Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, in celebration of Black History Month, I rise to introduce a series of bills--a Pantheon of Black Heroes-- recognizing the historic achievements and contributions of African Americans. Several of these heroes resided and worked in the Harlem area, while others inspired or lent inspiration to our community.

The Pantheon of Black Heroes is part of my continuing effort, begun years ago, to officially recognize some of America's best and brightest. Black History Month presents us with another opportunity to highlight the achievements of these men and women. It is our opportunity to ensure that our stories are told as we have lived them, and as we would have them handed down to those who follow us.

I ask that my colleagues join with me in recognizing the vast contributions of these great African Americans.

Arthur Ashe, Ralph Bunche, Roy Campanella, Shirley Chisholm, Katherine Dunham, Marcus Garvey, Althea Gibson, Lionel Hampton, Dorothy Height, Zora Neale Hurstson, Jesse L. Jackson, Sr., Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Adam Clayton Power, Jr., A. Philip Randolph, Sugar Ray Robinson, Arthur Schomburg, Betty Shabazz, Madame C.J. Walker, James L. Watson, and Malcolm X.

Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that this year as we celebrate Dr. Martin Luther King's birthday and Black History Month, that Dr. Martin Luther King be remembered not only for his involvement in the civil rights movement, but also for his quest to achieve peace and justice for all by speaking out against war. On April 4, 1967, Dr. Martin Luther King gave a speech entitled ``Beyond Vietnam.'' In this speech, Dr. King spoke out against the Vietnam war, and more importantly, spoke of the need to wage peace, not war.

In the weeks that President Bush and his administration have been leading this country to war against Iraq, I have found myself going through many of the same motions of a man who opposed a war more than thirty years ago. I began by voting against the Congressional Resolution that gave President Bush the authority to carry out this war, and have most recently pushed for Americans to more carefully consider the costs of going to war without just cause by introducing a bill that would reinstate the draft. My push to reinstate the draft was meant to first, show my opposition to a unilateral preemptive strike against Iraq and second, to insure that if America does go to war, that an equitable representation of all classes of Americans are making the sacrifice for our great country.

In being reintroduced to Dr. King's speech, I found that, while he was attempting to end a war, his goals in giving the ``Beyond Vietnam'' speech were similar to my own, in that he wanted the persons being called upon to fight the war to realize that the war they were fighting was serving the needs of persons that were not interested in serving their needs. As have I, Dr. King recognized that the poor were disproportionately shouldering the burden of a war. Dr. King described the war as a ``cruel manipulation of the poor'' and an ``enemy of the poor'' that was ``sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population.''

The recognition that the sacrifices being made for this country were (and continue to) not be shared was only one of a number of realizations Dr. King made in regards to the Vietnam War. As many of the insights he made then continue to be relevant in our journey down the warpath to Iraq, I invite you to read these excerpts from a speech delivered on April 4, 1967, at a meeting of Clergy and Laity Concerned at Riverside Church in New York City and consider the words of Dr. Martin Luther King.

Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence

I come to this magnificent house of worship tonight because

my conscience leaves me no other choice. [. . .] The recent

statement of your executive committee are the sentiments of

my own heart and I found myself in full accord when I read

its opening lines: ``A time comes when silence is betrayal.''

That time has come for us in relation to Vietnam. [. . .] I

come to this platform tonight to make a passionate plea to my

beloved nation. [. . .] Tonight, however, I wish not to speak

with Hanoi and the NLF, but rather to my fellow Americans,

who, with me, bear the greatest responsibility in ending a

conflict that has exacted a heavy price on both continents.

Since I am a preacher by trade, I suppose it is not

surprising that I have seven major reasons for bringing

Vietnam into the field of my moral vision. There is at the

outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between

the war in Vietnam and the struggle 1, and others, have been

waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment

in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of

hope for the poor--both black and white--through the poverty

program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then

came the buildup in Vietnam and I watched the program broken

and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything

of a society gone mad on war, and I knew that America would

never invest the necessary funds or energies in

rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam

continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic

destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to

see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.

Perhaps the more tragic recognition of reality took place

when it became clear to me that the war was doing far more

than devastating the hopes of the poor at home. It was

sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to

fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative

to the rest of the population. We were taking the black young

men who had been crippled by our society and sending them

eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast

Asia which they had not found in southwest Georgia and East

Harlem. So we have been repeatedly faced with the cruel irony

of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill

and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat

them together in the same schools. So we watch them in brutal

solidarity burning the huts of a poor village, but we realize

that they would never live on the same block in Detroit. I

could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of

the poor.

My third reason moves to an even deeper level of awareness,

for it grows out of my experience in the ghettoes of the

North over the last three years--especially the last three

summers. As I have walked among the desperate, rejected and

angry young men I have told them that Molotov cocktails and

rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer

them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction

that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent

action. But they asked--and rightly so--what about Vietnam?

They asked if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of

violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it

wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could

never again raise my voice against the violence of the

oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly

to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today--my

own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of

this government, for the sake of hundreds of thousands

trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent. [. . .]

Now, it should be incandescently clear that no one who has

any concern for the integrity and life of America today can

ignore the present war. If America's soul becomes totally

poisoned, part of the autopsy must read Vietnam. It can never

be saved so long as it destroys the deepest hopes of men the

world over. So it is that those of us who are yet determined

that America will be are led down the path of protest and

dissent, working for the health of our land. [. . .]

And as I ponder the madness of Vietnam and search within

myself for ways to understand and respond to compassion my

mind goes constantly to the people of that peninsula. I speak

now not of the soldiers of each side, not of the junta in

Saigon, but simply of the people who have been living under

the curse of war for almost three continuous decades now. I

think of them too because it is clear to me that there will

be no meaningful solution there until some attempt is made to

know them and hear their broken cries. They must see

Americans as strange liberators. [. . .]

After the French were defeated it looked as if independence

and land reform would come again through the Geneva

agreements. But instead there came the United States,

determined that Ho should not unify the temporarily divided

nation, and the peasants watched again as we supported one of

the most vicious modem dictators--our chosen man, Premier

Diem. The peasants watched and cringed as Diem ruthlessly

routed out all opposition, supported their extortionist

landlords and refused even to discuss reunification with

the north. The peasants watched as all this was presided

over by U.S. influence and then by increasing numbers of

U.S. troops who came to help quell the insurgency that

Diem's methods had aroused. When Diem was overthrown they

may have been happy, but the long line of military

dictatorships seemed to offer no real change--especially

in terms of their need for land and peace.

The only change came from America as we increased our troop

commitments in support of governments which were singularly

corrupt, inept and without popular support. All the while the

people read our leaflets and received regular promises of

peace and democracy--and land reform. Now they languish under

our bombs and consider us--not their fellow Vietnamese--the

real enemy. They move sadly and apathetically as we herd them

off the land of their fathers into concentration camps where

minimal social needs are rarely met. They know they must move

or be destroyed by our bombs. So they go--primarily women and

children and the aged. [. . .] They wander into the

hospitals, with at least twenty casualties from American

firepower for one ``Vietcong''-inflicted injury. So far we

may have killed a million of them--mostly children. They see

the children, degraded by our soldiers as they beg for food.

They see the children selling their sisters to our soldiers,

soliciting for their mothers.

What do the peasants think as we ally ourselves with the

landlords and as we refuse to put any action into our many

words concerning land reform? What do they think as we test

our latest weapons on them, just as the Germans tested out

new medicine and new tortures in the concentration camps of

Europe? Where are the roots of the independent Vietnam we

claim to be building? Is it among these voiceless ones?

We have destroyed their two most cherished institutions:

the family and the village. We have destroyed their land and

their crops. [. . .] Now there is little left to build on--

save bitterness. Soon the only solid physical foundations

remaining will be found at our military bases and in the

concrete of the concentration camps we call fortified

hamlets. The peasants may well wonder if we plan to build our

new Vietnam on such grounds as these? Could we blame them for

such thoughts? We must speak for them and raise the questions

they cannot raise. These too are our brothers. [. . .] They

question our political goals and they deny the reality

of a peace settlement from which they will be excluded. Their

questions are frighteningly relevant. Is our nation planning

to build on political myth again and then shore it up with

the power of new violence?

Here is the true meaning and value of compassion and

nonviolence when it helps us to see the enemy's point of

view, to hear his questions, to know his assessment of

ourselves. For from his view we may indeed see the basic

weaknesses of our own condition, and if we are mature, we may

learn and grow and profit from the wisdom of the brothers who

are called the opposition. [. . .]

At this point I should make it clear that while I have

tried in these last few minutes to give a voice to the

voiceless on Vietnam and to understand the arguments of those

who are called enemy, I am as deeply concerned about our

troops there as anything else. For it occurs to me that what

we are submitting them to in Vietnam is not simply the

brutalizing process that goes on in any war where armies face

each other and seek to destroy. We are adding cynicism to the

process of death, for they must know after a short period

there that none of the things we claim to be fighting for are

really involved. Before long they must know that their

government has sent them into a struggle among Vietnamese,

and the more sophisticated surely realize that we are on the

side of the wealthy and the secure while we create hell for

the poor. [. . .]

This is the message of the great Buddhist leaders of

Vietnam. Recently one of them wrote these words: ``Each day

the war goes on the hatred increases in the heart of the

Vietnamese and in the hearts of those of humanitarian

instinct. The Americans are forcing even their friends into

becoming their enemies. It is curious that the Americans, who

calculate so carefully on the possibilities of military

victory, do not realize that in the process they are

incurring deep psychological and political defeat. The image

of America will never again be the image of revolution,

freedom and democracy, but the image of violence and

militarism.''

If we continue, there will be no doubt in my mind and in

the mind of the world that we have no honorable intentions in

Vietnam. [. . .] The world now demands a maturity of America

that we may not be able to achieve. It demands that we admit

that we have been wrong from the beginning of our adventure

in Vietnam, that we have been detrimental to the life of the

Vietnamese people. The situation is one in which we must be

ready to turn sharply from our present ways.

[. . .] I would like to suggest five concrete things that

our government should do immediately to begin the long and

difficult process of extricating ourselves from this

nightmarish conflict: (1) End all bombing in North and South

Vietnam; (2) Declare a unilateral cease-fire in the hope that

such action will create the atmosphere for negotiation; (3)

Take immediate steps to prevent other battlegrounds in

Southeast Asia by curtailing our military buildup in Thailand

and our interference in Laos; (4) Realistically accept the

fact that the National Liberation Front has substantial

support in South Vietnam and must thereby play a role in any

meaningful negotiations and in any future Vietnam government;

(5) Set a date that we will remove all foreign troops from

Vietnam in accordance with the 1954 Geneva agreement. [. . .]

Meanwhile we in the churches and synagogues have a

continuing task while we urge our government to disengage

itself from a disgraceful commitment. We must continue to

raise our voices if our nation persists in its perverse ways

in Vietnam. We must be prepared to match actions with words

by seeking out every creative means of protest possible. [. .

.]

The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady

within the American spirit, and if we ignore this sobering

reality we will find ourselves organizing clergy- and laymen-

concerned committees for the next generation. They will be

concerned about Guatemala and Peru. They will be concerned

about Thailand and Cambodia. They will be concerned about

Mozambique and South Africa. We will be marching for these

and a dozen other names and attending rallies without end

unless there is a significant and profound change in American

life and policy. Such thoughts take us beyond Vietnam, but

not beyond our calling as sons of the living God.

In 1957 a sensitive American official overseas said that it

seemed to him that our nation was on the wrong side of a

world revolution. During the past ten years we have seen

emerge a pattern of suppression which now has justified the

presence of U.S. military ``advisors'' in Venezuela. This

need to maintain social stability for our investments

accounts for the counter-revolutionary action of American

forces in Guatemala. It tells why American helicopters are

being used against guerrillas in Colombia and why American

napalm and green beret forces have already been active

against rebels in Peru. It is with such activity in mind that

the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us.

Five years ago he said, ``Those who make peaceful revolution

impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.'' [. . .]

I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of

the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical

revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a

``thing-oriented'' society to a ``person-oriented'' society.

When machines and computers, profit motives and property

rights are considered more important than people, the giant

triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable

of being conquered.

A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question

the fairness and justice of many of our past and present

policies. [. . .] A true revolution of values will soon look

uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With

righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see

individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of

money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the

profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the

countries, and say: ``This is not just.'' It will look at our

alliance with the landed gentry of Latin America and say:

``This is not just.'' The Western arrogance of feeling that

it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from

them is not just. [. . .]

We must move past indecision to action. We must find new

ways to speak for peace in Vietnam and justice throughout the

developing world--a world that borders on our doors. If we do

not act we shall surely be dragged down the long dark and

shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess

power without compassion, might without morality, and

strength without sight.

Now let us begin. Now let us rededicate ourselves to the

long and bitter--but beautiful--struggle for a new world.

This is the calling of the sons of God, and our brothers wait

eagerly for our response. Shall we say the odds are too

great? Shall we tell them the struggle is too hard? Will our

message be that the forces of American life militate against

their arrival as full men, and we send our deepest regrets?

Or will there be another message, of longing, of hope, of

solidarity with their yearnings, of commitment to their

cause, whatever the cost? The choice is ours, and though we

might prefer it otherwise we must choose in this crucial

moment of human history.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation that would provide $25.2 billion in interest-free funds over the next two years for public school construction and modernization projects.

Currently, our public school system has extraordinary unmet needs for funds to construct and modernize schools. Consider the following facts:

The average age of a public school in the United States is 42 years.

One-third of all public schools in the United States are in need of extensive repair or replacement.

Three and a half million students attend schools that need major repair or replacement.

According to a recent report from the National Education Association, it will cost $332 billion to bring the existing public schools into overall good condition. Billions more will be required to construct new schools to meet expanding student enrollments.

President Bush's education program places strong emphasis on raising standards in America's classrooms, but does not provide promised Federal help for the cost of additional testing and services required to reach that goal. His program also ignores the fact that school facilities are an important part of raising student performance. Inferior facilities make teaching more difficult. They also send a clear message to the student that this nation does not value their education. The President's program seems to be designed to fail.

My legislation will provide funds for school modernization projects through a federal tax credit. The tax credit will, in effect, pay the interest on $25.2 billion of school modernization bonds. All decisions relating to how those funds would be used would continue to be made at the local level.

My legislation is based on a successful model, the Qualified Academy Bond (QZAB) program enacted in 1997. A California local school official described that program as a ``local school district's dream'' after having successfully participated in a bond offering subsidized under that program. U.S. Education Secretary Rodney Page endorsed a similar proposal in 1999 when he was Superintendent of the Houston schools. In a statement submitted to the the Committee on Ways and Means, he said that school modernization bonds ``represent the approach to Federal aid that will have a truly consequential impact on meeting the infrastructure needs of Houston and other large urban high poverty districts.''

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I am introducing this bill today without the broad bipartisan support that it has received in the past. The lack of bipartisan support is due to the fact that the bill is fundamentally inconsistent with the President's dividend exemption proposal. I am hopeful that the Congress will reject or substantially modify the President's dividend proposal and, therefore, make it possible to pursue this bill with its former bipartisan support.

Attached is a brief description of the bill and a table showing how the funds will be allocated among the States.

Summary

The bill would subsidize $25.2 billion in zero-interest

school modernization bonds. The federal government would

provide tax credits for the interest normally paid on a bond.

Funds that would have gone to pay bond interest would be

freed for other education needs. For each $1000 of school

bonds, the net benefit of the program to State or local

school districts would be approximately $500.

Funding: The bill divides the interest-free funds for

public school construction and modernization as follows:

$22 billion over two years for zero-interest school

modernization bonds ($11 billion in both 2004 and 2005). The

bill would allocate 60 percent of the $22 billion in bonds to

states based on school-age population. The State education

agency has the authority to allocate the State's share among

the schools districts in the State with no restrictions as to

what schools can qualify. The remaining 40 percent of these

bonds would be directly allocated to the 125 school districts

with the largest number of low-income students based on ESEA

Title I funding (poverty-based distribution).

$400 million in school modernization bonds for Bureau of

Indian Affairs (BIA) schools.

$2.8 billion for expansion of the existing Qualified Zone

Academy Bond program (QZAB). This amount is allocated among

the States based upon the number or poor students. The State

education agency has the authority to allocate the State's

share among the school districts in the State; except that

amount may be allocated only to schools with at least 35%

poor students--those schools located in Empowerment Zones,

Enterprise Communities or which have at least 35 percent of

their students eligible for free or reduced price school

lunch.

Federal Role: The federal government would provide a tax

credit to the bond purchaser equal to the interest that would

otherwise be paid on a school construction bond. No new

federal bureaucracy would be created.

Cost: The five-year cost to the Federal government is

approximately $1.7 billion and the ten-year cost is

approximately $6.8 billion.

The following table shows the estimated allocations under

the bill.

Estimated state bond allocations

Alabama........................................................$354,922 Alaska...........................................................53,398 Arizona.........................................................337,448 Arkansas........................................................183,516 California....................................................3,109,598 Colorado........................................................296,358 Connecticut.....................................................292,085 Delaware.........................................................49,070 District of Columbia.............................................88,904 Florida.......................................................1,188,467 Georgia.........................................................654,051 Hawaii...........................................................77,438 Idaho............................................................93,409 Illinois......................................................1,221,868 Indiana.........................................................459,436 Iowa............................................................196,453 Kansas..........................................................196,866 Kentucky........................................................295,249 Louisiana.......................................................473,051 Maine............................................................84,355 Maryland........................................................395,270 Massachusetts...................................................467,254 Michigan......................................................1,006,867 Minnesota.......................................................378,952 Mississippi.....................................................237,537 Missouri........................................................452,673 Montana..........................................................65,077 Nebraska........................................................131,275 Nevada...........................................................92,951 New Hampshire....................................................80,802 New Jersey......................................................660,175 New Mexico......................................................157,627 New York......................................................2,476,435 North Carolina..................................................488,119 North Dakota.....................................................46,596 Ohio..........................................................1,019,626 Oklahoma........................................................277,839 Oregon..........................................................235,626 Pennsylvania..................................................1,044,126 Puerto Rico.....................................................378,751 Rhode Island.....................................................90,648 South Carolina..................................................284,932 South Dakota.....................................................56,180 Tennessee.......................................................421,577 Texas.........................................................1,998,390 Utah............................................................175,947 Vermont..........................................................42,022 Virginia........................................................422,902 Washington......................................................402,308 West Virginia...................................................123,951 Wisconsin.......................................................491,648 Wyoming..........................................................38,712 Outlying Areas...................................................51,263 BIA Schools.....................................................400,000

Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of my colleagues I rise to remember the lifelong contributions that Samuel J. Simmons made to his community, to issues affecting the aging and fair housing, and to this nation. I would like to extend my deepest regrets to his family and loved ones. We all mourn the loss of this great man.

For the past twenty years Samuel J. Simmons has worked tirelessly as president and chief executive of the National Caucus on Black Aged, Inc., which is dedicated to serving the needs of the most vulnerable elderly Americans, and particularly aging African-Americans.

As Assistant Secretary for Equal Opportunity at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) during the civil rights era, Mr. Simmons made enormous and lasting contributions to the infrastructure of fair employment practices that our nation holds so dear today. In doing so, Mr. Simmons administered fair housing laws, and wrote advertising guidelines to include the fair housing symbol.

Following his tenure at HUD, he worked to formulate training programs for managers of government-assisted housing and certifications for managers of elderly housing programs, as the founding president of National Center for Housing Management, created by presidential executive order. His longtime work, commitment and expertise in the area of equal housing initiatives and home ownership for all Americans, was recognized with his election to the board of directors of Fannie Mae.

Samuel J. Simmons's service to this nation began decades ago, when he worked with the Detroit NAACP and Michigan State labor and employment groups while our nation was beginning to address the injustice and inequality that African-Americans faced in the workplace. When he arrived in Washington, he brought energy and determination to the Post Office Department, where he fought for fair appeals procedures that would adequately address the grievance and advancement issues of minorities. For his hard work and results produced, he received a Meritorious Service Award.

Samuel J. Simmons spent his lifetime selflessly working to improve the access that the most vulnerable Americans have to employment, housing and affordable healthcare, and he will be greatly missed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to call to the attention of my colleagues a bill I have introduced today to prohibit discrimination in the rental of housing to members of the armed forces.

It has been reported in the press that managers of certain apartment properties in my home state of New York have required renters to sign an affidavit stating that they are not in the military. This practice, aimed at members of the armed forces who might be called off to war, is an outrageous form of discrimination, particularly at a time when young Americans are on their way overseas to defend our country.

This legislation is meant as a deterrent to this kind of practice by any landlord or property management company anywhere in the country. The bill would make it a federal crime to discriminate in rentals to members of the armed forces with a penalty of up to a year imprisonment.

The reason mentioned for requiring the affidavit is to relieve landlords of the potential need to seek court orders to evict military families who may have defaulted on their rent.

I have never before heard this concern raised by a landlord. But the bottom line is that discrimination against individuals or an entire class of people cannot be defended under any circumstance. In New York City, this practice is already outlawed under local anti-discrimination laws. However, there remains a glaring absence in federal and state law of the protections provided for in my bill, thus leaving members of the military in most of New York State and the rest of the country vulnerable.

At this time of crisis in our country, in which we are asking so much of our military, the governing principle should be one of shared sacrifice--and certainly not discrimination.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation that will ask a simple question. Do Members of Congress feel that the threats posed by Iraq, North Korea, and terrorism are sufficiently real that all Americans should bear some sacrifice in responding to those threats?

Our Nation in times of war always has responded by requiring sacrifices from all segments of our society. Individuals in our military are asked to bear the highest sacrifice. They are forced to leave their homes and risk their lives overseas. Those fortunate enough to remain at home during the war have been asked to support the military through rationing, increased taxes, or diversion of government resources from domestic programs.

The President's rhetoric about the seriousness of the risk posed by Iraq and terrorism is inconsistent with his actual program. He places our military at risk but does not ask all other segments of our society to sacrifice for the cause. Only the poor will be forced to sacrifice through reductions in the domestic safety net. Other segments of our society are promised tax reductions, not sacrifice, with the greatest tax reductions enjoyed by the wealthiest segment of our society.

The Department of Defense surveys clearly indicate that both active- duty and reserve members of the Armed Forces are primarily from low- income families. The fact that only one member of the Congress has a child in the enlisted ranks of the military is stark confirmation of the accuracy of those surveys. However every Member of Congress, by virtue of their congressional salary alone, will have sufficient income to enjoy large tax reductions under the Bush Administration policy.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation that I am introducing today will not increase taxes on any American above the level that is currently in effect. It simply suspends all further tax reductions under the 2001 Tax Act until the President certifies that the situations in Iraq and North Korea have been resolved, there has been an adequate response to international terrorism, and no member of the Armed Services is involuntarily on duty because of those situations.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the sacrifices required by my legislation do not meet the standard that this country has required in the past. It will not increase taxes, it will simply defer future tax reductions. Our seriousness about pursuing action overseas will be highly questionable if this Congress does not require that small sacrifice from those so fortunate to be able to stay at home.

I recognize that some will attack my legislation as being ``class warfare.'' I would respond to that criticism by pointing out that all future tax reductions under the 2001 Act would be deferred by my legislation, including the limited benefits promised to lower income individuals. I recognize that the wealthiest segment of our society would have the largest benefits subject to deferral. However, that fact is not my doing, it is a simple reflection of the unfair nature of the 2001 Act.

The administration and many Republican Members of the Congress have vociferously attacked the legislation that I introduced earlier to reinstate the draft. It is clear that they do not believe that their cause in Iraq is of sufficient importance to risk the lives of their children. Now I am asking whether it is sufficiently important to sacrifice tax benefits promised in the future.

Mr. Speaker, those of us that come from urban communities know of circumstances when someone is grabbed by the police and they are

interrogated, and they have what is called a ``good cop-bad cop'' rule. The good cop talks about compassion and sensitivity and why he is our friend, and why he wants to help us; but the bad cop is the one that is mean-spirited, the one that is in the back, and the one that ultimately is going to see that we get hurt.

Our beloved President is the good cop. He is the one that talks about conservatism, but with compassion. He is the one that says that he does not know why the Congress did not take care of the 800,000 people who lost their unemployment compensation after the Christmas holidays.

But, Mr. Speaker, someplace in the House of Representatives lurks the bad cop. He was the one that would not allow us to vote for workmen's compensation before we left here for the Christmas holidays. While the President talks about unemployment compensation and benefits, and while all of us will be voting for the President's package, the bad cop is there saying, yes, but do not give benefits to the 1 million people whose extended benefits have expired, that have worked every day, that have paid into the unemployment compensation, that are looking for jobs.

The bad cop says that we cannot afford to help those million people. Eighty-four thousand New Yorkers who took the hit for 9-11, not for our city, not for our State, but for the United States of America and for the free world, they are looking for work. They are looking to listen to the good cop. They are looking for compassion.

But the bad cop says, no, we will help you later, much later, because we have to cut taxes on dividends. And if you live long enough and survive long enough, you will be able to get a job. Where is the compassion?

But, Mr. Speaker, I am just as hard-nosed as any Republican that is in this House. I know when one wins the majority, he or she wins the votes and does what they want to do. The difference between me and the bad cop is that I thought we had the right to come here and at least debate our position. If Members do not want the substitute that really takes care, in a small part, of a million people who are seeking work, why do they not give us a chance to at least debate it? How does the bad cop just cut off debate, and then they tell us that we have a motion to recommit?

So all we are saying is, can we not lose with dignity? Can we not lose with compassion? Can they not give us a chance, as they have found $675 billion for the wealthy, to at least let us debate to provide unemployment compensation benefits for a million people? If they will not give us the substitute, could they not waive the point of order for at least the motion to recommit?

No, Mr. Speaker, the bad cop is in charge here, and the compassionate cop remains in the White House.

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

Mr. Speaker, news release, news release, news release. The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means has said that the Republican- controlled Senate and the Republican-controlled House cannot legislate, that they cannot provide for the one million Americans who are seeking jobs but whose unemployment compensation has expired. Who is going to deliver this message to the empowered Republican President who has now told the American people that he controls the agenda? And now we find out that the chairman of the awesome and powerful and influential Committee on Ways and Means cannot legislate in the people's House.

Well, I do not believe it. My colleagues do not believe it, and the only reason I am commenting on it is because I do not want the American people to believe it. We have a million people out there. They do not have dividends or savings; all they have is heart and are looking for work. They are Americans that will be called on to fight the wars. They have lost their jobs, lost health benefits, but they have not lost their dignity.

But we will have people to believe that somewhere down the line they will not have to pay taxes on their dividends and jobs will be created for them. The other side of the aisle says we would like to help them because of compassionate conservatism, but we just cannot do it.

We have majorities in the House and the Senate, but the House has to do what the Senate did; the Senate has to do what the House would do. Do not do this to these people. They should just say they do not want to do it because they do not believe in it. They did not do it before the Christmas holidays, and they are just giving a little interest today.

Mr. Speaker, so I do not know how the other side of the aisle is going to explain it back home, but I know one thing, and that is we have 84,000 New Yorkers. They took the hit for this Nation. They are looking for work. I will go back and tell them that we discussed it with the Republicans, and they said that Democrats and Republicans will not be able even to debate coverage for the 84,000 people who are without work who paid into the fund. I will tell them that we cannot even vote on it because we do not want to complicate it for the Republican-controlled Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) for the purposes of control.