Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today in recognition of a truly amazing woman, Lucille Coughlin. Last year, Lucille was named the top usher at Wrigley Field, home of the World Famous Chicago Cubs. While we are all extremely proud of Lucille for becoming the Cubs' ``top usher,'' we are even more impressed that she achieved this at 88 years young.

A true Chicago Northsider, Lucille is a graduate of Lakeview High School--one of Chicago's finest public schools. She was married at St. Andrew Parish and lived 40 years of her life in the Sauganash neighborhood. Lucille raised three children, one of whom is our own Chaplain, Reverend Daniel Coughlin. Today, she lives near Lake Michigan and enjoys spending time with her five grandchildren and eight great- grandchildren.

Approximately 15 years ago, Lucille and her friends at St. Andrew began looking for ways to stay involved in their community. After exploring a few options, they decided on working at Wrigley. Among the original group of St. Andrew's parishioners who began ushering at Wrigley Field, only Lucille remains, working nearly every day. Because she is universally loved and recognized for her cheerful and friendly demeanor, I share the joy felt by so many thousands of Cubs fans who are thrilled she has been honored with the Usher of the Year award for the 2002 season.

During her years at Wrigley, Lucille has witnessed the addition of lights to the field, rejoiced when the Cubs won the National League East title in 1989, lamented the retirement of Cub legend Ryan Sandberg, mourned the loss of Harry Carey, and celebrated many of Sammy Sosa's 505 home runs. Knowing Lucille, she'll be around when the Cubs finally return to the World Series.

But if you ask Lucille why she still works, she will tell you that it's partly to stay active, but mostly because of the great friends she has made. As an usher she has met some of the players, past and present, as well as many important public officials. But, as interesting as the VIPs are, it is the strong bonds she has made with co-workers and fans which keeps her coming back.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to call Chicago home because of people like Lucille. When she retired, she chose to stay active and involved in the community she has called home for more than 88 years. This August, Lucille will turn 89, and I hope to see her at Wrigley for years to come. Lucille Coughlin is a great Chicagoan. I congratulate her on her successes, and I wish her a happy birthday and the best in whatever life sends her way.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate John J. Sexton of Chicago on his recent retirement from his position as Superintendent of the Meter Division of the City of Chicago's Water Department.

For the last 30 years, John Sexton has risen through the ranks with the City, from machinist, to foreman, to Assistant Superintendent of the Meter Division, and finally Superintendent. His dedication to his job and the city he loves is an example of why Chicago is known as ``The City That Works,''

John Sexton is very proud of the northwest side of Chicago, the area he has called home for his entire life, and of the Hiawatha Park neighborhood, the area where he and his wife have raised their family. John has been very active at the part and is a past president of the Hiawatha Boys Baseball Organization.

As church life plays such an important role in the lives of so many Chicagoans, John has been a member of several esteemed Northwest side parishes. He grew up in Presentation Parish, attended grammar school at St. Angela's and high school at St. Michael's. He currently is a member of St. Francis Borgia Parish.

The Northwest side has produced some of Chicago's finest leaders, and John Sexton has played an active part in the success of many of their careers. John's work in Chicago politics began when he was 16 as a precinct worker for former Alderman Thomas Casey. He is now a precinct captain in the mighty

36th Ward Regular Democratic Organization, working with Alderman William J.P. Banks and State Senator James A. DeLeo.

John would be the first to tell you that his family is his first priority, and they have provided support for all of his activities. He has been married for 31 years to his wonderful wife, Rosetta. His family also includes his daughter, Laurie Moran, and her husband Joseph, his son, John Jr., his daughter, Diana, and his sister Mary Kay Kuhter.

Mr. Speaker, I join with the people of Chicago in wishing John Sexton a happy and successful retirement, and wish him all of the best in the future.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to address the proposed overhaul of the Head Start program. Created in 1965 as part of President Johnson's ``Great Society,'' Head Start is a program that successfully extends educational opportunity to disadvantaged children across the country.

Recently, the President called into question the successes of this program, saying that Head Start is merely, ``working OK.'' While I agree with the President that there is always room for improvement, I think he needs to take a closer look at the remarkable track record of this program.

Head Start has a long and proven record of success: Head Start narrows the achievement gap between disadvantaged and other children; Head Start children show IQ gains compared to children who are not in the program; and Head Start children are much more likely to graduate from high school and college.

Head Start has effectively opened doors and improved the quality of life for 20 million kids over its 38-year history.

Yet, today we consider a bill that threatens to cripple this successful program. I would like to take this opportunity to remind my colleagues across the aisle that a vow to ``Leave No Child Behind'' means that you can't turn your back on those who need your support the most.

By creating a system of block grants, this bill means that there is no longer a guarantee that federal money will go towards Head Start programs, leaving the burden on the states. In these times of economic hardship, there is a very real possibility that these funds could be diverted to fill holes in tight state budgets, leaving Head Start and our children with nothing.

A recent survey of state funded preschool programs confirms these fears. This study found that when states managed their own preschool programs they frequently failed to provide the same level of services as those required by Head Start.

I would like to applaud President Bush for his call to improve the quality of teaching in Head Start programs by putting a qualified teacher in every classroom.

But I would also remind the President that this is a meaningless promise unless he and the Congress can supply the estimated $2 billion needed to attract and pay more highly qualified teachers. The last thing the states need now is another unfunded mandate.

Head Start is one of our nation's great success stories. It has a proven track record, and what we should be doing is expanding it and giving it stronger support, not the opposite.

For the sake of the one million kids nationwide, 42,000 Illinoisans and 469 children in my district who depend on Head Start annually, I urge you to vote ``no'' on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, along with Congressman Buck McKeon and 13 additional bipartisan cosponsors, I introduced the Financial Aid Simplification Act of 2003. This bill stands to make applying for financial aid significantly easier for students and families.

The process of applying for the Pell Grant and other student financial aid is unnecessarily complicated. The Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) is a one hundred-plus question, extremely complicated form that creates an unnecessary barrier to students applying for aid.

The bill directs the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, which provides advice and counsel to Congress and the Secretary of Education on student financial aid matters, to conduct a thorough study, within two years, of how to streamline the aid process and make it easier for students. Within one year after the study is completed, the Secretary of Education must implement the recommended changes.

The Committee's goals will include significantly reducing the number of questions on the FAFSA, simplifying the language used on the form itself, revising the needs analysis formula to reduce the administrative burden for students, higher education institutions, and the federal government, and allowing certain students to be fast- tracked through the application process when they have already provided financial information to the federal government by qualifying for other forms of federal financial assistance.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, the Financial Aid Simplification Act of 2003 requires the Secretary of Education to make special efforts to notify students who qualify for free lunch or food stamps of their eligibility for the maximum Pell Grant. This bill will go a long way to help American families gain access to higher education. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my concerns about how H.R. 2861 would adversely affect affordable housing in my home State of Illinois and across the United States. As a former vice chairman of the Chicago Housing Authority, I am keenly aware of the benefits of ``Section 8'' grants.

The Section 8 voucher program enables low-income families with children, the elderly, and the disabled to rent apartments in the private market. This program provides a critical source of support for more than 2 million families by making up the difference between what low-income people can afford to pay for housing and the cost of private rental payments. Without vouchers, many of these families would have no other choice but to live in overcrowded or unsafe housing, or worse yet, to become homeless.

Although today's bill improves upon the Bush Administration's Section 8 funding request, it still falls short of the amount needed to continue all vouchers in use, according to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office. The result of this shortfall will be that 85,000 families will not have the funding for their vouchers renewed.

Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that we can address these concerns when the Conference Committee meets later this year. If we fail to do so, 85,000 families will pay the price. We cannot in good conscience allow that to happen.

I am also concerned that this bill did not fund my priority request for the largest locally funded rent subsidy program in the country, the Chicago Low Income Housing Trust Fund. This highly successful program helps house almost 3,000 families with incomes as low as $10,000 per year. It has had an enormously beneficial impact on my hometown, but there is considerable need for affordable housing, and we must do all that we can to continue supporting affordable rental units.

People from around the world, Mr. Speaker, come to America for first-class medical care, but Americans need to travel around the world for affordable medications. Between 2000 and 2003, seniors' expenditures on prescription drugs increased by 44 percent.

The legislation we are debating today is about inserting competition into drug pricing to ensure that Americans no longer have to pay a 25 to 40 percent premium over the prices paid in other countries. For too long, price gouging of our seniors has gone on, subsidizing the discounts the French, Germans, and Italians enjoy.

We are about to embark on the largest expansion of an entitlement in over 40 years, spending $400 billion of taxpayer money. We owe it to our taxpayers to ensure that they are getting the best price, not the most expensive price.

And to the issue of safety, I would like to address two points. One, I spoke to Donna Shalala, the former Secretary of HHS, on Friday. She never said that you could not do this. She said you could ensure the safety if you put the resources behind the FDA. And a lot of folks wants to build a mythology around what she said.

Second, in 2001, we imported $14.8 billion of medications. Lipitor is manufactured in Ireland, and it is on the shelves here in the United States. So to those who spout this myth about safety, we better take Lipitor off the shelves.

Let me also say one thing. When people say something is not about money, well, it is about money. I understand how this system works. There is a pharmaceutical lobbyist and a half for every Member of Congress. They have spent $100 million in contributions, entertainment, and lobbying expenses all focused on this body. Meanwhile, our seniors are being overcharged by approximately $100 billion.

The question before us tonight is, are we going to put more priority on the $100 million focused on us or the $100 billion our constituents are overcharged?

Now, I know we all came here for a set of values and a set of ideas. We ran on those values and those ideas. Whether we believe in competition, protecting taxpayers, or affordable prices for our seniors, let us ensure tonight that the people we represent have a voice, not the special interests.

Mr. Speaker, people from around the world come to America for their medical care. Yet Americans travel around the world for affordable medications. Between 2000 and 2003, seniors' expenditures on prescription drugs increased 44 percent.

The legislation we are debating today is about inserting competition and the free market into the pricing of medication to ensure that Americans no longer have to pay a 25 to 40 percent premium over the prices paid in other countries.

For too long, our constituents have subsidized the starving French, Germans, Italians and Canadians. Americans have also subsidized the research and development for pharmaceutical companies through the NIH funding and through the R&D tax credit. We are about to embark on the largest expansion of entitlement in over 40 years and spend $400 billion of the taxpayers' money. We owe it to the American taxpayer to ensure that they are getting the best price for their money, not the most expensive price.

I want to address and speak to the myth of safety concerns. Last year, Americans imported $14.8 billion worth of medications from around the world. Lipitor is a cholesterol drug that is on every pharmaceutical counter. It is made in Ireland, but we import it. If it is unsafe, get it off the counter and get those ads off the television, because we import Lipitor from Ireland.

Folks, when somebody tells you it ain't about money, it is about money, and that is what this debate is about. I know how this system works like everybody else here. There is a pharmaceutical lobbyist and a half for every Member of Congress. They have spent over $100 million in contributions, entertainment, lobbying expenses, all focused on us. But meanwhile our seniors are being overcharged approximately $100 billion.

The question before us tonight is, are we going to put more priority on the $100 million focused on us or the $100 billion that our constituents are overcharged?

I know why we all came here. We ran for a set of ideas, a set of values and a set of principles. They may be different, but we share a common set of values. Whether you believe in competition in the free market, protecting our taxpayers or ensuring affordable prices, tonight the vote is about the special interests versus the American people. I ask you to support our constituents.

Mr. Speaker I rise today in support of House Resolution 240, to establish National Community Health Centers Week. This resolution highlights the importance of health centers throughout the nation, and aids these organizations in promoting their valuable health services to the public.

Community health centers provide a wide range of essential health services, often to uninsured and underinsured individuals. Especially in this era when so many Americans remain uninsured, the role of community health centers in the health care system is critical. Among the important services provided are mental health care, senior care, HIV/AIDS services, substance abuse treatment, and immunizations. Filling a gap in providing care for low income individuals, including those without insurance, community health centers should be recognized for their dedication to the improvement of America's public health.

Thousands of these institutions operate nationwide, and in my own district in Illinois, the Melrose Park Family Health Center and the new Peterson Family Health Center are examples of the tremendous service they provide. More than 5,000 visits were made to the Melrose Park Family Health Center within three months after it opened in October 2002. Serving a wide variety of patients, many of whom have no insurance, the Center's most common services include immunizations, and treatment for respiratory infections and hypertension. As part of Chicago's Citywide Emergency Response Program, the Center also would treat victims in the case of a bio-terror attack.

Mr. Speaker, I applaud Representative Davis and the Members of the Committee on Government Reform for introducing this legislation and bringing it to the floor today. It highlights the crucial efforts of community health centers across the nation that improve and even save the lives of numerous Americans on a daily basis.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 212, to proclaim 2003 as the Year of the Korean War Veteran. As we commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Korean Armistice, it is entirely appropriate to pay tribute to the nearly 1.7 million troops who fought on the Korean peninsula by designating this year in their honor.

U.S. troops endured some of the most brutal conditions ever experienced in the history of American warfare. They fought in extreme heat as well as cold so severe that some troops literally froze to the floors of their foxholes. But sadly, their sacrifice and bravery are often overlooked. In response, this resolution ensures that the ``Forgotten War'' is always remembered in American history, and that we will never forget the 37,000 troops who sacrificed their lives and the 104,000 Americans injured in Korea.

I am honored to represent 31,611 veterans who make their home in Illinois' Fifth Congressional District. One of them is a Korean War Veteran I am honored to call a good friend--Mr. Eugene Piltaver. For many years, Gene has devoted his time to ensuring that his fellow veterans are honored for their service to our country. A testament to his commitment is symbolized by the United States Military Armed Forces Veterans Memorial in his hometown in Franklin Park, Illinois. Gene not only conceived of the idea for the Memorial, but also rallied support and funding to build this impressive monument dedicated to the bravery and patriotism to Franklin Park's veterans.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Eugene Piltaver and all of the veterans who have served and sacrificed for our nation, I am proud to support the Year of the Korean War Veteran.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2357, the ``Veterans Health Care Improvement Act.'' This bill will bestow Filipino veterans with the honor and dignity they deserve for their service in the Pacific theatre of World War II.

Filipino soldiers fought shoulder-to-shoulder and died alongside American troops at some of the war's most horrific battles like Bataan and Corregidor. During the infamous Bataan Death March, Filipino soldiers swelled the ranks of the dead to over six thousand. Yet for all their sacrifices, Congress in 1946 divested Filipino soldiers of their military benefits while soldiers of other allied countries retained their status and privileges as American veterans. It is long past time to reverse that injustice by enacting this legislation.

H.R. 2357 will restore veterans' status to the 14,000 permanent legal residents who are Filipino veterans of World War II. This will go a long way to provide comfort and security to them in their twilight years. For those suffering service-connected illnesses and injuries, Filipino veterans will finally receive the right to medical care they earned so long ago. The most elderly veterans will be granted urgently needed nursing home care.

Mr. Speaker, young Filipino men responded to the call of duty over sixty years ago and fought valiantly under the American flag. Now toward the end of their lives, they deserve to benefit from the values that the American flag represents. To that end, I stand in strong and proud support for H.R. 2357.

Madam Speaker, as the conference for a Medicare prescription drug benefit gets under way, we are reminded how difficult this compromise will be and that the bills in both the House and the other Chamber will leave many seniors with many high prescription drug costs.

We have a bipartisan bill with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) and myself, other Republicans and Democrats from both

sides of the aisle, people who do not usually see issues alike and come together, but find a common set of values in this legislation that opens up the market on prescription drugs to Canada and other, European countries.

Through competition, we would lower prices, and the truth is for all too long the elderly and the American families in our country, in our districts, have been subsidizing the poor, starving French and German and Swiss and English and Canadians who have artificially low prices. And we have been charged overwhelmingly; we pay in this country top, premium prices for prescription drugs.

What I want to do and what this legislation would call for in a bipartisan fashion would open up the market. We have a closed market now. We do not have that type of closed market when it comes to cars, when it comes to steel, when it comes to food products, when it comes to software, when it comes to all types of products; but in the area of pharmaceuticals, we have a closed market, and Americans are paying top, premium prices.

Two weeks ago Families USA released a study. Prices for the top 50 drugs most commonly prescribed to seniors increased at 3\1/2\ times the rate of inflation. Total spending for senior citizens on prescription drugs rose an estimated 44 percent between 2000 and 2003. The only means available to reduce prices of prescription drugs which our families and our seniors pay at the local pharmacy is to have real competition.

In Canada, in England, France, Germany, many of the folks there pay 30, 40, 50 percent less for the same name-brand drugs. Why? Because the pharmaceutical industry can, here in America, charge a premium. We pay the highest prices, and the only way we pay the highest prices is so they can afford to pay the lowest prices.

In my view, it is time that we have legislation that ensures open access, open markets in the area of pharmaceutical medication, and through that free market, we will reduce prices.

Second, if you are about to embark on the largest expansion of entitlement in over 40 years, $400 billion, would you not want to ensure that the taxpayers got the best bang for their buck? $400 billion we are about to ask the taxpayers to spend, and yet we do nothing to protect the taxpayers or the elderly to get the best price for that.

Now, this question is whether we will go over 10 years. My view is, if we are about to ask them to pay $400 billion to subsidize prescription drugs for our elderly, we should ensure that if we can save 25 percent, 30 percent, 40 percent, which is what you can do through market access, we should afford the taxpayers and the elderly reduced, affordable prices.

One, guarantee the taxpayers of this country the best prices their money can buy. Two, ensure that our elderly, who are on fixed incomes, get the types of prices that are now being paid for the same medications in France, Germany, England or Canada. We will then need not ask our seniors to pay the premium price.

Now, one myth that the pharmaceutical industry keeps spreading is that somehow this is about safety, that the FDA cannot do this. The truth is, if somebody tells you it is not about money, it is about money, and that is what is at stake here. The pharmaceutical industry understands that for a very long time they have had a protective market here in the United States. If we were to open up the market, they would have real competition and the prices would drop.

Second, I think it is very, very important. I understand the political process, as everybody does. We should all know that the pharmaceutical industry has about 600-some-odd lobbyists here in town. It is about a lobbyist and a half for each Member of the United States Congress. They give out and support through donations and other entertainment close to $200 million and support the candidates and Members of Congress through entertainment and donations. But the $200 million we get, and there is nothing wrong with that, that is what they do, that is what they advocate for their position.

But the $200 million they give out in donations, contributions and entertainment pales in comparison to the $200 billion our seniors have been overcharged.

When this vote occurs this week, each Member will ask to speak and vote on behalf of the people of their district, and the question will be, will we continue a practice in which our elderly are overcharged by $200 billion, our taxpayers will be overcharged and pay the top, premium price rather than the most affordable price; or will we continue to accept these types of donations and entertainment and put our interests above the people that we represent?

I have full faith in my colleagues here that we will stand up for the people we represent, because we came here not just to be another vote but to be a voice for their values. Their values say, it is time to ensure that our taxpayers and our elderly stop subsidizing those in Europe and in Canada with more affordable prices while we in America pay premium prices.

Which would require that we invest the United States equal to the goals we are setting in Iraq, whether it is in the area of health care, education, in the area of road reconstruction.

In America, our highway fund will be cut by over $6 billion, yet in Iraq we are building over 3,000 miles of road which would connect New York to California.

Madam Speaker, I would like to add one thing. In all this, we forgot that it only, I think, was like 8 weeks ago Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz announced that the reason they made an argument about weapons of mass destruction was that way they could get consensus within the bureaucracy. They told us that it was somewhat imminent or the new intelligence is or the look of new intelligence.

This was a string to thread the beads together, but it was not exactly something new. It was not something exactly imminent. In fact, it was quite clear, based now if you can kind of peel back some of the pieces and disparate information you get from the newspapers, other magazines, journalists, that there were a lot of questions about the relevance of some of the information they were using to justify the war or the need for the immediacy and the urgency which gets to the question.

In an era of terrorism, there is a logic to preemption, which really is a dressed up code for self-defense; but if that urgency is not there, if the facts he used to establish that urgency are not there, then the justification for preemption, known in normal parlance as self-defense, is then stripped away. Then we have a threat, and the question is do we have war or do we have containment? Isolated military strikes? That is then a legitimate question to postulate, but the information necessary to have that was withheld from the public debate and from this hall.

There is no doubt he read those that were presented, and especially on the doorstep of war.

In fact, I think it was mentioned, and I want to say one thing to our colleague from Washington, that not only did the President not read it, or it has been reported he did not read it, but I think it has also been reported, though I want to have enough doubt, a question mark about what I am going to say, that, in fact, the National Security Adviser said she did not read the whole report. I think that is also in that same story.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I find that unbelievable.

Well, one would think on the doorstep of war one would read that. But I want to stress one thing about what our colleague from Washington mentioned. He said the President was certain about his opinion about the imminent danger of Iraq and Saddam Hussein, but the people around him in the agencies and departments had their questions. Yet the President was certain.

Again, I want to underscore this is not to relitigate why we went to war, this is to litigate how we got to war.

Not the Iraqi war. We are not going to relitigate that. We are in, and so we have to support our men and women. It is how that happened so this mistake does not happen again.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on Friday, July 18, 2003, and missed rollcall No. 397. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I recently introduced bipartisan legislation with 19 colleagues called the Identity Theft Protection and Health Information Blackout Act of 2003. The legislation would protect Americans from identity theft and safeguard their private health information in the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

My bill would black out and protect sensitive, private health-related information by returning control to consumers and giving them the final say over what is off-limits to financial institutions. There is simply no reason why health information should be used in granting credit or in deciding whether to offer someone a product or a financial service. It is long past time to make this information confidential. Rather than opt in or opt out, we should black out your private health information.

Similarly, we are all aware of the identity theft epidemic in this country. The average identity theft victim spends nearly $1,400 and 175 hours cleaning up his or her credit card record. In fact, ID theft has doubled in just the last year. It puts both businesses and the consumer at risk. This is not a business or consumer issue. It is one that we can come together on.

Mr. Speaker, my bill would put identity thieves out of business and ensure that Americans' private health information is given the strongest protections under the law. I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor the Identity Theft Protection and Health Information Blackout Act to that end.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), for yielding me this time and for taking the leadership on this issue.

A number of folks on the other side of the aisle mentioned people who did not pay taxes. I agree with them. It is very important that people pay taxes. That is why I am struck by the lack of compassion for the fact that Enron, for 4 out of 5 years with record profits, never paid a single corporate income tax, yet was the recipient of $250 million worth of export-import loans, or corporate welfare. I do not see anybody shedding any moral indignation about Enron not paying corporate taxes for 4 out of 5 years.

WorldCom, which recently declared bankruptcy and defrauded many of its shareholders, recorded $12.5 billion in profits, and yet 2 out of 3 years never paid any corporate taxes. Yet on this side not a voice is raised out of concern for the fact that corporations who have not paid taxes get many tax credits and benefits. They pay no incomes taxes, and yet they continue to receive taxpayer-funded government contracts, whether that be MCI or Enron.

Exxon Mobile recently reported, if I am not mistaken, $12.3 billion in their quarterly income, yet received a $25 billion tax credit. To do what? Drill for oil. I thought that was what their business was. I thought that was what they were supposed to do. I did not know taxpayers are supposed to subsidize what they are supposed to do for business. That is in their business plan and in their own quarterly reports of what they do, yet they reported quarterly profits. But this Congress provides them a tax cut.

So is there politics? My colleague is right. There are politics. Do people not pay taxes and yet get corporate benefits and get government benefits? Yes, they do, and the taxpayers pay for them all the time.

In The New York Times about 3 weeks ago I noticed that the taxpayers of the United States were paying Iraqi citizens $20 a day to not show up for work. Now, I come from Chicago, and my good friend from Illinois comes from the suburbs of Chicago, but we both know something about no- show jobs. In Chicago, we think we wrote the book on no-show jobs. But $20 a day for a no-show for an Iraqi citizen, well, the taxpayers of the United States are paying those people $20 who do not show up for work. That can make a ward committeeman in Chicago a little jealous.

That is over $1,000 in the last 3 months since the war ended. That Iraqi gets $1,000, yet American citizens, 12 million children, do not get a child tax credit. Their parents cannot buy their school supplies as they get ready to go back to school.

So I think there is a great deal of irony, and, if I may say, a great deal of policy that my colleagues would provide Iraqis $20 a day for not showing up for work, yet the men and women who are over there in uniform, making us proud, their children will not get the full tax credit. I do not know if that is policy or politics. I do not know what to call that, except that it is shameful.

So as we begin to think about what we are going to do here, the motion to instruct here would provide us the opportunity to move on this.

And I would like to remind people of one other point today. In front of the Committee on Financial Services, Chairman Greenspan spoke, and he talked about one of the reasons he thought the economy was taking off the second half of this year. One of two

reasons he provided was that we had a child tax credit that would put money in the pockets of middle-class families, and he lauded the child credit. He saw it as a good thing. We asked him if he thought it would be helpful to the economy if working middle-class families got it. He said he did.

Now, I know that periodically we selectively use Chairman Greenspan's words around here, but he lauded the child tax credit, and he lauded its ability to stimulate the economy. We would hope that since President Bush has asked us to get this done and Chairman Greenspan has talked about the value of this to working families and since our colleagues have decided to provide $20 a day to Iraqis, I would hope that we would give that same consideration to American taxpayers who do show up to work.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct a factual point that my good friend from Illinois made, and that is the original voice behind the $500 per child tax credit was the Gore-Downey legislation. And the President of the United States who signed the $500 per child tax credit into law was President Clinton in 1997 in the Balanced Budget Agreement. Now, there was a piece of that in the Contract With America, but the first child tax credit idea was the Gore-Downey $500 tax credit. It became law in 1997 and was part of President Clinton's budget.

I would not want that to get in the way, and it might have been in the Contract With America, and I am glad he ran on it, and there should be bipartisan agreement on that rather than disagreement on that. I would hope that we could do that. We are willing to give our colleagues the right to get it done right now, to adopt the Senate provision. We would like to be the voice for those 12 million children who do not get the tax credit as other children would. I hope my colleagues will see the economic benefits of that and see that it gets accomplished.