Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to make two points: one, to be in strong support of this conference report.

Homeland security in this country is a massive challenge. This is a huge Nation, with so many risks. Yet we have put billions of dollars, unprecedented dollars, toward those risks. There is no question we are safer, we are, or more prepared, more focused on homeland security than ever before, and I support the chairman's efforts, which have just been dedicated to making our country safer. This bill moves that forward.

My second point is in support of that raised by my colleague from Houston (Mr. Green). We are having a serious problem of understaffing of the port of entry at the Bush Intercontinental Airport. It is not simply inconvenient. It is an intolerable line through Customs. It is a disruption of trade. We are losing jobs and business in the region as a result. This bill helps provide the resources.

I thank the chairman for the help to address those problems. We are meeting with the agency again tomorrow to focus their attention on this important need. We are hopeful they will listen carefully.

Mr. Speaker, they say you make a living by what you get, but you make a life by what you give. By that measure, A.C. Barger of Centreville, Texas, lived a very rich life. He was a Korean War veteran and a successful businessperson. I knew him when I first ran for the State legislature. And, honestly, without his help and his leadership, I would not be serving in Congress today.

More than that, he gave back to his community every day of his life. He served on the Trinity River Authority, was a member of the Silver Haired Legislature, was director of the Leon County Crime Stoppers, and he founded and was commander of the local VFW post. He loved children, and so he was Santa on the Square for 17 years and for the senior citizens. He started the Leon County Career Day and founded the Leon County Drill Team. He was selected man of the year. He just gave and gave and gave.

A.C. recently passed away. I know his wife, Darlene, daughters and family, and all will miss him. Our Nation, our State of Texas, our community, is better for A.C.'s life. He is a national treasure and will be missed.

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

Mr. Chairman, I understand my colleague from Houston's strong advocacy for light rail, but I am afraid that at this late date this amendment is at best immaterial and perhaps, I think, undermines the voices of the voters in our Houston region. Today on the House floor we are rehashing a delegation disagreement about the need for a referendum that has been really rendered moot. As we speak, a referendum on light rail is being held, scheduled for just a few weeks from now. For more than a year, the community has undergone and continues a detailed and highly public debate about the scope and the merits of light rail for the Houston region. Seemingly every corner in every neighborhood and every party interested in this issue has offered input, and soon an informed electorate will head to the polls to make their voices known about this issue.

Who in our region would dispute that this has been a healthy debate on an important issue that will impact the region for decades to come? It has been a welcomed debate based solely because of existing language in Federal law. But under this amendment today, what we will tell Houston voters is, if they approve light rail, it can go forward. If they reject light rail, it can go forward as well. We have made this referendum meaningless. On the eve of this election to attempt to nullify or dismiss this very healthy public referendum it will have the effect of disenfranchising tens of thousands of Houston area voters who simply wish to have their voices heard. Let us trust the voters. We certainly have the choice of who should represent them in Congress. We need to let the referendum go forward and let it matter. The voters deserve no less.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the words ``notwithstanding any other provision of law'' on page 126, lines 15 and 16, and beginning with the words ``the prohibition'' on page 126, line 20 through ``2512(a)(1)'' on line 23 on the grounds that this provision violates clause 2(b) of House rule XXI because it is legislation included in a general appropriations bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to share with you the personal motto of Deputy Constable John David Garcia, a brave law enforcement officer from Magnolia, Texas, who tragically lost his life in the line of duty one week ago today.

``Always do right. This will gratify some, and astonish the rest.''

These words were written on the back of a Magnolia Deputy Constable's ``officer trading card.'' What make these words so special are not only the meaning, but also the fact that this officer lived by them each day that he protected and served the people of Texas. Garcia was killed in a tragic car accident, on July 17, 2003 while patrolling just outside the city of Magnolia in Montgomery County, Texas.

Born July 25, 1969, Deputy Garcia was a young officer who began his career in law enforcement in 1997, and had been with Precinct 5 since 1999.

Everyone will remember John David Garcia differently. To some, he will be remembered as one of the finest officers in Constable David Hill's precinct--always giving 110 percent. All of Deputy Garcia's fellow law enforcement officers will remember him as a person who was eager and willing to serve, especially with his service to the Hispanic community in the area.

Most importantly, he is known as a loving husband, father, son, and friend. Deputy Garcia leaves behind his wife, Shannon, and 14-year-old daughter, Patricia. Our thoughts and prayers go out to his family and friends during this time.

Deputy Garcia's dedication and values are reflected in his personal creed and the life that creed embodied.

Mr. Speaker, please join me today in honoring the life and service of Deputy John David Garcia. All residents of Montgomery County, Texas and the 8th Congressional District are grateful for his service and dedication.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this agreement for better trade between the U.S. and Chile and, following this, U.S. and Singapore. I appreciate the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Crane) in opening these new markets for American companies.

There is a principle involved in every piece of legislation we deal with. The principle in trade is this: If, as Americans, we build a better mouse trap, we ought to be able to sell it anywhere in the world without discrimination. If someone else builds a better mouse trap, we ought to be able to buy it for our families and for our businesses.

This type of free trade is important to America if we look at the most important thing, jobs. It is important to us because now every one of every three new jobs we are creating in America comes from international trade. No one sells more than our country outside. No one buys more than our country inside. And one out of every three acres that our farmers plant are for sale overseas, so it is important that these markets are open to companies and our farmers.

This is important in our State as well. It is important to Texas already. Just Chile's trade is responsible for almost 180,000 new jobs in Texas. That is enough new Texas workers to fill the Astrodome three times over. We have not even yet begun to scratch the surface of what new jobs we can create through free trade; and as the State which is the largest exporter, in other words, no one sells more, ships more overseas than our State, this is real jobs for our communities. These are real jobs for our families.

But let me state that, though we have not scratched the surface, other countries are not waiting for us to get our act together. They are already reaching agreements so that their companies can sell on level playing fields. We need to make sure American companies have a fair shake.

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

Mr. Speaker, does it matter in all these discussions if we have a trade agreement with Chile or not? Would it matter if this bill simply went away? The answer is, if you care about American jobs, yes, it very much matters.

The National Association of Manufacturers estimates that the lack of an

agreement between America and Chile causes our companies to lose more than $1 billion in sales each year to other countries. For example, when Chile reached free trade agreements with Europe, sales to Europe automatically increased. In fact, it expanded by 30 percent in the year just ending in February, while our increased sales to Chile were negligible at best. We did not have an agreement. Our sales faltered. Germany had an agreement, and their sales grew by almost 50 percent. France had an agreement with Chile. They grew by 41 percent.

We have to ask ourselves, if these free trade agreements are so bad, why do other countries pursue them so much, and why do immediately they begin selling more of their products to Chile, and why do they start creating more jobs in their countries?

We are paying a price in America for not having a free trade agreement; and, frankly, in this economy we cannot stand to lose even one American job or lose the prospect of creating more American jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), who has played a leading role in expanding markets around the world for American companies.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. What kind of partner will we have in free trade with Chile? The answer is, America will have a wonderful partner in trade.

Chile has one of the fastest growing economies in the entire world. Over the last two decades, Chile has established a vigorous democracy, an open democracy, a thriving and open economy built on trade and a free market society. These are American values that we treasure. These are values that Chile embraces. The American-Chile Free Trade Agreement will help Chile continue its impressive record of growth, of development and in alleviating poverty in Chile; it will help spur progress in the Free Trade Area of the Americas; and importantly, I think it will send a positive message throughout the world by demonstrating that America will work in true partnership with those who are committed to free markets.

Free trade opens markets, it opens minds, it fosters democracy, it fosters labor rights and environmental protections. This free trade agreement represents those values, American values that we ought to be embracing.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

In conclusion, what does this trade agreement mean for America and for American workers? Our answer is, a lot for our future. In this agreement there will be new opportunities for workers, especially those in manufacturing-type companies, because much of the tariffs will be immediately taken away for consumer and industrial products.

It means that our products will be more competitive. That is important if you are a worker in a company that sells construction equipment, automobiles and automobile parts, computers and other information technology products, or if you work for a company that sells medical equipment and paper products.

This agreement is important for U.S. farmers and ranchers because most of the farm goods will be tariff-free within 4 years. That is important if you are selling pork in America, pork and pork products, beef and beef products, soybeans and meal, durum wheat, feed grains, potatoes and processed foods, these are jobs for your industry.

This provides access to the fast-growing services market in Chile. That is important if you work for a U.S. bank, for a U.S. insurance company, for an American telecommunications firm. If you work in a U.S. securities firm or an express delivery company, if you are a professional in that area, these are new opportunities for sales for your company and for yourself.

This is a trade agreement for the Digital Age. So it is important for workers who work in U.S. software, which is a growing part of our economy, in the music world, in the video and text world, these are record protections for our patents, for the work that American workers and inventions that we have created.

This is important for U.S. investors with strong protections and a secure, predictable legal framework for those of us who will invest in Chile. It is important if you are a company who wants to sell to the Chilean government because it creates ground-breaking anticorruption measures and guarantees that we have a fair and transparent process to sell our goods and services to a big range of Chilean government entities, including airports and seaports.

Finally, these are strong protections for labor and environment. Both governments commit to enforce their domestic labor and environmental laws. There is an innovative enforcement mechanism that includes monetary assessments to make sure that commercial, labor and environmental obligations are met. These cooperative projects will help protect wildlife, reduce environmental hazards and promote internationally recognized labor rights.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, if we do not pass this trade agreement, we will pass over a billion dollars worth of sales that we could have with Chile each year, a billion dollars that will create a lot of U.S. jobs and save a lot of U.S. workers in America.

The time is now for a free trade agreement between U.S. and Chile, a time for new American jobs, for new American growth, for our economic future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the subject of the bill just considered.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 329, I call up the bill (H.R. 2739) to implement the United States Singapore Free Trade Agreement, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

The United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement marks the first time the United States has entered an agreement with an Asian-Pacific nation of a free trade agreement. Because 99 percent of trade and goods with Singapore is already tariff free, this agreement focuses on removing restrictions on trade in services to the benefit of our massive American service sector, which accounts for around 80 percent of our entire economy. Singapore is the 12th largest trading partner with the United States already, with two-way trade approaching $40 billion last year. The U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement will enhance and strengthen this already strong trade relationship.

Among the benefits of free trade with Singapore are new opportunities for U.S. service providers. U.S. negotiators secured key protections in a framework with minimal carve-outs. Services firms will not only enjoy equal treatment in crossborder supply of services but will gain the right to invest and to establish a local services presence, which is critical to selling American services to Singapore.

The U.S. direct foreign investment in Singapore was $27 billion last year. With this new free trade agreement, we will create a secure and predictable legal framework for U.S. investors operating in Singapore because it will be treated as favorably as local investors who will have access to meaningful dispute settlements. The U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement contains state-of-the-art protections for American intellectual property, which is increasingly vital in the digital age and protects tens of thousands of U.S. workers and creates potential of tens of thousands of new American workers.

Trade in ag products represents a net trade surplus for the United States. Last year American farmers exported around $260 million worth of food products to Singapore. By binding all of its tariffs at zero, Singapore will now open its markets to American ag products and create new opportunities for American farmers to sell our produce to a nation whose small size prevents it from being able to grow enough food for consumption by its citizens. The U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement will serve as the foundation for other possible free trade agreements in Southeast Asia. The free trade agreement establishes standards for trade that mirror U.S. law and sets a precedent for future agreements.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time and the ability to subdivide as necessary to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), chairman of the Trade Subcommittee and one of the leading voices of trade in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the National Association of Town Watch and its National Night Out program for supporting the National Child Identification Program (NCIDP), a joint partnership between the American Football Coaches Association and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to provide identification kits to parents and guardians to help locate missing children. In addition, I applaud the AFCA and the FBI in their efforts to register 2 million more children in the NCIDP by August 5, 2003, the same day that National Night Out will celebrate its 20th anniversary.

The National Association of Town Watch (NATW), a national nonprofit community-crime prevention association located in Wynnewood, Pennsylvania, organizes the annual National Night Out. The National Night Out program develops relationships between local community and law enforcement officers in order to build safer and more secure neighborhoods to reduce crime, decreases local violence, and lowers the demand for drugs. NATW provides information, program support and technical assistance to local citizens and communities to support community-crime prevention. The National Night Out campaign involves citizens, law enforcement agencies, civic groups, businesses, neighborhood organizations and local officials from 9,850 communities from all 50 States and U.S. territories. In all, 33 million people participated in National Night Out in 2002.

I have participated in National Night Out several times and seen first hand its effectiveness in creating and supporting community crime watch programs. National Night Out has a greater presence in my State of Texas than any other state in the nation and the one in The Woodlands, Texas, my home town, has been named a national community- watch award winner for several years running.

As we all know, child safety and child protection have grown as important priorities for communities in recent years. Throughout its history, National Night Out has used its community crime-prevention message and its community-based networks to address major crime-related issues. National Night Out has proven to be a powerful tool for building stronger, safer neighborhoods, reaching more than 33 million Americans in nearly 10,000 cities and towns in 2002, making it the Nation's largest grassroots crime-prevention program.

This year, National Night Out will support the NCIDP in its efforts to provide parents with I.D. kits to collect and keep specific information, such as fingerprints, that would give authorities vital information in cases of missing children. While more than 800,000 children a year are estimated to be missing each year, less than 2 percent of all parents had a copy of a child's fingerprints to use in case of emergency. This initiative can change that reality and help protect children.

Mr. Speaker, supporting the NCIDP is just one example of the value of the National Night Out program and the important role of NATW.

National Night Out, which receives part of its funding from the Edward Byrne Memorial Grant program, is one of the fastest growing, cost effective community anti-crime programs in the nation. I understand the value of National Night Out and, as a result, have asked appropriators on the Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary Appropriations Subcommittee to support National Night Out funding.

Mr. Speaker, for consideration by my colleagues, I have enclosed a memorandum on the NCIDP from the Federal Bureau of Investigation to mayors across the United States explaining this year's National Night Out initiative in more detail. I respectfully request that it be included in the Record.

Department of Justice,

Federal Bureau of Investigation,

Clarksburg, WV, April 11, 2003.

Re community call to action.

Letter to All Honorable Mayors

According to a U.S. Department of Justice study, about

58,200 children are abducted each year by non-family members

with about 45 percent of those incidents being perpetrated by

strangers. This startling statistic caused the American

Football Coaches Association (NFL, NCAA, and high school

coaches nationwide) to launch the National Child

Identification Program (NCIDP). The FBI has partnered with

the Coaches Association in this not-for-profit program with

the goal of providing inkless fingerprint identification

(I.D.) kits far all 60 million children in the United States.

The FBI is separately partnered with National Night Out

which recently has also partnered with the AFCA's National

Child lD Program in an effort to further increase awareness

for child safety. The National Association of Town Watch

introduced National Night Out, ``America's Night Out Against

Crime,'' in 1984 and continues to heighten awareness and

strengthen participation in anticrime efforts throughout

communities nationwide. National Night Out, the NCIDP, and

the FBI hope to set a record on August 5, 2003, for the most

ID kits distributed within a single day in history.

In an effort to reach our goal, we are encouraging every

city across the U.S. to participate in the National Night Out

on Tuesday, August 5, 2003. Information for obtaining NCIDP's

inkless fingerprint ID kits for the National Night Out may be

found at its website http://www.nutw.org/nno/. The National

Night Out website provides you with complete information on

how to plan your event, as well as a way to obtain supplies,

including the child ID kit. Registration for the event is

free and once registered, you will receive an organizational

kit filled with ``how to'' materials such as: promotional

ideas, guidelines, tips, Q&As, camera-ready art, sample news

releases, and proclamations. Act quickly so that you do not

miss this opportunity to communicate the issues of safety

with your community on August 5, 2003. Registration is easy

and can be completed online by following these four easy

steps: Identify a Contact Person; go to the National Night

Out website http://www.nutw.org/nno/; register online, it's

free; and publicize your event.

Many law enforcement agencies and corporations are

currently combining the distribution of the NCIDP kits with

other prevention, drug awareness, violence education, and

community outreach programs. For more information on the

NCIDP and how you can help protect children in your

community, visit their website at www.childidprogram.com or

call (234) 630-2245.

It is paramount that we do all we can to ensure the safety

of our children. Your organization can be a prime vehicle in

that endeavor. Thank you for your help in this important

cause.

John S. Hooks, Jr.,

Deputy Assistant Director,

Policy, Administrative and Liaison Branch.

Mr. Speaker, I was present during this confrontation, not just present but the physically closest member to the incident. I saw it firsthand. I was not in the library or out of the room; I was there.

First, I think the official transcript puts a lie to this resolution. Furthermore, being the person sitting in front of the lone minority member, who in my opinion, in fact, my knowledge, instigated this confrontation, what I witnessed was a profanity-laced, angry, degrading, physical confrontation that was growing in volume, not lessening. It was a tirade completely inappropriate to this Congress and to that committee.

What I did, my action was to turn to the audience, looking for young people, hoping that there was no young person in that committee room who would witness the behavior of the gentleman who instigated this incident. Had it been me, I, too, would have made a phone call * * *

Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention, rightly so, that at the conclusion of my remarks, I need to clarify the words that I spoke in this House in order to also set an example for decorum and civility. At the end of my remarks, I made reference to an emotional state and bodily functions when, in fact, what I really was referencing was potential bodily conduct.

To clarify and also because I really do hold our colleagues in deference, I would ask unanimous consent to withdraw that portion of my remarks.

Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 376 I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion to instruct, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, Washington, as most Americans know, is simply not the real world. Here in Washington, budget increases are called cuts, $900 toilet seats are considered a bargain and, under this proposal, those who do not pay Federal income taxes will receive Federal income tax relief. That just does not make sense. The House this afternoon agreed, defeating this motion 220 to 206, yet we are back at this discussion again, unfortunately, for partisan political purposes.

Republicans in this House and across the country care very much about children. We care very much about families. But we think it is important to note that the Democrat motion to instruct, the one we are talking about tonight, would reduce the child tax credit for millions of children in America.

The Democrat motion to instruct allows the child credit to drop from $1,000 to $700 after the 2004 election. As a result, millions of low- and middle-income families will receive a smaller child tax credit right after the elections. Now, that sounds like Washington: Promise tax relief, then take it back after the election.

Well, not in this House. Because the Republican House-passed bill ensures the child tax credit remains at the $1,000 level throughout the decade, which is going to make it easier for families with children to make ends meet.

The Democrat motion to instruct does not eliminate the marriage penalty in the child credit until 2010, nearly 6 years from now, and even then it only goes so far to do it for 1 meager year. Under the Democrat motion, millions of children will be denied the child credit simply because their parents are married. Let me repeat that: Under the Democratic motion, millions of children will be denied the child credit simply because their parents are married. Well, the Republican House- passed bill benefits middle-income families by eliminating the child credit immediately.

The House-passed bill does not deny the child credit to military families. We will probably hear that tonight. Military families, including those who are deployed abroad, such as my brother Matt, Master Sergeant Matthew Brady, who serves in Iraq today in the 62nd Medical Brigade, they are already receiving a refundable child credit and will continue to receive a refundable child credit under the Republican House-passed bill.

The Democrat motion, on the other hand, would only increase the refundable child credit for some military families by allowing them to take into account tax-free income when they compute their refundable credit. Well, that is not good enough for our military.

Finally, the House-passed bill provides more tax relief to military families because it includes $806 million, $806 million, of military tax benefits. These provisions have passed this Republican House on numerous occasions and are awaiting action.

Mr. Speaker, because there are, I think, a number of Members who want to speak on the other side, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, working families in America matter, so much so that this Congress has repeatedly not only provided tax relief to help them balance their budget and to help them make ends meet, to help them raise their children and plan for their retirement and help them take care of their elderly parents and grandparents. I think the best thing we can do for working

families is to make sure that they continue to work, and for those who have been laid off, to get them back into the type of job that they can raise a family on.

I think that is what is so important about President Bush and this recent tax relief; we are boosting this economy and putting more than a million Americans back to work within the next few years. We are encouraging our businesses to invest more right now to hire summer workers, to hire new people into their small businesses.

For me, I understand when you are not working, you are not paying Social Security, Federal income tax, or paying into Medicare. The best way we can balance the budget and start paying down our debt is to get this economy moving. That is what the President's tax relief and job bill is all about.

In Texas, for example, because of this tax relief for working families, we have the equivalent of new jobs that will be created, enough that we could build two new Pentagons each year in Texas and fill every office with a new Texas worker. That is real jobs for working families, and that is what tax relief is all about.

Members have heard tonight that the President's bill deprives millions of low-income families of a tax break for children. Nothing could be further from the truth. The only ways in which these families could be denied tax relief is if they had an income tax liability in the first place, and they do not. On the contrary, low-income families, those who are working hard not only do not have an income tax liability, but they receive generous checks from their neighbors through the government as a result of the refundable portion of the child credit and the earned income tax credit.

While most Americans think of a refund as getting money back because you overpaid your taxes, in this case refundability means you get a check back even though you did not pay taxes into the Federal Government. Here is an example. For a single mom with two children under the current child tax credit, this mom works, makes $25,000 a year, her tax liability before the credit is pretty small, $800. We provide today a child tax credit of almost $600. We send her a refundable earned income tax credit, a check from her neighbors, from their taxes, of almost $1,700. So we send her $2,282 not only to pay her part of the Federal Government, but to pay her part of payroll taxes as well, the ones that go to Social Security and Medicare, perhaps unemployment, all of which she and her family will use in her lifetime.

America cares about working families, so much so that we take from our own paychecks to help people who do not have enough to make ends meet. One thing we do not hear tonight is that the most recent tax relief increased the number of people who do not have to pay at all by almost 4 million people.

Since 2002, nearly 10 million tax filers have been taken off the tax rolls, working families who no longer have to pay any Federal income tax whatsoever, and now in America nearly 30 percent of all our taxpayers pay no Federal income taxes whatsoever. The remaining 70 percent pay their share for them and then their share of government. We care so much about working families who have high Federal income tax rates that we want to provide relief to shoulder that burden.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute just to make the point that I think it is shameful to use our Armed Forces, our men and women over in Iraq today, which includes my little brother who is in harm's way each day. I think it is shameful to use them for petty partisan politics, especially when the House bill that passed provided $806 million of relief for our military that our colleagues across the aisle cheerfully voted against.

What bothers me is that this Republican House has worked so hard to increase the pay, the housing, the readiness of our military men and women, including my little brother, and as he told me the other day in an e-mail from Iraq, he and his colleagues find it very disturbing that they are used for these petty partisan politics when in fact we should be providing them the relief that we can.

I should point out as well that under this Democrat motion to instruct not only does this child tax credit end quickly but we dangle it in front of our military for 2 years and then yank it out right after the elections, which definitely qualifies for petty partisan politics at a time this country cannot afford.

I yield to the gentleman from North Dakota.

Reclaiming my time, I would make the point that not

only this afternoon did this House vote down this motion to instruct, but we had ample opportunity to pass tax breaks for our military. In fact, we as Republicans in the House did in the President's tax relief and our Democratic colleagues, and I know they have good hearts and the fact of the matter is they are patriotic, they care about our military, but they voted almost unanimously to deny this help for our military.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

I make the point again this House has already provided record tax relief for our military families including those deployed abroad. There is not a need to pick up another tax relief bill for the military. We have done so, and our Democratic colleagues voted strongly against it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), a man who stands very strongly for working families and for tax relief.

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

Let me close our portion of this. And I appreciate the gentleman from

Maine's direction on this issue. While we may disagree and the parties may disagree on the policy issues, let me tell the Members I think we both have a love for this country, both are trying to do the right thing. We may have different approaches to it, but I know he has a good heart; and I appreciate his service here in Congress.

Let me point out that we care very much about working families and their children, so much so that in the last few years we have taken nearly 4 million families on the lower-income level and completely absolved them from the Federal income taxes, just said they do not have to pay Federal income taxes at all; so much so that now almost 30 percent of Americans fall into that category, which is a record high for those who do not have and do not owe Federal income tax. And in the tax relief plan for families that do pay Federal income taxes, we gave them a credit, helped them pay for raising children because things are so expensive. We reduced the marriage penalty because it simply was wrong to tax people more simply because they were married. This has been a great help for working families with children.

For those who pay income taxes, we said we want less of them to pay these taxes. So we expanded the 10 percent, the very lowest tax rate so more and more people would pay less of their Federal income taxes. And then for all the other working families, we said, look, Washington takes too much their money to pay for those $900 toilet seats and those $300 hammers and for those hundreds of programs that duplicate each other. We think the best way to get this economy going is to leave the money in their pockets, the best way to help small business hire new workers and keep them on is to put more money back into those small businesses. We knew that the best way to pay off this debt and get this budget balanced again is to get people back to work again by giving them the power of their own paycheck. So this Republican House and this President have bent over backward in record ways to make sure that working families with children can make ends meet better.

But make no mistake about our policy and principle. Our principle is income tax relief should go to those who pay income taxes. So the child tax credit is targeted to those who owe Federal income taxes. So much do we provide relief that for those who do not owe any Federal income taxes whatsoever, we already provide them tax credits, help, checks from their neighbors, from their paycheck to help them. We call it the earned income tax credit. We even provide some refundability, some more checks from their neighbors to help them with their children. So not only for those working families do we say they do not owe Federal income taxes but other neighbors say we will pay their payroll taxes, we will pay their share of Social Security, we will pay their share of Medicare, we will pay their share of unemployment, we will pay for reduced and free school lunches because their kids do need to eat. We will pay for free health care. We think it is important that their children are healthy. We will pay for free public transportation because we want their children to have opportunities.

This is a very caring America. We care for families who are low income, but we care for working families who make a little more than that. For the cafeteria worker who provides the free school lunch, we care about their taxes. For the bus driver who helps provide the free public transportation, we care about their tax burden. For the nurse who provides the free health care, we care about their tax burden as well. So this child tax credit is for those who pay Federal income taxes.

This Democratic motion to instruct yanks that child tax credit, that steps away from these working families as soon as the next election is over. That is flat wrong. And on behalf of this Republican conference, we oppose this Democratic motion to instruct. It would reduce the child tax credit for millions of children, and that is not right.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor a great American and a better friend, Isadore Shrager. ``Izz'' Shrager is a legend in my home town of Philadelphia.

He has been an important contributor to our city and our nation. He serves or has served on many important organizations, including the Democratic County Executive Committee of Philadelphia; Fairmount Park Commission; Pennsylvania Transportation Commission; the Board of Directors of City Trusts; the Board of Wills Eye Hospital; the Board of Community College of Philadelphia; the Board of Temple University; and the Board of Governors of Temple Hospital. Isadore is Past President and Honorary President of Akiba Hebrew Academy; Life Member of Board of Trustees of Har Zion Temple; a member of the National Lawyers' Committee for Endowment and Bequests of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel; member, Zionist Organization of America; and Director and Solicitor of the Amelia S. Buten Research Fund.

A long time attorney, Mr. Shrager's practice involves a broad range of matters, including business administration, zoning, wills, condemnation, legal issues involving City, State and Federal agencies, and those pertaining to education at the secondary, college and graduate school levels. Isadore is Solicitor to the Register of Wills of Philadelphia and is a member of the American, Pennsylvania and Philadelphia Bar Associations, and serves on many of their committees. He has served as a member and delegate to the Judicial Conference of the Third Circuit, and a member of the Democratic State Committee, serving as a Delegate to the Democratic National Conventions since 1946. Among numerous awards and honors he has received are: the B.L. Jacobs Adult Award, Cyrus Adler Community Service Award, State of Israel Tribute, Democratic Tribute Award, Lifetime Honorary Trustee of Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia, and the Temple Diamond Award. He also sponsors the Isadore A. Shrager Scholarship of the Temple University School of Law.

Mr. Speaker, Isadore Shrager is my friend of many years. It is fitting that my colleagues join me in honoring him today.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would first like to commend the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for their leadership and hard work on homeland security. I rise today in support of the Weiner-Brady-Fossella amendment to make our homeland security budget smarter and more targeted to high-threat areas. We are at war in this war on terrorism. In war, there are likely targets and there are less likely targets. You protect them both. I know that Chairman Rogers and Chairman Young have fought hard to make sure we do exactly right, protect both likely targets and less likely targets.

What this amendment does is focus on those communities, on those States that will likely be and have been identified as high-threat, high-density urban areas. The States that have these high-threat communities include much of our country, New York and California, Texas and Illinois, Arizona and Colorado, Florida, Hawaii and Georgia, Massachusetts and Maryland, Michigan and Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio and Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Washington and the District of Columbia, all States that are host to urban areas that are at high risk and high threat of a terrorist attack. This amendment targets $200 million and shifts it to the high-threat, high-density urban area funding. Part of the community that I represent, Houston, Texas, is on that list of top 10 communities. It is, I would imagine, as a result of both communications from al Qaeda terrorists, from information received from interviews with al Qaeda operatives and Houston is, of course, the energy capital of the world. It is home to more than 50 percent of the oil and gas refining in this country. If you chose to target America's energy supplies, if you chose to bring this country down by taking down our energy pipelines or our oil and gas facilities, this is where you would start. But we are not the only community at high risk and high threat of a terrorist attack. There are many throughout this country.

What we seek from this amendment is making sure that these communities have a pool of money with that threat. More importantly, we make sure that when other communities are added to this list, when they suddenly become at high threat and a high-risk community, that when they come to the Federal Government for help, they are not told, we're sorry, we sent this money to other regions, less likely, less at risk, but that was the money we had. Unfortunately for all our efforts, and I know our government moves so slowly, even with the best intentions, I am afraid our communities do not understand our grant application process. I do not think they understand our time line. I think our communities are at risk today. We offer this amendment in good faith, recognizing just how diligent our chairman is in trying to protect communities of all size and all risk.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, based upon the gentleman's comments, the hard work that the gentleman has done, and I know that this is a key issue and I appreciate the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) and others who are involved in this, and I also appreciate the strong leadership of our chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers); and based upon this discussion today, based upon the hard work, because we all try to raise the level of funding for our communities, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I missed rollcall vote Nos. 276, 277 and 278 on the evening of June 16, 2003. I was traveling in between my District (TX-08) and Washington. My flight was delayed almost 2 hours, causing me to miss the aforementioned votes.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on all three bills: H.R. 2254, to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1101 Colorado Street in Boulder City, Nevada, as the ``Bruce Woodbury Post Office Building'', H. Con. Res. 220, commending Medgar Wiley Evers and his widow, Myrlie Evers-Williams, for their lives and accomplishments, and S. 703, to designate the regional headquarters building for the National Park Service under construction in Omaha, Nebraska, as the ``Carl T. Curtis National Park Service Midwest Regional Headquarters Building''.