[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15055-15062]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 342, KEEPING 
                 CHILDREN AND FAMILIES SAFE ACT OF 2003

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 276 and ask for its immediate consideration.

[[Page 15056]]

  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 276

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (S. 342) to amend the Child Abuse Prevention and 
     Treatment Act to make improvements to and reauthorize 
     programs under that Act, and for other purposes. All points 
     of order against the conference report and against its 
     consideration are waived.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a standard rule for consideration of 
conference reports and waives all points of order against consideration 
of the conference report.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. Speaker, the process of reauthorizing the Child Abuse Prevention 
and Treatment Act and the Family Violence Prevention Treatment Act 
completes a promise made to the American people that was begun in the 
107th Congress. Unfortunately, the last Congress adjourned before 
consensus was reached between the two bodies on this very important 
issue. By taking up the conference report on the reintroduced 
legislation today, Congress is demonstrating an ongoing commitment to 
ensuring that programs to prevent child abuse, neglect, and family 
violence can continue to work and to protect American families.
  The underlying conference report that we are debating maintains 
important Federal resources for identifying and addressing issues of 
domestic violence. It supports efforts to ensure that the current 
programs designed to address these issues are operating effectively and 
efficiently, and that they promote the prevention of child abuse before 
these heinous acts can occur.
  The conference report retains language promoting partnerships between 
child protective services and private and community-based 
organizations, including education and mental health systems, to 
provide child abuse and neglect prevention and treatment services. It 
improves the training, recruitment, and retention of individuals who 
are capable of providing services to children and families. It also 
increases the availability of casework supervisors for oversight and 
consultation, while simultaneously improving public education on the 
role of the child protective services system and appropriate reporting 
of suspected incidents of child abuse and neglect, to reduce the number 
of false or malicious allegations.
  This conference report requires States to have provisions and 
procedures for administering criminal background checks to prospective 
foster and adoptive parents, and other adult relatives and nonrelatives 
residing in the household, and helps to improve the training 
opportunities and requirements of child protective services personnel 
to ensure their active collaboration with families, and their knowledge 
of legal duties with these individuals to protect children's individual 
rights.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation also requires States to implement 
policies and procedures to address the needs of infants born and 
identification as being affected by illegal substance abuse or 
withdrawal symptoms resulting from prenatal drug exposure, including 
the requirement that healthcare providers involved in the delivery or 
care of such infants notify child protective services of the occurrence 
of such conditions in infants. It then requires the development and 
planning of safe care for such infants.
  Lastly, the conference report retains language that expands priority 
services to infants and young children who are born with a life-
threatening condition or with other very special medical needs, to 
ensure that these special needs are met and that these special children 
have a chance in life.
  If there is one issue upon which every single Member of this 
institution can agree, regardless of his or her political belief, it 
should be the need to prevent child abuse and domestic abuse. These 
atrocities and often silent crimes do lasting damage to the lives of 
individuals and the moral fabric of our society. There exists a 
responsibility incumbent upon each of us to enact laws that protect the 
most vulnerable in our society, and this conference report will go a 
very long way to accomplish that exactly that noble and moral goal.
  I am pleased to note that the House version of this legislation, H.R. 
14, easily passed through its committee of jurisdiction, the Committee 
on Education and the Workforce, earlier this year and then through the 
House by voice vote. Today's conference report should continue to enjoy 
widespread and overwhelming bipartisan support as it has already 
enjoyed tremendous support throughout the child abuse and family 
violence prevention advocacy communities.
  I would ask each of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
demonstrate their commitment to American families, to American 
communities, and to America's future by supporting this conference 
report. In particular today, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the House sponsor of this legislation; and the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), chairman of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce, for their hard work in producing this 
conference report. I would also like to take this moment to commend the 
conferees from both bodies that have labored to produce this fine 
product.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule 
and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), my friend, for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying 
conference report for the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act. My 
colleagues know that the rules for conference reports in the House are 
typically closed, and today's rule is reflective of the longstanding 
tradition in the House to bring conference reports to the floor in a 
similar fashion.
  Mr. Speaker, every time a child is abused or neglected, the whole 
human race suffers. With that sobering thought in mind, I support the 
Keeping Children and Families Safe Act. I support this conference 
report, because most States are facing severe budget deficits, and this 
is the only Federal legislation that targets child abuse and neglect. I 
support this conference report because States are dependent on Federal 
money to meet the increasing demand for community child abuse 
prevention programs. But realize this legislation does not begin to 
solve the overwhelming financial problems that the States are currently 
experiencing. In fact, critics of this bill including the director of 
the National Child Abuse Coalition say that there is a $2.5 billion 
spending gap between the amount currently allocated towards prevention 
and protection and the amount required to handle this problem 
effectively.
  The statistics on child abuse and neglect in this country are heart-
wrenching. The Department of Health and Human Services estimated that 
in 2001, 903,000 children in this country were victims of abuse or 
neglect. This figure represents an 11 percent increase from the 
previous year, and many child advocates say the stress of a bad economy 
and unemployment could be two reasons for the increase.
  This bill includes funding for training and preventative programs for 
social workers and families and encourages partnerships between State 
child protective services and community organizations. It also requires 
foster parents and adoptive parents to undergo criminal background 
checks and mandates that States expand child abuse services to children 
born with drug-related problems.
  Child abuse and neglect is everyone's problem and it affects us both 
morally and financially. The cost of training

[[Page 15057]]

and preventative programs will be offset later when children who might 
have been burdens on society grow into upstanding citizens. From a 
financial perspective, the costs of child abuse and neglect to our 
society as a whole are staggering. Studies have documented the link 
between abuse and neglect in childhood with medical, emotional, 
psychological and behavioral disorders in adulthood. Those who are 
abused as children are more likely to suffer from depression, 
alcoholism, and drug abuse.
  The abused are also more likely to become juvenile delinquents and 
are 29 percent more likely to become criminals. Using that estimate, 
36,000 of the children who were victims of abuse or neglect in 2001 can 
or may become criminals.
  I certainly hope that the work we are doing in this conference report 
will help curb this number and help those who need it. However, if we 
are going to come to the floor today and talk about child abuse and 
neglect, we will be remiss to not talk about the child neglect that 
occurred last week in this very Chamber when Republicans in this body 
refused to extend the child tax credit to more than 12 million children 
living in low-income families without attaching a significant cost to 
the bill that would have provided for those 12 million children.
  Frankly, it baffles me how the rhetoric of Republicans in this body 
rarely meet the reality of their policies. The All-American Tax Relief 
Act, which passed this House last week was filled with tax cuts that 
benefit the more well off in our society more than six times as much as 
they do the needy. The bill was another tax cut to the wealthy that 
further drives our country into debt and deficit spending, and it 
lacked even the slightest bit of fiscal responsibility. In truth, the 
child tax credit failed to provide relief to more than 12 million 
children who are growing up in low-income families. In truth, families 
making between $10,500 and $26,625 were excluded from this tax relief, 
including 1 million children of U.S. Armed Forces personnel. Perhaps 
when Republicans talk about all Americans, they are really talking 
about all Americans in the upper tax brackets.
  Mr. Speaker, Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson 
noted, ``A Nation as compassionate as ours should ensure that no child 
is a victim of abuse or neglect. The number of children that are being 
abused and neglected in this country is an unacceptable daily 
tragedy.'' Indeed, Secretary Thompson is correct.
  But while this body helps communities fight child abuse and neglect 
throughout the country, we ought to first fight it right here in the 
House of Representatives. That we do not, Mr. Speaker, is an 
unacceptable daily tragedy.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the issue we have before us, this rule, this conference 
report that we are working on, really does talk about ways in which we 
can go and improve the lives of millions of children, where we can help 
families. Families, many times single parents, who are under the stress 
and strain of attempting to go to work, raise their family, meet their 
obligations in the community, to their schools, need some help, and I 
think that that is exactly what this bill does. It does it in a way 
that community-based organizations can become involved in the life and 
the opportunity to make not only their neighborhoods and their schools 
and their communities is safer and better, but they did it in a way 
that is a partnership.
  This administration, this President, supports this. This 
administration, our President, when President Bush was the Governor of 
Texas, worked extensively in Texas across Texas in poor communities to 
try to make the lives better of children to provide them an opportunity 
to grow up and not only be in safe neighborhoods, but also have safety 
in their schools. So I think that the underlying legislation in this 
conference report is fabulous. It does a lot of things to make sure 
that as a Member of Congress, that all of us as Members of Congress, 
that we can become engaged in things that we not only can hold our head 
up high about but we can mentor with our President to make sure that 
people see this Congress as a caring group of men and women who not 
only want to ensure the success of people who many of whom we will 
never know their names but the children who live their lives and are 
prepared for the future.
  I think that in the scheme of things this is a question that comes 
about not just to Members of Congress but as a demand on this country. 
The demand on our country is do America's greatest days lie in our 
future? Are we doing those things throughout the 40 some weeks that we 
are here in Washington, D.C. away from our families, are we handling 
the business of the people to make sure that we make life better? And I 
think that answer is yes. Today the underlying legislation is yet 
another example of this Congress working together with this President 
to make sure that America's greatest days lie in our future because we 
are active, engaged, and involved with our communities and with people 
back home.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Before I yield to the gentlewoman from California, I would like to 
respond to my good friend and colleague by indicating that the 
President's remarks were to pass the Senate bill, and what we did last 
week was force a conference which is going to delay the tax cuts for 
the 12 million persons about whom I spoke earlier.

                              {time}  1345

  That is a reality, and, to my way of thinking, that is, in some 
respects, uncaring. It certainly is not compassionate. Everybody that 
is wealthy, including those of us here in Congress, will get our tax 
benefits, but many of the persons about whom I speak, including some in 
the military, will not receive a dime this year by virtue of the 
actions that we took last week.
  Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 5 minutes to my friend, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), who has been a leader in the 
fight for protecting children.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, today as we stand here and discuss the 
conference report on the Keeping Our Children and Families Safe Act, I 
find it ironic that this week the Republican leadership can find it in 
their hearts to provide much-needed funding to prevent child abuse, 
which is decent and necessary, but last week they could not provide 
critical funding for low-income children without voting for additional 
tax breaks for the rich. These are the very children from low-income 
families who are statistically likely to suffer from child abuse, 
perhaps because of frustration piled on families struggling to make 
ends meet. This week, the Republicans care about children; last week, 
they did not. What kind of message is this?
  The Republican's child tax credit bill, which the House debated last 
week, was a squandered opportunity to invest in all of our children and 
their families. We missed the chance to pass a child tax credit bill 
which would immediately grant our Nation's hard-working families their 
fair share of the tax credit.
  The families I am talking about are those with dedicated workers that 
work long hours at low pay, who pay taxes and earn less than $26,000 a 
year. It is unfortunate that Republicans believe these children and 
families do not contribute enough to deserve a break, a break now, like 
higher income families will get.
  Republican actions last week left me no doubt that Republican 
priorities are dead wrong. Last week the House Republicans should have 
followed the other body and brought a child tax credit bill before us 
that would help children now, without burdening them with a tax debt 
later in life. But, according to the majority leader, ``If we are going 
to do it, we should get something in exchange. If we give people a tax 
break that don't pay taxes, it is welfare.''
  Well, Mr. Speaker, these families do pay taxes. They are not seeking 
welfare. They are seeking the same acknowledgment for their hard work 
as

[[Page 15058]]

the rich received in the Republican tax package. They deserve tax 
relief at the same time as other American families. Instead, 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 
costing $3.5 billion with offsets to fully pay for it, they passed a 
bill costing over $80 billion not paid for.
  Mr. Speaker, this is at a time when America's Federal deficit will 
exceed $400 billion, which, by the way, will be paid for by our 
children, their children, and their children, and on down the line.
  Mr. Speaker, our priority must be putting money in the hands of 
working Americans while keeping our fiscal house in order. That way we 
can create jobs and build a strong economy. We are helping our children 
today by protecting them from child abuse, but being poor is abuse of 
another kind.
  Mr. Speaker, children are 25 percent of the population of this 
Nation, but they are 100 percent of our Nation's future.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), from the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I do think it is unfortunate that when we are here to 
debate a bill on child abuse prevention, that we get into a debate 
about a legitimate difference of opinion as to tax policy. I think that 
that is unfortunate.
  But, be that as it may, I also would say ironically I think it is 
unfortunate to hear the minority party constantly talking about their 
hatred of deficits, when every single subcommittee markup of any kind I 
have been in for the last several months, it is the other party trying 
to spend more money, more money, more money, and us trying to hold the 
line.
  Let us talk about the rule before us. I rise in support of the rule, 
which I think is a fair rule, but I also rise in strong support of the 
bill.
  I would like to talk about a particular provision that I worked very 
hard to get in in the Committee on Education and Workforce, and which I 
think will do a tremendous amount to actually prevent child abuse, 
which is what we want to do.
  What it does is it says that we look at the causes, the root causes, 
of child abuse. When you look for the root causes of child abuse to try 
to prevent it, you find this constant association between abusers of 
children and abusers of substance. We find it over and over again. 
Parents who are caught in abusive cycles with drugs and alcohol bring 
their problems to bear on their children, with often very devastating 
results in terms of physical brutality against children, sexual abuse 
of children and psychological abuse of children.
  What we noticed, and I bring to bear on this experience my own time 
spent as a child protective service worker in my home of Bucks County, 
what we find is that children are born in hospitals every day in this 
country, and it as clear as can be they are born to mothers who are 
addicted. These are women who come to the hospitals and bear children 
who either suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome or they suffer from the 
systemic presence of a drug or actually have what is called neonatal 
abstinence syndrome. The child is in withdrawal from the drug. It is a 
pretty good indicator that this child may be returning to a home where 
it is not safe.
  We have wrestled as a society with how do you protect these children. 
We do not want to necessarily deem the mothers as having abused the 
child by virtue of their abuse of the substance. We want to provide 
intervention, but how do you do that?
  What this underlying conference committee report says is that when 
children appear in a hospital and are delivered and have these symptoms 
of substance abuse apparent, that the mandated reporters, the health 
care providers, must notify the child protective service agency, and 
that child protective service agency then must come in and make sure 
that there is a safe plan of care for the child.
  It does not say that it finds abuse necessarily, it does not say that 
it finds dependency, it just says we need to intervene, we need to talk 
with the parents of this child and find out how they intend to overcome 
their own personal issues so that they can be prepared to nurture this 
vulnerable child.
  I think this provision will go a tremendous way to provide 
intervention for young children before they are ever subject to abuse, 
and help not only that child, but help the mother certainly and the 
father involved as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend and thank the staffs of the committees 
that worked with us in the House and Senate, and the Committee on Rules 
for providing a rule under which this conference report can be 
considered.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, before I yield, I will just respond to my friend from 
Pennsylvania, who is an extremely thoughtful Member of this body, when 
he cites the fact that Democrats want to spend. Let me isolate that on 
the child tax credit: Democrats did want to spend the $3.5 billion that 
the United States Senate wanted to spend, and each nickel of it was 
offset. Toward that end, I would urge that that kind of spending 
redounds to all of our benefit.
  Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, as we discuss keeping children and families safe, I 
cannot help but be reminded of a popular song that Marvin Gaye used to 
sing, and the words went sort of like this. He says, ``Who will save 
the children? Who is willing to try? Who will save a world that is 
destined to die? Save the babies.''
  The reality is, Mr. Speaker, that when we talk about protecting 
families and saving children and refuse to provide a meager tax credit 
for those at the bottom of the barrel, for those who can barely 
survive, who can barely make it, it seems to me we are being 
contradictory.
  It is abusive in my mind when we refuse to fully fund education so 
that every child can have a meaningful head start, to get a grip and a 
handle on life. It is abusive when we leave children out of being 
protected so that they can have the kind of health care that they need. 
And it is certainly abusive that we have 2.7 million people who have 
lost their jobs in the last 2 years and cannot find a way to really 
make it. And while I agree that programs and activities are always good 
and meaningful and beneficial, policies are even better.
  I would hope that as we try and find these ways to protect our 
children, that which would protect their families by giving them a 
meaningful opportunity to earn a living, to have a job, to have the 
monies that are needed so that they are not frustrated and resort to 
behavior that causes them, in many instances, to abuse children.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I would have to ask, who will save the world? Who is 
willing to try? Who will save a world that is destined to die? Let us 
save the children.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, hearing the gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania speak about children, about the things that we 
encounter and learn from time about tragedies that occur in people's 
lives with women who have problems along life, either drugs or alcohol, 
and also at the same time at which they are birthing babies and carry 
life within them, and the impact that it has on those children, not 
just at birth but throughout their life, it is a stunning problem in 
America.
  But to hear the gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania speak about the great parts about this bill, about how 
this Congress can reach out, how we as a government can keep working 
with local communities to bring out the best, not only in their 
interaction with these

[[Page 15059]]

mothers that are at risk, but also child abuse victims, it is all 
important.
  I am hopeful we can also learn a lot from the things we have learned 
over the last few years about people who perpetrate crimes upon 
children, the identification of those kinds of people, so that 
communities can do a better job spotting these people and protecting 
their children. That is what this bill is about. That is the good part 
of what this bill is about.
  I appreciate both these gentleman for coming and telling their 
stories, not only about why they support this bill, but why this rule 
is fair and important for us to pass and this conference report. Let us 
get it to the President and let the President continue to do the things 
for the American people that he did for the people of Texas when he was 
Governor.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, when it comes to taking care of children, I just wonder, 
and pardon me for asking, what $1.1 trillion in the original tax cut 
during the President's administration and the $350 billion that we 
passed recently, in addition to the tack-on to the child tax credit, 
they ran it up to $82 billion, I wonder what those funds could possibly 
have done for the children of America? I, for one, would have preferred 
to spend it on them, rather than on rich people.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to 2\1/2\ minutes to my friend, 
the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), a continuing fighter 
and champion for children.

                              {time}  1400

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, this legislation would authorize $312 
million for several programs that seek to prevent child abuse, expand 
adoption opportunities, assist abandoned infants, and prevent family 
violence; good goals, good values, good measures. Child abuse is an 
important issue. It has many, many manifestations. It is attributable 
to many causes, including, and let me just mention, there is a pending 
issue in this body, a piece of unfinished business that pertains to our 
Nation's children; and, if you will, our delaying on this issue 
directly abuses American children.
  What we need to do is to restore the child tax credit to the 6.5 
million families this Republican leadership continues to leave behind. 
That is child abuse. The families of 12 million children generally earn 
minimum wage. They are tax-paying families. They deserve tax relief 
like every other family. They have bills to pay, mouths to feed, 
children to care for, just like every other family. And with the 
economy stuck in a rut, they cannot go to bed at night knowing whether 
their job will even be there for them the week after next.
  These families pay taxes. They make between $10,500 and $26,600 a 
year. They pay taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, 
property taxes. And they pay a greater share of their income in taxes 
than Enron did; and for the last 5 years, I say to my colleagues, Enron 
paid zero taxes. There are lots of individuals who are getting the 
benefit of $93,000 worth of tax cuts every year, those who are the 
184,000 millionaires in this country. I will bet some of them have not 
paid all of the taxes that they were supposed to have been paying all 
of these years.
  That is why what this House needs to do is to take up the other 
body's child tax credit legislation, legislation that was denied a 
simple up or down vote in the House of Representatives.
  Let me be clear. The majority has said that these 6.5 million 
families are not their priority. What they tried to do last week is, in 
essence, they passed a bill here which would kill the opportunity for 
the $3.5 billion to address this issue and it would be taken care of. I 
would just quote the Committee on Ways and Means chairman. He says he 
is going to be heavily focused on a different issue and that they would 
be surprised if a conference between the House and Senate could begin 
this week. They are going to kill this piece of legislation because 
they do not really care about the 6.5 million families or the 12 
million children.
  Mr. Speaker, let us do the right thing. Let us address this issue. 
Let us end this kind of child abuse.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Marietta, Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), one of our bright young Republican 
Members.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I have to admit, of course, as a freshman legislator, I 
am here to speak in favor of the rule for the conference agreement to 
S. 342, the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003, and to 
speak in favor of the overall piece of legislation. But I stand here 
and I am listening to the other side and all of the discussion I hear 
is about a tax bill, and it just makes me wonder if the speakers from 
the other side plan to vote against this bill, if they are opposed to 
keeping children and families safe for the foreseeable future.
  I am, as most of my colleagues know, a physician Member, Mr. Speaker, 
of this body; and, in particular, I am an OB-GYN doctor. As such, over 
the past 28 years, I have delivered over 5,000 precious children. 
Unfortunately, I wish I could say they were all born healthy and well 
and in the best of circumstances, but unfortunately, some were not. I 
think that my passion for this type of legislation, for protecting 
children and making sure that every child has an opportunity to be well 
born and in a healthy environment and going into a healthy family 
situation, that is what this legislation is all about.
  We can talk about the child tax credit and tax issues ad infinitum, 
but we have already had that debate. What we are talking about here 
today on the floor of the House is this conference committee report and 
the reauthorization of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, 
the Adoption Opportunities Program, the Abandoned Infants Assistance 
Act, the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act. That is what this 
debate is about. I would hope and trust that the Members of the other 
side will support unanimously this legislation, because we desperately 
need to protect those of our society, the most precious and vulnerable 
members of our society; and that is what this great piece of bipartisan 
legislation is all about.
  I am very proud to serve on the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce and to serve under my subcommittee chairman, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), who brings this bill to us, this 
reauthorization. It was an honor, it was an honor indeed for this 
freshman Member of Congress to be appointed to the conference committee 
on this bill. In fact, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) said 
to me, he had been here 10 years before having an opportunity to be 
appointed to a conference committee.
  So it is indeed a privilege. I think it shows a lot of respect for me 
as a physician Member and someone who is often in that delivery room 
seeing these children who may be very possibly born in a situation 
where the mom has been on substance abuse or drugs during the pregnancy 
and we, many times, are highly suspicious of that situation because of 
the condition of the child, the irritability of the child during the 
physical examination. These children have a certain physical appearance 
which is very suggestive in some instances of alcohol or substance 
abuse. And to just simply go from that delivery room to the next one or 
the next one, or go from there to a surgical procedure, and then back 
to the medical office where you might see an additional 30 patients a 
day would be unconscionable.
  So this bill calls for, among other things, reporting these 
instances. I cannot tell my colleagues how supportive I am of this 
legislation, and I am proud of the leadership for bringing it to us.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2\1/
2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), my good friend 
who has been a continuing champion for children in this body and in his 
previous life before coming here.

[[Page 15060]]


  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings), my friend, for yielding me this time.
  The underlying bill here I think reflects not only bipartisanship, 
but our common set of values. It is the right approach to how to 
protect our children.
  As the brother of a sister who is adopted, I applaud the efforts that 
are reflected here and the attempt here. But that bipartisanship, also 
those common set of values that we come together on, is in sharp 
contrast to what was done on the child tax credit.
  Mr. Speaker, the other day The New York Times reported that in Iraq 
right now, 200,000 Iraqis are getting $20 a day who do not show up for 
work. Mr. Speaker, 200,000 Iraqis, $20 a day who do not show up for 
work. I come from Chicago. We know something about no-show jobs. We 
think they are a good thing, periodically. But that stands in stark 
contrast to the 200,000 active duty troop members who are over there 
putting their lives on the line who will not get the full child tax 
credit. Now, where in our common values do we respect the people of 
Iraq, give them 20 bucks a day who do not show up for work, and yet, to 
our troops who are over there in Afghanistan and Iraq, whose families 
are only getting $450 per child tax credit, but not the full $1,000. 
Where in our common set of values do we say that is the right thing to 
do?
  Over the weekend the AP ran a story that Halliburton's bid for the 
oil drilling and oil work that they are doing in Iraq originally for 
$77 million is now running double. It was a no-bid contract and 
Halliburton, in the year of 2001, did not pay any Federal income taxes 
and, in fact, got an $85 million rebate. Last week when we were 
debating the child tax credit, some people described welfare as the 
full refundable credit; and I have a description of welfare, it is 
known as corporate welfare, that was done in Halliburton's case.
  We here in Congress earn $12,800 a month. That is equivalent to what 
some of these families earn in a full year who are worthy of this child 
tax credit.
  So I applaud the efforts that were done here to reflect our values 
and to take care of our children. I applaud the work done here on this 
bill; but I want to remind our colleagues, this bill's success comes 
from not only our bipartisanship but working on a common set of values. 
We need now to come together, come together, work on the conference, 
Democrats and Republicans, produce a bill, because as July approaches, 
some families will get this tax cut and other families, 12 million 
children, 6.5 million families who work full-time, sometimes more than 
40 hours a week, will not be getting that tax credit.
  Now, originally this bill was passed to get a tax cut to get the 
economy moving. It was in there in the Senate when they went to 
conference, but when the Vice President showed up, somehow it got 
dropped. We all have an obligation from the White House to the Senate 
to the Congress, Democrats and Republicans, to work together to give 
these middle-class families a tax cut.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, at the close of this matter, I will urge that Members 
pay attention to a request on the previous question, and I will urge 
Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous 
question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule, and my 
amendment will provide that as soon as the House passes the conference 
report, it will take from the Speaker's table and immediately consider 
the Senate-passed version of H.R. 1307, the Armed Forces Tax Fairness 
Act. My amendment will also add to H.R. 1307 the text of H.R. 1308, as 
passed by the Senate, which restores the refundable child tax credit 
that was removed from the Republican tax bill passed last month.
  This will allow the House to combine these two Senate-passed bills 
and immediately send them back to the Senate and then, hopefully, on to 
the President's desk for his signature. If this happens, we can begin 
helping America's lower- and modest-income families right away, and we 
can give tax relief to those members of the military who are bravely 
fighting for this Nation as we speak.
  Is it not about time we started giving tax breaks to those Americans 
who really need it? And is it not about time we put an end to 
legislation that has no chance of becoming law?
  Last week, the President said he would sign H.R. 1308, as it was 
passed by the Senate, and restore the refundable tax credit to those 
families making between $10,000 and $26,000. H.R. 1308, as amended by 
the Senate, will provide immediate tax relief to America's hard-
working, but struggling, families by extending the child tax credit to 
6.5 million low-income working families and nearly 12 million 
additional children. This measure will provide help to the families of 
8 million children whose parents serve in the military or are veterans. 
It will also help families of soldiers in combat in Iraq and 
Afghanistan by extending the child tax credit to many of them.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1307 will also help our brave men and women serving 
in the military. It will help with travel costs for those called up for 
the National Guard and Reserves, and it will provide benefits for the 
families of the Columbia astronauts.
  Vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can combine and then 
consider these two important tax relief bills as they passed in the 
Senate and rush them back to the Senate. Let us not let tax relief for 
these two important and deserving segments of our society wither on the 
vine.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question so we can 
consider tax relief that can actually become law and really help those 
most in need of tax relief.
  I want to emphasize that a ``no'' vote will not prevent the House 
from considering the conference report for this very important 
legislation, the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act. It will allow 
us to consider the Senate-passed versions of the refundable child tax 
credit and the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act, in addition to this 
important conference.

                              {time}  1415

  However, a yes vote will stop us from voting on this package of true 
tax relief for lower income Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment 
be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous 
question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gilchrest). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask Members to vote no on the 
previous question, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate the gentleman from Florida for his support of this 
conference report, S. 342, Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 
2003.
  Mr. Speaker, we have had a good debate today. We have talked about 
the children of this country. We have talked about our communities. We 
have talked about our schools. We have talked about the desire that we 
have as this United States Congress, this administration, President 
George W. Bush and the kind and gracious leadership of this House, 
including our Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), and 
our majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), to time 
after time take time out of their schedule not only to talk about 
children, children that are the future of this country and will make a 
difference, but also that these three gentleman, as leaders of our 
country, take time to make sure that this administration and the laws 
of this country are there to protect children, the most vulnerable part 
of our society.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud of what this will do. This conference report 
will go to help people. It will strengthen our communities. It will 
strengthen community-based organizations who work in a way that we need 
them to become efficient and be efficient and to offer these services.
  I am proud of what we are doing. I am proud of what this Congress is

[[Page 15061]]

doing, and Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting 
this rule and the underlying legislation.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. 
Res. 276 the Rule governing debate on S. 342, the ``Keeping Children 
and Families Safe Act of 2003.'' This rule waives all points of order 
against the Conference Report and its consideration.
  Just last week, this Chamber vigorously debated the Child Tax Credit 
bill. The Republican members of the House of Representatives refused to 
adopt the Senate-passed tax bill that would have provided relief to 12 
million children of hard-working American families. My Democratic 
colleagues offered a substitute to aid America's children but it was 
voted down. We have still not passed a Child Tax Credit for America's 
low-income children.
  Now, we prepare to debate the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act 
of 2003. Another bill that is beneficial to America's children by 
taking strong steps to prevent child abuse. This bill governs 
dissemination of information about abused children, expands valuable 
research programs, authorizes grant programs, and many other valuable 
programs.
  The Keeping Children and Families Safe Act was an opportunity to 
redress the failures of this body in our failure to pass the Child Tax 
Credit bill last week. By passing this rule, we continue to neglect and 
jeopardize the welfare of America's children and families, by not 
immediately passing the Senate Child Tax Credit bill so the President 
can immediately sign the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose the Rule governing debate on the Keeping 
Children and Families Safe Act. I find it ironic that the title of the 
bill is the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act, and yet will have 
not passed real Child Tax Credit. This rule jeopardizes America's 
children, bill for America's most vulnerable children.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as 
follows:

                    Previous Question for H. Res 276

      Rule on Conference for Keeping Children & Families Safe Act

       At the end of the resolution insert the following new 
     section:
       ``Sec. 2. Immediately after disposition of the conference 
     report, the House shall be considered to have taken from the 
     Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1307) to amend the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a special rule for members of 
     the uniformed services in determining the exclusion of gain 
     from the sale of a principal residence and to restore the tax 
     exempt status of death gratuity payments to members of the 
     uniformed services, and for other purposes, with the Senate 
     amendment thereto, and a motion that the House concur in the 
     Senate amendment with an amendment consisting of the text of 
     the Senate amendment to the text of H.R. 1308 shall be 
     considered as pending without intervention of any point of 
     order. The Senate amendment and the motion shall be 
     considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     motion to final adoption without intervening motion.''

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 8 and 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on 
ordering the previous question will be followed by a 5-minute vote on 
adopting H. Res. 276, if ordered; suspending the rules and adopting H. 
Res. 171; and suspending the rules and passing H.R. 658 with an 
amendment.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226, 
nays 200, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 279]

                               YEAS--226

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--200

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

[[Page 15062]]



                             NOT VOTING--8

     Berman
     Carson (IN)
     Cubin
     Gephardt
     Lofgren
     Millender-McDonald
     Nethercutt
     Smith (WA)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gilchrest) (during the vote). There are 
2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1439

  Ms. SOLIS and Mr. RUSH changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________