Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a distinguished constituent in my district, Rose Bouziane Nader of Winsted, Connecticut, whose incredible life has provided inspiration to all who have come in contact with her. Rose was a devoted mother, teacher and civic advocate, who passed away on January 20, 2006.

Rose Nader lived just 18 days short of her 100th birthday and led a life fulfilled by the inspiration she gave and the nurturing compassion she provided. Rose inspired America's foremost consumer advocate, her son Ralph Nader, and further inspired the rest of her children who are all dedicated to giving back to their community. The following are but glittering excerpts from the outpouring of people who spoke from their heart about this shining example for humanity.

``We have been brought together today by our mother, who was the light of our lives, the anchor, the compass and the vision. These are a few of her main qualities, qualities that we see in many good people. They represent the heights of human beings.''--Ralph Nader.

``She was not a person of many words, but her content contained much memorable wisdom.''--Claire Nader.

``On child-rearing formulas, Mom observed that, `there is no recipe.' On supporting each other, it was `operation cooperation.' ''--Laura Nader.

``She was as fine an expression of the human spirit as I have ever met, and I say this from my heart.''--Phil Donahue.

``I thought she was a remarkable person who lived a remarkable life, going literally from one century to another.

``She was strong, loving, hard-working and modest. All of the virtues were hers. I used to ponder how much she and her husband had seen in their lives for it was a great American story. They had come here in the Twenties with little more than their hopes and their capacity for hard work, and in just one generation they had seen their own children prosper--enriching what was around them and being enriched at the same time.

``What I will remember is her kindness to our family over the years, her sense of obligation to others, and a belief that citizenship demanded a daily commitment. And of course her modesty, in the midsixties, back when Life Magazine was still powerful, the editors put Ralph on the cover. My mother, thrilled by this, immediately called Rose to tell her.

`Yes,' said Mrs. Nader, `that's nice. I must get out and get a copy.' We all loved that, the `a copy' reference.'' David Halberstam Journalist, Author, Historian.

It has been my experience that what makes this country great are those humble people amongst us who live day to day and perform unheralded deeds for their community. Rose was one of those people. Her life was a testimony of inspiration, humor and compassion, and the love and satisfaction that comes from giving of oneself.

How blessed her family is to have had such an influence, how fortunate the community that her works lives on. Epitomized by her world famous son, Ralph, and her daughters, Claire and Laura, who never forget their community and their mother's devotion.

President Kennedy was fond of saying that communities reveal a lot about themselves in the memorials they create and the individuals they honor. How fitting it is for the family to establish the Rose Nader Circle: For the Agitation of the Caring Mind. I know all Americans join in saluting Rose Nader. I personally want to be part of the planting of roses throughout Winsted. What a fitting tribute to an extraordinary lady. I am both humbled by her virtue and honored to place her name in the annals of the United States Congress, an institution that could learn much from this incredible American.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act. This legislation is a much needed step towards ending the unprecedented tragedy taking place in Sudan, and its consideration today is long overdue.

Over the past 3 years, the world has watched as the situation in Darfur has escalated into an unprecedented humanitarian and human rights crisis. Since February 2003, civilians in the impoverished Darfur region of Sudan have been subject to indiscriminate killings, abductions, torture and rape at the hands of the Janjaweed--a lawless militia that has the alleged support of the Sudanese government. It is clear that the government of Sudan has offered their tacit approval for these attacks, and in many instances has engaged in air and ground strikes to augment the Janjaweed assaults on the people of Darfur.

The scope of this ongoing tragedy is hard to imagine. The numbers, unfortunately, speak for themselves. An estimated 3.5 million people are starving and some 2 million have been displaced from their homes, including hundreds of thousands who have fled to Chad for refuge. When then Secretary of State Colin Powell called the crisis in Darfur ``genocide'' in September 2004, an estimated 50,000 people had been killed. That number may now reach

as high as 400,000 today, with 180,000 of these deaths occurring in the past 18 months alone according to the United Nations. These numbers continue to grow everyday; however we may never fully appreciate the enormous human toll these atrocities have taken on Sudan, the continent of Africa, and the world.

The atrocities taking place are nothing less than a human tragedy, a world wide cause that we cannot ignore--and yet the international community remains essentially paralyzed and unable to stop it. To date, there have been 8 rounds of peace talks, the deployment of 6,000 African Union troops, 6 U.N. Security Council resolutions and declarations of genocide by the administration and this Congress. Despite this pressure, the Sudanese government has steadfastly refused to take any constructive steps towards ending this humanitarian crisis.

As the leader of the free world and a role model for human rights and democracy, we must live up to our own example. To this end, the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act takes several important steps toward increasing pressure on the government of Sudan to end the current crisis. Among its many provisions, this legislation strengthens sanctions on individuals and governments responsible for, or connected to, the atrocities in Darfur. It also provides strong support for the expansion of humanitarian and peacekeeping efforts in the region, and calls for the suspension of Sudan's membership in the United Nations. While this legislation alone will not end the atrocities in Darfur, it will send a strong message to Sudan and the world community that the U.S. is serious about bringing an end to the violence.

Many grassroots groups around the country, such as the Connecticut Coalition to Save Darfur, have been working to educate policymakers and the public on the urgent need for action in this troubled region of the world. Their efforts have ensured that the crisis in Darfur stays in the public mind and today's consideration of the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act is a testament to their tireless work. I am proud to support this legislation, and strongly urge its quick approval in conference so that we can get this important bill to the President's desk without delay.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Democratic alternative to H.R. 609, the College Access and Opportunity Act that would help more students and families pay for higher education.

With millions of American families struggling to pay for college, it is critical that Congress act to make college more affordable. Unfortunately, H.R. 609 does little to increase the access and affordability of higher education and actually cuts $8.7 billion from student aid programs. This bill would, among other things, freeze the authorized level of maximum Pell Grant scholarships $200 above the current level through 2013. With the cost of tuition rising more than 6 percent every year, a flat-lined $200 increase provides no relief for the 37,500 students in my home state of Connecticut that receive Pell Grants.

According to the College Board, the typical student who borrows to finance a bachelor's degree at a public college or university graduates with $15,500 of debt and at private nonprofit institutions graduates with $19,400 debt. To assist students and families struggling with this debt, Congress passed legislation in 2002 that lowered the interest rate cap on student loans to 6.8 percent starting in July of 2006. However, the bill on the floor today would raise the interest rate cap to 8.25 percent. As a result, the typical student borrower, with $17,500 in debt, would be forced to pay as much as $2,600 more in interest on those loans.

In contrast, the Democratic alternative would cut interest rates in half for students with subsidized loans--from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent--which means $2.5 billion in interest rate relief for middle and low income families. The Democratic substitute would also create a pilot program for year round Pell Grants, simplify the student loan application process, and provide loan forgiveness for nurses, highly- qualified teachers in bi-lingual and low-income communities, librarians, first responders and other public servants.

As a nation, we must invest in higher education if we are going to boost America's economic competitiveness and continued prosperity. Hardworking families and students deserve better. I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting the underlying bill and supporting the Democratic alternative that would truly make college more accessible and affordable to more Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the previous question so that the House can consider a critical amendment that would strengthen the CFIUS review process.

As we know all too well from the recent controversy over the Dubai ports deal, the current process for reviewing foreign takeover of national infrastructure is deeply flawed. Federal law currently allows the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) up to 30 days to examine a potential sale and determine whether to begin a more thorough 45-day security investigation. This process is meant to examine the national security implications of handing over critical infrastructure to foreign companies. However, as we now know, far too often the committee forgoes a deeper review of these deals. CIFIUS has investigated an estimated 1500 foreign investment transactions since it was established, of which 25 have gone into the 45 day review and only one has been blocked.

Defeating the previous question would allow the House to consider an amendment offered by Mr. Sabo that is blocked by the underlying rule. The Sabo amendment would strengthen the current CFIUS process by requiring all foreign transactions that could result in foreign control of any asset or infrastructure that affects national security to undergo a full review. It mandates a more critical look at these deals by ensuring a 75 day security review of CFIUS transactions and requires the President to either approve or disapprove all deals. The amendment also requires that Congress be notified of Presidential approvals and allows for Congress to overturn decisions within 30 days with a joint resolution. In total, these changes would bring some common sense reform to a process that is central to the security of our vital infrastructure and the American people.

The Dubai Port World deal showed that the actions of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) need to be taken out of the shadows and brought into the light. Congress should not be rubber- stamping the Administration's backroom deals, it should be reviewing them thoroughly. While H.R. 4939 will put an end to the already dead Dubai Ports World deal, focusing on this one transaction ignores the larger flaws in the CFIUS review process and the wide gaps in our port security. This important amendment deserves nothing less than an up-or- down vote.

Mr. Speaker I regret that I was out of the Chamber on Wednesday, March 8, 2006 and was unable to return before time expired on rollcall vote No. 32 on HR 4167, the National Uniformity for Food Act of 2005. Had I been allowed to record my vote, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 32.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to S. 2271, a bill that circumvents the regular legislative process and fails to truly improve the PATRIOT Act.

Last year, I rejected the PATRIOT Act reauthorization and the conference report because I thought Congress could strike a more reasonable balance in empowering law enforcement and protecting civil liberties. I was concerned then, as I am now, that the reauthorization language would remove the protection of sunsets to most of the PATRIOT Act, which was critical to earn support for such sweeping legislation in 2001. These sunset provisions ensure that Congress will continuously be able to take a closer look at how law enforcement powers are implemented and the effectiveness of balancing security and freedom. I continue to believe that Congressional oversight over one of the most fundamental challenges of our time would not hinder our society but enhance it.

First, let us be clear about what we are voting on today--an amendment to a conference report. Conference reports are not amendable. Conference reports are the product of conference committees that have hammered out the differences between House and Senate versions of legislation. A conference report is one of the last stages of the legislative process and it must be wholly rejected or accepted by the two chambers.

Since the Majority and the Administration cannot pass the PATRIOT Act reauthorization conference report on its merits through the regular legislative process, the House must now consider a bill that amends the report. Instead of being honest with the American people that the conference report is flawed, the Majority is attempting to maneuver legislation through the House that they purport will ``fix'' the underlying problems of the PATRIOT Act reauthorization and fast-track the bill to President Bush's desk.

Even if this ``fix'' was added to the conference report, many discrepancies in the protection of privacy, civil liberties and Congressional oversight still remain. For example, with no meaningful changes to the conference report, access is still allowed to sensitive personal records, including medical, business and library records (Section 215) and national security letters that request personal information are still issued with no judicial review (Section 505).

Today, I reject the idea that the Majority and the Administration can use this bill as political cover to gain enough support for passage of the PATRIOT Act reauthorization. The fact remains that the PATRIOT Act reauthorization still needs more work, more safeguards, and more oversight. As the 109th Congress continues to discuss protecting the homeland and civil liberties, I challenge my colleagues to have an open review and debate on improving the PATRIOT Act, and to work together-- in a bipartisan manner--to strengthen national security in a way that is consistent with the fundamental rights and freedoms this country was founded on.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today concerned that H.R. 4745, legislation making a supplemental appropriation for the Small Business Administration disaster loan program, is another example of the continued mismanagement of the Gulf Coast recovery effort.

This $712 million supplemental comes before us today as we discover that the SBA will completely run out of funding for disaster loans sometime in the next week. It is clear that the $441 million previously appropriated to this program was far from adequate to meet demand for the loans. As a result, the SBA has approved only 37 percent of the 280,000 disaster loan applications the agency has received and is facing a backlog of over 105,000 applications. Of the loans approved, only 10 percent have been actually paid to the homeowners and small businesses that are relying on this critical funding to rebuild their livelihoods in the wake of this unprecedented natural disaster.

How this administration could so grossly underestimate the need for these loans is beyond me. From the very beginning, the response by our Government to this disaster has been wholly inadequate--and this shortfall is just another sad example of the consequences of the poor planning, lack of leadership and incompetence demonstrated in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Rebuilding the Gulf Coast is going to take a long term commitment of will and resources by the Federal Government. Yet, time and again, this administration has failed to level with Congress and the American people on the full costs needed to support the rebuilding effort.

The needs of the families, small business and communities of the Gulf Coast are too important to be shortchanged by estimation errors or budgetary gimmicks. I hope that any Katrina legislation this Congress may consider in the next few months includes a full accounting of the funding truly needed to meet our commitment to the Gulf Coast.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I attended the heartfelt memorial service of Mrs. Coretta Scott King. Mrs. King was a model citizen and will truly be missed by the Nation. Last week the House debated H. Res. 655, which honored the life and accomplishments of Mrs. Coretta Scott King. This resolution recognized her contributions as a leader in the Civil Rights Movement and expresses condolences to the King family on her passing.

Coretta Scott King was born on April 27, 1927, in Heiberger, Alabama. Mrs. King graduated from Antioch College with a degree in music and education and was granted a scholarship to study concert singing at the New England Conservatory of Music in Boston, Massachusetts. It was in Boston where she met a young theology student, Martin Luther King, Jr., who was attending Boston University, and her life was forever changed. They were soon caught up in a dramatic series of events that sparked the modern Civil Rights Movement. Dr. King was recognized as the face of the movement, called upon to lead various marches from city to city, with Mrs. King right by his side, encouraging citizens, regardless of race, to defy the laws of segregation.

On April 4, 1968, Martin Luther King, Jr., was assassinated in Memphis, Tennessee. Channeling her grief, Mrs. King concentrated her energies on fulfilling her husband's work by building The King Center in Atlanta, Georgia, as a living memorial to her husband's life and dream. However, Mrs. King's greatest accomplishment was yet to come. She set out to establish her late husband's birthday as a national holiday, and that dream came to fruition when Congress declared the first observance of this national holiday in 1986. Today, the holiday is marked by annual celebrations in over 100 countries.

Mrs. King was an influential public figure and is referred to as the ``First Lady of the Civil Rights Movement.'' She was a world-renowned speaker who gave hundreds of speeches both abroad and at home, and was active in organizations such as the National Council of Negro Women and the Women's Strike for Peace. Mrs. King was also known for her writing, most notably for her autobiography, My Life With Martin Luther King. Jr.

Mrs. Coretta Scott King had a vision and she had the wherewithal to keep that vision alive. The journey towards equality for all has been greatly advanced by her work and accomplishments. Mrs. Coretta Scott King is a true American hero and will dearly be missed by her family, the Nation, and the world.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 657, a resolution honoring the contributions made by Catholic schools nationwide. These schools provide students with an education that instills a lifelong development of moral, intellectual, and social values in America's young people.

Our Nation's Catholic schools provide excellent opportunities for learning. Today, nearly 50 percent of students enrolled in U.S. private schools attend Catholic schools. In Connecticut, over 39,000 students are enrolled at 148 Catholic schools throughout the State. Catholic schools provide educational opportunities to a broad cross-section of our society. With over 7,000 schools and current matriculating classes of greater than 2.5 million students, it is estimated that about 27 percent of students enrolled are minorities. Catholic schools also encourage greater levels of student-teacher interaction through their small class-size ratio. The 160,000 faculty that teach at these schools provide students with both an intellectually stimulating and values- based education.

As a former student of St. Rose's School in East Hartford, Connecticut, I would like to praise the outstanding efforts of the Sisters of Notre Dame for providing students with strong academic and moral values. The Catholic education I received at St. Rose's School has guided me throughout my career in public service. At St. Rose, I was taught the valuable lessons of good works toward others and society's special obligation to consider first the needs of the poor. The Catholic teachings have given me a valuable framework for life, and have enabled me to achieve personal and professional goals.

Again, I am proud to support H. Res. 657. As we celebrate Catholic Schools Week, we must honor the role these schools play in promoting and ensuring a brighter, stronger future for this Nation. I am proud that these schools continue to nurture students dedicated to their faith, to their values, to their communities and to their families. These schools develop the leaders of tomorrow with effective leadership and character.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for the time.

Mr. Speaker, how appropriate that we bring this piece of legislation in the early morning, deep in December, as our Nation braces for yet another cold winter.

To my Democratic colleagues I say, you know, do not be too harsh on our Republican colleagues. Take heart in what Franklin Delano Roosevelt said. Remember this, that they are not bad people. In fact, they can be very well intended, but more often than not they are frozen in the ice of their own indifference, frozen in indifference to the cries of people from the rooftops of New Orleans or to fellow colleagues who come to the floor from Bay St. Louis and New Orleans and talk about people who still live in tents, frozen in their indifference to the elderly in this country who are refugees from their own health care system and have to go to Canada to get prescription drugs, frozen in that indifference and yet come to this Chamber with the temerity to talk about spending.

We agree with you on spending. It is just that you lavish your spending on the oil companies and the pharmaceutical companies and only ask of the least amongst us to provide for the sacrifice that this Nation and you are going to place upon their backs.

Roosevelt had it right: You are frozen in the ice of your own indifference.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposiiton to the so-called Pension Protection Act and in support of the Democratic motion to recommit.

There is no question that our Nation is facing a pension crisis. Over 34 million American workers currently rely on the benefits they receive from a defined benefit pension plan to make ends meet. Yet, with the growing number of corporations cutting pension benefits or declaring bankruptcy, people are increasingly concerned about their retirement security. More and more, American workers are facing the prospect of seeing their employers use our Nation's bankruptcy laws to back out of their pension promises and turning their obligations over to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC)--which only partially funds promised benefits.

Unfortunately, the bill before us today is a missed opportunity to provide American workers with real pension protection.

H.R. 2830 makes significant changes to the rules for defined benefit pension plans, increases the premiums that companies pay into the PBGC, and does nothing to prevent companies from dumping their pension obligations on American taxpayers. According to the Chief Investment Officers of over sixty percent of our Nation's largest pension plans, these likely will lead to cuts or terminations of existing plans. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this legislation would add over $70 billion to the federal deficit and fails to improve the PBGC's financial condition by increasing the agency's financial shortfall by $2.5 billion.

Rather than allowing an open debate on this important issue, the majority leadership has chosen to close this bill from amendments or even allow consideration of a Democratic substitute. The Miller/Cardin motion to recommit protects American pension benefits by making it harder for companies to declare bankruptcy and abandon workers pensions, protects worker's retirement security by providing employers with pension funding stability and gives the airlines the tools they need to shore up their employee pension plans. This alternative would provide American workers with real pension protection, rather than continued retirement insecurity.

Mr. Speaker, today's legislation is the latest in a series of attempts to privatize profits and socialize losses. It is my sincere hope that as we move into conference, we can produce legislation that will protect the hard earned pension benefits of our Nation's workers.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to join the gentleman from New York (Mr. King) in introducing the Nursing Home Fire Safety Act of 2005.

As millions of Americans visit their friends and family in nursing homes in this holiday season, they want to know that their loved ones are safe from the threat of fire. However, it would disturb many to learn that the Government Accountability Office estimates that 20 to 30 percent of the 17,000 nursing homes across the country still lack a full fire sprinkler system.

Unfortunately, families in my district have seen tragic results of a nursing home fire first hand. In February 2003 sixteen residents of a nursing home in Hartford were killed in one of the worst fires in the city's history. Another nursing home fire in Nashville, Tennessee later that year took the lives of fifteen people. In both cases these buildings were older facilities that had been allowed to operate without an automatic fire sprinkler system.

A July 2004 GAO report found that ``the substantial loss of life in the Hartford and Nashville fires could have been reduced or eliminated by the presence of properly functioning automatic sprinkler systems,'' and that ``federal oversight of nursing home compliance with fire safety standards is inadequate.'' And, according to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), there is no record of a multiple death fire in a nursing home equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system.

It has been almost 2 years since the tragic fires of 2003, yet the federal government has taken only small steps to increase fire safety in nursing homes. To date the only concrete action the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has taken to improve fire safety is requiring nursing homes without a sprinkler system to install battery operated smoke detectors. While this is a good first step, the rule has been criticized by fire safety advocates since the smoke detectors do not need to be hard wired to the building's alarm system or 9-1-1.

Experts agree that it's not a matter of ``if' there will be another nursing home fire, but when and how bad. It should not take another tragedy to remind us how vulnerable our nursing homes are to fire.

According to the GAO and industry experts, the single biggest obstacle preventing most nursing homes from installing sprinklers is the cost. Already burdened by the increasing cost to care for their residents and shortfalls in the Medicare funding they rely on, they simply cannot afford these systems. In addition, while CMS has it within their authority to increase fire safety standards and mandate the installation of sprinklers, it has repeatedly shied away from doing so because of the cost that would be passed on to nursing homes.

That is why we are introducing this legislation today.

The Nursing Home Fire Safety Act of 2005 would provide low interest loans and need-based grants to nursing homes in the greatest need of assistance in tackling the high cost of installing sprinklers. The loan program would assist nursing homes that cannot afford the up-front cost of retrofitting their facilities, but could afford to pay back a low interest government backed loan. The grant program would target those nursing homes in the greatest need of financial assistance in installing sprinkler systems by requiring the Secretary of Health and Human Services to give priority to facilities that lack the resources to install these systems on their own. In addition, the bill expresses the sense of Congress that every nursing home in America should be equipped with full sprinkler systems within 5 years and that CMS should move quickly to adopt stronger fire safety standards.

Together, these provisions will ensure that nursing homes have access to the financial resources to overcome the cost of providing their residents with the fire safety protection they need.

The Hartford and Nashville fires demonstrated the terrible and unacceptable consequences of allowing cost to stand in the way of fire safety. Congress has ignored this problem for far too long and it is time for us to take action to ensure that our nation's most vulnerable are safe from the threat of fire.

Again, I thank Mr. King for joining me in this important initiative, and urge our colleagues to join us in helping to make nursing homes in their districts--and around the country--safe from the threat of fire.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Democratic alternative to H.R. 4297, Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act that would provide real tax relief to working families and help the economy grow.

The underlying bill is more of the same--more fiscally irresponsible policy. The President's policy of ``stay the course'' is not working; it's not working in our foreign policy, domestic policy, budget policy or tax policy. More of the same is just not working and now is the time for a new direction.

Unlike the reckless tax bill on the floor, the Democratic alternative would help more Americans help themselves and ensure that as a country, we move forward together. Among other things, the Democratic measure would exempt every family making less that $200,000 from the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). The Democratic measure would also provide $42 billion in targeted tax cuts including, deductions for state and local retail sales taxes, deductions for college tuitions expenses, a research and development tax credit, a small business expensing tax credit, and a larger earned income tax credit for the families of those serving in Iraq. Most importantly, the Democratic alternative would be fully offset instead of pushing the country further into debt like the Republican bill.

The truth is that more than one-half of all taxpayers would get less than $30 in tax relief from this bill, while those who make over a million dollars a year would get an average tax break of $32,000. Supporters of the capital gains and dividends tax cuts have tried to characterize them as offering benefits that are more broad-based than AMT relief. However, in reality, households with incomes between $100,000 and $500,000 would receive 87% of the benefit of AMT relief, compared to 62% of the benefit for capital gains and dividends tax cuts.

Where are the priorities of this House? What message are we sending to the American people? It's time for a new direction because more of the same failed policies aren't working. Americans deserve better. I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting the underlying bill and supporting the Democratic alternative that would provide real tax relief and strengthen our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Stealth Tax Relief Act, H.R. 4096, a temporary fix to a much larger, more overhanging problem, the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). Originally intended to ensure wealthy taxpayers paid their fair share, the AMT has become a tax on the middle-class. Without adjustments for inflation like the federal income tax, the AMT targets a growing number of people each year. Taxpayers in states with high property taxes and high local and state income taxes, in states like my home state of Connecticut, are most hard-hit by the AMT. In fact, Connecticut faces the third highest AMT tax liability in the nation.

H.R. 4096 will pass the House today and again, the House will evade its responsibility to find a real solution to the AMT attack on the middle-class for another year. The Majority seems to find plenty of time to cut social programs, increase the deficit, and afford estate, capital gains, and dividends tax cuts to the wealthiest among us, while consistently dragging their feet to fix a tax that targets 17 million working middle-class families. According to the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation, and the Congressional Budget Office, the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 have, in fact, tripled the size of the AMT problem.

The American public deserves better. Last month, I supported a Democratic proposal in the House Ways and Means Committee that would have totally eliminated the AMT for all families with incomes under $200,000. Unfortunately, this measure was rejected along party lines. I am also a cosponsor of H.R. 2950, the Individual Tax Simplification Act that would among other things, repeal the AMT. However, to date, the bill has received no attention by the House Ways and Means Committee. And now today, I am disappointed that the Majority brought the underlying bill to the floor under the suspension calendar, a procedure which blocked the opportunity to offer an amendment to fully repeal the

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4388, the Tax Revision Act. Among other things, H.R. 4388 includes an extension of a critical tax provision that our troops and their families rely on to make ends meet when deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Working Families Tax Relief Act (PL-108-311), which we passed last year, included language which ensured that military families are not unfairly prevented from receiving the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) because the combat pay they rely on to make ends meet is tax free.

Ordinarily only those with taxable earned income are eligible for the EITC. However the only source of income for many military families is the tax free combat pay of a spouse deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan. As a result, before we passed last year's legislation, many low-income military families were unable to claim the EITC based on the tax free status of their family members' combat pay.

The last thing our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan need to worry about is their families' taxes. The extension of the EITC combat pay provision will ensure that the families of our brave men and women in uniform are not unfairly and inadvertently punished when their loved ones are deployed abroad.

The tax treatment of combat pay for EITC purposes is not controversial. However, it was not included in the larger reconciliation bill on apparently technical grounds that the refund portion of the EITC is a budget outlay and therefore cannot be included in the bill. The substitute that Democrats offered in Committee contained a provision, rejected by majority, that was designed to continue full EITC benefits to our military families and which did not run afoul of the budget rules.

I worry that this bill is for show and merely meant to help make some on the other side of the aisle feel better about the tax cut bill they will support tomorrow which helps the wealthy and ignores working and military families. I hope that my concerns are unfounded and that this important legislation is made into law.