Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 256 because this bill puts credit card companies ahead of children.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Yes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) to offer this motion on behalf of our brave citizen soldiers who are risking their lives for us and then, as a thank you, risking their homes and their businesses, too. Our motion simply shields financially distressed National Guard and Reservists from the means test found in S. 256 while they are in service and for the 2 years after they have transitioned back to civilian life if a substantial portion of their debt is due to their service.

This motion is a narrow protection for those who suffer financial hardship, financial disaster, as a direct result of serving our country. It builds on Senator Durbin's amendment to the Senate bankruptcy bill which exempts from the bill's means test disabled veterans if their debts were incurred primarily when they were on active duty or performing homeland defense duties.

Regardless of Members' position on the overall bill, we owe it to those who risk their lives and their livelihoods to prevent financial catastrophe caused by their service. This motion is the least we can do to ease their pain.

According to the National Guard, 4 out of 10 members of the guard and reserve forces lose income when they leave their civilian jobs for active duty. Many left for the war thinking they would be deployed for 6 months and have ended up staying for a year or even longer and may be shipped out again. There is no reasonable way they could have financially anticipated and prepared for those extensions of their service. Their families struggle to pay the bills. Some face the reality of losing their homes, as this cartoon depicts: Tie a yellow ribbon around the old oak tree, and for some of those returning from Iraq, it is a foreclosure sign around their house.

Many Guard and Reservists are self-employed or run small businesses and face the daunting task of reestablishing their businesses after their release from active duties. The 2 years after they return from service are the

most difficult, and we owe it to them to provide a safe harbor from the means test.

Since 9/11, approximately 470,000 Guard and Reservists have been called to active duty, tens of thousands more than once. Some of these patriotic Americans are facing financial crisis not because they are exploiting loopholes in the bankruptcy law, they are not scheming to avoid paying their debts, they are in a financial hole their country dug for them.

Some will argue we do not need this motion because our solders are already covered by the Servicemembers' Civil Relief Act, but that is not true. Even with that minimal help, many are forced to file for bankruptcy and the relief act provides no assistance once they file. It is hard enough under current law for them to pick up the pieces. The special circumstances and sacrifices of Guard and Reserve forces require that we not make recovery even harder for them. Soldiering is not their livelihood, but they take it on. They leave their day-to-day lives and jobs behind because their country asks them to do so. Exemption from the means test is the least we can do to tell our citizen soldiers and their families not only do we appreciate the physical and emotional risks they have taken, we recognize their financial risk.

To do any less than this simple, narrow protection would be morally bankrupt.

Disabled American Veterans,

Washington, DC, April 1, 2005.

Hon. John Conyers, Jr.,

Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on the Judiciary,

Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Conyers: The Disabled American Veterans

(DAV) is a nonprofit organization of more than one million

veterans disabled during time of war or armed conflict. The

DAV is the official voice of our nation's service-connected

disabled veterans, their families, and survivors.

On behalf of the DAV, I ask you please keep in mind the

sacrifices of the brave men and women of our Armed Forces as

you consider S. 256, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and

Consumer Protection Act of 2005.

Returning service members often experience financial

difficulties during their transition back to civilian life.

They should be afforded protections to ensure that the

already significant burdens upon military members and their

families are not compounded by unintended consequences from

this bill. Specifically, disabled veterans who incur debt

during the initial 24 months following completion of active

duty should not be subject to the bankruptcy means test. Such

heroic citizens deserve the utmost consideration with regard

to bankruptcy laws.

Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to

continuing to work with you to ensure better lives for

America's service-connected disabled veterans and their

families.

Sincerely,

Joseph A. Violante,

National Legislative Director.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), a champion for our service men and women.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Republican budget of mass destruction and in support of the Democratic and Congressional Black Caucus alternative budgets which recognize the true needs and values of our Nation.

We do not need to call in weapons inspectors to find the threat to the majority of Americans in this budget, nor do we need a warning system. We know exactly what, when, and where the damage will be because the Republican budget, once again, puts the tax cuts of the few above the needs of the many.

Under the Republican budget, the vast majority of Americans are asked to sacrifice, with one exception: the wealthy who can most afford to give something up. Their tax cuts--the same tax cuts that brought us unprecedented deficits--are protected and even extended under this proposal. They will cost our country an additional $106 billion, of which 75 percent will go to people making over $200,000 a year.

In order to pay for those tax cuts, the Republicans are literally proposing to take away food and health care from low-income families, kill 48 education programs by eliminating the $4.3 billion that funds them, slash veterans' health care--including cutting $9 million from medical and prosthetic research, and undermine community development in struggling neighborhoods by cutting $1.5 billion in grant programs. Despite Republican claims, these cuts will do nothing to help our country's bottom line, but they will be devastating for the children, working families, veterans and seniors who will be asked to go without. This is not only irresponsible, but immoral.

In the that state of Illinois, we could see the Earned Income Tax Credit--the most effective anti-poverty program--cut by $164.2 million, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and child care grants lose $84.3 million, and Supplemental Security Income--which helps poor seniors and people with disabilities--slashed by $174 million. Thousands of vulnerable peoples' lives will be destroyed if the Republican budget passes.

The House Republican budget is even worse than the President's proposal. For instance, they propose even greater cuts to

Medicaid than under his plan. The $20 billion in Medicaid cuts included in this budget resolution are unwise, unjustifiable and almost certainly lethal. As health care costs continue to rise, the number of uninsured Americans exceeds 45 million, and employers continue to cut back on coverage, Medicaid has provided a guarantee of support for pregnant women and children, persons with disabilities, persons living with AIDS or mental illnesses, and senior citizens needing medical care or long term care services. Without those services, millions of Americans will no longer be able to get the physical health, mental health, and long term care services they need to remain healthy and productive.

In my state of Illinois, Medicaid covers 40 percent of all births, 30 percent of all children, and 65 percent of all nursing home residents. In Illinois, under the leadership of our governor, we are working to expand Medicaid to cover more children and more families in face of a growing crisis in health care. This is not just the right thing to do, it is the cost-effective course to take. Medicaid costs less than private health insurance and its per capita costs are growing more slowly than private insurance premiums. But, if the Republican budget cuts re enacted, it may no longer be there for the millions of Americans who have no other source of care--other than bankrupting their families or mortgaging their futures to pay for their parents' long term care needs or their children's medical services.

Budgets are not just about numbers, they are about values and priorities. Based on the Republicans' proposal, maintaining and making permanent tax cuts for millionaires has been and continues to be a higher priority than meeting the needs of the majority of Americans. And, they are shifting the responsibility of their fiscal mess onto the backs of our children who will see decreased services and will be asked to deal with deficits for years to come.

The Democratic and CBC budgets recognize that this is the wrong thing to do and a great threat to our nation's future well-being and prosperity. It is time to reverse course so that we do not continue to mortgage our country's future and our children's prosperity in order to pay for tax cuts for the rich that we cannot afford and that they do not need. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Republican WMD and for the Democratic and CBC budgets.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to the work of Dr. Frank Splitt, a McCormick Faculty Fellow at Northwestern University. As a member of The Drake Group, Dr. Splitt has worked to bring attention to the need for reform in college athletics. I would like to submit this article, ``Why Congress Should Review Policies that Facilitate the Growth and Corruption of Big-Time College Sports'' for the review of my colleagues. I hope that during this session of Congress we can begin to work to improve the system for the sake of our athletes, teachers, fans, and entire educational system.

``Why Congress Should Review Policies that Facilitate the Growth and Corruption of Big-Time College Sports'' by Dr. Frank Splitt

Despite many wakeup calls and warnings over the years, the situation with big-time college sports is much worse than many could ever have imagined. Two questions loom large: What's going on? And, where are the people who are willing to speak the truth about the academic corruption spawned by the college-sports entertainment colossus and to do something about it? To find the answer to the first question, one need only look at the usual suspect--money. Big money, together with greed, avid sports fans, an apathetic public, and governmental policies make college sports a lucrative and growing tax-free business enterprise. Key enablers for the continuing growth of this business are higher education professionals in a state of denial over the unflattering reality of academic corruption, a relatively ineffectual NCAA, and facilitating government policies involving privacy law and the subsidy of athletic departments and favorable tax treatment of related projects.

The Drake Group (TDG), a grass-roots faculty organization, provides a partial answer to the second question. It works on the premise that college sports aren't themselves evil, but rather, it's the related academic corruption that should be exposed and eliminated. TDG has sponsored the publication of two papers on college-sports reform, ``Reclaiming Academic Primacy in Higher Education,'' and a sequel, ``The Faculty-Driven Movement to Reform Big-Time College Sports,'' see www.ece.northwestern.edu/EXTERNAL/ Splitt/. The first paper served as another wakeup call to university presidents, trustees, administrators and faculties. The sequel focused on a TDG initiative to help restore academic integrity by working to change the Family Educational Rights and Privacy of 1974 (FERPA)--also known as the Buckley Amendment.

As an unintended consequence of the Buckley Amendment, evidence of academic corruption and shenanigans in big-time college sports are hidden from real public scrutiny and the NCAA and schools (via waivers) can exploit and control their athletes while only releasing news favorable to themselves.

In their Wisconsin Law Review article, ``Cleaning Up Buckley: How The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act Shields Academic Corruption In College Athletics,'' Matthew Salzwedel and Jon Ericson make a compelling case for simple changes that would permit an appropriate level of disclosure. It is my view that those changes would lead to exposure of institutional misbehavior via publication of information about the academic courses that athletes take, as well as their choice of professors and academic majors. Over time, that disclosure would work to ensure that college athletes are getting a legitimate college education.

Changes to the Buckley Amendment require governmental intervention. TDG made a formal request for a review of the amendment to LeRoy S. Rooker, Director of the U.S. Department of Education Family Policy Compliance Office. In his response, Director Rooker stated that TDG's concerns were largely those that can only be addressed by Congress. Follow up with the chairs of the appropriate Congressional Committees has been initiated by TDG.

It should be clear that, no matter how bad college sports related scandals may become, how appropriate any one of a number of reform measures may be, or, how intense the urging of the Knight Commission, there is little likelihood that these kinds of measures would be adopted on a voluntary basis. The reason is simple: Universal adoption would likely prove to be successful in curbing the rampant excesses of the college sports and level the playing field, but put at risk the big, tax-free money flow into the NCAA cartel. Substantive reform measures all seem to make sense to the reform minded, but not to those that are to be reformed--setting the stage for endless debate. Nothing of consequence happens.

The NCAA's proposed reforms in the wake of the University of Colorado-Boulder recruiting scandal came under critical review at a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on May 18, 2004. That hearing, titled ``Supporting Our Intercollegiate Student-Athletes: Proposed NCAA Reforms'' was called to examine the NCAA response to the recruiting practices and polices of intercollegiate athletics. The Subcommittee expressed concern that some of the NCAA's new proposals don't go far enough and mentioned a possible motivational tool for Congress to get what it wants: the tax-exempt status of NCAA programs. Those remarks spawn hope that the NCAA and its members will be forced to pay serious attention to reform and enforcement as well as tell the truth about their financial operations.

With a public now fatigued with terrorist related threats and numbed by grievous wrongdoing, scandals, and cover ups in their financial and political worlds, the challenge for Congress is to take on the tasks of working for disclosure via ``cleaning up Buckley''--penetrating the closed society of higher education and its ``See no evil, Speak no evil, Hear no evil,'' modus operandi--and calling for an IRS audit of the NCAA cartel. When buttressed by compelling arguments for reform and intensive scrutiny by the media, these efforts can surmount the formidable barriers that have thus far shielded intercollegiate athletics from serious reform.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut for yielding and giving me the opportunity to speak today.

And I also wanted to particularly emphasize why Social Security has been so important and will continue to be to women. Like many of my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle, I had an open forum, a town meeting, on Social Security. Nearly 1,000 people showed up. We could not believe it. We had a room set for about 350. We hoped to fill it at 10 o'clock in the morning on a Monday. I did it along with my two Senators from Illinois, Senators Durbin and Obama, and then we had an overflow room and then an overflow for the overflow room and still had to turn people away, young people, older people, persons on disabilities.

I want to tell my colleagues one story. It may not be obvious at first why this is a story about why Social Security is important to women. A friend of mine, someone I have known for a very long time, a gentleman, middle-aged, got up and talked about something I never knew before. And he was telling about how his first wife died at the age of 35 and left him with their three children, three young children. And he said how Social Security and those benefits made it possible for them to hold the family together and for those children to go on to college. But the other thing that he added, which was so poignant, was that that Social Security benefit enabled his wife, his deceased wife, to keep the promise that she had made to their children to always take care of them. And even now it brings tears to my eyes when I think of that.

So that they could feel it was their mother that was helping enable them to go on to college to be the second generation. They are African- American, and for that family to go on to college. And I thought that was really moving.

In Illinois, we have looked at some of the statistics about how women rely on Social Security more than men do. This is a little bit dryer but important nonetheless. In Illinois, 19 percent of adults receive Social Security benefits. Think of that. Nearly one in five adults, including 21 percent of women and 16 percent of men. About almost a million women and 718,000 men and 116,000 children rely on Social Security benefits. Women represent 5 percent of all the people 65 and older in Illinois who rely on Social Security benefits. And without those benefits, 55 percent of elderly women in Illinois would be poor.

The typical recipient of a Social Security widow's benefit in Illinois, the widow that is left, receives $921 per month. But if we calculate out what we know of the President's proposal, the plan he prefers, and we look down the future at what would the typical widow in Illinois get, that amounts to, instead of the $921 per month, $506 per month or a 45 percent cut in benefits.

So it is no wonder that so many people, young people and older people, came out to this hearing because they are worried. And it was significant to me when young women stood up and said, Do you know who could reap the worst of this privatization plan, it is me, it is us. It is the young women. It is the young people. Because it is we who will see our benefits cut, who will see the debt that is mounting have to be paid off by us.

At the same time we are looking for the jobs that have the benefits, that have the pension plans right now, trying to figure out how we are going to pay off those college loans, and we do not know what our future is going to be if that guaranteed benefit of Social Security is changed into a gamble.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that it is no wonder, then, that the women's organizations, bipartisan women's organizations, are opposing this privatization plan. The American Association of University Women, the League of Women Voters, who go through a very rigorous process in order to come to a position. They are raising all kinds of concerns and say that diverting money from the Social Security trust fund into private accounts could hasten the insolvency of the fund. The result could include a substantial increase in the deficit and significant cuts in some or all of the Social Security's retirement and disability and survivor benefits. The National Women's Law Center, the National Council of Women's Organizations, the Older Women's League, all these organizations are opposed to these risky privatization plans.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership and expertise on this issue. I tried to get his book at a book store near my home, and I could not find it there. So I hope the gentleman will help me find a copy of his book on trade.

The real question is, what is the goal of our recent trade agreement? If it is to export jobs, to increase the trade deficit, to lower the wages of American workers, to fuel the race to the bottom for workers everywhere, to damage the global environment and to benefit multinational corporations that have really no loyalty to the United States, our economy or our workers, then you would rank our trade agreements as a huge success. And if you like NAFTA, then you will love

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman was talking about how there are winners and losers, actually a very narrow band of winners with our trade policy, mostly the investors and the multinational corporations, but I notice that because of an inquiry that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) had made, that it was found that public dollars from the Agency for International Development, the USAID office were used to promote the President's trade policy, as I understand it, in violation of Federal and USAID lobbying restrictions, that a $700,000 taxpayer funded grant was actually given to business groups to promote CAFTA in violation of the regulations.

I think that when there is a policy debate for the administration to unfairly use these taxpayer dollars to propagandize, to fund outside organizations, business organizations who stand to gain from the outcome, is really improper, if not illegal activities, and I really want to congratulate the gentleman for looking into this, because the taxpayers deserve a right to know.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to ask a question, maybe my colleague does not know the answer to this, but when the Office of the Inspector General finds this kind of breach of the regulations and the rules, what happens? I mean is this, you were wrong to do this, does nothing happen?

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to read one of the statements of the bishops that I think sums up what the gentleman has been saying.

The moral measure of any trade agreement should be how it affects the lives and dignities of poor families and vulnerable workers whose voices should receive special attention in this discussion.

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

I rise in opposition to H.R. 310, the Broadcast Decency Act. While I acknowledge and appreciate that this is a bipartisan effort in bringing this bill, I believe that this attempt to address the quality of broadcasting is both overreaching and off the mark and I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

There is already a law on the books that addresses indecency, and my view is that we need to get a grip and not embrace a solution that could cause more harm than good. I believe that H.R. 310 is one of those solutions.

H.R. 310 would essentially in my view put Big Brother in charge of deciding what is art and what is free speech. If enacted, especially with the increased fines against individual artists, we will see self- and actual censorship reach new and undesirable heights. Even the threat of this legislation has already led to that kind of censorship.

For instance, on Veterans Day of 2001 and 2002, ABC aired ``Saving Private Ryan,'' a movie about World War II, to honor those who served. In 2004, with the threat of almost identical legislation to the one we are considering hanging over their heads, 66 ABC affiliates refused to run the show. They were afraid that the award-winning salute to our veterans would be deemed indecent. They were concerned that it might trigger at least one incident, maybe three, of indecency because it is unclear whether saying one indecent word three times in the same broadcast might trigger license revocation proceedings.

As we can see, the threats to our Constitution and to artistic expression are all too real with H.R. 310. Do we not want to have sensational performances, sensational in the best sense of the word? Do we want a blanding down? Once we do this kind of censorship, can political speech be far behind?

I am concerned about the continual refusal to address what I believe is really behind the decline in broadcasting and that is the overconcentration of media ownership. Broadcasting content has been getting worse, not because of low fines and out-of-control talent, but because of the shift away from local control to ownership by media conglomerates that have no regard for the varying community standards.

Additionally, much of the furor over indecency has been explained by a desire to protect our children. And there are many programs on TV that I believe are inappropriate for my little grandchildren, particularly the many which depict graphic violence over and over and over again. But I do not want H.R. 310 or Big Brother making that decision for me or their parents.

If I could just say that I happen to be much more concerned about the first amendment than I am about my grandchildren seeing Janet Jackson's nipple. I would say, let us get a grip and we can do without this legislation. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, nothing is more critical to the foundation of our democracy than the guaranteed right to vote. In the 2004 Presidential election, there were voters in every State, including the pivotal State of Ohio, who were denied that right; and each time it happened, the foundation is weakened. That is why I join my colleagues today in objecting to the counting of Ohio's electoral votes. I commend my colleagues in this House of the people and the Senate who are raising this objection for their courage, and I am proud to join them.

There is little disagreement that irregularities did occur. The question is what are we going to do about it. It is simply not sufficient to tell the losers in this election to get over it, or to accuse them of sour grapes, or to say we are doing the best we can. It is our patriotic duty to stand up for every voter no matter his or her race or party affiliation and demand that Congress act to expand voter protection and guarantee voter rights.

Once all the facts are determined, a national demand for electoral reform must force Congress to finally finish the job begun under the Help America Vote Act, HAVA, including voter-verified paper trail. We cannot simply sit back and accept the results as if nothing happened or possibly illegal activities had taken place in precincts throughout Ohio. Those Ohio election officials who denied voters provisional ballots, a portion of the voting reform bill that I championed, must be held accountable along with those who allowed machines to be tampered with, eligible voters to be purged illegally, and voters to be intimidated.

This is our chance to demonstrate to our citizens and the world that Americans are constantly working to perfect our own democracy.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday's vote on H. Con. Res. 528 is about much more than just eliminating a provision that Republicans sneaked into the Omnibus Appropriations bill. While that provision would have eroded existing privacy protections of American taxpayers, today's vote also highlights the growing abuse of legislative power and abuse of the public trust by the Republican leadership. It is also about priorities and meeting our nation's needs.

I opposed the massive spending bill when it was considered on the House floor on November 20, 2004, because I was certain that, without carefully examining it, I might be voting for inappropriate, irresponsible, or even embarrassing provisions. Sure enough, that is the case. The provision the Republicans inserted into the spending bill which would allow Members and staff on Congressional committees to

``sneak and peak'' at taxpayers' confidential tax filings, and, which H. Con. Res. 528 corrects, is just one example of the controversial changes and omissions included in the 3,000-page Omnibus package.

The Omnibus Appropriations bill includes another serious threat to taxpayers' privacy, one that we are not fixing today. Behind closed doors, the Republicans stripped from the massive bill a House-passed amendment which would have prohibited the Internal Revenue Service from using private bounty-hunters to collect back taxes. That provision, which enjoyed strong-bipartisan support, would have prevented 2.6 million tax returns a year from being turned over to private debt collectors with personal financial stakes--receiving 25 cents on every dollar in making people ``pay up.'' This policy all but openly condones strong-arm collection tactics. Additionally, while IRS employees must respect taxpayer privacy or be liable, the bounty hunters will have no such restrictions. They are free to do as they please, and we have no reason to believe that they will not abuse the power the Republicans want to give them in order to increase their profits at the expense of taxpayer privacy.

Furthermore, 6 million employees are in danger of seeing the 40-hour work week eroded because of another glaring omission from the Omnibus Appropriations bill. In a blow to America's workers, the Omnibus fails to include the Obey-Miller amendment to the Labor-HHS Appropriations bill that passed the House. That bipartisan provision, which also passed the Senate, would have ensured that the Administration's new overtime rules do not harm Americans who depend on overtime to make ends meet, instead keeping in place a vital protection and keeping them from having to work longer hours for less pay.

There are also provisions included in--or excluded from--the bill that would undermine a woman's right to choose, undercut environmental protections, and put workers' retirement security in jeopardy if their employers chose to convert from defined benefit to cash-balance plans. But, unfortunately, it is not only the policy riders and omissions that are harmful to millions within our country. The funding levels of too many vital programs are shameful and jeopardize our citizens and our future.

For instance, the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Program, which has helped put thousands of police officers on our streets, is cut by roughly 20-percent. The Small Business Administration's budget is reduced by 18-percent. There is no funding for the 7(a) loan program, which is the SBA's flagship program for helping small businesses get access to capital. Although we are bringing home new veterans every day, the funding level for veterans' health care is at least $1.3 billion less than what the bipartisan Veterans' Affairs Committee says is needed just to maintain the current level of services. The President's own No Child Left Behind Act is underfunded by $9.6 billion. Many key housing programs are slashed. Housing for the elderly was cut by $27 million, and housing for people with disabilities was cut by $9 million. Assistance for the homeless also saw a $9 million cut. Community Development Block Grants are funded at $212 million less than current levels. Contrary to Congress's call in 2002 to double the National Science Foundation's budget over the next five years, the omnibus cuts NSF's funding by $61 million below Fiscal Year 2004's level. While those cuts may seem small, they could truly decimate those programs, many which were already severely underfunded. At the same time that millionaires are not being asked to give up one penny of their tax cuts, investments that will make our country stronger are being cut.

Despite its containing controversial changes to the law and gross underfunding of essential government services, facts only known to a handful of powerful Republicans, my colleagues and I were given only a few hours to read the bill which funds 13 government departments, dozens of domestic agencies, and is one of the largest government funding bills to come before Congress. Not even the most accomplished speed-reader could have gotten through the bill in time, which is exactly what its authors were counting on when they rammed the bill through in one day. Such treatment of a bill of such importance is a discredit to the institution of Congress and a serious disservice to our country. One resolution fixing one issue cannot make up for the abuse of power and the abuse of the American taxpayer, employee, student, senior, and family that H.R. 4818 embodies.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Conference Report on H.R. 1350, the Improving Education Results for Children with Disabilities Act, IDEA, because it continues to protect the right of students with disabilities to receive a free and appropriate education. The very purpose of IDEA is to protect the civil rights of disabled students and I am pleased to see that my colleagues were able to remove the provisions in the House bill that undermined that purpose.

I have received many letters and phone calls from my constituents letting me know about the difference that IDEA has made for their children. One constituent wrote to me about her son, who has a form of autism, and how IDEA rights are helping him thrive for the first time in his life. Two other constituents of mine shared a story with me regarding their 12-year-old granddaughter, Veronica, and how IDEA allowed her to receive the proper attention she needed at an early stage in her schooling. Veronica has improved greatly since then and her needs are now met with minimal intervention.

This agreement goes a long way towards ensuring that IDEA will continue to benefit children with disabilities. For example, unlike in the House version of this bill, students will not be moved indefinitely to ``alternative placements'' for any violation of a school code of conduct--even if a child's disability is the cause of the specific behavior.

However, I would like to express my disappointment that this agreement still does not force us to live up to our funding promises for IDEA. Ever since IDEA's initial enactment in 1975, the law has included a commitment to pay 40 percent of the average per student cost for every special education student. The federal government currently pays for about 19 percent of the cost of educating a child with disabilities and at the current rate of increase we will never reach that promised level of funding.

The lack of funding for IDEA hurts students and it hurts schools. I urge my colleagues to join with me in voting for this conference report today, and then I urge them to join with me in fighting to make sure that we live up to our funding promises.

I am deeply grateful to the gentleman for yielding me this time, for his tireless service to our country, for his friendship, and I wish him and his wife Kathy all the best in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Weldon-Hyde provisions. On this Saturday morning, millions of American women are going about their business, hopefully enjoying leisure time with their families and friends, preparing for Thanksgiving, completely unaware that their Congress, their leaders are stripping them of access to a constitutional right to reproductive health care. Physicians and hospitals, let us be clear, already have the right under the conscience clause to refuse to perform abortions. The Weldon-Hyde provision would allow HMOs or other health insurance companies--HMOs and health insurance companies--to decide for any reason whatsoever it will no longer pay for, provide information or make referrals for abortion services, even if the woman's life is in danger and she is a victim of rape or incest or even if the physician as a matter of his conscience wants to perform this medical service.

Under this bill, it would be impossible for a State to ensure that poor women who are victims of rape or incest can access Medicaid- covered abortions in these narrow circumstances. This bill allows any health care entity to ignore all Federal, State and local laws pertaining to abortion services, information and referrals. While, again, there are no Federal laws that require any individual or hospital to provide abortions, there are Federal laws that women should be informed of their legal options, and this bill could overturn those options.

This bill is a gag clause denying women even necessary information to make informed decisions. Will Rogers used to say, ``No man's house is safe. The legislature is in session.'' Women of child-bearing age, your body is not safe as long as this Republican-dominated Congress is in session.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for organizing this tribute to our friend, Bill Lipinski; and I am pleased to join with other members of the Illinois delegation to celebrate the outstanding career of Bill Lipinski and to wish him well on his retirement after 22 years in this body.

When I was elected to Congress in 1998, I was fortunate to become part of a delegation that works together in a bipartisan and effective way to meet the needs of our State. Bill Lipinski has been the leader and a guiding force in bringing us together in that effort. He has helped us devise ways to make sure that Illinois' interests are protected and that Illinois gets its fair share of Federal dollars.

Over the years, I have attended many meetings where Bill Lipinski has kept us focused and shown us opportunities. He has built friendships and coalitions inside the Congress on both sides of the aisle and outside of Congress. He has worked day after day, year after year to make sure that his constituents got the best representation possible.

Bill Lipinski has helped me learn about Congress, learn about the government process, and learn how to get things done. He has always been there to give me advice, to give me support, and to answer my questions. And for that, I will always be appreciative.

In particular, Bill has helped me and so many others in this body and around the country learn more about transportation. Whether it is planes, trains, or trucks, Bill Lipinski knows transportation. Everyone wants to go somewhere, and Bill Lipinski has spent his career making sure that we can get there.

The Chicago Tribune called Bill Lipinski the Transit King because of his knowledge and ability to deliver for his district. As a senior member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Bill Lipinski has worked hard to improve infrastructure, expand the highway system, and modernize the freight rail system. He has helped meet the needs of travelers, commuters, and shippers, creating good jobs at the same time.

Chicago, a transportation hub for the Nation, has benefited tremendously from Bill Lipinski's national transportation reputation and experience. He is not just a national expert; he consistently tackles the transportation problems faced by Chicago and surrounding communities. Bill Lipinski is the living example of Tip O'Neill's axiom that ``all politics are local.''

Whether it is the reconstruction of the Stevenson Expressway, airport renovation, the CTA's orange line, or helping communities cope with train whistles, Bill Lipinski has a hands-on approach to dealing with local issues. He understands the problems his constituents face, whether it is losing a job because of unfair trade policies, struggling to pay for enormous drug bills, or protecting overtime pay.

A life-long Chicagoan, Bill worked for 17 years at the Chicago Park District and served as a Chicago alderman, which in the eyes of many Chicagoans is believed to be the highest of political achievements. And Bill Lipinski continued to serve his community as a local ward committeeman, in addition to his work here in Congress. And on election day, his political organization is something to behold, an operation most elected officials would only dream of.

What some of my colleagues may not know is his expertise goes beyond transportation and government to include an exhaustive knowledge of the White Sox and baseball. Bill Lipinski has served the people of the Third Congressional District of Illinois with dedication and skill for 11 terms. Now as Bill prepares to leave the House after 22 years of service, those of us in the Illinois delegation wish him only the very, very best and look forward to welcoming his son Dan as part of our delegation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back to my colleague from Illinois.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4520, the so-called American Jobs Creation Act, because it is just another example of the Republicans' seriously misplaced priorities. Instead of closing corporate tax loopholes to fund housing, education, and veterans' programs, the Republicans decided to give 276 new tax breaks in industries from oil and gas corporations to tackle boxes and ceiling fans makers. Instead of encouraging companies to create jobs in the U.S., the Republicans chose to reward companies that export jobs overseas. Instead of helping six million working families make ends meet, the Republicans decided to strip the overtime protections in the Senate bill and erode the 40-hour work week. Instead of regulating tobacco, a drug that kills 400,000 people every year, the Republicans gave tobacco companies a bail out. It seems the Republicans are interested in helping big businesses avoid paying their fair share of taxes and subsidizing the tobacco industry, even if it is at the expense of American workers and families.

The Republicans rammed through those corporate taxes cuts, although corporate taxes are at their lowest level since the 1930s. The

Government Accountability Office recently revealed that over 60-percent of large corporations do not pay any taxes. In fact, a recent study of 275 of the Fortune 500 companies revealed that those companies alone have avoided paying over $175.2 billion in owed taxes.

The Republicans claim the tax cuts for corporations in H.R. 4520 will not add to the largest deficit our country has ever faced. However, a study by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities reveals that once all their cost-hiding gimmicks are stripped away, this bill will put us at least $80 billion more in debt than we are today. The increase in debt will mean more cuts to vital programs, such as children's health care and homeland security. This new round of tax cuts is a continuation of the failed Bush economic policies that turned a federal surplus into deficit. We do not need more of the same, we need a new direction.

We have lost a net total of over one million jobs since President Bush took office. With the passage of H.R. 4520, we are at risk of losing even more American jobs. H.R. 4520 adds even more incentives for corporations to ship jobs overseas. But, not only are Republicans intent on aggravating our already dismal jobs picture, they are also acting to severely undermine the quality of jobs that do stay in our country.

The few new jobs that have been created in the past few months pay an average of $9,000 less than the jobs they are replacing and many lack affordable health benefits. Yet, the Republican conferees rejected a Senate provision in H.R. 4520 that would have restored six million workers' right to overtime that the Administration took away earlier this year. The Republicans have total disregard for the fact that costs for basic necessities, like health care and energy, have skyrocketed and that families must make do with much less income.

What H.R. 4520 did include was a $10 billion bail out for the Big Tobacco--that is equal to the tobacco industry's advertising budgets for one year. In another win for the tobacco industry, the Republicans refused to include the Senate to allow the Federal Drug Administration to regulate tobacco products. According to recent statistics, more than 400,000 people die each year from tobacco-related diseases and, if action is not taken, more than five million children living today will ultimately die as a result. We cannot afford this loss of life or the $89 billion in annual public and private health care costs attributable to tobacco. The passage of H.R. 4520 shows that not only do the Republicans have complete disregard for our fiscal health, but our children's physical health as well.

H.R. 4520 is a shameful bill that will make millions of Americans pay through cuts to vital programs, like health care for children and heating assistance for seniors, cuts to U.S. jobs, and cuts to workers' protections in order to subsidize big business and special interests.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 163, a bill to reinstate the draft. Rumors of a military draft have been flying around the Internet and the possibility has been discussed at millions of lunch and dinner tables all over the country. Constituents, especially those with kids and grand-kids, have called me to ask, ``Is this true?'' The answer is no. We will defeat this bill today. But that doesn't mean that American families don't have to worry about a draft-- a backdoor draft.

In the Army alone, over 20,000 soldiers have had their tours of duty extended. Seven thousand active duty soldiers and 3,000 National Guardsmen and Reservists will be forced into extended deployments by President Bush's ``stop loss'' orders that prevent them from leaving the service after their contract expires. Those orders hurt our brave men and women and they hurt their families. Extended deployments over- seas have been correlated to increased rates of alcoholism, domestic violence and divorce. The biggest tragedy of the current situation in Iraq is that the lives of brave military men and women are being disrupted--and in some cases changed forever--because of wrong foreign policies.

More appropriate foreign policies that do not call on our troops to attack foreign countries on a unilateral preemptive basis would allow us to meet our defense and national security needs with a volunteer force. Our young men and women have seen the impact of our current policy in Iraq. They have seen over 1,000 lose their lives in a war of choice, and, even worse, they have seen our troops sent into battle without modern protective equipment. As a result, military men and women are not re-enlisting. For the first time since 1994, the Army National Guard came up short on its recruiting goals. The Army has nearly tripled its previous top enlistment bonus to certain recruits, lowered its standards for new recruits and added hundreds of new recruiters in what looks to be a long-shot effort to meet next year's goal. The way to fill our security needs is not to reinstate a draft. The answer is to change our policies and to make sure that we are taking care of the troops we have.

Our troops are stretched thin and getting thinner. We are losing what little support from the international community we had in Iraq. Poland, our third largest ally in Iraq just announced they will soon fix a date for the withdrawal of its 2,500 troops. We launched a unilateral, preemptive war against a country that did not have weapons of mass destruction or a link to al Qaeda. We now know that not only did Iraq not have nuclear weapons, but that virtually every U.S. expert--and international expert--questioned the claim before we went to war, but those views were kept secret.

Either President Bush knew that his own experts disagreed and refused to acknowledge the fact, or he went to war without knowing that his justification for war was being challenged within his own Administration. In either case, it is tragic that it is the military men and women and their families who are now paying the price and facing the backdoor draft. They deserve much better.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 10, the so-called 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act. At a time when our national security is at risk and our brave troops are fighting overseas, it is shameful that the Republican leadership has chosen to present a partisan bill that does not effectively implement the recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission. In fact, of the Commission's 41 recommendations, H.R. 10 only fully implemented eleven. Fifteen are not implemented at all, and another 15 are incomplete.

On the other hand, many of the provisions in H.R. 10 go far beyond the recommendations of the September 11th Commission. This is obviously an attempt by the Republican leadership to insert previously rejected proposals into this important bill at the final hour. In fact, the 9/11 Commission's Republican Chairman, Thomas Kean, said that the contentious provisions were being promoted by ``people who don't want the intelligence legislation to pass.'' Former Representative Lee Hamilton, the Commission's vice chairman, said, ``Consideration of controversial provisions at this late hour can harm our shared purpose.'' The Family Steering Committee of the victims of September 11th is concerned that if H.R. 10 is passed by the House, ``the hard work of the Commission and the dedication of the 9/11 families will be undermined, as will the safety of our nation.''

Many of the controversial and mean-spirited measures included in this bill are extremely harmful to immigrants, asylum-seekers, and refugees. These measures have been included although they do not make our nation any safer. H.R. 10 allows immigration officials to deport foreign nationals for whatever reason they see fit, devoid of judicial review, to countries that openly use torture when interrogating prisoners.

Unbelievably, H.R. 10 places an extreme burden of proof on asylum- seekers, many of whom have been victims of brutality in their native lands, requiring them to provide evidence that he or she would be tortured if returned to his or her point of origin. This violates the current standards established under the U.N. Convention Against Torture already in place. And what kind of message does it send to our troops engaged in combat? If the United States is seen by the world as being willing to outsource torture, how can we be sure that our military men and women captured overseas will be treated decently?

In addition, H.R. 10 would further undermine the right to basic due process protections for non-citizens by prohibiting habeas corpus review of many immigration decisions and by prohibiting federal courts from granting stays of deportation while cases are pending.

This bill even includes language blocking use of matricula consular cards, for identification purposes, even though the House voted to allow their use. This provision has nothing to do with the 9/11 Commission and protecting national security. It is simply an irrelevant action.

Furthermore, this legislation does not properly refocus our intelligence efforts on Afghanistan, the nation which harbored the terrorists who attacked us on September 11, as the 9/11 Commission recommended. H.R. 10 also does not include Commission recommendations to provide strong budgetary authority for the newly-created National Intelligence Director, protect civil liberties through the creation of an effective and independent civil liberties board, or address the need for Congressional reform. That is simply unacceptable.

I supported the Menendez amendment which institutes the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, is a closer reflection of the bipartisan legislation passed in the Senate, and does not include the dangerous and extraneous provisions in H.R. 10. Unfortunately, that amendment was not successful; but fortunately those conferees will have one more opportunity to get it right. We should now support the Senate bill and move to protect our nation's safety while preserving the beliefs and traditions of liberty and freedom we cherish. H.R. 10 does not make the United States as safe as it can be. I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 10.