Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, in my career as Governor and as a Member of Congress, I have been fortunate to spend time in schools all across the State of Delaware. During my visits, I have recognized a growing and frightening trend where more and more children are becoming obese. Health, nutrition, and physical exercise professionals indicate that childhood obesity has become a national problem which is reaching epidemic proportions. For that reason, I am introducing the Obesity Prevention Act which aims to curb the rise of obesity among our nation's children.

The statistics are alarming: According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) there are nearly twice as many overweight children and almost three times as many overweight adolescents as there were in 1980. Based on the agency's 1999-2000 data, the percentage of children who are overweight has nearly doubled (from 7 to 13 percent) in the past two decades, and the percentage of adolescents who are overweight has almost tripled (from 5 to 14 percent.)

Dr. Nancy Krebs, chairwoman of the American Academy of Pediatrics' Committee on Nutrition found that over 60 percent of overweight children between 5 and 10 years of age already have at least one factor for cardiovascular disease.

The Surgeon General indicates that overweight children and adolescents are more likely to become overweight or obese adults.

The Surgeon General's Call To Action To Prevent and Decrease Overweight and Obesity 2001 found that overweight and obesity are increasing in both genders and among all population groups. In 1999, an estimated 61 percent of U.S. adults were overweight or obese.

A recent analysis, underwritten by the CDC, found that the treatment of illnesses related to obesity costs America $93 billion a year, rivaling the financial toll of smoking-related disease. Health care for overweight and obese individuals costs an average of 37 percent more than for people of normal weight, adding an average of $732 to the annual medical bills of every American. We know a lot of children who are overweight grow up to be overweight or obese adults, and thus a greater risk for some major health problems.

For the vast majority of individuals, overweight and obesity result from excess calorie consumption and/or inadequate physical activity. Thus, a healthy diet and regular physical activity, consistent with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, should be promoted. Although obesity- associated problems occur most frequently in adults, important consequences of excess weight as well as antecedents of adult disease occur in overweight children and adolescents. It seems to me that we should be finding ways to help our children be healthy and fit. The Obesity Prevention Act, which I am introducing today, encourages activities to educate our nation's children about nutrition and promote physical fitness. This is accomplished with:

State Nutrition and Physical Fitness Projects--This title amends the National School Lunch Act to provide 20 state demonstration programs for the creation of model nutrition education and fitness programs for students. States may use funds, after consulting with others in state government and industry who have an interest in obesity treatment and prevention, for a variety of purposes. Unlike other programs, which function as national activities of the CDC and USDA, these grant programs will give a few states the opportunity to think comprehensively about the problem of childhood obesity--not just from a health or food perspective.

Local Nutrition and Physical Fitness Project--This title creates a new pilot program for 100 school districts--at least one in each state--to promote healthy eating habits and increase physical fitness. Local Education Agencies may use funds, after consulting with individuals who represent public health, nutrition and fitness organizations, for a variety of purposes.

State Children's Health Insurance Program Incentive--This section creates an incentive for states that have, as part of their state health insurance plan, activities to treat or prevent childhood obesity. This is an effective way to intervene early with an at-risk population.

Commission on Obesity Treatment and Prevention--The Commission will facilitate coordination between federal agencies and identify ways to streamline the process through which federal departments can aid in the treatment and prevention of obesity. Members include representatives from US Health and Human Services, USDA, US Department of Education, Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services, CDC, the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports, National Institute of Health, and Surgeon General as well as representatives from private sector nutrition and public health organizations and food, fitness, and other appropriate industries. In addition, they must consult with state and local government, educators and community based organizations. They will meet at least twice annually and prepare a report on actions taken to treat and prevent obesity and make recommendations for legislative and regulatory action.

President's Health and Fitness Awards--This is a new section to recognize schools for overall fitness and demonstrated improvements in student fitness and nutrition awareness. In this way, we're not simply awarding athletes who are already fit but rather schools and students that are making progress toward fitness and health. Also, it provides an award for teachers or coaches who create innovative and effective fitness and nutrition programs.

Afterschool Programs--Finally, the bill adds nutrition and health education programs to the list of allowable activities for afterschool programs.

The time for action is now. We need to promote innovative ideas to help our children stay healthy and fit. Children are the future of America, and we must help to ensure they understand the importance of healthy living. I am confident that the Obesity Prevention Act is a positive first step to help reduce and prevent obesity among children, and I ask my colleagues to cosponsor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the School Readiness Act of 2003, which reauthorizes the Head Start program. This legislation improves the Head Start Act by emphasizing that every child, regardless of their economic status, should have the best chance possible to succeed. I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the Chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for his assistance in developing this legislation.

In 1965, Head Start was created to give economically disadvantaged children access to the same educational, health, nutritional, social, and other services that were enjoyed by their more affluent peers. The goal of the program was, as it remains today, to provide children a solid foundation that will prepare them for success in school and later in life. As the centerpiece of the Federal government's efforts to support quality early childhood education for our nation's most disadvantaged youth, Head Start has served nearly 20 million low-income children and their families. Currently, Head Start serves over 900,000 children every day and has nearly 1,500 grantees across the United States. In my home state of Delaware, Head Start programs serve 1,594 children, with an additional 464 four year olds receiving assistance through state government funding.

We all can agree on the need for Head Start and its astounding successes. We must also recognize that Head Start can produce even greater results for children. Students who attend Head Start programs do start school more prepared than those with similar backgrounds that do not attend Head Start. However, Head Start students continue to enter kindergarten well below national norms in school readiness. By moving to close this school readiness gap, this bill will improve results for almost a million Head Start students across the nation.

The School Readiness Act of 2003 strengthens Head Start's academic focus while maintaining its comprehensive nature, eliminates out of date requirements and unnecessary demands on local grantees, improves teacher quality, demands grantee accountability while providing assistance to those that are underachieving, increases funding for Head Start, requires collaboration between early childhood education and care providers, and creates a demonstration project allowing some states to further coordinate state early childhood programs with Head Start.

Under this bill, Head Start children will enter school with demonstrated prereading, language, and pre-mathematics skills, as well as the benefits from the nutritional and health services that Head Start has always provided. Children's progress will no longer be based on arbitrary and out of date performance measures, but on scientifically based and clear criteria that will enable parents and teachers to accurately view a child's progress.

This bill will also require Head Start teachers to be more prepared to equip young children for school. By 2008, 50 percent of all Head Start teachers must have a baccalaureate degree, and after three years no new teachers will be hired without an associate degree.

This bill also improves the accountability of Head Start programs. As under current law, local grantees will be responsible for their use of the federal funds. Those that are identified as underachieving, however, will receive additional assistance. This bill demonstrates our commitment to Head Start by authorizing a $202 million increase, making it a $6.87 billion program.

Additionally, Head Start centers will now increase the likelihood of children starting kindergarten at the same level. This will be done through the efforts of Head Start programs to coordinate and reach out to other early childhood education and care providers, local school districts, local museums and libraries, and community and faith-based organizations. These efforts will be focused on the improved instruction and school readiness of children, as well as teacher training and quality improvement.

For some states, this bill will also provide the opportunity for increased integration of preschool programs with Head Start. This opportunity will only be available to states that have exhibited a substantial dedication to early childhood education and care through financial investment, the creation of statewide school readiness standards, professional development requirements for early childhood teachers, and have demonstrated inter-agency coordination. States that take advantage of this opportunity will be required to maintain their current investment, thus protecting Head Start from state budget cuts. In addition, Head Start grantees that have not exhibited any egregious or uncorrected deficiencies on Health and Human Services evaluations over the last five years would continue to receive funding during the first year of the state demonstration program.

The School Readiness Act of 2003 builds upon the reforms of previous reauthorizations of Head Start, as well as the recommendations of President Bush. I would like to take this opportunity to thank President Bush, and First Lady Laura Bush, for their leadership on this issue. The success of the White House Summit on Early Childhood Cognitive Development, which brought together hundreds of educators, researchers, librarians, business leaders and federal officials to help us better understand the issues surrounding early childhood learning, is a credit to this Administration.

I look forward to working with the members of the Education and Workforce Committee and other members of Congress as we work to craft this legislation that will improve the school readiness of disadvantaged children. I urge my colleagues to join me and the other original cosponsors in support of the School Readiness Act of 2003.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I also rise in strong support of H.R. 2185, the Unemployment Compensation Amendments. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this important measure, and I thank Chairman Thomas and the House leadership for bringing this to the floor.

Sadly, we have watched many Americans become unemployed and struggle to find work in today's economy. Today, Congress is taking a much- needed step in extending unemployment compensation for our Nation's workers. Figures show the U.S. unemployment rate is at 6 percent, and nearly 9 million people are unemployed. This legislation provides a safety net for men and women who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.

We must assist workers during these times of hardship so they can successfully make the transition back to the workforce. The legislation before us helps accomplish this goal and coupled with existing job training and networking programs we can return Americans to the workforce. I urge my colleagues to join together in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2185, the ``Unemployment Compensation Amendments.'' I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this important measure and I thank Chairman Thomas and the House leadership for bringing this to the floor.

Sadly, we have watched many Americans become unemployed and struggle to find wok in today's economy. Today, Congress is taking a much needed step in extending unemployment compensation for our Nation's workers. Figures show the U.S. unemployment rate is at 6 percent and nearly 9 million people are unemployed. This legislation provides a safety net for men and women who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.

We must assist workers during these times of hardship so they can successfully make the transition back to the workforce. The legislation before us helps accomplish this goal and coupled with existing job training and networking programs we can return Americans to the workforce. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on H.R. 2, the Jobs and Economic Growth Reconciliation Tax Act of 2003. This bill is a responsible effort to address the economic needs and concerns of all Americans. This bill is a dramatic improvement over the tax legislation previousl considered by the House, which I opposed. It is more targeted to help American workers and families now and it is lower in cost and more fiscally responsible.

This bill will provide $330 billion in tax relief to American taxpayers and $20 billion in fiscal aid to the States. More than 272,000 households in Delaware will receive tax relief and hundreds of millions of dollars will be pumped into the Delaware economy to create jobs. To complement this effort, at my urging, Congress has also just voted to extend unemployment benefits for an additional 13 weeks bringing another $16.5 million to our State and much needed relief to Delawareans looking for work.

The final agreement is a fair compromise that reduced the overall cost of the legislation to a level that is fiscally responsible. This final tax relief legislation meets the key tests that I urged the House and Senate to achieve.

First, I urged that this tax relief be better targeted to provide an immediate boost to the economy. The final compromise will provide immediate relief to working Americans to put more money in their pockets now to help strengthen the economy this year. As soon as this legislation is enacted, American workers will have fewer taxes withheld from their paychecks, giving 88,000 Delaware households more money for the daily needs of their families. In addition, this bill will increase the child tax credit from $600 to $1,000 giving 77,000 Delaware families with dependent children a rebate check this summer of up to $400 per child. This additional disposable income spent by families will in turn help our businesses, communities and the economy this year.

The legislation will provide tax relief to all working Americans. It speeds the reduction in tax rates for all Americans to give them more income as soon as possible. By expanding the 10 percent tax bracket immediately, this legislation will benefit 212,000 Delaware households, including low and moderate income workers by taxing the first $14,000 of income for couples and $7,000 for single people at a lower 10 percent rate. In addition, it accelerates relief from the marriage penalty tax to 105,000 Delaware marriaged couples.

The bill will help small businesses by immediately increasing the amount they can deduct for new equipment and other expenses. That will encourage business owners to buy equipment now and make other investments that will build their businesses and create new jobs.

The tax relief provisions in this revised legislation are geared to have the most immediate impact in the next 2 years. I had urged that these changes be made to help boost the economy now without adding unnecessary long-term costs to our government.

Second, the final bill also recognizes that there are other pressing needs in our Nation

that must be addressed in addition to tax relief. This compromise will provide our states with financial assistance that will support programs to help individuals in need. Most states, including my home State of Delaware, are experiencing difficult budgetary times that has caused them to limit spending on important programs. This legislation will provide $20 billion in aid to the States over the next 2 years. This aid includes $10 billion for essential government services, of which Delaware is estimated to receive $50 million, and $10 billion specifically for Medicaid, the federal-state partnership to provide important medical care to low-income individuals. Delaware's share of the Medicaid funds could be as high as $28 million. This $78 million in aid to Delaware was not included in the original House-passed bill and I am pleased it was added in this final version.

Third, I had urged that the original proposal to eliminate the double taxation of dividends be modified to have a greater immediate economic stimulus and to limit the impact of this tax cut on the federal budget deficit. This issue has been addressed. I opposed the original proposal to eliminate the taxation of dividends because I did not believe we could afford the original $395 billion cost of that single proposal at this time. This compromise would not eliminate the tax on dividends, but it would reduce the rates on capital gains and dividends through 2008. This will provide an incentive for investment, at a much lower cost than the original proposal. With new investment in business ventures, new jobs will be created.

Finally, I am pleased that the cost this final legislation has been significantly reduced from earlier proposals and represents a more fiscally responsible effort to provide tax relief to create jobs and strengthen our economy. This was a top priority for me because I am a strong advocate of balancing the federal budget, and I believe that any effort to stimulate the economy must be weighed against other needs and the importance of returning the federal budget to balance. I opposed the original House Budget Resolution which called for $750 billion in tax relief because I did not believe it was affordable at a time when we have critical new national security requirements and other needs. That budget plan called for a $750 billion tax cut as well as unfair and unsustainable reductions in important programs like health care, education and the environment. I opposed those and was pleased that the final budget plan did not include those cuts. I also opposed the first tax relief bill passed by the House because its cost of $550 billion was still too great for our current budget limits. In response to the concerns expressed by me and others in the Senate and House, a fair compromise has been reached that will provide $330 billion in tax relief to all working Americans, as well as $20 billion in direct aid to the States.

Some of the tax relief in this bill is temporary, to stimulate the economy now and reduce the long-term cost of the legislation. Those provisions are part of the compromise and are certainly not a perfect solution. Some argue that if future Congresses extend these provisions, the long-term costs of the tax relief to the government are far higher. The sunsets act as a budget trigger that will force Congress to revisit these issues with new information and debate the best course of action on whether to extend the tax cuts beyond the years contained in this bill.

Earlier this month, I called on Congress to put together a bill that would provide tax relief now to individual Americans, families and small businesses in a fiscally responsible manner. I stressed that a package could be assembled that did not exceed $350 billion. Those tests have been met. As I stated, effective governing requires careful decisions and painful compromises. All of us involved in the debate have had to make compromises. That effort has produced a bill that will return more of their hard-earned money to working Americans, create jobs for unemployed Americans, and help our state governments meet the budget challenges they are facing. I am proud to have worked hard to ensure that this bill fairly addresses the need to provide tax and financial relief now, while recognizing that we must not jeopardize our efforts to maintain fiscal responsibility in our government in the future. This bill is a fair effort to meet those tests and I support its passage to help all Americans and our nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 870 which authorizes the extension of a valuable school pilot program included in the 2002 Farm Bill, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Fruit and Vegetable pilot program.

This program has provided an extraordinary opportunity to distribute free fruits and vegetables to students throughout the school day in an effort to increase their consumption of these healthful foods. Because this pilot did not begin until nearly midway through the school year, participating schools have requested that the Congress allow them additional time to complete the pilot program.

I have been pleased with the popularity of this pilot program and the evidence of its success. The USDA recently released a report on the pilot program. Within their evaluation they found that it was popular among most students, parents, State representatives, teachers, principals, pilot managers and food service staff. The USDA's evaluation also found that students consumed over 90 percent of servings offered thus far.

No one can dispute the importance of a healthy diet, especially for growing children. Yet, for a number of reasons, many children don't eat enough fruits and vegetables as recommended by the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and the Food Guide Pyramid. This pilot also is critically important to help encourage healthy dietary habits among the growing number of children in this country who are overweight or obese. USDA found that nearly 93 percent of participating schools have provided some nutrition education and promotion activities along with the program.

Identifying ways to encourage children to consume a wide variety of healthful foods will be a major focus of the upcoming reauthorization of the National School Lunch Program and other key child nutrition programs. During the reauthorization process, we will look to this pilot program for some answers regarding how we might help increase the consumption of fruits and vegetables in school by making accessible the types of fruits and vegetables that children most enjoy.

Because research has shown that children develop dietary habits early in life, the increased availability of fruits and vegetables in school can make a lasting impression on the life-long consumption patterns of these youths. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to vote to extend this pilot study.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 192. This legislation is vital to the future of so many impoverished people throughout the world. Microenterprise programs have been remarkably successful in providing opportunity to those most in need both abroad and domestically.

Microenterprise programs provide poor people, who have the initiative to start or expand small business endeavors, access to small loans with low interests rates. These small loans have substantial value to the recipients and effectively foster self-sufficiency and fiscal responsibility. In fact, almost all loans are repaid. This is strong evidence of the effectiveness of these programs.

Microenterprise programs exemplify the qualities of good, sound policy by improving the lives of individuals while positively impacting a broad population and doing so with little waste. Unlike other forms of assistance, microenterprise gives the aid directly to the intended recipients in need. This direct approach eliminates government waste, spreads economic opportunity, and plants the seeds for growth of the small business sector in developing nations. The creation of a solid small business infrastructure in developing nations provides a stimulus for their economics.

Not only will the success of our microenterprise programs be continued under H.R. 192, they will also be strengthened by provisions for increased funding and improving poverty-measuring tools. This legislation calls for increasing the amount of funds authorized for microenterprise to $175 million in FY 2003 and $200 million in FY 2004. It also requires that the U.S. Agency for International Development develop, test, and certify two methods for measuring poverty levels of microenterprise assistance recipients. By targeting those most in need and increasing aid, we make a good program better.

Helping in the fight against global poverty also increase the security of the American people and our friends throughout the world. As President Bush states, ``Persistent poverty and oppression can lead to hopelessness and despair. And when governments fail to meet the most basic needs of their people, these failed states can become havens for terror.'' Microenterprise helps the impoverished and serves as one tool we can use to erode that hopelessness and that despair.

This bipartisan legislation will give new hope and opportunity to the poor around the world and provides the potential to improve our relations with many nations. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for their work on putting this legislation together and their commitment to fighting global poverty. I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 192.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

I congratulate him and others who worked on this, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and others who worked on the legislation before us.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to get out of that a little bit and talk about where we are going. I do not disagree with the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro). There are a lot of problems out there that need to be fixed.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, we started with Sarbanes-Oxley, and we started to address a lot of those problems in terms of employees, corporate management, those questions.

We then went on to dealing with the issue of management on retirement funds. That is what we are doing for the most part out there in this country today. Whether we like it or not, that is happening, and basically this bill, if we take the time to really read it and be thoughtful about it, really provides more flexibility and diversification for the employees so they can make decisions and are not going to be bound in to something like their own company's stock and locked in such a way they cannot make the right decision, and it provides for more investment advice for that.

Some argue it is not independent. In my view of reading it, it is. Those are the kinds of thing we need to do. I believe if we had taken those steps, we would have avoided a lot of the problems that we had in places like Enron and WorldCom.

This measure requires companies to give workers, for example, quarterly benefits statements that include information about accounts, including the value of their assets, the right to diversify and the importance of maintaining a diversified portfolio.

We need to educate people in America about retirement needs, about what investments are. We need to work very hard on this because that is what they have to do anyhow, so we ought to have legislation which enables them to know more about it so they can make sound investments in light of whatever they want to do in the future.

I believe that this brings unprecedented new retirement security protections and literally would protect thousands of workers who got burned very badly in the last 3 years and hopefully are in some sort of recovery now. I would encourage everyone to support it.

I do not know much about the substitute. We will hear more about that here in a few minutes, but I will tell my colleagues, the underlying bill is something that is helpful.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1000, the ``Pension Security Act.'' I am proud to be a cosponsor of this measure that passed the House with bipartisan support in the 107th Congress and I thank Chairman Boehner and Subcommittee Chairman Sam Johnson for bringing this matter to the floor again. I am hopeful the measure will again pass as it provides important protections to working Americans with employer-based retirement plans.

Sadly, we have watched many Americans see their retirement savings plummet. Congress took a much needed step in enacting the Sarbanes- Oxley Act and this legislation further strengthens those reforms. This legislation gives workers greater ability to manage and expand their retirement savings.

Congressional hearings in 2002 established that inadequate worker access to investment advice contributed significantly to retirement security losses by employees at Enron. This bill provides greater resources to American workers by allowing employers to provide their workers with high-quality, professional investment advice as an employee benefit, while maintaining safeguards to protect the interests of workers and investors. This measure requires companies to give workers quarterly benefit statements that include information about accounts, including the value of their assets, their rights to diversify, and the importance of maintaining a diversified portfolio.

The ``Pension Security Act'' would give workers unprecedented new retirement security protections and would have helped to protect thousands of Enron and WorldCom employees who lost their savings during the company's collapse. Workers must be fully protected and fully prepared with the tools they need to protect and enhance their retirement savings. The ``Pension Security Act'' accomplishes these goals and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1000, the ``Pension Security Act.'' I am proud to be a cosponsor of this measure that passed the House with bipartisan support in the 107th Congress and I thank Chairman Boehner and Subcommittee Chairman Sam Johnson for bringing this matter to the floor again. I am hopeful the measure will again pass as it provides important protections to working Americans with employer-based retirement plans.

Sadly, we have watched many Americans see their retirement savings plummet. Congress took a much needed step in enacting the Sarbanes- Oxley Act and this legislation further strengthens those reforms. This legislation gives workers greater ability to manage and expand their retirement savings.

Congressional hearings in 2002 established that inadequate worker access to investment advice contributed significantly to retirement security losses by employees at Enron. This bill provides greater resources to American workers by allowing employers to provide their workers with high-quality, professional investment advice as an employee benefit, while maintaining safeguards to protect the interests of workers and investors. This measure requires companies to give workers quarterly benefit statements that include information about accounts, including the value of their assets, their rights to diversify, and the importance of maintaining a diversified portfolio.

The ``Pension Security Act'' would give workers unprecedented new retirement security protections and would have helped to protect thousands of Enron and WorldCom employees who lost their savings during the company's collapse. Workers must be fully protected and fully prepared with the tools they need to protect and enhance their retirement savings. The ``Pension Security Act'' accomplishes these goals and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose H.R. 2, the ``Jobs and Growth Reconciliation Tax Act of 2003'' as currently drafted. I applaud the President's leadership in trying to strengthen our economy. However, to accomplish this goal I believe that any legislation intended to help the economy must be targeted to help working Americans and business now, and not worsen our long-term budget situation. In its current from, this legislation does not meet these two important tests. The bill goes beyond what is needed to provide immediate tax to American workers and families and its overall cost could jeopardize our ability to get the budget back in balance as soon as possible.

Throughout my public service, I have been a strong supporter of balanced budgets. A balanced budget tells our citizens its government is managing their money well. That increases confidence and strengthens the economy. When I served as Governor of Delaware, we balanced our state budget every year and cut taxes three separate times for both individuals and businesses. When I came to Congress, one of my top priorities was to help balance the federal budget. I was proud to support the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 which helped lead to a balanced federal budget from 1998 to 2001, and included the largest tax relief since 1981. In 2001, when the federal government projected a $4 trillion surplus for the next ten years, I supported President Bush's $1.35 trillion of tax cut that delivered broad based income tax relief and marriage penalty relief to hundreds of thousands of Delawareans.

As a result of an economic downturn made worse by terrorist attacks on our nation, the federal budget is facing deficits for the foreseeable future. At the same time we have critical demands to fight the war on terrorism, rebuild Iraq, protect our nation at home, and pay for important programs like health and education. In particular, we are still trying to address the need for a Medicare prescription drugs plan and its significant costs. With these challenges we must review all spending and revenue changes carefully to ensure they are absolutely needed. We are rightly limiting new government spending in our budget, but we must also take a hard look at any cuts that are not narrowly targeted toward immediate economic stimulus or do not take into account the long term consequences of federal deficits.

Some have argued that we must have the largest tax cut possible, stating that it will pay for itself because stimulating the economy will produce new tax revenue for the federal government. I have listened to these arguments, but reports from independent sources like the Congressional Budget Office indicated that deficits will increase an additional $2.7 trillion by 2013 if the tax cut and spending initially proposed were enacted.

Others have argued that the deficit is still small as a percentage of Gross National Product, that it will not damage the economy, and that Congress should not be concerned about the impact this tax cut will have on the deficit. Again, I have listened to these arguments, but far more persuasive are the warnings by independent, conservative economists like Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and the fiscal conservatives at the Concord Coalition who state that both large tax cuts and spending increases must be paid for or they will worsen the looming deficit problems our country will face when the baby boom generation retires and begins drawing down their Social Security and Medicare benefits.

Americans want prudent action, fairness and common sense from their government. In Delaware, the average hardworking person is not asking for the largest tax cut possible. They would support a reasonable plan to help boost the economy that does not put our economic future at risk. I have studied the tax relief proposals and it is clear that we could provide immediate tax relief to every working American, as well as help to businesses, especially small businesses within a package of $350 billion over ten years. That could include speeding up the reductions in all individual tax rates from the 2001 tax bill, increasing the tax credit for children to $1,000, eliminating the marriage penalty, and providing expensing and accelerated depreciation relief for businesses. Even the Wall Street Journal agrees

that speeding up the reduction in tax rates would have the most immediate stimulus on the economy by putting money in peoples' pockets and giving businesses relieve for their investment in equipment and other expenses.

Unfortunately, in the current bill, the most costly single provision remains the sharp reduction in the tax on dividends. In fact, the shape and long-term cost of the bill is distorted by the effort to maximize the reduction in dividend and capital gains taxes. The bill would phase-out much of the tax relief for families and individuals to pay for this section. The alternative is to extend those tax provisions later, but initial estimates indicate that would cost another $210 billion, which is $34 billion more than what President Bush requested in tax relief. If we are serious about keeping the deficit in check and giving straightforward tax relief, that is not the right decision. Although some reduction in dividend taxes is reasonable, we must acknowledge that we simply cannot afford steep reductions in taxes on dividends at this time. Further reductions in taxes on dividends should be addressed as part of a long-term tax reform effort when we are not facing the deficits that are a real threat to the federal budget and our economy.

Effective governing requires careful decisions and often painful compromises. There are those who honestly believe that tax relief is absolutely necessary at this time. There are others who urge caution to protect against deficits at a time when we face the dual challenges of a war on terrorism and the needs of an aging population. Enacting some tax relief to immediately strengthen the economy is a fair compromise, but this bill does not achieve that goal. It is possible that a more affordable tax relief bill will emerge from final negotiations with the Senate. I urge the leaders of both the House and the Senate to work toward a bill that provides immediate relief now to all working Americans. We need a bill that does not exacerbate long-term deficits or the need to address prescription drug relief, the war on terrorism, and Social Security. I think those goals can be accomplished in a $350 billion tax package or one slightly higher if Congress can come to agreement on closing abusive tax loopholes.

I must oppose this legislation and will continue to work toward a more fiscally responsible bill that helps all Americans without jeopardizing our budget and economic future.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose H.R. 2, the ``Jobs and Growth Reconciliation Tax Act of 2003'' as currently drafted. I applaud the President's leadership in trying to strengthen our economy. However, to accomplish this goal I believe that any legislation intended to help the economy must be targeted to help working Americans and businesses now, and not worsen our long-term budget situation. In its current form, this legislation does not meet these two important tests. The bill goes beyond what is needed to provide immediate tax relief to American workers and families and its overall cost could jeopardize our ability to get the budget back in balance as soon as possible.

Throughout my public service, I have been a strong supporter of balanced budgets. A balanced budget tells our citizens its government is managing their money well. That increases confidence and strengthens the economy. When I served as Governor of Delaware, we balanced our State budget every year and cut taxes three separate times for both individuals and businesses. When I came to Congress, one of my top priorities was to help balance the Federal budget. I was proud to support the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 which helped lead to a balanced Federal budget from 1998 to 2001, and included the largest tax relief since 1981. In 2001, when the Federal Government projected a $4 trillion surplus for the next 10 years, I supported President Bush's $1.35 trillion tax cut that delivered broad based income tax relief and marriage penalty relief to hundreds of thousands of Delawareans.

As a result of an economic downturn made worse by terrorist attacks on our Nation, the Federal budget is facing deficits for the foreseeable future. At the same time we have critical demands to fight the war on terrorism, rebuild Iraq, protect our Nation at home, and pay for important programs like health care and education. In particular, we are still trying to address the need for a Medicare prescription drug plan and its significant costs. With these challenges we must review all spending and revenue changes carefully to ensure they are absolutely needed. We are rightly limiting new Government spending in our budget, but we must also take a hard look at any tax cuts that are not narrowly targeted toward immediate economic stimulus or do not take into account the long term consequences of Federal deficits.

Some have argued that we must have the largest tax cut possible, stating that it will pay for itself because stimulating the economy will produce new tax revenue for the Federal Government. I have listened to these arguments, but reports from independent sources like the Congressional Budget Office indicate that deficits will increase an additional $2.7 trillion by 2013 if the tax cut and spending initially proposed were enacted.

Others have argued that the deficit is still small as a percentage of Gross National Product, that it will not damage the economy, and that Congress should not be concerned about the impact this tax cut will have on the deficit. Again, I have listened to these arguments, but far more persuasive are the warnings by independent, conservative economists like Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and the fiscal conservatives at the Concord Coalition who state that both large tax cuts and spending increases must be paid for or they will worsen the looming deficit problems our country will face when the baby boom generation retires and begins drawing down their Social Security and Medicare benefits.

Americans want prudent action, fairness and common sense from their government. In Delaware, the average hardworking person is not asking for the largest tax cut possible. They would support a reasonable plan to help boost the economy that does not put our economic future at risk. I have studied the tax relief proposals and it is clear that we could provide immediate tax relief to every working American, as well as help to businesses, especially small businesses within a package of $350 billion over ten years. That could include speeding up the reductions in all individual tax rates from the 2001 tax bill, increasing the tax credit for children to $1,000, eliminating the marriage penalty, and providing expensing and accelerated depreciation relief for businesses. Even the Wall Street Journal agrees that speeding up the reduction in tax rates would have the most immediate stimulus on the economy by putting money in people's pockets and giving businesses relief for their investment in equipment and other expenses.

Unfortunately, in the current bill, the most costly single provision remains the sharp reduction in the tax on dividends. In fact, the shape and long-term cost of the bill is distorted by the effort to maximize the reduction in dividend and capital gains taxes. The bill would phase-out much of the tax relief for families and individuals to pay for this section. The alternative is to extend those tax provisions later, but initial estimates indicate that would cost another $210 billion, which is $34 billion more than what President Bush requested in tax relief. If we are serious about keeping the deficit in check and giving straight forward tax relief, that is not the right decision. Although some reduction in dividend taxes is reasonable, we must acknowledge that we simply cannot afford steep reductions in taxes on dividends at this time. Further reductions in taxes on dividends should be addressed as part of a long-term tax reform effort when we are not facing the deficits that are a real threat to the Federal budget and our economy.

Effective governing requires careful decisions and often painful compromises. There are those who honestly believe that tax relief is absolutely necessary at this time. There are others who urge caution to protect against deficits at a time when we face the dual challenges of a war on terrorism and the needs of an aging population. Enacting some tax relief to immediately strengthen the economy is a fair compromise, but this bill does not achieve that goal. It is possible that a more affordable tax relief bill will emerge from final negotiations with the Senate. I urge the leaders of both the House and the Senate to work toward a bill that provides immediate relief now to all working Americans. We need a bill that does not exacerbate long-term deficits or the need to address prescription drug relief, the

war on terrorism, and Social Security. I think those goals can be accomplished in a $350 billion tax package or one slightly higher if Congress can come to agreement on closing some abusive tax loopholes.

I must oppose this legislation and will continue to work toward a more fiscally responsible bill that helps all Americans without jeopardizing our budget and economic future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 100, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. We entrust over one million military personnel on active duty with a large responsibility each year. However, their sacrifice sometimes creates a difficulty in meeting all their responsibilities at home. We should not allow these men and women to be penalized for their service.

The Servicemembers Civil relief Act updates the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940 to improve the civil and economic protections that the Federal Government provides to our fine men and women on active duty in the military. The bill eliminates interest for a servicemember whose military service ``materially affects'' his or her ability to repay a debt incurred before entry into military service. The bill also increases the maximum rent for which a servicemember can have an eviction proceeding delayed for 3 months from $1,200 per month to $1,700 to reflect the change in costs of rental housing. Another provision in the bill guarantees that the Department of Veterans Affairs will pay premiums for a servicemember's life insurance policy for policies up to $250,000. This bill also provides servicemembers an automatic 90-day stay for civil court and administrative proceedings, and it requires a lessor to obtain a court order before repossessing a car for which a servicemember has fallen behind on lease payments. These provisions strengthen the economic protections under current law to better serve the needs of our servicemembers.

The great men and women who serve in our military contribute so much to our Nation. They put themselves in harm's way to defend their families, friends, and fellow Americans. Through their selfless service, these brave men and women defend the liberty, justice, and equality that are the foundation of America. They are the embodiment of the American spirit, and we must continue to protect them and their families while they are away protecting the rest of us.

Mr. Chairman, it is with great pride that I rise today to support H.R. 766, the Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003, and to express my excitement for the groundbreaking research that is taking place at the University of Delaware. In October of 2002, the National Science Foundation awarded the University a $2.5 million grant to study manmade microscopic particles and structures and their possible uses.

Widely acclaimed as the wave of the future, nanotechnology is the ability to manipulate and control materials at the atomic and molecular levels to design new applications that create and use structures, devices, and systems which posses novel properties and functions due to their small and/or intermediate size. This technology will allow us to create a device that carries medicine to exactly where it is needed in the body, methods to detect cancerous tumors only a few cells in size, or satellites so light, costs are drastically reduced for NASA. This is truly the technology of tomorrow.

The State of Delaware has the opportunity to play a pivotal role in the exciting development of this cutting-edge research. This legislation and federal funding award will allow the university to continue to be in the forefront of this field, and will assure that Delaware is actively involved in the advancement of tomorrow's technology.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to congratulate the young scholars of Smyrna High School, in Smyrna, Delaware who represented my home state of Delaware in the We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution program. They were part of a group of 1,200 students from across the country who came to Washington, DC, to compete in the national finals of this program. These young scholars worked diligently and persistently to reach the national finals and through this program have gained a deeper knowledge and understanding of the fundamental principles and values of our constitutional democracy.

The names of the honored students are: Kevin Allen, Christy Baldwin, Joshua Chavez, Tiffany Coleman, Mike Crain, Alana Cruz, Jennifer Davis, Tom Garnett, Ashley Gillespie, Stacey Goldsberry, Joshua Hastings, Rebecca Huff, Erica Huss, Melvin Jamann, Amber Lech, Aaron McKinney, Jordan Mebane, Mary Naylor, Shannon Neal, Jessica Oliver, Michelle Paulish, Jason Reames, Justin Ritter, Souvenir Ros, Bill Spencer, Stacey Sudler, Heather Szymanski, Alison Wilson, Kalyn Wolbert, and Mustafa Zia.

I would also like to extend my congratulations to their teacher, Mr. Marc Deisem, who deserves much of the credit for the success of the team.

The We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution program is the most extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to educate young students about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The three-day final competition consisted of hearings modeled after those in the United States Congress. The students made oral presentations before a panel of adult judges and testified as constitutional experts before a ``congressional committee.'' A panel of adult judges represented various regions of the country and a variety of appropriate professional fields served on the congressional committees. These judges followed up the testimonies with a series of questions designed to test the students' depth of understanding and their ability to apply constitutional knowledge to given situations.

The We the People program is administered by the Center for Civic Education, and has provided curricular materials at upper elementary, middle and high school levels for more than 26.5 million students nationwide. This program has promoted civic competence and responsibility among young students as well as awareness for contemporary relevance of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The team from Smyrna High School conducted much research in preparation for the national competition here in Washington, DC. I congratulate them for their fine work that enabled them to come so far in this competition and to have visited our nation's capital.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Ms. Connie Mitchell--winner of the Delaware Home-Based Business Advocate Award. Ms. Mitchell earned this honor through her work as President of Mitchell Business Services.

As you know, advocates for small and home-based business have always been extremely important to the economic vitality of each State and to our national economy. Home-based businesses provide opportunities for millions of people to earn a living and provide financial stability for their families. Through her work, Connie has distinguished herself and many other home-based business advocates in Delaware's small business community.

Throughout my years in public service I have consistently counted Delaware's home-based businesses to be amongst the very best in the country, and recognition of Ms. Mitchell further confirms my belief.

Connie Mitchell's accomplishments and innovative leadership in the community have placed Mitchell Business Services and many other home- based businesses in a position to rise above and meet the challenges of the future; I commend her on her receipt of this award and I look forward to Ms. Mitchell's continued success.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Ryan German, owner of Caffe Gelato in Newark, Delaware and winner of the Delaware Young Entrepreneur award.

Mr. German established Caffe Gelato in Downtown Newark during his senior year as a business student at the University of Delaware. It has since turned into one of the most popular eateries in the city thanks to the efforts, dedication and creativity of its owner, Mr. German.

Throughout my years in public service I have consistently counted Delaware's small businesses amongst the very best in the country. Mr. German's recognition further confirms my belief.

As you know, small businesses have always been extremely important to the economic vitality of each State and to our national economy. Small businesses account for the majority of all new jobs being created daily, and provide opportunities for millions of people to earn a living and provide financial stability for their families. Through his work, Ryan has distinguished himself as an outstanding leader in the small business community.

Ryan German's accomplishments and entrepreneurial skills have placed Caffe Gelato in a position to rise above and meet the challenges of the future; I commend him on his receipt of this award and I look forward to Mr. German's continued success.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Sam Calagione, President of Dogfish Head Brewery and winner of the Delaware Small Business Person of the Year Award.

Throughout my years in public service I have consistently counted Delaware's small businesses amongst the very best in the country. Mr. Calagione's recognition further confirms my belief.

As you know, small businesses have always been extremely important to the economic vitality of each State and to our national economy. Small businesses account for the majority of all new jobs being created daily, and provide opportunities for millions of people to earn a living and provide financial stability for their families. Through his work, Sam has distinguished himself as an outstanding leader in the small business community.

Sam Calagione's accomplishments and entrepreneurial skills have placed Dogfish Head Brewery in a position to rise above and meet the challenges of the future; I commend him on his receipt of this award and I look forward to Mr. Calagione's continued success.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Allen Barnett--President and CEO of AstroPower. A position which has earned him recognition in Delaware for his Entrepreneurial success.

Dr. Barnett has established one of the largest and fastest growing independent solar electric power companies in the world. Dr. Allen Barnett's creative, insightful and necessary foray into sustainable energy is not only beneficial to the entire population for ecological reasons but also for its economic stimulus.

Throughout my years in public service I have consistently counted Delaware's cutting edge entrepreneurs amongst the very best in the country. Dr. Allen Barnett's recognition further confirms my belief.

Dr. Barnett's accomplishments and innovative leadership in the community have placed AstroPower in a position to rise above and meet the challenges of the future; I commend him on his receipt of this award and I look forward to Dr. Barnett's continued success.