Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the H.R. 2359, The Basic Pilot Extension Act, because this program has not demonstrated a record strong enough to be extended across the country. I know first hand that this pilot program has not lived up to its expectations because my home state of California is one of the test areas. Madam Speaker, as you know, many employers in the counties I represent, Marin and Sonoma counties, just over the Golden Gate Bridge from S.F, depend on immigrant workers to staff their vineyards, dairies and businesses. I certainly support providing employers the tools they need to hire only those workers authorized to work in the United States. While the intent of this pilot program was a good one, it has not lived up to its promises. Now it is plagued with problems including new hires being denied by the program when they were actually authorized to work and employers abusing the program to engage in prohibited employment practices. These anti-worker practices include pre-employment screening, denying eligible workers jobs or the opportunity to contest inaccuracies in the database. Creating more loopholes for bad employers to conduct unfair labor practices was not the intent of this pilot project. Madam Speaker, until these and other abuses are fixed, we should not be quick to expand the program. That's why I am asking my colleagues to join me in opposing this legislation, so that we can that the basic pilot program is friendly to workers as well as employers before expanding the program.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt). (Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, just as a final thought, children are about 25 percent of our population. They are 100 percent of the future of this Nation, and what they eat really will equate to what our future will be. We must make sure that we do the best job we can for every child in this country. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Majette).

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre), a co-chair of the Children and Families Task Force. (Mr. McINTYRE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and in closing, I wish to repeat that the working families we are talking about pay taxes. They pay their employment taxes, their payroll taxes, they pay local sales taxes, they pay property taxes and franchise taxes, sometimes. They are taxpayers. They earn a living, and they are the backbone of this Nation. Mr. Speaker, according to the Citizens for Tax Justice, the child tax bill passed on June 12, 2003, by the House Republicans, would give almost two and a half times more to families with children under 17 that have incomes above $104,000 than it would give to families making less than $28,000 a year. This is just bad policy, and this motion to instruct will correct that bad policy. And I ask that my colleagues vote ``yes'' on this motion to instruct.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to reiterate again the families who did not receive child tax credit relief when checks were mailed out this summer: More than three-quarters, 801,000, of the children of sales workers; more than half, 903,000, of the children of janitors and maids; more than half, 526,000, of the children of cooks and other kitchen workers; more than half, 290,000, of the children of farmers and farm workers; two out of five children, 376,000, of child care workers and their aides; one in four, 711,000, children of nurses and their aides; one in four, 483,000, children of secretaries and related office workers; one in five, 264,000, children of truck, bus and cab drivers; more than 260,000 of active duty armed forces personnel. Mr. Speaker, how can we forget so many families who are the backbone of our Nation's safety, transportation, health, food supply and other children's care? Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, one of my Republican colleagues favored arguments against extending the child tax credit to the families left out is that these families do not pay taxes and they should not receive a credit. They argue that Congress should not grant tax relief to families who are unemployed or who do not pay Federal income taxes. However, the truth is that all of these excluded hardworking families do pay taxes. They pay payroll taxes, State and local sales taxes, property taxes, excise taxes; and we must ensure that they receive their fair share. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of the motion to instruct conferees on the child tax credit bill. It is time that this Congress proves to working families that we care about them and that we care about their children. We can do that by providing immediate payment to those families left out of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act. Mr. Speaker, you may wonder who exactly was left out of that bill. How about military families with personnel serving in Iraq, Afghanistan and other combat zones. What about more than half the children of janitors and maids, cooks and other kitchen workers; farmers and farm workers; child care workers; nurses and secretaries; sales workers; bus, truck and cab drivers. These are the very workers that need our support. Now, let us look at those who this bill benefitted the most. The millionaires, the tax cut legislation enacted in May created an average child tax credit increase of $615 this year for those who are lucky enough to meet the income requirements. However, tax filers with incomes of more than $1 million will receive an average tax cut of $93,500 this year. That is $93,500 as compared to $615, or as compared to 12 million children who have been left behind because the Republican leadership failed to include them in the child tax credit, and they have yet to receive the $615 benefit. Mr. Speaker, the families I am talking about are those with dedicated workers that have put in full-time hours at minimum pay, pay taxes and earn less than $26,000 a year. It is unfortunate that Republicans believe these forgotten children and their families do not contribute enough to deserve a break. Actions like these leave me no doubt that the priorities are dead wrong on the other side of the aisle. We must correct this injustice. While the House passed a child tax credit bill, we missed the chance to pass a clean bill that would immediately grant our Nation's hardworking families with an increased child tax credit. The Republican initiative was a squandered opportunity to invest in our children and their families. This supposed party of compassionate conservatism has exploited the child tax credit issue to pass even more tax cuts for their wealthy friends. Instead of bringing up the other body's child tax credit bill, which would cost $3.5 billion with offsets to fully pay for it, they passed a bill that costs $80 billion with no offsets, at a time when America's Federal deficit will exceed $400 billion. The other body has handed us a bill that would have increased tax credits for 6.5 million tax-paying families months ago, and I support their effort. That is why I have introduced this motion instructing the conferees to adopt the other body's language, to put money in the pockets of the working families that need it the most. Even the President has come out in strong support of this clean legislation. Our priority should be putting money in the hands of working Americans. That is the way to create jobs and build a strong economy. If we do not help our children now, how can we expect to strengthen our Nation in the future? Mr. Speaker, the House's Republican leadership failed our children and working families. I am disappointed that the leadership is refusing to address the real issue here. It is time to restore true compassion for our Nation's working families. Working families need to know that we have not forgotten them. I urge my colleagues, support this motion so we can pass the child tax credit to those who need it most. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, subject to rule XXII, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 1308, Tax Relief, Simplification, and Equity Act of 2003. The form of the motion is as follows: Ms. Woolsey moves that the managers on the part of the House in the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 1308 be instructed as follows: 1. The House conferees shall be instructed to include in the conference report the provision of the Senate amendment (not included in the House amendment) that provides immediate payments to taxpayers receiving an additional credit by reason of the bill in the same manner as other taxpayers were entitled to immediate payments under the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. 2. The House conferees shall be instructed to include in the conference report the provision of the Senate amendment (not included in the House amendment) that provides families of military personnel serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other combat zones a child credit based on the earnings of the individuals serving in the combat zone. 3. The House conferees shall be instructed to include in the conference report all of the other provisions of the Senate amendment and shall not report back a conference report that includes additional tax benefits not offset by other provisions. 4. To the maximum extent possible within the scope of conference, the House conferees shall be instructed to include in the conference report other tax benefits for military personnel and the families of the astronauts who died in the Columbia disaster. 5. The House conferees shall, as soon as practicable after the adoption of this motion, meet in open session with the Senate conferees and the House conferees shall file a conference report consistent with the preceeding provisions of this instruction, not later than the second legislative day after adoption of this motion.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1446, the California Missions Preservation Act. I would like to thank the gentleman for introducing this bill, and I am proud to be an original cosponsor. The California Missions provide such an important part of California's past and their history can be traced to 1493, just after the discovery of America. The sixth district of California, north of San Francisco and just over the Golden Gate Bridge, which I am pleased to represent, is fortunate to have one of these missions and another just outside of the sixth district that my constituents visit. The San Raphael mission was originally built in 1817 as an outpost chapel of the San Francisco mission. Named for Saint Raphael, the angel of bodily healing, it was thought that the sunny hillside on the north side of the bay would be a good place for the sick to convalesce. In fact, it is the first known sanitarium in California. In five years it was a healthy settlement and became an independent mission on October 19, 1822. After it was secularized, the mission fell into ruin and in 1854 the original mission was torn down. In 1947 a new mission was built, near the original site, based on a painting of the old mission. The San Francisco Solano Mission, founded in 1823, was the last and most northerly of the 21 Franciscan missions of Alta California. Sonoma Mission, as it is popularly called, was the dedicated goal of the young and zealous Padre Jose Altimira. He headed into the northern wilderness to find a more healthy location for a mission than the crowded San Francisco de Asis Mission. In Sonoma Valley he found his ideal location, with fertile soil and mild, sunny climate. Secularization of the mission in 1834 was followed by neglect and decay. In 1881 the church and padres' quarters were sold and used as a hay barn, winery and blacksmith shop. However, the mission was rescued from disintegration in 1903 when it was bought by the Historic Landmarks League and turned over to the State. Full restoration began in 1911. There is still more to do to restore these historic treasures. It is important that we save these missions so that we can pass on their history to future generations. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to talk about the brave men and women who are fighting in Iraq at this very moment; the hundreds who lost their lives; and the thousands who have been wounded. Despite the fact that Congress appropriated $310,000 in April for bulletproof vests, nearly one-third of the 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq still have not been issued these vests, which are strong enough to stop bullets from assault rifles. Nor have most of our troops been issued CamelBak hydration systems to protect them from the scorching desert heat. In fact, many families have resorted to sending protective bulletproof vests and CamelBak hydration systems to their sons and daughters stationed in Iraq. No family should be paying extra to help keep their loved ones safe; the federal government has this responsibility. After all, who sent these young people to war in the first place? Certainly not their families. In August of this year, I stayed in Bethesda Naval Hospital where I visited with wounded men and women and their families who will never again experience the world in the same way as a result of this war. We don't talk about the impact of this war. In fact, we don't talk about the impact of any war on the wounded and their loved ones. I met with individuals who had lost limbs, their sight, their hearing, parts of their beautiful faces, and we are still not providing our troops with the best equipment available! Mr. Chairman, we must do the right thing for our troops and give them the support they deserve, in the way they deserve it. Now is the time to make permanent the increases to the Imminent Danger Pay and Family Separation Allowance, which Congress approved for our soldiers only through next year. We must make the commitment to our troops, right now, that we will take care of them after this war is over. That means ensuring the permanent end to the Disabled Veterans Tax by providing full concurrent receipt for all veterans. And it means not denying, but treating, the illnesses they will face ten, twenty, and thirty years down the road. It is pretty simple, really. If we are willing to spend another $65 billion to keep our troops in danger, then we must care enough to bring them home, bring them home safely, bring them home soon, and support them after the war. Since I see no real commitment to doing this from the Administration, and I see no real reason for being in Iraq in the first place, I will be voting no on the supplemental.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, for the past 2 days Members of Congress have spoken about sacrifice and responsibility, and about supporting our troops. The way to support our troops, many say, is to vote ``yes'' on the supplemental spending bill that is currently before the House. One part of the supplemental that nobody is talking about is the administration's $900 million request for the importation of gasoline and other fuel products into Iraq. The average wholesale price of gasoline in the Persian Gulf is just 71 cents a gallon. According to independent oil experts, transporting the gasoline the 400 miles from Kuwait to Iraq could reasonably cost an additional 10 to 25 cents per gallon. So a logical price per gallon for gasoline delivered to Iraq would be about a dollar. But figures from the Army Corps of Engineers show that Halliburton is charging the U.S. taxpayer between $1.62 and $1.70 per gallon for this gasoline that is purchased at much cheaper rates--an outrageous markup of over a dollar per gallon that would be considered illegal price-gouging if it occurred in the United States. So U.S. taxpayers are now faced with a $900,000 bill that pays for cheap gas that is marked up to ridiculously not-so-cheap prices. It seems that Bechtel and Halliburton aren't as motivated by the notions of sacrifice and responsibility as many Members of this House. Perhaps this is because the Halliburton Company has never before imported gasoline. Or perhaps all those no-bid contracts have gone to their heads. Let's not forget on March 8, 2003, Halliburton was given a secret, sole-source contract for improvements to Iraq's oil infrastructure. Halliburton did not have to compete with any other company for this contract. And why is Halliburton getting this sweetheart deal? I think it has something to do with the fact that the Vice President of the United States is the former CEO of this very same company. But his connections are not former connections--they still exist to this day. Despite what he says to the press about having severed all ties to Halliburton, Dick Cheney received almost $400,000 in deferred salary from his former company in 2001 and 2002, and he still has 433,333 unexercised stock options. The facts speak for themselves: Dick Cheney is not fully divested of his connections to Halliburton, and yet this same company receives U.S. Government contracts worth billions of dollars for which they are not required to place a single bid. This is unfair to the American people, and this is downright wrong. This is not about supporting the troops. This is about supporting companies with ties to the Bush-Cheney administration by giving them get-rich-quick deals at the expense of U.S. taxpayers. The amendment that Congressman Waxman has introduced is a reasonable way to bring some sense and some oversight into a bill that is otherwise no more than a bailout for President Bush's failed policies. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Waxman amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman for offering this motion to instruct, and I would like to offer my strong support. The fact that we are here today debating this motion shows just how offtrack the Energy Conference has gone. When the gentlewoman offered this same language as an amendment to the House Energy bill it passed by voice vote because it was so popular. Now, a conference being led by Republicans is not allowing Democratic conferees to participate. And now they are stripping some of the most important and popular provisions from the bill. Let's call this what it really is. This ``Inventory'' that members from the other side of the aisle say is so necessary is a sham. In fact, the Minerals Management Service already conducts a survey every 5 years, and the latest assessment was done in 2000. Taking an inventory of what lies beneath the sea floor is not like taking an inventory of office supplies. It requires a careful process that takes into account the delicate ecosystem that the Outer Continental Shelf comprises. The point of removing this important provision in conference is not to conduct an ``inventory,'' but instead it is to open up the Outer Continental Shelf for big oil companies to drill for oil. We all know where the oil is, and they can't wait to get in there and drill. Such drilling would put our coastal communities at needless risk. My district is comprised of some of the most beautiful coastline in the world. From Gualala Point to the San Francisco Bay, my constituents depend on this beautiful coastline, and I do not want to see oil on our beaches or animals killed by irresponsible drilling. Instead of expanding drilling, we should be exploring new ways to create clean and renewable energy sources. I urge conferees to add more funding for developing, implementing, and expanding renewable energy programs instead of senselessly opening up our Outer Continental Shelf to big oil companies. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this motion to instruct. Let's send a clear signal that the Energy conference should not take place in secret and disregard the wishes of the American people.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight to talk about the brave men and women who are fighting in Iraq at this very moment, the hundreds who lost their lives and the thousands who have been wounded. Despite the fact that Congress appropriated $310 million in April, nearly one- third of the troops in Iraq have not been issued vests that are strong enough to stop bullets from assault rifles, nor have they been issued hydration systems to protect them from the searing heat of the desert. In fact, many families have resorted to sending protective bulletproof vests and Camelbak hydration systems to their sons and daughters stationed in Iraq. No family should be paying extra to keep their loved ones safe. The Federal Government has this responsibility. After all, who sent these young people to war in the first place? Certainly not their families. In August of this year, Mr. Chairman, I stayed in Bethesda Naval Hospital where I visited with wounded men and women and their families who have never in their lives expected to be harmed the way they were and who will never again experience the world in the same way as a result of this war. We do not talk about the impact of this war. In fact, we do not talk about the impact of any war on the wounded and their loved ones. I met with individuals who had lost limbs, their sight, their hearing, parts of their beautiful faces, and we are not providing the best equipment available. It is pretty simple: If we are willing to spend another $65 billion to keep our troops in danger, then we must care enough to bring them home, bring them home safely, bring them home soon, and support them after the war. Since I see no real commitment to doing this from the administration, and I see no real reason for being in Iraq in the first place, I will be voting no on the supplemental.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, here we are at the end of the fiscal year with important unfinished work for the House of Representatives. Our fiscal year budget is not complete, our seniors do not have a prescription drug benefit, and our local communities still need support in the war against terror, to list only a few of the unfinished pieces of business that we have before us. Yet, what does the majority decide to bring to the floor? A bill that everyone knows will not pass the muster of the Supreme Court. Because there is no exemption to protect a woman's health, this bill not only fails to meet moral requirements, it fails to meet constitutional requirements. We have a moral obligation to protect and promote women's health, not endanger it. In fact, our debate should be about measures to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and ensuring that all pregnant women have affordable access to the care they need so they can deliver healthy babies. The Supreme Court has been clear. Our laws cannot take away a woman's right to a safe and accepted medical procedure when her health is in danger; and yet the antichoice lobby chooses to once again waste our valuable time pushing legislation that politicizes women's health and chips away at a woman's constitutional right to choose an appropriate lifesaving medical procedure. As we know, a pregnancy can go tragically wrong in the final stages; and in these unimaginable circumstances, a woman must not be required to risk her health and future fertility by continuing a dangerous pregnancy. I am not a doctor, so I am not going to stand here and pretend that I have the necessary expertise to make medical decisions for my constituents, nor should any Member of the House, nor any Federal agency. Instead, I want every woman in my district and in this Nation to have access to the procedure she and her physician feel are the safest and most appropriate for her particular situation. Let us be honest. The debate today is not about aborting viable, healthy children. Few late-term abortions occur, and those that do are tragically necessary to save the life or health of the mother. This debate is really about limiting a woman's right to privacy and restricting access to constitutionally protected medical procedures. The American people must know that while the necessary work of the House of Representatives remains undone, we are here debating a bill that makes an unconstitutional attempt to chip away at a woman's right to access for a particular medical procedure. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and oppose this conference report.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) for calling this special order together because it is a very important subject. Today in Iraq, our Nation is creating more than 130,000 veterans. These future veterans are fulfilling their duty to America in a time of war. We must commit to fulfill our own responsibilities to them in times of peace. Three hundred and seventy Members of the House of Representatives are on record supporting a concurrent receipt bill to provide full health and retirement benefits for our Nation's veterans, but when the time came to actually bring this important legislation before the House of Representatives for a vote, 201 Democrats and only two Republicans signed their names to bring the bill to the floor of the House. It takes 218 names and signatures in order to force the majority party to bring this issue before us. Concurrent receipt should not be a Democrat issue, and it should not be a Republican issue. Instead, this is an issue of fulfilling our commitment to those who have proven their commitment to us, to our Nation's veterans. The White House has estimated the health and retirement benefits for our veterans will cost $58 billion over the next 10 years. That is $6 billion a year to support the troops who have sacrificed for this country. This is the same President that recently came to the Congress requesting $87 billion to pay for our war in Iraq that he announced many months ago had ended. The President's $87 billion supplemental request includes money for museums and memorials in Iraq, radios and phones for Iraqi businesses, and computer training and graduate school for Iraqi citizens. Certainly, we must invest in restoring the stability in a war-torn country, but these programs are not more important than health care for America's veterans. What kind of message does this sent to our veterans and our troops currently in the field when the President tells them that paying for Iraqis to go to graduate school is more important than paying for veteran's health care? We are talking about men and women who fought for America, who were wounded for America, who have lost friends who have died for America. But when the time comes to pay their health bills, America's purse is shot. This is worse than irresponsible. It is downright dishonorable. President Bush said last year that every country around the world, and I quote him, ``is either with us or against us,'' unquote. Our veterans deserve to ask the same question. ``Mr. President, are you with America's veterans or against them? Will you fight for them the way they are fighting for you?''

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share my disappointment that the Republican leadership must resort to this resolution to ensure the continuity of our Nation's vital programs. Instead of staying here and finishing the work that needs to be done, the Republican leadership continues to schedule short workweeks. Everyday that they drag their feet is another day our Nation's working families continue to struggle. Our priorities should be passing a child tax credit that extends to low-income families denied a break in the Republican tax package, and, approving welfare reform that will not only reduce welfare rolls but also reduce poverty. No person should go a day longer forced to choose between paying their rent and paying for their prescription drugs while a prescription drug plan awaits a final vote by Congress. Sensible and popular initiatives such as education reform, homeland security and affordable housing continue to be either inadequately addressed or drastically underfunded by this leadership. Mr. Speaker, it is time for the Republican leadership to wake up and put America's priorities first. Our country's working families are working hard everyday to strengthen this nation and we should be working just as hard to support them.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for rollcall No. 492, I would have voted ``aye''. I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 493, and ``aye'' on rollcall No. 494. I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 495. I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 496, and ``aye'' on rollcall No. 497. On rollcall No. 498, I would have voted ``no''. On rollcall No. 499, I would have voted ``no''. On rollcall No. 500, I would have voted ``aye''. On rollcall No. 501, I would have voted ``aye''. On rollcall No. 502, I would have voted ``aye''.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for rollcall No. 481, I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall No. 482, I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall No. 483, I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall No. 484, I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall No. 485, I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall No. 486, I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall No. 487, I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall No. 488, I would have voted ``yes.'' on rollcall No. 489, I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall No. 490, I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall No. 491, I would have voted ``no.''

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 478. In fact, I am in strong opposition to the Davis amendment. A sound public school system is the only way we can prepare all our children for the high skill, high wage jobs that will ensure America's leadership in the world marketplace, and will prevent dependency on welfare at home. Public education is the backbone of our country, including here in the District of Columbia. It is why we are a great Nation. Public education is available to all. It does not discriminate, and, it must be strengthened, not weakened. Yet, there is no doubt that this amendment will profoundly harm DC public education. This amendment takes precious education dollars out of DC's public schools, and gives them to private and religious schools. The supporters of this amendment act as if vouchers are a magic bullet for DC education. But this amendment doesn't help teachers, or give them more opportunities for professional development. This amendment doesn't build new schools or repair old ones. That is why I oppose this amendment. Instead, we should all work with parents and educators at home, and work with each other here, to make the DC public schools the best in the world and to make sure that every child in DC gets a first class public education. In addition, had I been present I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 479. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 480. Had I been present during rollcall No. 463, I would have voted ``aye''. During rollcall No. 464, I would have voted ``no''. On rollcall No. 469, I would have voted ``aye''. During rollcall No. 470, I would have voted ``no''. During rollcall No. 471, I would have voted ``aye''. During rollcall No. 472, I would have voted ``aye''. During rollcall No. 473, I would have voted ``no''. During rollcall No. 474, I would have voted ``aye''. During rollcall No. 475, I would have voted ``aye''.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) for organizing this morning's discussion, because here we go. Is it not ironic that while the Nation is facing one of the biggest budget deficits in history, at least $450 billion, and I quote from the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis), ``Enron happens.'' Yes, it does. And we need to be doing something about it. Republicans can find the money to provide tax cuts for the very richest Americans and not enough for the children of America's working families. Ha. The gentleman from Kentucky said Republicans are trying their hardest. Well, I am telling my colleague, Republicans have to try harder. This supposed party of compassionate conservatism has exploited the child tax credit issue to pass even more tax cuts for their wealthy friends. Rather than bringing up the other body's child tax credit which would have cost $3.5 billion, they passed a bill that costs $80 billion to benefit the wealthiest in this Nation. Earlier this week, I joined my Democratic colleagues in writing a letter to President Bush requesting that he lead the Republicans in Congress to do the right thing, to provide a tax cut that will benefit over 12 million children of working families. One million of them, I remind my colleagues, one million of them are children of military families. Congress must not recess today without giving American workers and their families the same consideration it gives the rich. Why did Republicans in the United States House of Representatives not follow the other body and bring a clean child tax credit bill before us? According to a colleague from the other side of the aisle, and I quote: ``If we are going to do it, we should get something in exchange. If we give people that do not pay taxes a tax break, it is welfare.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, these families do pay taxes and they are not seeking welfare. They are seeking the same acknowledgment for their hard work as the rich receive in the Republican tax package. It is unfortunate that the Republicans believe these forgotten children and families do not contribute enough to deserve a break. Their actions leave no doubt that their priorities are dead wrong. Mr. Speaker, we want to pass this tax break and we want to do it today before we go home to enjoy our tax breaks that we have passed in the House of Representatives.