Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman [Representative Barbara Lee] for the time, and I applaud her efforts to draw attention to the needs of the Haitian people.

Haiti is the fourth poorest country in the world. Half of the population of the country earns no more than $60 per year. Haiti has an

unemployment rate of about 60% and an illiteracy rate of only 45%. Only 40% of all Haitians have access to potable water. Tuberculosis cases in Haiti are ten times as high as those in other Latin American countries, and 90% of all HIV infections in the Caribbean are in Haiti.

The Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) is denying Haiti any access to loans for development assistance. Haiti has already had $145.9 million in development loans approved by the IDB. These loans include $50 million for rural road development, $22.5 million for reorganization of the health sector, $54 million for potable water and sanitation and $19.4 million for basic education programs. Haiti could also qualify for an additional $317 million in new loans for development projects, as well as a $50 million investment sector loan. However, the IDB is refusing to consider Haiti for any additional loans and has not even disbursed the loans that have been approved.

The IDB is effectively denying Haiti access to critical development assistance. Furthermore, Haiti is deeply in debt and has also been denied the opportunity to receive any debt relief for its existing debts.

The reasons provided by the IDB and the U.S. government concerning the suspension of lending and assistance to Haiti shift from day to day. None of the purported explanations provide any justification for withholding this vitally needed aid. While the IDB and the Administration dither, the people of Haiti suffer and continue to live in poverty.

On March 5, 2003, I introduced H.R. 1108, the Access to Capital for Haiti's Development Act. This bill would require the United States to use its voice, vote and influence to urge the Inter-American Development Bank to immediately resume lending to Haiti, disperse all previously approved loans, assist Haiti with the payment of its existing debts and consider providing Haiti debt relief. The Access to Capital for Haiti's Development Act would allow Haiti to build roads and infrastructure and provide basic education and health care services to the Haitian people. This bill currently has 24 cosponsors.

The United States is now spending billions of dollars to rebuild Iraq. Earlier this month, this Congress passed a Supplemental Appropriations Act that contained $1.7 billion to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure. That bill included funds for health care services for 13 million Iraqis and financed the repair or reconstruction of 25,000 schools, 20,000 houses and 3,000 miles of roads in Iraq. The bill also contained assistance for Colombia, Afghanistan, Israel, Jordan, Turkey, and the Eastern European countries of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovenia and Bulgaria.

Debt relief for Iraq is being discussed by officials of the Paris Club of creditor countries. Some Members of Congress have even suggested that France, Germany, and Russia can best contribute to the reconstruction of Iraq by the forgiveness of Iraq's debts.

Haiti is a deeply impoverished country on an island just off our shores. We cannot provide assistance to countries all over the world while ignoring the needs of people so close to our border. It is time for the United States and the Inter-American Development Bank to resume lending to Haiti and provide debt relief and development assistance to this impoverished country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. I rise in opposition to the legislation because this is one of those bills that could have been a clean bill dealing with AMBER Alert. It could have been a bill to deal with the problem of abduction of our children.

However, some Members of this body have taken this as an opportunity to load up the bill with everything that they think will create certain kinds of problems so that it can be used for political reasons. There will be a lot of Members who will be intimidated, and they will vote for this bill even though they are opposed to mandatory minimum sentencing because they do not want to be accused of being against a bill that will deal with the problems of abduction of our children.

Well, we must point out what is going on and we must focus in on this business of mandatory minimum sentencing. Every judge that I know of in the country and all of the Federal judges, whether they are on the left or the right, disagree with mandatory minimum sentencing. They do not like it. It takes away their discretion. It does not allow them to take into consideration all of the mitigating factors, and so we continue to overrule the judges that go through awesome processes to get where they are by inserting mandatory minimum sentencing into legislation. It has wreaked havoc on some communities.

As a matter of fact, when we take a look at the mandatory minimum sentencing done because of some of the drug laws that we have created right here on this floor, Members will see that whole communities have been devastated, and we are beginning to get a turnaround on some of that.

Mr. Speaker, we have young people 18 and 19 years old under mandatory minimum sentencing, drug laws, who are doing not just a minimum 5 years but even more, simply because the judge had no discretion. A child, first-time offense, with some of these drug laws, coming from good families who happen to makes a mistake, wrong place, wrong time, and we have something similar in this legislation between consenting young people, 18 and 17 years old who would cross a State line and have consensual sex, they would be at risk for mandatory minimum sentencing.

We do not want to do that. This is not honest. If we want a clean bill that deals with abductions and an AMBER Alert, do that. Take this other mess out of the bill and stop trying to use it as a political vehicle by which to judge some people in their elections.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman so very much. I caught his presentation on the screen as I was going through the cloakroom, and I cannot tell him how proud I am of him for dealing with this issue of autism and children. I commend him for his interest. I commend him for the work that he is doing on it.

I came in close contact with children who were autistic when I started in the Head Start program.

Prior to the Head Start program, we had children who were autistic and had other kinds of deficiencies that never got discovered, and that is one reason I love the Head Start program so very, very much. But the most interesting and the most challenging and the most undertold story was the story of children with autism.

I join the gentleman in his efforts and will do everything that I can to bring attention and resources to help these families of children who have autism.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I would first like to thank the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and our ranking member. I think they have done the best job that could possibly be done, and I commend them for making sure the supplemental appropriation is not simply a slush fund giving the administration and Secretary Rumsfeld the ability to spend this money in any way that they wish to spend it. However, no matter how hard they have worked, this bill is not what it is made out to be.

This bill provides almost $78 billion in supplemental funds, some of which are not related to either the war in Iraq or homeland security. In addition to some funds for the war in Iraq, this bill includes money for Turkey, Israel, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Slovakia, Romania, Slovania, Lithuania, and Bulgaria. In addition to the millions of dollars for all of those Eastern European countries, this bill includes generous sums of money for health care, rehabilitation, and the construction of new schools, housing, and transportation systems in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet many communities right here in the United States of America are continuing to suffer from the effects of prolonged economic recession and deprivation, including job losses and a lack of investment in our cities and our rural communities.

Later on today I will be offering an amendment to encourage investment in our cities and in our rural communities and for economic development. I will also offer an amendment to encourage the Inter- American Development Bank to release money for Haiti, one of the poorest countries in the whole world right here in our own hemisphere. Mr. Chairman, I do not begrudge these countries. We have bombed and invaded. I do not begrudge them assistance in rebuilding, but I do resent attempts to define this bill as simply support for our soldiers.

This bill includes political money that simply rewards countries for voting with us in the United Nations. It includes money to subsidize the airlines. It includes money to the CDC and other funding that has nothing to do with the war in Iraq that it is supposed to be covering.

I can tell the Members what is not in this bill. There is not money for homeland security or money for our own ailing and broken education and health systems.

I will support this bill, but I will also speak up for the citizens of this country. Mr. Chairman, charity begins at home and spreads abroad. If I had my way, I would not only include in this language that would have forced the money from the Inter-American Development Bank to be passed on to Haiti that should have been done years ago, not only would I have an amendment for $5 billion that would deal with our ailing infrastructure systems right here in our own communities, urban communities and rural communities. I think I would even put $28 billion in here that the President is cutting from our veterans. Do not forget, those soldiers who are in Iraq today will be veterans some day, and they will need to have funds to cover all of those services that we are now cutting.

Mr. Chairman, the young lady who was just rescued, who was captured and was a prisoner of war found in the hospital, simply went into the service because she could not afford to pay for her education. She went into the service in order to be able to pay for her education; and now that she has been shot, now that she has been captured and rescued, when she gets home she has been offered a scholarship. She should have had a scholarship before she ever signed up, but that is what is wrong with our education system. It does not provide for all of those young people who wish to be educated.

Again, I respect the work that has been done; but I want this bill to include support for homeland security, support for our ailing communities, and language for Haiti.

Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 7.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would provide development assistance loans to Haiti. The amendment would require the United States to use its voice, vote, and influence to urge the Inter-American Development Bank to immediately resume lending to Haiti and disburse all previously approved loans.

There is no money being requested in this amendment. It is simply language. The Inter-American Development Bank is denying Haiti any access to loans for development assistance. Haiti has already had $145.9 million in development

loans approved by the IDB. These loans include $50 million for rural road development, $22.5 million for reorganization of the health sector, $54 million for potable water and sanitation, and $19.4 million for basic education programs.

Haiti could also qualify for an additional $317 million in new loans for development projects as well as a $50 million investment sector loan. However, the IDB is refusing to consider Haiti for any additional loans and has not even disbursed the loans that have been approved. The IDB effectively is denying Haiti access to critical development assistance.

This bill contains $1.7 billion to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure. The bill provides funds for health care services for 13 million Iraqis and finances repair or construction of 25,000 schools, 20,000 houses, and 3,000 miles of roads in Iraq. This bill also contains $105 million for Colombia, $300 million for reconstruction in Afghanistan, and $1 billion each for Israel, Jordan and Turkey.

Furthermore, the bill contains $85 million for the Eastern European countries of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovenia, and Bulgaria.

The bill even includes funds for the Centers for Disease Control and assistance to America's airline industry. The Haiti amendment will not increase the cost of this bill to the American taxpayers; it will simply instruct the IDB to resume normal lending to Haiti and disburse the loans that have already been approved.

Haiti is one of the most impoverished nations in the western hemisphere. It is more impoverished than Israel, Jordan, Turkey, and most of Eastern Europe. The Haiti amendment would allow Haiti to build roads and infrastructure and provide basic education and health care services to the Haitian people. Haiti deserves to be included in this bill.

It may be ruled out of order, and the Members on the other side of the aisle are not even listening. Haiti is not important. It is just another little black country in this western hemisphere. The members of the Congressional Black Caucus have done everything. We have pleaded. We are watching people starve and die right next door to us.

This Congress does not give a darn about Haiti. It would be very simple to waive the rules and include the language in this bill. It does not cost a dime. That would say to IDB just move the money that has already been approved. It may not be done, but it is wrong and it is immoral for us to sit and watch the children dying, the infrastructure in total disrepair, and to do nothing even though the loans have already been approved to Haiti for the past 5 or 6 years. It can be ruled out of order, but I will not go away on this issue; and this Congress ought to be ashamed of itself.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, I think the point was well made earlier today when our ranking member talked about the way we have been treated; and while the chairman and the majority party have waived points of order, have waived the rules so that they could have their amendments so they could do whatever it is they want to do on this bill, they basically closed us out.

Then of course the point that was made by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) that they have waived the rules when they have wanted to, are points that are well made. On the point of order, while it could be considered legislating on an appropriation, it is not that it has not been done, it is not that it will cost any money, it is not that it will cost anything except the will of this body to say to the IDB, go ahead and disburse the money that has already been appropriated. It is not too much to ask of the other side of the aisle. On the point of order, I believe if the chairman was of the mind to do so, he could do so.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

I certainly do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida can insist on whatever he wants to insist on; I choose to speak on the point of order.

Mr. Chairman, the chairman is exercising his right to make this point of order. He has not been doing it this way all evening. I would dare say that he has indeed waived the rules when he found it convenient to do so. This would not be a precedent this evening.

This particular amendment that I am addressing would simply point out all of the funding that is being done in this supplemental appropriation, and it would raise the question of why if we are building schools and providing universal health care, if we are doing it in Afghanistan and Iraq, doing it in other countries that are not even associated with the war, why not do it right here at home in America?

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is an entitled amendment that would eliminate conflicts of interest, and would ensure that senior level executives in the administration could not use the conflict with Iraq to obtain financial benefits for companies with which they have been affiliated. Specifically, the amendment prohibits senior level officials in the administration from being present at or participating in any negotiations of contracts with companies in which they were senior managers or members of the board of directors within the last 4 years.

There has been a considerable amount of suspicion about the motives of this administration in pursuing a war with Iraq. Many Americans have expressed concerns that our country initiated military action in order to secure control of Iraqi oil fields and other Iraqi resources. While these suspicions are based on rumors and allegations, we in Congress should not do anything that would contribute to doubts about the sincerity of our country's motives.

Prior to the 2000 election, Vice President Dick Cheney spent 5 years as the chief executive of the Houston-based energy services company Halliburton. On March 24, 2003 Kellogg, Brown & Root, a Halliburton subsidiary, announced that it was awarded a contract by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to put out fires and make emergency repairs in Iraq's oil infrastructure. Prior to the onset of hostilities, Halliburton was one of the several company the administration invited to bid on up to $900 million in contracts to rebuild roads and bridges and other facilities in Iraq.

Although Halliburton declined to bid for a primary contract for reconstruction work in Iraq, the company's officials have indicated their interest and they are going to do it another way. They want to do it through subcontracting. Halliburton contracts and subcontracts in Iraq would create the appearance that the Vice President may be using his position to increase his former company's profit in time of war.

My amendment would protect the individuals who are advising the President on matters of war and peace from conflicts of interest. It would also help to eliminate the appearance of conflicts of interest at a time when the administration's decisions are affecting millions of lives around the world.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure this will be ruled out of order, and it may be embarrassing to some folks. It is a mild amendment. It does not prevent any company from getting a contract. It would simply take the person out of the room who is an adviser to the President who may be in the President's cabinet, who may be in a strategic position to help influence contracting. They would have to recuse themselves from those particular meetings.

Now, if we had the will and if we were interested about our image, and if we were interested in allaying the allegations and the fears that something is going on in the back room, we would indeed adopt this amendment.

I want to tell Members that there are too many people who believe that there are committees and advisory committees that are serving people in very key places and that on these committees we have folks who are looking for contracts who represent the defense industry. We have cronies and associates who are well placed.

This amendment would go a long way in improving our image and sending a message to the American people that we are not divvying up the spoils of this war in Iraq, and it would certainly say to our young men and women who are fighting for what they believe is protecting the freedoms of American people, it would say to them that they are not fighting so that someone could end up with some contracts.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, on the point of order again, I make the point that the chairman has on other occasions this evening waived the rules, and certainly this would not be a precedent. He could do it if he had the will to do it. Again, I think just as on my other two amendments, he has failed to give an opportunity to have some very serious issues heard. He is doing it, again, not because there should not be room for this kind of amendment, but simply because in this case he wants to protect the administration and allow them to continue to

divvy up the spoils and give contracts to cronies.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to first of all thank my colleague on the opposite side of the aisle for his generosity in granting me the opportunity to address the House prior to the hour that he has reserved for himself. I would also like to thank all of the Members of the Congressional Black Caucus for being here this evening to help highlight the problems with our budget.

I think that the case has been made. I think that the Members who came to the floor this evening were able to point out all of the devastating cuts in the President's budget that are going to wreak havoc on America. I think they have been able to make a very, very clear picture about what is happening in education, what is happening in housing, what is happening in health care. So I do not need to revisit all of that, but I would like to take time to talk about an action that I tried to take just earlier this evening.

Earlier this evening I went to what is known as our Committee on Rules. I went to the Committee on Rules because this is the committee that will decide whether or not we can amend the supplemental appropriations legislation that the President has asked us to pass in this House. The President has asked for supplemental appropriations legislation because the president needs to have more money to fund the war in Iraq. We understand, whether one agrees with the war or not, that once we deploy our soldiers it costs an awful lot of money. They have to be fed, their clothing, all of the supplies and the equipment, and I think every Member of this House is prepared to support our soldiers and the funding that is needed.

But, Mr. Speaker, as we examine the supplemental appropriations, one can readily see that there is something else going on in that appropriations bill. It is not simply a bill that is designed to support our soldiers and that war in Iraq. What it appears is we are literally paying some people off. We are rewarding some folks, maybe because they voted with us in the U.N., maybe because we want them to vote with us; certainly, Turkey is in the bill for $1 billion. But in addition to Turkey, what I discovered in the bill was money for Afghanistan, for Israel, for Jordan, for Bahrain, for Oman and Pakistan, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Djibouti, the Philippines, Colombia, and on and on and on.

Now, I went to that committee because I decided that if they can fund all of these countries for whatever reasons, billions of dollars, and, in addition to that, Mr. Speaker, in this bill we will find a very generous allocation for educational needs for not only Afghanistan, but also for Iraq where we are talking about rehabilitating schools and providing building and rehabilitating buildings, and building new schools. We are also talking about providing health care. As a matter of fact, it is the universal health care system that we wish for in America that we will be providing to Iraq. I am not jealous of the fact that we have torn up the countries and we need to in fact do something about funding them.

So I went and I asked that we appropriate $5 billion for our rural and poor communities that need health care clinics and transportation systems to get people to the hospital, and that we fund urban communities so we can get rid of buildings that are burned out and that are boarded up and that have been standing for 35 and 40 years on land that we can have people investing in for growing these communities, if we could but clear them and package it so that we can do some economic development. Of course it is not going to be made in order.

But, in addition to a president's budget that is cutting and slashing domestic programs, now we have a supplemental appropriation that is asking for more money for all of these countries, I guess because they voted for us in the U.N.

Mr. Speaker, it is not right, and the people are going to want to know why we are doing this. We come to this floor tonight to do some educating.

Offered By: Ms. Waters

Amendment No. 7: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

requirement that united states urge the inter-american development bank

to resume lending to haiti

Offered By: Ms. Waters

Amendment No: 8: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Sec.__. (a) Limiting Conflicts of Interest.--If an officer

described in subsection (b) was, at any time during the

covered period, a member of the board of directors of a

company or a senior management official of a company, such

officer may not--

(1) be present at, or participate in any way in, any

negotiation of a contract for the procurement of goods or

services by the Federal Government with such company or any

exercise of authority in connection with an existing contract

with such company (other than to delegate authority to

another officer); and

(2) otherwise directly or indirectly communicate with such

company, or any officer or employee of such company, during

the period any such negotiation is in progress or the

exercise of authority is being considered.

(b) Designated Officers.--The following officers are

described in this subsection for purposes of subsection (a):

the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State,

the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Secretary

of Homeland Security, the Secretary of Commerce, the

Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, the

Senior Advisor to the President, the Director of Central

Intelligence, the Director of the Federal Bureau of

Investigation, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and the

Administrator of the United States Agency for International

Development.

(c) Covered Period.--For purposes of subsection (a), the

term ``covered period'' means the 4-year period preceding the

beginning of a negotiation of a contract or the exercise of

authority in connection with an existing contract.

Offered By: Ms. Waters

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address an issue that some of us started to talk about last week. Mr. Speaker, last week 11 Members came to the floor to speak about the deep cuts in the President's budget. After we made our presentations on the floor, we were inundated with calls by veterans from all over America. They called us, they wrote us, and they are asking Members to join us. They want us to make a special appeal to our Republican friends, to the President, not to cut veterans services.

We are back here tonight. I have more Democratic Members who have joined me. They have come to the floor this evening to appeal to our Republican colleagues and to the President not to cut the veterans budget.

The budget is supposed to outline the Federal Government's priorities for the next year. Apparently, some of our colleagues have decided that their priorities are massive deficits, huge tax cuts that benefit only the most privileged, and drastic cuts to government programs that millions of people depend on. While the Republican budget did not include a dime in funding for the war in Iraq, it did cut the Department of Veterans Affairs by $25 billion.

Mr. Speaker, on the same day that the President of the United States sent our soldiers into war, the Republicans in Congress pushed through a budget that slashed the very programs that our soldiers will count on when they return from their mission. This is unacceptable. I believe that we must live up to our duty and support the men and women who fought throughout our Nation's history to protect our freedom.

However, it seems that many of our colleagues have forgotten the promises we made to our veterans when we sent them to war. This budget, the President's budget, has slashed government spending so that veterans are being impacted in the most unusual and negative way.

The cuts that the veterans are being forced to take are simply unkind and unfair. For example, in January of 2003, Mr. Bush cut off access to the VA health care system for approximately 174,000 veterans. Specifically, the President announced that new VA care would no longer be available to so-called ``Priority 8'' veterans who are not already enrolled in the VA system; that simply means veterans who earn about $24,000.

It is ironic that the President announced this cut on the same day he did a photo op at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, touting veterans care for vets of the Afghanistan conflict.

It is also ironic that the President was touting care for the veterans of the Afghanistan conflict when we are still, in our districts on a daily basis, responding to the cries of veterans who served in the Vietnam-era War and who served in the Persian Gulf War, veterans who still are not able to access their benefits. We are still dealing with veterans who have been inflicted with all of the diseases that come from the exposure to Agent Orange and other kinds of exposures.

In July of 2002, the President had the Veterans Affairs Department direct all VA regional directors to stop, stop, all marketing activities to enroll new vets in the VA system. This was an effort to curb VA expenditures by not letting the public know about available services. According to several major veterans groups, the President's budget last year fell $1.5 billion short of the inadequate funding that was exhibited in that budget.

this year's budget

So it should not come as a surprise when our President or his party short-changes our veterans, yet again. History has shown that they will.

But Republicans decided that what they have done over the past couple of years was not enough. So when they drew up the Fiscal Year 2004 budget they called for even greater cuts to the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The budget will cut $844 million from health programs next year.

In addition, the budget called for increased co-payments for pharmaceutical drugs and primary care that veterans need--something that used to be provided for free.

And mandatory spending would be cut by 463 million--this year alone. This means that the Montgomery GI Bill education benefits, vocational rehabilitation, and subsidies for VA home loans will be cut.

The Republicans even cut funding for headstones, markers and flag for deceased veterans.

Nor does the Republican's budget provide additional funding for the Homeless Veterans Comprehensive Assistance Act which is a comprehensive effort to eliminate chronic homelessness among veterans within a decade.

I would like to share with you two quotes that I think highlight the anger that many veterans felt after they saw the Republican Veterans' budget.

The first is from John Keaveney of New Directions, Inc, a veterans group located in Los Angeles. He says: ``To propose cuts in VA nurses, doctors, hospitals and other important services to veterans at a time of war feels to many veterans like an act of treason. . . . It seems inexcusable at a time like this to virtually tear up the agreement America has had with veterans for more than 100 years which is to care for those who have borne the brunt of battle.''

And the other is from Dwight Radcliff of US Vets also located in Los Angeles. He said: ``. . . the men and women who fought for this country are still struggling to obtain the benefits and services to which they are entitled. In being pro-active, it is imperative that during this time of war, we begin to prepare to address the needs of those who are currently in service as well as the forgotten heroes who still sleep in the streets. It is extremely unfair to tell those who have waited so long and also those who will return shortly that their effort for this country was unappreciated.''

Mr. Speaker, I call on the President and the Republican leadership to restore the funding to the Department of Veterans' Affairs and to restore our veterans' confidence in their government which they so bravely defended.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to call on some of my colleagues who are here to make their presentations this evening. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).

(Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for her comments, and I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), who has been spending every waking moment trying to get these cuts restored to veterans of his district. And the State of Ohio can be very proud of him; he helped to organize this time on the floor last week and tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio for all of the work he is doing on this issue, and I now yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much. I now yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas, and I now yield to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) to close.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a communication from New Directions, signed by Mr. John Keaveney, who is head of this New Directions organization, a fine organization rehabilitating veterans in the greater Los Angeles area; a communication from Mr. Dwight Radcliff from United States Veterans Initiative, another organization providing drug rehabilitation services, providing job training services for our veterans from the Vietnam era and from the Persian Gulf; and a communication from the National Veterans Foundation that is signed by Shad Meshad.

United States

Veterans Initiative, Inc.,

Inglewood, CA, March 27, 2003.

Maxine Waters,

Member of Congress, 35th Congressional District, California.

Dear Congresswoman Waters: I have reviewed the findings of

Congressman Lane Evans, ranking Democratic member of the

House Veterans' Affairs committee regarding the budget

adopted by the house budget committee which results in

drastic reductions in funding for veterans benefits and

services. As the director of the largest veterans-specific

program in the country, I am appalled that this

administration would consider decreasing the amount of

funding available to the Department of Veterans Affairs and

the special programs and services provided by community based

organizations such as ours.

United States Veterans Initiative provides outreach,

housing, employment assistance, case management, counseling,

legal assistance, and food services to over 2500 homeless

veterans per year at our Inglewood site. At our other sites

across the country, we provide services to an additional 3000

veterans annually. The majority of the veterans that we serve

are Vietnam Veterans. Today, over thirty years after the war

in Vietnam, the men and women who fought for this country are

still struggling to obtain the benefits and services to which

they are entitled. In being proactive, it is imperative that

during this time of war, we begin to prepare to address the

needs of those who are currently in service as well as the

forgotten heroes who still sleep in the streets of this

country each night. It is extremely unfair to tell those who

have waited so long and also those who will return shortly

that their effort for this country was unappreciated. This is

our time to fight for them.

As our congressional representative I am requesting that

you strongly oppose any effort to cut funding for the

Department of Veterans Affairs. Without this crucial funding,

those veterans that are in desperate need of benefits and

assistance will not be able to access the needed resources

such as medical, psychiatric, housing, and employment.

Sincerely,

Dwight Radcliff,

Los Angeles Services Director,

United States Veterans Initiative.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of my special order.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of this special order.

Madam Speaker, I am joined here on the floor of the House of Representatives by my colleagues to simply bring to the attention of the President of the United States and to our Republican colleagues the mistakes they are making in the way they are mistreating our Nation's veterans in the 2004 budget that passed our House in the wee hours of the morning last Friday.

The irony of the President of the United States leading the deep and harmful cuts in this budget while we are in the middle of a war in the Persian Gulf, with our brave men and women in harm's way, is more than any American can understand. The veterans of this country are honored in ceremonies on Veterans Day and Memorial Day and at conventions, dinners, receptions and on and on and on, but when it comes to putting our money where our mouths are, increasingly we are abandoning our veterans and not taking care of their needs, as we promise them when we recruit them and when we benefit from their services.

God willing, these young men and women fighting in Iraq will some day be veterans. They are going to have medical needs, housing needs; and we will need to pay for special programs and services to attend to the problems that they will have created by their service to this country. How then can we in good conscience turn our backs on these young men and women by cutting their budgets? We should be happy to provide services for our veterans.

The President of the United States will probably try and tell the American public that we really cannot afford to take care of our veterans, but how can the President explain to our veterans why he insisted on a $1.3 trillion tax cut in 2001 and has come back to Congress with a demand for $675 billion in new tax cuts, tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest people in our society?

Madam Speaker, it does not take a Harvard scholar to know we cannot keep cutting and cutting and cutting our income and pay for our basic services and have money for a rainy day. This President is simply mismanaging this country. We are now in deficit. The economy is failing. Our President and the members of his party have failed to come up with a stimulus package, and we have placed our Social Security system in jeopardy. Education is underfunded, and millions of Americans have no health care. But one of the most unconscionable consequences of the Republican budget is the deep and devastating cuts to our veterans.

Let me just give my colleagues an example of how devastating it is. The Republican budget cuts $25 billion from veterans programs at a time when the Department of Veterans Affairs is already severely underfunded. The 2004 House budget has reduced funding for veterans health care by $844 million below the President's inadequate recommendation for next year.

Over 10 years these programs will be cut by $9.7 billion. The House budget cuts $463 million from benefit programs such as disability compensation, pension, vocational rehabilitation, education and survivors benefits this year.

Over the next 10 years, these programs will be cut by $15 billion. These cuts will likely result in the loss of 9,000 VA physicians and 19,000 nurses. It could also result in the loss of 5,000 nursing home beds for veterans.

Madam Speaker, I am so proud this evening to be a Democrat because my party developed our own budget, and we tried to convince our Republican colleagues not to make the deep cuts that they are making. The Democratic budget took a much more responsible approach to our Nation's heroes.

Unlike the Republican budget, the Democratic budget does not include any cuts to veterans benefits over the next 10 years. In fact, it provides much-needed increases. It provides for more health care than the President's budget and the House Republican budget in each of the next 10 years.

The Democratic plan provides $216 million next year for veterans health programs, including medical research and construction. It increases funding for these programs by $2 billion over the next 10 years, and it fully funds compensation for service-connected disabilities, burial benefits, means-tested pensions for permanently disabled low-income veterans, Montgomery GI Bill education benefits, rehabilitation benefits and housing loan programs.

In conclusion, the Democratic budget is an important and responsible budget that truly respects the sacrifices our veterans have made for our country.

This evening I call on the President and my Republican colleagues to stop the empty rhetoric and support our veterans before we finally resolve the differences in the budget and come up with a budget that is going to be signed by the President of the United States. I hope we can reverse the harm that is being done in this Republican budget.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Madam Speaker, I am so proud of Democrats this evening. They have taken this evening to come to the floor to speak up for this Nation's veterans.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson).

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson).

I call on the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), and I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner). I call on the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Dakota.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget is simply unfair and unrealistic. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have sacrificed prudence for politics. Long-term planning for short-term gain. How else can we explain $1.3 trillion in tax cuts, most of which are given to the most privileged at a time when our schools are crumbling, our veterans are being deprived of the healthcare that they need, and a $348 billion deficit.

The Republicans have proposed cutting $51 billion for the State Children's Health Insurance Program, depriving 5.3 million children of health insurance; cutting $2 billion for the Ryan White programs, depriving people living with AIDS, medical care, and social support they need; cutting $1.5 billion for community health centers, eliminating health care for millions of low-income and uninsured people; eliminating the section 8 program that provides housing for over 300 million low-income families. Even the President's No Child Left Behind education bill, which he constantly touts as a major success, is cut by 8 percent below the inactive level of funding year 2003. Homeland Security is not properly funded. As a matter of fact, it is severely underfunded, putting our police officers, firefighters, and all of our first responders in danger. Where is the compassion that the President promised during his campaign?

I support the Congressional Black Caucus/Progressive Caucus alternative budget because it truly provides relief to Americans and it provides a stimulus to help the economy get back on its feet. Our budget provides healthcare for all Americans. It provides for vital infrastructure improvements throughout the Nation which provide jobs and protect America from potential terrorist threats. It provides $3.5 billion in relief to those inflicted with HIV/AIDS throughout the world, and importantly it provides our men and women in uniform the resources they need. It is indeed a balanced budget that does not burden our children with debt. We must resist this Republican budget, and I am going to urge my colleagues to support this alternative.

In conclusion, the Republican budget is an unjust and shameful budget. If Congress enacts this budget, many Americans will be harmed.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, my constituents have been paying attention to what has been going on with this preemptive strike; and when they heard about the billions of dollars offered to Turkey and other countries in exchange for their support, they said to me, Ms. Waters, I thought we were broke. I thought we were in deficit. I thought we had no money. Where are you getting the billions of dollars from for Turkey and other countries that you are offering to them simply if they will support this preemptive strike?

Mr. Speaker, some Members of this United States Congress support President Bush's preemptive strike against Iraq. Some Members have done their elected and patriotic duty and raised questions about the President's diplomatic failure and inability to resolve this conflict peacefully. However, every Member of Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, strongly support our men and women in uniform.

Why, then, could our Republican Members not agree to a clean-cut, clearly worded resolution of support for our soldiers? The Republican leadership chose to politicize this moment in history with a politically worded resolution designed to trap the opposition into supporting a war that we do not support. They have cheapened this debate by trying to use this resolution to legitimize this war. This war is neither legitimate nor necessary.

No matter, our troops are in harm's way. We support our soldiers and their families and will do everything in our power to make sure our men and women in uniform are honored and respected as they bravely serve our country. And when they return home, my office and my staff are always available to our men and women in uniform, and we will work very hard for them.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address a potential problem hidden deep in the President's budget. The budget says that the President is seeking to give States the opportunity to exercise more control over Head Start and that he would like to move responsibility of Head Start from the Department of Health and Human Services to the Department of Education.

Now, this may not seem like a big deal to many listening tonight, but I believe that it will have a damaging effect on our most vulnerable children. They say this change is intended to focus Head Start on school readiness and teacher training.

Well, for those who do not know what Head Start is, that may seem like an admirable goal. Head Start already does that and I agree that these are important goals and should be worked on continuously. Moving the program to the Department of Education will fundamentally alter the philosophy of the program.

Head Start is already a readiness program and more. It is a program that prepares the whole child for life. The program teaches families about proper nutrition. It also provides health and mental health screenings and other important services that many of these children would not have if Head Start did not exist. It is important to remember why we created Head Start to begin with under the War on Poverty. Poor children and the children of working-class families did not have the opportunity to have a preschool experience before going into kindergarten. These were children that often times had never had a physical examination. And we were able to discover that there were children with dyslexia, with learning disabilities, with hearing problems, with sight problems. We caught that in Head Start, and we were able to truly give these young people a chance to be successful.

Prior to Head Start, children were going into school with these deficiencies and getting put in special education classes because they thought they could not learn. President Johnson began Head Start and the War on Poverty because he saw a need to help families prepare their children for school and to break the cycle of poverty that many low- income families fall into.

Head Start has been a tremendous success. Study after study has shown that children who were enrolled in this program were more ready to learn when they entered kindergarten than their counterparts who were not enrolled. In addition, they were less likely to repeat a grade and more likely to graduate from high school; and these same students experienced greater long-term social and economic benefits than those students who were not enrolled in the program. Put simply, this is a program that works.

Instead of fundamentally altering this program, ruining its core philosophy that has guided it over the past 37 years, we should be nurturing it. I am here tonight to urge the President and my fellow Members of Congress to fully fund Head Start, resist the urge to provide funding in the form of block grants, and to keep the program within the Department of Health and Human Services. All of these would strip the program of its effectiveness.

Mr. Speaker, I have received many letters from parents and students who are asking that Congress not make any changes to Head Start. I would like to read you have a couple of lines from

them. One simply states, ``I have 3-year-old twins and a 9-year-old daughter, all of whom have been in Head Start and it has been a wonderful experience for them.''

Another says, ``It not only taught my daughter her 1-2-3s and ABCs but it also taught her self-esteem.'' And it concludes, ``It has brought my family closer together.''

Said another, ``I cannot express to you how grateful I am for the life-changing experience Head Start gave to me.''

Mr. Speaker, we must not change Head Start. It is too important, and it has helped too many people to improve their lives.

I am not simply speaking about what I heard. I worked in the Head Start program, first as an assistant teacher, then as supervisor of parent involvement and volunteer services where I got parents understanding that they could be in control of their children's educational destiny. These parents become successful parents in the PTA programs once they are transitioned into kindergarten. And that is what it is all about, involving parents in their children's education, helping them to know that they can make their children successful. So we do not want to mess with Head Start. We want to make sure, again, we support and nurture it.