Floor Statements

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

The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means connected this bill with senior citizens' inability to plan for their future. Well, I am glad he is sending them a signal, because after what they intend to do with seniors with the Medicare bill, somebody might have planned for their futures.

I remember in the good old days when Republicans used to say that they were going to travel around the country and pull the Tax Code up by the roots. That meant they were going to close loopholes, get rid of shelters, and to have a system that people did not have to hire accountants and lawyers in order to know what their tax liability would be. I even volunteered to drive around with them on these buses to see just how they intended to put back a Code that was more equitable and fair and one could understand.

But while the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) still thinks that some of them are on the level as relates to health, I asked for the opportunity to at least open up this debate just so that people who are not on the floor would understand that this has nothing to do with health. It has a heck of a lot to do with wealth and more to do with shelter. They have to find ways to make certain that the deficit gets larger and that there is no money in the Treasury to take care of the problems that we used to say was a Federal responsibility. How do you do it? Just being creative.

Why, they do not even need a chairman of a Committee on the Budget because there are no budget restrictions. Last night, this bill was supposed to be going over to the Committee on Rules at a cost of $71 billion over 10 years. What imagination. What creativity, when just overnight they found out that the bill really costs $171 billion. How can Republicans be so smart that just overnight, without hearings, without checking with Treasury, without talking with OMB they can find $100 billion?

Now, what is the cost of $171 billion? It is simple: It means that people who make up to $150,000 and are well do not have to pay taxes on storing away $4,000 in a tax shelter. So if you are working for someone and you make up to $150,000, you never have to pay taxes on the money, whether you are sick or whether or not you retire with the money. This is really just a tax-free grant to some of the people who are friendly to people on the other side.

But what about the people that do not have the $4,000? Now, that is the problem, because you are not eligible for this unless you do not have expenses that will be paid for for $1,000. So if an employer really cares for you and wants to have you eligible for this tax shelter, the best favor he can do for you is to take away your health insurance. And, of course, you make the killing on your savings by not paying taxes. And so once he does you this favor, he has to do it for the lesser-income people, and lo and behold, we will find that those who cannot afford to stash away this money, because they do not have disposable income, end up with no insurance and no savings account.

Oh, one might say this is cruel, but sensitivity never bothered the majority party, because at the end of the game they want to know how much of the people's money did you leave with them. Or to put it another way, how much did you take away from the Federal Government so that we cannot provide basic services.

So the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) need not worry. This savings account has nothing to do with health. It has everything to do with shelter.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the balance of my time be turned over to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) and that he be given the authority to allocate time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

(Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island) asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, I think this is one of those days that we will never forget as legislators. This is one of those days that I think as legislators we will never forget. And even though we have some people who have not studied the bill that are so anxious to believe that they are going to get prescription drug relief, I think at the end of the day that they might be able to see that this is the first step that has been specifically designed not to reform the Medicare system as we know it but to dissolve it.

There are some people who are honest enough, at least outside of this hallway, to admit that that is exactly what they would want to do, to dissolve the Medicare. Many of the people on the other side of the aisle, and perhaps a handful on our side, believe that health care should not be an entitlement, Social Security should not be an entitlement; that the free marketplace should be able to work its will; that government should not be involved in providing these type of services.

Ultimately, I do believe that when the bill is studied and they see that the transfer of the ability to determine how much prescription drugs will cost, which prescriptions would be filled, what is the recipient entitled to, when does the bill lock into place, and at the year 2010 what do they do with the voucher if we do not have Medicare, all of these things, I think, will be answered at some time, but I really hope that they are answered today.

We have many people that have worked hard on this bill; certainly the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) has been a champion for health care for decades; the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), who will be handling the remainder of this bill, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), and so many others. But as I have said so many times publicly, at some point in time people will be asking, when they were moving to dissolve Medicare, where were you and what were you doing?

I think, as so many votes in the past, that people will remember this vote. And those of us who oppose this piece of legislation will be giving our colleagues an opportunity on voting for legislation that provides all of the coverage that the letter requested from AARP, and while parts of the letter was read, I think it is safe to say that the objections that were raised to the bill or the questions that they had hoped that would be changed, that that is handled in the substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to allocate the remainder of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), with the understanding that he be permitted to allocate the rest of the remaining time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to further allocate that time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the statement made by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) that we all are concerned about our older citizens and those that are to follow, and certainly we all have to appreciate the fact that we are all here because we stand on someone else's shoulders, someone else who made the sacrifice, and I am very proud to share the responsibility of this bill with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), who has dedicated his entire life, and his dad before him, in making certain that he and those of us who support him and what he believes in improves the quality of life of not only the seniors today.

It took us a long time to get where we are where people feel some degree of comfort that the Federal Government will be there for them, whether it is Social Security, whether it is Medicaid, whether it is Medicare. It has been government, yes, this government, this wonderful government, this government who gave me the GI bill, this government which allowed older citizens to have some degree of pride in having Social Security to cushion themselves from poverty, and this government that provided health care for the very poor, and under Medicare we had hoped that we would have provided prescription drugs for them.

I do not know when this animosity came against government, why we felt we had to starve these programs which some of us have been so proud of. Somebody asked how do you pay for your bill? This is a strange thing to ask, especially when the chairman of the Committee on the Budget is on the floor. He has been able to do magic with numbers over there. He started out with a $5.6 trillion surplus, and with magic converted it to a $3.4 trillion deficit. He can take $9 trillion and find some way to spend it in tax cuts. Even tonight, some $173 billion, $100 billion just found last night, and we will get $400 billion from what they have allocated, but we think that it takes twice that much.

Is that asking to do, is that something that we have to go to the Committee on the Budget for and ask? Can you sprinkle your magic powder on us and make it possible for the older people not to have gaps in services? Is it asking too much to treat them, not that they are wealthy in dollars and cents, but they are wealthy in terms of the investment they made in this country to make it possible for the multinationals and the wealthy people to get the tax breaks that they are getting, and it seems to me since compassion is not there, that maybe we can look at it as a cost savings vehicle.

How many senior citizens will not have to go to the hospitals which are so expensive, how much of a part of our health expenses is a part of the institutions which our seniors are forced to go

into? If you have to make a decision and you are in doubt, why not make the doubt in favor of the senior citizens? Everything that is missing in the Republican bill that is good, we put in our bill to make certain that it is better.

One thing that we are saying is this, do not hate the government until you do not have any need for it. And seniors when they read the difference of the bills, and you bet your life they can read, they may be old but they are not stupid. They can pick up the daily newspapers, and if they do not go to the pharmaceutical corporations but rather go to the local drugstore, they will find out in short order who is their best friend.

Do not knock the government. It is not as bad as some Members think. Give the people an opportunity so that we can say citizens, we appreciate all that you have done for us, and we in the Congress believe that the least we can do for you as you grow older is to ease your pain and, more important, the fear you have that once you go to the doctor that at least you will be able to get the drugs that are prescribed for your illness.

Mr. Speaker, we do not have to challenge each other's integrity, but I tell Members this, that there are Members on the other side of the aisle that hold Social Security in utter contempt. There are Members who talk about Medicare as though the communists created the package, and they resented it when it started, and they think it is worse than ever today.

What I am saying is let us do what they tell doctors to do, and do no harm. Let us leave here saying that at least on this day there was a substitute, they did not have to do it the way the majority would want.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health, and I ask unanimous consent that he may further allocate that time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor two of the Nation's most outstanding civil rights leaders, Medgar Evers and Mrylie Evers- Williams, on the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Medger Evers. During the 1950s and 1960s, at the height of the civil rights movement, Evers battled racial injustice in his home state of Mississippi by becoming a prominent member of the NACCP in Jackson, Mississippi. He inspired others to utilize peaceful methods of protest to speak out against racial inequality through boycotts, sit-ins, and demonstrations. Myrlie Evers-Williams stood by her husband in the fight for civil rights by serving as his partner in organizing public demonstrations and his secretary when he became Mississippi's first field secretary for the NAACP. After his assassination, she emerged as a prominent figure in the realm of public service by serving on the Los Angeles Board of Public Works and eventually becoming the chairwoman of the NACCP. It is for these reasons, that I wish to acknowledge these two accomplished individuals. As I provide a short biographical sketch of Medgar Evers and Myrlie Evers-Williams, I encourage you to read Myrlie Evers-Williams' published memoirs to better understand the amazing accomplishments of these two individuals.

Medgar Wiley Evers, the son of James and Jessie, was born in Decatur, Mississippi on July 2, 1925. Evers put his high school education on hold to serve his country in the Battle of Normandy during World War II. Once he returned the completed high school and then earned a bachelor's degree in business administration from Alcorn Agricultural and Mechanical College where he met Myrlie Beasley from Vicksburg, Mississippi who he later married on December 24, 1951. He gained recognition in Who's Who in American Colleges for his active participation in his college's choir, debate team, football and track teams and his service to the college's newspaper and student government offices. While he worked as an insurance salesman in Mound Bayou, Mississippi he began to establish small chapters of the NAACP in the Mississippi Delta region. During that time he also began coordinating boycotts of gas stations that prohibited African-Americans from using their bathrooms. When segregation in public schools was ruled unconstitutional with the

Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka Supreme Court decision, Evers decided to apply to the University of Mississippi Law School being the first African-American to do so. He was denied admission thus his desire to fight racial injustice was further ignited. His rejection from the law school grabbed the attention of the NAACP's national office. Later that year, he was named the NACCP's first field secretary for Mississippi. He and his wife then moved to Jackson, Mississippi to establish the Jackson office of the NAACP. Because he was denied admission to the University's law school, he played an instrumental role in the admission of another African-American man James Meredith. In addition to encouraging and organizing African-American communities in Mississippi to participate in public demonstrations, he also urged them to take advantage of their voting rights because of his own voting experience in which he tried to vote in Decatur in 1946, but was turned away by white supremacists. Disregarding the numerous threats he received, Evers continued to publicly speak out against racial inequality, boycott discriminatory merchants, and encourage African- American communities in Mississippi to do the same until he was assassinated in his driveway on June 12, 1963. His brother Charles carried on his work with the NAACP after his death. In 1970, a senior college, part of the City University of New York, was named in his honor. Medgar Evers College is located in Crown Heights in Brooklyn, New York.

The tragic death of her husband led Myrlie Evers-Williams to move her family to California where she attended Pomona College. After earning her bachelor's degree in sociology, she began her career in public service as assistant director of planning and development for the Claremont College system. She later moved to Los Angeles to begin a job as the consumer affairs director for the Atlantic Richfield Company and in 1975 she married Walter Williams. In 1988, she became the first African-American woman to serve on the Los Angeles Board of Public Works when she was appointed by mayor Tom Bradley. During the early 1990s she pressured Mississippi prosecutors to reopen the case on her first husband's assassination. She eventually succeeded and finally in 1994, Medgar Evers's killer was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to life in prison. One year later, she was appointed the first female chair of the NAACP. Sadly, she also lost her second husband to prostate cancer that year. In 1999, her autobiography entitled, Watch Me Fly: What I Learned on the Way To Becoming the Woman I Was Meant To Be, was published. Her autobiography focuses on her life as the wife of a civil rights activist and a community leader.

Medgar Evers and Myrlie Evers-Williams have both made their mark in American history and will always be known for their pioneering efforts in American society.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the McCollough Invaders, a gospel missionary brass band who this week will be celebrating their 38th Anniversary.

These men are only a few of the many unsung heroes of our community, who have given of their time and have never asked for anything in return. This group of men began their careers as early as 9 years of age. During the 1960s, these boys were encouraged by the late Bishop Walter McCollough to make a positive contribution to the community while simultaneously improving the quality of their own lives.

Many came from broken homes where there was no father figure. Their grandparents, aunts, uncles, older brothers, sisters, other relatives or friends would step in when a parent was not around. In order to make ends meet, many of their families depended on public assistance. In some cases, these boys were left to themselves to survive on their own.

Despite these personal obstacles, these young boys devoted their lives to ministering music to many in need of relief from the day-to- day frustrations and anxieties of life. Throughout the 1960s, they performed around the country. Their dedication to the peace movement and to playing Gospel music helped shaped the America we know today.

Today the McCollough Invaders are still making history. Some of these young men no longer live in New York. However, they continue to influence and help others cope with life's frustrations by making burdens just a little bit lighter. Some have used what they have learned many years ago by working with young Gospel bands and marching bands in other inner cities in Washington, DC, and Charlotte, N.C. Their travels have taken them as west as California and as south as Florida.

Others have become business leaders or entrepreneurs in the fields of finance, healthcare, energy, and technology. Many continue to work with youngsters who are mirrored images of themselves almost two scores ago. It is certain that these young men have been and will continue to be role models for others who will also make significant contributions to our communities.

Though the McCollough Invaders can be heard on any given Sunday at the same venue in Harlem, New York at 125th Street and Frederick Douglass Boulevard, we join the City of New York on Saturday, June 14, 2003 as The McCollough Invaders celebrate 38 priceless years of providing service to the Harlem community and the world.

Mr. Speaker, we should thank the heavens that we have got such an honest person like the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay). They do not make people like that anymore.

The gentleman from Georgia who spoke so eloquently about the welfare bill that we are talking about today, and those who made these nasty, disparaging remarks and left the floor, this is honesty. This is the United States of America.

I wondered why, why would these good people, albeit Republicans, why would they drop a provision that only costs $3.5 billion that would help 12 million kids and 6.5 million working families? It is because in their minds if one is not an investor, one is on welfare.

Do we get where they are finally coming from? Have Members listened to the debate? They said refundable tax credits. That is not a tax credit. You can work every day, you can pay Social Security taxes, you can pay Medicare, you can raise your family, you can join the Army, you can fight in Iraq. But guess what, look into the Republican book and see how you are listed. As a hardworking American, as a mother and father concerned about their children, someone struggling every day to make ends meet, to pay the rent, to pay the mortgage, to pay the tuition? No. Look under welfare.

Then, of course, if we really want to find out who they think deserves tax relief, look at the hardworking people who get their dividends every day while they are at the clubhouse. Look at those that clip the coupons. These are the people, as they would say, who pay taxes; and they are the ones who get relief.

But when they said that they will never, never, never give welfare to these families, the President of the United States said, enough is enough. We got a bipartisan agreement. True, it is $10 billion. Swallow it, go home. But they said, no, no. No welfare.

Let us give them an offer that they have to refuse. For $3.5 billion, they are asking this hardworking family to pay back, for this, $82 billion. I do not know how this would work, whether the family gets $100 a year. But I do know one thing, that this deficit that they keep building on day after day, month after month, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) said they will be coming back, but each time they borrow money to give tax cuts to the coupon-clippers and those who get the dividends, they are asking the kids and the grandkids that we are trying to help today to pay for it. But $82 billion for $3.5 billion? That is so shameful.

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, it is my understanding that the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means has the opportunity to be recognized for 1 hour debate, and I want to know whether that was included in his request, which I understand from the Parliamentarian the gentleman is entitled to, to discuss this issue.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I remove my reservation of objection.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, could the Parliamentarian or the Speaker tell me, does the eloquent statement made by the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means mean that he did not intend to use the hour of debate that he has?

No, I made a parliamentary inquiry. I was not objecting to the previous question. I asked whether or not what the gentleman said meant that he did not intend to debate.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the managers on the part of the House in the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 1308 be instructed as follows:

One, the House conferees shall be instructed to include in the conference report the provision of the Senate amendment that is not included in the House amendment that provides immediate payment to taxpayers receiving an additional credit by reason of the bill in the same manner as other taxpayers were entitled to immediate payment under the Jobs and Growth Tax Reconciliation Act of 2003.

Two, the House conferees be instructed to include in the conference report the provision of the Senate amendment, that is not included in the House amendment, that provides families of the military personnel serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other combat zones a child credit based on the earnings of the individuals serving in the combat zone.

Three, the House conferees be instructed to include in the conference report all of the other provisions of the Senate amendment and shall report back a conference report that includes additional tax benefits not offset by other provisions.

Four, to the maximum extent possible within the scope of the conference, the House conferees shall be instructed to include in the conference report other tax benefits for military personnel and the families of the astronauts who died in the Columbia disaster.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, in the interests of saving time, I ask unanimous consent that H.R. 1308 and H.R. 1307, both passed by the Senate, be considered and accepted by the House, and that way we can send the bill immediately to the President and we can get out of here early, without amendment, of course.

I am sorry. I cannot hear what the Speaker is saying.

Not for unanimous consent, without objection from the chairman of the distinguished Committee on Ways and Means? He does not object.

I am correct? I can do it? What is it?

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, if I ask for unanimous consent and no one objects, would the Parliamentarian tell me why I cannot be recognized?

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) does not say anything, Mr. Speaker, then there is no objection. So, I have unanimous consent until such time as he objects.

Well, could I ask unanimous consent that the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means be given an opportunity to instruct the Speaker that he has no objection to accepting the Senate bill as passed?

Well, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means knows that we will not allow parliamentary obstacles to move this bill that the Senate has passed in a bipartisan way and that the President has supported it. Now, I know a lot of time and money has gone into building up this $82 billion, but since the distinguished chairman has said that he wants to move this bill swiftly and the initial bill only cost $3.5 billion, if we knock off the $72 billion put on the Senate bill, it would seem to me, even with a little help from the Parliamentarian, that we could expedite this bill by not instructing the conferees to do anything which the chairman already has indicated he does not intend to do but, rather, to just have it pass as is. I do not know why we cannot do this. But I will get the Parliamentarian and get together with the chairman and see what we can do to expedite this.

Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the sovereign State of California (Mr. Matsui), the distinguished senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California, nobody wants to dispute anything we say?

Then Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Well, just a minute. If the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) needs 30 seconds in order to get a response to his question, notwithstanding the fact that the majority is not using their time, I will be glad to do it.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson), the distinguished former Ambassador.

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

Mr. Speaker, I intend to close the debate on this issue, hoping that perhaps the conferees would have an opportunity to review what has been done by the Senate and what has been done by the House, and to recognize this all started with us trying to help 6.5 million families and 12 million kids.

Why this was dropped by the majority, this provision that was in the Senate bill, I do not know. Why it was so vigorously resisted by the Republican leadership I do not know. Why they continuously referred to giving assistance to hardworking people throughout the United States and our military people as being welfare, I do not know.

Why they do not understand that a stronger America, a productive America, an increase in the purchasing power not just for those who clip coupons but for those who work every day, that have to buy clothes for their kids and pay for prescription drugs and pay rent, these are the things that really spur the economy.

It would just seem to me that somewhere we could find some type of compassion, to say we made a mistake, we left it out. And even for political reasons to be able to say, since the Senate has reached some type of bipartisan agreement, we looked it over, the President wants us to get relief out there as fast as we can; it is $6.5 billion more than we expected, but we will accept it.

What went into the thinking when people said, this is not going to happen? There are a lot of other things that are more important than that. The President can suggest, but he cannot vote. Then all of a sudden someone said, oh, no, we have to find some way politically that we can vote for it but make certain that it never sees the light of day. What can we possibly do to get a positive vote on this but to make certain that the Senate cannot accept it?

I was not privy to what happened, but one thing is clear: That other body knocked down the President's request from a tax cut for $726 billion. When they got finished with that, they knocked down the House tax cut from $550 billion to $350 billion. So it appears as though the Senate is very, very concerned about the size of the deficit.

Now, I know that that does not concern us in the House. I am glad to see the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Budget that is here, because God knows he picked the wrong time to head the Committee on the Budget. They just threw that away. But things change, and maybe we will see better days.

But if they really wanted to find out what is it that they could do to politically irritate the Senate and to have them reverse themselves on the child credit, some demon could have whispered in their ear, Why don't you increase the deficit more? And they would say, yes, why not double it?

So we would come out in the House with a $20 billion, go to conference and adjust it, and it will be $15 billion. But then they said, but if you do that, you still would have a child credit bill. We want to make certain that when the majority leader says that it is not going to happen, it is not going to happen.

So then they said, Why not increase it to $30 billion, $40 billion, $50 billion, $80 billion? Bingo. The House will accede to the President's request and consider the legislation for giving child tax credits to working people by increasing the deficit by $82 billion. See how they like that.

See how the bleeding hearts like that? You really want to help the working families?

Well, this is what the deal is: We will give the working families a break today, but when it comes time to pay down the deficit, those kids are going to pay and they are going to pay big time. That is the decision that you are leaving to the Senate. It is shameful because I do not doubt the dedication of members of the other party. You just have a different way of looking at government. You really believe that government should be so small that we will reduce the revenue so low that we will starve each and every program that we believe in.

Some of those programs will not go away by legislation. You cannot kill Social Security by privatization. You cannot kill Medicare by vouchers. You cannot kill Medicaid by block grant. But there is one thing, whether you are a bleeding heart, a liberal, a Democrat or a moderate Republican, if the money is not there, then the leader is right, it is not going to happen. And let me tell you, every bit of taxes that we reduce here, that tax comes up somewhere. It comes up when Governors try to say, well, maybe we can fill up the gap, but politically they cannot. They have a limit on how much taxes they can raise, how much money they can borrow. And then it gets down to the cities, and, God knows, I know it. We got a good mayor, trying to do all of the things that the Congress has said in terms of homeland security, but we are closing fire departments, we are closing clinics, we are closing libraries. And while you are cutting taxes here, guess what we are doing in the great city of New York with the working people?

They are not getting welfare. They are working every day. They have got kids, but they are paying more for buses, for subways, for buying food and clothing, for day care, everything. They are paying more, including paying for Social Security and Medicare expenses.

So I know a lot of you think that these working people that we are trying to protect are welfare recipients. You do not pay taxes, you do not get tax relief. Well, they deserve some relief. They are entitled when we are giving the people back, those who pay taxes, God knows who makes America great, except those people who work every day, hoping that life will get better for them and a lot better for their kids.

And so if you want to say that that is not the Congress' responsibility, leave it to the United Jewish Appeal, leave it to Catholic Charities, leave it to the Protestants Council, but leave us out as the Federal Government. Let local and State government do it.

If you believe that, then what you do is starve the great reserves of this country. And if you cannot kill the programs legislatively, you kill them by not having the money there. So what you are saying is that one day when you accomplish your purpose, we will be paying more in interest on the trillions of dollars that we have borrowed than we will be able to pay for the programs that America has been so proud of.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, on May 20, the people of Taiwan celebrated the third anniversary of the ascent of Chen Shui-bian to the Presidency of Taiwan. In recognition of this anniversary, I would like to congratulate both the people of Taiwan and President Chen upon the achievement of this third anniversary and make a few observations with regard to this auspicious occasion, as well as the long-standing friendship that exists between the United States and Taiwan.

With regard to President Chen, I can only say that in his three years as leader of Taiwan have been exemplary. President Chen has, continues and shall hopefully continue to receive widespread praise around the world for his determined commitment and unswerving dedication to continued democratization, economic reform and basic recognition of human rights.

In his conduct and comments toward the People's Republic of China, President Chen has promised that Taiwan would not seek independence as long as the People's Republic would refrain from using force against Taiwan. Moreover, he has initiated solid measures that are aimed at reducing tensions in the Taiwan Straits so that the freedom of navigation in the Straits can be maintained.

President Chen has further demonstrated his leadership in bringing his diplomatic skills to the fore in gaining Taiwan entrance to the World Trade Organization. In this regard, I can only hope and wish for President Chen's continued diplomatic success in making Taiwan more present in the global community of nations. Two such measures of continued success would rest in gaining Taiwan access and entry to both the World Health Organization and the International Civil Aviation Organization.

Mr. Speaker, as President Chen celebrates the third anniversary of his Presidency, I would only say that America congratulates and salutes him upon the many successes and achievements of his administration to date. And, that we wish him continued and further success in the future.

Mr. Speaker, Albert J. Davis was the chief economist on the Democratic staff of the United States House Committee on Ways and Means. He died Friday, May 30, 2003, of injuries caused by a car hitting him on May 19 in Arlington, Virginia, outside of the Metro stop on his way home from work. He was only 56 years old.

Mr. Speaker, it would be impossible for me to list all of the people who have come up to me since the accident to tell me how much Al meant to them. He had such a personal one-on-one relationship with so many Members of this body, so many staff, so many journalists, that all the meetings I had last week became times of reflection on Al's life. Whether I was meeting with other senior Democratic Members or columnists from a weekly news magazine or the experts on tax legislation, we forgot what we were meeting for so that we could pay honor to Al.

I could not help thinking that it was indeed a blessing that Al could have touched so many people so deeply through his hard work, his intelligence, and his good humor. Al worked nearly 20 years for this great institution of democracy, first on the House Committee on the Budget staff, at least the last 5 years at Ways and Means. He was one of those staff members who, though he never had to answer directly to the voters, devoted every minute to bettering the lives of ordinary working people.

Though he appeared soft spoken and cerebral, Al Davis was passionate about defending the interests of the working men and women of this country. Using charts and spread sheets and solid numbers, Al was a powerful fighter for economic justice.

He loved his job. He loved providing information to Members. His analysis was so honest that Members from both sides of the aisle would ask him for information even though they would disagree with him.

While Al was seldom quoted or mentioned in newspapers or on television, he had a profound effect in shaping legislation, publicizing poor policy, and changing minds.

Al is survived by his companion of 20 years, Mary Bielefeld. Mary's an incredibly kind and strong woman in her own right. Her strength has given those of us who worked with Al strength. Like Al, Mary works in public service as an attorney at the United States Department of Justice. They never got rich serving the people of this Nation, but they had a full and rich life in each other's company.

Al worked long hours when he worked here, often to midnight or 1:00 a.m. in the morning on days. He loved the outdoors. He loved getting to know the wilderness, and he shared these experiences with Mary and his close friends.

Most of all, Al valued honest government. He was mainly frustrated when people would cook books or fudge the numbers simply for political gain. Al believed that government in a democracy should be honest. He devoted his life to making sure that it was. He debunked myths whether they were Democratic or Republican. In a political environment too used to skirting around politically inconvenient facts, Al promoted honest opinion, honest budgets, and honest analysis.

Al's death is a loss for the entire Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Ms. Amelia Vega of the Dominican Republic on being crowned Miss Universe in ceremonies held in Panama City, Panama on June 3, 2003. She was selected for this honor in a competition that featured more than 70 of the most beautiful young women in the world.

It was also a good night for the women of the Caribbean, who earned the pageant's other honors. Miss Dominican Republic, in addition to winning the big prize, was voted as the best dressed contestant while Miss Puerto Rico, Carla Tricoli, was awarded the title of Miss Photogenic and Miss Antigua and Barbuda, Kai Davis, was honored as Miss Congeniality.

Miss Vega, who is the first Dominican to win the beauty pageant, won the crowd and the judges over with a humble confidence that extended beyond her 18 years of age. She intends to spend the next year pursuing her dreams of an entertainment career and leading fundraising efforts on behalf of AIDS research and awareness.

The Miss Universe title opens doors for both its winner and her country of origin. As the native country of the current Miss Universe, Panama was able to host this year's pageant, helping to generate what government officials say could be as much as $60,000,000 in revenues. Perhaps as important, it is also a source of national pride and inspiration for all those associated with the Dominican community, abroad and in the United States. As a representative of a district that contains the largest concentration of Dominicans outside of Quisqueya, I join the people of Washington Heights as they bask in the joy of seeing one of their own succeed on such a competitive world stage.

Miss Vega understands that alongside the numerous ``once in a lifetime opportunities,'' her fame will allow her to affect the image that the world has of the Dominican people and its culture. Although potentially daunting, it is a responsibility that she is excited to accept. As she told the crowd last night, ``I didn't come here just for the crown, but also to make my country proud.''

Undoubtedly, she is on her way.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the motion for the previous question so that we might have the opportunity to amend a rule and to bring to the House legislation that would bring some equity to the recently passed tax bill.

I do not think many Members of the House knew that those that were making the decision would deliberately exclude the benefit of the child tax credit for people making less than $26,000. I refuse to believe that people can be so callous that they would deliberately try to make adjustments to a tax bill that was geared to, as the leadership would say, those who pay the taxes, and exclude the privilege and the opportunity for people to get credit that are in low income merely because they do not pay ``the taxes.''

We have 6.5 million working families that do pay taxes, albeit those taxes may be perceived by the majority not to be important. But they do pay taxes, and they have lost the benefits of receiving tax credits for their children.

But Mr. Speaker, even worse than that, yesterday we passed the resolution paying honor to those brave men and women that were placed in harm's way as a result of the so-called ``victory'' in Iraq. As I said yesterday, parades are important, saluting the flag is important, having a bumper sticker is important; but how we treat these veterans is even far more important.

I know that Republicans do not know, and Democrats are learning, that as a result of so-called tax benefits given to these people that were in combat, that over 200,000 that served in Iraq will be denied the tax credit for their children. Why? Because the language of the tax law is that they have to have taxable income. Out of the benevolence of our hearts we have said that if they served in combat, they do not have to pay taxes.

I hope Members will consider to speedily bring up my bill so that we can remedy this error that has been made. Nobody thought that by removing tax liability we would be actually taking away the benefit of the child tax credits.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Will the gentleman yield on the tax question?

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the distinguished majority leader would extend the courtesy to his Members and not leave the floor. It is so important when Members have something to say to correct their position that they stay on the floor, not for Democrats but for Republicans as well.

This is a very edifying thing that he said in the well of the House. He is trying to rebut the allegations that we have made that in the last tax bill that the working people in the lower incomes were deliberately left out of the bill. Now, my colleague can go back to last year, the year before last, 10 years from now, but the accusation was made and still stands. The accusation is that the Republican leadership cared more about accelerating tax relief for the wealthiest people than they did for working people.

So let us not come here and mislead and make these statements and walk off the floor. There is a tendency for all of us to be out of order when we see the arrogance, the indifference, and the lack of respect that certain Members, especially those in the leadership, have for those that have to work here each and every day.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 195, a resolution to congratulate Sammy Sosa of the Chicago Cubs for hitting 500 major league home runs.

There is no doubt that Mr. Sosa's exploits on the baseball diamond will one day earn him a place in Major League Baseball's Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, NY. There is no doubt that his drive and talent make him a role model to scores of American children who one day hope to stare down a fastball in the batter's box of any ballpark.

However, it is his spirit, energy and commitment off the field that has earned him a place in the hearts of citizens all over the world, including those in his native Dominican Republic. Just a couple of weeks after he and Mark McGwire shattered baseball's single season homerun record in 1998, he traveled to the DR to help rebuild the country after it was devastated by Hurricane Gorges. He continues to offer his time and money to provide children with the opportunities that poverty denied him, allowing them to dream that they too can rise above their economic circumstances and reach their potential.

Those in my district, which includes the proud Dominican community of Washington Heights, know that Sammy Sosa isn't the first Dominican to achieve success in the Big Leagues. He follows in the footsteps of trailblazers like Felipe Alou, Joaquin Andujar, George Bell, Rico Carty, Tony Fernandez, Pedro Guerrero, Juan Marichal, and Jose Rijo. He, as well as contemporaries like Pedro Martinez, Manny Ramirez and Alex Rodriguez, remind others of how necessary it is to use fame and fortune to help others.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Ms. Denise De La Nueces, who last month graduated summa cum laude from Columbia University's undergraduate program.

A first generation daughter of Dominican immigrants, this remarkable young woman overcame numerous challenges, including poverty and a stuttering habit, to become the first Latina salutatorian in the College's 250-year history.

Born and raised in Washington Heights, Ms. De La Nueces attended the neighborhood parochial school of St. Rose of Lima before earning valedictorian honors at Cathedral High School. She entered Columbia in 1999 as one of the first recipients of The New York Times College Scholarship, a program founded to assist promising service-oriented students who have faced financial and other obstacles.

Although highly focused on excelling academically in biology, Ms. De La Nueces carefully balanced her studies with an equally strong commitment to her campus and neighborhood community. She was an active member of cultural organizations, working with students and alumni to develop and maintain the school's Latino mentoring program. She found time to step outside Columbia's walls to volunteer with Project HEALTH, a community-based program that works with physicians, educators, families and local leaders to design and implement curricula that empowers children to take control of their health.

She also found time to tutor at the Double Discovery Center (DDC), a Columbia-based educational nonprofit that works with students from low- income and historically disadvantaged backgrounds. A DDC alumnus herself, Ms. De La Nueces will spend the summer working there before getting her pediatrics career off to a good start at Harvard Medical School this fall.

Ms. De La Nueces' achievements are exceptional, but she is by no means a statistical fluke. Although far too many children of low-income and historically disadvantaged backgrounds are failing to reach their potential in our educational system, each May brings forth a new generation of graduates that under the radar of the media have broken barriers and shattered stereotypes to earn degrees. The challenge for these and other graduates is not only to blaze new paths with their individual success, but also to reach back to their alma maters and provide support within these difficult educational institutions.

In her remarks on graduation day, Ms. De Las Nueces thanked her diverse group of mentors for providing this support. She also thanked them for helping her find a sense of community in the midst of so many differences. ``In them, I have found the desire to improve the world community by looking beyond themselves,'' the Columbia Daily Spectator reported. ``Let us strive to reach beyond ourselves, beyond the small spheres of our individual confines.''

Ms. De La Nueces' experience is an example of how inclusion and diversity can provide opportunities not only for minority students to excel, but also for all members of the student body to be enriched. An example of how leaders and mentors can be found and developed in all communities, if we are willing to invest in their search.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember and pay, tribute to Cesar Chavez, a human rights advocate and a man of justice and peace who worked tirelessly to end the oppressive conditions of so many American farm workers. Founder of the United Farm Workers of America, Mr. Chavez sacrificed his life to those who suffered hardship without any voice of support. Although the ten-year anniversary of his death passed on April 23, 2003,

the legacy of this great man and the inspiration of his mission carries on.

Cesar Chavez was born in 1927 as the son of a poor farm worker and general store owner. The loss of his family's land during the Depression forced him to quit school and work in the fields, where he gained a first-hand understanding for the dingy, overcrowded quarters that these workers must endure--often without electricity, bathrooms, or running water. Although he never owned a house or earned more then $6,000 a year, he moved to California in the early 1960s with his family and began his lifelong mission to advocate an end to such conditions.

Mr. Chavez once said, ``We can choose to use our lives for others to bring about a better and more just world for our children . . . and in giving of yourself you will discover a whole new life full of meaning and love.'' This great man was a selflessly giving leader who should inspire and motivate us all. Through the United Farm Workers of America his life was used for the benefit of future generations, proving that there can be strength and power in unity, no matter how hopeless the situation.

Cesar Chavez must not be forgotten, and neither can his work. In focusing on our treatment of farm workers, and teaching us how to care for fellow Americans, he also showed that there is much work still to be done. We must remember that there are still too many below-poverty wages, unsafe working conditions, and individuals who suffer from sub- standard living standards without proper benefits. We must use this ten-year anniversary to respond to the continued injustice that exists for farm workers that Mr. Chavez would not tolerate. By continuing the work of this fine man, the mission he had for human rights will carry on and the spirit of his great life will most directly be remembered.

Mr. Speaker, I join in the praise of the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and my dear friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) in bringing this to the floor. I am one of the politicians that do not find anything wrong with politics. And if it is politically right to laud the efforts of our men and women overseas that are coming home, then no matter how it is described, I want to be among those that would do it.

These young men and women are dedicated, and we have to make certain that we give them a little more than praise and a parade. Because I recall in 1952, when I came home from Korea, those medals did not get me a job; it was people reaching out, trying to help me to put my life together. And so I think this is what we have to do.

My friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), says how difficult it is to send our young people into harm's way and that we may have to consider doing this more in the future. Well, I hope not, because if we take a good look at those that will be coming home, we will be taking a harder look at those that we sent.

Most of my colleagues know that I really truly believe that what is in the best interest of the United States of America is that we consider draft legislation, where everyone would be exposed to defending this great Republic, rather than seeing who will be coming home, and worse still who will not be coming home, those that come from our inner cities, our rural areas, and those that we are now trying to further recruit.

While patriotism is up in this House of Representatives, recruitment is not up. We are now giving mandatory extensions to those people who have volunteered, and we are bringing out the Reservists. Sure, they are dedicated, but we are asking them to serve two and three times a year, or a 2-year period, and of course, our National Guard are being called. So as we find expanded need for military, we ought to expand the pool from which they come.

So what I am saying is that I want to join in the spirit of this resolution. I will be there at the parades, I am there at the armories. But for God's sake, let us have something of substance in the legislation.

I know that most of the Members are not aware that that the tax bill that we passed on this floor excluded benefits for members of the military for extended child credits for those people that have incomes of $26,000 or less. Let me share with my colleagues the Catch 22 that our members of the Armed Forces are in.

One, if they were under $26,000, and we know most of them are, they were cut out of the bill. They were dropped out of the bill, and the leadership said they may not come back. For those people who served in combat and had a larger amount of their income to be tax exclusive, they would get over $26,000 and once again lose the tax credit.

Let us pay tribute, but let us have some substance and benefits for our beloved veterans.