Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, let us be clear about what we are doing here. We are asking this body to begin, in my opinion, to dismantle Head Start, one of the most successful programs in American history.

Head Start serves more than 900,000 3- to 5-year-olds in every State in this Nation every single year. Head Start teaches reading, writing, mathematics and language skills. Head Start, as well, provides comprehensive services that increase school readiness: health and mental health screenings and services, nutrition, dental and vision services, and extensive parent involvement in education, a critical component of this program.

And Head Start combines local control with strong Federal quality standards. That is the key. In fact, Head Start is one of our most evaluated education programs. Over the last 30 years, it has helped millions of children do better in school. But now, through H.R. 2210, the sponsors are trying, in my opinion, to unravel Head Start.

The Republican initiative initially was to block-grant all of Head Start. That did not fly. They are now down to eight States. This bill, however, would create a new block grant program for eight States without requiring any of the Federal Head Start program performance standards. What does that really mean to parents and their children? It means, I think, that States could run Head Start programs with lower educational standards, minimal comprehensive services and less oversight and accountability. That is not good for our children or their parents.

In looking at this bill, we should look at the intent. The intent of this bill directly contradicts, I believe, our bipartisan recognition that no child should be left behind, that the Federal Government needed to establish high educational standards and tough accountability for the educational achievement of low-income children because the States had not done so. In essence, this bill proposes that we turn our 3- to 5-year-olds in Head Start over to the States even though the premise of the No Child Left Behind Act is that States are not currently serving low-income children as well as they should. As the Los Angeles Times stated recently:

``Now, when States are in precarious financial shape, is hardly the time to dismantle the program's, Head Start's, Federal management.''

Let me close by saying, despite our best efforts in Head Start, we still are not doing enough for low-income children. There are some 1.5 million children eligible. There are 900,000 participating, 600,000 being left behind. Now is not the time to start to dismantle Head Start.

Mr. Speaker, let's be clear about what the Republican majority is proposing today: They are asking this body to begin to dismantle Head Start, one of the most successful Government programs in American history.

Head Start serves more than 90,000 three- to five-year-olds in every State in this Nation every single year.

My Democratic colleagues and I are not standing here today just reflexively defending Head Start because Lyndon Johnson signed it into law in 1964.

No, we are here defending Head Start--and to expose the GOP's bill that is designed to dismantle it--Because Head Start Works!

Head Start teaches reading, writing, mathematics, and language skills.

Head Start provides comprehensive services that increase school readiness--health and mental health screenings and services; nutrition, dental and vision services; and extensive parent involvement and education.

And Head Start combines local control with strong Federal quality standards.

In fact, Head Start is one of our most evaluated education programs-- and over the last 30 years it has helped millions of children do better in school and achieve more in life.

But now, House Republicans, through H.R. 2210--the misnamed ``School Readiness Act''--are trying to unravel Head Start. They want to end it.

They would like nothing more than to see 50 State programs run by 50 State Governors.

This bill would create a new block grant program for eight States without requiring any of the Federal Head Start program performance standards.

What's that really mean to parents and their children?

It means that States could run Head Start programs with lower educational standards, minimal comprehensive services, and less oversight and accountability.

Now, doesn't that strike any of you as odd?

It should, because the intent of this bill directly contradicts our bipartisan recognition in the No Child Left Behind Act--that the Federal Government needed to establish high educational standards and tough accountability for the educational achievement of low-income children because the States had not done so.

In essence, the Republicans are proposing that we turn our 3- to 5- year-olds in Head Start over to the States even though the premise of the No-Child Left Behind act is that States are not currently serving low-income children.

And as the Los Angeles Times stated recently: ``Now, when States are in precarious financial shape, is hardly the time to dismantle the Program's--Head Start's--Federal Management.

Let me close by saying, despite our best efforts in Head Start, we still are not doing enough for low-income children.

Right now, Head Start is only serving 6 out of every 10 eligible preschool children because of inadequate funding.

That's 600,000 American children left behind. And it's simply unconscionable.

It's unconscionable in the greatest Nation on the face of the Earth.

And it's unconscionable when Republicans talk about leaving no child behind, but then propose a budget for fiscal year 2004 for Head Start that barely covers inflation.

I urge my colleagues to vote for the Democratic plan offered by the gentleman from California Mr. Miller.

Mr. Chairman, I rise as a member of the Committee on Appropriations that raised the issue of Egypt last year. I have no amendment to offer, nor will I do so; but as the Committee on Appropriations notes in its report accompanying the bill: ``Continued military cooperation between Egypt and the United States remains in the national security interest of both countries.'' I agree with that statement.

Egypt, however, has one of the largest and most modern militaries of the Middle East, with approximately $4 billion in annual defense spending. Nearly one-quarter, however, of Egypt's people live in poverty, and the country has per capita income of just $700 per year. Yet a quarter of their defense budget we pay for.

Half of Egypt's adults are illiterate, and official unemployment figures for 2001 were 12 percent, although unofficial estimates are as high as 15 percent. Only 3 percent of Egypt's land is arable, making the country unable to feed itself and forcing it to import roughly two- thirds of its food.

In this context, I am concerned about the mix of funding for Egypt, $1.3 billion in foreign military sales, approximately a third of that in economic assistance.

Mr. Chairman, I am also concerned by the fact that in Egypt, which is a controlled government, some of the most virulent anti-Christian, anti-American, anti-Semitic information and anti-Christian, -U.S. and - Semitic education occurs in the schools of Egypt, the madrasas.

I believe Egypt has been an important ally of ours in trying to reach peace in the Middle East; but I also say, Mr. Chairman, as I did last year, that there needs to be significant focus on the issue of Egypt's participation in furthering anti-American, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian rhetoric and education within the confines of that country and also in failing to appropriately assist its population in dire need of a focus on economic assistance.

I thank the chairman of the full committee for his tolerance, and I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding for me to make this point. I hope my colleagues will continue to focus on it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge all of my colleagues to support this very important amendment being offered today by the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick). It increases funding for the global HIV/AIDS program by $300 million.

Mr. Chairman, just 6 months ago in his State of the Union Address, the President committed to $15 billion in foreign assistance, spending over 5 years to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS. On May 1 this House authorized this funding level by an overwhelming margin, 375 to 41. And then during his recent trip to Africa, the President repeatedly stressed his commitment to fight the disease on that continent and elsewhere around the world. Regrettably, the amount provided in this bill falls far short of the $3 billion necessary to begin making good on our President's commitment, on our commitment, 375 to 41.

Mr. Chairman, the problem of HIV/AIDS is especially acute on the continent of Africa, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, where nearly 30 million people are living with HIV/AIDS. Let me repeat that, 30 million people.

Is there any doubt that if 30 million people in America were suffering, were at risk of losing their lives, were posing the incredible economic impact on our country that HIV/AIDS sufferers pose to America, is there any doubt that we would pass at least this $300 million? Put another way, while the African continent accounts for only about 10 percent of the world's population, more than 70 percent of the worldwide total of infected people reside in Africa. And there are 11,000 new infections in Africa every single day, 11,000 additional infected people every day.

Mr. Chairman, recently I had the opportunity to travel to South Africa and saw firsthand the extent of this pandemic, the challenges facing African countries as they battle this scourge, and the dire need for assistance to implement prevention programs and to provide treatment for those already infected. We are at a critical stage in the global war against HIV/AIDS. The human toll is difficult to fathom. The number of deaths worldwide is expected to double from last year's estimate of over just 5 million people, double-plus to nearly 12 million next year. In one year, an additional 7 million people.

We ignore the political implications, Mr. Chairman, at our own peril. Without doubt this is a national security issue because this scourge only foments instability and unrest.

As Secretary of State Colin Powell has stated, ``No war on the face of the Earth,'' Colin Powell said, ``is more destructive than the AIDS pandemic.'' He went on to say, ``I was a soldier but I know of no enemy in war more insidious or vicious than AIDS. Will history record a fateful moment in our time, on our watch, when action came too late?''

Today, Mr. Chairman, we must answer that question with an emphatic no and heed the urgent call to action. We can answer that question with an emphatic no by an emphatic yes on this amendment. I urge my colleagues, not just for the people of Africa, not just for the people of the developing world who are more at risk for more health trauma than we are here, but for those of us here and our children and their children as we so dramatically learned in the SARS challenge. There are no national borders. There are no oceans wide enough to protect us, to insulate us. It is only in curing those who are afflicted that we can save ourselves. Vote yes on the Kilpatrick amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this Amendment, which would provide much needed funding increases for the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities. These organizations provide national recognition and support to projects of cultural significance and education that preserve and enhance our Nation's heritage.

The importance of supporting and sustaining the arts is especially critical for our young people, who perform much better in school when their academic programs are combined with music, dance, drama or the visual arts. In fact, the No Child Left Behind Act specifically lists the arts as one of the core subjects that all schools should teach.

But ensuring adequate support for the arts is not simply about providing cultural enrichment or enhancing educational opportunities. It is also about ensuring the economic well-being of our communities. The nonprofit arts industry alone generates $134 billion annually in economic activity and $10.5 billion in federal tax revenue.

The National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities are worthwhile investments of our federal tax dollars, and I strongly support the Slaughter-Dicks amendment to increase their funding by $15 million.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am at this time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

The minority leader is speaking, Mr. Speaker.

point of order

Mr. Speaker, we are a Nation of laws. This House was established to make those laws. We have a manual. It is called Jefferson's Manual. It has in it the Constitution of the United States of America. It has as well the rules that Jefferson put forward.

At page 123 it says, ``the weaker party can only be protected from those irregularities and abuses which these forms were intended to check, and which the wantonness of power is but too often apt to suggest to large and successful majorities.''

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for you, and you run this House fairly. But this is another instance, not an isolated incidence, not a unique incidence of the arbitrary use of power. The Committee on Rules shuts us down. It does not give us amendments. It does not give us time to debate. It does not adequately give us substitutes. It shuts down the majority. It shuts down the minority. This is not what Jefferson had in mind nor, I suggest to you, our Founding Fathers.

This is indeed not an isolated incident. The police were called. There is a dispute of facts as to why the police were called. But there seems to be no dispute that they did not go to the committee room. They went to the library, presumably because that is where they were told to go. They know the difference, believe me, to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), they know the difference.

This is not an isolated or unique incidence. The police were called by the Speaker of the Texas House to go arrest 55 members of the Texas House because they would not go along with the majority.

Let me read from page 18 of the transcript of the proceedings.

``Mr. Yin, as you go through, would you periodically indicate which page you are on.'' They are reading the bill. ``We are going to be going through the titles, and if it lengthens out, it gets more complicated.'' Mr. Thomas is speaking. ``I know you have just begun on page 3 in doing that.'' Under the rules, the reading of the bill, what is the next thing that is said? ``And, without objection, it is considered as read.

``Mr. Stark: I object.

``Mr. Thomas: The gentleman was too late.''

Absent was a request for objection. That, my friends, is the gravamen of this case. You are trampling on the rights of the minority. You are trampling on the rules of this institution. This is America. This is not American.

* * *

Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to yield for the purpose of inquiring of the majority regarding the schedule for the week to come.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the School Readiness Act or the Head Start Reauthorization bill will be on the floor. Let me ask if you expect to have an open rule on that bill? Specifically, while you are getting information, we want to be assured hopefully that we will be allowed to offer such amendments as we deem to be appropriate and that we will be allowed to have a substitute for the majority's bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I would urge the gentleman, and I know he may not have control over this, but urge him to urge his leadership, of which he is a member, as well as the Committee on Rules, to give us an open rule so that this bill, which is an extraordinarily important bill to our country, be fully debated and the alternatives that Members would like to offer can be considered. I would hope that he can work in that vein.

The Medicare prescription drug legislation, when does the gentleman expect the conferees will have a substantive meeting to seriously start resolving their differences, and might we see a conference report prior to the August recess?

Mr. Speaker, we think taking the time to do this right is better than doing it immediately or quickly. It is, obviously, of great importance to our seniors but as well to our families in America. We appreciate the fact that it is going to be given some time. We hope that there will be full participation in that conference.

On the child tax credit, and there was discussion about this on the floor just a few days ago. We are very concerned about the fact that checks will be going to people on July 25. The individuals who were included in the Senate

bill but were dropped in conference will not be receiving a check. That is largely because we have yet to pass a bill. It is now almost 37 days since we appointed conferees, and the checks for those who will get the credit go out next Friday. What is the status of that piece of legislation?

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend, I know the differences that the chairman pointed to and you have pointed to in terms of making this either permanent or at least 10 years in authorization. I do not, frankly, think there would be opposition to making this permanent on our side. However, we are concerned that in the effort to make it permanent we will fail to make it at least temporary, which we could then follow up by making it permanent. I appreciate the gentleman's comments.

Drug reimportation is an issue. Which day does the gentleman expect to have the drug reimportation bill on the floor? Do you know when it will be on the floor?

Mr. Speaker, lastly, the gentleman indicated that we may be meeting Friday night. Is the gentleman pretty confident that our Members need to make definite plans to be here on Friday, or is there an expectation that we could get our work done on Thursday? Is Friday a contingency or is the majority sure that we are going to be meeting on Friday?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his information.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) for yielding me this time.

The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) is my good friend, but this amendment is misguided. I do not believe that the vast majority of the American public agree with the proposition in this amendment.

The fact is, this issue is not about abortion. It is about the health of millions of women and children in some of the poorest nations in the world. The United Nations Population Fund is the single largest global source of multilateral funding for maternal health and family planning programs, supporting programs in 150 developing nations. It helps mothers deliver healthy babies through prenatal care and safe delivery kits and counseling. It enables couples to determine the number and spacing of their children through the voluntary, and I stress voluntary, use of safe modern contraception. The gentleman from New Jersey, I do not think, believes in that, and I understand that.

This program reduces the incidence and prevents the transmission of HIV/AIDS and others sexually transmitted diseases.

Let us be clear. The United Nations Population Fund does not provide abortion or abortion services anywhere in the world. Not one penny of program funding is used to promote or to perform abortions. In fact, the U.N. Population Fund program in China was developed with the express purpose of moving China away from coerced abortion and involuntary stabilization practices.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and to support the bipartisan provision offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) that was adopted in committee.

Today, we do not ask the proponents of this amendment to abandon their deepest principles on abortion. They should not now ask us to put our heads in the sand and ignore the plight of millions of women and children.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have asked the gentleman if he would yield. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) is now using the time that he yielded to me.

Mr. Speaker, quite obviously he is using the time that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) could use, so you may not yield.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is a good friend of mine. I have great respect for him. He is also a Member of this House that is closest to the President of the United States, perhaps. The President of the United States said that we ought to do what the gentlewoman from Connecticut is asking us to do; and, as I recall, he said we ought to do it right away. Is that not correct?

Mr. Speaker, I would tell my friend that I interpret the answer to that question to be yes.

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

The gentleman's premise, and we have heard the chairman also say, gee, we want to do this, we want to help these children, we want to help these 12 million children, we want to help these 6.5 million families. Gee, we cannot do it unless we do it all, and the Senate will not pass our bill.

What precludes my colleagues from doing it all and doing it now as well? I suggest to the gentleman, nothing. The President of the United States, President Bush, asked my colleagues to do the Senate bill, do it now so we can get money into the hands of these families now, not at some theoretical future date.

Mr. Speaker, at 6:39 tonight it was 33 days exactly since the House appointed conferees to the House-Senate conference committee on legislation to increase the child tax credit for those 6.5 million families and those 200,000 servicemen and -women that the Republicans say they want to help, but only if we help them for 10 years. Nothing precludes them from helping now and helping later.

Thirty-three days, Mr. Speaker, and still no movement by Republicans on the fundamental issue of fairness that the President asked them to respond to. The President, not Democrats, President George Bush, the President of the United States, said pass the Senate bill; but the majority party has turned a deaf ear to the President on this issue. Selective hearing.

In fact, on June 12 when this House GOP passed a fiscally irresponsible $82 billion bill that will cost $800 billion in the years after 2013 that included the child tax credit, rather than accept the Senate version costing $3.5 billion, now they really do not care about deficits, they have blown a hole in the surplus they inherited, the largest surplus in the history of our country and have turned it into the historically highest deficit in the history of our country in less than 30 months. That is one heck of an accomplishment, a bad one.

They hoped to kill this bill. That is why they did not pass the Senate bill. They said, oh, we want to do it all, knowing full well that they could not do it because, as the gentlewoman said, the reason they cut out these families was because they could not afford it; but yet they think they can afford $82 billion. They cut out 3.5 billion. Great math on that side.

Thirty-three days, Mr. Speaker, and still America waits for the GOP to summon a sense of fairness for these 12 million children who were deliberately and consciously and specifically left out in the cold by conferees on the Republican tax bill because their parents have low income. The clock is still ticking, but there is still time to do what is right for these families.

The gentleman from Illinois said we could do it tonight. Our side of the aisle will give unanimous consent for my colleagues to take the Senate bill, pass it tonight, pass it tonight without change and send it to the President, and the President can sign it tomorrow morning so that on July 25, those working families, the families that are having the toughest time in America, will have some help.

I had some school supplies in my office the other day. We took it off the Internet, matter of fact today off the Internet, the suggested school supplies for going back to school in September, $220. This tax cut, if we paid it on July 25, could take care of those school supplies for those families.

Pass it, pass it now. Do not dissemble; do not delay.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time; and let me start, as so many of us do on the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies, by saying how much respect we have, affection we have for the chairman of our committee. No committee has a fairer chairman. No committee has a chairman any more committed to the welfare of the American people than the Committee on Appropriations. As we are blessed to have the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) as the chairman of our committee, we are fortunate as well to have the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) as the chairman of this subcommittee.

As the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has said, both of these gentlemen care deeply about this country and care deeply about the people of this country. I have served on this committee, as Chairman Young said, with him for a long, long time. I do not believe this is the bill of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). I do not believe it is the bill of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula). It is, however, their response to the realities that confront them, and the gentleman from Ohio pointed that out.

But, Mr. Chairman, on January 8, 2002, on a stage in Hamilton, Ohio, President Bush signed the bipartisan No Child Left Behind Act. Surrounded by Members from both sides of the aisle, including chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), and the ranking member of that committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), as well as Senators Kennedy and

Gregg, the President recognized that the landmark legislation essentially was a contract with the American people. The No Child Left Behind Act demanded greater accountability and expectations in our education system; and in return, it promised, it contracted with States, with teachers, with parents, with America to provide educators greater resources to accomplish our shared goals and responsibilities.

Let me quote: ``A fourth principle of this act,'' the President said, ``is that we are going to spend more money, more resources, but they will be directed at methods that work.'' So we asked Maryland, we asked Ohio, and we asked Florida to perform certain responsibilities; but we said in the process that we would provide them the resources to accomplish those responsibilities.

Well, today, my colleagues, the Republican Party in this House of Representatives has decided, very frankly, that they will break its contract, the GOP's promise with the American people. This Labor-HHS- Education appropriation bill is an unflinching betrayal of the No Child Left Behind Act and a betrayal of children and parents and educators all over this country. While educators and local school districts all across this Nation have begun implementing the new accountability measures under this act, this bill falls $8 billion short of the promise that was made.

Our Republican friends undoubtedly will get up on this floor and say that they are increasing education funding. But here is what they will not say. The funding in this bill, after inflation, is tantamount to a funding freeze. Yes, my colleagues can provide $162 billion in estate tax cuts for the wealthiest families in America, a tax cut that will cost an estimated $750 billion in the decade after 2013, but they cannot keep their promise in funding the No Child Left Behind Act.

Two months ago, in the conference report on the budget resolution, this Republican majority promised, promised a $3 billion increase for the Department of Education. Today, it would underfund that commitment by $700 million, the smallest percentage increase in 8 years. Two months ago, this Republican majority promised an increase in IDEA funding, that is for the disabled children he spoke to, by $2.2 billion. Today, it would provide less than half that promised increase. Two months ago, this Republican majority promised an increase in title I funding by $1 billion. Today, it falls a third of a billion dollars short of that promise.

Furthermore, it cuts LIHEAP, low-income assistance. If Silvio Conte were here, a Republican from Massachusetts, he would be on the warpath saying how irresponsible that was. Even the Bush administration, in a statement of administration policy issued yesterday, and my distinguished chairman said some people say we are not spending enough money, well, ``some people'' includes George Bush, the President of the United States. He said he was disappointed that the LIHEAP funding level is $200 million less than he asked for. Not Democrats; that the President asked for.

In addition, this bill unravels our bipartisan commitment to increased funding for scientific and medical research. It slashes unemployment programs at a time when the unemployment picture is worse than it has been in a decade and where we have produced the least number of jobs of any administration in half a century. It fails to meet our commitment to address the nursing shortage, which the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) spoke to as well.

Finally, I want to urge my colleagues to support the amendment that will be offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) that would bar the Labor Department from spending money on regulations that undermine the 40- hour workweek once again. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Let me say in closing to my distinguished chairman that when he said we are not the Committee on Ways and Means, he is absolutely correct. But, my colleagues, we cannot, like Pontius Pilate, wash our hands of the responsibility of leaving children behind.

Vote against this bill. Vote for the Obey amendments to add the dollars necessary to fund what the President says we ought to do.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman is correct. And I said that at the beginning, that I think the chairman is doing the best with what he has been given. Our only argument is that he has not been given enough to meet the commitments made in the Republicans' budget and the President's request and the legislation we passed to leave no child behind.

But I think the gentleman is accurate, he has done the best he could with the resources he was given.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. I would ask my friend from Florida to read the administration's position on the bill where they say, and I unfortunately do not have the time to read, insufficient funding. We fear that we cannot fully carry out the administration's request. We believe that Pell grants are underfunded. We believe that five or six or seven or eight programs are underfunded.

That is the administration, that is not us, asking that more money be spent.

Mr. Speaker, today the Republican Party might as well admit when the television cameras are on and the press and American people are watching, it says one thing, but then as soon as the photo opportunities are over, it says another. This Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill is an unmitigated betrayal of the bipartisan commitment to education in the No Child Left Behind Act. This bill falls $8 billion short of the funding authorized in that act signed by President Bush, congratulated by President Bush, and promised by President Bush to America and to the States, an increase that after inflation is tantamount to a funding freeze.

Just 2 months ago in the conference report on the Republican budget, this Republican majority promised a $3 billion increase for the Department of Education. That is not what we said we ought to spend. That is what you said you ought to spend. Today, it has underfunded that commitment by $700 million on the promise they made 90 days ago, the smallest percentage increase in 8 years. Just 2 months ago, this Republican majority promised to increase IDEA funding by $2.2 billion. Today it would provide less than half of that promise made less than 3 months ago.

This Republican majority promised to increase title I by $1 billion. Today, it would provide $334 million less than promised.

This bill abandons the commitments to the No Child Left Behind Act. It cuts low-income heating assistance, slashes unemployment programs, and breaks our commitment to face the nursing shortage.

The majority's refusal to allow the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to offer two amendments tells us precisely where its priorities lie. It lies with America's millionaires, not the millions of children that will be left behind by the failure on this bill.

They would give a tax cut, the Obey amendment, hear me now, the Obey amendment would give a tax cut for people making more than $1 million a year of $44,000. That is more than over half of what Americans make in a year. That is what the Obey amendment

would do, give them a $44,000 tax cut instead of $88,000.

Let us put our priorities where our hearts are said to be. Vote against this rule. Vote against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), for yielding me this time, and I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) for his leadership on this bill.

This is an institutional bill. This is a bill which is designed to allow the legislative body to carry out its constitutional functions of overseeing a mammoth executive department and to make sure that, in fact, we have checks and balances. So although it may not be exciting, it is critical, as all of us, I think, on this floor know, to the exercise of our constitutional responsibility. So I clearly rise in strong support of this legislation.

Obviously, any measure that trims spending from a previous fiscal year does so by proposing reductions in some programs. I would like to comment on a few provisions that are particularly important. One arm of Congress for which H.R. 2657 proposes a 1.3 percent reduction is the United States Capitol Police. We have all talked about that. Many of my colleagues know that on the Committee on House Administration and on the Subcommittee on Legislative for a number of years, I have been a strong supporter, as most people in this body have, of the Capitol Police. It symbolizes, it seems to me, the safety of democracy in many ways. Of course, as all of us know, tragically, a few years ago, we lost two members of the Capitol Police force, Officers Gibson and Chestnut, protecting democracy and this House, these visitors that come to their Capitol, and, yes, the Members and staff who work here.

Mr. Speaker, I have looked at this budget very carefully, and I am confident that the proposed $212 million that have been appropriated for the time being are sufficient. I know the committee wanted to ensure that that was the case, and I thank them for their careful study and review, and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) has said the same thing.

Since 1997, and particularly since the tragedy of 9/11 and the tragedy that occurred to us in this Capitol, Congress has substantially increased the size and budget of the Capitol Police. I believe that was warranted. In 1997, we appropriated $75.39 million, almost .4 million. In 2003, we appropriated $240 million, a very substantial increase, appropriate given the security concerns.

Make no mistake about it, these large increases were essential to make up for deficiencies that we saw and that we were confronted with when we discovered tragically in 1998 the Capitol Police needed more resources to secure all access points and protect not just the lives of the people who work here, but also, as I said, the visitors.

The events of 9/11 were another wake-up call that no American landmark is off limits to terrorists, including the Capitol complex. Most of us believe that that plane that those brave passengers brought down in the fields of Pennsylvania was, in fact, being directed at this Capitol dome, one of the great symbols of freedom in the world.

Let me speak about Chief Gainer. Chief Gainer does not come from Maryland, but he is still a very good fellow, as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) said. I want to thank he and his able staff. These increases have been invested in a wide range of essential programs by Chief Gainer and his people; an expanded force, better equipment, protective infrastructure, and improved training. But as the report accompanying H.R. 2657 points out, there is concern over the continuation of such large growth for the Capitol Police without a comprehensive strategic plan.

I think that report is correct. Fortunately, a strategic plan is being developed. Once completed, it will help the Capitol Police deploy their resources in the most efficient manner possible with the greatest protection possible.

A second area that is getting a reduction is the Architect of the Capitol. As many know, the Committee on Appropriations has been concerned about the level and quality of the project management and acquisition planning in the Architect of the Capitol's organization, particularly with regards to the construction of the Capitol Visitors Center. I am a strong supporter, as I think all of us are, of this facility, but the committee is correct in being concerned about the construction schedule and the construction cost. Later this month an oversight hearing on the CVC will be held. I am confident this hearing will help us make more informed spending and policy decisions with regard to the visitors center.

One matter that should concern every Member of this body, in addition to the visitors center, is the fair treatment of workers, including temporary workers, employed by the legislative branch. I want to thank Liz Dawson and the staff of the committee both on the majority side and on the minority side for continuing to focus on this. Section 133 of the Legislative Appropriations Act of 2002, which became law on November 12, 2001, prohibits the Architect of the Capitol from employing temporary workers for long periods without providing eligibility for employee benefits.

Mr. Speaker, this is not happening. Much to my dismay, the Architect has not implemented section 133 more than 2 years after it was the law of the land, despite the clearest of congressional intentions and the fact that the General Accounting Office has determined that section 133 provides the Architect with the authority to treat temporary workers fairly. This is unacceptable behavior.

During markup 2 weeks ago, I offered an amendment which was adopted by voice vote which restates section 133. My expectation with this amendment is simple: That Mr. Hantman will finally appreciate that Congress meant what it said 2 years ago when it instructed his office to fairly treat temporary workers.

One provision of today's measure that does distress me, and I follow up with what the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) said, I agree with him 100 percent, we need to thank our staffs, incredibly talented, skilled, critical people to the accomplishment of our objectives and our responsibility. But in this bill, unfortunately, the raise we have given them is less than the raise that we give to all other executive employees.

I am very hopeful that before we complete consideration of this bill, in the final analysis our employees will be given the 4.1 percent increase that I hope that all the executive department will be given and that we have already given to the military. Our staff is incredible. We ought to say thank you. But in addition to that, we ought to ensure that they are treated at least as well as we expect our executive department employees to be treated as it relates to the COLA.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

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

I say to the gentleman from Georgia that I know what he says to be the case. I meant no criticism, but the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) had observed, and I wanted to make sure our employees knew, that we are going to treat them as well as we are hopefully also going to treat the executive employees, and so I appreciate the chairman's comment on that.

I do also, with the time the gentleman from Georgia yielded to me, want to again congratulate him and the committee on the mass transit benefit program that he has included in this bill.

With that, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I appreciate the work of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran). They have brought a good bill to the floor that all our Members can support and that will serve this institution and the American people.

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

Mr. Speaker, if truth in advertising applies to legislation, we would have a duty to warn America's seniors, beware, the Republicans' prescription drug bill could be hazardous to your health. This bill is nothing less than an historic betrayal of America's seniors. The GOP pretends that it is merely extending Medicare, but in fact the bill is the most dangerous attempt yet to dismantle the most popular health care program in history.

The Republicans fought the adoption of Medicare in 1965. Their majority leader said that Medicare should not exist in a free society. Yesterday the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the architect of this bill, said on television, and the Members can read it here, ``To those who say that [the bill] would end Medicare as we know it, our answer is we certainly hope so.''

This bill would drive seniors out of Medicare and into the arms of private insurers. There is no guaranteed monthly premium. There is no defined benefit for seniors. There is no guaranteed access to drugs seniors must have. The only guarantee in this bill is that it would leave a huge gap in coverage. Seniors would pay a $250 deductible, $420 a year in premiums, and all costs between $2,000 and $5,100 in drug expenses. That is $3,100 left to seniors to pay. This bill even prohibits the government from negotiating lower drug prices for seniors.

In contrast, the Democratic substitute offered by the gentleman from

Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) would provide a prescription drug benefit that guarantees affordable, universal and voluntary Medicare coverage for prescription drugs. There are no gaps in coverage. Seniors would pay $25 a month, $100 deductible, and then 20 percent coinsurance. Their out-of-pocket expenses would be limited to $2,000 a year. That is 1,100 under the gap that exists in the Republican bill.

The Republican plan also does not give the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to negotiate prices. Our bill does. I would ask the Members to vote for this substitute which guarantees prescription drug coverage for seniors.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Helsinki Commission for yielding me this time. I am proud to be a co-sponsor of this very important resolution.

This is about anti-Semitism. But more broadly than that, it is about hate. It is about the human inclination from time to time to hate others who are different, to discriminate against others who are different, who have a different color of skin, who have a different religion, who have a different national origin. More human violence perhaps has been perpetrated in the name of those distinctions and prejudices and hate than any other.

It is important that we regularly and strongly and without equivocation speak out against those who would perpetrate and spread hate in our world, in our country, in our communities.

I thank the gentleman from New Jersey, and I thank my good friend, the gentleman from California, for their leadership on this issue. It is an appropriate statement for us to make as the representatives of a free and tolerant people.

I thank the distinguished gentleman from California for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution which condemns the unconscionable terrorist attacks directed at the state of Israel since the Aqaba summit earlier this month and which expresses our solidarity with the Israeli people in the fight against terrorism. I might add that we ought to have solidarity with those Palestinians who join in the fight against terrorism.

Let me add, too, I am very proud to have joined the gentleman from California as well as the chairman of the Committee on International Relations and the majority whip in circulating a letter that was signed by more than 300 Members of this House that urges President Bush to adhere to the principles he articulated a year ago concerning the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. That letter and this resolution share this nonnegotiable demand: Any road map for peace must require the Palestinian side to unconditionally cease its campaign of terror and violence against Israel. Like the Dean of the House, my good friend, I desire to be an honest broker. But in that honesty, I need to observe what each side does. We must require the Palestinian side to unconditionally cease its campaign of terror and violence against Israel.

There are some who believe the United States and other nations must demonstrate more evenhandedness on the Palestinian question. However, Mr. Speaker, we must guard against making muddled parallelisms between justified actions by Israel and terrorist tactics that are designed only to inflame and destroy and undermine, I might say, the Prime Minister of Palestine from accomplishing the objectives articulated at Aqaba. As this resolution states, we must reject the concept of a cycle of violence as the gentleman from California has so powerfully said, because it implies a moral equivalence between terrorist and victim where no such parallelism exists. The state of Israel like every other nation on Earth has the right of self-defense and this resolution expresses American solidarity with Israel as it acts to maintain and secure its independence as a free and sovereign nation.

Mr. Speaker, we must continue to work to bring peace to this savaged region of the globe and achieve justice for Israel as well as justice for the Palestinian people, so many of whom have toiled under despots who only preach death and destruction.

I urge my colleagues to adopt this resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to talk about the Obey amendment which will be offered shortly. The Obey amendment puts before the Congress of the United States, before our Republican colleagues and before our Democrat colleagues, the question of what options do we want to pursue. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) has said that the most important objective is keeping our homeland secure, keeping America and Americans safe.

The Obey amendment says do you care more about giving tax cuts to those at the very upper ranks of taxpayers, or do you care about keeping ports, airports, bridges and roads secure? It is a very simple question. It is a question, though, all of us must answer; and we must answer them with the responsibility to the American public that we have uppermost in our minds.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues, I urge this House to allow the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to offer this amendment and to support this amendment and to say to America, we are prepared to protect you.