Loretta Sanchez

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the members of the American Merchant Marine for exemplary service to our country during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Our nation owes them a debt of gratitude for delivering goods and keeping our troops supplied during a very trying time. Without the Merchant Marines, our armed forces would have faced insurmountable obstacles during their mission in the Persian Gulf. Our maritime industry accounted for more than 80 percent of the supplies that were moved into Kuwait and Qatar for use in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Over 5000 mariners, from midshipmen to seasoned licensed marine officers, took part in the massive effort. They braved the seas in unarmed vessels full of explosive cargoes, and even volunteered to take anthrax and smallpox vaccinations to protect against biological attack. They moved nearly 21 million square feet of cargo in four months--the equivalent, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers stated, of shipping everything in the Pentagon three times. On May 22, 2003, Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta said, ``There is no more devoted a community of professionals than those who serve our nation's marine transportation system.'' I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. Since the founding of our great nation, the men and women of our maritime industry have shown great dedication to the ideals on which America was founded. In peacetime, and in wartime, our maritime industry provides the vital lines of communications that keep our manufacturers producing, our farmers growing, and our consumers buying. Without the Merchant Marines, the American economy would grind to a screeching halt. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the important contributions made by our Merchant Mariners and their unwavering commitment to America's freedom and prosperity. Participation in the most recent war in Iraq is just another example of our Merchant Marine's dedication to our nation.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, as the only Member of Congress that is a former Head Start child, I rise to speak about H.R. 2210, which will dismantle Head Start and rob single moms of the best early childhood education for their children.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, when the PATRIOT Act was enacted in the aftermath of September 11, civil rights advocates expressed great concern about the potential for abuse of the law by law enforcement officials. Unfortunately, many of their concerns were warranted. The Inspector General recently delivered findings of a new government investigation to Congress. In it he states that his office acted on 34 credible PATRIOT Act violations in the first half of 2003 alone and that he received over 270 allegations of abuse. The complaints are diverse. They range from an officer holding a loaded gun to the head of a detainee, to a prison guard ordering a Muslim inmate to remove his shirt so that the guards could use it to shine his shoes. These incidents are intolerable and they demand further review, and I commend the Inspector General for bringing them to our attention. The PATRIOT Act was intended to enhance our homeland security, not to create an atmosphere of bigotry and abuse towards our immigrant communities. While the safety of our citizens is paramount, we must take caution to find a balance that preserves our civil liberties on which our great Nation was founded.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, July 21, I was unavoidably detained due to a prior obligation. I request that the Congressional Record reflect that had I been present and voting, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall No. 398, ``yes'' on rollcall No. 399, and ``yes'' on rollcall No. 400.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, July 21, I was unavoidably detained due to a prior obligation in my district. I request that the Congressional Record reflect that had I been present and voting, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall No. 398, ``yes'' on rollcall No. 399, and ``yes'' on rollcall No. 400.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Madam Speaker, since President Bush declared the end to major combat operations on May 1, 2003, our brave servicemen and women have continued to die in Iraq at a rate of one per day. Let us look at the figures: 412 wounded, 86 killed. And still the administration continues to downplay the gravity of this situation. Our troops are facing insurgents who are clearly using guerrilla techniques and tactics; and even the new CENTCOM commander yesterday admitted that, in his opinion, this is a classic guerrilla-type war. So why is it that the Secretary of Defense and the President are refusing to characterize it as such? We are starting down a slippery slope into another long, drawn-out guerrilla conflict, once again. We need to find a viable solution fast. It is imperative that we give our troops all of the resources that they need to get the job done and confront the enemy, and we must continue to urge NATO to provide emergency assistance. We must bring our troops home as quickly as possible.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concern over the partisan political use of Federal resources by the majority party. Roughly 2 months ago, the Justice Department, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Homeland Security were all called upon to track down Democratic members of the Texas legislature, even though they had broken no law, nor endangered public safety nor homeland security. I applaud the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) for introducing three resolutions of inquiry in an effort to get to the bottom of all of this. This afternoon, the Select Committee on Homeland Security will mark up its resolution, which asks the Secretary of Homeland Security to transmit all relevant information about the Texas mess to the House. We must not allow the misuse of Federal resources for political purposes. These resources exist to protect the public from harm, not to protect the Republicans in Congress from political challenge.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, this week we will be voting on a spending bill for the Department of the Interior, the agency entrusted with the management and stewardship of our national parks. Unfortunately, this agency seems to have forgotten the stewardship portion of their mission. The Department has decided to ignore 10 years of scientific study by the National Park Service, which concluded that the best way to protect and preserve Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, two of our greatest national treasures, would be to phase out the use of snowmobiles. They have decided to ignore the conclusion that emissions produced by snowmobiles force park rangers to wear respirators, adversely affect the health of visitors, and obscure visibility around the famous Old Faithful geyser. This decision is an affront to the health of our national park system. That is why I strongly support an amendment to the Interior appropriations bill that will call for a phaseout of the use of snowmobiles in these parks. Our national parks are irreplaceable. We need to act now so that we can ensure that they are protected for generations to come.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, July 10, I was unavoidably detained due to a prior obligation in my district. I request that the Congressional Record reflect that had I been present and voting, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall No. 348, ``yes'' on rollcall No. 349, ``yes'' on rollcall No. 350, ``yes'' on rollcall No. 351, ``no'' on rollcall No. 352, and ``no'' on rollcall No. 353.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Arturo Moreno, the new owner of the World Champion Anaheim Angels. Mr. Moreno's purchase of the World Series champions not only made him the first minority with a controlling stake in a major league team, it made him the first Latino owner in major team sports. In a league where 28 percent of the players are foreign born, this is an important step in continuing diversity in Major League Baseball. When Jackie Robinson entered the League in 1947, he broke baseball color barriers. Today, I'm proud to say that Mr. Moreno is continuing that tradition at the helm of the Angels. It is my hope that it will drive more minorities to sports management and to the Anaheim ballpark. I'm told he bought the Angels not just because he loves sports, but because he loves to win--exactly what we need for a second championship victory. As a die-hard Angels fan, I would like to welcome Mr. Arturo to the Anaheim family. I hope his first year includes another championship.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Alice G. Hastings, Lt. Col. Gilbert L. Hernandez and the staff of the Long Beach Veterans Hospital for their hard work in planning and hosting the 23rd National Veterans Wheelchair Games in Long Beach, CA, last week. The first games, held in 1981, brought 74 veterans to compete from 14 States. Today, these games have grown to become the largest annual wheelchair-sporting event in the world. Last year, over 480 athletes came from 44 States, Puerto Rico and Great Britain to compete. Wheelchair sports began after World War II, as young disabled veterans began playing basketball in VA hospitals throughout the United States. Interest soon spread to other sports and brought a sense of belonging and camaraderie to hundreds of veterans. I want to thank all our veterans that participate in these games, both for the sacrifice they made for our country and for keeping us inspired to be the best we can be.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the current state of healthcare in this nation as it relates to the Hispanic community. Figures released by the Census Bureau last Wednesday placed the Latino population at 38.8 million in July 2002, an increase of nearly 10% from the 2000 census. Unfortunately, over half of all Hispanics in the U.S. do not have health insurance. This is about 20 percent higher than the national average of approximately 30 percent. I am especially concerned about the health of many of our nation's Hispanic seniors. Over 2.2 million Hispanics currently receive Social Security benefits. Each time that a new tax cut is passed, we put our Social Security trust fund in further danger, thus eliminating future benefits for all Social Security recipients. Moreover, without Social Security, over 55 percent of Hispanic seniors would be forced to live under the poverty rate. I hope that my colleagues who supported tax cuts for the wealthy can sleep well at night knowing that their misguided policies may force millions of seniors to live in poverty.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the current state of healthcare in this Nation as it relates to the Hispanic community. Figures released by the Census Bureau last Wednesday placed the Latino population at 38.8 million in July 2002, an increase of nearly 10 percent from the 2000 census. Unfortunately, over half of all Hispanics in the United States do not have health insurance. This is about 20 percent higher than the national average of approximately 30 percent. I am especially concerned about the health of many of our Nation's Hispanic seniors. Over 2.2 million Hispanics currently receive Social Security benefits. Each time that a new tax cut is passed, we put our Social Security trust fund in further danger, thus eliminating future benefits for all Social Security recipients. Moreover, without Social Security, over 55 percent of Hispanic seniors would be forced to live under the poverty rate. I hope that those who supported tax cuts for the wealthy can sleep well at night knowing that their misguided policies may force millions of seniors to live in poverty.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Garden Grove Unified School District. For the second year in a row, the Garden Grove Unified School District has been selected as one of five finalists out of 16,000 districts, to receive the Broad Prize for Urban Education. The school district has won $125,000 for college scholarship funds, but could win $500,000 if it is selected as the best in the country. The Broad Prize was set up by Eli Broad, and was given out for the first time last year. A panel of 12 judges made up of business, government and philanthropic leaders determine the winner of the final award. To qualify, schools must improve test scores in reading and math over a three-year period, exceed gains of similar poverty levels, and narrow the achievement gap. More than half the students I represent in Garden Grove are learning English and 59 percent are low income. The fact that their test scores continue to rise is a testament to the strong commitment the Garden Grove School District has made to improving the education level of their students. This award will help many young students follow their dreams of pursuing a higher education, I am very proud of the dedication and hard work by the students and faculity of the Garden Grove Unified School District.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the President bothers to take a look outside his helicopter window on his way from Crawford, Texas, to the White House to see the millions of people pounding the pavement looking for jobs. Once again, the national unemployment rate has risen. It is now 6.4 percent, up from 6.1 percent in May; and the unemployment rate for Hispanics, it is even higher, up to 8.4 percent. Moreover, millions of students across the country this month are graduating from college, with over $20,000 in debt from student loans, wondering if they are going to get a job to begin to pay off those loans. With the economy in a state of flux at home, what does the President say? He says ``bring `em on'' to those who are attacking troops in Iraq. If the President wants to bring something on, how about a fiscal plan that creates jobs, that does not plunge us further into debt and that allows us to care for seniors in their golden years? It is unfortunate that he cannot be as confident and cavalier about the future of our economy as he is being about the lives of our troops.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I come tonight to talk about prescription drugs and Medicare. The bill the House passed just 2 weeks ago is simply the first step toward the Republicans goal to privatize Medicare. They want to do this for a few reasons, but their most important reason for doing this is that, I think, they firmly believe, or I would even say blindly believe, that the private sector and the free market solution is always better than a government one. The free market is an incredible tool, and it has advanced many areas of human endeavor, but for it to work, it must have one important component, and that is the bottom line, or profit. Without that critical component, the free market system is useless. Medicare was created in 1965 precisely to address the failure of the markets. It was not profitable to treat our seniors with a free market health insurance solution. The market solution to insuring the elderly was simply not to insure them, because, after all, they get sick too often, and insurance companies would have to pay. If you want to make money in the medical insurance game, you insure young, healthy people, not old people. Luckily for America's seniors, the Democrats controlled Congress, and we set up Medicare. We valued our elders. And even though the markets wanted to leave them behind, we did not. We protected them, and we treated them with the compassion and the dignity they deserved in their old age. So why do the Republicans want to privatize Medicare so badly? Do they not remember what happened before Medicare, when we left the health of our aging parents and grandparents to the free markets? Are they so swept up in their blind faith in the market that they believe somehow it will just take care of things, even though we already have tried that and we know that it does not work? Taking care of the elderly is not profitable, nor should it be. Profit is not always the most important thing. These are the people who reared us. They are the people who took care of us when we got sick. They are the people that taught us right from wrong. The Republican proposal is a slap in the face to our parents and to our grandparents. Every provision of the Republican bill is designed to be a handout to insurance and prescription drug companies, not to give our seniors a better health care plan. The prescription drug plan laid out is available only through private insurance companies and HMOs. There is no provision, no provision to hold down the prices drug companies can charge. It does not ensure that all seniors will be eligible for this coverage, which has been a hallmark of the Medicare program. And if that was not bad enough, their proposal would increase seniors' costs for doctors' visits by raising the Part B premium and indexing it to inflation. This provision is included for only one reason, one reason, and that is to move people out of traditional Medicare and to force seniors into managed care plans, into HMOs. Now, I tried to offer a substitute amendment to this bill that would have provided a real prescription drug benefit for Medicare beneficiaries, but it was ruled out of order by the Committee on Rules, out of order because they did not like it, at 4:00 in the morning, in the dark of night, only hours before we voted on the bill. My amendment would have provided one simple type of coverage, catastrophic coverage against excessively high drug costs for seniors. There were no premiums. There were no copays. There was no coverage gap. The crux of the plan defined the out-of-pocket spending limit to 6 percent of the adjusted gross income of the beneficiary, with any additional costs being picked up by Medicare. My plan provided annual spending targets, which would be guaranteed not to exceed the $400 billion level that President Bush had set. It also called upon the Secretary to encourage the use of prescription drugs and contractual arrangements with pharmacy benefit managers to help control prescription drug costs. This idea of bringing down the cost of a drug is in sharp contrast to the outrageous, noninterference clause found in the bill that passed this body 2 weeks ago, designed to ensure that drug companies can charge whatever excess price they want for the drugs they choose. It is clear to me and to my Democratic colleagues, and it will become clear to America's seniors and their families, where the Republicans' loyalties lie. The story has been the same since the start of the 108th Congress. From homeland security to education, from veterans' benefits to the child tax credit, and now, finally, to health and to the well- being of our parents and grandparents, the Republican message is clear: If you are not a powerful corporation, if you do not give money to Republicans, they do not care about you.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice concern over the disregard President Bush has shown to our brave servicemembers and their families. Our troops are dying in Iraq at a rate of one per day. The reason? This administration failed to adequately plan for postwar peacekeeping and civil reconstruction in Iraq. As a consequence, our troops are overstretched, morale is low, and the situation within Iraq is getting worse by the day. This administration must, it must readdress the situation and give our troops the peacekeeping training that they need; and, in addition, efforts to reach out to the international community for assistance must be enhanced. In short, we should do everything in our power to quell the violence as quickly as possible. But instead, just last weekend, President Bush taunted insurgents in Iraq by boasting, ``Bring 'em on.'' This is an insult not only to the military families who have lost a loved one in Iraq, but to those who live under the constant fear that their loved ones might not come home.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Madam Speaker, I heard a strange rumor last night that the Republican Party was going to change its mascot from the elephant to the night owl. This would be fitting since most legislation these days is being discussed by Republicans in the dark of night behind closed doors without giving Democrats a fair chance to debate it here on the House floor. Today we are going to vote on legislation that will provide the most significant reform in Medicare since its creation in 1965. This legislation will impact millions of seniors across the Nation, yet many of the Representatives in Congress will not have seen this legislation until today. Would someone sign their name on a long-term mortgage for their home if they had never stepped inside that house? Moreover, many well thought out amendments today will not be debated. For example, my simple, cost effective proposal for a Medicare prescription drug benefit, they did not allow us to bring it to the floor to discuss it. The night owls have yet again ruined a perfect opportunity on what should really be bipartisan legislation. Ain't that a hoot.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I come before you tonight to talk about the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003 and to place it in context with the overall goals and beliefs of the President and the Republican party. The Republican bill, H.R. 1, is quite simply a first step toward the Republicans' goal to privatize Medicare. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to do this for a couple of reasons. The first is that they firmly believe that the private sector and the free market are always right and that government is always wrong. I am afraid that they have a very narrow-minded and simplistic view of how our economy, our government and our country are supposed to function. There has been a shift in the rhetoric used during political debate in this country since the election of this President. There has been a conscious effort by his office and the Republican leadership of the House to use language that paints critical issues in simplistic black and white, us versus them, good versus evil, terms, ultimately simplifying the debate into a three word sound byte. I view this as a very unfortunate occurrence because it allows a certain mental laziness to take over this body. When it is really our duty, it is our duty to debate, to discuss and to think very carefully and critically about very complex and important work that we do in this Chamber. No one here has more respect for the power, the creativity and problem solving ability of the free market as I do. I am a hard-nosed, show-me-the-bottom-line businesswoman through and through, but my admiration of the market is based on years of deep study of its function and a real understanding of how it works. My Republican colleagues, on the other hand, seem to feel that the invisible hand of Adam Smith and the hand of God are the same thing but our free market is not an all powerful system without limitations. The free market is an incredible tool that has advanced many areas of human endeavor, but in order for it to work, it must include one very important ingredient, profit, and without this critical component, the free market system is useless. Medicare was created in 1965 precisely to address the failure in this market. It was not profitable to treat our seniors with a free market health insurance industry so they found a solution to insuring the elderly. They just decided that they would not cover them. After all, old people get sick too much and insurance companies would have to pay. They figured that if you want to make money in the medical insurance game, insure young, healthy people, not old sick people. Luckily for America, during the 1960s and 1970s and 1980s Democrats controlled this Congress and they were not satisfied with the solution that would push our mothers and our fathers, our grandmothers, our grandfathers out into the cold. So Democrats set up the government entitlement called Medicare. We said, we value our elders. Even though the market says leave them behind, we will not. We will protect you and treat you with compassion and the dignity that you deserve in your old age. So why do the Republicans want to privatize Medicare so badly? Maybe they have amnesia. Maybe they do not remember what happened when we left the health care of aging parents and grandparents to the free markets. Or maybe they are so swept up in their blind faith in the market that they believe that somehow the market will just take care of things. But we have already tried them and it did not work. Remember? Taking care of the elderly is not profitable, nor should it be. Profit is not always the most important thing. These are the people that reared us. They are the people that took care of us when we were sick. They are the people that taught us right from wrong. I will not be a party to this slap in the face to my parents and to the seniors in my community being offered by the Republican majority of this body. Their bill purports to offer a prescription drug benefit for Medicare beneficiaries, but it fails to offer any guarantee that seniors will actually receive it. The prescription drug plan is only available through private insurance companies or HMOs. And besides all this, it does not ensure that all seniors will get this coverage. The eligibility of all seniors has been a hallmark of the Medicare program. If that was not bad enough, in a provision of the bill completely unrelated to creating a prescription drug benefit, the House GOP bill would increase seniors' costs for doctor visits by raising the Part B premium and indexing it to inflation. This provision is included for no other reason than to raise the cost of traditional Medicare and force seniors into Managed Care Plans. And who does this benefit? Seniors? I think not. It benefits Insurance Companies and Pharmaceutical Manufacturers--the real constituents of the Republican Party. Republicans are doing in this bill what they have consistently done this whole Congress: Advantaged the wealthy and the powerful and put the screws to the little guy. Just last night, David Obey stood on this floor and asked the Republicans to cut back, from $88,000 to $83,000, the tax cut for those whose annual income is over 1 million dollars in order to pay for desperately needed homeland security projects. The Republicans said ``no.'' Cutting taxes for the wealthy and powerful is more important. Just a few weeks ago, I tried to offer an amendment to the tax bill that would have pushed back the start date of the dividend portion of the tax cut for 1 year--just seven-tenths of one percent of the tax cut--to fund homeland security projects to make our country safer. The Republicans said ``no.'' Cutting taxes when we are in astronomical debt is more important. How about the Child Tax credit? ``No,'' say the Republicans, we are not going to help out poor children or the children of veterans of a war in Iraq where Marines and Soldiers are still dying. Today, I offered an amendment to the Medicare Bill, in order to offer a real prescription drug benefit to all seniors, and to do it through Medicare. I hope that the committee will allow this amendment to be considered on the floor of this House. It is an important amendment because it is not designed to protect the profits of the insurance companies or the pharmaceutical industry. It is designed to help our seniors. It is clear to me and to my Democratic colleagues where the Majority's loyalties lie. From homeland security to education, from veterans benefits to the Child Tax credit, and now finally to the health and well being of our parents and grandparents, the Republican message is clear: We do not care about you.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the brave men and women who served in the Armed Forces and fought for the freedom of the Korean people. This week marks the 50th anniversary of the signing of the cease-fire agreement that ended the fighting of the Korean War. A peace treaty was never signed, leaving strained relations on the Korean peninsula until today. Armed Forces from over 20 countries came together to fight in what is often called the ``forgotten war.'' Casualties in the United States Armed Forces totalled 54,260 dead, with 8,176 listed as missing in action or as prisoners of war. I would also like to recognize Orange County resident Martin Markley, who recently received a Bronze Star for combat valor after surviving a bloody battle in Korea over 50 years ago, and I want to give my thanks to those veterans who helped defend for the Korean people; and I want to extend my sympathy to those who lost loved ones during that war. They have not been forgotten and their memory will always be remembered.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to applaud the Supreme Court on its rulings on the University of Michigan affirmative action cases. The rulings indicate to the entire Nation that the Supreme Court believes in the basic premise behind affirmative action: to create opportunities for minorities and to eliminate discrimination. Affirmative action programs have been successful in increasing the racial, ethnic, and gender diversity of many educational and workplace settings throughout the United States. Affirmative action has also been shown to provide a boost to the Nation's economy. A recent study by the Educational Testing Service argued that diversity was one of the engines that drove the United States' economy. It showed that if African American and Hispanic workers were represented at colleges and universities in the same proportions as other 18- to 24-year-olds, the United States' wealth would increase by $231 billion a year, and annual tax revenues would increase by $80 billion. Why? Because it gives hope to blighted and forgotten areas of our Nation, and it improves trade and commerce worldwide. This goes to show that by promoting adequate funding for kindergarten through twelfth grade education in underserved areas and promoting diversity in higher education in the workplace, our economy will improve.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about H.R. 1416, the Homeland Security Technical Corrections Act. I would like to commend our chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), for his leadership and stewardship, and also, of course, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for the stewardship that they have on this new Select Committee on Homeland Security and for their efforts to push this bill and to get it included on the suspension calendar. H.R. 1416 is a historic bill because it is the first bill that our committee, the Select Committee on Homeland Security, will do. I trust that it is going to be the first of many bills that this committee will work on in a very bipartisan manner as we continue to tackle the many difficult issues surrounding homeland security. Over the last month, members of our committee worked very diligently to look at the oversight function through a number of informative hearings and briefings. Unfortunately, however, the message is all too often the same: the Department of Homeland Security is not moving fast enough to fill the gaps that exist in so many areas of homeland security. H.R. 1416 comes to the floor on the heels of a select committee delegation trip and field hearing in Southern California just this past weekend. The hearing focus was on one specific aspect of homeland security, port security. Our ports are one of the most vulnerable threat risks in our Nation, and we need to provide the means and resources for adequate security. Every year, more than 4 million cargo containers accounting for 35 percent of all the U.S. international trade passes through the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Over the weekend we saw for ourselves just how important this port is to economic and trade commerce issues for the United States and the global economy. And the message that we received from Southern California witnesses involved in port security was familiar to all of us because we had heard it from other witnesses in other areas of homeland security: they are understaffed, they are underequipped, and they are underfunded. Members of the Coast Guard told us they have not received the funding that they need for basic security upgrades. The United States Customs Inspector Program is understaffed, and employees that are there do not have the equipment that they need to adequately secure and check the containers, and resources needed are just the beginning of the problem that we saw at our ports. We heard from the sheriffs from both Los Angeles and Orange counties who are in desperate need of funding, especially Orange County, because unlike Los Angeles, we are not considered a high threat urban area and because funding of one of our most costly expenditures, personnel costs, simply does not exist at this point. They told us they have not seen any of the money that they were promised to cover personnel and other costs. The funds simply are not getting through the pipeline down to the local level. In my community, the city of Anaheim where Disneyland is located, our police department spends over $20,000 every day that we go from yellow to orange alert just on our police department. If we go to red alert, it is double that, almost $40,000 additional money every day; and yet we have not helped at the Federal level to get that money down to them. It does not include equipment that they need, supplies, the fire department personnel or personnel at the emergency operations center, and then there are other costs to consider also. For instance, the Joint Terrorism Task Force that has been set up and is very effective in sharing intelligence and information between FBI and CIA and the local law enforcement agencies, the State of California, they want to participate in that and they do, but at their own costs. The city of Anaheim, at its own cost; the city of Santa Ana, at their own cost; the County of Orange, at their own cost. Our first responders do not have the necessary resources to allow them to dedicate a few of their personnel to these effective anti- terrorism programs. This is a striking example of good solutions that exist where there are no resources to adequately implement them. The Department of Homeland Security has done a decent job in outlining what its mission is. However, we need to move quickly and forcefully to achieve that mission. The Department has a number of programs in place to improve homeland security. But so far the first responders, the people right at street level, handling information, trying to understand what is happening, trying to stop things from happening, and God forbid having to react to what happens, they have not seen the information they need nor the resources they need; and I hope that this is not just the first piece of legislation that our committee does, but that we continue our oversight function and our program function to get this done.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, let us talk about this child tax credit. When we began with the child tax credit, we were thinking about families. We were talking about families. We said in this difficult economic time, it is important for us to hold families together, to help those struggling, families which have to educate their children, provide child care, be good parents, sometimes both parents are working. It is important to keep families together and to honor the fact that families want to be together and bring children up in a good environment. But the Republicans proved something when they got to the child tax credit. It was not about all families and keeping all families together and working with all families, there were some families they did not care much about, those were poor families. They did not care if you were a waitress and you had to provide child care for your child and you had financial constraints, and you had to get them to the soccer game. They did not care if you were a maid or a janitor. They did not care if you were making minimum wage trying to afford an apartment so your children had a roof over their heads. They did not care about you, they cut you out. In the dark of the night, they cut you out. But can Members imagine that they did not care about our men and women overseas in Iraq? They did not care about them either. They did not care about our military families. They said it is great, they are doing a great job. They are so brave, but they did not care about the children, they did not care about those families because they caught cut those families out of the child tax credit also. So let us say, for example, that I am the wife who is staying home with the two kids while my husband is in Iraq. I have no problems, I have no financial constraints. They are over there, the President declared a victory on that aircraft carrier, but my husband is still in Iraq. By the way, every day someone is killed out there. It could be my husband; but I do not have any problems. I do not have any anxieties. The Republicans did not care about those families. I do not have to get my kids to soccer or worry about their education. I do not have to worry about additional child care or taking them over to my mom or something to take care of because my husband is not here. He is serving his country. He is keeping our freedoms safe. But the Republicans did not care about that kind of family. Okay, we would anticipate that they would not care about poor families; but could we anticipate that they would not care about military families? I am sitting there as a wife, and I have got no problems. But somebody who makes $80,000 a year, they got the child tax credit, not me. Not my children, not my husband. And then they said oh, they got caught. People figured it out. So they put it back in, but not all of them. There are still military families cut out because they make too little money. But in order to put some of the families back, they put in more tax cuts for people who make $100,000 a year and $150,000 a year and $3 million a year, but not someone who makes $10,000 a year or someone who makes $14,000. Those families do not count. Those children are not important enough. Mr. Speaker, they have no problems. They have no financial anxiety. Remember why we wanted this child tax credit, to ensure that families could come together and work together and be together. That is why we wanted the child tax credit.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice concern over the undue hardship that President Bush is placing on our military families. At a time when our Nation is asking a tremendous amount from our armed services, the administration has proceeded to deliver blow after blow to our men and women in uniform. The Bush tax cut failed to extend a child tax credit to nearly 200,000 low-income military personnel. And then, of course, $200 million has been cut from programs providing assistance to public schools on military bases. The Bush administration said they would Leave No Child Behind. Well, what is happening to the children of the brave troops who are in Iraq? The latest tax cut also scraped $1.5 billion away from military housing. Furthermore, it cuts $14.6 billion over 10 years from veterans benefits. During the 2000 campaign, the President vowed to give our Armed Forces better pay, better treatment, and better training. Well, Mr. President, it is time to keep your promise.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the Taxpayer Protection and IRS Accountability Act. I was pleased to see the inclusion of language that abates interest on erroneous tax refunds. This is language nearly identical to my Erroneous Tax Refund Fairness Act. I had to deal with this very issue a few years ago when I tried to return an erroneous refund. Actually the IRS put into my bank account $66,000 more than I was supposed to get back, so my husband called and said we want to return this $66,000. They would not take it. My CPA called and said we would like to return the $66,000. They would not take it. I called them and said I need to return the $66,000. They would not take it. Four months later, they finally took it back. Two weeks later they sent us another check for $66,000. A short time after that, after we finally got the $66,000 back to the IRS, I was billed by the IRS for the interest on the money, even though I had not earned any. So I applaud this bill for including this language.