Rubén Hinojosa

Mr. HINOJOSA

Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1474, the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act. I commend Representatives Melissa Hart and Harold Ford for introducing the legislation and for tenaciously working to ensure the legislation came to the House floor today. I also want to thank Chairman Oxley, Chairman Bachus, Ranking Member Frank and Ranking Member Sanders for bringing this legislation to the floor today. H.R. 1474 will modernize the nation's check payment system by allowing, but not mandating, banks to exchange checks electronically. Recognizing that not all banks have the ability to accept electronic transmission of a check, H.R. 1474 authorizes the creation of substitute checks for payment. This substitute check would be used in place of the original paper check, and it would be a negotiable instrument. Banks that create an electronic check will be able to create a substitute check and use that for presentment to a bank that has not upgraded its system to accept electronic checks. This legislation capitalizes on existing technology to make the current process faster and more efficient, while increasing customer service, improving access to funds and increasing antifraud measures that ensure our economic security. H.R. 1474 will decrease our check payment system's financial dependence on physically transporting checks, thus avoiding any types of delays or paralysis in the U.S. payment system that might be created by another September 11th terrorist attack. I believe that the Committee successfully crafted very difficult and complicated recredit provisions in the legislation that address the concerns of consumer groups. This legislation is a well-crafted bill that will provide the structure for an efficient financial payments framework to enable financial institutions to provide better customer service. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. HINOJOSA

Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding me this time. I also want to thank the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis); the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman); our minority leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi); and the Republican leadership for bringing this legislation to the floor today. I rise today as the original sponsor of House Resolution 159 expressing profound sorrow on the occasion of the death of Irma Rangel, a courageous legislator and a great Texan. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to honor a true Texas legend. Irma Rangel was the first Mexican American woman elected to the Texas House of Representatives, where she served her South Texas constituents for 26 years. She served on the Higher Education Committee for most of her career and became chairwoman in 1995, a leadership position she held until Republicans won control of the House this year. She stayed on as vice chair of the committee until she passed away. Her legacy includes over 25 years of working to improve minority access to higher education. During her 26-year tenure in the Texas House, Ms. Rangel devoted her efforts to increasing the educational attainment of Hispanics, bringing economic development to Texas, and empowering Texas youth with the tools they needed for success. It was Irma Rangel's landmark legislation that ensured that all Texas high school seniors who graduate in the top 10 percent of their class would be able to attend any public university in the State of Texas, including the University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M University at College Station. Representative Rangel was always ready to engage her colleagues, not only on the pressing issues of the day, but she also sought to raise issues that had been forgotten or ignored yet were important to average working families. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Rangel was famous for her quote, ``Will it help or hurt?'' She was also known to say, ``Why not here? Why not in Kingsville?'' And after dialogue, she took action. She fought for her constituents to ensure their needs were addressed by the Texas legislature. Her relentless efforts to help establish a school of pharmacy at Texas A&M University, Kingsville, the first professional school in South Texas, has emerged as one of her greatest contributions as a State representative. Not only was Representative Rangel a great State leader, she was an exceptional and courageous example of how to live with cancer. She has survived two bouts of cancer before valiantly battling brain cancer, which ultimately took her life. Irma was a positive force in educating women who faced the same adversities. Her straight talk, get-it-done demeanor, helped open the dialogue on the issue of cancer and treatments. Irma Rangel was preceded in death by her parents, Herminia L. Rangel and P.M. Rangel and her sister Olga Rangel Lumley. She is survived by her sister Minnie Rangel Henderson and her brother-in-law Howard A. Henderson, nieces Debbie Henderson and Margo Hoover and nephews Dino Henderson and Marc Lumley. I hope my colleagues will join me in extending the condolences of this Congress to these surviving family members, expressing its deep gratitude to Irma Rangel and her family for the service that she rendered to the great State of Texas, recognizing with appreciation and respect her exemplary commitment to public service and to her constituents, and esteeming Irma Rangel as a role model for generations to come in South Texas and the entire Nation. Mr. Speaker, the people of Texas will miss Irma's unique style and engaging dialogue. She will be remembered for her great contributions in making Texas a better State for all of its people.

Mr. HINOJOSA

Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the respectable gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).

Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I really enjoyed the remarks by my good friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), and especially my friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo). And I want to just share with both of you that we believe in south Texas that it is such a great sport that the community of south Texas has a big hockey coliseum under construction soon to be completed, probably in the fall, September or October. And I wish to invite both of the gentlemen from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo and Mr. Kline) to come to the opening. We are going to have on the Texas-Mexico border visitors from Mexico who also want to be as supportive of hockey as we in America are supportive of soccer. So I want both gentlemen to know that they will be getting an invitation to that grand opening, and I hope that they will come and share in the excitement of bringing hockey to my great State of south Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 217, congratulating the University of Minnesota for winning the NCAA Division I ice hockey championship. Last month the Golden Gophers captured the national championship for the second straight year. College fans, students, athletes, and the general public were treated to an exciting hockey season and championship tournament. I want to extend my hearty congratulations to Minnesota's head coach and their student athletes for a job well done. Also, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to extend my congratulations to the University of New Hampshire and their student athletes for a great season. Winning a championship has brought national acclaim to the University of Minnesota. I hope that the Minnesota fans and the University community treasures this moment for many years to come. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HINOJOSA

Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1925, the Runaway, Homeless, and Missing Children Protection Act. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this important and much-needed legislation which reauthorizes the Federal programs that protect and assist the most vulnerable young people in our society. This legislation enjoys broad bipartisan support. I would like to thank the committee chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Select Education, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), and my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), the sponsor of H.R. 1925, for working diligently with us to ensure that this important legislation could move expeditiously through the process and remain something we can all support. We would never get anything through the legislative process without dedicated, professional staff work; and this bill is no exception. I would like to also commend our committee staff, Denise Forte and Ricardo Martinez, as well as the staff for the majority, Whitney Rhoades, Krisann Pierce, and Rebecca Jones for their excellent work. The programs funded under this act reflect what brings us together as a society. In the face of crisis, Americans want to lend a helping hand. That is what these programs do, they provide emergency shelter and services to young people in crisis, helping them get on a path to healthy, independent lives, and hopefully reuniting them with their families. The programs funded under this act, Basic Centers, Transitional Living Programs, and Street Outreach Programs, are desperately needed in communities across the country. We have excellent programs operating in my own home State of Texas. During our subcommittee hearing, we learned of the tremendous work being done by the Washington, D.C., Latin American Youth Center through these programs. We heard from a young man who was once homeless. Through these programs, he is now on the path to independence and possibly a college degree. I asked him how the program earned his trust so he was willing to leave the streets and take another life path. His answer was simple: They gave him a place to stay immediately. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation so that other young people in need will have a place to stay, a place that will put them on a path to a better life. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

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

Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HINOJOSA

Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I come to the House floor today to salute heroes in my State, the Texas 53. Yes, these 53 State House representatives have taken a courageous stand to preserve justice and democracy in Texas. As those State representatives said in a written statement, they are taking a courageous stand for fair play for all Texans. We refuse to participate in an inherently unfair process that slams the door of opportunity in the face of Texas voters. The proposed redistricting plan blatantly violates the Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution. In south Texas, border cities are cut up into as many as three different congressional districts and grouped into residents of downtown Austin over 350 miles away. Democratic representatives have no voice in the development of this redistricting plan, nor did citizens throughout the State of Texas, in violation of State law. Again, Mr. Speaker, I commend these 53 representatives for their courageous stand, especially those heroes from south Texas: Kino Flores, Jim Solis, Rene Oliveira, Aaron Pena, Miguel Wise, Ryan Guillen and Juan Escobar. We support them.

Mr. HINOJOSA

Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, once again I rise today to salute the 53 Texas State House representatives who have taken a courageous stand to preserve justice and democracy in Texas. As those courageous representatives said in a written statement, ``We are taking a stand for fair play for all Texans. We refuse to participate in an inherently unfair process that slams the door of opportunity in the face of Texas voters.'' Tom DeLay's arguments for redistricting Texas all over again cannot hide the real partisan power grab at work here or the unfair process he has engineered that short-circuits the ability of Texas voters to express their views. First, DeLay argued that the U.S. Constitution requires the State legislature to replace the court-ordered district lines with its own redistricting plan in time for the 2004 election. But the Texas State attorney general concluded that the legislature has no constitutional or legal obligation to redraw congressional districts. He decided that DeLay was flat wrong in his argument that the current district lines are only temporary and that the legislature has a mandated responsibility to redraw them in time for the next election. But still DeLay presses on. Next he claimed that redistricting is necessary to increase the number of minority districts in Texas. That, too, is flat wrong. In fact, his plan to redraw congressional districts would dilute minority voting strength statewide. It would splinter Hispanic communities all along the southwest Texas border region. It would suppress the voices of millions of Hispanics living along the Texas border and give their representation to areas in central Texas. That is why the proposed redistricting plan blatantly violates the Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution. In south Texas, border cities such as McAllen, Texas, in my 15th Congressional District are cut up into as many as three different congressional districts and grouped with residents of downtown Austin, Texas. It gerrymanders the 15th Congressional District so that it looks like a serpent that wiggles around the State of Texas for a distance of more than 400 miles with its head in Austin and its tail end in the border towns of Hidalgo County. Just look at the map. It was featured on CNN today. It starts here on the border in Hidalgo County, and it wiggles all the way around like this, all the way to Austin, Texas, for about 450 miles. That is the worst gerrymandering that has ever happened in the State of Texas, and that happens to be my congressional district. All this in order to increase the number of Republican Representatives in the Congress. Obviously the Democratic State representatives had no voice in the development of this redistricting plan, nor did citizens throughout Texas have an opportunity to speak out on this new congressional district map. That is why these 53 Texas representatives have broken quorum, the only option available to them, to stop this partisan power grab by Tom DeLay. That is why every major newspaper in the State of Texas has editorialized against the new redistricting map. The Waco Tribune Herald said it best: ``The map is a travesty that shatters the community of interest that is the foundation of congressional redistricting. It's a Machiavellian scheme that should be soundly defeated.'' And the McAllen Monitor, the newspaper in my district, said it very succinctly: ``This crooked plan uses crooked lines to achieve twisted goals.'' Clearly the citizens of Texas support the existing congressional district lines not just for the 2002 election, but for 2004 and every election after that through 2010 when the constitutionally mandated redistricting process will take place again. The current district lines are fair to both parties and comply with the Voting Rights Act. If Tom DeLay wants to increase Republican representation, he should seek to do so at the ballot box, not by hammering the legislature into changing the rules of the game in a way that would be extremely disruptive to our communities, our legislature and our State. Again, Mr. Speaker, I stand here in solidarity with these 53 courageous Texas State representatives, especially those from south Texas: Kino Flores, Jim Solis, Rene Oliveira, Aaron Pena, Miguel Wise, Ryan Guillen and Juan Escobar. To all 53: We support you. We salute you.

Mr. HINOJOSA

Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1261. The programs authorized under the Workforce Investment Act provide the key supports to economic self-sufficiency for many in our communities. They deserve a more serious and substantive discussion than the rushed, partisan effort that we have before us today. H.R. 1261 does not address the needs of the most significant source of growth in America's workforce--immigrants. Consider the following: new immigrants accounted for more than 50 percent of the civilian labor force growth between 1990 and 2001. More than 40 percent of non-citizens have less than a high school education and approximately 17.8 million adults in the U.S. are limited English proficient (LEP). Many states in the south and midwest have experienced large increases in the number of LEP individuals over the past ten years. Some of these states have little experience providing services to LEP adults. Evidence has clearly shown that investment in vocationally linked English as a second language provides excellent returns. Immigrants who are fluent in oral and written English earn approximately 24 percent more than those who lack fluency, regardless of their qualifications. Yet despite this, H.R. 1261 fails to provide these states with the assistance they need to improve their English as a Second Language (ESL) and other services to this growing population. While many of these new Americans seek to become active participants in civic life, few have access to ESL and civics education programs that can help them understand their roles as community members. H.R. 1261 misses an opportunity to help these immigrants learn English and better understand their responsibilities as new Americans. Instead, H.R. 1261 offers divisive provisions on so-called ``charitable choice'', which would sanction discrimination in hiring and weaken our civil rights. This is not an investment in our workforce. It is a diversion from what our workers need. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1261.

Mr. HINOJOSA

Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the tax proposal the House Ways and Means Committee approved on a party-line vote of 24- 15 last Tuesday. I believe that what the committee reported to the House floor is flawed, misguided and will harm our American economy now and for generations to come. I agree with Ways and Means Committee Chairman Thomas's assertion during the committee's consideration of the tax bill that, ``Congress must take bold steps to spur economic expansion, create more jobs for workers, better opportunities for families and bigger paychecks for all Americans.'' I agree with that. But, I strongly disagree with the ways and means by which he intends to accomplish these goals. Mr. Thomas's bill focuses tax relief on the wealthiest 1 percent of the population by providing tax cuts mainly on stock dividends and capital gains. Many economists have rated this proposal as very ineffective in stimulating the economy. It would be more appropriate to provide an immediate increase in the child tax credit, marriage penalty relief and the expansion of the 10-percent tax bracket. With deficits soaring, the last thing our government should be doing is proposing major tax cuts that do not spur economic growth. Our government would be borrowing to finance the revenue losses associated with the tax cuts for years to come. Furthermore, Chairman Thomas's proposal fails to include support for state and local governments. It crowds out Federal investment in education, training, infrastructure, and research and development to pay for their tax cuts for the wealthy. Next year, the GOP tax plan gives tax cuts totaling approximately $44 billion to those making over $374,000 a year, while their budget provides $9.7 billion less than the amount promised in the No Child Left Behind Act for educating our children. The Thomas plan also allows the extended unemployment benefits program to expire May 31, 2003, leading to millions of families being denied needed unemployment insurance. Not only would extending benefits help the families of nearly 5 million out-of-work Americans pay their bills, it would also efficiently jumpstart the economy by putting money into the pockets of consumers who will spend it. I urge my colleagues to defeat this plan when it comes to the floor of the House.

Mr. HINOJOSA

Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was unavoidably detained in my congressional district. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcalls 159, 160, and 161.

Mr. HINOJOSA

Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is a very important day. It is ``El Dia De Los Ninos (The Day of the Children)--Celebrating Young Americans. This traditional Latin American holiday has been observed nationally since April 30, 1998. In preparation for that first El Dia De Los Ninos, young Americans in dozens of cities across the nation signed petitions and testified before city councils to ask for local recognition of the celebration. It is a day for parents, families and communities to value and uplift Latino children and all other children in the United States. Across the Nation, communities are organizing their own activities to celebrate their children on April 30th. I am proud that my 15th Congressional district of Texas celebrates El Dia De Los Ninos with great enthusiasm and fanfare. This week 600 hundred elementary school children will enjoy a day of festivities at Edinburg Municipal Park. Another 600 children will be celebrating in McAllen at Seguin Elementary School. These celebrations are possible because the entire community-- schools, community-based organizations, colleges, and local businesses come together to uplift the children of the Lower Rio Grande Valley to show them how much we care about them, and how important they are to our future. El Dia De Los Ninos has a powerful message for us all. El Dia De Los Ninos provides a bridge for children to learn more about being an American. Their first hands-on civics lesson is to ask their city council to declare and celebrate the Day of the Children. Young Americans have told the Nation what it should be doing. They have accepted the gift of a special day from the Latino community and are building a national celebration of hope and diversity for all children in the United States--a gift we can all cherish. I encourage my colleagues to help celebrate this important day in their own communities and with their own children.

Mr. HINOJOSA

Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose H.R. 1350 in its present form. The Improving Results for Children With Disabilities Act is the bill that we are debating. It includes amendments that I offered in committee to improve our knowledge as to how well special education serves limited English-proficient children, and to support research on best practices for identifying, assessing and providing instructional and other services to these left children. H.R. 1350 also ensures that disabled children in migrant worker families are not placed at risk because their school records are not transferred to their next school. I believe that these additions to the bill will put us on the right path to improving services to migrant children and left children with disabilities. These improvements, however, do not compensate for the draconian discipline provisions that are in H.R. 1350. Under this bill, schools could suspend or expel a child with disabilities for any infraction of the school code of conduct without considering whether the behavior was the result of a disability. This manifestation determination has been one of the key protections for children with disabilities under the current law. Given the disproportionate suspension and expulsion rates for Hispanic and black youth in general, it is hard to imagine that H.R. 1350 will not push more of these young people out of school. Finally, the fast pace of this bill has shortchanged debate and full discussion on this and other important issues. I have heard from respected flagship university experts in my State in the field of special education research who are very concerned about transfer of special education research to the Institute for Education Sciences. We all recognize the value of education research is its direct link to practice. Moving special education research outside of the special ed program undermines that link. Because of the serious deficiencies in the bill, I oppose and ask my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1350.

Mr. HINOJOSA

Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support as a cosponsor of House Resolution 127, naming April the Financial Literacy for Youth Month, and I commend Congressman David Dreier for introducing this important legislation. I always say that education is the key to success, and providing financial literacy for our youth is an integral part of that process. The resolution expresses the sense of the House that the President should issue a proclamation calling on the federal government, states, localities, schools, nonprofit organizations, businesses, other entities, and the people of the United States to observe the month with appropriate programs and activities. Designating April as the Financial Literacy for Youth Month should raise public awareness about the need for increased financial literacy in our schools and the serious problems that may be associated with a lack of understanding about personal finances. As Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greespan noted recently: Today's financial world is highly complex when compared with that of a generation ago. An understanding of how to maintain a checking and savings account at a local financial institution may have been sufficient twenty-five years ago. Today's consumers, however, must be able to differentiate between a wide range of products, services, and providers of financial products to successfully manage their personal finances. Certainly, young adults have access to credit at a much earlier age than their parents did. Accordingly, they need a more comprehensive understanding of credit than was afforded to the previous generation--including the impact of compounding interest on debt balances and the implications of mismanaging credit accounts. In addition, as technological advances have contributed significantly to the dramatic changes within the financial services market, consumers more generally must be familiar with the role that computers play in the conduct of every traditional financial transaction, from withdrawing funds to gaining access to credit. For these reasons and many more, it is imperative that we ensure our youth's financial literacy. Although several groups, including the Department of the Treasury's Office of Financial Education, have recommended that this be accomplished by incorporating financial literacy into math and English classes, I personally believe that we need to focus more on individual financial literacy curriculums. The Federal government should provide additional funds to accomplish this goal. Granted, the No Child Left Behind Act makes $385 million available in Innovation State Grant funds for distribution to the states, but only some of that money will be used to fund financial education initiatives. We need to do more, and we need to use April, the Financial Literacy for Youth Month, to work towards these goals. On the state level, I would hope that the education boards would focus on financial literacy and work with their state legislatures to require at least two semesters of financial literacy as a requirement for graduation from high school. In my own state of Texas, the Independent Bankers Association of Texas has been working diligently towards such a change in curriculum. I hope that more take up this cause. Some may ask why I am so interested in financial literacy. The reason is that I represent one of the poorest Districts in the nation where people still keep their money in their house and under their mattresses. I am speaking of the ``unbanked.'' Those individuals who tend to be exploited by payday lenders, use expensive money grams for remittances and are subject to crime because they have not entered the mainstream banking system. It is for these people that I am interested in financial literacy and for these reasons that I cosponsored this bill.

Mr. HINOJOSA

Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose my friend, the gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Hoekstra), amendment today because it cuts national service and breaks promises to thousands of American men and women who voluntarily choose to serve their country and communities. I agree that we must hold the national service corporation accountable for any improper accounting or tracking procedures that they have engaged in. However, we should not punish thousands of innocent Americans who seek to serve their country and communities. They are responding to the President's call asking for volunteers to serve their country. The Hoekstra amendment would slash funds to national service just as a record number of Americans are engaging in community and public service opportunities. The Hoekstra amendment would eliminate funds for AmeriCorps education awards. Upon completion of their service term, AmeriCorps members earn an education award. The Hoekstra amendment breaks a promise made to thousands of AmeriCorps members who proudly chose to serve their country. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Hoekstra amendment.

Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy). While this amendment appears and seems to be patriotic at first glance, what this amendment could really do is punish American workers. It would hurt American workers who work for foreign companies and American companies who supply foreign corporations. Many of my colleagues have given examples of companies that have their corporate office in France or Germany, but have big numbers of employees working here in the United States. In today's global economy, it is not possible to determine who this amendment would really be hurting. This issue deserves much more thought, debate, and consideration by the appropriate committees rather than being offered as an amendment at this time. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Kennedy amendment.

Mr. HINOJOSA

Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 743 and I wish to express my strong support for the amendment offered by my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green). The underlying bill was rejected by the House last month when it was considered under suspension of the rules. Yet it is being brought before us again with the same objectionable provision that will hurt teachers, police officers, firefighters and other State and local workers in Texas and lots of States around the country. H.R. 743 would compel experienced public servants to quit their jobs prematurely and work in the private sector for 5 years before they retire in order to avoid a reduction in their pension caused by the Social Security offset. We all know that our Nation has a critical shortage of teachers and public safety personnel. This provision would only exacerbate the problem. That is why I support the Green amendment to strip this offending provision from the bill. Unfortunately, the Committee on Rules has prevented this House from considering a permanent fix to the problems associated with the government pension offset. My friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), proposed an amendment to the Committee on Rules that would end this policy that forces public employees to offset their State pensions against the Social Security benefits they have earned. But the Committee on Rules refused to allow the Doggett amendment to be considered today. As a result, State and municipal employees throughout the Nation will continue to be hurt by this unfair policy. At a time when Federal and State budgets for education and public safety are being slashed, this is just one more slap in the face to those teachers and those public safety officers who are working hard to educate our children and protect our communities. We need to let them know that education and security are national priorities and that we value their dedication. I encourage my colleagues to move quickly to bring relief to teachers and other public employees by supporting the Green amendment.

Mr. HINOJOSA

Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, before bringing this to closure, I want to join the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) in agreeing that the tribute that she paid Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan was one that is well deserved and one that is going to be remembered throughout the country by many thousands of people who learned to love Senator Moynihan. I want to thank the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), for bringing this legislation forward and bringing it to the floor in a very bipartisan manner. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney). (Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to speak out of order revise and extend her remarks and include extraneous material.) Tribute to the Late Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner). I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), subcommittee chairman, for their commitment to writing such a good bipartisan bill; and I look forward to working with our subcommittee chairman on many more issues that are going to be coming up in this session. The Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003, or as it is better known, CAPTA, is a small program that fills an important role in the Federal response to child abuse by focusing on prevention and treatment. Child abuse is a serious public problem, and we must do much more at the Federal level to protect children from abuse and improve the treatment they receive. In 2002 there were almost 900,000 substantiated cases of child abuse and neglect. In 2000 an estimated 1,200 children died as a result of abuse and neglect. The bill before us today will enhance collaboration between child protection systems and the juvenile justice system. Research shows that children who are abused and neglected are more likely to be involved in delinquent and criminal behavior. By fostering linkages between the child protection and juvenile justice systems, the provisions of this bill should lead to better, more appropriate treatment services. The legislation also makes important changes by increasing collaboration between child protective services and health agencies. Children with disabilities are almost four times more likely to be victims of abuse and neglect, and children in the child welfare system are at higher risk for health problems. Any serious attempt to prevent and treat child abuse and neglect must include procedures for linking abused children and children at risk for abuse to the appropriate health and mental health services. The bill also requires States to report on their efforts to improve caseworker training, supervision, and retention so that children and families will be served better. Ultimately, our success in appropriately intervening and providing services and treatment for vulnerable children and their families is dependent on having a well-trained workforce to make difficult judgments about how to best keep a child safe and make sure they have the love and the support of a permanent family. This is a strong bill that will help children receive the services they need to grow up safe and healthy. We must not be hypocritical about this. We cannot say we support children, but not provide the resources to do it. Right now, only 12 percent of Federal money for child abuse and neglect go toward prevention and treatment. This is shortsighted policy, because if we do not pay now for prevention and treatment, we pay later in our criminal justice system and health care costs. The leadership has designated this week as Children's Week, and it is fitting that we focus on protecting our most vulnerable children. However, this legislation will offer little protection if it is not fully funded at the authorized level of $285 million. Similarly, designating a week as Children's Week will be little more than another empty promise if we are unwilling to provide the resources that we authorize for the key programs that serve our youth, such as this one, and the No Child Left Behind Act. I hope that the week we consider fiscal year 2004 appropriations for these programs will truly be Children's Week. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 14 today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HINOJOSA

Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Republican's proposed budget resolution for fiscal year 2004 and in support of the Spratt substitute amendment. If passed, the budget resolution currently before the House would require the Committee on Education and the Workforce to cut mandatory spending programs under its jurisdiction by $269 million for fiscal year 2004 and $2.675 billion for fiscal years 2004 through 2008. This is completely unacceptable. Education is the key to success. The Federal cuts come at a time when States are facing a severe budget crisis. According to the National Governors' Association, States face a combined $80 billion budget shortfall for fiscal year 2004 in addition to a $30 billion shortfall for the current fiscal year. In my State of Texas, they are suffering from at least a $10 billion shortfall in this 2-year period. As I see it, all of these cuts to essential educational programs are being made only to benefit the wealthiest Americans--the top 1%-- through tax cuts. The President and the Republican party insist on cutting taxes far beyond any reasonable amount at a time when we are at war with Iraq and will need to occupy Iraq for years to come to maintain the peace and rebuild the country. They are acting irresponsibly by failing to include the projected cost of the war and its aftermath in this current budget resolution. The cost of the war alone has been estimated at anywhere from $70 billion to $200 billion, according to the Administration's former economic advisor, Lawrence Lindsay. The Republican budget also cuts $28 billion in health care and disability benefits for military veterans again to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans less than 24 hours after sending our forces into battle. They should be ashamed of themselves. It is unconscionable for the Republicans to be cutting taxes and reducing social services programs at a time when the United States has a large and growing deficit, our states are in crises, and we are at war with Iraq. History will not be kind when it judges the Republicans' actions. There is a far better alternative budget. Congressman Spratt's Democratic substitute offers real economic stimulus and job creation. It proposes responsible tax policy by continuing the implementation of middle-income tax cuts, such as the increased child tax credit, and by freezing tax cuts for the top two income tax brackets. The Spratt substitute meets our nation's domestic needs by providing over $200 billion more in domestic investments than the Republican budget. It fully funds priority investments such as No Child Left Behind, IDEA, veteran's benefits, children's services, public health, transportation, environmental programs and agricultural programs. This alternative also invests in health care and a strong prescription drug plan by providing at least $20 billion to cover the uninsured and at least $528 billion for a prescription drug program under Medicare, while allowing senior citizens to stay with their current doctors. Finally, the Spratt alternative budget invests in Homeland Security and defense funding by increasing resources for Homeland Defense and by giving $20 billion more to First Responders than they would receive under the Republican Budget. In short, the Spratt Budget provides for America's needs, the needs of our people and strengthens our economy. It is a sound, reasonable budget blueprint, and we should support it. Mr. Chairman, the Republican's proposed budget resolution is inherently flawed. It hurts the education system in the United States. It harms children's programs. It damages small businesses, which are the strength of the U.S. economy, and it insults our veterans and our troops fighting in Iraq. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Spratt substitute and oppose the irresponsible, illogical, and ill- advised Republican budget resolution.