Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in tribute to Michael J. Handy, Director of the Mayor's Office of Veterans' Affairs in the City of New York. Mr. Handy died on May 31 from a heart attack. He was 55 years old.

Mr. Handy was first appointed to head the Mayor's Office of Veterans' Affairs by Mayor David Dinkins in the late 1980's, and was reappointed to that position by Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

For Mr. Handy, service to veterans was not a partisan issue. Indeed, he was New York's Veterans' Veteran, having dedicated 30 years of his professional life to assisting the men and women who had served in our Nation's Armed Forces.

He had served in Vietnam as an enlisted man in the Air Force. But as his loving wife Edna has pointed out, Mr. Handy's service after the war, and to the very end, was a response to a call that struck him so deeply that it became central to his life. For him, working for and with veterans was not so much a job, or a political office, it was a passion.

I first began working with Mr. Handy in the late 1980's when he became involved with the Congressional Black Caucus Veterans Braintrust, which I chaired. Mr. Handy became a fixture at those annual meetings which convened each September during the Black Caucus' Annual Legislative Conference.

Mr. Handy was one of the very first advocates for federally assisted housing for disabled and veterans, which culminated eventually in a program to provide such housing, administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Veterans' Administration.

In his later years, Mr. Handy was a persistent advocate for raising the benefits received by Reservists and National Guardsmen to equal those of active duty soldiers. His voice in that area has been heard in Washington, where Democrats in Congress are pushing such legislation.

Mr. Handy, a native New Yorker, was a lively, kind and gentle man whose service to New York City's veterans, including those residing in my Congressional District, I will never forget. He followed his vocation with the greatest enthusiasm, attending every parade, every meeting, every dedication, in the hope that somehow his presence would make a difference for his constituents which numbered more than half a million veterans in the city and nearly 400 veterans organizations.

Mr. Handy, in his Director's statement at the Office of Veterans' Affairs, described New York as a city of ``patriotic Americans--men and women--who have put themselves in harm's way to preserve our way of life. We owe those who wear, and those who wore, the uniform of the United States of America a debt of gratitude for their service and their sacrifice.''

Mr. Speaker, we all owe Michael Handy a comparable debt. We thank and commend him. And we pray that you will ease the pain of his loss being endured by his dear wife Edna, his loving daughters, extended family and his many friends.

Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I approach the floor to alert the House that a substantial number of Members are prepared to see that we do not pass suspension bills until such time as the grievances of this great body are addressed.

As most of us know, recently this House passed a tax bill without the inclusion of one thought, one amendment, one idea that the Democrats have had. There comes a time that we have to say, enough is enough, not because we are Democrats, but because we represent people throughout these United States whose interests have been ignored.

Six and one-half million low-income working families and 12 million children have been denied the benefits that this House was allowed to believe existed in the tax bill. It was excluded. Why? It was excluded to make certain that the money borrowed from the Treasury would take care of the high-income people receiving relief from capital gains and from interest taxes.

We will be heard today, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House consider H.R. 2286, a bill to expand the child tax credit and marriage penalty relief for families that were left out of the recently signed White House-supported tax law.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

If we have unanimous consent that an error had been made by the conferees and the House Republicans and Democrats would like to correct this error, what would the Chair recommend that we do, since we want to avoid the accusation that this is class warfare, when the working poor have been excised from the bill?

Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Could the Speaker tell me when the majority expects to bring additional Suspension Calendar requests to the floor?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, the President has said in numerous speeches that his policies are designed to ``leave no child behind.'' He has said recently that, ``My jobs and growth plan would reduce tax rates for everyone who pays income tax.'' White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer stated on May 29 about the new tax-cut law (which includes all of the provisions of the President's plan in full or in part), ``This certainly does deliver tax relief to people who pay income taxes.'' Now that the bill has been signed, all of these statements have been shown to be false.

Back then, during the debate on this bill, the Republicans assured the press that the final conference bill retained a Senate provision that, while it did not extend any tax relief to millions of low-income working families with children, did at least accelerate the 15 percent partial refundability. The Republicans also claimed that the marriage penalty relief was accelerated for couples. These claims have been proven false as well.

The American people were sold a false bill of goods by the Administration and the Congressional Republicans. In the middle of the night, the Republicans passed a bill that over and over again puts the interests of the wealthiest people in the country ahead of those of the ordinary American family.

You will hear all sorts of excuses from the Republicans as to why this occurred. The spokeswoman for Chairman Bill Thomas of the House Committee on Ways and Means told The New York Times that the blame lay with the members of the other body of Congress''(W)hen we had to squeeze it all to $350 billion, they weren't talking about the child credits.'' She concluded, ``(W)hatever we do is not going to be enough for some segments of the population.''

The ``segments'' of the population we are talking about are those people who the President and Congressional Republicans say that he wants to help. We are talking about 11.9 million children (in 6.5 million families) who would benefit from accelerating the increase in the refundability of the child tax credit. These are parents who work hard at low wages and pay high payroll taxes to the Federal government. Another ``segment'' we are talking about is working couples who qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit. These are working poor families who are often struggling to stay together given the financial pressures on them. A couple with two children where each parent earns about $10,000 has about a $1,000 marriage penalty next year. And yet, the Republicans decided that marriage penalty relief should not include them.

The Republicans also left out 8.1 million taxpayers who receive no benefits from the new tax law and yet pay income taxes. This group consists mainly of low-income single individuals and moderate-income single parents whose children are over 16.

Not only are these ``segments'' made up of men and women who work and pay Federal taxes, many of the people that are left out of tax relief are the same men and women who just fought for this country in Iraq. The society they sacrificed for has decided to raid the Social Security and Medicare trust fund to give billions of dollars in tax relief to wealthy investors, but has not seen fit to give a tax cut to our soldiers.

Make no mistake about it. Nobody forgot to put benefits in because they were sleepy in the middle of the night. This was not necessary because the bill had to cost only $350 billion and it was simply impossible to do anything for these working Americans in the bill. The Republicans in Congress, with the tacit approval of the White House, deliberately skimped and trimmed on the few provisions under consideration to help millions of middle- and low-income working families. Meanwhile, they enhanced provisions for the wealthy and for special interests. They made sure that the average millionaire would receive a $93,500 tax break. They made sure that luxury SUV owners would get a generous tax break if they can figure out a way to make their vehicle a ``business expense.'' They even made sure that the tax cuts for dividends, the so-called elimination of ``double taxation,'' applied to dividends from companies that use sham headquarters in tax havens to get out of paying any tax. These companies that put profits over patriotism get benefits from the tax bill the President signed, but the parents of 12 million children do not.

The bill we introduce tonight is designed to serve those people with children that the Republicans talk about but somehow never do anything for. This includes many of our service men and women who are or have been stationed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Korea. These men and woman have risked their lives and done their duty at such low wages that the President's tax cut which he claims helps ``working families'' has left them out.

The bill would include an expansion of the refundable child credit that was included in the Democratic economic stimulus proposal. It would expand the refundable child credit for the families of military serving in Iraq and other combat zones. It also would include the provision of the Democratic stimulus plan that accelerated the marriage penalty relief in the earned income tax credit that was provided in the 2001 tax bill.

The President's bill gave big tax cuts to the wealthiest citizens and funded these tax cuts though borrowing. While we want every child in America to benefit from tax cuts, we do not want to pass the cost of what we do to our children and grandchildren in the form of more national debt. The cost of the bill would be offset by a combination of the corporate tax shelter and Enron-specific provisions that passed the Senate and Mr. Neal's bill stopping corporate expatriation.

The legislation we propose has two key sections:

Liberalization of Refundable Family Credit

Under current law, the per-child tax credit is partially refundable (i.e., paid even if the family has no income tax liability). The amount of partial refundability is 10 percent of taxable wages above $10,000. Under the 2001 tax act, the amount of refundability is increased to 15 percent of taxable wages over $10,000 effective in 2005 and thereafter.

This legislation accelerates the 15 percent partial refundability and lowers the threshold for partial refundability from $10,000 to $7,500. It would increase the number of families eligible for partial refundability.

The military serving in combat zones receive an exclusion for their pay while serving in the zone. As a result, many in the military will not be eligible for the partial refundable family credit because they do not have taxable wages. The legislation solves this problem by disregarding the combat pay exclusion when computing the size of the partially refundable family credit.

Marriage Penalty Relief in Earned Income Credit

The 2001 tax act provided three types of marriage penalty relief, an increase in standard deduction, an expanded 15 percent rate bracket, and an increase in the dollar amount at which the earned income credit begins to be phased out. The recently enacted tax cut accelerates the first two types of marriage penalty relief, but does not accelerate the relief in the earned income tax credit.

This legislation will accelerate the marriage penalty relief in the earned income tax credit.

When the Republicans brought their final tax cut bill up in the House in the middle of the night, I argued on the House floor that the bill did almost nothing for working people while rewarding the wealthiest people in our society who have lots of unearned income. The Republicans accuse me of engaging in ``class warfare'' and expect me to back down. But I agree that it is class warfare. The Republicans have declared war against those who earn their living through work, even when those individuals are serving their nation in the armed service. This legislation shows that in this

class warfare, we are on the side of working men and women.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I think I should be recognized by the Speaker.

I am anxious to be recognized by the Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the graciousness of the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means and congratulate him on the sincerity with which he accepts the motion to instruct the conferees for creating the atmosphere so we can have discussion on what is happening here.

This is a motion to instruct the conferees; and to people who are not aware of it, there is an assumption that there is a conference, a conference that involves Members of the House and the Senate appointed by our great Speaker to resolve the technical differences in a bill from the House of Representatives and the Senate, for us to be represented, Democrats and Republicans alike. And the distinguished chairman of the committee says that he will accept our recommendations that were drafted in parliamentary language to report neither an increase in the Federal budget deficit nor an increase in the amount of the debt subject to the public debt.

Now, while he is saying that this is his conduct in the conference, all of last night and this morning we have heard that the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means has already reached agreement with his Republican friends in the Senate. I do not know who is going to be appointed as a conferee, but it is abundantly clear that they have reported to the press that they have already decided what they are going to do, and so the whole idea that democracy is taking place here has really been shattered by the fact that the Republicans have yet to come out of the dark room that they have been in to share with us where will the conference be.

I do hope that we understand this, that the eloquence with which the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means described how repugnant the deficit is to him, that he only found it difficult to live with because it was caused by Members of Congress' propensity to spend money for programs.

I really think that is the key to the whole thing. He has no problem in creating the deficit for tax cuts, but his problem is when we are spending it for education and housing and Social Security and Medicare and prescription drugs. That is where he draws the line.

It seems as though while the papers are concerned with whether the negotiators, and that is what is referred to on the front page of the Wall Street Journal, not the congressional conferences taking place trying to resolve differences, but what he and his Republican counterpart have decided that they are going to do for long-term economic gain, something similar to what they did several years ago when they said they had a program to create jobs, and it turns out that they had a program to increase deficits.

So here we are today saying that they have agreed on a $350 billion tax cut when everyone inside the Beltway and in the House and Senate knows that they have agreed to a trillion dollar tax cut and a trillion dollars in borrowed money; and the fact remains that for the next decade the interest that we will be paying on the money that has been borrowed for tax cuts will be more than the money that we ever will be paying for discretionary programs to provide assistance for Americans.

So now that they have come out of the dark room and agreed that they are going to do the best, I can tell Members this: no matter what they come out with, it is the American people who are going to pay the price for this dramatic shift as to when did we start borrowing trillions of dollars in order to reduce the taxes on the precious few already- blessed people with high incomes that will be the beneficiaries of it.

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

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

I am even more frightened now that the chairman has indicated publicly how little he knows about what the Senate is doing since he has been on television all night sharing with us that he has been negotiating with the Senate, but I accept his lack of understanding of where the conference is going to be.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

It is so sad that the gentleman constantly refers to this as some type of a game. I am certain to the millions of people without jobs and without hope that they consider this tax cut just as repugnant as the words that have been uttered about this class warfare. It is a class warfare, and it is the working class that are the victims.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our distinguished leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), who has made such an

outstanding contribution to the Committee on Ways and Means and Congress.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), an outstanding member of the Committee on Ways and Means and the Congress.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

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

Mr. Speaker, I really think that the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means has adequately concluded this debate. God forbid, if the safety and the solvency of the Social Security system and the

Medicare system, the future education of our children, affordable housing, be placed in Republican hands, then the situation is worse than I ever thought.

No, you do not have to be an economist to figure this move out. What we are talking about is borrowing money, making insecure the Social Security system, privatizing the Medicare system, not having enough funds to and keeping every child behind. And why are we doing this? Are we borrowing it for spending, or are we borrowing it for tax cuts? I think the American people understand what we are doing.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the motion.

The previous question was ordered.

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

Mr. Speaker, this, I hope, is going to be an evening and a day that we will all remember as legislators. It is true that the majority tries desperately hard to bring these bills up in the middle of the night so that sunshine will never see what it is.

It is also true, it is also true that conferences do not mean what they used to mean. It means after a dozen Republicans get together in some room somewhere and decide what they want to do, they then come around and pass out a paper and ask you to sign it.

So I have been accustomed to that on the Committee on Ways and Means. But guess what, a lot of Democrats on this side have been saying forget all of this $726 billion and $550 billion and $300 billion. This is all a game they are playing, and they said that this bill was so full of gimmicks, that the Republicans were trying to fool the American people because we said that this was really a trillion dollar tax cut. And my friends over there started booing and saying this was so unfair and that we were just distorting the numbers.

Well, there is one person in this House that when he says something, people do not point their finger at him. They say the man makes a lot of sense. He is a straight shooter, and he is respected by both sides of the aisle.

Now, I do not normally read statements, but since it involves the Speaker of this great House, I thought it might start off the debate on a high level rather than wait for just the heavy people to come down at the end of debate and start talking about how we should salute the flag and do the right thing. And this is a bill that we have worked on and we have done it within the budget.

Now, it says here that House Speaker Hastert told the Congress Daily Thursday that the final package incorporates key features of the House- passed bill and positions Congress to pass much greater tax relief in the near future. The $350 billion number takes us through the next 2 years basically, Hastert said. Hastert, meaning the Speaker of this august body. But it also could end up being a trillion dollar tax bill because the stuff, that is what the chairman was working with, because the stuff is extendable.

That is the fight we are going to have, and it is not a bad fight to have. This goes on and says, Congressional Journal, Hastert said the final package is front loaded and will boost the economy in the short term but it includes nearly all of the content of the House's original bill. Now, I do not know how far in debt you guys want to take us, but listen, because this is important stuff. This is history-making stuff.

Now, this is what the Speaker said about this bill. That at the end of the day it is not 350, it is not 550, it is not 726. It is a trillion. But guess what? It gets better, to show you just how deep they would want to get us in the hole. I never knew they hated Social Security and Medicare that badly. But at the so-called conference, there was a period of time that I was the only Democrat there on the House side beside the minority leader. The chairman came in later. And so there was opening statements made before the conference report was just passed around to sign. And our distinguished majority leader said, while we are doing this bill and you have done a lot of good work on it and praised the Republican leadership and the House and Senate, he said, before this year is over we will be coming back to pick up the rest of it to make certain we get another trillion.

Now, I mention these names because the only thing that they did not mention was that they were going to borrow the money in order to give the rich these tax cuts, and they want to stick the rest of society with paying the interest on the money that they are borrowing at the expense of the Social Security system. I am so happy and pleased that at the end of this day that we do not have to point fingers and say that it is gimmicks that you are doing or you are trying to hoodwink the people because if the Speaker said it, and you applauded it, so therefore I do not have any apprehensions; and if the majority leader came back and said, you are coming back to raid us again and

you applaud that, well, thank God for your honesty in what you are doing.

And one day somebody is going to ask, when this deficit just grew, when the programs were collapsing, when people were just paying more interest on the debt than all of the programs that we have together, all of the discretionary programs, they may ask, and just what were you doing when this happened, when you shifted the responsibility for paying taxes to the working people that do not have the exclusions that you provided today?

So to the Republican leadership, thank you for making our day. I thank the Speaker for being so honest and saying what these people have done; and to the leader, come back again for the next trillion dollars and maybe some day soon the American people can see what you are doing to them.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North

Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), 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 15 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the head of the Democratic Steering Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to agree with the gentleman from Louisiana. It certainly did go down because they stole the money out of the Social Security trust fund in order to make it go down. So he scores there.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), the ranking member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

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

There is a whole lot to this bill I did not see, but if that wife is going to benefit from the marriage penalty and she is not working, this is an exciting tax bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

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

It is really great if someone can get in the 15-percent bracket and not have a job. The IRS is really working overtime.

But I know you are not really trying to take care of these people. Basically, this is a Republican plan that came

long before the gentleman became chairman of the committee. It has very, very little to do with taxes. It is just the Republican belief that the Federal Government should not be in the business of providing service to American citizens, that they should just take care of national defense and to provide the wealth and protection for the investors. And for those people who are less fortunate, they should rely on local and State governments. For that reason, we find this enormous increase in taxes for working people that work in our cities and work in our States.

We also find our charitable organizations in deep trouble as the Federal Government will be providing less assistance to them in Medicaid and Medicare. And even our heroic veterans who come home will find that the benefits will be sharply reduced for them. Leave No Child Behind? Take a look at the budget and see how many people are left behind.

We know that some of these programs have been described as ``third rails.'' We do not want to touch them. Leave Social Security alone. But at the end of the day, when we see that you borrowed all of the money that you can and that our great Nation is now paying interest on the debt that you have caused not only tonight but you promise that you will come back again and again and again and we will find ourselves in more debt, we will be okay, those of us in this Chamber. But what about our children and our children's children? Do we not owe it to them to at least provide the same type of America that our fathers and grandfathers provided for us?

What happened with the surplus that we have? How did we have such a tremendous swing from $5 trillion there with our hopes and our dreams where we could do something? What do you leave us with now? A deficit as far as we can see, programs that we will never be able to initiate? And what will you say? The money is just not there?

You say that this tax bill is going to create jobs. Why do we not pull the Record about what you said the last time you came with a $1 trillion tax bill and find out where are the jobs that you promised then?

We know there is a philosophical difference between Republicans and Democrats. We believe the people should be served, and not just the investor class.

Is it class warfare? You bet your life. But you declared it against the working people.

Mr. Speaker, today, on what would have been his 78th birthday, I rise to honor one of the great leaders of this nation, El- Hajj Malik El-Shabazz, also known as Malcolm X. As an African-American advocate of racial pride and self-determination, Malcolm X was one of the premier leaders during a point in history where African-Americans were systematically denied the rights enjoyed by White Americans. His teachings during the civil rights era focussed on helping African- Americans to deny negative stereotypes impressed upon them by the greater White society and economic empowerment through community building with other African-Americans. His contributions to the civil rights movement were instrumental in helping African-Americans and other minorities achieve access to social and economic institutions historically denied to them. It is for these reasons that I feel it is necessary to acknowledge him on this day--his birthday. While I will provide a short biography of Malcolm X in these remarks, I encourage you to read the Autobiography of Malcolm X and come to more intimately know one of the 20th century's Renaissance figures.

Malcolm X was born as Malcolm Little to a Baptist minister in Omaha, Nebraska on May 19, 1925. As a sad foreshadowing of Malcolm X's own life, Malcolm's father was killed in Michigan for his attempts to fight racial oppression. He lost his mother to a mental institution. Arrested in 1946 for burglary, Malcolm gained knowledge of the Black Muslim movement in prison and joined the Nation of Islam. After leaving prison in 1952, like other members of the Nation of Islam, he changed his last name to ``X'' as a means of shedding linkages to the White slaveholders that had given him and other African Americans their family names. Malcolm became one of the most effective speakers for the Nation of Islam. He increased membership, founded new mosques, and was eventually assigned to be Minister of the Nation of Islam's Harlem mosque in New York. In 1963, disagreements with Elijah Muhammad, leader of the Nation of Islam, caused Malcolm to leave the Nation of Islam and make his pilgrimage to Mecca, Saudi Arabia in search of knowledge about the international Islamic Movement. In Mecca he witnessed the union of all races and developed an approach to ending racial oppression that differed from that of the Nation of Islam. Upon returning to the United States, he formed his own organizations, the Organization of Afro- American Unity and the Muslim Mosque Inc. Malcolm became a victim of death threats as a result of his views. On February 14, 1965, Malcolm's home was firebombed, with his wife and children escaping unharmed. Just a week later, Malcolm was shot to death at the Audubon Ballroom in Harlem, where he was preparing to speak.

Malcolm X had a profound influence on Americans of all races and around the world. Black and White Americans alike responded to Malcolm's forceful speech, and his strength in the face of hostility. African-Americans viewed him as a beacon of hope and strength that could help to end racial oppression in America. While he is often portrayed as a black militant leader, encouraging the concepts of black nationalism or separatism and black pride, his later years focussed increasingly on forming a framework for world brotherhood and human justice. He is often quoted as saying that race is ``not a Negro problem, nor an American problem. This is a world problem, a problem of humanity.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise with great enthusiasm in support of H.R. 1018, the bill designating the building located at 1 Federal Plaza in New York City as the ``James L. Watson United States Court of International Trade Building.''

I first introduced this bill in the 107th Congress when it was passed in the House but failed to be brought up in the hectic closing days of the Senate. I commend Chairman Young and Ranking Member Oberstar for their commitment to this initiative and willingness to move the legislation early in the 108th Congress. I look forward to speedy action in the Senate to ensure enactment of this legislation that honors one of this nation's greatest jurists.

This bill will attach Judge Watson's name to the courthouse housing the U.S. Court of International Trade where he served for 36 years until his death, having achieved senior status in 1991. He was appointed to what was then the United States Customs Court in 1966 by President Lyndon B. Johnson. Reorganized and renamed by Congress in 1980, the court deals primarily with matters involving trade, including the classification and valuation of imported goods, tariffs, customs and duties and charges of unfair practices by U.S. trading partners.

Judge James L. Watson, who died at the age of 79 in the fall of 2001, was a fine man, a distinguished jurist and a pillar of the Harlem community where he was born. I was honored to have served as one of his law clerks soon after my graduation from law school.

Judge Watson was the nation's most senior African American federal judge, and was the first Black Customs Court judge in modern times assigned to cases in the deep South. As was the practice in the Customs Court, he was also assigned to preside over various criminal and civil matters in Federal District Courts across the country.

The scion of an accomplished family of lawyers, public servants and business people with roots in Jamaica, West Indies, Judge Watson had a distinguished career in New York, prior to his service on the Court of International Trade. After his service in the U.S. Army in WWII, he graduated from New York University and Brooklyn Law School. Moving from the private practice of law into the political arena, he was elected to the New York State Senate, where he served from 1954 to 1963, when he was elected to the Civil Court.

Long before this legislation, Judge Watson had placed his stamp on the functioning of the Court of International Trade. In 1970, he helped modernize the court, bringing it more in line with the rest of the federal judiciary and, as chairman of its committee on rules and practices, was instrumental in rewriting its rules and communications systems.

Judge Watson was a trailblazer in government and the law, with a reputation for fairness, good judgment, and the common touch with people. I will never be able to thank him enough for his service to our community and to our nation. More personally, I will be forever grateful for the opportunity he provided me as a young lawyer and the wisdom he instilled, which guides me to this day.

Mr. Speaker, on April 4, 2003, the country and the city of New York suffered a tremendous loss when a plane carrying real estate developer Anthony Fisher and his wife, Anne, crashed 35 miles northwest of Boston.

He was one of this city's greatest jewels, a dear friend who dedicated his many talents to both the financial and cultural future of our fine metropolis.

Mr. Fisher was a founder and partner at the equity firm of FdG Associates, as well as a senior partner at the prestigious real estate firm of Fisher Brothers Inc. His development efforts, including the Alliance Capital Building in Midtown, Park Avenue Plaza, and Third Avenue, proudly continued his family's tradition of redefining the city's physical and commercial landscape.

However, the city has lost not only a successful businessman, but also a social entrepreneur whose energy and philanthropy were as magnificent as any of one of his buildings. As chairman and chief executive officer of the Intrepid Sea-Air Foundation, I will fondly remember how he often put his money where his heart was, ensuring that both our city and our country did not forget the tireless efforts of its military veterans. Although he never formally served, he understood the debt that we owe to those that put on the uniform and the duty we all share in ensuring that those who are fortunate to return are well- cared for and appreciated.

Above all else, my sincerest condolences go out to Tony's five children, who have lost two loving parents. My heart goes out especially to his niece Tora, the sole survivor of this horrible crash. I join his family and friends in wishing her a speedy and successful recovery.

Words, no matter how true or eloquent, can rarely ease the pain of such a terrible tragedy. However, we can all draw strength and comfort in knowing that much of who Tony was still remains for the world to enjoy and marvel. His legacy and love will endure forever, in the buildings he erected, the charities to which he contributed and the hearts that he touched.

Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of my colleagues, I rise to share an important article which originally appeared in the Dominican- American publication, Quisqueya Life, on April 1, 2003.

Translated into English by the Independent Press Association of New York, this article details achievements of four women of Dominican heritage that have risen to become instrumental players in the usually male-dominated world of New York City politics. They are role models for boys and girls of all racial and ethnic groups, young leaders that are dedicated to making the government live up to its highest ideals.

They are just some of the many Dominicans who are making a positive difference in the lives of Americans in New York and across the nation.

[From Quisqueya Life Magazine, Apr. 1, 2003]

Women With Political Power in New York

(By Nathalie Jerez)

``Educate a man and you educate one person. Educate a woman

and you educate a whole family,'' said Ruby Manikan.

New York State was one of the epicenters of the Women's

Suffrage movement in North America. It took more than a

century of struggle for the women of this nation to gain

access to the voting booths and participate equally in the

election of public representatives.

This struggle for equal rights is the foundation of a

generation of women who now exercise rights prohibited to

their ancestors.

The same state that until 1915 did not permit women to

vote, today counts among some of its most important political

figures four women of Dominican origin who have overcome

discrimination not only against their gender but against

their race as well.

Lourdes Ventura, Assistant District Attorney in Corona, Queens

Lourdes Ventura's story is an example of what courage,

commitment, and determination can do for a person. As a

grade-school student, Ventura was told that she would never

go very far in life because she was the daughter of Dominican

immigrants, her family was dependent on public assistance,

and because she was a woman.

Today, those who tried to discourage Lourdes should know

that this Latina is the Assistant District Attorney in

Queens. Among her many accomplishments in this office she

investigated cases of discrimination in areas like housing,

credit, labor, education, and public services.

Lourdes has also served as the president of the Association

for Latin-American Law Students and recently traveled to

South Africa with the Center for Legal Resources to do

community-based work.

In 1998 she returned to Queens from the University of

Buffalo to start her career as a lawyer. She proved herself

by gaining the position of Assistant District Attorney, the

first Dominican woman to ever hold the job. Since her return

to Queens, she remained active in community work, something

she promised herself as a student that she would always do.

Lourdes uses a quote from writer Maya Angelou as her personal

motto: ``Even though you try to drag me down, like the wind,

I will rise.'' The secret to her success, she says, has been

to maintain focus, work hard and, above all, to be proud of

her origins.

``I never forgot my roots. The history of my people is what

makes me special. I think the power to dream, to grow, and to

make progress is what takes us where we want to go,'' Lourdes

said.

Lark-Marie Anton, Mayor's Press Secretary

This is a woman who has made good use of her education and

grabs the bull by the horns. Lark-Marie is responsible for

supervising all press and publicity functions for various New

York City agencies and offices, among them the New York City

Housing Authority, the NYC Commission for the United Nations,

Consular Corps and Protocol, the Department of Records and

Information, the Commission on Women's Issues, the Office to

Combat Domestic Violence, the Art Commission, and the Office

of Veterans' Affairs, to name a few. She is also the voice of

the Mayor.

Of Dominican and Lebanese heritage, Lark-Marie is just 25

years old. She was born and raised in New York, and graduated

from Marist College with degrees in Communications and Public

Relations and Psychology. She later earned a Master's Degree

in Communication Studies from the University of West

Virginia.

After returning to New York with her degrees, Anton worked

as a producer on projects such as the 2001 MTV Movie Awards

and TV Funhouse on Comedy Central. These experiences gained

her an internship as a reporter for WNBC and a job as Polling

Supervisor for the Marist Poll Institute.

Lark-Marie is a firm believer in the power of education and

has taught as an adjunct faculty member at Marist College and

as assistant professor at the University of West Virginia.

Alexandra Ventura

Born and raised in Queens and of Dominican heritage,

Alexandra Ventura is the director of the New York State

Citizenship Unit [which helps people through the

naturalization process]. Through dedicated service, Alexandra

built a bridge between the Dominican community and the

Governor by bringing the needs of Dominican and other

immigrants to the state's attention.

Before the creation of the Citizenship Unit, Alexandra had

worked side by side with Governor Pataki as Assistant Advisor

on Special Projects and Protocol since 1997. Alexandra

achieved a great deal for the Latino community by fighting

for better conditions and developing programs to benefit

Latinos in New York. Through her position, Alexandra launched

interesting campaigns and oversaw the integration of the

state government and the needs of Dominican immigrants. In

1998, she helped Mayor Giuliani organize aid for the

Dominican Republic after Hurricane George.

Alexandra graduated from Syracuse University with two

Master's Degrees, one in Political Science and another in

Public Administration. In 2002, the Dominican-American

National Round Table, for which she served as Assistant

Secretary, elected her to its Board of Directors. Alexandra

is also a member of various organizations such as 100

Hispanic Women and the American Society for Public

Administration.

Diana Reyna, District 34 City Councilmember

Diana Reyna represents Williamsburg, Bushwick, and Bedford-

Stuyvesant, Brooklyn in the City Council. She has led a

distinguished career in public service fighting for community

issues.

Since 1997 until her swearing-in as Councilmember in 2001,

Diana worked as the head of personnel for Assemblyman Vito J.

Lopez. Before this she was a legislative aide.

As a Councilmember, Diana has been active and constant in

the community that she represents. For example, in answer to

the need for bank services in the Bushwick area, she helped

found a federal credit union and serves on its board of

directors. The credit union provides the community with

services that before were absent.

Councilmember Reyna has also organized community

activities. Now she is the coordinator of United Brooklyn and

the ``South Side Task Force,'' Latino groups who offer a

community forum for residents to express their opinions. She

is also the facilitator of the North Brooklyn Public Housing

Coalition and the Fathers of Bushwick, two other

organizations that help residents get involved in the

decision making process.

Diana is a graduate of Pace University in Pleasantville,

New York. She was born in Brooklyn and is the daughter of two

Dominican immigrants who came to New York in the early 1960s.

Las Mujeres Con Poder Politico En Nueva York

``Si educas a un hombre estas educando a una persona, pero

si educas a una mujer, estas educando a una familia.'' Ruby

Manikan

El Estado de Nueva York fue un lugar clave durante el

surgimiento de los movimientos que exigian el derecho a votar

de las mujeres en Norteamerica. Mas de un siglo les tomo a

las mujeres de esta nacion llegar hasta las urnas y

participar, al igual que los hombres, en la eleccion de sus

representantes.

Esa lucha por alcanzar la igualdad de derechos es la base

de una generacion de mujeres que ejerce labores antes

prohibidas para ellas.

El mismo estado de Nueva York que hasta el ano 1915 no

permitia al sexo femenino tomar decisiones politicas, hoy

tiene entre sus ciudadanas mas influyentes en la politica a

cuatro mujeres de origen dominicano, que han roto la doble

barrera de la discriminacion, por su raza y por su sexo.

Lourdes Ventura, Una fiscal en Corona, Queens

La historia de Lourdes Ventura es un ejemplo de lo que el

coraje, el compromiso y la determinacion pueden hacer de una

persona. Cuando era estudiante de las escuelas primaria y

secundaria, Ventura encontro gente que le advirtio que nunca

llegaria a ninguna parte porque era hija de inmigrantes

dominicanos, porque era una mujer y porque su familia

dependia de la ayuda publica.

Hoy aquellos que insistian en poner trabas a las

pretensiones de Lourdes deben estar enterados que esa latina

es Asistente del Fiscal General. Entre sus actividades como

fiscal ha hecho, precisamente, la labor de investigar casos

de discriminacion en viviendas, credito, empleos, educacion y

lugares de acceso publico.

Lourdes ha sido Presidente de la Asociacion Latinoamericana

de Estudiantes de Leyes y estuvo en Africa de Sur, trabajando

con temas de la comunidad a traves del Centro de Recursos

Legales.

En 1998 volvio de la Universidad de Buffalo a Queens para

iniciar su carrera de abogada desempenandose como Asistente

del Fiscal de Distrito, en ese momento era la unica

descendiente de dominicanos ocupando esa posicion. Desde que

regreso a Queens se ha mantenido activa en los trabajos

comunitarios, algo que se prometio a si misma hacer, cuando

aun era estudiante. Lourdes ha hecho suya la frase de la

escritora Maya Angelorous, ``Aunque trates de arrastrarme en

la tierra, como el viento, yo subire''. El secreto de sus

logros, senala, ha sido el mantenerse enfocada, trabajar

duro, pero sobre todo, no sentirse avergonzada de sus

origenes.

``No olvido mis raices. La historia de mi gente es lo que

me hace especial. Creo que el poder de sonar, de

desarrollarse, de progresar es lo que nos hace llegar a donde

queremos.''

Lark-Marie Anton, Secretaria de Prensa del Alcalde Michael R. Bloomberg

Esta es una mujer que ha impuesto su conocimiento y se

mantiene con ``la sarten por el mango''. Lark-Marie es

responsable de supervisar las actividades de prensa y

publicidad de varias agencias y oficinas de la ciudad de

Nueva York. Entre ellas, la Autoridad de Viviendas, Comision

de la Ciudad para las Naciones Unidas, Cuerpo Consular y

Protocolo, Departamento de Record e informacion, Comision

sobre asuntos de la mujer, Oficina para combatir la violencia

domestica, Comision de Arte, y la oficina de asuntos de los

veteranos, solo para nombrar algunas. Ademas es la portavoz y

el contacto del alcalde Bloomberg.

Con una herencia dominicana y libanesa, esta joven mujer,

de apenas 25 anos, nacio y crecio en Nueva York. Se graduo en

el Marist College en Comunicacion y Relaciones Publicas,

ademas de psicologia. Luego, estuvo en la universidad de West

Virginia en la que obtuvo una maestria en Estudios de

Comunicacion.

Al llegar a Nueva York con los titulos obtenidos, Anton

trabajo como productora en proyectos como 2001 MTV Movie

Awards y TV Funhouse en el canal Comedy Central. Su

experiencia abarca un internado como reportera de WNBC, canal

4 y como Supervisora de Encuestas del Instituto Marist Poll.

Lark-Marie es una fiel creyente del poder de la educacion y

ha participado como instructora adjunta en el Marist College

y como asistente de profesor en la Unversidad de West

Virginia.

Alexandra Ventura

Nacida y criada en Queens, de raices dominicanas, Alexandra

Ventura es la Directora de la Unidad de Ciudadania del Estado

de Nueva York. Ventura con su dedicacion ha logrado crear un

puente entre la comunidad dominicana y el gobernador George

Pataki, llevandole a este, las inquietudes y necesidades de

los inmigrantes dominicanos, y por supuesto de otras

nacionalidades.

La directora de esta unidad, creada por Pataki en ano 2001,

trabaja al lado del gobernador desde el ano 1997 con las

labores como Asistente Especial de Proyectos Especiales y

Protocolo. La senora Ventura ha desempanado funciones de gran

importancia para la comunidad hispana, abogando por mejores

condiciones, y desarrollando programas en beneficio de los

hispanos de Nueva York. Desde su posicion Alexandra ha

desarrollado interesantes campanas y ha permitido la

integracion del gobierno estatal en asuntos relevantes para

los inmigrantes dominicanos. En el ano 98, debio asumir la

tarea de asistir al alcalde Guiliani en los trabajos de ayuda

a la Republica Dominicana tras el paso del huracan Georges.

Graduada en Syrcuse University, con una maestria en Estudios

Politicos y otra en Administracion Publica, en el ano 2002 la

Mesa Redonda Dominico-americana la designo como miembro del

Consejo Directivo y presto servicio como Secretaria Asistente

del mismo. Ademas la Ventura es miembro de varias

organizaciones como ``100 Hispanic Women and the American

Society for Public Administration.

Diana Reyna, Concejal de la Ciudad de Nueva York, distrito 34

Diana Reyna, representa a Williamsburg, Bushwick y Bedford-

Stuvesant en el Consejo de la Ciudad. Ha desarrollado una

carrera distinguida por el servicio publico, destacandose

como parte del personal de La Asamblea Estatal, abogando por

los asuntos de la comunidad.

Desde 1997 hasta su juramentacion como Concejal en el ano

2001, Reyna trabajo como jefa de personal del asambleista

Vito J. Lopez, antes de esta designacion, fue ayudante

legislativa.

Su trabajo como concejal ha sido activo y constante en la

comunidad a la que representa. Como ejemplo podemos citar

que, en respuesta a la necesidad de servicios bancarios en la

comunidad de Bushwick, coopero en la fundacion de una union

federal cooperativa, en la que fungio como miembro del

consejo directivo. La cooperativa provee a la comunidad donde

opera servicios que antes estaban ausentes.

La concejal Reyna tambien ha realizado actividades

comunitarias. Actualmente es la coordinadora de Brooklyn

Unidos y ``South Side Task Force'', agrupaciones latinas que

proporcionan a los residentes locales un foro para expresar

sus intereses sobre los temas de sus vecindarios. Ella es

tambien la facilitadora de la Coalicion de Viviendas Publicas

del Norte de Brooklyn y de la Coalicion de Padres de

Bushwick, otras dos organizaciones que ayudan a los

residentes a envolverse en los procesos de toma de

decisiones.

Reyna es graduada de la Pace University de Pleasantville,

Nueva York, nacio en Brooklyn y es hija de dos inmigrantes

dominicanos que llegaron a Nueva York a principios de los

anos 60.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the victors of the Kentucky Derby. On Saturday, May 3, the veteran jockey Jose Santos road the gelding Funny Cide in the 129th running of the Kentucky Derby at the Louisville, Kentucky racetrack. Owned by Sakatoga Stable in Sackets Harbor, New York and trained by Barclay Tagg, Funny Cide is the first New York bred horse to win the Kentucky Derby and the first gelding to win the Derby since 1929. This is not only a victory for the owners, trainer, and rider of Funny Cide, but the entire State of New York and I wish them continued success.

Mr. Speaker, this is a day that I do not think our country will ever forget. It is a day of infamy. It is a day that the Republican majority has decided that it is their way or the highway. If they have a bill that they are so proud of, why is it that they believe that the Democrats should not be able to at least reveal what we want to do?

Here we are on the brink in history where we are bringing democracy and freedom to Iraq; but at the same time, we are diminishing it here in the House of Representatives.

This bill that is coming up, the secret Bush tax plan that even the President did not know about, came to the Committee on Ways and Means on Tuesday, we voted for it on Friday and never given an opportunity to bring our bill to the floor. I really believe that it should be shameful that in this House of Representatives that we ever forget what they are doing to the American people.

Some people have just said that if you are not rich, you are not entitled to a tax cut. If you are the working poor, if you are unemployed, you are not entitled to any relief. We truly believe in this House, the people's House, what the majority is doing, they are not doing it to the Democrats who are the minority, they are not just doing this to the House of Representatives and the Congress; they are doing it to America, because they are afraid to allow a different point of view to be heard.

I hope we never, never, never forget this day. I hope when the Democrats get the majority, that they never, never, never do what the Republicans are doing today. They should be ashamed of themselves for what they are doing to the legislative process, but more important than anything else, what they are doing to the good people of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, last evening in the Committee on Rules, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means said that he would allow the Democrats to bring their substitute to the floor but only under the conditions that no waivers of points of order be made; and then he went further and told the committee, the Committee on Rules, that is, that he did not want any waivers of points of order himself.

So, Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is that there is a provision of the Budget Act that makes it not in order to consider legislation in the House that reduces amounts deposited in the Social Security Trust Fund. It is clear that the bill before us today will reduce the amounts deposited into both the Social Security and Medicare Trust Fund.

In view of the fact that the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) has asked that points of order not be waived, is not this bill before us today in violation of that rule?

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult for me to hear you. The House is not in order.

The Speaker is saying that the Committee on Rules waived the points of order that the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means said last night was not necessary. Is that the ruling of the Chair?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this is a day that is going to be remembered in America, in this House of Representatives. A bill has come on the floor. The chairman said he did not want points of order. It is clear that the bill is in violation of the parliamentary rules of this House unless the points of order were waived. It is clear that they planned in the middle of the night to say it is ``their way or the highway.''

It is a bad bill. But to deny Democrats an opportunity for an alternative, knowing that they have the votes, I think has damaged the reputation of this House of Representatives for days and for months and for years to come. Shame on you for doing it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, the staff has given me four violations of the Budget Act, section 401, section 311, and other violations of the House rules.

Am I to assume that the initial ruling of the Chair on the waiving of points of order would apply to all of the violations that Republicans have as it relates to the rules of the House?

Mr. Speaker, will this apply to other violations that the minority is not even aware of now?

I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, in view of that protection that the majority gave itself, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the Dean of the House of Representatives.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the majority has waived the points of order on their major tax cut bill, and further that the minority will not have the opportunity to introduce a substitute, under the rule, does the minority have the opportunity to have a motion to recommit?

Will the minority then have the same advantage as the majority in terms of waiving the points of order at least for the 10 minutes that the minority would have on its motion to recommit?

Mr. Speaker, I understand that you are saying that we are entitled to the motion to recommit. The parliamentary inquiry is will the points of order be waived for the minority under the motion to recommit?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means and the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Health.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, since so few Republicans want to speak in support of the bill, whether he would consider yielding some time to the Democrats.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I want to thank the gentleman from California for whatever he said.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means and the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Trade.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means and an outstanding Member of the Congress.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez), a national leader in his own right, a leader in the Congress, and the chairman of the Hispanic Caucus.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means and an outstanding Member of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka), an outstanding member of the committee and the Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent, in view of the overwhelming interest in America and in the House on this bill, that the amount of time for debate be extended an additional hour.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the chairman of the committee whether he would join with me since he was so cooperative yesterday in the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), the conscience of the Congress and a civil rights leader, since the Republicans object to the discussion.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), an outstanding member of Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty), my colleague and a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), an outstanding member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, could I get some understanding of the time that is remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), a member of Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

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

The gentleman from Ohio had the audacity to say what is our idea after they stayed up all night to deny us the opportunity to express our ideas. I am telling my colleagues, in New York they call that hutzpah.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

(Ms. WATERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), a voice that is heard in the Congress and throughout the United States.

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

Mr. Speaker, can I get a reading on the remaining time on this short debate?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), one of the major drafters of the substitute bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

(Mr. MORAN of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford).

Mr. Speaker, has the Chair ruled on the unanimous consent request of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford)?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

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

Mr. Speaker, could I have information as to how much limited time remains.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

(Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballance).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).

(Ms. KILPATRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I would like for our minority leader to close the debate on behalf of the Democrats that were denied the substitute. So could I make inquiry of the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means as to how many speakers he has remaining?

Would you mind if I waited until they got down to one?

Yes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that our substitute be made in order.

Point of Order

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California said yesterday that he wanted an equality in the rule that was before this House. He said that he would not be supporting anything that would not allow us to be heard, and that he would also not ask for points of order to be waived on the majority's bill.

It seems to me that if what they are saying is true, that this is supposed to be a jobs bill, how can anyone in this country, anyone in this Congress, say that giving some assistance to the millions of people that have lost their jobs during this administration, that giving some relief, giving some unemployment compensation, is out of order and not relevant?

How can we say that the working people who do not see any of the benefits of this tax cut, when we are talking about giving them benefits, giving them the opportunity to buy, to purchase, and to stimulate the economy, how can we say that it is not relevant? How can we say that Medicaid and giving assistance to our States that are in economic dire need, what kind of rule could they come up with, call it fair, call it equitable, and not give us a chance to express ourselves?

I suggest to my colleagues that what we are trying to do is to have an alternative. That is not the Republican way, that is not the Democratic way, that is the American way, that we be allowed to be heard.

Mr. Speaker, we made an appeal to the Committee on Rules. The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means admitted this morning that he asked to have the same type of treatment for us as they were asking for themselves. True, he said, he was not going to ask for a waiver of the rules; but that is not the case. Somehow, between a nod and a blink, he got a waiver of the rules. We picked out five violations of

the budget; and yet they say that they got a waiver of the rules that we control ourselves by.

So the only thing I am saying is this: they have got the votes. They have held this bill until they can get the votes. They have kept every Republican's foot to the fire in order to give tax relief for the richest people in the United States of America. We are not asking to win; we are merely asking to be heard. We are asking for the opportunity, using the same rules that they have had for themselves, for ourselves.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that you allow this substitute to be heard, to be argued, and to be voted on.

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, in view of the inequities that exist in bringing this bill to the floor, I respectfully appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Mary Ball Williams Middleton for her lifetime achievements and continued involvement in the community. Born in Charleston, South Carolina on March 26, 1901, Mrs. Middleton turned 102 this year. Since moving to Harlem at the age of 16, she has demonstrated her commitment to bettering society. Mrs. Middleton has been an active member of her church, the Cathedral of United Methodism in Harlem, NY for over 40 years. Over the years she served as a member of the Stewardess Board No. 4 and the United Methodist women, and as chairperson of Dignity Channel. Her community involvement is also demonstrated through her involvement at the A. Philip Randolph Senior Citizens' Center, the Harlem Council on the Aging, and the New York City Senior Citizen Volunteers. I commend Mrs. Middleton on her lifetime of community involvement and sincerely hope that she will continue to impart her wisdom and love on the community for the benefit of today's youth.

Mr. Speaker, today, like many members of the Congressional Black Caucus, I am moved to speak about the humanitarian and economic situation of the people of Haiti. It is no secret that the people there are suffering greatly. Haiti is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere with roughly 70 percent of its 7 million population unemployed and 80 percent living in poverty. HIV/AIDS is devastating the country, with roughly 1 in 12 Haitians infected with HIV and the Center for Disease Control predicting 44,000 new HIV/AIDS cases this year. Additionally, AIDS has orphaned over 200,000 children, and that number is expected to increase to 350,000 over the next ten years.

While there are many explanations for the current situation in Haiti, it is clear that the Haitian government and international community disagree as to the cause and the solution. Regardless of who is to blame, the people of Haiti continue to suffer and I believe that it is time for their suffering to end. We must provide assistance to provide jobs and hope for the people of Haiti.

It is for this reason that I, in conjunction with Congressman John Conyers, Jr., introduced the Haitian Economic Recovery (HERO) Act, which would help in moving Haiti towards economic stability by providing labor and trade opportunities through investment in the apparel and other assembly industries. For similar reasons, I cosponsored the Haiti Aid in Transition Initiative and Access to Capitol for Haiti bills offered by my colleagues Congresswomen Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters. Both of these bills urge that previously approved loans, totaling $146 million dollars in humanitarian assistance, be released to Haiti.

I sincerely believe that the opportunity for change is ripe in Haiti and that an opportunity still exists to overcome the obstacles that have blocked the economic assistance so desperately needed by Haiti to relieve its humanitarian crisis. I know that this requires that the Haitian government resolve the alienation of the international community by further demonstrating that it is on the road to resolving its political and human rights concerns. I believe that it is still possible for both the U.S. and Haitian governments to work together to meet these goals. I will continue to do what I can to support the delivery of food, medicines, and other essentials to the people of Haiti that I know are desperately needed.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to be joining my good friend, Philip Crane, in introducing the Job Protection Act of 2003. I am very pleased both with the substance of this bill and the bipartisan cooperation exhibited by everyone in its development. This bill is a model for how we should be addressing national issues in this Congress.

The bill responds to the recent World Trade Organization ruling that held that our export-related tax benefit, the FSC/ETI provision, violates our trade agreements. I believe that it is necessary for this country to comply with its international agreements. But I believe that the response to the ruling must be designed in a way that preserves jobs in the United States.

The FSC/ETI provisions currently benefit companies manufacturing and producing goods in the United States. One company executive described the beneficiaries of FSC/ETI as companies ``doing business the old- fashioned way,'' producing goods in the United States and selling them overseas.

Merely repealing FSC/ETI without returning the revenues to companies producing in the United States could result in further job losses in the United States. This would be unacceptable, particularly now when there has been a steady erosion in U.S. manufacturing jobs.

Our bill will comply with the WTO ruling by repealing the FSC/ETI benefit, but it also will provide a permanent effective rate reduction for U.S. manufacturers that is consistent with our trade agreements. It will create positive incentives for companies to expand their operations in the United States, not overseas. It will preserve, not threaten U.S. jobs.

Mr. Speaker, we have had similar challenges to our export-related benefits in the past. We always have responded in a bipartisan, bicameral basis. Such a response is appropriate because that type of challenge is not a partisan issue. It is a legal dispute between our country and our foreign competitors. In that dispute we all represent the same client, the United States. We should proceed just like a group of lawyers representing the same client, perhaps disagreeing in private, but never sharing those disagreements or competing legal briefs with our opponent.

Attached is a summary of the provisions of the bill.

The proposal would repeal the FSC/ETI benefit effective on date of enactment. The proposal would include binding contract transition relief and general transition relief. The general transition relief would be based on the company's FSC/ETI benefit for 2001. The company would receive a deduction of 100% of its base period amount for 2004 and 2005, 75% for 2006 and 2007 and 50% for 2008, with no general transition relief thereafter.

As the general transition relief phases out, a new permanent benefit for U.S. manufacturers would be phased in. The new benefit would reduce the effective corporate tax rate on income attributable to U.S. production activities. Purely domestic companies would receive an effective rate reduction of 3.5 points (reducing the 35% rate to 31.5%). Companies with operations offshore would receive a smaller rate reduction based on the value of their U.S. and world-wide production. That adjustment would create positive incentives for companies to keep operations in the United States.