not undermine our credibility as a world leader on nonproliferation by moving towards blurring the distinction between civilian and military nuclear programs. To pass this amendment would be to breach the 57-year separation between atoms for peace and atoms for war. We cannot credibly preach nuclear temperance from a bar stool. If we are mixing our civilian and military nuclear programs in the United States, then the rest of the world will not pay much heed to our admonitions to refrain from using their civilian nuclear energy programs for military purposes. Please vote ``no'' on the Barrett amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment addresses a serious problem that exists at several U.S. Government agencies, including the Department of Energy. It seeks to put Congress on record in support of strengthened protections against waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayer funds at the Department of Energy.

The amendment expresses the sense of Congress that:

(1) the Secretary of Energy should develop and implement

more stringent procurement and inventory controls, including

controls on the purchase card program, to prevent waste,

fraud and abuse of taxpayer funds by employees and

contractors of the Department of Energy; and

(2) the Department's Inspector General should continue to

closely review purchase card purchases and other procurement

and inventory practices at the Department.

Since 1998, the Inspector General at the Department of Energy has conducted 20 reviews at 11 different sites. As a result of the reviews, it was found that the Department of Energy employees illegally misused government purchase cards to acquire such unofficial items as home improvement products, hunting equipment, electronics, lawn equipment, and power tools, all for personal, not official, use.

The DOE Inspector General has also reported that Department of Energy employees have undertaken other complex and illegal schemes to acquire items for personal use, such as generating fraudulent invoices to mask making those purchases, providing kickbacks to suppliers who agreed to participate in quid pro quo schemes, circumventing Department policies and procedures by allowing employees to approve their own purchase card transactions, and acquiring goods for personal use that were delivered to nondepartment locations.

Such problems have led the General Accounting Office ``to designate DOE contract management, defined broadly to include both contract administration and management of the projects, as a high-risk area for fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement.''

The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Energy and Commerce held two hearings this year to review illegal procurement practices at the Los Alamos National Laboratories. Thanks to brave whistleblowers and the Inspector General, Los Alamos personnel were caught using thousands of taxpayer dollars to buy items like sunglasses, hunting knives and, get this, lock-picking sets, golf equipment, sleeping bags, and more. One employee even attempted to purchase a Ford Mustang using her Federal Government purchase card. Another employee used her government purchase card at local casinos.

While some of the more newsworthy examples are about the purchase card program, other problems exist with inventory and procurement control in general. The IG has also reported hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of ``unlocated, lost, or stolen'' items, including desktop computers, laptop computers, cameras, computer printers, radio transceivers, video recorders, and telephones.

These examples are just the tip of the iceberg.

Passage of this noncontroversial amendment will put us all on record in support of additional efforts to root out this kind of shameful abuse of taxpayer funds.

Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to support the Schakowsky amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. Chairman, I am deeply disappointed that we cannot just all agree that we must adequately fund our homeland security needs. The McGovern-Skelton-DeLauro amendment moves us in the right direction, cutting $61 million in the bill for Colombia and redirecting resources to State and local first responders. I wholeheartedly support this proposal.

Having traveled to Colombia, I know it is important for the United States to support our neighbor. However, I cannot support sending additional millions above the billions we have already sent to that country to be used for military equipment and military purposes in a failed counternarcotics and counterinsurgency effort. I cannot support this effort, because despite increased U.S. aid to Colombia, the violence in that country persists.

According to the State Department, the Colombian Government is still implicated in gross human rights abuses. I certainly cannot support sending additional U.S. dollars to Colombia for the wrong reasons, before guaranteeing my constituents that our homeland security needs are met. We are far from being able to make that guarantee.

As of today, every single municipality in my district has informed me that their homeland needs are desperately underfunded. One firefighter in my district told me that he prays every single day when he goes to work that no terrorist attack will occur, because the city he works in, despite all of its best efforts, does not have the necessary resources to respond.

The war in Iraq has exacerbated the problem. Firefighters and police officers from my district have been deployed to the Persian Gulf and their departments do not have the funds to hire replacements. Coast Guard cutters controlling the Great Lakes for suspicious vessels have been redeployed to the Persian Gulf, and our public health infrastructure is not equipped to handle terrorist attacks that have been identified as greater threats to our security than Iraq or the war in Colombia.

How dare we send more money to Colombia, ostensibly for its security, than we are sending to first responders in 49 States in our own Nation? I urge all Members to correct this misguided approach to national security. Support the McGovern-Skelton-DeLauro amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about a silent killer lurking among us and our children. That killer comes in the form of food-borne illnesses and affects 76 million people each year. Of those individuals, approximately 325,000 will be hospitalized and more than 5,000 will die. While many adults will be fortunate to avoid the devastating, lasting effects of food-borne illness, our children are especially vulnerable and comprise nearly 40 percent of the victims.

Each day, more than 27 million children eat lunches provided through the National School Lunch Act. Despite increased attention in recent years to the safety of those meals provided to our school children, there is evidence of serious problems with our school lunch system. Between 1990 and 2000, there were nearly 100 reported outbreaks of food-borne illness in schools affecting thousands of children, many of them resulting in significant health consequences.

I attended a hearing last year examining food safety standards in our schools and found significant gaps in how we protect our children from these dangerous illnesses. Only 17 percent of the food served in our schools is subject to stringent United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) safety guidelines for dangerous pathogens. Safety histories of the companies that supply food to our schools are not being shared with the school officials who purchase the food. If the USDA or FDA quickly announce that a manufacturer has produced tainted food, states often have no way to determine if they have that food in their schools' kitchens due to a complex web of food manufacturers, distributors and brokers. The federal government has no authority to mandate the recall of contaminated foods sold to schools.

Today, along with Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, I am introducing a bill that will address these concerns. The Safe School Food Act incorporates USDA safety guidelines into school procurement contracts to the maximum extent possible, giving the Secretary of Agriculture authority to require pathogen testing of foods purchased by schools, providing state education agencies with current vendor information, developing effective methods to share supplier safety information with schools, allowing for mandatory recall of any tainted food, and providing districts with tools and information on how to more safely prepare food served to our children.

Our food supply has been identified as a possible target of terrorists and we need to protect it and protect our children. This is a very serious issue and we must do all we can to ensure the safety of our children.

I urge my colleagues to support the Safe School Food Act and support the well-being of our children.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, not only for yielding to me, but for organizing this opportunity for us to come to the floor.

Last Friday, I spoke to a group of veterans in my district. They were mostly World War II and Korean War veterans, and of course, I thanked them profusely for their service to our country. And they appreciated it, but what they wanted to know and where most of the questions were was, what is happening to our benefits? I told them about the President's budget proposal, and they did not appreciate that.

We have all been making a lot of speeches lately and offering resolutions, and they are eloquent and they are flowery, and yes, they are heartfelt speeches and resolutions, expressing support for our troops; and I am not denying the sincerity or even the importance of making those supportive gestures. Speeches and resolutions do not provide health care, and they do not provide education, and they do not provide pensions, and they do not provide burial benefits.

Budgets are a statement of values and priorities, and what the veterans are finding out is that they are not a priority in the President's budget and they are not a priority of the Republican leadership. And not only that, despite all the sacrifices that they have made and, as we speak, the sacrifices that are being made, they are being asked to sacrifice yet again in the form of a $28 billion cut in benefits and in health care.

What we know when it comes to dollars and cents is that veterans across Illinois are going to suffer from President Bush's proposed budget. A report that was released by the Democratic staff of the Committee on Government Reform concluded that the changes, that is, the $28 billion in cuts, would cause over 65,000 Illinois veterans, including an estimated 36,000 veterans enrolled at VA facilities in the Chicago area, to be denied VA health care or to drop out of the VA system while increasing costs for thousands more.

First, President Bush would halt enrollment to Priority 8 veterans, denying them access to VA care. The report found that as a result of this proposed suspension, 173,000 veterans nationwide would be denied care, including 7,160 in Illinois, of which 4,000 are in the Chicago area.

Second, President Bush would require the VA to charge all Priority 7 and Priority 8 veterans currently in the system a $250 annual enrollment fee in order to receive service. As a result of the fee, the VA estimates that 55 percent of enrolled Priority 7 and 8 veterans would be forced to drop out of the VA system nationwide, including 32,000 veterans in the Chicago area.

Finally, a third set of provisions would increase copayments for Priority 7 and 8 veterans who do stay enrolled in the VA program. The copayments for primary care payments would increase by 33 percent from $15 per visit to $20 per visit. The copayments for prescription drugs would more than double, increasing from $7 to $15 for 30-day prescriptions. On average, the report concluded, veterans would have to pay a $97 a year increase in copayments, plus the new enrollment fee of $250. However, many veterans can see an increase of almost $600 a year.

I did not support the Republican budget resolution and instead supported the Democratic substitute which would have restored funding for mandatory veterans benefits, including compensation for service- connected disabilities, burial benefits, pensions for permanently disabled, low-income veterans, education benefits, rehabilitation benefits and housing loan programs. Unfortunately, for our veterans and our soldiers currently in the U.S. Armed Forces, the Democratic substitute was voted down.

While our veterans suffer, the administration continues to cut taxes that only favor the rich. While our veterans endure hardship, the administration continues to send our men and women into battle with no guarantees of a safe and healthy life for them and their families when they return home.

Speeches and resolutions are fine, but they are woefully insufficient. Our veterans, those who have served in the past and the veterans of the future, who are risking their lives right now, as we speak, deserve better. It is time for the Republican leadership to put its money where its mouth is.

Mr. Speaker, the Smallpox Emergency Personnel Protection Act (H.R. 1463) is being rushed to the House floor today for a vote under suspension, denying us the opportunity to amend this bill to ensure that the compensation we offer our first responders is both adequate and meaningful. I have serious concerns both about the deficiencies in H.R. 1463 and the process by which it was brought to the floor. This is an ill-considered bull that fails to provide adequate compensation for persons volunteering for the smallpox inoculation and, therefore, will undermine the very goal of encouraging first responders to participate in the vaccine program. Three recently immunized military personnel and civilian health care workers have died of fatal heart attacks and Federal health experts are investigating at least 15 more cases of possible cardiac reactions to the immunization. Given recent events such as these, the limitations of H.R. 1463 will likely result in even more refusals by first responders to volunteer for the smallpox vaccine.

H.R. 1463 fails to offer meaningful compensation, does not have guaranteed funding, and attempts to coerce first responders into getting inoculated. It will not work. That is why it is opposed by many organizations representing first responders, including the American Nurses Association, International Union of Police Associations, International Association of Firefighters, American Federation of Teachers, American Public Health Association, Infectious Diseases Society of America, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and the Service Employees International Union.

H.R. 1463 is based on the false assumption that nurses, firefighters and other first responders will be compensated by other benefit programs, such as workers' compensation and health insurance. In the case of smallpox, however, there are no guarantees that a person injured by the smallpox vaccine will be covered by workers' compensation or will be adequately insured. In fact, there are only 14 States where it appears at all certain that claims for benefits will be honored by the State workers' compensation program, based on a recent survey by the AFL-CIO. As a result, those injured by the smallpox vaccine may receive far less total compensation than other first responders currently covered by their Public Safety Officers Benefit program.

If, for example, under H.R. 1463, a 30-year-old nurse were permanently injured or killed as a result of the vaccine, she or her survivors would be eligible for a one-time lump sum payment of $262,100. This amount is equivalent to 5 years' pay for the average nurse. This is not adequate compensation for a nurse unable to work, her family or her survivors. Partial and temporary disabilities as a result of the smallpox vaccine are also arbitrarily capped with a lifetime payout at $262,100. Compensation should be provided to workers for the duration of disability or to survivors' families until the spouse remarries or the children are no longer minors. If workers are worried about their economic security, and that of their families, they for good reason will continue to be reluctant about getting the vaccination.

Although the compensation offered through H.R. 1423 is scant at best, our first responders cannot even rely on benefits offered because there is no guaranteed funding. H.R. 1423 is funded by discretionary spending and would be subject to the annual appropriations process. Funding for compensation and medical care should be mandatory spending, similar to the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program for injuries due to childhood vaccines. Workers should not have to worry each year about whether there will be an adequate appropriation to provide promised benefits and medical care.

As if lack of compensation and funding did not make this bill already untenable, H.R. 1423 attempts to coerce workers into getting the vaccine. Current workers must receive the vaccination within 180 days following the issuance of interim final regulations in order to be eligible for compensation. New hires must be vaccinated within 120 days of hire to be eligible. There is no exception in the event that the public health department is unable to meet the deadline or a worker has a temporary condition that prevents immediate vaccination, such as pregnancy or the presence of an infant at home. Smallpox vaccination should be voluntary. When legislation only allows first responders to be eligible for compensation if they are vaccinated within months of the bill's passage, we know that people on the front line are being manipulated into getting the vaccine and getting it quickly.

Our first responders deserve better. They deserve a full and fair smallpox compensation package. Unfortunately, we do not have the opportunity to correct the deficiencies in H.R. 1463 because we are denied the opportunity to consider amendments. I oppose H.R. 1463 and look forward to voting on an effective alternative when the bill is brought under a rule that allows for a full and fair opportunity for amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in reluctant support of H.R. 1104, the Child Abduction Prevention Act. While there are some provisions in this bill which I oppose, I feel it is crucial that the House pass legislation as soon as possible that would help foster the establishment of a coordinated, national AMBER Alert system.

I believe that the government must do all it can to facilitate the expansion of the AMBER Alert program which has been credited with recovering at least 27 children. I am proud to say that Illinois has a statewide AMBER Alert program. However, I am disappointed that the House leadership did not give us the opportunity to vote on a stand- alone AMBER Alert bill, H.R. 412, of which I am a cosponsor, and instead forced us to vote on a bill that includes controversial provisions.

Specifically, this bill expands cases in which the death penalty can be imposed. I strongly oppose capital punishment, and therefore oppose this provision. In addition, this bill includes an amendment which I voted against which turns the Sentencing guidelines into little more than mandatory minimum sentencing laws by revising the standards and procedures under which a judge can depart from sentencing guidelines in order to account for specific circumstances. I oppose this provision because I strongly oppose mandatory minimum sentencing laws. This provision not only overturns an important Supreme Court decision which left some room for judicial discretion in sentencing, but, like other mandatory minimum sentencing laws, it takes away a judge's ability to be fair and exacts a one-size-fits-all standard on our judicial system.

It is my hope that this bill will move to Conference with the Senate and that the majority of these controversial provisions will be stripped out in order to pass a clean AMBER Alert bill. We should not be tainting a bill that is intended to help recover missing children with provisions that threaten the fairness and justice of our judicial system. I urge my colleagues to put aside their own agendas to ensure that all states have the ability to start their own AMBER Alert programs and work together so that families of abducted children will have some hope of the real possibility that their child could soon be returned to them.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 14, the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act. There are provisions in this bill that will provide much needed resources for child abuse prevention, assistance for victims of child abuse and family violence, and adoption opportunities. In particular, I am very pleased that this bill authorizes $25 million for each of the fiscal years 2004 through 2008 for transitional housing for victims of domestic violence. It is my sincere hope that this bill will pass and the funding for transitional housing will be appropriated as soon as possible.

Transitional housing has been shown to prevent domestic violence and mitigate its effects. Unfortunately, many women who leave their abusers lack adequate resources and, with a shortage of emergency shelter and transitional housing options, are forced to choose between abuse at home or life on the streets. Yet, despite the fact that 50 percent of homeless women and children are fleeing domestic violence, there is currently no federal funding for transitional housing specifically for those victims.

It is critical that transitional housing be available to all those fleeing domestic abuse if we want to see an end to this violence. Transitional housing resources and services provide a continuum between emergency shelter provisions and independent living. A stable, sustainable home base for women and their children in transitional housing allows women the opportunities to learn new job skills, participate in educational programs, work full-time jobs, and search for adequate child care in order to gain self-sufficiency. Without such resources, many women eventually return to situations where they are abused and even killed.

In addition to supporting the funding for transitional housing as provided in H.R. 14, I am currently preparing to reintroduce the Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Victims Housing Act. This bill would authorize $50 million a year to the Violence Against Women Office to award grants to provide transitional housing to women and their children escaping violence. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

However, supporting measures such as H.R. 14 and the Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Victims Housing Act are only the first step in making sure that Congress works to end the cycle of violence against women. It is crucial that Congress take the next step of actually making the money available. The House has authorized funding for transitional housing for domestic violence victims multiple times, yet has never appropriated a single dollar for this purpose. Therefore, I strongly urge my colleagues to follow through on their support for transitional housing and appropriate money for this purpose in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2004 budget.

Victims of domestic violence deserve nothing less than our full commitment to providing adequate resources that will help them rid their lives of violence forever and rebuild

healthy lives for themselves and their children. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 14.

Mr. Speaker, today, in celebration of Women's History Month, I rise to honor a woman from my district in Chicago, Mollie Lieber West, for her outstanding work and dedication to organizing women within the labor movement. Her leadership has opened

the door to thousands of women to join unions and stand up for their rights in the workplace.

Barely off the boat from Poland, Mollie West became an organizer and a person who stood her ground. She was arrested for passing out leaflets in protest of her high schools' decision to discharge all the music, art, and gym teachers because of budget constraints. Soon after, Mollie was demonstrating in support of the Republic Steel strikers in South Chicago. She found herself in them midst of the Memorial Day Massacre of 1937 where ten workers were killed by police bullets and were she, too, felt the pressure of a pistol at her back as she was ordered off the field.

Later, after working for various unions, she became a professional proofreader, and joined the Chicago Typographical Union. An active member and a delegate to the Chicago Federation of Labor, Mollie became the voice for women laborers. She successfully lobbied for the establishment of an annual tribute to the Trade Union Women of Chicago, which continues to flourish today.

Another of Mollie's great achievements was helping to found the Coalition of Labor Union Women (CLUW) in 1974. Today CLUW has a network of more than 75 chapters and a membership of 20,000 women and men. The goals of CLUW include promoting affirmative action in the workplace, strengthening the role of women in unions, organizing women workers, and increasing the involvement of women in the political and legislative process.

For the last twenty years, Mollie has served as an officer and a volunteer of the Illinois Labor History Society. From that platform, Mollie has been able to pass on her memories of the struggle to audiences across the country. In addition, she has continued to stay involved in electoral politics at all levels. To this day, you can always count on Mollie's voice to be among those fighting for the rights of all women workers.

Today, I ask you to join me in honoring Mollie for all she has contributed to working women everywhere!

Mr. Chairman, in his speech to the Nation on Monday, the President said, ``War has no certainty but the certainty of sacrifice.'' Many in our country are sacrificing. That list begins with the hundreds of thousands of brave young men and women who as we speak are putting their very lives on the line in Iraq out of a sense of duty to their country. But there is one small group of Americans who are not only not being asked to sacrifice, but get huge new benefits in the Republican budget. That would be the millionaires, the richest of the rich, who get most of the $1.4 trillion tax cut in this Republican budget. Warren Buffett, who opposes tax cuts, would get $300 million just from elimination of the stock dividend taxes.

Sacrifice, it seems, is only for the little people. The children sacrifice. Head Start is cut. Health insurance, college loans, school lunch programs are cut. Veterans are asked to sacrifice, again. Veterans disability, education and health care benefits, cut. Seniors, cuts in Medicaid for nursing home care, and forget a meaningful prescription drug benefit under Medicare. Not enough money in the Republican budget.

Homeland Security, for crying out loud, a pathetic .8 percent increase, even more when we are at orange alert and even though only when 2 percent of containers are inspected at ports.

The country is hurting from a struggling economy and war, but this Republican budget shamefully pours salt in the wound. A vote for the Congressional Black Caucus/Progressive Caucus budget is a vote for America's working families.