Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the work of the Full Circle Life Enrichment Center (FCLEC) located in the Bronx, New York.

Founded in 1999 by Derek Suite, MD, the FCLEC serves as a non-profit faith-based community mental health education and training center. The center is dedicated to destigmatizing attitudes towards mental health problems, increasing access to mental healthcare and helping to empower families that deal with life's challenges. Problems such as depression, anxiety, unemployment, domestic violence, trauma, marital conflict, drug use, HIV/AIDS, asthma, diabetes, racial disparities, homelessness, and unemployment have become steadily more pressing over the past decade. This organization has contributed valuable resources to the Bronx community and has set an exceptional example of service.

Full Circle has again and again demonstrated its commitment to compassion by offering over 50 workshops in 2003 that addressed some of the most troubling trends in urban communities such as the rise in depression, domestic violence, marital conflict, drug use, HIV/AIDS, asthma, heart diseases, diabetes, racial disparities, homelessness, and unemployment. These seminars bring together leading urban health care experts and educators who share a strong belief in a spiritually- sensitive approach to tackling the most pervasive of inner-city concerns.

Full Circle has positively affected over 10,000 lives, and its impact has spread hope in people's lives. Once again, let us as a body commend the efforts of Full Circle and acknowledge publicly the contribution of this organization.

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

I would like to join in the bipartisan request that we try to work this out. The request sounds like a drunk going to an Alcoholic Anonymous meeting, saying just give me one more drink and I will not do it again. But there has to be a program involved in joining with my colleagues in this bipartisan approach, and we have a program and that is pay-as-you-go.

My colleagues cannot help themselves with spending. They think they have a credit card with no limit on it. They go to the richest of their friends and they tell them, they do not ask for it, that they are going to give them a $1 trillion tax cut. Then when they ask, well, where are we going to get the money, do not worry about it, we will increase the debt ceiling, we will just borrow some money.

Who are we borrowing the money from? The Japanese and the Chinese. What kind of patriotism is that? What kind of bipartisanship do my colleagues want for that?

The truth is every day for the next 2 years we are going to be dealing with the moral issues that encompass this Congress and this country, and the quicker my colleagues try to explain how they can take a surplus projected at $5.6 trillion and then come up and waste it and come up with a deficit of $3 trillion, the quicker they can see that the interest on this debt is going to be larger than the things that they talk about in the Koran, in the Bible or in the Torah and all of those things. That is, talking about education and health care and help your fellow man and let us not help the high rollers that my colleagues try to do.

So we are prepared to work in a bipartisan way. If a creditor wants to try to help someone that just could not control the spending, the first thing they do is get a plan. We will give my colleagues plenty of opportunity to be bipartisan by saying pay-as-you-go. Do not stop everything. Do not hurt the aged. Do not hurt Social Security. Do not hurt Medicare. We know how compassionate they feel about those issues, but do not get us involved in anymore debt unless you have some kind of a cockamamie plan to get us out of the mess that you put us in.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) for the purposes of control, who has a true understanding of patriotism and compassion and moral values, and take notes because my colleagues are going to be hearing a lot about this.

Madam Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) not for what he does for our party or for the Congress, but what he does for our great country.

I would like to talk about the question of morality, the responsibility of government. And some may say, well, what has that got to do with the debt ceiling? Well, it would seem to me that if people would look at the responsibility of our government as relates to spending, to believe that we have a credit card, because that is what we do, we are borrowing money, and that the head of our household was borrowing money but not letting anybody know what he was doing, that would be irresponsible and immoral.

It seems to me that if we had a head of a company that inherited a $5.6 trillion surplus and then when we went to look at the books found out that he wasted $9 trillion and had a $2.6 trillion indebtedness, that that person may not

be impeached but certainly would be fired from the job.

Some might say that they do not really feel the pain of borrowing. And I guess irresponsible heads of households really do not feel the pain of borrowing. Imagine how good it might feel to somebody to be given a credit card and to be told they do not have a limit on what they spend; or to feel that they do not have to tell the American people what they are spending and what they are borrowing; or to be able to say, well, it does not make any difference, I will hide it in a bill and they will not ask me any questions; or to believe that the best way to run the country is to give a $1 trillion or a $2 trillion decrease in taxes to those people who are in the highest income tax bracket. Suppose those people knew that in order to do this that you would have to borrow the money in order to please a small group of people?

To get back to the questions of moral values, is it morally right to spend money, to give tax cuts, knowing that the Social Security System, where we made a moral and political and legal contract with the American people, promising that if they lived long enough or if they had disabilities or if they survived a tragedy that that system would be there for them? Is it fair to leave that system so insecure that young people now have no idea whether it is going to be there for them, when that money could have been used to shore up the Social Security System so that we would be fulfilling a moral promise to these people rather than fulfilling a political obligation to supporters?

To talk about moral values, if you knew that 45 million Americans, most of whom work every day and had no health insurance, what would be more important morally, to provide for the health care of human beings, Americans, or to give a tax cut?

Let us talk about moral values in terms of education, to make a person more productive, to make a person have self-esteem, to make a person want to get married and have a family. Is that not moral values? Is it more important to give a tax cut and to borrow money to do that than to make certain that every kid in America has a chance to fulfill whatever their brains would allow them to do because they had access to education?

What about our old folks? Getting old is getting to be a problem just in maintaining one's health because of the cost of prescription drugs. They let you get to a doctor, but you cannot even afford to do what the doctor is suggesting that you do. You do not have to be religious to understand that if you had the money to provide national health care prescription drugs, the moral thing to do is to help those who have not got and to say God already blessed the wealthy. Those are moral values, to be able to do that.

It just seems to me that the most irresponsible thing to do is to borrow the money and to know that you will never pay for it, to borrow the money and to know that the interest rates are going to fall on your children, not you. You will enjoy the benefit of supporting the war and giving the tax cuts and rewarding all of the lobbyists, but the people who pay for it are not just today's taxpayers, not just today's children, but the unborn are born with this debt on their heads. It will be hard to explain to them what happened in this Congress, what happened in this Presidency, what happened in this era that caused us to believe that we knew so much about the economy that we could go into debt $14 trillion and say, let our kids pay for it. Is that the moral thing to do?

Madam Speaker, it is not the political thing to do, it is not the moral thing to do, but that seems to be what is so important. The President would have us believe that he may not be right all the time, but we know where he stands. How are we going to know where he stands if his party does business in the middle of the night? How are we going to know where he stands if we cannot even find out what the interest on the debt is going to be?

And let me say this. Every household plans for what they have to spend, and it is difficult to explain this in terms of trillions of dollars, but what if you knew as the head of a household that you had this credit card, that you could buy anything that you wanted on this credit card and not pay for it? But every month the credit company will be sending you a bill, and it will show you what the service charge is going to be, what the penalty is going to be, or in our case what the interest is going to be.

And what would happen in this household, I ask the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), if you looked at your bill and you looked at what you had to pay and you found out that in 10 years the interest that you are paying on the money that you borrowed exceeded all of your budgetary responsibility for clothing, for health care, for rent or mortgage, except for one issue?

And that is where in 10 years this great country of ours will be; that the interest that we are paying on the debt that grows 50 percent faster than the economy will reach the point that it would exceed all of our discretionary expenditures, with the exception of defense.

Which means what? It means that Republicans and others can say I supported Social Security, but the money was not there. I wanted to do more with education, but the money was not there. I want health to be improved, but the money is not there. And at the end of the day they may have succeeded in breaking our responsibility as a government for every social program that we have and the only item that would receive priority would be defense and supporting the war.

Madam Speaker, I think that this type of thinking really violates our national security because Americans should know who are we borrowing the money from, who do we owe this money to, and how mean can we be in disagreements we have with people whom we owe money to. How angry can we get with the bank if we know they can foreclose? And the people who are lending this money are foreigners. It is not as though in the last 4 years we have made a lot of friends with foreigners, but they thought they were making a lot of money off our interest. And as the interest goes up, we would like to believe that we can borrow more money from them.

But, guess what, one of the biggest purchasers of our debt is the People's Republic of China. A large chunk of the money that we owe to foreigners is to China. And whom do we have a problem with in terms of trade? The People's Republic of China. So what do we say as a great nation and lead organization of the World Trade Organization? We told China if they do not do what we tell them to do in terms of fairness and equity as relates to international trade, we will not do business with them. We want them to reevaluate how they deal with their currency. We want them to be fair and not dump their goods and have us lose jobs.

And China would say to us, suppose we do not do any of those things? What are you going to do? What are you going to do to the bank that you owe money to? Suppose they unload that debt and let it flow out in the market, suppose we cannot borrow any more money, then we have to appease the people that we owe.

Madam Speaker, it would be ironic that because of our hunger and our thirst to borrow, our irresponsible need to support tax cuts for the rich, our complete disregard for the health, education and welfare of our people, who brings us to our feet is the communists, not because of their guns, weapons and power but because they understood the capitalist system so well that they defeated the strongest capitalistic country that God has ever seen.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for just sharing with the American people the economic and fiscal policy that we are directing. I hope that some of the people who are as concerned as we are with moral values would recognize that far more important than just fiscal policy is how do we treat the American people that have needs. We owe them an education, a place to live, aspirations and health care, and it would be a shame if we are paying China more than we are paying for health care.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for giving me this opportunity to say what a moral pleasure it is for me, with the Committee on Ways and Means, in working with you in trying

to get the people to understand that we are not trying to beat up on Republicans. We just want them to tell the American people what they intend to do, not in the middle of the night, not locked up in some omnibus bill, but to come here and challenge anything that has been said tonight. We will not see them, because too many people are watching. I hate to believe this will follow the pattern where at 2 in the morning they will have a bill and it will pass by one vote.

Madam Speaker, I think most New York Members in the Congress probably have more self-esteem than we need in order to negotiate ourselves around this Congress, but my friend from upper New York is really better than all of us because he is telling us what is involved in a 600-page bill that has just been filed 5 minutes ago. Now that is extraordinary.

What is not extraordinary is that the leadership on the Republican side are using an extraordinary provision to avoid the rules, which only say that the Members of Congress ought to know what the gentleman from New York knows. He knows everything that is in the bill. Members of the Congress ought to know what is in the bill. They should understand the feeling of fishing tackles, and bows and arrows, and tax credits for animal manures. They should be able to understand how you are taking away charitable contribution, how we are converting the collection of taxes from the Internal Revenue Service to private corporations. They should understand that we are putting $42 billion in tax credits to allow our jobs to be exported overseas, which is something that we were trying so desperately hard not to do.

Martial law? How would the people understand what we are doing here? What are we rushing off to do? The bill costs $140 billion. They will come and say to us that it is paid for. Well, how are we to argue that if we do not have a bill to see how you pay for it? And the truth of the matter is, they call it paid for, but it is called phase-ins, it is called delaying the time it comes into operation, it is called sunsetting. There are so many things in this bill that, if they were so proud of it, they should let us know.

He called the bill FSC. FSC is a short-term expression of foreign service corporations in which we have been alleged by the World Trade Organization that we give some $70 billion in tax subsidies to exporters. What does it really mean? We could have really made ourselves look good in the eyes of the world by adding the $70 billion and, if we wanted, give a cut. Instead, we spend twice that much for items that are so unrelated to the bill in front of us. The bill is so bad that the Secretary Treasurer condemned the bill in a letter that he sent to my chairman, Bill Thomas, saying it has taken care of everything else except the tax issues that the bill was there before us.

We have everybody here telling us that this thing is so important. I stand to be corrected because the gentleman from New York is far more a genius than I thought. I thought the bill was filed. He now understands bills that are not filed. And he is asking us to please inherit the genius he has to be prepared to vote on a $600 billion bill. This is $146 billion and then you take the $140 billion that we borrowed before, we would have a $286 billion bill that we borrowed the money for so that we could give it back to the corporations. It may sound good on the eve of an election.

If I understand this procedure correctly, we have to have martial law to avoid having 3 days for Members of Congress, who are not as smart as the proponent of avoiding the rule, to be able in 1 hour to vote on this bill. That is so truly unfair, not to Democrats, but to Democrats and Republicans.

It could be in the speed to go home and not to fulfill our responsibility that one taxpayer, one old lady, one young person that may just want to know what his future is going to be with the deficits the Republicans are leaving on them, what did you vote for? I have been in conference. We voted on bundles of amendments, 15 of them with one vote. We wiped them out. Was it open? Yes. But crimes are sometimes committed in the open. It is not all done in the darkness of night.

But at the end of the day, conferees are asking me, What finally ended up in conference? Because we do not know. Nobody in the House of Representatives today will know why we needed martial law, what is in this $600 billion borrowed bill, if you combine it with the other preelection tax cut; and we should have at least time, no matter how badly Republicans need to go home, especially to stop the rumors about the draft, but that is another subject; but you have to get home for whatever reason. But you should really give Members of Congress, new Members, older Members, time enough to know what is in the bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise to compliment the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, indeed of the conference, for his eloquent remarks on the subject of partisanship and this Congress and assure him that, in the next Congress, I hope that the Democratic majority would be able to be more bipartisan.

The question I thought was on the floor was not of being partisan, but the question of why are you suspending the rules of this House bringing in marshal law for a 600-page bill that is so complex that lawyers around the country are going to call it the lawyers' welfare bill?

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman so much for giving me this opportunity to close, and I suggest to my colleagues that they vote against this marshal law. Marshal law means there is an emergency, that we have to get this bill on the floor. It does not mean that you take a complex 600-page tax bill and tell the Members, ``go to the Web site.''

Believe it or not, this is not a partisan thing, because I would be on this floor to protect the jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules if we were in the majority. You keep cutting away from the responsibilities of the committees and the subcommittees, and especially the Committee on Rules.

The Committee on Rules, they are the traffic cops. They are supposed to have an equitable distribution of the time and allow for Members to know what they are going to debate. If you do not have a bill filed, if you do not know what is going to be in front of you, you are caught in the embarrassing position of saying, I do not know.

Go to the Website? How can you go to the Website and be on the floor? How can you ask the Website a question? You are supposed to want to pull up this Tax Code, which we got today, by the roots. Instead, you bring 600 pages of fertilizer and make it more complicated.

This is not simplification. People may ask you what is in the bill. I want to give you a chance.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague from New York (Mr. Reynolds) for sharing with us what is in this bill because the Members probably are still at their Web sites trying to figure it out.

The reason we are here right now is not to go into the substance of the bill but for me and others to try to encourage the leadership to kill this bill and do this the right way. There are 650 pages to this tax bill and 650 pages explaining the tax bill. This adds another 1,200 pages to the 6,000-page IRS Code that we have here.

We know that Members are supposed to have 3 days in order to find out what is in these 1,200 pages. That is difficult enough. The problem is the Members do not have the bill. They have no bills in their offices. But our friend from New York (Mr. Reynolds) has said not to worry, the government has bought them Web sites to find out what is in the bill.

I want to say to those that may be interested in what is in the bill, since when you go home people may ask you, tune into wayside and share with Members of this august body what is in this bill we are going to vote on. We would like to have had 3 days to have looked into this. But the Republicans do not have 3 days to give us. We would have liked to have used the rules of the House, but they say we have to have martial law. I guess it has something to do with combat, but they have put martial law to the House of Representatives, denying us the opportunity to do anything but to look at the Web site.

Why are there so few Republicans and Democrats on the floor? Lack of dedication? Not wanting to understand this complex piece of legislation? No. They are at their Web sites. So, Americans, stop what you are doing now, go to waysandmeans.house.com so when we come home and share with you the good things we have brought to you, the fact that you do not have to totally rely on the Internal Revenue Service, we will have the private sector collectors helping us out. It is on the Web site. And, of course, if you are in tobacco, bully, $10 billion you get it, smoking goes up; but if you manufacture you are in a good business.

What about these charities that they ask you to give cause to? No, not in this tax bill. I do not know how to tell you to get that on waysandmeans.house.com, but it is there. But if you are into pro sports teams, if you are into race track cars being depreciated, if you are foreign, of course, and you are into horse racing and dog racing and gambling, then go to waysandmeans.house.com.

If you really want to find out what we are trying to correct, and that is the tariff and sanctions that have been put on us by the World Trade Organization, we are not certain yet whether we covered that, but when Santa Claus sees the sleigh coming, he wants to pile up on it. So the little part that this bill was supposed to take care of, we hope that they did that. But for the rest, the lobbyists that really believe that before this election they have to show their appreciation to those people who put the bill together, well, they do make out from what I understand.

I will not be able to speak too much about this. I was in the conference, and then they put the Senate piece together with the House piece. Therefore, I did not sign it because I did not know how it was all going to come together. But I said, I will wait and see what they have done. But guess what? It was not until 12:15 that they brought the 1,000 pages to my desk. So I immediately went out and I said, but it is not just for conferees, there are other Members here, there are Democrats and Republicans.

And what do they tell me? Tell them to go to waysandmeans.house.com.

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

Mr. Speaker, well, we have been denied the opportunity, at least the Members, to actually see what is in these 600 pages of statute and another 600 pages to explain what they mean. But, once again, I would ask Americans to go to waysandmeans.house.gov, because if the Members do not know everything that is in this bill, then maybe their lawyers would be able to tell them, because if this is what simplification is all about, we are going to have a pretty rough time filling out our taxes

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the outstanding minority whip, to share his views on this complex piece of legislation. I have been advised he has been at this website all evening studying the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from Maryland, but I want to advise the gentleman that when he suggests that we read the bill, that the bill has not been distributed to the Members.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), an outstanding member, a senior member of the committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my great honor to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our distinguished leader who has been a credit to our country and to this Congress.

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

That was exactly what I was about to say, Mr. Speaker. They are telling us what is going on in this conference with those other people over there. What you should be telling us if this bill is so exciting for working people in America, why did you not give it to the Members to look at?

The distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma, he may not have a bill. No one else got a bill except we conferees, and I am not up to the 1,100th page yet. So all of the exciting things that you are hearing about what they finally put in the bill, I hope people go to waysandmeans.house.gov because none of the Members except the conferees have the bill. I do not know why they do not have the bill. But I suspect there are things in here that we are going to speculate that is in here and they will refer us to the problem page, wherever they are holding that bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a great friend and a great legislator and a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

(Mr. CARDIN 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 join in thanking the chairman for expanding the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means so all of us could have a better understanding of these agricultural problems. Quite frankly, coming from New York, I never did understand the plight of farmers and tobacco farmers, and I do not know how far we are going to go in expanding this, but I am glad that we have a gentleman from outside of the committee to recognize and to praise the chairman, as I do.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to praise and yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) so we can further edify the Committee on Ways and Means about problems other committees of jurisdiction have.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to just note that I now get it. If you do not have enough votes to get a tax bill passed, reach out and get some farmers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre), to further explore the problems that have been resolved for our farmers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to note that I am not saying this problem should not have been fixed, I just wondered whether it should have been in a tax bill. I am certain that those that want to see other problems that were fixed can go to WaysandMeans.House.gov and they will understand why we had to fix bows and arrows, and fishing tackle boxes, and foreign made seal fans, how we had to help native whaling tribes, how we had to help foreign horse racing and dog racing gambling, how we had to help pro sports team owners, how we had to shorten the depreciation period for car race tracks.

This is really not admonishing, or, in any way, degradating the chairman, it is just we do not have the bill and we do not know what else is in there. So it is good to hear from Members that do know, because they know they promised to vote for the bill in order to get relief.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen), whose taxpayers will be hurt seriously.

(Mrs. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield), a new but a very hardworking Member who is going to get us away from taxes and the complexity of the legislation and get back to tobacco.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I do not have anyone left who wants to talk about tobacco, but I wish I had known the chairman would be this flexible. I had some draft legislation that I could have possibly gotten into the conference report, but I just did not know.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson), who would like to speak on a tax issue.

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

We have taken care of sales taxes and tobacco. I do not know whether we are taking care of the Treasury, though, because they had sent a terrible letter to us indicating that they thought that this bill had too much in the way of special interest tax provisions, which benefited few taxpayers and increased the complexity of the Tax Code.

The President indicated he wanted to simplify the Code. We know the only major Republican bill we have in the House is the national retail sales tax. So maybe, once again, I can say that since the Members of the House have not had the opportunity to review this five-pound bill, that people can go to

WaysandMeans.House.gov and find out whatever else Santa Claus has brought in bringing us this gift package on the eve of an election.

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

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

You just cannot have it both ways. You cannot say that you want our American firms to be competitive in France and all over Europe and in Central and South America. If you give them incentives to be able to do this to compete, the jobs that they would have here, these firms in order to be successful have to have some workers. And we are not going to say that we are going to give passports to every American to find a job overseas. It is the multinationals that have to be governed by where the profits are, not where the patriotism is.

So if you want to be competitive overseas, if you want them to be able to do the best vaccine in the world for flu, then you encourage them to do it overseas. But one day you will look around and you will see that all of this competition, we have taken our skilled labor jobs, things we used to be proud of, televisions, computers, cars, shoes, things that used to say ``Made in the USA.'' Now, if it is not made in the USA, I hope you are not going to give a passport or citizenship to those foreigners who are making it. I have nothing against the CEOs except I want it to be, not an equal playing field, I want to give every American manufacturer a fair advantage to have jobs here in the good old USA. I am sorry that there are other people that believe that these tax incentives are good for the United States when our jobs go overseas.

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

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

Let me thank the gentleman from Ohio, my friend and someone that has now brought us back to why we are here. From time to time people are talking about tobacco and sales tax and things like that; but as he pointed out, we are here to correct a $4 billion World Trade Organization problem that we had. If we had just taken away the

subsidy, guess what? We would have reduced the deficit by $70 billion. But we took a big different course, and so we are taking care of tobacco, and we are also taking care of a problem that some people have in their States where they do not have income taxes so they want to get equity. I have to learn how to do all of these things in case the original purpose of the bill does not have enough supporters and we want to make it bipartisan. We have to find Democrats who have real problems back home in other areas.

Mr. Speaker, for that reason, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) who really first brought this problem to my attention, and I wanted to make certain that it got in this bill before the Committee on Agriculture took care of it.

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

I would like to say that she is indeed a real Member from Washington. We will miss her. I want to thank her for her support for the real FSC bill that she supported Crane-Rangel. We will miss her. We thank her for the great contribution she made to our committee and to this Congress.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), an outstanding Member of our party and of the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and chairman of the whole conference for having a major tax bill come to the floor, not in the middle of the night, but at least nine or ten o'clock, which is a courtesy. I only wish that he had given the Members of the House an opportunity to at least see the bill, but that is asking for too much. But, again, I want to thank him that he did get it on the Web site, and it is going to encourage a lot of Members on both sides to get more computer wise. We may not ever know what is in these tax bills; but we are learning, in the few minutes that we do have, what they do have in this tax bill.

So remember, for people who do not know what they are getting and who is getting the benefits or whether it is tax related or not, if someone wants to say ``thank you'' or they are sorry that they missed me, go to waysandmeans.house.gov.

I hope the other committees learn how to do this because I have spent 34 years here, and this seems to be a waste for us to ask what is in bills anymore since we have to go to the Web site. Or maybe we can find out how Members of the House really do not have to come down here. Just go to the Web site, ask what have they done, and if they are not a conferee, they can go to waysandmeans.house.gov.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, by now we are all aware of the enormous toll exacted by Hurricanes Charley, Frances, Ivan, and Jeanne on the Caribbean. Indeed, the cumulative force of these disasters has claimed thousands of lives and displaced hundreds of thousands of residents. The tourism and agricultural sectors of the Caribbean, of which so many nations are dependent, have been battered.

While total monetary damage to the region has yet to be firmly established, it is easily in the billions of dollars. These staggering statistics not only sadden us, they clearly compel us to take significant action. The United States has already distributed some assistance, and the administration has requested an additional $50 million in emergency funds for the Caribbean in the supplemental appropriations bill we have before us this week.

While this assistance is appreciated, substantially more is needed if we are to make a meaningful impact. An October 4th editorial in the Washington Post noted that the requested assistance for the Caribbean is a minute fraction of the $12.2 billion requested for southern States affected by the recent hurricanes. I myself have joined other friends of the Caribbean in this House in asking that the administration at least double the size of its request for the Caribbean.

In light of these funding needs, I am extremely pleased to support the resolution introduced by the gentlewoman from California, H. Con. Res. 496. Congresswoman Lee's resolution represents a non-partisan appeal to provide adequate humanitarian assistance to our neighbors in this time of crisis. I am proud to be a co-sponsor of this legislation, and urge my fellow colleagues to lend their support to this critical measure.

We have all borne witness to the difficult road our neighbors have taken towards democracy. As such, we must always strive to ensure that their road is free from obstruction. This resolution is but one step in that ongoing effort. Again, I sincerely thank Congresswoman Lee, and offer my whole-hearted support for her resolution.

[From the Washington Post, Oct. 4, 2004]

Calamity in the Caribbean

In Haiti the bodies are still turning up. Reports from the

island republic mention Haitians shoveling corpses out from

under branches and mud--the detritus of Tropical Storm Jeanne

and the floods it triggered last month. Perhaps 2,000 are

dead, and more may be missing. In tiny Grenada, whose

landmass is scarcely twice that of the District, 90 percent

of the buildings on the island were damaged by Hurricane

Ivan. The hurricane also decimated Grenada's nutmeg trees,

which take a decade to become productive, and devastated

hotels, mainstays of the tourist industry that provides the

island with 70 percent of its income.

The storms paused long enough in the Caribbean on their way

to Florida to deliver knockout blows to the bantamweight

islands. Americans fixated on Florida may have barely

noticed, but the destruction and suffering in the islands was

overwhelming. The Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, Jamaica,

the Bahamas, the Turks and Caicos Islands, and St. Lucia--all

were damaged. Grenada's recovery will take years.

Haiti, no stranger to calamity, is suffering a catastrophe.

An estimated 300,000 people have been made homeless by

floods. In the northwest, where Jeanne unleashed much of its

wrath, food and potable water are scarce. Highways are cut or

impassable; Port-de-Paix, a town of 45,000 on the north

coast, is reachable only by air. In the port of Gonaives,

Haiti's third-largest city, marauding gangs desperate from

thirst and hunger have attacked trucks hauling bottled water

and depots holding humanitarian food stockpiles. Fears of

famine are rising, since flood waters and mud covered some of

the most fertile acres in the country. Poverty, deforestation

and the virtual absence of effective government all conspire

to deepen the misery.

President Bush has proposed $12.2 billion in aid for

hurricane-damaged areas, mostly in Florida and other Southern

states. The package includes $50 million for the islands,

nearly half of it for Haiti. We hope Congress passes it

quickly, but let's be blunt: The amount set aside for the

Caribbean nations is a pittance--not to mention a fraction of

what was spent on U.S. military interventions in Haiti and

Grenada.

Americans who wish to help may send their own donations.

One conduit for such private support is CARE, which has been

active in Haiti for 50 years and is deeply involved in the

current relief efforts. Information is available at

www.careusa.org.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire whether the proponent of this motion to suspend supports the bill, and, if he does not, whether or not his motion is in order.

Yes, it is.

Mr. Speaker, the question that I raised before I raised the point of order is not whether he supports consideration of the bill but whether he supports the bill.

Mr. Speaker, based on that, I raise a point of order, and I would like to claim the time in support of the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill because it gives this great august body an opportunity for the first time to discuss whether or not the administration or the party in the majority intends to have a draft.

I suspect that one of the reasons that this has to be cleared up before the election, the evidence clearly indicates that everyone in the Pentagon, the Defense Department, has indicated that we need a robust military force in Iraq. All of the evidence indicates that we have exhausted our active troops; we are exhausting the Reserves; we are exhausting the National Guard.

We have a back-door draft, where we do not let people who enlisted and have finished their term get out. In addition to that, the Army is over there in combat. Where the normal term is 1 year, the Pentagon has indicated they are going to reduce it to 6 months, to go along with what the Marines do, because of fatigue.

It just seems to me as many times as the administration says that they are against a draft, all we hear on the Internet and around the country is that, after the election, they are going to have the draft.

If they are going to have the draft, I support this legislation, even though, quite frankly, I would have preferred that the bill be referred to the Committee on Armed Services, because I think it is important enough to have hearings on this matter and for the administration to really show why they really do not need to get people through an involuntary conscription.

But since they knew I had this bill and since they knew it was election time, I rise in support of the bill, even though I would gladly yield to the committees of jurisdiction, because it just seems to me that, if we abuse the system by continually taking legislation for the purpose of embarrassment and not in order to say that it is so noncontroversial that we should put it on the suspension calendar, then, no matter who is in the majority, we are violating every principle of the House, and that is the reason why the Parliamentarian and the Speaker have decided that I am in control of the time.

This system should be used only when there is no controversy. But I am not a Member of the House that runs away from controversy. Those who run away from it are those people who have the responsibility to discuss bills in the committee with hearings and bring the legislation so the American public can see what you do believe before an election.

But now you cannot even decide who is for the bill, who is for consideration, ``I want it up; I want it down.'' It is a political thing that you are using that determines the lives of people as to who fights in wars and who is exempt from wars and who should do national service.

It is a disgrace, what is going on here today, and you cannot find anyone to put the blame on. You are against your own bill. It came out of your Committee on Rules. You have the majority. But yet you need some way, some vehicle.

And just because justice does not cave in to people who are hypocritical in nature, we got the time to tell you why we support the bill and why we oppose the bill. But, unfortunately, we are doing this on the suspension calendar. The majority, I guess, will say that this is a noncontroversial issue, because if you do not admit that it is controversial, then you are saying that it should not have been on this calendar in the first place.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

(Mr. CONYERS 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 applaud the candidness and the honesty of the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services to admit that they are using the Rules of the House of Representatives to rebut the rumors on the Internet that President Bush wants to enact a draft. I thought we did this through the Republican National Committee. This is a political thing.

It may be vicious to believe that people do not trust the President when he says no, and they do not trust Rumsfeld, and they do not trust Republicans; that is a terrible political problem, but do not use my House of Representatives to correct it. Do not use the rules of this House to correct it. This place is a place for legislation and not to play political games.

If you do not have the trust of the American people when you say there is not going to be a draft, then you had better use the Republican National Campaign Committee to rebut it. But each time you think you have to run an election on the Rules of this House, after all of us are gone, we have an obligation to those who succeed us to abide by the Rules of the House that were left to us for one purpose: not to win elections, but to legislate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 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 yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) who is an outstanding member of this House of Representatives, and he is in support of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, are we allowed to use the floor of the House to campaign and specifically name the Presidential candidate that we are supporting?

Did I frame my question correctly?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to close, and so if I only have 1 minute remaining, I reserve it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).

(Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

My Republican colleagues have convinced me they will not vote for a draft before this election, and I appreciate their sincerity in stating that. But I support my bill for the very reasons that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) has done so.

If the issue is the protection of our country against an enemy, then all Americans should have the opportunity to fight and defend for all our freedom so that we can sit here. And there should be a plea for the rich and the poor, which is so eloquently stated but not followed, to be volunteering and joining and having the honor to say they defended our country at a time of war.

Mr. Speaker, that is not going to happen before the election, and because of my 34 years in the House and my respect for the rules, as much as I appreciate the fact that the leadership has brought my bill up, even though they did not support it, they have brought my bill up because they have a problem with the President's integrity on this issue.

So as much as I appreciate that, what I appreciate more are the standing committees that we have in this House, and so I would hope that my bill will be referred to the committee process for hearings so that the entire House of Representatives would understand the necessity for this legislation.

But on this I will vote ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, I rise before you today to join with my colleagues in paying tribute to one of the most adored musical treasures of our time, the legendary William ``Count'' Basie.

Though we lost the late Great Count Basie in 1984 at the age of 79, his melodious spirit and rhythmic style will never be forgotten.

It is said of Count Basie, that he was one of the pre-eminent bandleaders of the Big Band era in the 1930's and 40's. Dubbed the ``Master of Swing'' because of the flowing intensity of his music, Count Basie was known for his provocative keyboard style characterized by a predominant right hand, which produced quite a distinctive sound.

Among his band's best known tunes was ``One O'Clock Jump,'' ``Jumpin' at the Woodside,'' ``Li'l Darlin','' and ``April in Paris.'' With the Count on Piano and band member Freddie Green on guitar, American jazz would never be the same.

Though he was born in Red Bank, New Jersey, Count Basie would call New York City home when he moved there in 1924 and became acquainted with Harlem and the talents of Fats Waller. He and Fats became friends almost immediately and Fats would end up teaching him to play the organ.

Count Basie began his professional career as an accompanist on the vaudeville circuit, and in 1935, became the leader of a nine-piece band. It was while he was with this band performing in Kansas City, that a radio announcer nicknamed him ``Count'' because he wanted to indicate his standing in a class with aristocrats of jazz such as Duke Ellington.

Though rooted in the style of the 1930s swing-era big bands, the Basie orchestra played with the vigorous drive and carefree swing of a small combo, and was considered a model for ensemble musical conception.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in commemorating the 100th anniversary of the birth of William ``Count'' Basie and his numerous contributions to jazz and swing music.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of H.R. 4046, calling for the United States Postal Service located at 555 West 180th Street in New York, New York, to be hereby named the ``Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda Post Office.''

Staff Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda of the 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment was killed during combat operations in northeast Baghdad on April 11, 2003; he was 26 years of age. A New York City resident, he lived in my district of Washington Heights on 180th Street until graduation from Fashion Industries High School in the Garment District, thereafter joining the Marine Corps at the age of 18. I introduced this legislation because Sgt. Tejeda was a hero in every sense of the word, a man born in the Dominican Republic who made the ultimate sacrifice for the United States.

After spending formative teen years meeting the challenge of growing up in the tough streets of Washington Heights, Sergeant Tejeda joined the military with his hopes and dreams of the future on the horizon. He joined the military to better himself and to serve our country, later reenlisting after his initial term of duty had elapsed.

Sergeant Tejeda was the first Dominican killed in Iraq, a fact that history will rightfully record but in itself will not and cannot appreciate the pain of his loss to his two young daughters and mourning family.

At the time of his death, while the fatality count was still in its early stages, minorities constituted as high as 35 percent of the fatalities in the line of duty. Latinos, who comprise 8 percent of the total fighting force in Iraq, have incurred 16 percent of all intensive fighting deaths and 12 percent of the total fatalities during Operation Iraqi Freedom. These numbers are clear evidence of the disproportionate sacrifice being made in Iraq by Latinos and point out the level of their loyalty to their chosen country.

Riayan Tejeda was an outstanding young man with limitless potential, known for his studious nature and gentlemanly demeanor. He was a brave, selfless man of great conviction who fought and died for a nation of immigrants that today does not always appreciate the contributions and sacrifices made by new generations of outsiders pursuing better lives. Sergeant Tejeda, who had served in the Marine Corps for 8 years, was awarded U.S. citizenship only after his death and received the Silver Star for his valor in the line of fire. He proudly served our Nation in Thailand, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia, East Timor and Iraq. Sergeant Tejeda was the finest marksman in his regiment.

The naming of the U.S. Post Office in Washington Heights for Sergeant Tejeda will be received by the community with great pride and satisfaction. It is the least our country can do to honor the memory of Sergeant Tejeda's short and heroic life.

I extend my appreciation and sympathies to his parents Julio Cesar Tejeda and Carmen Rafaela Lora, his daughters Loriana and Miranda and his brothers Angel and Andre. I thank my colleagues for their support on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 106, the Marriage Protection Amendment.

This amendment should be more rightfully called the Republican Incumbency Protection Amendment. Like the bill we debated on this floor yesterday to abrogate gun laws in the District of Columbia, this amendment is nothing more than an election year wedge issue. Already defeated in the Senate last July, it is another attempt to create a campaign issue to use against Democrats. It is a shame that the People's House should be diminished in this way.

Even more so, this is an affront to our great Constitution. It reverses the constitutional tradition of protecting individual freedoms by attempting to limit those rights to millions of people. This is a cynical and dangerous violation of everything we have come to expect from that great document. This is no time to start rolling back freedom.

What a great contradiction we are witnessing today at that party, which professes the sanctity of individual rights and privacy of the individual, seeks a blanket intrusion into the lives of a group of people under the guise of protecting marriage, the most private of institutions.

While it was President Bush who initiated this bill with his call for a Constitutional amendment last February, I would hope that some members of his party would agree with the position of Vice President Cheney that this issue should be left to the states and not enshrined in our national constitution.

Mr. Speaker, to my distinguished friend from New York, I was at the tax conference last night, and I would just like to yield him enough time to respond. Did he say that this $147 billion bill is paid for? No, I do not think so. I do not think he said that.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the gentleman whether or not he said to this body that this bill, this tax cut bill, which he gave all the virtues of what it does for the middle class and all of the corporations with the extenders, did he imply that this does not throw us $147 billion further into deficit?

I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds.)

Well, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman, but let me join in with the gentleman from Maryland because, clearly, those of us that work on the committee know that there are a lot of virtues in this bill. True, we have a couple of poison pills in there that relate to unfair treatment of the young people who are married, who have kids, who are doing combat duty, and also by having the index on who is eligible for the refundable tax credit, having it move from 10,000 to 70,000; we exclude some 9.2 million children. Those are the poison pills that I think that a lot of Members are willing to swallow for the good that is in the bill.

But one of the most important things that Americans are missing and the majority does not hear about is who pays for these tax cuts. All tax cuts for working individuals have merit, but this bill, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, will cost us $149 billion. We tried as Democrats in the conference to take the loopholes, to bring the tax savings and to bring the revenues to make this revenue-neutral so that we could have the benefits without the deficit. But what happened last night was that the Republicans said they wanted to save these revenue raises. They want to save these corporate loopholes for the next tax bill, which they call the jobs bill, which I call the offshore jobs bill, but the next bill, some call the FSC bill, but whatever they call this bill, they want to have that paid for as opposed to this bill.

So what I am saying is that it is close to election, and everybody wants to vote for a tax cut. The Republicans have so carefully and cynically, on the eve of an election, planned several tax cuts and make other tax cuts permanent in order to try to get the Democrats to vote no, not because we are against the tax cuts but because we have some sense of responsibility as citizens and legislators to believe in what Republicans used to believe in, and that is a balanced budget. I am too old to think it would happen in my lifetime, but as the Republicans put raising the debt ceiling on the back burner, as they put the size of the deficit spending on the back burner, all Americans should know that, as we enjoy this day of tax cuts that the gentleman from New York talked about, that our children will be paying for these for decades to come.

So I will suggest to my colleagues, it has to stop somewhere. We have a responsibility as legislators to try to leave a world better than the one that we inherited. We cannot do this with a $200 billion war. We cannot do this by denying benefits to those low-income people who are fighting this war, who are in combat, and we cannot do it by leaving a legacy to our children and our grandchildren that they will have to pay.

I thank the gentleman from New York for responding. He may think we have paid for this in a big budget, but they sure did not pay for it last night.

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

The chairman of the committee is correct, this is timely. It is on the eve of an election. So, therefore, Republicans believe that all tax cuts should be held back, especially the child credit, until election time. And I assume that they believe that we will not notice that they are running us deeper and deeper and deeper into deficit. But since they have no awareness or do not care about it, then once again we have a political issue that is brought to us on the floor.

How long has it been since the Republicans were talking about a balanced budget amendment? How long has it been since it was supposed to be Democrats who just tax and spend, but they were the ones who were concerned about the future of our children and our children's children?

So now they have brought a very popular bill that they are not going to get much problem from the Democrats in terms as to whether or not the middle income this time should enjoy some of the benefits that in the past they just lavished on the very wealthy. And so if we are going to extend the tax credits for children, a child tax credit, if we are going to make certain that we give some relief for married couples, if we expand the 10 percent tax bracket, who would contest these types of things?

It is true that in the conference there did not appear to be that much concern about working parents that were at the poverty line. As most of the Members know, the present legislation index, the threshold at $10,000, because of inflation it is now up to $10,750. As a result of that, some 4 million working people will be denied the tax credit, which comes to over 9 million children would be denied.

In the conference when the question was raised, why can you not make provisions to take care of the children of those people that work every day and live in an inflationary society and not have them cut off, the prevailing view was this was a tax bill and not a welfare bill.

Then we had some controversy where we were able to get the majority to adjust to make certain that those young people that were fighting in combat and not having to pay taxes on their combat pay, that adjustments would be made that they still could be eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit. But somehow they only thought that they could do it for 2 years.

The President says he does not even know whether we can win the war, and then the majority said that they would be glad to do it, except that the Internal Revenue Service would have difficulty because it is so complex. Then some Members said it was abuse. Having said that, I do not think you have to be a rocket genius to figure out how many poor infantrymen we have in Iraq and how many of them have children and how many of them are poor and how many of them we should say, hey, you are fighting for this country, and we got to give you the same benefits as we give anyone else.

So the reason given that we would not make this benefit permanent was because it was too complicated for the Internal Revenue Service to handle and we would like to see how this works.

Well, these are the poison pills that are put into a piece of legislation, that the majority is just hoping that they will be able to say that Democrats voted against the provisions to provide tax benefits for the middle class.

But one day someone is going to have to answer to these young people and their kids. One day history is going to ask us, where were we when this deficit was mounting? Where were we when we turned the moneys that we are borrowing over to the Chinese and the Japanese? Where were we when the interest on the debt exceeded that of discretionary spending? Where were those responsible Republicans when they decided to do the political thing, rather than the right thing?

Well, I, for one, am just as political as they are, and even though they did not pay for this bill, they are saying there were savings, there were loopholes, there were things they could have done. But because they are so anxious to get the jobs bill, this is the newly- labeled jobs bill, you know, this was the bill that it turned out that the World Trade Organization said we had about $4 billion liability, so they waited for years to get us deeper and deeper in trouble, for tariffs to be against our exporters, and then say why not do what we always wanted to do, reduce taxes for corporations?

Some of us, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and I, thought that was a great idea. How little did we know on that bill they only meant corporations that were moving their jobs overseas. But that is another bill for another day, and that is a political issue.

But here we are again, and I hope no one has to say that I voted yes and I voted no on this one, because they are driving the deficit, and we do not think that the people who deserve a tax benefit should pay the penalty, when deficits mean nothing for the $1.4 trillion tax cut they gave to the very wealthy.

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

Mr. Speaker, with great pleasure, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), an outstanding member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

Let me make it clear and try to set the direction in which this debate is going. We do not find Democrats disputing the merits of the tax cuts. We are not even challenging the fact that Republicans have decided to do this on the eve of the election. All we are saying is that you could have given our combat people a better deal by making their extension permanent, and you certainly could have given the working poor an opportunity to enjoy this even though they make $10,750.

The problem we have with this is the fact that you are running us $149 billion back into the deficit when you know, and it will go unchallenged, that in the committee, in the conference, we did have the loopholes to repair this and to bring to this floor a bill that would have been paid for, that would have passed with all Democrats and all Republican votes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a Member whose career has been spent trying to protect all Americans, especially those who are struggling to become part of the mainstream.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I think that in view of the victory that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) has had, that maybe, just maybe, there is a breath of fresh air entering the House where we can say, let us stop this punitive approach to Cuba and the Cuban government, and let us start a common sense approach.

The gentleman from Florida makes it appear as though we are rewarding a dictator for not upholding the principles of democracy. None of us here want to do that. Some would say that we have a disregard for the loss of life or the imprisonment of people unfairly, as we all agree is wrong and immoral and indecent, but that is not so. We are not talking about rewarding; we are talking about normalization. We are talking about the United States of America's principles. We are talking about Americans who feel so proud of what we believe in that we do not let any nickel-and-dime dictator prevent us from taking our message to the people, the people in Cuba.

For 40 years, we have taken this nonsensical approach that we are going to punish the Cuban people, deny them access to our markets, deny them financial assistance, notwithstanding the pain and cruel treatment that nature has given to them through hurricanes, notwithstanding the poverty in the country, and we have had this belief on our side, at least some of us on both sides, that the American approach, if properly presented to the people, will prevail; not guns, not bombs and not penalties, but the American way.

We believe that trading with people is a way for our business people to be ambassadors of the free market system. As the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) said, we believe our kids are better than any ambassadors that come out of the State Department when they talk about life in the United States. We believe our farmers and our business people, they really know how

to talk to these people about doing the right thing. But if what we are saying is that we are afraid of Castro and we are afraid of communism, then I suggest to my colleagues that we ought to get the heck out of China. We ought to get out of Vietnam. We ought to restore sanctions against Libya, and for God's sake, if we are looking for a democracy, we have a long march in Pakistan to find it.

We believe we are powerful enough that we are on the right side of the issue, and for those who are afraid of the truth, then jam their stations, jam their TV, have no communications with these people and just say that we will prevail, because we are powerful enough to bring not Castro down to his knees but the people who are relying on a little assistance from their friends in the United States.

I do not think you have to be Cuban-American, I do not think you have to represent Cuban-Americans to understand what compassion is. But I will tell my colleagues one thing, I would hate to represent a district that had families in Cuba, after this horrific hurricane where people are in real pain economically and socially, and I wanted to send them some money, I wanted to visit, I wanted to see who got hurt, I may have wanted to go to a funeral, but I have to say that my heart, my compassion, my country, we are with you, but because we hate with such vengeance your president who has survived so many of ours, we will not be able to help. That, I think, is a more difficult position than to say that you are against communism.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, let me be brief. It is clear that this is a very emotional issue. All I can say is that in 1950 when I was shot by the Communist Chinese on the Yalu River in North Korea, I was emotional as well. They told me to get over it.

I do not know how many tens of thousands of American lives were lost as a result of the Communists in North Vietnam. When the trade agreement came up, they said, Get over it. The families of those that were killed by the Libyan terrorists in Flight 103, they objected to trade and they said, Get over it. I would suggest to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) he has to get over it.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay homage to the late Ted Velez of East Harlem, one of New York's finest sons who passed away August 6th 2004. He was a community leader whose tremendous achievements will continue to better the lives of the residents of East Harlem long into the future. Mr. Velez had a vision of New York City that saw equality across the board and included fair and affordable housing for all New Yorkers, regardless of color or social standing.

Working in El Barrio as a young social worker, Mr. Velez helped found the East Harlem Tenants Council in 1962, which boasted a network of progressive building captains who monitored building safety and overall residential well being. Two years later he championed a series of rent strikes on East 123rd Street, effectively forcing landlords to make necessary repairs in East Harlem residential buildings.

In the summer of 1971, after trudging for more than six years through city, state and federal bureaucracy; Mr. Velez won federal--approval to transform the entire city block between 122nd and 123rd Streets. The project was funded with $42 million dollars allotted from the Department of Housing and Urban Development Department, the largest allocation up to that time for a single community project. Mr. Velez's efforts resulted in comfortable, affordable housing for 656 low to moderate-income families in what is now known as the Taino Towers, giving East Harlem residents opportunities that many had believed to be impossible.

Throughout his accomplished life Mr. Velez strived at the forefront of progressive social change as a political activist, yet was able to work productively within the political mainstream with leaders of both political parties. He marched in civil rights demonstrations with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in the South, where he helped to organize voter registration drives. In his twenties, he supported Senator Bobby Kennedy and also worked closely with Mayor John V. Lindsay's administration. He was a close associate of former Manhattan Borough President Percy Sutton and Basil Paterson, two of New York's most influential Democratic leaders.

Born in Puerto Rico on December 29th 1938, Mr. Velez moved to East Harlem at the age of six. Working on behalf of the most needy, he managed to achieve the status of a

leader without forgetting his humble origins. He did not look at the world in terms of color or creed but appreciated and celebrated all cultures while speaking five languages with near fluency. His activism was motivated by his deep beliefs in the dignity of humanity and the tenets of the Civil Rights Movement.

Ted Velez will be remembered as a hero not only in El Barrio but also in the great City of New York. His presence and noble determination will be sorely missed. Mr. Velez is survived by his wife Linda, son Jon, daughter Judie, two brothers and two grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleague and fellow New Yorker, Mr. Meeks in supporting this bill, H.R. 4632, to name the post office in St. Albans, Queens, New York after my old and close friend, Archie Spigner.

Archie Spigner and I go back a long time in the political life of New York; myself in Harlem and Archie in St. Albans. He has been providing leadership in his community for nearly four decades. He has provided the shoulders for many of our current successful leaders. It is unfortunate that term limits have deprived his community of his representation. Archie held his seat from 1974 until term limits ended his service in the New York City Council in 2001.

As District Leader and Executive Member of the Guy R. Brewer United Democratic Club, he was instrumental in electing the first African- American Supreme Court Justice, Assembly Member, State Senator and Congress Member in the Borough of Queens. He was a leader in the campaigns of the Hon. David Dinkins, Hon. Percy Sutton, Hon. Carl McCall, our former colleague Congressman Floyd H. Flake and the sponsor of this bill, the current member from St. Albans, our distinguished colleague Greg Meeks. He and I have been allies on countless battles in the effort to provide equality, opportunity, and justice for our constituents, for New Yorkers and Americans.

Having a public building in this historic African American community named after as an esteemed member of the community as Archie Spigner is quite fitting.