Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) for this substitute that we have here today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Kind plan because it is actually kind to small businesses and it is kind to hard-working employees, and it makes affordable coverage accessible to the employees, the hard workers that need and deserve that coverage.

As a small business owner, I know firsthand how difficult it is to provide workers with first-class health coverage, but the reality is these hard-working families need access to quality healthcare, not just bare bones, expensive coverage. I would have appreciated the Kind plan for my employees, I can tell you that.

The Republican plan actually provides employers and employees with a false sense of security. It is a false security. They will assume they are paying for standard coverage, like the owner of the business has for his or her family. They will assume they are paying for mammograms, prenatal and postnatal coverage, coverage for illnesses like diabetes, and for prostate cancer, because these are generally State-mandated coverages. And when they find out differently after they have enrolled in one of these plans, it will be too late.

I support the Kind substitute, because it gives small businesses the option to enroll in a health plan that is similar to the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan, giving workers a choice of plans. Why should the hard-working people of America, those employed by small businesses, have fewer options than Federal workers?

Mr. Speaker, the Kind substitute provides an affordable option to small businesses by granting subsidies. It gives them choices guaranteed to cover the most important medical procedures. This substitute provides working families, desperate for quality

health coverage, the choices they need and want, and I urge my colleagues to support the Kind substitute.

Mr. Speaker, few health services are as important to a woman as an annual mammogram. Early detection is necessary as a weapon in our fight against breast cancer. Breast cancer has already touched far too many families. I simply cannot accept the idea of even one woman in any of our districts forgoing her annual mammogram and then later being diagnosed with advanced breast cancer because her association health plan does not cover mammograms.

Support this motion to recommit. Help save the lives of our wives, mothers, daughters, and sisters. The women of this country are counting on your vote.

Mr. Speaker, today as we stand here and discuss the conference report on the Keeping Our Children and Families Safe Act, I find it ironic that this week the Republican leadership can find it in their hearts to provide much-needed funding to prevent child abuse, which is decent and necessary, but last week they could not provide critical funding for low-income children without voting for additional tax breaks for the rich. These are the very children from low-income families who are statistically likely to suffer from child abuse, perhaps because of frustration piled on families struggling to make ends meet. This week, the Republicans care about children; last week, they did not. What kind of message is this?

The Republican's child tax credit bill, which the House debated last week, was a squandered opportunity to invest in all of our children and their families. We missed the chance to pass a child tax credit bill which would immediately grant our Nation's hard-working families their fair share of the tax credit.

The families I am talking about are those with dedicated workers that work long hours at low pay, who pay taxes and earn less than $26,000 a year. It is unfortunate that Republicans believe these children and families do not contribute enough to deserve a break, a break now, like higher income families will get.

Republican actions last week left me no doubt that Republican priorities are dead wrong. Last week the House Republicans should have followed the other body and brought a child tax credit bill before us that would help children now, without burdening them with a tax debt later in life. But, according to the majority leader, ``If we are going to do it, we should get something in exchange. If we give people a tax break that don't pay taxes, it is welfare.''

Well, Mr. Speaker, these families do pay taxes. They are not seeking welfare. They are seeking the same acknowledgment for their hard work as the rich received in the Republican tax package. They deserve tax relief at the same time as other American families. Instead, this supposed party of ``compassionate conservatism'' has exploited the child tax credit issue to pass even more tax cuts for their wealthy friends. Instead of bringing up the other body's child tax credit bill costing $3.5 billion with offsets to fully pay for it, they passed a bill costing over $80 billion not paid for.

Mr. Speaker, this is at a time when America's Federal deficit will exceed $400 billion, which, by the way, will be paid for by our children, their children, and their children, and on down the line.

Mr. Speaker, our priority must be putting money in the hands of working Americans while keeping our fiscal house in order. That way we can create jobs and build a strong economy. We are helping our children today by protecting them from child abuse, but being poor is abuse of another kind.

Mr. Speaker, children are 25 percent of the population of this Nation, but they are 100 percent of our Nation's future.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to give my Special Order at this time.

Mr. Speaker, today's vote on the Republican child tax credit bill was a squandered opportunity, a squandered opportunity to invest in our children and their families. We missed the chance to pass legislation that would immediately grant our Nation's hardworking families an increased child tax credit. The families I am talking about are those with dedicated workers that put in full-time hours at a low wage, pay taxes, and earn less than $26,000 a year. It is unfortunate that Republicans believe these forgotten children and families do not contribute enough to deserve a break. Their actions today left me no doubt that their priorities are dead wrong.

Why could the House Republican leadership not follow the other body and bring a clean child tax credit bill before us today? According to a colleague on the other side of the aisle, ``If we're going to do it, we should get something in exchange. If we give people a tax break that don't pay taxes, it's really welfare.''

Mr. Speaker, these families are not on welfare. They do pay taxes. They are not seeking welfare. They are seeking the same acknowledgment for their hard work as the rich received in the Republican tax package earlier, and they deserve tax relief now. This supposed party of compassionate conservatism has exploited the child tax credit issue to pass even more tax cuts for their wealthy friends. Rather than bringing up a child tax credit bill costing $3.5 billion with full offsets, which means fully paid for, they passed a bill that costs over $80 billion with no offsets, totally unpaid for, at a time when America's Federal deficit will exceed $400 billion.

Our priority should be to put money in the hands of working Americans while keeping our fiscal house in order. That way we can create jobs and build a strong economy. If we do not help our children now, I ask you, when will we? How can we ever expect to strengthen our Nation in the future when we ignore our children, 25 percent of our population, 100 percent of our future?

Mr. Speaker, the House Republican leadership failed our children today. They failed working families. The other body handed us a bill that would have increased tax credits for 6.5 million tax-paying families. The President, after hearing from the public and getting the pressure from the majority of the people in this Nation, actually came out in strong support of this cleaner legislation. He supported what the other body passed 94 to 2. But the bill passed today will not address the real needs of this Nation's hardworking, low-wage-earning families in the same way at all.

Mr. Speaker, it is time to restore true compassion for our Nation's working families rather than our Nation's millionaires. Our families need to know that we have not forgotten them. They are the core, they are the engine, they are what makes this Nation work, and we cannot forget them.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand here and recognize the many contributions that Patsy Takemoto Mink made to the people of this country, particularly to the girls and women of this country. And I am equally proud that she will be honored by a post office in her home State named after Patsy Mink. I was privileged to serve with Patsy on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce from the beginning of my tenure in 1992. She was my mentor and my friend, and I miss her every day.

Besides being the first woman of color to serve in the House of Representatives, Patsy Takemoto Mink helped craft landmark legislation for girls and women across the country during her 24 years in Congress. In the early seventies, Patsy played the central congressional role in the enactment of title IX, prohibiting gender discrimination by federally funded institutions.

But title IX was not Patsy's only contribution to girls and women of America. Patsy also authored the Women's Educational Equity Act, WEEA. WEEA remains the primary resource for teachers and parents seeking information on proven methods to ensure gender equity in their schools and their communities. In fact, while this Congress is reauthorizing Head Start, I can hear Patsy's passionate and intelligent voice demanding that we not decimate this successful program by block granting any or all of it to the States. Her voice is missed. I hear it in my ears. I hope the people on the other side of the aisle can hear it in their ears so that we will do the right thing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak against the rule, and it is not because I am against the underlying bill. It is because, Mr. Speaker, hardworking families need a break more than anyone else in this country and hardworking families are the ones that are bearing the brunt of this weak economy. But for some reason the Republicans leadership feels that the privileged few are more important than the 12 million children who are left out of the Republican tax cut and that Internet gambling is more important to discuss today than our children. And that is just plain wrong.

Voices across the country are speaking out in great numbers. It is overwhelming what we are hearing in our offices. And it must be overwhelming what the administration is hearing about supporting increasing the child tax credit and making it permanent, especially for those 12 million children who were left out of the recent tax package, because President Bush is finally urging the House to follow suit with the other body, saying that he wants to sign legislation that will restore tax credits for lower-income families and put the majority party's bad decision behind him.

Why is the Republican leadership in the House dragging its feet when we can help American families now?

Let us hold off on debating issues, even though we agree with them, like the underlying bill we are talking about, Internet gambling. Let us hold off on those issues until all working families are provided the benefits of the child tax credit. And at the same time, Mr. Speaker, while it is imperative that we swiftly extend the child tax credit to lower-income families, it absolutely should not be part of a broad package that extends even more benefits to the wealthy.

We must pass a clean bill that solves the injustice that has been done to these hardworking families. Our priority must be the 12 million forgotten children, not more tax breaks for the rich, not debate about Internet gambling, not anything except giving the tax breaks to those hardworking families.

Mr. Speaker, hardworking families need a break more than anyone in this country, especially since they are bearing the brunt of this very weak economy. But, for some reason, the Republican leadership feels

that the privileged few are more important than the 12 million children who are left out of the Republican tax cut. That is just plain wrong.

Voices across the Nation are speaking out, and they are speaking out loudly, and in overwhelming numbers they are in support of increasing the child tax credit and making it permanent, especially for those 12 million children who were left out of the recent tax package.

That is why President Bush is finally urging the House to follow suit with the other body so he can sign legislation that will restore tax credits for lower income families and put this bad and actually embarrassing decision behind him. Why is the Republican leadership dragging their feet here in the House when we can help American families now?

Well, Mr. Speaker, I know it is important that we swiftly extend the child tax credit to lower-income families. It should not, however, be part of another broad package that extends even more benefits to the wealthy.

We must pass a clean bill, a bill that solves the injustice that has been done to these hard-working families. Our priority should be the 12 million forgotten children, not more tax breaks for the rich.

Mr. Speaker, how am I supposed to go back to my district and tell a mother from Santa Rosa, California, located in the 6th Congressional district of California that I represent, just north of San Francisco across the Golden Gate Bridge, tell her that according to the House Republican leadership that her job at Head Start does not contribute enough into the tax system to deserve an increase through the child tax credit? This mother, whose name is Cori, is the head of one of the 6.5 million families that pays Federal, State, and local taxes; yet she has been left out of the recent increase to the child tax credit. Cori overcame the obstacles of being a single parent. She did it without a support system and she did it with very little money. After turning to the Head Start program for help, she went back to school and became a Head Start teacher to give back to the program that she thought and felt and knew saved her.

How do I explain to Cori that her hard work is not worth rewarding, that she does not give enough to the system to deserve a break? I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle where is the compassion for Cori and her children?

It is time that we help working families like Cori so they can balance their responsibilities of earning a living and meeting family demands. Our priority today should be expanding the child tax credit for lower-income families. Passing it can be the first step in reversing a very serious wrong.

Mr. Speaker, it is time to restore compassion to our Nation's families, rather than our Nation's millionaires. American families need to know we have not forgotten them. The 12 million children that have been ignored by the Republican leadership need to know that they are important.

I demand that the Republican leadership in the House act now and extend the child tax credit to those who need it the most: our children. Our children, 25 percent of our Nation, 100 percent of our future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule because working families should be our priority today, families like Cori's. Cori came to a local Head Start in my district at a low point in her life. She was a single parent without any support system and very little money and very little self-esteem. She had just completed a recovery program and was seeking to put her life back together.

Cori went on to volunteer for Head Start, completed an AA degree in early childhood development, and now Cori is a Head Start employee for the past 3 years and wants to get her bachelor's degree. Mr. Speaker, Cori and her two daughters will be denied the child tax credit, while those making more than $1 million a year receive overall tax cuts totalling $93,500.

Our priority today should be, must be, the Rangel-Davis-DeLauro bill, which will expand the child tax credit and marriage penalty relief for lower-income working families. Passing it can be the first step to reversing the wrong done to these hard workers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule. The proponents of the bill claim that it addresses partial-birth abortion, but I think the American people deserve to know what we are really voting on today. We are voting to limit a woman's access to safe and accepted medical procedures, restrictions that will subject a woman to unnecessary risks when she exercises her reproductive right.

We should be promoting a woman's health. We should not be endangering it. We should be debating concrete measures to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and to ensure that all pregnant women have affordable access to the care they need to deliver healthy babies. Instead, here we are spending our time debating legislation that the Supreme Court has already found to be unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court has clearly recognized the need for protecting the health of the mother. Yet the anti-choice lobby has chosen to forge ahead in their attempts to politicize women's health and chip away at our constitutional rights.

As terrible as it is to acknowledge, things can go tragically wrong in the final stages of pregnancy, and in these unimaginable circumstances, a woman should not be required to risk her health and future fertility by continuing a dangerous pregnancy. I am not a doctor, so I am not going to stand here and pretend that I have the necessary expertise to make medical decisions for my constituents. Instead, I want every woman in my district and every woman in the Nation to have access to whatever procedure she and her physician feel is safest and the most appropriate way for her to settle and handle the situation.

Let us be honest. The debate today is not about aborting viable, healthy children. Few late-term abortions occur in the first place.

Those that do are tragically necessary to save the life or health of the mother. So this debate is actually about limiting a woman's right to choose by restricting access to constitutionally protected medical procedures.

The American people deserve to know what we are really doing here today. We are really desperately trying to take away reproductive choice of every woman in America. I urge my colleagues, do not let this happen. Oppose the rule, and oppose H.R. 760.

Mr. Speaker, our working families need a break. They need a break more than anyone in this country, especially since they bear the brunt of this weak economy. But, for some reason, the Bush administration continues to cast them aside in favor of the privileged few.

Working men and women are the backbone of this Nation. They are the ones who struggle day in and day out to provide the bare necessities for stable, happy homes. They know how hard it is to balance work and family, and they need our support.

The Bush administration, however, and the Republican leadership, in their faux ``compassionate conservatism,'' continue to slap working families in the face. They said that the recent tax cut bill would provide relief for all Americans. But here is the truth: increases to the child tax credits were given to the families who need it the least, while low-income families were left with nothing. Worse hit were working families earning between $10,500 and $26,600 a year. Working families in this tax bracket were completely ignored. The Republican leadership denied them their fair share.

Mr. Speaker, I want Members to hear about a mother from my district, the Sixth District of California north of San Francisco across the Golden Gate Bridge. Cori and her family were cast aside by the Republicans.

Let me tell the Members about Cori. Cori came to a local Head Start program at a low point in her life. She was

a single parent without a support system and with very little money and very little self-esteem. She had just completed a recovery program and was seeking to put her life back together. It was the first time in years that she felt needed, comfortable, and good about herself and her life.

Cori went on to volunteer for Head Start. She then completed an AA degree in early childhood development because she wanted to give back to the program that got her on her feet. Now Cori has been a Head Start employee for the past 3 years, with the goal of getting a Bachelor of Arts degree.

Mr. Speaker, why should Cori be denied the child tax credit, while those making more than $1 million a year received overall tax cuts totalling $93,500 each? What definition of compassionate are we using here?

This attack on our working families must end. But sadly, the attack on working families does not stop with denying the child tax credit to Cori. Sometime soon we will debate a Republican bill to deny workers the benefits of overtime pay, the heart of the very Fair Labor Standards Act.

If the poorly named ``Family Time Flexibility Act'' passes, the Republican leadership will take a step to undermine protection of the 40-hour work week, so employers can avoid paying their workers like Cori overtime. This is not only poor economics for struggling families who count on overtime, it is just plain bad public policy.

It is time that we restore the balance for families so they can earn a living and meet family demands at the same time. We must pass H.R. 2286, which will expand the child tax credit and marriage penalty relief for lower-income families like Cori and her two children. Passing the legislation can be the first step in reversing the wrong done to these hard workers.

In the coming year, I plan to introduce legislation called the Balancing Act, which will improve the lives of working families and their children. That would mean providing paid family leave after the birth of a child, increasing the funding for child care, granting school breakfasts for all students, and helping with the care of aging parents. I urge my colleagues to join me in that effort.

Mr. Speaker, it is time to restore compassion for our Nation's working families, rather than our Nation's millionaires. Our families need to know that we have not forgotten them.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking member and the chairman for working with me and my colleagues, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts), to include our amendment in the en bloc amendment.

Our partisan Sense of the Congress amendment calls on the Department of Defense to have an institution devoted to studying peacekeeping operations and preparing our troops for future peacekeeping missions. We have constantly bore witness to the dramatic challenges facing our troops right now in Afghanistan and in Iraq as they work to secure the peace, from acting

as traffic cops to feeding hungry crowds.

Our amendment aims to ensure that these troops are prepared for peace as much as they are ready for war.

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

Well, it is about time the Republican leadership does something about the unemployed and something for the unemployed; but what they offer is too little, too late, and it does not cover those who have used up their benefits but are still not working.

I would like to remind the gentlewoman from Washington State that unemployed workers cannot find jobs when there are not any. I would like to respond to the gentleman from Oregon, referring to ``our policies,'' meaning the Democrats. Our policies, indeed. When Bill Clinton was our President, our economy was strong. Not like today, when just 3 weeks ago the Labor Department reported that new applications for unemployment insurance hit 455,000 for the week ending April 19, and that number does not even count families who have exhausted their benefits and are not working.

Just listen to one of my constituents. He says, ``I have a master's degree and I have not been able to find work. I also deal with a chronic illness. I find myself applying for food stamps and soon will be unable to pay any bills. I am not sure I will have a roof over my head very soon. A lot of people are having a very difficult time. Please, Congresswoman, try to make unemployment extensions a top priority.''

That is why I support the Rangel bill, H.R. 1652, the Unemployment Benefits Extension Act, which would provide 26 weeks of extended benefits through November 2003. This bill will provide real benefits to all of those workers who are in between jobs, not only those who are newly unemployed.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation, and I urge the Republican leadership to take up H.R. 1652 so that we can have real unemployment relief.

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

When I asked the Marin County superintendent of public schools what she thought about H.R. 1170, she replied that it was a bill that would affect the many to solve the possible problem of just a few, and I think that describes it perfectly. Of course no one wants a school to force parents to medicate their children. In fact, we would not stand for that. But neither do we want teachers and other school personnel to be afraid to talk to parents about children's behavior or to suggest that a child should be evaluated by a medical health practitioner. That is why we worked with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns) to add a provision to H.R. 1170 that specifically protects a teacher's right to have these discussions with parents and to identify a child for evaluation just as they can do now under IDEA. While I do think this bill creates more paperwork than good public policy, I do understand the gentleman from Georgia's (Mr. Burns) intentions, and I appreciate his willingness to work with us.

This bill was unanimously voted out of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and I know of no objection to it passing under suspension this morning.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

(Mrs. DAVIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate all of the remarks we have heard on the floor today. I said before when the subject of Ritalin come up, I raised four children, and I am absolutely certain that Ritalin or some other psychotropic drug would have been suggested for each and every one of them sometime during their school career. In fact, when I was a kid, my grandfather used to offer to pay me 5 cents for every minute that I could sit still. Well, I never earned a nickel. So my kids came with this hyperactive behavior through the genes, and we all learned through behavior modification and through growing up that, indeed, moving around all the time was not going to get us anywhere. So they learned to be calm, before I did, actually.

But that is why I have concerns about blurring the line between the behavior of an active, high-spirited child and a child with a disability.

This is not to suggest, however, that attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, ADHD, is not a very real disability for many children. ADHD robs so many children and their parents of the pleasures of childhood and family. The children are labeled as ``bad'' for things that they actually cannot control. The parents find themselves frustrated and often angry at their child.

However, the growing increase in the manufacture and prescription of psychotropic drugs, like Ritalin, is a cause for concern. The decision to treat a child with any drug, but certainly a stimulant, should be made very, very carefully and only after comprehensive evaluation and diagnosis. It is crucial that parents be very well informed about these drugs, both the possible successes of the drug and the possible side effects of a drug, if it is being considered for their child.

It goes without saying, parents must have the final word in deciding whether or not their child takes any psychotropic drug.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have been part of these negotiations with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns) and with the other side of the aisle in our committee so we could come up with a bill that we totally support and feel will be good for the child, for the parent, and for the education system for that child.

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

Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Sanchez amendment. Over the last few months, we have voiced our support for the troops many, many times. Tax relief, loan forgiveness, and resolutions of support are well and good. But I know of no better way to demonstrate our real support for our troops than by finally giving women in our Armed Forces and the wives and daughters of the men in our military the ability to exercise their constitutional right to reproductive choice and reproductive health while being stationed abroad.

We routinely ask servicewomen to put their lives on the line in defense of our country and our country's ideals. That is why we must not require them to put their lives on the line when seeking constitutionally protected reproductive services. Please join me in supporting our troops by supporting the Sanchez amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the House approved a war on Iraq because proponents said they were building weapons of mass destruction. Now this same House is on the verge of approving money for the United States to forward new nuclear weapons. How can we look ourselves in the mirror? America should have more honor than that. Simply put, nuclear weapons do not mean greater security, and smaller nuclear weapons do not mean guaranteed safety. These are the delusions that will ultimately lead our country and our world into nuclear destruction. These are the ultimate weapons of mass destruction. The Cold War is over, but the world still balances on the edge of an atomic cliff. Vote for the Tauscher amendment. Make sure we do not fall over the edge.

Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues should hear themselves over there. I have been sitting up in my office listening to this debate. They are saying our forests are diseased. They are right. But I ask, when was the last time they supported adequate funding for forest disease research in any of our bills?

They rightfully worry about fires devastating our forests. But I ask, when last did they support any kind of growth control, any kind of control that would prevent neighborhoods from butting up against our forests?

Their solution is right, cut the trees. Because if there are no trees, there will be no forest fires.