Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the FY06 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill because it is long overdue that we end the failed policy in Iraq.

I voted against giving the President the authority to go to war against Iraq in October 2002, and I have opposed supplemental funding that would extend the conflict ever since. I ask my colleagues to recall the comments of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld who said in January 2003 that the war would cost ``something under $50 billion.'' Unfortunately, since that time we have appropriated more than $250 billion in supplemental funding alone. And a new study by Columbia University economist Joseph E. Stiglitz, who won the Nobel Prize in economics in 2001, and Harvard lecturer Linda Bilmes concludes that the total costs of the Iraq war could top the $2 trillion mark.

Secretary Rumsfeld also told us in February 2003 that ``it is unknowable how long that [Iraq] conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.'' On May 1st, 2003, President Bush stood on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln and declared Mission Accomplished. And on May 30th, 2005, Vice President Cheney declared that ``I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.'' However, this week we are celebrating the 3 year anniversary of the war, 2176 brave men and women in uniform have died in Iraq since the President declared Mission Accomplished, and it has become clear that the Iraqi civil war that many of us feared would occur has begun.

Although there is an attempt by the Bush administration to convince the American people that our military is helping to quell the sectarian violence, recent events have proven the administration wrong. Our occupation of Iraq has isolated us from a large segment of the international community, and has prevented us from capturing or killing Osama Bin Laden and other Al-Qaeda leaders. The war has also distracted us from two of the most critical issues in the region--the development of nuclear weapons in Iran and the Israeli/Palestinian peace process. In addition, the war has diverted attention and resources from critical homeland security needs. A continued United States presence in Iraq will do nothing but exacerbate these problems.

It is for our brave troops, and for the security of the international community that I cannot vote to continue the war in Iraq. Like everyone, I want to avoid a radical and unstable Iraq in the future. However, I believe that the ongoing presence of the U.S. military in Iraq is putting those brave troops at risk and creating a situation where the majority of Iraqis support U.S. withdrawal.

I know that the Republican supplemental appropriations request will pass the House of Representatives. Our troops will not be stranded in the field. None of us would allow that to occur. And I know that this supplemental will also contain money for important issues such as Katrina relief, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), and assistance to Darfur and Liberia, which I strongly support funding. However, Iraq war funding makes up approximately 80 percent of this supplemental. The Republican majority has employed a cynical tactic to attach worthy causes onto an Iraq war funding bill in an attempt to force members of Congress who oppose the war into voting for it. Also, crafting an ``emergency'' supplemental for a war that is three years old is simply another example of the majority's poor leadership in this Congress.

I would like to encourage all my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring two bills, which if passed together, add up to a sensible policy that would provide our troops with the resources they need to complete a safe and honorable redeployment from their current combat areas.

The first is H.J. Res. 73, known as the Murtha Resolution, which calls for the immediate redeployment of U.S. forces in Iraq, the creation of a quick-reaction and over-the-horizon presence of U.S. Marines in the region, and the pursuit of stability in Iraq through diplomacy. This resolution would allow the U.S. footprint to be minimized on the ground in Iraq, while still providing a military presence that can assist Iraqis in securing their nation. I support this resolution precisely because I want to help our troops who are in harm's way.

The second bill, H.R. 4232, the End the War in Iraq Act introduced by Representative James McGovern, would prohibit funds from being appropriated to deploy, or continue to deploy, U.S. Armed Forces to Iraq. Exceptions to this rule would be made if the funds are being used to provide for the safe and orderly redeployment of U.S. Armed Forces from Iraq, to ensure the security of Iraq and its transition to democratic rule by carrying out consultations with the Government of Iraq, other foreign governments and international organizations, or by providing financial assistance or equipment to Iraqi security forces and international forces in Iraq. In addition H.R. 4232 would permit the use of funds to carry out social and economic reconstruction activities. Simply because we must reposition our armed forces, does not mean we can abandon our obligation to the Iraqi people to help them create a positive future for themselves and future generations.

I am pleased that my colleagues accepted the Lee/Schakowsky/Allen/ Hinchey Amendment which would prohibit permanent military bases from being constructed in Iraq. I will work to make sure this amendment is accepted by the Senate. However, I cannot vote today to continue this misguided war in Iraq. My no vote is an expression for my desire to support our troops and to begin to restore the credibility of America in the eyes of the international community.

Mr. Chairman, as a former teacher, mother, and grandmother, I rise in opposition to H.R. 609, the so-called College Access and Opportunity Act. H.R. 609 represents a major missed opportunity to make college more affordable and accessible, to boost America's economic competitiveness, and to invest in America's future.

The Republican majority is bringing this bill to the floor just 2 months after they passed the Budget Reconciliation Act, which slashed federal student aid programs by $12 billion. H.R. 609 does nothing to reverse this raid on student aid, nor does it do anything to make college loans more affordable. In fact, this bill freezes the authorized level of the maximum Pell grant scholarship. If this bill is passed, Pell grants would be frozen at just $200 above the current level until 2013. This would mean less money to help students go to school.

With millions of American families struggling to pay for college, it is critical that Congress act to make college more affordable. I would like to share with my colleagues part of a letter that a constituent from Des Plaines, Illinois, recently wrote to me:

My son who is out of college for 2 years, makes about

$30,000. His major was public relations, but could not get a

job in that field since he had no experience. So he finally

got a job in sales. Since he went to school in Iowa, we

consolidated his loans with an Iowa firm. His loans were over

$100,000. His monthly payment was about $500 [in addition] he

has the federal loans [amounting to] over $100. As of Feb.

6th he will pay over $700 a month for his private loan plus

his federal loans which will bring him over $850 a month.

This is for the next 20 years . . . I would like for someone

to tell me how does the government expect kids to be able to

make a life for themselves when the interest rates keep going

up on school loans? Why can't students have a lower fixed

rate?

I also understand that when kids get out of college you are

figuring that you will be making enough money to pay their

loans. But what about the kids that aren't engineers,

doctors, or lawyers? What about those average kids who go to

college because they know in order to get a job these days

you need that degree but do not make large salaries and

barely make enough money to live. My kids are used to hard

work, for example, working two jobs. I guess I figured

that once you have that degree, it would be a little

easier to get a job. Obviously, that is not the case.

This is just one of thousands of such stories. The members of the majority must be hearing them too. However, H.R. 609 contains little assistance for the millions of low- and middle-income families who continue to struggle to pay for college. Instead the majority chose to make tax breaks for the wealthy a priority over helping the next generation of Americans go to college.

That is why I encourage all of my colleagues to support the Democratic alternative. The Democratic alternative would cut in half the student loan interest rate for borrowers who are most in need. The substitute also establishes a new Predominantly Black Serving Institution program, a new graduate Hispanic Serving Institution program and Minority Teaching Centers for Excellence to increase the number of highly qualified teachers, including minority teachers. The substitute provides for year-round Pell grants. It establishes a minimum grant of $500,000 for tribal colleges. It repeals the single lender rule, which requires student borrowers to consolidate their loans with their existing lender. Under the substitute, the borrower could choose which lender he or she wishes to use to consolidate loans.

At a time when the United States needs to invest in innovation and education in order to compete in the 21st century, H.R. 609 leads us in the wrong direction. It will force many students to forgo college altogether. For many students, financial barriers are the principal factor that determines whether they will successfully complete college or not. American students need and deserve more affordable college opportunities, not additional barriers to achievement and opportunity. I literally shake my head in wonder at these counterproductive cuts. We should be increasing opportunities for Americans to further their education. The Republican majority has instead given us a shameful sham of a bill.

I urge all of my colleagues to adopt the Democratic alternative and to oppose H.R.

609, the ``Republican Missed College Opportunities'' bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to pay tribute to Chicago Olympic speed skater Shani Davis for his triumphant performance at the 2006 Winter Olympics in Torino, Italy. Shani Davis has achieved excellence at the world's highest level and in doing so he has blazed a new trail in Olympic and speed skating history.

The Olympic Games are a celebration of the sporting spirit that unites all athletes of the world. No performance at the 2006 Winter Olympics was more demonstrative of this spirit than that of Chicago's Shani Davis. On February 18, 2006 he became the first African-American to win an individual gold medal in Winter Olympics history by finishing the 1,000 meter competition in 1 minute 8.89 seconds. Three days later he added to this amazing accomplishment by winning the silver medal in the 1,500 meter event.

On March 19, 2006, with the Olympic flame still burning brightly in his heart, Shani Davis

set a new world record in the men's 1,500-meter event at the International Skating Union all-around speed skating world championships in Calgary, Canada. Davis finished in 1:42.68 lowering the previous world record by 0.1 second (1:42.78).

These remarkable accomplishments are a testament to Shani Davis' courage and reflect his many years of hard work, dedication, and sacrifice. I am particularly proud to know that Shani Davis' journey to sports greatness has deep roots in the 9th Congressional District of Illinois. Shani Davis lived in the Rogers Park neighborhood of Chicago and began his speed skating experience at the tender age of six under the tutelage of Sanders Hicks at the Robert Crown Ice Rink in Evanston. Shani Davis trained and enhanced his skills as a member of the Speed Skating Club at Robert Crown.

Even though he has already established an outstanding speed skating career, I believe that the future will be even richer and brighter for Shani Davis. I have witnessed his interactions with young people and I know his experiences have helped spark their imaginations and inspired them to achieve greatness in their own lives. The lessons of setting high goals, being persistent and believing in yourself are lessons that all children need to learn, lessons that are abundantly evident in the power of Shani Davis' example.

Shani Davis' world record and outstanding contributions to the legacy of the Olympics will forever serve as a source of pride and inspiration for the people of Evanston, Chicago, and all Americans. In honor of his remarkable achievements, I offer Shani Davis this United States flag as a symbol of appreciation, esteem and good wishes. This flag was flown over the United States Capital building in Washington, DC and is a fitting gift for a patriot and champion.

On behalf of the people of the 9th Congressional District of Illinois, I offer Shani Davis my heartfelt congratulations and best wishes for his continued excellence.

Mr. Chairman, 3 months into the implementation of the Medicare drug benefit, one thing is perfectly clear, and that is the ``D'' in part D stands for disaster. Beneficiaries are being bombarded by marketers and have been victimized by fraud. Forty percent of beneficiaries have yet to choose a plan because they remain perplexed and frustrated. $1.2 trillion seniors and people with disabilities deserve better than this.

The Berry amendment would provide beneficiaries an additional 6 months to choose a plan. This is the least that we can do for our senior citizens.

I cannot imagine that any Member has not gone home and found hundreds and thousands of seniors who cannot figure this out. Only a small fraction are computer literate, and they are trying to figure it out.

Let us give these seniors a little more time to try and figure this out. In the meantime, maybe we can fix this plan so that it can be serving them rather than the pharmaceutical companies and the insurance industry.

This is a very, very sensible amendment. I know that there are people on both sides of the aisle who are feeling the pressure just to give a bit more time to our seniors. I hope you will all support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I rise in support of the Waxman-Dingell amendment which is about waste, fraud and abuse. That is it. And this is the full extent of the amendment, eight lines, very simple.

All it says is that none of the funds appropriated or made available by this Act shall be obligated or expended by the Secretary of the Army to any contractor if the Defense Contract Audit Agency has determined that more than $100 million of the contractor's costs for contracts involving work in Iraq under one or more Army contracts were unreasonable.

So we have set up a process to get rid of waste, fraud and abuse. How long does it take to figure that out?

I cannot imagine that anybody in this body wants to fund waste, fraud and abuse, particularly in excess of $100 million. That is what this is about.

Last June, Congressman Waxman released a report documenting a stunning $1.4 billion in questioned and unsupported charges by Halliburton in Iraq. Don't we want to know about that?

Last month, The New York Times reported that the Bush administration ignored 97 percent of the recommendations made by Pentagon auditors and awarded Halliburton over $250 million under its Iraq oil contract. And just last week, a Federal jury found that another firm, Custer Battles, defrauded the government by millions of dollars under just one of its Iraq contracts.

So how does this Congress justify ignoring blatant stealing? Do we not all want to get at that? I mean, too many of our soldiers have been asked to do without proper body armor and equipment, and they come home to reduced benefits, and this Congress has found it easy enough to say no to our soldiers; and yet every single time we have been able to say yes to Halliburton.

Is it not time that all of us agree that it is wrong to have this kind of waste, fraud and abuse and to pass this simple amendment?

I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I am proud to cosponsor the Lee amendment to prohibit any funds from the supplemental from being used to enter into a basing rights agreement between the United States and Iraq. It is clear that the Iraqis, Shiites and Sunnis alike, in overwhelming numbers, do not want us to stay there. And the Secretary of Defense has said that there are no plans or discussions under way to have permanent bases in that country. So this would codify that. This would make sure that that is true.

And yet it has been suggested by top military leaders, including General John Abizaid, as recently as this week, that the United States may want to keep a long-term military presence in Iraq. If true, this is a scheme fraught with danger. As anyone knows that watches television or reads the paper, the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq has been a powerful recruiting tool for the Iraqi insurgency. And General George Casey has agreed with that, saying that by getting our troops out of there that we would take away one of the elements that fuels the insurgency. Please support this amendment. It is good for our troops and good for our country and theirs.

Mr. Speaker, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf has opened a new chapter in Africa's history as its first female head-of-state. Her election marks a turning point for Liberia, a long-time ally of the United States, which has recently been debilitated by war, corruption, and civil strife. I met with President Sirleaf in Liberia three weeks ago and I know she has the skills and vision it will take to rebuild Liberia and bring hope to its people.

In her inaugural speech, President Sirleaf promised to give Liberian women ``prominence in all affairs of our country.'' The 21st Century could well be the century of the woman, not only in Liberia, but around the world. In the past year, first female heads of state were elected in Liberia, Chile, and Germany, and Finland re-elected its first female president. A recent U.S. poll showed that 92 percent of Americans are ready to elect a female president. But for now, Liberia is a step ahead of the United States.

The U.S. and Liberia have long shared close ties, dating back to 1819, when Congress appropriated $100,000 that helped lead to the founding of the country. The end of Liberia's civil war and President Sirleaf's election present a unique opportunity to maximize the close ties between our countries.

I support Congressman Jesse Jackson and Chairman Jim Clyburn's call to include appropriations for Liberia in the President's supplemental request. President Bush has committed to spreading democracy around the world. This is a unique opportunity to build a democracy in a nation that is starting anew. Rewarding Liberia for its democratic progress would send the right signal to other African nations.

President Sirleaf still faces many challenges and will need our support to succeed. Despite its small gross national income, Liberia has $2.56 billion in outstanding international debt. HIV/AIDS is spreading at an increasing rate and 708,000 Liberians, just under a third of the population, receive food assistance each month. U.S. assistance to Liberia has decreased in recent years; it will have to increase for President Sirleaf to meet these humanitarian needs.

President Sirleaf will also need help building democracy. Consolidating the Comprehensive Peace Agreement of 2003 and pursuing transitional justice against war criminals remain immediate priorities. The U.S. should offer its diplomatic backing to encourage other states in the region to help Liberia find resolution.

In her inaugural address, President Sirleaf committed to a new era of democracy, economic renewal, and good governance for Liberia. Upon her second state visit to the United States, we welcome President Sirleaf and offer our support for her mission to lead Liberia to better times.

Mr. Speaker, President Bush went to New York yesterday to tout his confusing and failing prescription drug plan for seniors.

The Bush administration has botched this plan since day one. For one, Medicare itself put out all kinds of wrong information that increased confusion among already frustrated seniors. Second, low-income seniors that were promised an easy transition from State programs to Federal programs ran into huge problems, leaving some seniors no choice but to go without their drugs. Third, States were forced to step in and pick up the tab for the Federal Government's incompetence. It is no wonder that only about five million seniors have willingly signed up for the plan.

Seniors should not be penalized for the Bush administration's incompetence. Unfortunately, that is exactly what will happen if President Bush does not extend the deadline for seniors to sign up for the plan.

Two months from today, May 15, is the deadline for seniors to sign up for a plan; and if they do not, the administration will permanently increase their premium with a 1 percent penalty for every month they wait to sign up.

Democrats want this deadline extended, and we want to fix the drug plan so it works for seniors and the disabled and not just the drug and insurance companies.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 2271, the PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act, which does not correct the core problems with the original act. Republicans and Democrats alike have asked for moderate changes that would have ensured that these extraordinary new powers are directed solely at terrorists and that each new power had meaningful court review. These efforts that would have put the PATRIOT Act in line with the Constitution and American values were ignored. Not only does the bill remain deeply flawed, S. 2271 was brought to the House under suspension, a procedure limiting debate to 40 minutes and preventing any amendments to address the many concerns expressed by organizations and many of my colleagues.

Under S. 2271, the government will still be able to use National Security Letters and secret orders under section 215 to obtain a wide array of private, confidential records--including the medical, financial, library, and bookstore and gun purchase records of individual Americans. The bill requires no evidence linking those records to a suspected terrorist or spy, requires no court oversight or independent review of these secret orders, and prohibits the recipient of such an order from challenging the legality of the order for a year.

Second, this bill adds no meaningful protection for library records. It only exempts libraries from National Security Letters if they don't offer Internet access--and the American Library Association puts the number of libraries without Internet access near zero. With over 30,000 national security letters issued every year and two federal courts ruling NSLs unconstitutional, I continue to have strong concerns that this bill does nothing to protect bookstores, libraries, and their customers from excessive searches by the government.

Third, under this bill the government can still conduct secret physical searches of homes and offices under a vague standard; and notice can be delayed for weeks, months, or even longer. The Justice Department admits that at least 88 percent of such searches conducted between fall of 2001 and spring of 2005 actually had nothing to do with terrorism. The government can search private homes of Americans who have no connection to terrorism and not even inform them that their home was searched.

Finally, roving wiretaps provisions would allow the government agents to eavesdrop on innocent Americans' private conversations without first verifying that a terrorist suspect is actually using the facility or device involved. That means that, on a daily basis, the government can listen in on hundreds, maybe thousands of Americans' private conversations that may not have any connection to terrorism.

Given the Bush Administration's extraordinary assertions of presidential power to authorize the National Security Agency (NSA) to engage in intrusive domestic spying of Americans, it is more vital than ever that Congress reasserts its rightful role by correcting the flaws in the PATRIOT Act. I join the majority of Americans who want to protect our Nation's security while preserving Constitutional freedoms and civil liberties. Towns, cities, counties and states have passed over 400 resolutions in opposition to the PATRIOT Act, including the City of Chicago and Evanston in the 9th Congressional District of Illinois. Sweeping and unnecessary Federal surveillance and unchecked law enforcement powers undermine the rights that are the cornerstone of our democracy.

The PATRIOT Act debate is far from over: secret record searches must be reformed so they are focused on suspected foreign terrorists and not used to invade the private records of ordinary Americans. Congress can, and must, take steps to fix the Patriot Act to keep America both safe and free. I urge my colleagues to reject the PATRIOT Act and instead call for meaningful checks on the PATRIOT Act's extraordinary powers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4472, the Chidren's Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act. By bringing to the floor bills that already passed the House but with a few key provisions stripped, the House leadership is using procedural maneuvers to thwart the bill supported by a bipartisan majority of House members and by a significant majority of Americans. I am particularly outraged that the leadership jettisoned the hate crimes provisions from H.R. 3132, which passed by a strong bipartisan vote of 223 to 199 last September.

While all of us want to protect our children, we cannot fully reduce crime and protect child safety without acknowledging the terrorizing impact that hate-motivated violence has in our society. I have serious concerns with several provisions included in H.R. 4472, most notably the provisions that would impose harsh, new mandatory minimums, expand the number of federal crimes that carry the death penalty, and subject children to adult trials and adult sentences. However, I have more concerns about what is not in the bill. Last September, the House voted to protect children from sexual predators and from the perpetrators of hate-crimes. This bill retreats from that position and will leave our children vulnerable to violence on the basis of their sexual orientation, disability, gender, ethnicity, race or religion. Our children deserve better from us.

I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 4472 and enact long overdue hate crimes legislation that will send a clear message that hate violence has no place in America.

Mr. Speaker, in honor of the 90th birthday of Harry Berger, I am proud to share with my colleagues a tribute to this great American, lovingly written by his son Robert I. Berger. Clearly Mr. Berger is deserving of this recognition by the United States House of Representatives.

Harry Berger was born on March 26, 1916 in Hungary. During World War II, he and his family were forcibly removed from their homes and taken by the Nazis to live in a crowded Jewish ghetto. Not long after, my father, along with other men his age, were taken by German and Hungarian soldiers to work as slave laborers for the balance of the war. After my father was liberated by American soldiers, and unable to return to his home because it was then under Russian control, he obtained a temporary visa to live and work in Brussels, Belgium. It was there that my father met my mother, Helen Berger, a survivor of Auschwitz, with whom he will celebrate 58 years of marriage on February 28, 2006.

My parents, together with me age 2\1/2\, arrived in the United States on January 6, 1952, and settled in the Albany Park neighborhood of Chicago. My sister Margaret was born in Chicago in 1954. My parents and I became naturalized citizens in 1957. In 1964, my parents achieved the American dream and purchased their own home in the Rogers Park neighborhood of Chicago where they lived until 1992 when they moved to Lincolnwood, Illinois.

My father worked as a tailor at Broadlane Clothiers in the Uptown neighborhood of Chicago from the time he arrived in the United States until the store closed in approximately 1980. My father then worked for Lytton's and then Mark Shale on Michigan Avenue, where he was awarded Employee of the Year honors before retiring in 1995.

In addition to having worked hard to provide for his family, my father made time and worked tirelessly for many good causes in the service of others. My father served on the Synagogue Board and Men's Club Board of Congregation Ezras Israel in the Rogers Park neighborhood of Chicago and served two terms as President of the Men's Club and two terms as President of the Congregation. More amazing is that my father served as President of the Congregation when he was in his mid- eighties.

My father was also a Board Member and two term President of the Zionist Organization of Chicago (ZOC), the Chicago chapter of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA). The ZOA is one of the oldest and largest Israel advocacy organizations in the United States. Founded in 1897, to support the establishment of a Jewish state, past presidents of the ZOA include Justice Louis D. Brandeis. In 1996, the ZOC honored my father and mother with the State of Israel Award for their long-time commitment and service to the organization and to the State of Israel.

My father has also helped raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for the State of Israel. In 2001, my father and mother were honored at an Israel Bond Luncheon that raised over one half million dollars in Israel bonds. My father has supported many other Jewish charities including the JUF.

My father has lived in the United States for the past 54 years and has loved all of the ideals for which this country was founded. He has been an exemplary citizen, never taking for granted the freedom and opportunity that this country afforded him and his family. He has voted in every election, he has always kept informed of the issues facing America, and he has worked for candidates for various elective office. My father has lived the American dream. He came to this country a Holocaust survivor and refugee with a wife and young son and barely a penny to his name. He worked hard, bought a home, paid off the mortgage, raised two children, provided for his family, and has and continues to live a decent and productive life.

One of my father's great pleasures is sports. As a young boy in Hungary he loved to play soccer. In his new home, he came to understand and love baseball, football and basketball. He loves the White Sox, Cubs, Bears and Bulls, and would often take me to games on Sundays, his one day off of work. My father's joy was immeasurable when his beloved White Sox finally won the World Series this past Fall.

My father's 90 years, 54 of them in the United States, is an example of what Tom Brokaw called ``The Greatest Generation.'' He provided for his family and found time and energy to help others. His life is to be celebrated and honored.

Mr. Speaker, across the country, there are more than 6 million children living with their grandparents, aunts, uncles or other relatives. In my State of Illinois, 9 percent of the children live with nonparent relatives. Children enter relative care for many reasons: death of a parent, neglect, abuse, military deployment, or poverty. But regardless of the reason, every child deserves a safe home and an opportunity for a good life. I commend grandparents and other relatives who step forward to care for children, keeping them out of foster care while providing safe, stable homes, often at great personal sacrifice. Supportive programs like subsidized guardianship help children exit foster care into the permanent care of nurturing relatives.

Recently, the Pew Commission on Children and Foster Care noted that permanent guardians offer the best hope and future for many of these children. After extensive study, the Pew Commission recommended permanent guardians receive financial assistance in the form of subsidized guardianship. A 2004 study by the University of Illinois showed that States with federally funded subsidized guardianship through IV-E waivers are much more effective in both reducing their foster care rolls and achieving permanence. Subsidized guardianship provides the financial support to make it possible for relative caregivers to provide a permanent and loving home for children, while giving guardianship to the relative instead of the State.

The Guardianship Assistance Promotion, GAP, Act, H.R. 3380, introduced by my colleague Representative Danny K. Davis, is designed to support children living with legal guardians by allowing subsidized guardianship and expanding eligibility to children who are eligible for foster care payments. I urge my colleagues to join this important effort to encourage safe and permanent homes for children in foster care.

Grandparents and other relative caregivers are often the best chance for a loving and stable childhood for the children in their care, but their hard work and dedication often go unnoticed. Today, I offer my deep appreciation for the ongoing service of these caregivers to our children.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4167, the National Uniformity for Food Act. H.R. 4167 is intended to provide uniform food safety warnings and notifications. As written, however, it would hinder my state of Illinois' ability to protect the food supply and to respond quickly to local food safety concerns.

The National Uniformity for Food Act would weaken Illinois' ability to protect its residents from contaminated food by adding a layer of bureaucracy before such food could be removed from the shelves. Eighty percent of the country's food safety inspections are completed at the state and local levels. The bill preempts state food safety rules, which are often more stringent than federal standards and threatens the states' capacity to respond without delay to food safety issues.

For example, in 2002, 40 Illinois school children became sick after eating what appeared to be ammonia-contaminated chicken. Our Department of Public Health issued the necessary embargoes and the product was immediately removed from schools so no other children became ill. H.R. 4167 would prevent our state health department from taking immediate action in a similar situation.

In addition, H.R. 4167 would erect a number of legal hurdles. The bill would force state standards and procedures to be made identical to federal standards and procedures. H.R. 4167 would therefore prevent Illinois from taking action to keep any contaminated product regulated under the Illinois Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act out of the marketplace. For example, the bill would: remove Illinois' ability to take emergency action to keep contaminated food from reaching the public; prohibit Illinois from providing state-level consumer food warnings, including the mercury contamination in fish, the content of fats and oils in food, and the use of pesticides on fruits and vegetables; remove the state's ability to ensure the safety of food and color additives; and preempt state laws that require stores selling alcoholic beverages to post warning signs about the risks of drinking alcohol during pregnancy.

Every year, 76 million Americans suffer from food poisoning resulting in approximately 5,000 deaths. The stakes are only growing now that mad cow disease has been discovered in the United States. In addition, we must remain aware that our food supply is a potential target of terrorism. Now is the time to strengthen, and not dilute, our efforts to detect unsafe food products before they reach grocery store shelves.

I have received nearly 500 letters of opposition to H.R. 4167 from my constituents, in addition to letters of opposition from Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, the Illinois Public Interest Research Group, and Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. Governor Blagojevich writes: ``Regulating and protecting the food supply is a responsibility shared by local, state and federal governments. In fact, approximately 80 percent of food safety inspections in the United States are completed at state and local levels. Therefore, passage of House Resolution 4167, preempting state rules on food supply that may be stronger than federal law, could put Illinois' residents and visitors at risk.'' I cannot support legislation which would hinder Illinois' ability to respond quickly to local food safety concerns. I encourage my colleagues to join me in opposing this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, they pay taxes, raise children, attend church, and participate in community activities and institutions. Yet, when America's day laborers go to work, they have experiences that would shock any other upstanding community member: police harassment, violence at the hands of employers, withheld wages and conditions so dangerous that is not unusual for them to be sidelined for more than a month with work-related injuries or to work for weeks on end in pain. In Illinois and in other States in the Midwest, day laborers work under more dangerous conditions, are more likely to suffer labor abuse, and are also more likely to suffer police harassment compared to workers in other regions.

This is the vivid portrait painted by the first nationwide study of America's 117,600 day laborers. The result of research by social scientists from the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), and New York's New School University, ``On the Corner: Day Labor in the United States,'' presents findings from a survey of 264 hiring sites in 143 municipalities in 20 U.S. States and the District of Columbia.

``The goal was to document a population that, though quite visible on the corners of U.S. cities, is poorly understood by the public and by policy makers,'' said Nik Theodore, an assistant professor in the Urban Planning and Policy Program at UIC, and one of the study's three lead authors. ``We hope to inform policy debates so that decisionmakers can devise thoughtful and effective strategies for resolving many of the problems that day laborers face.''

According to the national study's findings, worker centers give a voice and power to people who often lack both. They are gateway organizations that meet immigrant workers where they are and provide them with a wealth of information and training. In all too many cases, these centers are the only ``port in the storm'' for low-wage immigrant workers seeking to understand U.S. labor and immigration laws, file back wage claims, and organize

against recalcitrant employers. The Latino Union of Chicago runs the only worker center for day laborers in the Midwest, located in the Albany Park neighborhood of Chicago.

If the Border Protection, Anti-Terrorism and Illegal Immigration Act (H.R. 4437) is enacted, this comprehensive community approach would come to an end. It would destroy the very institutions in our communities that have developed real solutions. Day labor centers (and the private individuals, churches and government agencies that work with them) could face thousands or even millions of dollars in fines if they assist in the process of connecting day laborers to employers. The trust that day labor centers have built with communities would be eroded as the centers become responsible for verifying workers' immigration status. Volunteers and staff of worker centers would be turned into criminals and work center property could be seized. Good work, such as providing ESL classes and job skills training or leadership development, would be equated with alien smuggling.

H.R. 4437 and bills with similar provisions don't just jeopardize the lives of some immigrants, they are attacks on all our communities. As a first-generation American and as a Congresswoman who is honored to represent one of the most richly diverse districts in the country, I believe Washington must act now on immigration reform that keeps the American dream alive--not roll back the good work that day labor centers do every day across the Nation.

I urge my colleagues to look at the national study released by UIC and UCLA, which I hope is the first of many, to help us understand the problems day laborers and immigrants face in our country.

On the Corner: Day Labor in the United States

(By Abel Valenzuela, Jr., Nik Theodore, Edwin Melendez, and Ana Luz

Gonzalez)

Executive Summary

This report profiles, for the first time, the national

phenomenon of day labor in the United States. Men and women

looking for employment in open-air markets by the side of the

road, at busy intersections, in front of home improvement

stores and in other public spaces are ubiquitous in cities

across the nation. The circumstances that give rise to this

labor market are complex and poorly understood. In this

report, we analyze data from the National Day Labor Survey,

the first systematic and scientific study of the day-labor

sector and its workforce in the United States.

This portrait of day labor in the United States is based on

a national survey of 2,660 day laborers. These workers were

randomly selected at 264 hiring sites in 139 municipalities

in 20 States and the District of Columbia. The sheer number

of these sites, combined with their presence in every region

in the country, reflects the enormous breadth of this labor

market niche.

Our findings reveal that the day-labor market is rife with

violations of workers' rights. Day laborers are regularly

denied payment for their work, many are subjected to

demonstrably hazardous job sites, and most endure insults and

abuses by employers. The growth of day-labor hiring sites

combined with rising levels of workers' rights violations is

a national trend that warrants attention from policy makers

at all levels of government.

In some cities, the rise of day labor has been accompanied

by community tensions, in part because of inaccurate and

unsubstantiated portrayals of these workers. The aim of this

study is to provide sound empirical data on the day-labor

phenomenon that can inform public discussions and provide the

basis for thoughtful policy approaches to this complex issue.

Mr. Speaker, our country was established as a government `of the people, by the people, and for the people.' The Republican majority has turned it into a government of, by, and for a few of the people. We need to address the Republican culture of corruption and lead the charge to restore honor and dignity to the House of Representatives. America can do better. The American public deserves better.

Mr. Abramoff and his associates have clearly broken the law. It takes two to tango. I believe Republican Members of Congress who put America up for sale should also be held accountable for their corrupt dealings and ``pay for play'' politics that put special interests first at the expense of the priorities of the American people.

Americans pay when lobbyists are granted special access in the legislative process and democratic procedures are abandoned on the floor of the House. Americans pay for the cost of corruption in many ways: a prescription drug bill that puts the greed of pharmaceutical companies ahead of the need of senior citizens for affordable prescription drugs; energy legislation that gives tax breaks and subsidies to oil companies while Americans pay record prices at the pump and for home-heating; and a waiver of liability so that vaccine manufacturers can profit while Americans can be hurt.

To end this culture of corruption and restore integrity and openness to the House, Democratic Leader Pelosi and my Democratic colleagues have introduced the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act that will eliminate the K Street Project that trades legislative access for Republican-only employment, stop the revolving door between government and lobbyists, end the ``dead of night'' special interest provisions, prohibit cronyism in key appointments, and eliminate contracting abuses like those benefiting Halliburton. I support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to enact and vigorously enforce needed reforms.

I am, however, concerned with the proposal to ban all privately- funded congressional travel without making a distinction between social or recreational trips and educational travel. Travel that includes lobbyists funding lawmakers to go to luxurious resorts for golf trips is abuse of House rules, and I believe we need to put an end to it.

But fact-finding trips on the other hand are an important way to educate members of Congress about issues. Banning them would make it harder for Members to get real-world understanding of matters that arise on Capitol Hill. I want to make sure that nonprofit organizations, whether they undertake no lobbying or devote a very small percentage of their budgets to lobbying, are not precluded from taking members on these trips because of this bill. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this issue.

The intention of our Founding Fathers was for Congress to be a marketplace of ideas. Democrats are leading the effort to once again put power where it belongs--in the hands of the American people. I look forward to enacting real reform that addresses serious ethical abuses, increases the transparency and openness of government, and enforces the rules and laws already on the books.

Mr. Speaker, today we honor the 97th Anniversary of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Since the NAACP was founded on February 12, 1909, it has been committed to achieving its goals through non-violence. As the oldest and largest civil rights organization in the United States, NAACP's mission is to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights for all persons and to eliminate racial hatred and racial discrimination. Its half million adult and youth members throughout the United States are the premier advocates for civil rights in their communities.

This resolution allows us to acknowledge the efforts of the NAACP, including its leadership in lobbying for the passage of landmark laws such as the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, and 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the NAACP launched the Disaster Relief Fund, which has raised almost $2 million to aid the survivors in Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, Florida, and Alabama. Once again, the NAACP is helping individuals, families and communities in their efforts to recover from disasters and build for the future.

We also celebrate the life, legacy and struggles of civil rights pioneers. Recently, the nation suffered a tremendous loss with the passing of Mrs. Coretta Scott King and Mrs. Rosa Parks, two phenomenal women who were advocates for civil rights and aided in the mission of the NAACP.

Today, the NAACP remains a valiant crusader for freedom and equality. This anniversary is the occasion to celebrate a heroic past and great achievements and to redouble our efforts for the future. We've come a long way but we have many miles yet to go. I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring the NAACP on its 97th Anniversary.