Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce into the Record the editorial entitled ``Still Shortchanging the Troops'' which appeared on February 10, 2006, in the New York Times. The military industrial complex is in your face America, front and center, rewarding corporate America, contractors and Halliburton, but shortchanging the troops.

The New York Times in its lead editorial on February 10, 2006, made a scathing criticism of Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's recently revealed Defense Department budget. As the Times put it: ``It's amazing how Donald Rumsfeld's Defense Spending plan can produce a $439 billion and still skimp on the one thing the American Military desperately needs: expanded ground forces so the weakened and cannibalized Army'' can meet the needs of Iraq without hurting its ability to respond to other threats.

I do not believe more ground troops are needed in Iraq. I think this editorial is referencing the fact that the troops fighting in Iraq are returning two, three and four times and have borne more than their fair share of President Bush's Iraq war. I support Congressman Murtha's position that our ground troops in Iraq have become the targets in Iraq; the one unifying idea for all the splintered factions fighting a civil war there is that Americans must get out of their country. However, there is much I do agree with in the editorial.

I agree that it is a disgrace to spend only a small part of its 7 percent budget increase for increase of pay and recruitment bonuses while a ``large chunk of this nearly $30 billion goes to more new weapons and postponing overdue cuts in wasteful Air Force and Navy projects unrelated to fighting terrorism. This highlights as nothing else can the disconnect with what Secretary Rumsfeld says he cares about and what he really cares about.

When the Secretary of Defense is at a press conference or a briefing, he consistently talks about this war and the brave men and women sacrificing in Iraq to keep us safe. He and President Bush have repeatedly expressed the view that we are fighting the terrorists ``over there, so we don't have to fight them over here.'' Support the troops has become the rallying call for those who blindly accept platitudes in place of plans and rhetoric instead of substantive answers to the many legitimate questions being asked by millions of US. citizens. Secretary Rumsfeld misses no opportunity to label Americans who do not give unquestioning support to the President's war as unpatriotic and worse giving support to terrorists and harming our troops in Iraq.

It is quite obvious to me that neither President Bush nor Secretary Rumsfeld support our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. The President precipitously sent our troops into battle on false information and with no plan for the peace. Iraq has become a haven for terrorists and is currently in a civil war in which our troops are caught with nowhere to go. Secretary Rumsfe1d sent them into combat without the necessary armored trucks and tanks and without the necessary body armor. Even from the beginning of the war, there were stories about parents having to buy their sons and daughters armor and of parents collecting used bullet proof vests from policemen. Even after Rumsfeld was asked when he would get his armor, Rumsfeld had nothing but the most unsettling reply. You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you wish you had. No, Secretary Rumsfeld, you go to war with a properly equipped army and an exit plan to get the troops out of harm's way when the mission is accomplished.

Even after this incident, when Secretary Rumsfeld was questioned by Members of Congress about the lack of proper armor, the troops did not receive what they needed. A recently released report from the Navy and Military pathologist showed that 80 percent of deaths from torso injuries could have been prevented if the troops had had the proper body armor. The Navy had ordered the armor. As of January 7, the Army had not. This indicates a neglect of the troops, not support for the troops.

I am also glad that the Times repeats a truth well worth repeating and one I hope the country will finally understand and will not only demand Secretary Rumsfeld's resignation but hold him responsible for the many unnecessary deaths in Iraq caused by his refusal to listen to his own senior generals.

According to the Times and according to my belief and that of many of my Democratic colleagues: ``The prospects of Iraq might have been very different today if Mr. Rumsfeld had listened to some of his own senior generals and occupation officials and authorized significantly larger ground forces from the beginning. The early looting might have been contained before it shattered political confidence and vital infrastructure. The insurgency might never have gotten such a head start. . . . But the obstinate ideologues in Mr. Rumsfeld's Pentagon have never accepted the fact that the reality of Iraq did not fit their assumptions. The budget and the four-year plan released with it read almost as if the current conflict had never happened and could never happen again.''

The budget priorities reveal Mr. Rumsfeld's utter disdain for our troops and an almost unbelievable disconnect from what is actually happening in Iraq. In his speech before the National Press Club on February 3, 2006, Secretary Rumsfeld reiterated his view of the war Americans now face, a war he calls a ``generational war.'' This is the war both he and the President have variously described as the war on fascist Islamic fundamentalists; or against al Qaeda terrorists, or ideologues determined to replace our American values with the values of those who hate freedom and hate our way of life.

A very important point made by the Times editorial and the one I want to particularly emphasize is the complete disconnect between the Pentagon budget and spending plan set out and explained to the National Press Club on February 3, 2006, and what Mr. Rumsfeld is spending on in 2007. The President and Mr. Rumsfeld have told the Nation it will be fighting for the next 30 years or perhaps forever a long war against an army we can't see because it does not represent a nation state; it may not wear a uniform; it could be in any country at any time. But, as the Times points out: ``Instead of reallocating resources toward the real threat America faces, the military services continue to pour their money into fighting fictive superpowers in the wild blue yonder and on and below the seven seas. Pentagon budgeters showed themselves so pathetically unable to restrain spending on expensive ships and planes that they actually cut back, rather than increased the overall size of the Army over the next few years to pay for it.

It would cost about $4 billion to $5 billion a year to give the Army 30,000 more troops, the minimum it needs to check its alarming slide. Instead the Pentagon chose to begin the construction of two unneeded new stealth destroyers, which will end up costing $2 billion to $3 billion each.

It also decided to splurge on a new nuclear attack submarine for $2.6 billion and to shell out $5.5 billion for separate Navy and Air Force versions of new stealth fighter jets, plus another $5.5 billion for yet a third version that either can use. In all the Pentagon is asking for $84 billion to buy weapons systems--twice what it got in 1996--and $73 billion more for research and development.

This budget would be wasteful even under a worst-case assumption that had a second superpower arising within the life span of these weapons, turning hostile to America and arming itself to the teeth with the most advanced weapons. There's still unnecessary spending that could be used to repair the Army, which has been ground down at least as much by Pentagon miserliness as by Iraqi insurgents.

The citizens of this country, all of them care about the troops. Disagreeing with the President's policies or lack of them does not mean an American does not care about the troops. I would argue those questioning the President

care more about the troops than the President. In the same way, Secretary Rumsfeld, preparing for wars with fictive superpowers while still ignoring the very real need of the troops in Iraq, reveals a chilling lack of concern for the troops.

[From the Washington Post, Feb. 3, 2006]

Army Pledges No Cutbacks in National Guard

(By Ann Scott Tyson)

Facing pressure from both parties in Congress and state

National Guard leaders, the Army yesterday committed to

keeping the National Guard's authorized manpower at 350,000

and promised to fund it up to that level.

``If they recruit 350,000, the funding's there. Their

authorization remains 350,000,'' Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the

Army's chief of staff, said at a Pentagon news conference

yesterday.

Because of recruiting shortfalls, the Guard has about

333,000 soldiers on the rolls, but Guard leaders say they are

confident of reaching the goal of 350,000 this year. ``We are

on a glide path to get to 350,000,'' said Lt. Gen. Clyde

Vaughn, director of the Army National Guard, who appeared at

the briefing with Schoomaker.

The Army had proposed cutting the budgeted Guard strength

by about 17,000 positions, in part by replacing six combat

brigades that each have 3,500 to 4,000 slots with brigade

headquarters that have only a few hundred, said Maj. Gen.

Roger P. Lempke, president of the Adjutants General

Association of the United States.

The National Guard, which represents about 38 percent of

the U.S. military's force structure, has served heavily in

Iraq, deploying seven combat brigades as well as headquarters

and other units with tens of thousands of troops since the

war began. Last fall, it surged 50,000 troops to respond to

hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

``There's a very strong sense out there among our political

leadership that the Guard should not be reduced in any way

right now,'' Lempke said yesterday. ``We don't know where the

war is going. We're very heavily deployed'' and the suggested

cuts ``didn't set well,'' said Lempke, whose association

represents the senior leaders of the Army and Air National

Guard in the 54 states, territories and the District of

Columbia.

A bipartisan group of 75 U.S. senators yesterday sent

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld a letter stating they

``strongly oppose'' reported proposals by the Pentagon to cut

National Guard force levels.

``We respectfully oppose proposals to cut the end-strength

of the National Guard,'' said the letter from Sen. Chrstopher

S. Bond (R-Mo.) and Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), co-chairs

of the Senate's National Guard Caucus. The letter signed by

73 other senators.

Lempke said he welcomed the Army's commitment to keep end

strength at 350,000, which he said will help ensure budget

money is allocated for the necessary training and

recruitment.

Schoomaker said the Army would progress with a plan to cut

the number of National Guard combat brigades from 34 to 28,

but reiterated a plan to replace them with six support

brigades. One reason for the reduction in combat brigades, he

said, was that many of the units were not fully manned or

equipped, a situation worsened when soldiers and gear were

shifted to units deploying for Iraq--a process the Army calls

``cross-leveling.''

``We've used 34 brigades all over the world, and we've had

to cross-level big time since 9/11 to make that happen,''

Vaughn said.

The Army plan calls for ensuring the 28 remaining combat

brigades will be fully manned, trained and equipped to be

ready to deploy, Schoomaker said. Toward this goal, the Army

has budgeted about $21 billion from 2005 to 2011 to modernize

equipment for the National Guard, which he said was a

fourfold increase over funding levels in 1999.

``This is a tremendous investment,'' Schoomaker said.

``This is not taking things down; this is building wholeness

up.''

Mr. Speaker, last year the United States laid eyes on one of the greatest natural disasters to ever hit our Nation. Hurricane Katrina ravaged a large part of our country, our economy, and, as a nation, our spirit. Last year Congress committed aid to the victims of this tragedy which the President signed into law. But our work and our commitment to the people of the gulf coast region cannot end there. If we turn our backs on those victims, we will only be subjecting them to another disaster, that of a government which isn't willing to support its own people.

In the months following the hurricane, news and media coverage were filled with photos and video of the effects of abject poverty leaving people in dire straits. Yet today, a short 4 months later, the faces of Katrina have all but disappeared from magazine covers or the nightly news. Make no mistake that the victims are still victims, and the journey back to rebuilding whole communities and lives is a long and difficult road.

To that end, I take pride in introducing, with my esteemed colleagues Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, Congressman Bill Jefferson, Congressman Rahm Emanuel, and Congressman Charlie Melancon, the Relief for Working Family Victims of Hurricane Katrina Act of 2006. At present, thousands of families that suffered through the hurricane remain far from their homes and without adequate recourse or resources to help return their lives to normal. Over 900,000 children in the States effected by Hurricane Katrina were ineligible for the refundable child tax credit because their parents earned income level was too low, often by the smallest of margins. Current law restricts the refundable credit to families with income levels over $11,000, and more if the families have more than one child. This bill would allow working families earning $10,000 a year, just about minimum wage, to claim the full credit. I am joined in these efforts by my good friend, Senator Barack Obama, who is introducing companion legislation in the Senate today.

Relief like this can carry a family miles down the road to rebuilding their lives. Congress must uphold its commitment to the victims of the hurricane. President Bush, in his State of the Union Address, remarked that, ``In New Orleans and in other places, many of our fellow citizens have felt excluded from the promise of our country.'' It's sad that it took an epic disaster to open America's eyes to the lives of the impoverished and marginalized. The greater tragedy is if we do nothing about it.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay homage to a man who gave a voice to the voiceless first in his native Jamaica and then throughout the world. The legendary reggae singer Bob Marley would have turned 61 on Monday, February 6 and it is appropriate that we pause to recognize the extraordinary impact of his life and work. Not only did Marley define reggae music as we know it today, but he introduced it outside his native land of Jamaica, achieving international superstar status and shaping music on a global scale. His message of freedom and empowerment resonated everywhere and was an inspiration to a generation.

While evolving his sound to encompass rock and African themes, Marley never diluted his message, underpinning his music with the politics and theology of his Rastafarian beliefs and his personal struggles in Jamaica. He has inspired everyone from Stevie Wonder to The Clash with his lyrics.

His music was a social force, calling for opportunity, justice and freedom and challenging those who sought change to act to achieve it. Throughout his career, he was influenced by the gulf between haves and have-nots, a culture of oppression that was particularly evident in his poverty- and crime-ridden homeland. Reggae's mesmerizing rhythms carried an undeniable signature that rose to the fore of the music scene in the 1970s, largely through the recorded work of Marley and his group the Wailers. Some of his albums, such as Natty Dread and Rastaman Vibration endure as reggae milestones that gave a voice to the poor of Jamaica and, by extension, the world. Much of his music today aims to uplift the impoverished and powerless, instilling in them a beautiful sense of dignity in their culture, despite the hardships they encountered in their daily lives. In 1978, he received a United Nations Peace Award for his attempts to calm the warring factions of Jamaican politics and played at Zimbabwe's independence celebrations in 1980, where he came to learn that more Zimbabweans knew the lyrics of his song than they did the words of the national anthem.

Marley died prematurely at age 36 in 1981, after doctors discovered a cancerous growth on his foot haphazardly after a soccer game. Despite his death, the heartbeat reggae rhythms of the music that he left behind continue to thrive today. Moreover, Jamaica itself has been transformed by his legacy. Marley was buried on the island with full state honors on May 21, 1981. In a crowning irony, given the reviled status that Rastafarians and their music had once suffered at the hands of the Jamaican government, Marley's pacifist reggae anthem, ``One Love,'' was adapted as a theme song by the Jamaican Tourist Board.

Bob Marley continues to live today in our hearts and minds, as does his music. With anthems such as ``Get Up Stand'' he continues to fight for those who feel they cannot. With such a vision, Marley continues to be worthy of recognition and remembrance.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize a passionate newsman, Marvin Scott of WPIX--Channel 11, who has dedicated more than 35 years to bringing accurate and unbiased news to all New Yorkers and to enter into the Record a Daily News article commemorating Scott's career. Last year marked a great milestone--Scott's 25-year anniversary at WPIX.

For the last quarter century, New Yorkers have welcomed Scott into their homes each evening because the Bronx-born reporter has had his finger on the pulse of the community. From a very young age, Scott wanted to be a reporter. His dream actually started when he sold a photo of a Bronx fire to the Daily News and upon return from the fire, held his first ``news broadcast'' to his Bronx neighbors, Scott jokingly recounts. Throughout his career, which first began in radio but then WNYW--Channel 5 before his arrival to WPIX--Channel 11, Scott has covered space shuttle launches, interviewed world and local leaders, and most recently traveled to Iraq and spent Christmas with U.S. troops. It is this type of sacrifice and sensitivity that has made Scott an informative and integral part of the New York City media.

One such story that is a testament to Scott's remarkable ability to connect with his viewers is the story of Stephanie Collado, a young girl from Brooklyn who years ago needed a heart transplant. Scott reported on her family's plight and remains in touch with Collado even today, years after the operation. As Scott says, he continues to live his dream. Hopefully, he will do so for many more years to come.

[From the New York Daily News, Nov. 28, 2005]

Great Scott! 25 Yrs. at 'PIX

(By Richard Huff)

Marvin Scott and a few close friends will gather today to

mark a rare milestone in television--a quarter of a century

at one station.

The Bronx-born reporter has been with WPIX/Ch. 11 for 25

years, and spent 10 years before that with WNYW/Ch. 5. He was

in radio even before that.

``I had a dream of someday being able to be a reporter in

New York,'' said Scott. ``A role model of mine as a kid was

Gabe Pressman [now at WNBC/Ch. 4] and now Gabe is a

contemporary and a friend.''

Scott's dream to be a reporter actually started when he

sold a photo of a Bronx fire to the Daily News. He made $27

for the sale.

His first news broadcast, he joked, was when he returned

from the fire and delivered the details to his neighbors at

Mount Eden and Townsend Aves., in the Bronx.

Decades later, his audience is bigger, of course.

``I do it for the adrenaline and a love for what I do,'' he

said. ``I could not think about doing anything else. No two

days are alike.''

Scott's a stickler for details. Indeed, he's been keeping

track of every story he's done for years. He figures he's

told more than 4,600 stories in 25 years. ``Sure, some are

clunkers,'' he said. ``I'll never turn down an assignment.''

Scott says he's been on the front line of history. He's

covered Space Shuttle launches, interviewed world leaders and

spent Christmas last year with soldiers in Iraq. ``I'm a

story teller,'' he said. ``Every day I tell a story that runs

from a minute-and-a-half to three minutes.''

One story that has stuck with him for years concerns

Stephanie Collado, a young girl from Brooklyn who needed a

heart transplant. He followed her story from her mother's

pleas for help, to the operation and the years after. He

still talks to Collado from time to time.

``It was human,'' he said. ``It was a human story about a

little girl in need. Adults would not have handled it as

courageously as she did.''

The key to survival is being a good writer, and being

sensitive, Scott said. That's advice he gives all young

journalists, including his daughter Jill Scott, a reporter

for New York 1 News.

``I'm most proud of the fact that she did it on her own,''

Scott said. ``She made her own opportunities and she got

noticed. It makes me so proud.''

And no, even though many of those who started out in the

business when Scott did have thrown in the towel, he has no

intention of stepping aside anytime soon.

``I just feel blessed,'' he said. ``I am a kid from the

Bronx and I'm continuing to fulfill my dream.''

Mr. Speaker, my friend, Mr. Thomas, the chairman of the awesome and powerful Ways and

Means Committee, has normally presented brilliant arguments, many of those I have opposed; but I have really never seen such creative thinking as he has done on the alternative minimum tax. I would hope the whole world, and that is at least those in New York and around the country, will hear who he is describing as the richest people in the world. I mean, coming from California there may be some distorted thinking about incomes, but from all of the statistics, they say that over half of the people are between the incomes of 100 and $200,000, they would be getting the relief.

And then if we were talking about, I do not want to start a class war because I do not want to offend any on the other side, but over 50 percent of the relief under the interest in the capital gains would go to people above a million dollars.

And so I do not think we would call the 100 to $200,000, certainly as it relates to the Nation, that is high income, but it certainly does not compare to the recipients of those in the categories that will receive capital gains and corporate dividends.

But more importantly, I beseech Mr. Thomas to deal with the question of equity. When we are trying to help somebody in terms of taxes or to take away some benefits from somebody, it may be done in the back room, but ultimately the public will know which group are the beneficiaries.

Now, there is no way that you can contradict that nobody in this Congress or the Ways and Means Committee or the Finance Committee ever thought that the people that we were going after to make certain that they paid a minimum tax would find themselves being pushed in the category where they would be paying out thousands of dollars in taxes which we never intended for them to have, they just got pushed into this by inflation. We owe them more than new people that would benefit, some kind of relief.

Now, this whole idea that we did it outside of reconciliation means that you did not do it at all. We know that when the House and the Senate conferees go to conference, that is when Democrats are invited to go but whether we are there or not, that we try to find out what is the best in both of the bills.

So it would seem to me that the only thing that we truly have that was passed by both the House and the Senate was relief for the alternative minimum tax. True, the Republican-controlled House did not put in any reconciliation, but those who were invited to go to conference would at least know that the Senate had it in their reconciliation bill and the House overwhelmingly passed it.

So it would seem to me, in equity and fairness, if you are talking about the intent of the House and the Senate, since they never included in their reconciliation bill the concept of the tax relief being given to capital gains and to corporate dividends, that in good conscience you could come back to the House and report that you followed the instructions.

It just seems to me, Mr. Chairman of the full committee, that you already knew that you were not going to give relief to the AMT; and now, instead of saying that we are sorry that we never responded to an equitable need, we never intended to throw these people into this category, instead of that, you have made them the richest people in the world.

Well, it is getting close to the election; and since the economy is doing so well, we will stick by that. If Republicans say they are the richest people in the world, Democrats would support that you said it.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize legendary tap dancer Fayard Nicholas who died on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 at the age of 91 and to enter into the Record a statement remembering Nicholas prepared by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

Nicholas was the elder half of an amazing tap dance legend--The Nicholas Brothers. Together the show-stopping duo influenced generations of dancers with their wildly creative tap routines, which included slides across the floor and signature no-hands leg splits.

Legends in their own time and ours, Fayard and Harold Nicholas are best known for their unforgettable appearances in more than 30 Hollywood musicals in the 1930s and '40s. They were talented singers and actors as well, but Jim Crow segregationist customs kept them from having speaking parts. Their artistry, choreographic genius, and unique style--a smooth mix of tap, jazz, ballet and acrobatic moves--have astonished vaudeville, theatre, film and television audiences all over the world. Their work influenced dancers from Gene Kelly to Fred Astaire to Debbie Allen, Gregory Hines to Savion Glover. Russian ballet dancer Mikhail Baryshnikov once called the Nicholas Brothers ``the most amazing dancers I have ever seen in my life--ever.''

Born in Mobile, the brothers learned to dance while watching their musician parents who played in their own band at the old Standard Theater--their mother at the piano and father on drums. Fayard was 18 and Harold was just 11 when they became the featured act at New York's Cotton Club in 1932. They then appeared on Broadway with ``The Ziegfield Follies of 1936'' and later Hollywood appearing in such great hits as ``The Pirate'' (1948) with Gene Kelly and Stormy Weather (1943) with Fred Astaire.

In 1981, the Brothers were honored with a retrospective of their work in films at the Academy Awards. Fayard received a Tony Award for his choreography in the Tony Award winning Broadway show ``Black and Blue'' in 1989. Two years later, the brothers received a Kennedy Center Honor. Their legacy has also been remembered with a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame and induction into the Apollo Theater Hall of Fame. Even after Harold passed away in 2000 due to heart failure,

Fayard kept their legend alive by giving lectures and demonstrations until 2004, when he suffered a stroke.

Not only is the Nicholas Brother's dance skill to be admired and remembered but so is their spirit. With each advancement in their career, they overcame racial discrimination, proving that even ignorance cannot dampen one's skills and drive. The Nicholas Brothers stand as a testament and an example to all by finding joy in following one's passion. I join the NAACP in remembering Fayard Nicholas.

NAACP Mourns the Loss of Legendary Tap Dancer Fayard Nicholas

Nicholas Brothers duo inspired dancers such as Fred Astaire, Gregory

Hines and Savion Glover

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored

People (NAACP) mourns the loss of Fayard Nicholas, the elder

half of the tap-dancing duo the Nicholas Brothers, who died

Tuesday in Los Angeles after suffering from pneumonia.

Bruce S. Gordon, NAACP President and CEO, said ``Both of

the Nicholas Brothers will be greatly missed. They took their

passion for the art of dance and turned raw talent into

skill. Each performance by the Nicholas Brothers demonstrated

the depth of their creativity and left audiences gasping at

their show-stopping presentation.''

Fayard and his brother Harold overcame racial boundaries

when their vaudeville tap show headlined New York's Cotton

Club in 1932. From there the brothers went on to dazzle

audiences on Broadway and Hollywood.

In 1934, the Nicholas Brothers were hired to be in their

first major musical titled, Kid Millions, and appeared on

Broadway in The Zeigfield Follies of 1936. Despite the lack

of formal training, the Nicholas brothers also pioneered in

the art of ballet and in 1937, they performed in Babes in

Arms.

Throughout the 1940s, the Nicholas Brothers updated their

style and performed in a series of musical films in

Hollywood. Among those films was Sun Valley Serenade (1941)

with performances with Dorothy Dandridge, whom Harold later

married and divorced. In 1948, the pair performed a memorable

routine with Gene Kelly in Be a Clown.

After a series of international tours, nightclub and

television performances, the brothers' schedule remained

tight. In 1970, Fayard captured the leading role in The

Liberation of L.B. Jones and in 1989 won a Tony Award for his

choreography of the Broadway revue Black and Blue, featuring

child tap star Savion Glover.

In 1991, the Nicholas Brothers received the Kennedy Center

Honors and were honored at the Academy Awards. Harold passed

away in 2000 from heart failure, but Fayard continued to give

lectures and demonstrations until suffering a stroke in

November 2004. Fayard Nicholas was 91.

Founded in 1909, the National Association for the

Advancement of Colored People is the nation's oldest and

largest civil rights organization. It's adult and youth

members throughout the United States and the world are the

premier advocates for civil rights in their communities and

monitor equal opportunity in the public and private sectors.

Mr. Speaker, I thank former chairman Conyers for yielding me this time. It is really ironic that you would be on the Judiciary Committee during all of the years that it took to get the King holiday there; and also that, as a Member of Congress, you lived through the civil rights movement with the people that we have honored in the past and with Dr. Coretta King.

I think if we had to review where we are with Coretta King, it is that she wasn't that woman behind a successful man. She was truly a partner and a leader in her own right. Somehow she knew when to speak out and when just to leave it to Martin Luther King.

What I have found over the years is that she has such a personality and such a soothing voice; but, boy, I am telling you, if it dealt with a challenge against what is right, against inequality and injustice, this very soft spoken, beautiful woman knew how a civil rights leader is supposed to take risk and go to the mat.

When we lost Dr. King, how quickly she was able to pick up that torch and to give to this Nation the leadership that really turned us around from a Nation that was struggling with racism and even today continues in that fight for equality for all Americans.

Those of us that were able to march with Dr. Martin Luther King cannot think of a time when she was not there marching with him. Any pictures from the past, Coretta Scott King was there.

How often we work with these people as though they are mere mortals, only to find out when they are gone how deep that vacuum has been made by their loss. For all of the groups that Coretta Scott King has provided the leadership for, we hope since we cannot replace Coretta King, that all of us have in us some type, some quality of the conviction and the courage that Dr. King and his beautiful wife had. And collectively, if all of us can say this is not a struggle for the King family or a civil rights leader, but a struggle for this great country, I think we can move forward.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Mrs. Coretta Scott King and to add my support to H. Res. 655 honoring the life of this extraordinary woman. As much as we loved and respected Mrs. King, her family has suffered an even greater loss. To the King children--Yolanda, Martin III, Dexter, and Bernice, know that you have our deepest heartfelt sympathy.

Hailed as the `First Lady of the Civil Rights Movement', Coretta Scott King had to endure injustices at an early age. Born in Heiberger, Alabama and raised on the farm of her parents Bernice McMurry Scott, and Obadiah Scott, she was exposed at an early age to the injustices of life in a segregated society. She walked five miles a day to attend the one-room Crossroad School in Marion, Alabama, while the White students rode buses to an all-White school closer by. Yet through it all, young Coretta excelled at her studies, particularly music, and was valedictorian of her graduating class at Lincoln High School.

She graduated in 1945 and received a scholarship to Antioch College in Yellow Springs, Ohio. As an undergraduate, she took an active interest in the emerging civil rights movement; and joined the Antioch chapter of the NAACP, as well as the college's Race Relations and Civil Liberties Committees.

Her life would be forever changed when she met a young theology student, Martin Luther King, Jr. They were married on June 18, 1953, in a ceremony conducted by King's father, the Rev. Martin Luther King, Sr.

Coretta Scott King was very supportive to her husband during the most turbulent days of the American civil rights movement. After his assassination in Memphis, Tennessee, on April 4, 1968, she kept his dream alive while also raising their four children. In her own words, she was ``more determined than ever that her husband's dream would become a reality.''

For more than a decade, she worked tirelessly to have her husband's birthday observed as a national holiday. Her determination would payoff when it was first celebrated in 1986.

In 1969, she established the Martin Luther King Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change in Atlanta, dedicated both to scholarship and to activism.

With fierce determination and undying strength, Mrs. King worked to keep Dr. King's ideology of equality for all people at the forefront of people's minds. She picked up the baton when it was dropped by her husband's assassination and continued to move forward in the civil rights arena.

In her own words, ``We must make our hearts instruments of peace and nonviolence, because when the heart is right, the mind and the body will follow.''

She exemplified courage, strength, and a deep compassion for justice. Coretta Scott King will be remembered as one of America's greatest treasures and will be forever missed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Mrs. Coretta Scott King and to add my support to H. Res. 655 honoring the life of this extraordinary woman. As much as we loved and respected Mrs. King, her family has suffered an even greater loss. To the King children--Yolanda, Martin III, Dexter, and Bernice, know that you have our deepest heartfelt sympathy.

Hailed as the `First Lady of the Civil Rights Movement', Coretta Scott King had to endure injustices at an early age. Born in Heiberger, Alabama and raised on the farm of her parents Bernice McMurry Scott, and Obadiah Scott, she was exposed at an early age to the injustices of life in a segregated society. She walked five miles a day to attend the one-room Crossroad School in Marion, Alabama, while the white students rode buses to an all-white school closer by. Yet through it all, young Coretta excelled at her studies, particularly music, and was valedictorian of her graduating class at Lincoln High School.

She graduated in 1945 and received a scholarship to Antioch College in Yellow Springs, Ohio. As an undergraduate, she took an active interest in the emerging civil rights movement; and joined the Antioch chapter of the NAACP, as well as the college's Race Relations and Civil Liberties Committees.

Her life would be forever changed when she met a young theology student, Martin Luther King, Jr. They were married on June 18, 1953, in a ceremony conducted by King's father, the Rev. Martin Luther King, Sr.

Coretta Scott King was very supportive to her husband during the most turbulent days of the American civil rights movement. After his assassination in Memphis, Tennessee, on April 4, 1968, she kept his dream alive while also raising their four children. In her own words, she was ``more determined than ever that her husband's dream would become a reality.''

For more than a decade, she worked tirelessly to have her husband's birthday observed as a national holiday. Her determination would payoff when it was first celebrated in 1986.

In 1969, she established the Martin Luther King Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change in Atlanta, dedicated both to scholarship and to activism.

With fierce determination and undying strength, Mrs. King worked to keep Dr. King's ideology of equality for all people at the forefront of people's minds. She picked up the baton when it was dropped by her husband's assassination and continued to move forward in the civil rights arena.

In her own words, ``We must make our hearts instruments of peace and nonviolence, because when the heart is right, the mind and the body will follow.''

She exemplified courage, strength, and a deep compassion for justice. Coretta Scott King will be remembered as one of America's greatest treasures and will be forever missed.

Mr. Speaker, as the end of 2005 draws near I rise to say a few words about the people of Darfur and to enter into the Record an eyewitness account of Hillary Anderson a BBC correspondent in Darfur entitled Sudan's Slow and Cruel Starvation first broadcast July 2004 in which she personalizes what Darfur means in pain for mothers and children in Darfur. Unfortunately the year 2005, especially in the last few months, has gotten worse than 2004 for the people of Darfur. According to the United Nation's humanitarian chief, Jan Egeland, people are still being killed, the Janjaweed Militias are still armed and kill at will, women are raped, men are dead, no food is planted or harvested. Mr. Egeland announced on December 20, 2005, the situation in Darfur was so bad that aid organizations were being threatened and might be forced out of the country.

Therefore we can know with a sad heart that Ms. Anderson's 2004 story of Juma and Nadia has been repeated many times in 2005. And if this Nation does not act, this story will be repeated thousands of times in 2006--until there are no more Jumas and no more Nadias.

Ms. Anderson begins her piece from the Mornay camp: ``I am sitting in the dark on the edge of a camp for displaced people in Darfur. I can hear the loud persistent crying of one child rising above the murmur of the camp as the people settle down for the night. Tonight the stars are out--that means no rain. Last night was not like this at all.

You can see it coming in the afternoons. The sky begins to darken and the horizon goes an ominous, brown shade of yellow. Then the wind starts and the dust of the Sahara desert whips up, blasting whirling sands in all directions. The people start to run in their long rags, heads bowed against the wind.

Then, the heavens simply open, the wind ferociously hurls drenching curtains of water at everything around. Mothers with their children, whose faces are twisted up in misery, squat grasping the sides of their makeshift shelters--which do not keep them dry. The torn plastic bags that make up the walls of their twig shelters flap madly in the wind. The ground turns into a mire of mud. . . .

In the morning we wake up to hear the children crying. In the makeshift hospital here, set up by foreign aid workers, it is so crowded with the sick that some are sleeping on the floors. Among the stench and the flies, the children lie wasted, staring into space. Tiny human beings, who were born into the madness of man's inhumanity to man, into the madness of a spate of killing that has left many of their fathers, brothers, grandparents and uncles dead.

And now, they face starvation which is cruel and slow. Most of the children are too far gone to eat. Some have the peeling skin and lesions that come with advanced starvation--their skin is wrinkled, lose around their bones. The mothers sit by powerless.

We spent two weeks in Darfur, driving through the eerie, burnt-out villages, empty of people.

We traveled to Mornay camp, where we were a month ago. On arriving back, we went to the medical tent. It was strangely quiet inside. Four people are sitting in a circle. A mother was looking down and sobbing silently, rubbing her hands on her face. I realized I knew her. Then it slowly came to me what was going on. Her daughter Nadia, whom we had spent two days with in this tent a month ago, was dying. The mother, Juma, was saying an awful goodbye.

We moved away in their private moment. Ten minutes later Nadia was dead. The men took her body away to prepare for the burial. Then they emerged at the far end of the grave yard, carrying her tiny body in their hands. They said their prayers and laid her body in the earth. Juma, her mother, sat on the ground. She wasn't crying any more.

After the funeral I went to pay my respects. . . . When she saw me, she started screaming `Nadia, Nadia, Nadia.' She fell on me, screaming, she kept screaming. She kept repeating her daughter's name. Then the older women started screaming too.

When Juma left the graveyard I saw her walking away on her own, sobbing and crying her child's name into the breeze of the vast desert, into the nothingness of the camp. . . .

Darfur is a nightmare that is alive here today and perhaps somewhere else tomorrow. Racial and tribal tensions, and regional disquiet, have erupted into a war where the civilians are being punished, killed and abused. We are the adults, this is the world we live in and accept. The world we have created for ourselves. . . . Why are massacres of civilians allowed to happen in Sudan? Why has no-one counted the dead?''

[From BBC News, July 24, 2004]

Sudan's Cruel and Slow Starvation

(By Hilary Andersson)

I'm sitting in the dark on the edge of a camp for displaced

people in Darfur. I can hear the loud, persistent crying of

one child rising above the murmur of the camp as the people

settle down for the night.

Tonight the stars are out--that means no rain. Last night

was not like this at all.

You can see it coming in the afternoons. The sky begins to

darken and the horizon goes an ominous, brown shade of

yellow.

Then the wind starts and the dust of the Sahara desert

whips up, blasting whirling sands in all directions. The

people start to run in their long rags, heads bowed against

the wind.

lack of shelter

Then, the heavens simply open, the wind ferociously hurls

drenching curtains of water at everything around.

Mothers with their children, whose faces are twisted up in

misery, squat grasping the sides of their makeshift

shelters--which do almost nothing to keep them dry.

The torn plastic bags that make up the walls of their twig

shelters flap madly in the wind. The ground turns into a mire

of mud.

My TV crew and I run for our shelter 15m (50ft) away. All

night, the rain pounds against our ceiling. I wake up at

0300--it is still going on. The people on the other side of

our wall are still sitting, bracing themselves against the

wind and rain, where they were at dusk. This is what it is

like most nights for them.

waste

In the morning we wake up to hear the children crying. In

the makeshift hospital here, set up by foreign aid workers,

it is so crowded with the sick that some are sleeping on the

floors.

Among the stench and flies, the children lie wasted,

staring into space. Tiny human beings, who were born into the

madness of man's inhumanity to man, into the madness of a

spate of killing that has left many of their fathers,

brothers, grandparents and uncles dead.

And now, they face starvation which is cruel and slow. Most

of the children are too far gone to eat. Some have the

peeling skin and lesions that come with advanced starvation--

their skin is wrinkled, loose around their bones. The mothers

sit by powerless.

We spent two weeks in Darfur, driving through eerie, burnt-

out villages, empty of people.

We travelled to Mornay camp, where we were a month ago. On

arriving back, we went to the medical tent. It was strangely

quiet inside.

Four people were sitting in a circle. A mother was looking

down and sobbing silently, rubbing her hands on her face. I

realized I knew her. Then it slowly came to me what was going

on. Her daughter Nadia, whom we had spent two days with in

this tent a month ago, was dying.

The mother, Juma, was saying an awful goodbye.

We moved away in their private moment. Ten minutes later

Nadia was dead.

The men took her body away to prepare for the burial. Then

they emerged at the far end of the graveyard, carrying her

tiny body in their hands. They said their prayers and laid

her body in the earth.

Juma, her mother, sat on the ground. She wasn't crying any

more.

Crying to the desert

After the funeral I went to pay my respects. Juma had two

older women next to her who, perhaps through custom, were

telling her to hold her emotions in. But when she saw me,

perhaps remembering the filming we did with Nadia last month,

she started screaming ``Nadia, Nadia, Nadia''.

She fell on me, screaming, she kept screaming. She kept

repeating her daughter's name. Then the older women started

screaming too.

When Juma left the graveyard I saw her walking away on her

own, sobbing and crying her child's name out into the breeze

of the vast desert, into the nothingness of the camp.

Donkeys, half starved themselves, moved around slowly.

Refugees continued collecting water and fixing their huts.

This happens here every day.

Darfur is in a nightmare that is alive here today and

perhaps somewhere else tomorrow. Racial and tribal tensions,

and regional disquiet, have erupted into a war where the

civilians are being punished, killed and abused.

We are adults, this is the world we live in and accept. The

world we have created for ourselves.

Will these things still happen in Africa a century from

now? Will it ever change? Why are massacres of civilians

allowed to happen in Sudan? Why has no-one even counted the

dead?

Money is needed desperately now to save lives. But it has

gone this far in Darfur, because no-one really noticed or did

anything to stop it. Nadia did not have to die at all.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to enter into the Record ``Witness for Justice #245'' entitled My Christmas List, published on December 5, 2005, by the United Church of Christ of Cleveland, Ohio. The article eloquently written by Bernice Powell Jackson the Executive Minister of this Church on 700 Prospect Avenue in Cleveland is a fervent wish for Peace. Her wish, her prayer, is one that many of us share with her and I hope is in the hearts and on the lips of every minister, rabbi and imam when he or she stands before a congregation. Minister Jackson believes that for Christians the call to work for peace comes from the Prince of Peace. Those of other faiths, she says, are called ``by our Creator to work for a world of peace not only at this time of year, but all year long.''

Minister Jackson's first wish on her Christmas list is for peace on earth. I join with her in this wish for all of us; but I wish the God's peace especially for the least among us for these are the first victims when peace is absent. These victims are the women, the children, the child soldiers, the soldiers and their families, the poor, the invisible, the uncounted, the sick, the forgotten, and those whose dignity, even humanity, is not acknowledged--the enslaved, the trafficked, and the tortured.

Minister Jackson's second wish is for young people who are ready and willing to take up the struggle for a world of peace and justice. She states this article, number 245, is her last Witness for Justice Column. She hopes for young people like the ones who struggled for civil rights in the U.S., in the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa, in the people power struggle in the Philippines, and in Tiananmen Square in China will arise to take on the causes for which she has been such an effective advocate. Minister Jackson recognizes the struggle continues against poverty.

I join Minister Jackson in her second wish and add a second wish of my own. I wish that we will see the end of extreme poverty in our lifetime. I commend the work and advocacy of Jeffery Sachs, Bill and Melinda Gates, Bono and Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton and wish with them that childhood AIDS can be treated, that the AIDS Pandemic in Africa can be stopped, that treatable diseases that cause blindness in Africa can be eradicated and that people who are too poor to live can receive simple remedies like mosquito nets that will save 5000 children a day in Africa, clean water and enough food to flourish not just survive.

The third wish on Minister Jackson's Christmas List is for health care for every American. I join her in this wish. Ours is the richest country in the world and yet 45 million Americans cannot afford health care. Minister Jackson says the health care system is ``imploding all around us.'' It is failing us. As a nation, America can no longer afford not to have health care for all Americans. The lack of universal health care for Americans represents a failure of our government and of our priorities; both must be changed.

Finally, Minister Jackson wishes for a return of a value which she writes ``seems to be disappearing from our landscape--the value of integrity.'' Integrity she says is ``a value which can only be earned through a life of honesty, fairness, forthrightness and a commitment to the common good of all humankind. It is a value which seems to be sorely lacking in government, in politics, in media, in business, even in religion. Integrity means standing up for what is right and just and true, no matter which way the winds of the world blow. It means speaking the truth, not words of political spin . . . It means matching your words with your life. My Christmas wish is for an increase in integrity in our world.'' I join Minister Jackson in this wish with all my heart.

Witness for Justice #245, Dec. 5, 2005

My Christmas List

(By Bernice Powell Jackson)

Every year for the past eleven years I have shared my own

Christmas list with you. Most years it has included a wish

for even a day of peace in the world--when war ceases, when

domestic violence pauses, when guns are laid down in homes

and cities and nations. It hasn't happened yet, despite the

prayers and the hard work of so many of you. Nevertheless, I

believe, that those of us who are Christian are called to

work for peace by the Prince of Peace. Those of other faiths

are also called by our Creator to work for a world of peace

not only at this time of year, but all year long. So my first

wish is for peace on earth.

As I write my last Witness for Justice column, I wish for

young people who are ready and willing to take up the

leadership in the struggle for a world of peace with justice.

I am reminded that there has been no viable struggle for

justice and peace which did not include young people in the

leadership in the last century and I am sure that will be

true for this century as well. Young people were a part of

the leadership in the civil rights struggle in the U.S., in

the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa, in the people

power struggle in the Philippines, even in Tiennamin Square

in China. We need young people willing to say war is not the

answer, poverty is not the solution and racism can be no more

and to do the difficult work of making such a world a

reality. That may mean using old tried and true methods of

protest like marches and demonstrations and letter-writing,

and it might include new 21st century high-tech methods of

protest driven by the internet. We need the energy and

enthusiasm of young people in the work for peace and justice

and my Christmas wish is that each one of us who are elders

will mentor a young person to take the lead in this

millennia-old struggle.

My third wish is for health care for every American. If

there is one issue which can impact every one of us and which

can be won in the next two years, I believe it is national

health care. Simply put, the health care system is imploding

all around us. Corporations large and small know it, labor

unions know it, non-profit organizations know it, retirees

know it, those 45 million Americans with no health care

insurance know it, the medical profession knows it, and

hospital administrators know it. Even the politicians know

that the health care system we now have is not working for

any group in America except possibly the insurance industry,

but unless we DEMAND an immediate change, however,

politicians will not do anything about it until it collapses

around us. Maybe the total collapse of General Motors or

maybe the influx of Asian bird flu into the U.S. with

millions unable to afford treatment or maybe millions of

retirees losing their promised health care benefits or

millions of workers being required to pay higher and higher

deductibles will be what propels the collapse of our present-

day system, but my Christmas wish is that Americans demand

that our nation come up with national health insurance before

the system collapses not afterwards.

My wish is for a return of a value which seems to be

disappearing from our landscape--the value of integrity.

Integrity is a value which can only be earned through a life

of honesty, fairness, forthrightness and a commitment to the

common good of all humankind. It is a value which seems to be

sorely lacking in government, in politics, in media, in

business, even in religion. Integrity means standing up for

what is right and just and true, no matter which way the

winds of the world blow. It means speaking truth, not words

of political spin. It means looking out not just for oneself,

but for the whole community, especially those who are

powerless and can't stand up for themselves. It means being

willing to admit mistakes and to ask for forgiveness, knowing

that we are all human and fallible. It means matching your

words with your life. My Christmas wish is for an increase in

integrity in our world.

My Christmas wish list this year is for health and wellness

for every reader, for laughter and joy, for strength and

comfort in the days ahead. In the words of the great American

writer, Maya Angelou, ``I wouldn't take nothing for the

journey''.

The struggle continues!!!

Mr. Speaker, this Budget reconciliation spending cut bill asks those with the least to sacrifice the most, while providing the most fortunate with even more.

Today's Bill: This Budget reconciliation charade is such an affront to working and lower-income families that our nation's religious leaders have stepped in to say `enough is enough.'

The Lutheran Bishops sent a letter saying this bill is contrary to Biblical teachings.

The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church has said this reconciliation bill is ``tantamount . . . to blasphemy.''

And the Conference of Catholic Bishops have said they are ``deeply disappointed'' with this legislation, especially ``its lack of concern for children.''

The conference report before us includes a number of cuts that would hurt children, the disabled and poor Americans.

This bill picks on our most vulnerable citizens who depend on Medicare, Medicaid, SSI, child support, welfare and a host of other critical programs.

Some of the most egregious items in the conference report include:

Unfunded Welfare Policies: includes new work requirements in the TANF program without providing adequate funding for child care. According to CBO, the bill is far short of the nearly $11 billion needed to implement the new work requirements and keep child care funding even with inflation.

Cuts Child Support Enforcement: CBO tells us that the reductions in child support collections will reduce collections being sent to families by $8.4 billion over the next 10 years.

Cuts Assistance to Relatives Caring for Abused Children: the report eliminates Federal foster care payments to grandparents and other relatives with limited incomes who are caring for abused children.

Delays Assistance to the Disabled: the report delays the payment of past-due benefits to low-income disabled individuals who are eligible for back payments.

Medicaid and Medicare cuts: the legislation before us makes extraordinary cuts in Medicaid that will raise health care costs and reduce benefits for our nation's most vulnerable children and individuals. It also contains more than $6 billion of Medicare cuts, including premium increases.

Protects Special Interests: this agreement protects special interests at the expense of struggling families. Yet, the conference did not have to pursue these Dickensian cuts. It could have accepted Senate language that reduced overpayments to private insurance companies. Or it could have gone further, and completely eliminated these overpayments, which would negate the need for most of the pain and raise more than $20 billion over five years. Instead, it's gifts for the greedy, and cuts for the needy.

I don't know what the poor, elderly, disabled, and foster children have done to deserve this. And I don't know why the Republicans would wait until the wee hours of the morning, just a few days before Christmas, to show just how mean-spirited they can be.

For the Republicans to deal this heavy blow to the poorest among us at the same time they reduce taxes for the very rich is not only wrong, but it smacks of being immoral.

Future Tax cuts (February?):

The $56 billion Republican tax bill overwhelmingly benefits the very wealthy.

Nearly 50% of the benefit from the extension of capital gains and dividend rate cuts goes to households with incomes over $1 million

This tax bill grants these wealthy households an annual benefit of more than $32,000.

In contrast--Middle-income families receive only 2 percent of the benefit of the capital gains and dividend rate cuts, resulting in an average annual benefit of only $7.

So the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the middle class gets left behind. That's Republican economics.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this shameful conference report.

Mr. Speaker, there certainly was a lot of emotion in the speech given by the chairman; but I suspect in this time of the year where so many people are concerned about our sick, our poor and our disabled, that rather than being moved by the rhetoric of the Republicans, we might take a deep breath and find out who is on our side as Democrats.

I know that the poor and the aged and disabled do not have much of a political voice, but somehow in this holiday season the spiritual leaders probably understand this a little better than some of us. These are the charitable organizations that reach out, Catholic Charities, the Jewish Council Against Poverty, the Protestant Council. Each and every day they run soup kitchens and try to assist people, especially mothers that have no one in the household to assist them in raising their children.

Any specialist will tell you, if you do not give a kid the right start, you do not give them a chance to get to school, and cut the resources from under him to get an education, it is not just why can they not do it my way or why did he not get an inheritance. It is a question of where do these kids end up.

They first end up not paying much taxes since they do not have the talents to get a job; but worse than that, in New York we spend $84,000 for every kid who gets in trouble who finds himself on Ryker's Island, and I do not think you have to be a health specialist to know that when you cut the ability of people to get access to health care, they do not necessarily die right away. More often than not, they end up at the most expensive of expenditures, and that is in our hospitals.

I do not know what the poor and the disabled have ever done to the majority or, indeed, what the moral majority, why they would wait until Christmastime to show just how mean they can get. Even if they cannot control this meanness, why would they do it at a time when they have given hundreds of billions of dollars of tax cuts to the very wealthy?

I am not that good spiritually, but know my friends on the other side of the aisle that are so concerned with the Bible and biblical phrases, there is one thing somewhere, and I do not know all of the facts as is properly recorded, but it deals with a bunch of rich people that could not get in heaven because they had not treated the lesser of Jesus' brothers and sisters the way he would want. I have never seen a more classic example of the violation of that spirit than what I have seen in the last couple of weeks on this floor.

So you can raise your voice all you want, you can scream about spending, but it just seems to me that there are no religious leaders that I can think of that feel they have an obligation to take care of those people who are in the hospital, who are hungry, who are without clothes, who are without food, and certainly the children who are really the least powerful of all, if you had to do it, why do you not just do what you do in conference and come out and say that we authorized it? But to have this heavy blow at a time when you are reducing the taxes on the very rich is not only wrong, but it smacks of being immoral.

This is the wrong thing to do. This is the wrong time to do it, and it is something that I am confident is not in accord with the moral teachings or the spiritual beliefs of anyone in this body.

What you are doing is saying that you have to cut spending. Why can Iraq not get on that list of not wanting to spend? Why can we not just slow down the rebuilding of Baghdad and rebuild the health of some of our people and the schools of some of our people? Why can we not invest in Americans and make them the most productive people that we can make? Why do you pick on the most vulnerable in Medicare, which the other side is probably going to hit as badly as we hit Medicaid?

What are these programs? The programs are listed as SSI. What does it mean, you have to be blind, disabled or aged? Medicare, you have to be old and sick? Medicaid, you have to be poor and sick? The programs are designed to bring the moneys to the mothers who have been abandoned or just for children, and the other one is education.

Is there anyone that you missed, the sick, the poor, the young? Is there anyone else that you want to include that programs should be cut? I might also add, with capital gains tax cuts and corporate dividend tax cuts, is there anyone that is rich that you missed in terms of not giving a tax cut?

What a combination package you have given to the American people and what a time to do it. So whether you call it Christmas or holiday seasons or Chanukah or whether you call it Kwanzaa, you sure picked the right time to hit the wrong people at this time of the year.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My colleagues, I do not know how the majority gets away with what they do. I do not think that their legislative initiatives are just for the legislation, but rather to do away with traditions that have existed under Democrat administrations.

If you have an immigration problem, lock up the immigrants and lock up the employers. If you have a health problem, then get rid of Medicaid and Medicare and let the private sector resolve the problems. If you have a prescription drug problem and you want to subsidize that and help out the older people, do not let the Federal Government do it. Give the money to the private sector; let them compete and let them do it. The Social Security system, if people have relied on their government when they get older or disabled, do not let the government be involved. Get some private accounts and let them do it.

Now we are talking about how well the economy is doing: plants are closing; people are fearful of losing their jobs; pension plans are going busted; and, really, people do not feel nearly as good as the Republicans and the President think.

Now we have a bill before us where these pension plans would be a heck of a lot better if we did nothing, rather than do the harm that we are about to do to them. The demands that are going to be made on employers to reach sometimes the increase of 240 percent in making contributions to these plans will cause many of them to drop the plan and go into bankruptcy. The whole idea of how much revenue we are going to lose, some $70 billion, is not even an issue, if at the end of the day enough sweetheart nips and tucks were given to a handful of people so that we would be assured that the days of defined benefit pensions are just about over.

Some people will have to make political choices today in terms of support of this because there are some vested interest people that need short-gain satisfaction. But at the end of the day, the same way people regret their votes for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, they will have to come back and ask did they do more damage than good on today. If you look at actuaries and people who have studied this, they realize that so few pensions are now protected by the PBGC, and in the future many less will be protected.

So, Madam Speaker, these bills are not brought up just to become law. Many of the bills that are coming to this floor are brought to see which people are going to vote against the title of the bill and pay a price for that at the polls, or whether some are secure enough to vote against the substance of the bill that in the long term is going to adversely affect our workers.

At this time with the House permission, I would like to turn the balance of my time over to Congressman Ben Cardin from Maryland who has spent a lot of time on pensions and can share with the House the pitfalls that we have in this bill before the House today.

I yield the balance of my time to Congressman Cardin.

Mr. Speaker, a few years ago, several of my colleagues and I voiced our concerns about glaucoma and its devastating affects to Mr. Stanley Grant. What I will present today is the outcome of that encounter. I am pleased to share with this distinguished body the outstanding work of a responsive and caring citizen, Mr. Stanley J. Bud Grant. Mr. Grant is the President and CEO of the Friends of the Congressional Glaucoma Caucus Foundation. His leadership has brought to this endeavor the vision, the energy and the enthusiasm that has led the Foundation to achieve considerable success. As one of the Founding Members of the Congressional Glaucoma Caucus, a non-partisan body, I have observed the work of the foundation, first hand, and have watched the Congressional Glaucoma Caucus grow to more than 80 Members.

The mission of the Foundation is to serve as the action arm of the Congressional Glaucoma Caucus by providing free glaucoma and vision screenings for at risk groups in congressional districts throughout our beloved country. Screenings for diabetes and hypertension, both risk factors for glaucoma, are documented in the family history, with these screenings frequently being incorporated into the screening protocol.

The emphasis has been on glaucoma screenings since this dreaded eye disease affects more than 3,000,000 Americans and is a silent thief of sight. It can attack children, but is more commonly seen in the later years. Far too many of our people go blind from this disease without even knowing they had it. The true tragedy is that their sight could have been preserved if they had been screened and the disease caught in the early stages. Picture if you will, the boundless joy that the patient and the staff experience when sight is saved.

Since 2001, more than 82,000 men and women from all walks of life have been screened. The early signs of glaucoma were detected in 11,500 individuals. Another 13,000

had vision problems other than glaucoma. Equally important was the fact that 57,000 were given the good news that no eye disease was detected.

One outstanding initiative has been the Student Sight Savers Program. Through this project grants have been awarded to 46 medical schools and teaching hospitals across the country. The aim is to expose medical students to a clinical specialty, ophthalmology in their earlier years of medical school. Through this community service initiative, medical students across the country have screened as many as a quarter of the patients.

We, thus bear witness to a man and his dream. A dream we shared. He joined with many of my colleagues, and myself in seeking to preserve the sight of our people. He convinced glaucoma specialists, other experts and a team of volunteers to follow his lead. Mr. Grant also had the unwavering and committed support of his wife, Mrs. Eleanor Beers Grant. She not only lent him encouragement, but she became quite active in the affairs of the Foundation.

In his indefatigable pursuit, he challenges all of us to match his efforts. He is, moreover, sensitive to the cultural strands of our great nation and the need to seek out and care for those who lack health care services. He has taken his staff on mobile vans into what would be considered inaccessible areas.

This great body has honored many a deserving individual. I am extremely proud to offer a special tribute and recognize Stanley J. Bud Grant for all that he has done and will continue to do on behalf of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman picked a heck of a time to lose his voice here now.

I am terribly sorry. I will take it up then when we have the opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get technical about this. I just want to set the record straight, and that is that we all agree that the alternative minimum tax is an unfair tax on people because it was not planned by the Ways and Means Committee and by the Congress. So, of course, we thought yesterday and we think today that these people, who through inflation were thrown into this category, should be protected. And that is why we were so disappointed that the Republicans, by party line, rejected the Democrats when we were doing the bill in the committee from not being included in the reconciliation bill.

Now, we all know that the bill that we passed yesterday on the suspension calendar is not protected like this $56 billion is protected today. As a matter of fact, people should know that it may appear to be a technicality, but the only way that this alternative minimum release bill that we passed yesterday in the suspension calendar is that not one of the 100 Senators over there objects. We need the consent of every Senator to provide the AMT bill with protection. That is not so. If the Republicans were so concerned about these people who got caught into this trap in getting the alternative minimum tax treatment, it would be placed in the reconciliation bill.

So I do not think you ought to bring up things when the facts are against you. It is true that you have decided that those people who want relief on capital gains taxes and corporate dividends, even though they do not get hit until 2009, that you are prepared to have the people who get by the AMT this year or next year, rather, in their tax burden to get hit at the expense of those people that are much richer and much smaller in number.

So I really think that in this holiday season, we are doing enough damage without distorting the truth. You have had your priorities in terms of protecting the AMT people or protecting the group that is going to be allegedly protected today, even though they do not need any, not today, not next year, and not the year after.

So those are the facts, and I thank the gentlewoman from New York for affording us the opportunity to at least, in this holiday season, whether we like the bill or not, let truth prevail.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to join with the Republicans to send this holiday message to millions of Americans that will be affected by this bill, especially to the fraction of 1 percent that would be the beneficiaries of a substantial reduction in capital gains and corporate dividends. It is true, while this only represents 20 to 25 percent of the bill, it should be made abundantly clear that these benefits would not be effective until sometime in 2009 and 2010.

Now, I am here on the floor to try to get people to understand that this tax cut for the rich is really to grow the economy, and I want to make it clear to those people who have lost their jobs and not counted among the unemployed, those that are looking at automobile plants closing and airlines going bankrupt, that basically the economy is good, and it is good because the President told us so. And if they do not think that we are moving forward fast enough, then they ought to really listen to the President as he shares with us the great economic recovery that has happened in Iraq, and if they are just a little patient, things will get better here in the United States.

Now, we all know that whenever we give this type of tax cut that there is going to be a tremendous revenue loss, and in the last few days, that revenue loss has been something like $100 billion. But fear not, because we are not charging all of this to the deficit. It is true that as the deficit increases more than history ever expected under this administration, that soon 40 percent of the tax revenues that we get will be going just to pay the interest on this outstanding debt, and that is why our Republican friends believe that we just cannot expand the deficit, that we have to cut spending.

Now, they have looked all over to the to decide where to do the cutting. And in this holiday season, I just want to join them in letting people know where these cuts are going to take place. But I do not want people to worry about it because the President says that the economy is booming and the Republicans here say that the tax cuts for

the rich is for economic growth. So how can one be against that formula?

First of all, if one is a mother trying to raise her children and she got support from the local and State government to go after the father, or whatever the case may be, to get that money to take care of her and her family, not to worry, that this is going to be cut and she will not be able to get the money because under this bill, whether people know it or not, it is for economic growth.

Say you are considering using food stamps for your Christmas meal. You find out that the food stamps are going to be cut. Not to worry, because soon there will be economic growth.

Maybe you are just a student trying to get a student loan, and you really think that you should get some help from your government because, after all, we want you to be productive and make a contribution to society. Not to worry, these tax cuts are for economic growth.

What I do not understand, with all of the opportunity that we have had to take care of economic growth, why do we wait until this time of the season and target the least among us in order to do the budget cuts?

It is not as though we do not have $2 or $3 billion in terms of expenses in Iraq, which if you did not know lately, you should know that victory is in sight and we are winning that too. So we do not want you to lose confidence in all of government. If you find out that this bill rewards the richest of the people in the United States whose income is not going to be adversely affected, or their tax is adversely affected for 3 or 4 years, but we have to do something to target the poor today, then you have to have some trust in the Republicans, because they say we have got to have victory in war, we have got to grow the economy, and this is the best thing that ever happened to you.

Now, the Democrats are not just saying vote ``no.'' We will have an opportunity for Members to vote ``yes.'' And unlike the Republicans, we thought enough of the alternative minimum tax to include it in reconciliation. What does that mean? It means it is protected when it gets over to the other side, so we did not have to depend on 100 Senators sitting down and not objecting. It is in our bill. All of the good things that can come out of a bill, we have included, including relief for those people that have State taxes.

And so, my friends in this holiday season, you may find it very difficult if you are unemployed, if you are concerned about the economy, or the cuts that we have, including Medicaid, which is only a $10 billion cut, but you must trust the majority and the Republicans in this House, because they, like the President of the United States, say the economy is booming. We are going to have victory in the Middle East, and this is going to make it easier for you, if not today, if not tomorrow, then sometime in the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say briefly, if the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee is saying that the alternative minimum tax is in the other body's bill, then he must be saying that the tax cuts that we are talking about today are not in the other body's bill.

So it is 3-card Molly. The House Republicans passed both of them, one on the Suspension Calendar that is not protected here, but is protected in the other body; and this bill which provides for relief for the taxes for corporate dividends and capital gains, which is protected in our bill, but is not in their bill.

And so what we are doing is shooting dice to see which one will prevail.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman just one question on my time.

These very important tax cuts or extension of tax cuts you are talking about, could you share with me as simply as possible as to when they expire, what year?

The tax cut that we are talking about is the $20 billion in capital gains and corporate dividends. Does that not expire in 2009?

Don't get rattled.

It is just a simple question. Because there seems to be some degree of urgency in this and unless it is a projected gift, then these things don't expire this year or next year.

Please.

I think the gentleman has answered the question. There is no urgency in this. You just want to give a projected Christmas gift to the very wealthy. So I need some help on this. If I can't get answers from you, I will get someone that can give answers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) to answer some of these important questions, a distinguished and acknowledged expert in this on the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) to give a rhetorical response to the chairman's question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am so glad to hear my friend from Florida talk about the economic growth that we can expect by making certain that the capital gains tax cut and the corporate dividend tax cut do not expire. What bewilders most people is that this does not expire until 2008. Nobody would be adversely affected until 2009, and unless the gentleman does not believe he will be in the majority in the next few years, I do not see why he would have to say that people who are out of work, who are looking for work, who have lost their pension should believe that this tax cut that will continue to 2009 is going to help them.

But maybe the gentleman from Mississippi, who understands that not many of his constituents are going to understand this, might clarify some of the problems we have.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), who really knows what economic growth should be.

Mr. Speaker, I had an old law professor, and he once told me, if you don't have the facts going for you, raise your voice. I never understood it, but I do now.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) to share with us what economic growth means to him under this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), a distinguished Member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, having only one speaker remaining, until the other side reaches that point.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).

(Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we have now come to the conclusion of this debate, and I want my colleagues to know that if you are looking for some of the things that are worthwhile that are in the majority's bill, we have an opportunity in the substitute to take care of it. But if you really believe this is the time for America to give a $20 billion tax cut to these people who will not be affected until 2009, why would they want to give this incentive to less than 5 percent, 1 percent of the richest people that we have in our country, and do it in this Christmas season?

So you have an alternative. You can take care of the wealthy in years ahead, since this does not expire this year, or you can do what they have not done and that is to take care of those people who find themselves subjected to an alternative minimum tax only because the majority has not seen fit to give them relief in a decade. And so as this number has increased, instead of taking care of them in the bill that is before us, they have decided to just send a message over there to tell the Senate if you would like, by unanimous consent, and if no one objects, then you can take care of the AMT problem.

We do not do this as Democrats. We take care of it up front. We take care of the military, we take care of those people from Hurricane Katrina, and we take care of the job credits that are important. We take care of those things that are important in our substitute.

In this holiday season, we really do not believe that you ought to take $10 billion out of health care for the poorest people in this country. We do not

believe that you should, in order to pay for this bill, that you should cut food stamps. We do not believe that students that have been getting help from this great government of ours should be adversely affected to pay for this tax cut.

So we ask you to really consider in this holiday season these families that have kids in foster care, these families that are having their benefits not being received because we are letting them down. You just weigh this and ask, is there any equity involved in this? If you want to give these tax cuts, why do you not wait until the thing expires? Perhaps we will have a new Congress. Perhaps there will be new equity. Perhaps it can be discussed. Perhaps the committee members, Democrats and Republicans, would come together and find out not what is just good for the wealthy, but what is good for the strength of this great Nation of ours.

One of the greatest threats to our national security is poverty. One of the greatest threats to our national security is the inability to get an education. The people who died in Hurricane Katrina did not die because of their color. The hurricane was color blind. But they died because they were poor. Why can we not invest and make certain that all Americans, black and white, Republicans and Democrats, can this holiday season say Congress did the right thing and not the political thing?

Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we have a Democrat substitute that really is not in sharp conflict with the Republican bill. Many things we tried and include and did suggest in the brief time we had to work on this bill. Basically, what we have done, though, is to pay more attention to the middle class that really are the victims of the alternative minimum tax than we pay attention to the richest of America who do not find their Republican tax cuts being threatened until 2009. Why did we do this? Is it merely a technicality? It is a very important difference.

Yes, we voted on the Suspension Calendar to provide relief for these people, not as much as we do in our substitute; but people have to understand the Suspension Calendar in the House is not protected under the other body's rules. They protected those people that they wanted to protect, those enjoying capital gains and will continue to enjoy capital gains and corporate dividend tax cuts until 2009. Why would they not include right in this bill, that would be protected on the other side, I do not know their political reasons.

But I do know this: what we refuse to do is to give tax cuts that would extend the deficit. We do not do that to generations that follow. Nor do we hit the poor who are sick or the kids that want to go to school or the foster kids or those kids that are dependent on money from their fathers who have abandoned their mothers. We do not do it in this season, nor do we do it anytime, because there is a difference in what we believe in.

I am suggesting this: if Members support the substitute, you are supporting deductions for State and local taxes, real estate taxes, the deduction for college tuition, the research credit they talk about that we agree is so important, the work opportunity tax credit, tax incentives for the District of Columbia and for Indian reservations, 15-year depreciation period for leasehold improvements and restaurant improvements, qualified zone academic bonds, the brownfields cleanups, and several other important, but minor, provisions.

What I am suggesting is that the major decision of those of you who will have to vote is whether or not you want to give $20 billion of tax relief to people who would not need it until 2009 at the expense not only of the deficit but at the expense of the poorest among us; or whether you want to take the good things that we could find in this bill, not increase the deficit and not cut the programs for the poor, and have a Democratic substitute that makes sense to the American people and, hopefully, to the House of Representatives.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

There must be some chart around to show how many people were pushed into poverty during that same period of time and our wages have been reduced, but we have it in the back if any of our Members would like to use it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a distinguished Member of our Ways and Means Committee.

(Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), an outstanding member of this committee who truly understands the problem of the deficit.

(Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I have all the respect for the majority leader, and it is true that he knows some of these people that have gone from upper middle income to become higher-income people, and there are other people in this country that have seen middle-income people slip into the rolls of poverty. So in order to have a more well-balanced bill, we concentrated on the middle class by putting the alternative minimum tax into

this bill to make certain that when it gets to the body, it is protected and we do not have to depend on just one of those people over there rejecting it for this higher tax cut, which, of course, does not adversely affect anybody, as the majority leader said, until 2009.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), a hardworking member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

(Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my distinguished friend from New York (Mr. Reynolds) that the Republicans did send a signal to protect the alternative minimum tax. We want to do a lot more.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), who can explain the difference between what you want to do and what we want to do in this substitute.

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson- Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to yield the remaining time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) to close on our side, who represents the minority at this historic time.

Parliamentary inquiry.

Does the gentleman from California? A parliamentary inquiry is no longer the Speaker's responsibility?

Well, I just wanted to know how many closing speakers they had.

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

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

(Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Well, Mr. Speaker, you can take away our right to go to conference, our right to amend bills, but one thing you cannot take away is our right to vote. We have a game called 3 Card Molly in New York. You never know which one is under the shell. So they have an opportunity to say that they want to help the wealthiest Americans, but they like to give a whole lot of talk to those people who, through no fault of their own, except the ineptness and the inability of the Republicans to correct it, they got caught in the alternative minimum tax. Now, they will scream out that they took care of it on the suspension bill. Well, you do not have to be a parliamentarian to know when you send something to that other side and put it on the suspension calendar, you had better send a prayer over with it because any one guy can stand up and say I object.

But when you cover it because you believe in it and put it in the reconciliation bill, it means that is what you really want to do. At the end of the

day, when we vote, all we are saying is, we ask the conferees, whenever they might meet, that they are instructed by this House to take care of those who really deserve the tax privilege the most. Take care of those who were not really thrown into this thing because of increased income, but were thrown into the alternative minimum tax that was not supposed to capture them, but they got there because of inflation.

In 3 Card Molly, you do not know what is going to happen. But we will know at the end of this vote something that John Lewis knows that they said in the civil rights movement, and that is, which side are you on? What a great opportunity. Take away everything you want. Take away our votes, our opportunity to express ourselves, give us rules that you like to give us. But, on this vote, at the end of the day, people might ask how did you treat the alternative minimum tax? Some people might say, well, it did come up in the House. It was not important enough to put in the reconciliation bill and it was not important enough to allow a lot of debate. We put it on the suspension calendar because it was not paid for and we did not think it would be controversial. And so, with all of the debate, what is going to happen when you get back home is did you protect those that were most vulnerable. Forget about the poor. Forget about the rich that you are giving the incentives to. Just ask, on this one thing, no matter what happens in conference, where was the alternative minimum tax protected? It is protected in our motion to recommit.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I agree with my friend and the gentleman from New York that the alternative minimum tax was not created to put this undue burden on middle class income people. But I would like to suggest to him as a member of the awesome and powerful Committee on Ways and Means, and former member of the Committee on Rules, that suspension of the rules were not meant for bills like this.

I think it takes a little bit of arrogance to put hundreds of billions of dollars of tax cuts on the suspension calendar, which does not give us an opportunity to see whether we can bring the relief that these taxpayers deserve in a more equitable way. It just seems to me that we had an opportunity to take care of this tax that for many, many years has been threatening the full fiscal load on taxpayers that it was not intended for, but somehow the leadership did not put this in the tax reconciliation bill. It did not include it with their bill to reduce corporate gains tax or the capital gains tax or the corporate dividends tax.

Why would Republicans do something like this? Well, maybe it is because they do not really think the Senate is going to take it up. Maybe this is just a fig leaf for not having the courage to say that this thing is going to cost a trillion dollars if it is going to be permanently removed, and as of now, it is going to cost $33 billion.

I think the American people ought to know that this is either going to cut deeper into the social programs that the very poor have had taken away from them, or it is going to increase the deficit by an additional $33 billion. In any event, I am more than confident that my able colleague from the State of New York and a part of the leadership of the majority party will make it abundantly clear to us that when we all vote for this, that not only have we got some guarantee that it is going to pass the Senate, but we will not cut any further into the $35 billion that is in the real tax bill that came to the floor.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is my impression that we are just going through this for political reasons. The Senate is not going to take it up. The deficit will be increased by $30 billion, but I would encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill because it certainly has more merit. We never intended for these people to get caught in this, but somehow capital gains and corporate dividends have a higher priority and so this suspension bill will turn slowly in the wind, but I do not know how much support we expect to get from the President or from the majority leadership on this. But we shall see what we shall see.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a very distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to congratulate the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) for the fine work they have done for these people who got caught in this political fiscal trap. What the gentleman from New York, however, my colleague, does not know is that he is not answering the questions that we are asking. It is not that we do not support this bill. It is why did it not get the same protection as the capital gains bill or the same protection as the corporate dividends bill? Why do you have this bill turning slowly on the wind on the suspension calendar when you could have sent it to the Senate with protection?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), the person that was described by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) as his partner in a bipartisan way, a very distinguished member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I just want to point out, since we all are singing the same song as to how these taxpayers were pushed by inflation into this difficult situation, the question that we are raising on the floor, to make it abundantly clear, is what are the Republicans' priorities for relief? We had an opportunity to have $70 billion to give relief. This problem has been gnawing at all of us to do the right and equitable thing. It was not included in the Republican reconciliation bill. In fact, it was rejected when offered in the full committee by the Democrats.

So I can see the awkward political position that you find yourselves; and you know from the bottom of my heart, I sympathize with your political dilemma, not only in this area but in many other areas. But the question still remains, by putting it under the suspension calendar and sending it over to the other body, it does not have the same protection as the bill that you really want to make certain is there, and that is capital gains tax cuts and corporate dividends tax cuts.

So all we are trying to say as the minority party is that we thought there was a better way to do it to protect these people, not to put it on the suspension calendar, which limits the debate, which restricts the Democrats in trying to improve upon it, but to put it on a road that could be a road to nowhere. There are no protections on this bill when it reaches the other body. And we really, truly believe that this is serious enough, and having this cloud over hardworking voters, you should have given it a priority rather than just to put it on the suspension calendar without the legislative process protection that you have given to other issues.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, certainly we agree on the substance of the bill. But you do not have to blindfold the American people to say that you did not give it the same protection as you have given other tax priorities.

Let's face it, the $56 billion tax cut bill that you are going to bring up later, we know how you pay for that. You pay for it by going after the most vulnerable people that we have in the United States by cutting these social services. The rest of it goes into the deficit. So why will somebody not have the courage to say where are we going to get the $33 billion for this? I am certain that Americans are prepared to make the sacrifice because, after all, this was an unintentional event by Republicans and Democrats, unintentional by liberals and conservatives. So we all agree with that.

All I am saying to the distinguished member of the committee from Florida is that you know when we send this, it could be on the road to nowhere, not paid for. And unless you intend to ask the Senate to cut further in social services, it means that you have agreed on the concept, but you did not give it the same priority or the same legislative protection.

And you say you would like to see it abolished forever. Well, I guess with your lack of respect for the deficit, another $1 trillion, we can do that. So bring it on. Include it with the war cause, which is $6 billion a month. I mean, if there is no respect for anything, if we cannot work together as Republicans and Democrats and try to consider what our priorities are, but to come up in the middle of the night and say do I have a gimmick for you, we will put it on the suspension calendar, nobody is going to vote against it and whatever happens in the Senate happens, that is not the way we are supposed to legislate. Democrats and Republicans are supposed to work together and try to work out their differences before we send things over to the other body.

There is not one Member on the other side of the aisle that can say that there is any way they are going to do both, their priority bill in terms of capital gains cuts, their cuts in corporate dividends, and this bill too, and fix it and put it into reconciliation.

We did not put it into reconciliation. Why do you think that they are going to take your priority bill?

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

How many names do you want as to why we don't do it again? I can tell you why we don't. We on this side would welcome the opportunity. I don't think that the general public and the voters like to see us fighting each other.

But there has not been one issue that the Republicans would allow us to work with them on. And further to that, even when you have your conferences, you know and I know Democrats are excluded from it. So if you and I were trying to work together, I am certain that we could.

But you and I don't call the shots around here, Mr. Shaw, and that is unfortunate.