Chris Bell

Mr. BELL

Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 106, to recognize the American Jewish community on the occasion of its 350th anniversary and to support the designation of American Jewish History Month. No community in modern history has suffered more under tyranny and oppression and has been forced to fight harder throughout its history to secure the most basic rights we enjoy today in America, rights many of us sometimes take for granted in this great country of ours. That is, in part, why we in America can boast that we are home to the largest Jewish population in the world. The history of the Jewish people is deeply entwined with the spirit and heart of America, and their struggle has been ours for the past 300 years. I have the profound honor of representing the largest Jewish population in Texas in District 25. I can tell you that this is a proud community that loves this country and loves the freedoms that so many of our forefathers have died side-by-side to protect. These Americans are the survivors of the greatest crime humanity has ever seen, and they are the living legacy to what it means to sacrifice in the name of freedom and liberty. Their celebrated lives are living, walking proof of why those difficult sacrifices are worth making. We as a Nation would not be complete, we would not be the America we all know today, without the incredible contributions and sacrifices made by the Jewish people, both here in America and in the world abroad. The greatest lesson I think we can learn from the Jewish community is this: After thousands of years of persecution and torture, after encampment and extermination, after being spread to the four corners of the wind by forces that would undo almost any other community, they thrive today. Why? Well, the long and painful, but proud history of the Jewish people, here and abroad, should show all of us that becoming a great people is not about defining geographical boundaries. Rather, it is a connection of spirit, founded on common ideals and beliefs that creates great societies. For us in America and for our Jewish friends, both here and abroad, those ideals are freedom, liberty, and respect for our fellow man. These are the ties that bind all of us together, and these are the ties that should show our common enemies, those that would try to destroy all of us, that they will never, ever succeed. So I rise in support of this resolution, and would ask my colleagues to support it as well. Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join my friends from Ohio (Mr. Chabot and Mr. Portman) in strongly supporting House Concurrent Resolution 106, which recognizes and honors America's Jewish community on the occasion of its 350th anniversary and supports the designation of ``American Jewish History Month.'' Ever since Jewish refugees from Brazil landed on our shores in 1654 and established the first Jewish community in what is now New York City, American Jews have made immeasurable contributions to our Nation's civic, social, economic and cultural life. And this resolution is a long overdue and explicit recognition by this Congress of those contributions. Throughout history, few people have endured greater intolerance and hardship. As Thomas Jefferson once wrote: ``I can only offer my regret . . . at seeing a sect [the Jews], the parent and basis of all of Christendom, singled out for persecution and oppression.'' And yet, in America, the Jewish community has overcome, persevered and thrived--in science and medicine, in literature and the arts, in law and education, in business and public service, and in a host of other occupations and professions. Further, America's Jews have always answered freedom's call, valiantly fighting in every one of our Nation's military engagements, from the American Revolution to Operation Iraqi Freedom. And 16 American Jews have been awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. ``The Jewish Faith,'' remarked President Coolidge, ``is predominantly the faith of liberty.'' And so this proud tradition of a proud member of the American family continues today. All of us are the benefactors of the American Jewish Community's unswerving adherence to and work on behalf of freedom, tolerance, and basic human rights. And thus, it's only fitting, Mr. Speaker, that this Congress recognize the enormous contributions of America's Jewish Community to our Nation and support the designation of ``American Jewish History Month.''

Mr. BELL

Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson) as well as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) in support of H. Con. Res. 270. Certainly, nothing could be more important in this day and age to recognize than saving for college.

Mr. BELL

Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I have listened closely to the arguments offered on the other side in opposition to this motion to instruct, but I think something that should be pointed out is that just standing up here and saying something does not make it so, or saying this proposal will not affect certain people does not make it the truth. Let us be very clear about what we are talking about here today. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, employers are required, they are required to pay employees a premium for overtime work. They have been required to do so since the 1930s. An exception does exist for three categories: for executive, administrative, and professional positions. Under this Department of Labor proposal, every proposed change to the duties test, which determines whether someone falls under one of those exception categories, every proposed change to the duties test would make it easier to avoid paying overtime, would make it easier for employers to get around their obligation to pay a premium for overtime work. And my colleagues can say that certain jobs will not be affected, but look at the list. Look at the list of those who would be affected: mid- level office workers, lower-level supervisors, licensed practical nurses, newspaper reporters, policemen, firefighters, and the list goes on and on. This is an unfair proposal. It is a lousy proposal. Vote for the motion to instruct.

Mr. BELL

Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor BP Solvay Polyethylene North America on the occasion of being named the 2003 Industry of the Year by the Deer Park Chamber of Commerce. BP Solvay Polyethylene North America manufactures high density polyethylene plastic in the shape of small round pellets which are used to make a wide range of consumer and industrial products, including milk bottles, gas tanks, children's play toys, plastic bags and liners. The company's world class business processes have distinguished BP Solvay Polyethylene North America's employees as number one in customer satisfaction (out of 675 resin buyers) for the fourth time per Mastio and Company, a well-recognized survey company. At the core of BP Solvay Polyethylene North America's values lies a commitment to safe operations, preserving the environment, and protecting the health and welfare of employees and neighbors. To accomplish this, the company employs highly skilled, trained, and motivated individuals. The company's goal is for Deer Park citizens to feel that the community is a better place because of their neighbor, BP Solvays Polyethylene North America. Through the years, the site has worked closely with the Deer Park Chamber of Commerce and numerous other local organizations. The company supports the Deer Park Independent School District on activities ranging from involvement and financial support of the high school's honors recognition banquet, fire prevention safety for students, to sponsorship of an annual art and essay scholarship program. Through the years, the company's employees have particularly enjoyed working with partner school Deer Park Junior High on student plant tours, campus fix-up and environmental projects, and traveling plastic science shows for classrooms. Besides education, BP Solvay Polyethylene North America supports numerous civic initiatives and groups. The company's volunteer team, named the Community Activities Team, has been active for almost 15 years, guiding over 3,000 volunteer hours per year.

Mr. BELL

Mr. BELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment, hopeful that we will pass the Norton amendment and not engage in what I think most charitably can be described as a giant cop-out. It saddens me that we have reached a point in this Nation's history when so many people simply want to throw up their hands and suggest that the only way that we can solve the problems facing public school education in the United States is to send more and more children to private schools, forgetting that what has separated the United States of America from other countries throughout the world is the fact that our forefathers made a commitment to public school education, deciding that children, regardless of financial status, would have free access to a quality public school education. I serve on the Committee on Government Reform. I listened to the debate there, and I am listening to the debate here. It is very similar, where once again the proponents of this voucher measure suggest that the only way to give parents in Washington, D.C. choice is through private school vouchers. Mr. Chairman, that is simply false. And if my colleagues do not believe me, all they have to do is look at the D.C. public school Web site, where it talks about the out-of- boundary policy, the out-of-boundary application process, discretionary transfer, is for parents or guardians who wish to apply for permission to enroll their children in D.C. PS schools other than their neighborhood school. The Washington Post, May 20, 2003: ``Throughout the Washington area there are multiple options for parents seeking alternatives to traditional neighborhood schools.'' The Federal No Child Left Behind law stipulates that if a neighborhood school underperforms for 2 consecutive years, parents may transfer their child to another school. D.C. is doing it the way it should be done, by offering parents a choice through the public school system. I can say that that is the way it is to be done because I come from a city, the city of Houston, that improved its public school system by using public school choice and other measures, a city where in the 1980s many wanted to throw up their hands and say you cannot afford to send your child to the Houston Independent School District; you have to send your child to a private school so that they can get an adequate education. But some community leaders, thankfully, were not willing to accept that argument. They were not willing to simply cop out and throw up their hands. They decided we had to do something about our public education system, so they did implement programs like public school choice and charter schools and called for more local control. So much improvement has been seen in the Houston Independent School District, so much improvement that a Republican President, George Bush, decided that the superintendent who had overseen most of that improvement, Rod Paige, should serve as the Secretary of Education in his administration. And private school vouchers had absolutely no role in the improvement of Houston public schools. Then we hear the argument that moving money out of the D.C. public schools and into a private school voucher program will have no real impact; that money does not really play a role in the performance of public schools. How ludicrous is that? Schools, teachers, books. Everybody realizes they all cost money, a lot of money. And there are no private schools that I am aware of who are asking for less money. They are constantly asking the parents of their children for money, and they are constantly calling on private foundations for more donations. So let us not pretend this voucher bill is not going to have a profound financial impact on D.C. public schools, and let us also not pretend, let us also not pretend that this voucher measure is just about D.C. schools. Because I have listened to that argument as well; that this is a D.C. problem and let D.C. try this because it will not impact anyone else. If I truly believed that, perhaps I would not feel so passionately about this measure, but I do not. I do think this will start us on a slippery slope. And I hate that argument because it is used and abused here. And there is no one in this Chamber who cannot look at a mole hill and see a mountain instead and suggest that with every issue we are starting down a slippery slope. But in this particular case I do believe that is what we are looking at. I think the proponents of vouchers in this Nation, seeing that they had failed in passing vouchers in any sort of broad-ranged manner, want to do it on an incremental basis starting with D.C., and trying to gather some favorable statistics, like you can always do, and then spreading it from State to State, city to city, until finally we have more and more children enrolled in private schools. Mr. Chairman, that brings me back to where I started, a cop-out, a giant cop-out, the wrong road to go down, a path that I hope we will not start on here today.

Mr. BELL

Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, this has absolutely nothing to do with being a freshman. Things become rather apparent around here quite quickly, and when the other body has engaged in a lengthy debate and has offered a child tax credit which has been paid for and has identified funding for that, it will not go above that mark, and has made it very clear they will not go above that mark, certainly if you come back and pass a child tax credit that calls for some $69 billion and does not identify any funding for that bill, you know that the other body, common sense would tell you that the other body is not going to agree to it. We stated that at the time, and what has played out is exactly what we said would play out. The conference committee has not met.

Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding and for his leadership on this issue and again bringing the child tax credit before the American people. I listened to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania talk about how it pains him to listen to the debate. I certainly understand that, because oftentimes the truth does hurt. As I stand here it becomes so apparent, and all I can think about is that old saying that the more things change, the more things stay the same. As many will recall, we were here night after night leading up to the recess period asking for a motion to instruct on the child tax credit. Some people may have forgotten during the recess period. Certainly our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like for the American people to forget. But we are not going to forget. We are not going to forget about those we represent. We are not going to forget about those who are in the greatest need of a tax credit. All the Republicans would have to do, if they are sincere, is join with the other body and pass the bill that was passed out of the other body calling for an $11 billion child tax credit. But I would like to take people back to June, because that is how you really can identify the insincerity of the arguments on the other side, when we had the debate regarding the child tax credit and we really saw the hollowness of ``compassionate conservatism'' on display, on open display, as they talked about wanting so greatly a child tax credit, but knowing that the bill that they were putting forward calling for an $80 billion child tax credit would have absolutely no chance, no chance, of being agreed to by the other body. They knew precisely what they were doing.

Mr. BELL. No, the gentleman has his own time, and I am not going to yield. That is precisely what has taken place. And now 93 days have gone by, just as we predicted they would, and the conference committee has not met a single time to try to work out a child tax credit, despite, despite the contentions made by the other side of the aisle that they so greatly wanted this child tax credit. But, see, some of the real feelings from the other side of the aisle began to slip out after that day back in June, and the majority leader let forth his true feelings when he said, ``It ain't going to happen,'' and he made it clear that he believes the working poor in this country do not deserve a tax credit because they do not pay income tax. Well, they do pay sales tax, and they wake up every day and they go to work and they have needs, sometimes greater needs, than those long- suffering millionaires who the Republicans seem to always be able to find tax relief for, and we need to do something to take care of these families, and that is what this child tax credit is all about. At no time was that more clear than during this district work period when I had a chance to go back home and sponsor a back-to-school fair for one of the low-income neighborhoods in my district. The greatest excitement that came during the course of that evening was when a local merchant had offered to give away backpacks, a backpack, something that has become a basic school supply for almost every school child in America. But the excitement was because many of these kids had not been able to afford them. All I can think is how much that $400 child tax credit would have meant to those families when they were preparing to send their kids back to school, how much it would have meant to them. That is why it is important, and that is why we challenge the other side of the aisle, that is why we challenge the Republicans in this body night after night to stand behind your words that you stated back in June, stand behind what you claimed was a sincere, compassionate need to help working families in this country. Go to the conference committee, agree with the other body, and let us bring forth a child tax credit that will put money in the hands of those who need it most in this country. Let us pass this motion to instruct and let us pass a child tax credit.

Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BELL

Mr. BELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask what I think is a very fair question. Why is the Federal Government telling the city of Houston that it has to have yet another referendum on rail in order to get Federal rail funding that has been offered without any type of election to every other major American city? We have already had one referendum in Houston on rail, and we are going to have another in November as mandated by Texas State law. There is simply no need whatsoever to have similar language included in this Transportation Appropriations bill we are considering here today. So I am rising in support of this amendment which strikes that language. Why is it necessary to continue to single out the city of Houston on rail funding issues in Federal legislation? It makes absolutely no sense. I think it is a travesty that anyone would go out of his way to add language to the Appropriations bill that specifically targets Houston and try once again to deny our community the Federal funding it desperately needs to break the gridlock. What happened to the concept of local control that we hear the Republicans so often trumpet as their greatest cause in life? In the end, this amendment is not about whether or not you support rail. It is about local control. Let us give the city of Houston the local control it deserves to determine its own course just as we give every other city in the United States that right. The language in this bill is unnecessary and solely designed to impede the enormous efforts made by Houston community leaders to get light rail working for the city of Houston. Enough is enough. The referendum is on the November ballot, and I believe it will pass. It is time to stop playing games with the very real problems of one of our country's largest cities and let Houston get on with business, unencumbered by Federal interference. Mr. Chairman, as we pass this Transportation Appropriations bill, let us be serious about local control. Let us be serious about allowing American cities like Houston to find real transportation solutions. Stand up for local control of our cities and vote for this important amendment.

Mr. BELL. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. BELL. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman is absolutely correct. It is all about local control. If we are going to be serious about being in favor of local control, then this amendment definitely deserves a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. BELL

Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the very patient gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).

Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on Government Reform, I am pleased to join with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) in the consideration of H.R. 2309 which, as amended, names a postal facility in Long Beach, California, after former Representative Stephen Horn. H.R. 2309, which was introduced by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) on June 3, 2003, enjoys the support and cosponsorship of the entire California delegation. In addition, on July 24, 2003, the Committee on Government Reform unanimously passed and ordered the bill reported to the House floor for consideration. Former Representative Horn, a Republican, represented the 38th Congressional District for 10 years, from 1992 to 2002. As a longtime public servant and political scientist, Mr. Horn worked at the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, the Brookings Institute, and in academia as a dean at American University here in Washington, and later as President of Cal State in Long Beach, California. As a member of the Committee on Government Reform, Stephen Horn served as chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management and Intergovernmental Relations. He is credited with focusing on the Federal Government's ability to respond to the Y2K crisis that we heard so much about a few short years ago in grading Federal agencies for computer security. Mr. Horn retired after serving his community and the public for more than 50 years. Mr. Speaker, I urge swift adoption of this measure. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BELL

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

Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support today of House Resolution 350. Mr. Speaker, Lance Armstrong, national and world champion cyclist, two-time Olympian, humanitarian, cancer survivor, and now five-time winner of the Tour de France, faced his first athletic challenge as a fifth grader in a second grade swim class. Through his now signature hard work and determination, Lance Armstrong was eventually put in a swim class with his own age group and later went on to place fourth in the 1,500 meter freestyle in his State. At age 13 Lance became a junior triathalon athlete. At age 15, just 5 years after being placed in that second grade swim class, Lance Armstrong won so many triathalons he made over $20,000 in just one year. The swimming and running components of the triathalon gave way to cycling. In his junior year of high school, the U.S. Cycling Federation invited him to join the 1990 Junior World Championship Team in Moscow. Born on September 18, 1971, Lance's athleticism was nurtured by his mother, Linda, a single parent who has been a constant source of strength and inspiration for Lance. This shy, all-American kid from the great State of Texas would become only the fifth rider in history to win the Tour de France five times. In 1991, Lance Armstrong won the Amateur Cycling Championship. He turned professional in 1992 and captured 10 titles by 1993. By the mid-1990s he had won the Tour DuPont twice and was being hailed as the finest U.S. cyclist. In 1996, however, he was diagnosed with a very serious form of cancer. Given only a 50 percent chance of survival, he underwent surgery and chemotherapy. In one of the more impressive comebacks in sports history, he returned to cycling in 1998 and reached the pinnacle of his sport with five consecutive victories in the Tour de France, the sport's toughest and most prestigious race. Lance Armstrong is truly in a class by himself and is well-deserving of this resolution in his honor.

Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. BELL

Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, TX. I am proud to announce that in this week's issue of U.S. News and World Report, a survey of ``America's Best Hospitals'' named M.D. Anderson Cancer Center the nation's top cancer center. Recently, M.D. Anderson broke ground for its new proton therapy machine. This will be the largest proton therapy machine in the world. M.D. Anderson is a rapidly growing institution, increasing patient load and research capabilities every year without sacrificing service. M.D. Anderson has been ranked as one of the top two cancer centers since 1990. Not only was the honor of the nation's best cancer center bestowed on M.D. Anderson, but it also ranked fourth for gynecology and under fifteenth in urology and ear, nose, and throat. These distinctions show the dedication of the M.D. Anderson faculty, staff, volunteers, patients, and community supporters who are working towards one mission, to eliminate cancer. M.D. Anderson was the only Texas hospital to be given a number one ranking in any medical specialty. Providing top quality care to patients from across the state of Texas and one third from out of state, M.D. Anderson shows its commitment to Texas and to the nation. M.D. Anderson represents Houston's dedication to patients, clinical research, education programs, and prevention and eradication of cancer. I know my colleagues will join me in congratulating M.D. Anderson's 12,708 employees, 1,400 volunteers, its numerous local and national donors, and its many patients for making M.D. Anderson the nation's number one cancer center.

Mr. BELL

Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.

Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds, because I want to point out to the American people the opportunity that they have this evening to hear, once again, the Republican double-speak on this particular issue, on the one hand suggesting to the American people how terribly concerned they are about working families in America and the desire to provide tax relief, and then proceeding to criticize everything about the child tax credit and what it would do for those very same working families that they express such great concern about. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, if we listen closely around Capitol Hill, we can hear many of my Republican colleagues often touting the slogan ``No Child Left Behind.'' Recently President Bush thought it was important enough to sign a new law that would provide tax cuts of $93,500 to the 200,000 taxpayers making over $1 million per year. And what I would ask, Mr. Speaker, and what the American people want to know is while the fat cats are getting fatter, what happened to the children? Mr. Speaker, I will tell the Members, they got left behind with the Bush tax cut along with the rest of America. In fact, 53 percent of all taxpayers are going to get less than $100 under the GOP law that was just passed, and this is just another example of Republican leadership choosing the wealthiest Americans over America's working families. But what about those children? Why did they get left behind, Mr. Speaker? After it was all said and done, Republican leadership chose not to expand the child tax credit to working class families. These are the families that have to work the hardest, take home the least, and need help the most. When the American people voiced their anger over this and the pressure was on, the Republican leadership finally buckled, but did they put forward the child tax credit bill already passed by the Senate and approved by the President as America wanted? No, Mr. Speaker, they did not. The House leadership chose politics over good policy. They chose politics over the needs of hard-working families. They put forward a bill they knew would not pass in the other body. The House leadership thumbed their noses at the American people and put forward a bill they knew would never be passed into law, and they did it intentionally. Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity to fix that. Today my Republican colleagues have the opportunity once again to put the compassion back into being conservative and to ensure that no more children get left behind by the Republican House leadership. The other body has passed a bipartisan bill that is actually good policy for America. It is a bill that President Bush has already said he will sign into law. It is a bill that will provide immediate relief to the working families of America, much in the same way the House Republican leadership saw fit to provide immediate relief to those long-suffering millionaires out there with their tax cut. The Senate version of the tax credit bill will help military families pay the bills. The House version does not. These families are made up of the very same men and women that we in this House sent into combat just a couple of months ago to defend our freedom, and these are the men and women that the House leadership have chosen to just leave behind. In fact, the Republican bill actually penalizes military mothers and fathers who serve in combat. If they fight for America, they get a lower child tax credit. Mr. Speaker, is this patriotic? Is this America? We owe it to the working people of America to pass a child tax credit that is good policy, not just good politics, and certainly we owe it to the fighting men and women of America, many of whom live in poverty, to give their children the tools they need to have a chance at the American dream. In the future, I hope my Republican colleagues will remember that the best kind of politics is the kind that helps the people we have all been elected to serve. That is why I am asking my colleagues to support my motion to instruct the conferees to pass the Senate version of the child tax credit bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), minority leader.