Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, under rule IX, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House, and I offer a resolution (H. Res. 324) and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my duty as the House Democratic leader to offer this resolution. Earlier today the Committee on Ways and Means Democrats were subjected to an indignity, an indignity that no Member should have to endure.

I do not yield, Mr. Speaker. I do not yield, Mr. Speaker.

I do not yield, Mr. Speaker.

I do not yield. There is half an hour on the other side. They have plenty of time to make their point.

I will proceed, Mr. Speaker, but not before saying that I do not appreciate the gentleman trivializing a rare occasion of this House when a leader of a party stands up for a point of privilege on the House floor. If the gentleman wanted a copy of the resolution, he knew he could go right to the well and get it at the desk.

Now I would like to proceed. Earlier today, the Committee on Ways and Means Democrats were subjected to an indignity, an indignity that no Member should have to endure; but it appears that indignity is the order of the day on the majority side.

As the Democratic Members of the Ways and Means Committee were caucusing in a committee room while a bill was being read for amendment, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means summoned the Capitol Police to remove them from that room. Make no mistake about this: the police were summoned to remove these Democratic Members because the chairman

did not want them in the room, not for any other reason. The facts could not be clearer.

As the Democratic Members of the Committee on Ways and Means were leaving the rostrum to caucus prior to other events, the chairman told his staff to call the police. How outrageous.

I will not even go into how the markup was conducted; I will leave that to the members of the Committee on Ways and Means. I will not talk about the fashion in which the Chair rammed through the reporting of the legislation; the members of the Committee on Ways and Means will do that. I want to focus on how the chairman can call upon the Capitol Police to evict Members at his whim from the committee space. We cannot let this stand. We cannot let this go unchallenged. Mr. Speaker, this resolution recites the facts, and my colleagues have heard them.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the very distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

Mr. Speaker, now to speak to this resolution, the objection of which is that the office of the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means called the police on the Democratic Members who were assembling in a room, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, one of the people who was evicted from the room.

Mr. Speaker, I will make an inquiry about the remaining time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to just make note of the fact that the gentleman from Louisiana has just stipulated to the facts that the police were called to go to the library to evict the Democratic Members from that room.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to note that, unfortunately, the gentleman did not hear the stipulation to the fact that the police were called before any conversations took place between those individuals, and they were called to evict the Democratic members from the hearing room.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the very distinguished Chair of the Democratic Caucus.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.

First, I want to congratulate the Chair on the dignified manner in which he has conducted the proceedings today.

It is clear from the debate today that the Republicans have a major problem with the democratic process. It is clear that the Republicans are in denial about their behavior, and it is clear that the Democrats must draw a line in the sand on the repression of our rights in this Congress.

My resolution does just that. It says to the Republican majority that our constituents have a right to be heard. Every day that right is abused; but today, the Republicans went over the edge.

The facts are these: the police came to the library behind the committee, while the bill was still being read. There is no confusion as to why the police went to the library, and the police did not go to the library once or twice. They went to the library three times to evict the Democratic Members. First came the policeman and then came their superior and then came a representative of the Sergeant at Arms office to clear the room, to evict the Members from that room.

That is why, and if there is any challenge to these facts, we can take up this discussion under oath under the auspices of the Committee of Standards of Official Conduct.

We must insist on this House supporting the resolve that it is wrong for the Chair to conduct his committee meetings and have part of that be by calling the police, and we must insist that the markup that took place is not validly ordered reported to the House.

There is no confusion. The question before the House is this: Is it right for the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means to call the police to evict Democratic Members from their meeting place? Again, the police came not once, not twice, but three times.

A vote for my resolution is a vote to reject that kind of behavior. It is wrong for the committee Chair to call the police, and my Republican colleagues just do not know that; and the country should know that about them. Why is it not clear to you that it is not right to call the police to evict your colleagues from a room?

What should be a stunning fact to the American people is that the Republicans in the House of Representatives need to be convinced that it is wrong to call the police to evict their Democratic colleagues from their meeting. I say that over and over again.

We talk about the power of ideas. We heard the brilliant speech yesterday of the Prime Minister of Great Britain, talking about liberty and the pride we should take in our contribution to it throughout the world and about the power of ideas; but the power of our example speaks louder than all of that. And what is the example that we show to the rest of the world when we have a chairman of the committee calling the police to evict his colleagues from a room?

The Greeks had a word for it, ``hubris.'' It was about power, abuse of power, arrogance; and it is a tragic flaw. We cannot allow your tragic flaw to shut down the voices of the American people. We will fight you every step of the way, every day in this House of Representatives.

I want to thank my Democratic colleagues for staying, for their thoughtful presentations during this difficult debate, and for their love of this institution; and I urge my colleagues to support this very important resolution, important to the integrity of this House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I also thank him for his leadership in bringing this motion to instruct to the floor this evening.

Mr. Speaker, it is just after midnight in Washington, D.C., and once again the Democrats have come to the floor to fight for the children of working families in America. It has been about 43 days since the Senate passed the expanded child tax credit and 33 days since the House passed a bill. The President says he wants to sign a bill quickly. It is too late for quickly. Let us move on to soon. Let us hope the President can sign the bill soon.

All it would require would be for the Republican leadership in the House to go to conference with the Senate conferees and agree on the Senate language. What is holding it up? The Republican leadership in the House. The House Republicans are the only ones standing between 12 million children and the extended tax credit. Those children include 250,000 children of our men and women in uniform.

On a regular basis around here, we come to the floor to honor our men and women in uniform, to pay tribute to

their patriotism, their courage, and the sacrifices they are willing to make for our country; and it is right that we do that. But we dishonor them by saying that their children are unworthy of a tax credit because they do not make enough money.

We are saying to the children of over 6 million families, that would be around 12 million children, that they are not worthy of a tax credit because their parents do not make enough money, because they do not make above $26,000 a year. Many of these families have two wage earners, both making the minimum wage. They still do not earn enough money to receive this tax credit. We could raise the minimum wage, but of course the Republican majority would resist that as well.

So all this is, is about fairness to our children. The Republicans say that people making $26,000 a year do not pay taxes, so, therefore, they should not get the tax credit. I would like to know anyone who pays a payroll tax who does not think that he or she is paying taxes, and I would like to know anyone who is paying sales tax every day does not think he or she is paying taxes.

The sadness of it is, is that some of these families make in 1 year what Members of Congress make in 1 month, and we can be sure that the children of the Members of Congress who are of that age will receive the expanded tax credit. So when Members of Congress leave here they will be soon be receiving a check in the mail for their children. But if they make under $26,000, the Republican majority says their children are unworthy of that tax credit.

This is also good for the economy, Mr. Speaker, because we are giving checks to people who need the money for necessities, and when they spend that money on necessities, they will be injecting demand into our economy, creating jobs, growing the economy. It is fair. It is fiscally sound, as opposed to what the Republicans want to do in the House, and it is fast acting in terms of stimulating the economy.

Time is running out for the children of America's working families and military families. The Republican leadership must step aside and allow the vote.

Just in case anybody missed the particulars on this, remember the great night when the Republican leadership put forth a tax credit giving an $88,000 tax cut to families making over $1 million a year. In that bill, there was an expansion of the tax credit for children, and that was good, except for children of working families who did not make over $26,000 a year. No less a figure than the Vice President of the United States presided over that decision to cut out children of working families and the military in favor of giving a tax cut to the wealthiest in our country.

We want to give tax cuts. We know it is possible to give tax cuts that are fiscally sound, fair, and fast acting to grow the economy, because that is exactly what the Democratic stimulus package did.

But is it fair to say to these children, you do not deserve a tax cut because we do not pay enough in the minimum wage to have your parents reach a certain plateau?

So this is just part of what I call the trifecta that the Republicans have as their assault on America's children this week, within one week. Last week they cut $9 billion out of the Leave No Child Behind bill, $9 billion drastically affecting children from disadvantaged areas, teacher training, every kind of after-school program, across the board, a cut that affected the quality of education of America's children, especially children of working families in America who make below this figure. So the children took it in the chops on the Leave No Child Behind bill; the Republican version left millions of children behind.

We have this refusal, resistance, this obstacle to giving a tax credit to the children of working families in our country on the part of the Republicans in the expanded tax credit refusal; and the third, of course, is the unraveling of Head Start, which is a part of the Republican agenda against the children of America. So this is part of a pattern. It is part of their trifecta against the children. It is so important that children get a different message about their value and their worth to us, all children, not just children of families over a certain income level in our country.

So I salute the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bell) for his leadership in bringing this bill to the floor at this hour. Usually the majority allows us to bring them at a time when most people are not watching television, to find out what the Republicans are up to. This is absolutely outrageous. It has a moral undertone to it as well. So for every reason, because it is right, because it is fair, because it is good for the economy, it is important for the gentleman's motion to instruct be accepted by this body.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank him for his leadership and that of the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) for bringing this very important amendment to the floor.

Because indeed, I say to my colleagues, this amendment presents this Chamber with a moment of truth, a moment of truth as to whether this Congress is honest about its commitment to education, whether or not it will honor its promise to America's children contained in the Leave No Child Behind Act, and whether it is honest about what our expectations are of those children.

When the President signed the bill, he did so signing a bill that was bipartisan, bicameral in the support that it had; and people were quite excited about the prospect of the additional resources that would go to helping children to be accountable. Republicans talk about accountability, though, while failing to provide the resources necessary for children to meet the challenge.

Mr. Chairman, I call to the attention of our colleagues this report that I and the staff of the Committee on Appropriations have put out, the Democrats on the Committee on Appropriations have put out called ``GOP Funding Bill Shortchanges America's Children By Underfunding Key Education Priorities.'' I just want to read a few provisions in this, and it will point out the tremendous need for the Allen amendment today: ``The GOP bill shortchanges Title I,'' which is the subject of the Allen-Moore amendment. ``Title I is the primary Federal program that helps school districts enrolling low-income children meet the new accountability mandates of the No Child Left Behind Act. To help raise the academic performance of these students, Congress has agreed to phase in the Title I payments.'' For fiscal year 2004, that payment would have been $18.5 billion and, yet, the GOP funding bill provides $12.35 billion. ``As a result, under the GOP bill, America's children will lose $6.15 billion in Title I grants below the amount called for'' in the No Child Left Behind bill. Over $6 billion in that one title alone, depriving children, low-income children of the opportunity to be accountable.

In addition, the bill also shortchanges children with disabilities. On April 30, the Republicans passed the IDEA reauthorization bill. It promised a $2.2 billion increase for IDEA grants in fiscal year 2004 to help local school districts educate children with disabilities. Everyone who has children with disabilities in their districts, and that would be all of us, knows the pressure on school districts to provide education and quality of access to children with disabilities. It is a very important priority for our country. Yet despite the rhetoric of the authorization bill of just April 30, the Republican IDEA bill, this bill, has less than half. Instead of $2.2 billion, it has a $1 billion increase for IDEA.

We all have heard the value of after-school learning opportunities for children, and so the No Child Left Behind bill did as well; and it authorized $1.75 billion for 2004 for after-school centers which provide safe places between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. where children receive academic help and enrichment activities. Yet the Republican bill falls $750 million short, nearly half of the funding provided in the No Child Left Behind bill in after-school program funding below the level.

It goes on and on. In order to have quality education for our children, the No Child Left Behind bill authorized $3.3 billion for teacher-quality grants to the States which are used to provide high- quality professional development to teachers. Yet the GOP bill freezes funding at $2.9 billion. As a result, teachers will lose $350 million in teacher-quality grants below the level called for in the No Child Left Behind Act.

My colleagues get the picture. Over and over again, children, millions of children are being left behind.

As we honor our men and women in uniform, I think it is important to note that the GOP bill on the floor today leaves military dependents behind. The Impact Aid program, as we all know, helps children of military personnel receive quality education. Yet the GOP bill, under the GOP bill, America's children will lose, children of our men and women in uniform, will lose $583 million in Impact Aid below the level authorized.

The list goes on and on. One more, just for older children, is that Pell Grants for college students are frozen, even though State tuitions have increased significantly, making it more difficult for our children to get the higher education that we want them to have for their personal fulfillment and to help our economy grow.

So these are just a few of the shortcomings in the education section of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education bill. Others have spoken to the 2.5 percent lowest increase for the National Institutes of Health in many years. In fact, in terms of education, this bill provides the smallest percentage increase in education funds in 8 years.

So here we have these vastly increased mandates, which we all applauded, some found controversial; but with the funding, we could help the children succeed. Instead of setting up children for success, however, this bill, the Republican bill, sets our children up for a fall. And that is a tragedy. That is a tragedy.

So what the Allen-Moore amendment has set out to do is to put forth an amendment that goes only to title I in the bill; and it says, of the full funding, the $18.5 billion appropriated for title I in the bill, then the requirements would not be in place. None of the funds made available in this act may be used to enforce any requirement that a school be identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring under the bill. That is really only fair. It is unfortunate, but it is fair, because these children, these

teachers, these parents, these school districts cannot possibly measure up and be accountable without the money to match the mandate that we called for in the No Child Left Behind Act.

The tragedy of it all is that this is not that much money compared to the tax breaks which are the priorities for the Republicans in this Congress. And sadly, there is not any tax break that the Republicans can come up with, no R&D tax credit at this time, which I fully support; but nothing that my colleagues can name in terms of tax cuts does more to grow the economy than the education of the American people. Early childhood education, K through 12, higher education, postgraduate education, lifetime learning for our workers. Nothing is more, to use their word, ``dynamic'' for the economy, brings more money into the economy, brings more money into the public Treasury than educating our children.

But that is only a practical matter. Let us talk about their self- fulfillment, the confidence that they have to go forward and to be leaders in our country. They are the future. They are worthy of the investment we should be making in them. But we cannot mandate accountability to our children and yet not put the money there to match the mandate.

So, Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), and I want to commend the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) for this very brilliant amendment that they have brought to the floor to test the truth of where the Republicans stand on educating our children. Is it just rhetoric, or are we ready to put up the resources to match that rhetoric?

I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on the Allen-Moore amendment and to vote ``no'' on this very unfortunate legislation that is the base bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time and for her leadership in managing the rule on this very difficult bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the previous question and to making the Obey amendment in order. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for his great leadership for America's children and families and for his giving us an opportunity today to reverse a decision that the Republican leadership has made that is detrimental to those children and those families.

I do this with great regret, Mr. Speaker, because I have the deepest admiration, and he knows it, for the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula). I had the privilege of serving under his leadership on the committee and watched him in action for a number of years. I know that his priorities are in the right place. Unfortunately, the priorities of this bill are not in the right place. And how could they be when the Republicans in the weeks leading up to now have bled, have starved the budget of the resources to meet the needs of America's children.

The previous speaker said, oh, you never have enough money. This is not about endless money. This is about money promised by President Bush in the Leave No Child Behind bill. Instead, the legislation that will come before us under this rule, if this rule passes, would leave millions of children behind because of the $8 billion shortfall in the President's own Leave No Child Behind bill.

We see here a continuation of the pattern of the credibility gap, of the rhetoric, versus the harsh realities of the budget, and those realities are made all the more harsh because of the tax cut. The gentleman from Wisconsin gives us an opportunity this afternoon to correct the situation, somewhat.

The Obey amendment would simply say that if you make $1 million a year, your tax cut will be $44,000 a year instead of $88,000 a year. That is an additional tax cut. With that money, we can put around $5 billion into the Labor-HHS bill and help to redress some of the shortfalls contained herein, and also help with children's health in addition to the education provisions.

Earlier today, the Democratic staff of the Committee on Appropriations in our office put forth a report, which I hope that everyone will take advantage of, which is entitled GOP Funding Bill Shortchanges America's Children by Underfunding Key Education Priorities. Instead of giving $88,000 and instead giving $44,000 to those making $1 million a year, we can instead fund the following programs. And let me just talk about how the GOP shortchanges children, and then we can talk about redressing it.

The Republican Labor-HHS bill cuts education for America's children by a total of $9.2 billion below the levels authorized by the President's No Child Left Behind Act and the IDEA Reauthorization Act, with the key highlights as follows: IDEA, funding for children with special needs. Parents, children, school districts, teachers, anyone concerned about education throughout the country are crying out for the Federal Government to keep its promises to children with special needs. As a result of this bill, America's children with disabilities will lose

$1.2 billion in IDEA grants below the level promised in the Republican IDEA Reauthorization Act. In their own bill. The rhetoric, the reality, the harsh credibility gap.

Shortchanging after-school learning opportunities. As a result of the GOP bill, America's children will lose $750 million in after-school program funding below the level called for in the No Child Left Behind bill, the President's own No Child Left Behind bill.

Failing to fund highly qualified teachers in every classroom. Under the bill, America's teachers will lose $350 million in teacher quality grants below the level called for in the President's No Child Left Behind bill. It goes on and on and on.

Sadly, as my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Tauscher), mentioned, as a result of this bill, America's children will lose $583 million in Impact Aid grants below the level authorized. And this is for children of military personnel, another blow to military personnel and their children. As you know, they do not make enough and are unworthy of the expanded tax credit, but that is another bill, another day. Part of the pattern, however.

The list goes on and on about how the GOP funding bill shortchanges children in America, and we have it broken down State by State for those who are interested in this information. So I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for giving us an opportunity to correct some of that. But this is tragic.

Education does more for our economy, educating American people, early childhood, K through 12, higher education, postgrad, lifetime learning for our workers does more for our economy than any tax cut, tax credit, tax gimmick, tax break that you can name. It returns more money to the Treasury than anything you can name. It is more dynamic, to use the Republican word in budgeting, than any initiative you can name. It is also not only good for our economy, it is fundamental to our democracy to have an informed population, an educated population. It is good for our international competitiveness as well. But most of all, it is important to the self-fulfillment of our children.

And so we have a series of broken promises that the Obey amendment would correct. This is a defining vote for the Republican Party. If they vote for this bill, then all the statements that they make claiming to support education are simply unreal. Republicans cannot proclaim their commitment to our Nation's schools and then withhold their support for funding to the level that the President has in his own bills. They cannot tell our children and parents, we care about schools, and then watch our decaying classrooms fill with greater numbers of unprepared children.

Kids are so smart. You cannot tell children that education is important to their self-fulfillment and to their lives and to their livelihood later in life, you cannot tell them it is important that they should place a value on it if we do not place a value on it. Children get a mixed message when they hear us say it is important, but not important enough for us to give you the smaller classes, indeed the smaller schools that all the scientific evidence says is good for you; that we do not give you the schools that are wired for the future; the after-school programs, the qualified teachers, the funding for disadvantaged children and the funding for children with disabilities. If it is important, then it should be important in our spending priorities as well as in our investments.

Just 3 months ago the Republican budget resolution promised $1 billion for Title I, but the bill on the floor today falls $334 million short of this promise, denying quality instruction to 140,000 disadvantaged schoolchildren. The Republican budget resolution also promised a $2 billion increase for special education, but this appropriation bill, as I mentioned earlier, provides $1 billion, a 55 percent discrepancy between what they promised and what they propose to deliver. The Obey amendment provides the full amount promised in the budget resolution for both Title I and special education.

This is a great bill, usually. This is a great opportunity. In our service on that committee, anyone who ever served there always called this the people's bill. It dealt with Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. It is lamb-eat-lamb. There is no place to go get money in the bill to correct some of the mistakes in it, because everything in the bill is good. And under these circumstances, everything is being starved, so you have to put additional funding in the bill.

The gentleman from Wisconsin has given us a way to do that. Without his correction, we are stuck. We are stuck with a bad bill that is underfunded, leading to underinvestment in our children's education.

And in terms of other aspects of the bill, in terms of health, patients and advocates for cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's and AIDS have all been clear: We must strongly support increased research at the National Institutes of Health. The fruits of medical research are truly miraculous. Despite this proven record of success and the opportunity to fund vital research, the Republican bill provides the smallest increase for NIH in more than 15 years. The only amendment provides substantially more funding to advance the science that is helping us find cures.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I want to say that the Obey amendment helps Republicans keep their own promises and takes advantage of important opportunities to help the American people. The Republican leadership should be thanking the gentleman from Wisconsin. They should be thanking him. Instead, they will not even allow a vote on his proposal. What are they afraid of? Are they afraid that they are going to have to shrink one of their big tax cuts in order to invest in America's children? Probably.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and vote to support the Obey amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I said the other night in the debate on Medicare that on this floor of the House people can misrepresent the facts, and that is okay; but if you call them on it, you can be questioned on questioning the veracity of your colleague.

Well, I seriously not only question the veracity of my colleague, I challenge him, because I have voted for every defense bill practically since I have been here. And the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), my colleague, can testify to that, as can all of the chairmen of the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. So either the gentleman knows not of what he speaks, or he seriously is misrepresenting the facts.

Mr. Chairman, many of us will spend part of the Independence Day work period at ceremonies marking the heroism of our

service men and women, and the sacrifices of their families. If we were to ask any military commander present at those ceremonies, What is the most important aspect of leadership? The answer would be: First, take care of the troops.

This bill provides an opportunity for the House to exhibit that kind of leadership, the opportunity to take care of our troops. Instead, sadly, it is another missed opportunity.

If military quality of life issues were a priority, we would not be considering a Military Construction Appropriations Bill that is $1.5 billion below last year's funding level, but we would be passing Mr. Obey's amendment, which would help nearly 8,000 service members and their families get the housing they deserve.

Instead, we pass resolutions that talk about supporting the military and then refuse to provide that support in the appropriations bills.

Active and retired military personnel and their families have been among the victims of the irresponsible and fiscally unsound budget and tax policies of the Republican majority. If putting the troops and their families first were a Republican priority, they would not have submitted a budget that continues the tax on disabled veterans, that cuts veterans benefits, and that impacts aid. And they would not have approved a tax cut that takes care of the children of the wealthy few while ignoring 250,000 children of active duty military personnel.

That is a regrettable message to send to the troops just days before the Fourth of July.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker for his very inspiring words about the people who were honored today and for having the idea along with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), our former leader, recognizing the distinguished service of our former colleagues.

Today's ceremony was an opportunity to honor these individuals and to remind ourselves how the outstanding character of a few fine people through the sheer measure of their decency can elevate the institution for everyone. It was a sincere pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to see our friends and former colleagues today, and it was a moving occasion to thank them for their service and to rededicate ourselves to the ideals by which they lived. Those of us who served with them are indeed blessed to be able to have called John Rhodes, Louis Stokes, Don Edwards, and Bob Michel our colleagues. These former Members, as the Speaker indicated, were on different sides of the aisle, but they took a shared oath and recognized a greater obligation to serve the country together to find their common ground where they could and to stand their ground where they could not.

No one has come closer to the ideal of a perfect Member of Congress, a perfect public servant, than John Rhodes, Republican of Arizona, who could not be with us, but his son accepted the award for him, accepted the award and the very good wishes of all assembled. And let me say that the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) had the opportunity of making the presentation on behalf of Congressman Rhodes, and moving it was indeed; Congressman Louis Stokes, who was presented by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), his successor, and with great pride; Congressman Don Edwards, who was presented by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), his successor; and Congressman Bob Michel, who was presented by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), his successor.

Any who have served with these people know what giants they were, and as individuals they are some of the finest people ever to pass through these halls. Together they are the welcomed reminder of what our country and what our Congress can be. These first recipients of the Congressional Distinguished Service Award call all of us to a higher standard.

Mr. Speaker, it is so appropriate that this ceremony took place in the days following July 4, because all of these people honored the memory and the sacrifice of our Founding Fathers, every one of them, in their service to this country. And in the course of these holidays, and July 4 being a great one for our country, we are all singing God Bless America, and we know that God in the service of Louis Stokes, Don Edwards, Bob Michel, and John Rhodes in their service to this country, God truly blessed America.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. I think this is a sham Republican Medicare bill which fails to provide women with a real prescription drug benefit which they need and they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Michigan for yielding me this time and for his tremendous leadership. He has been fighting this fight for America's seniors for access to quality health care for all Americans and an affordable prescription drug benefit for America's seniors. We are all in your debt.

Mr. Speaker, today is a sad day for America's seniors. Another sad day, late at night in the Chamber of the House of Representatives, where the budget priorities of our country should be debated to their fullest extent, but where the limitation on time is placed so that the American people can never really get the full story. This prescription drug benefit bill discussion is an historic occasion for our country because it does indeed, it does indeed give us the opportunity to expand Medicare to provide a guaranteed affordable defined benefit for our seniors. The Senate has taken up the bill for the past 2 weeks. They have considered 30 amendments to the bill. Thirty amendments. The House is considering the bill this evening with no opportunity for amendment.

I do want to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the

gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member on the Committee on Ways and Means, for the proposal that they will be putting forth tonight, which is a real prescription drug benefit for seniors. I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley) for his limited opportunity but great product that he put forth on the previous question on the rule earlier. Another excellent proposal. And I commend the Blue Dogs, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), for their hard work on our motion to recommit, which we hope will be allowed on the floor tonight.

Any one of these would be far superior to the proposal that is being put forth by the Republicans today. Why it is so sad is because we are supposed to honor our parents. Our senior citizens built our country. They raised our families, the backbone of America. They fought our wars. Some of them are part of the greatest generation. Some of them lived through the New Deal, many of them the Fair Deal, and tonight they are getting a raw deal. What makes it so sad is that we had the opportunity to do it right, and one of those opportunities we will hear about next, the Dingell-Rangel/Rangel-Dingell Democratic proposal, of which we are very proud.

Nearly 40 years ago, when Medicare came into existence, it came at a time when many, many seniors had no access to health care, and now almost every senior in America has access to quality health care. At the time, there was no prescription drug benefit included in the package. That was unfortunate. Today, it is imperative that we have a prescription drug benefit in the package. The advances to science have been so miraculous. Seniors today, if they have a prescription drug benefit, would be able to self-administer drugs, which would not only be an adjunct to physician or hospital care but be a supplement for it. It would be a substitute for it.

So think of what it means to the quality of life for our seniors in order for them to have that independence and to be able to know that it is guaranteed, defined, and dependable. Think of what it means to the taxpayer in the reduction of cost in medical services to seniors because they can have access to prescription drug benefits. That is what makes this such a tragedy. It makes it such a tragedy.

So tonight, instead of honoring our parents and our seniors, we are foisting a hoax upon them, at least the Republicans are. And a cruel hoax it is indeed. In doing so, the Republicans insult the intelligence, they insult the intelligence of America's seniors. Many of you are blessed to still have your parents with you, and some of us are even bordering on being seniors ourselves, but any of you who have your parents or dear relatives who are older know that they are into stats. They know their statistics. They know their blood count, they know their blood pressure, they know their bank account balance, they know the cost of everything, many of them, because many of them are on fixed incomes and the slightest change has an impact on their economic security.

So I want those seniors who are so sensitive to changes in cost to take a look at this chart, which was in the New York Times this morning, and it says, ``Under House GOP Bill Seniors' Out-of-pocket Drug Costs Remain Staggering.'' Remain staggering. The average cost that seniors will pay in drug costs in 2006 is reported to be $3,155. So let us take the $3,000 line for the Republican hoax on seniors. If the beneficiary's annual drug costs are $3,000, seniors out there, if you are paying about $3,000, under the House bill your deductible will be $250. Your premium will be $420. The share of initial coverage is $350. Gap in coverage, here is where you fall into the gap, $1,000.

So of that $3,000 worth of drug cost, you, America's seniors, will be paying $2,020 out-of-pocket. Where is the benefit? And this is the best case scenario. These prices that you see here are suggestions to the HMOs. The prices could be much more, and your out-of-pocket cost could be much more.

I do not know how many of you think the hole is the most delicious part of the donut, but seniors, when they fall into this donut hole where they get no coverage, they still pay the premium. They are paying a premium for something that is not there. It is not there. And of course, if they pay $4,500 in drug costs, they are paying $3,520 out- of-pocket. A cruel hoax on America's seniors. And they call that modernization. I call it humiliation. I call that insulting the intelligence of America's seniors.

It was interesting, in this same article today one senior who was quoted on the subject said, ``Do you think anybody in Washington, D.C. has any idea what people on a limited income have to do to live?'' Clearly, the Republicans do not. They are just too busy giving the biggest tax breaks to the highest-end people in our country. They are just too busy giving those tax breaks that they cannot write a decent prescription drug benefit for seniors.

In fact, I might add seniors and children. Where, oh where did the child tax credit go in all of this, as we adjourn tomorrow? Tax cuts instead of child tax credits. Tax cuts instead of prescription drug benefits. At the beginning of life; toward the end of life. It is a cruel hoax.

And so, my colleagues, no matter what the Republicans tell you about their bill, the euphemism that it is a modernization of Medicare is really a laugh. It is an elimination of Medicare. Because no matter what they tell you, the facts are these: The Republicans do not provide a guaranteed defined benefit for seniors. The Republican bill does not reduce the high cost of prescription drugs.

Indeed, the hardest to explain to anyone is that the bill prohibits the Secretary of Health and Human Services from negotiating for best prices. I repeat: Not only does the bill not bring down the cost of drugs, it prohibits the Secretary of HHS from negotiating for the best prices. Every business in America, indeed the VA, does that. Volume gives you leverage; gives you opportunity. Except in this bill it is prohibited.

And at this point I want to say that the proposal put forth by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the cost of it would be cut in half, cut in half, if the Secretary had the authority, which our bill calls for, and indeed took that responsibility to negotiate for best prices.

What the bill does also, instead of modernizing Medicare, is to unravel not only Medicare, and I hope seniors are listening, not only the prescription drug benefit, but part A and part B along with the prescription drug benefit, forcing seniors to compete and pay more to stay in Medicare, the Medicare they know and trust. I repeat: When this bill, in 2010, comes to fruition, seniors will have to pay more to stay in Medicare for part A, part B, and prescription drug benefits.

And this is really a sad one in their bill. The employer piece. The employer piece. There are many businesses in America who honor their responsibility to their retirees. The CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, estimates that under the Republican bill one-third of all retirees who get their benefits from their employers will lose their coverage. Millions of seniors will be worse off.

So that is why I say this is really a tragedy. It is a missed opportunity. It could be so good. It could be bipartisan. It could be what seniors expect and deserve. Democrats have a better idea. The Rangel-Dingell/Dingell-Rangel proposal, the two distinguished gentlemen who have spent a lifetime in public policy promoting access to quality health care, whose credentials are impeccable in this regard, they support Medicare. They have promoted a bill that is worthy of the seniors whom we respect. It is a guaranteed defined benefit under Medicare. It does give the authority to the Secretary to negotiate for best prices. It protects seniors' options in terms of their employers giving them benefits; not making millions of seniors be worse off.

America's seniors deserve a benefit that is affordable, with reasonable premiums and deductibles. America's seniors deserve a benefit that is available to all seniors and disabled Americans, including Americans in rural areas.

Mr. Speaker, the Democratic plan does just that. This Republican bill, I repeat, is not guaranteed. It is not affordable. It is not a defined prescription drug benefit under Medicare that our seniors want and deserve. The Republican plan is a plan to end Medicare. I urge my colleagues to reject this raw deal for America's seniors and vote no on the Republican bill and yes on the very excellent Democratic proposal.

Mr. Speaker, the distinguished majority leader who just spoke said something that I agree with. He said that this issue that we are voting on tonight is probably one of the most important issues we will vote on in our career. Mr. Leader, I quite agree.

Mr. Speaker, that is why it is hard to understand why we are taking up this debate in the dark of night when the Senate has taken up the bill for 2 weeks with the consideration of 30 amendments, to have a free and open exchange of ideas about this most important issue in our careers. And when the bill was sent to the floor in this House of Representatives for this most important issue, no amendments were allowed. Why were they not allowed, because of the fear that they might have passed and improved this Republican bill on the floor which dishonors the seniors that it pretends to support and dishonors the people who sent us to this House of Representatives by not allowing their amendments to be heard on this floor.

My leadership role afforded me the opportunity to speak at some length earlier about my concerns about the Republican bill and my preference for the Democratic bill. I had only intended to take one moment to close, but after hearing my colleagues talk about fiscal responsibility, I cannot resist the opportunity to state the facts because it is one of the mysteries of this floor, that Members can come to the floor and misrepresent the facts, and that is in order, but to call them on it is out of order. But I am going to take that risk.

The fact is that under the Clinton administration and the legislation passed in this House with 100 percent of the Democratic votes and not one Republican vote, coming out of the Clinton years we were on a path of $5.6 trillion in surplus, in surplus. In the 2\1/2\ years in the Bush administration, we are now on a path going to $3 trillion in deficit, a swing of over $8 trillion onto the national debt, and they call that fiscally sound, as they give away huge tax cuts to the 200,000 wealthiest families in America, and many of us in this room are part of that and would benefit, but not in the enlightened self- interest of this country. But for that same money,

every senior citizen in America could have a real, guaranteed, defined prescription drug benefit.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make two more points. We have had some debate; unfortunately, none of our amendments were we allowed to bring to the floor. It is late, and we usually do these things in the dark of night so the American people cannot see and cannot have the bright light of day on the debate on this floor to see what is happening to them and to their futures.

But I want to make just two points about the bills. The Democratic bill is a defined guaranteed benefit under Medicare. The Republican bill is not. I heard the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Budget speak about the cost of the Democratic bill. The Democratic bill cost would be in half if the Republicans would allow the Secretary of HHS to negotiate for best prices. That provision is in the Democratic bill. It makes sense, right? Forty million seniors, lots of purchasing power, lots of leverage. It makes sense. Not to the Republicans. Their bill has a prohibition on the Secretary negotiating for best prices. A prohibition.

I think there are many questions about the Republican bill. It is very complex. But as seniors look at it and they ask those questions, I think there is one question that every American should have: Why do the Republicans have a prohibition on the Secretary negotiating for the best possible price, reducing the cost of prescription drugs to seniors and to the American taxpayer? Why? I will tell you why. Because tonight we have a debate between the special interests and the public interest. The Democrats have come to this floor as servants of the people. The Republicans have come to this floor as handmaidens of the prescription drug industry.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and oppose the Republican bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on International Relations for yielding the time and for his tremendous leadership.

What an honor it is to be on the floor today with my friend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the vice chair, I understand, of the Committee on International Relations, and with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), two champions of human rights every place in the world. By their leadership and their tireless energy, boundless I would say, on behalf of freedom, they have set an example, freed people, made the world a freer place, and we are all in their debt.

I am pleased to join my colleague the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) as well as we speak to the issue of the preservation of freedom in Hong Kong. So it is with appreciation to all of my colleagues here present on the floor and to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), who is one of the authors of the resolution, that I join in calling for the preservation of freedom in Hong Kong, keeping promises made to the people of Hong Kong.

Mr. Speaker, when the Sino-British Joint Declaration was initiated in 1997, it guaranteed the preservation of freedoms basic to life in Hong Kong. Just 5 years later, those freedoms, freedom of press, freedom of religion, freedom of association, are under assault.

The House must act today to make clear to the Hong Kong government and to the People's Republic of China the seriousness with which the United States views any action that would subvert the promise of human rights contained in the joint resolution.

The draft provisions to implement Article 23 of Hong Kong's basic law would give Beijing the ability to determine what types of organizations could exist in Hong Kong and which views could be expressed. Many of us received a delegation led by Martin Lee, the very distinguished democracy advocate in Hong Kong, just a few weeks ago,

where they expressed their concern and the impact that this action would have on Hong Kong, as we have known it, as a dynamic society where business has flourished because information has been able to flow freely.

This action is a significant threat to Hong Kong's autonomy and to the freedoms that make it a center for the exchange of information and ideas. It is an even greater concern because the movement toward popular democracy, as required under the basic law, has not begun.

I commend President Bush on the administration's forceful opposition last Thursday to the Article 23 proposal. The administration statement emphasized that: ``Hong Kong's special status, endorsed by the United States under the Hong Kong Policy Act, depends on the local authorities' protection of human and civil rights and the preservation of the territory's autonomy. The United States opposes any law that threatens the territory's unique identity, including the current version of Article 23 legislation.'' That is from the President's statement.

Hopefully, after leaders in Hong Kong and Beijing reflect seriously on those words and the strong sentiments contained in the legislation we are considering today, they will move to amend the proposal to preserve the freedom of the people of Hong Kong that they were promised.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the leadership again of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), and the leadership of the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) in introducing this legislation. I was pleased to join him in doing so.

The Committee on International Relations has provided an opportunity for the House to go on record in favor of the preservation of human rights in Hong Kong in opposition to actions that threaten them. I urge overwhelming adoption of this measure to underscore our commitment to the cause of freedom in Hong Kong.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, as Members of Congress, our first responsibility set forth in the preamble to the Constitution is to provide for the common defense. In our time, the common defense means protecting our homeland from terrorists, as well as from traditional military threats to our interests at home and abroad.

The consideration of the first-ever appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security could have been a historic opportunity to demonstrate our commitment to the common defense by addressing some of the most glaring deficiencies in our Nation's security. Sadly, it is yet another missed opportunity.

The Republican's Homeland Security bill does not provide the resources necessary to do the job. The Republican bill does not meet the broad needs of our ports, our borders, our air transportation system, and other critical parts of our infrastructure.

In determining the Nation's priorities, the Republican majority has chosen to cut taxes for those who need it least, while shortchanging the homeland security needs of everyday Americans. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the Committee on Appropriations ranking member, showed great leadership with an amendment to provide for America's security, to provide for the common defense, to protect the homeland.

The amendment would have provided an additional $1 billion to improve homeland security by adding $500 million to port security, everyone recognizes that is the minimum figure that is needed to protect our ports; $100 million to assist in the development of an automated vessel tracking system; $200 million to pay either for a year-round air and marine interdiction program at our northern border or to increase to 6,900 the number of agents patrolling the northern border by the end of fiscal year 2004; $150 million in security grants to airports and overseas maintenance facilities; and, finally, $50 million for vulnerable assessments at critical infrastructure locations.

Where would this $1 billion come from? The Obey amendment would be paid for by rolling back the tax cut for millionaires, that is, people making $1 million per year. People making $1 million a year or more would have their tax cut cut from $88,326 to $83,326. For that $5,000, for the 200,000 people making over $1 million a year, by reducing their tax cut from $88,000 to $83,000, America can be much safer.

What would my colleagues choose, to protect the American people or to give $5,000 more to people making $1 million a year or more?

Mr. Chairman, success in both the war on terrorism and the effort to better protect our Nation and its people will require a sustained effort and a resolve lasting many years. This bill should have been a testament to that resolve; but sadly, it is not. We need to act now to protect the American people.

Recent history suggests that our security could be tested anytime and any place. We know what our exposure is, what our vulnerabilities are. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) addressed them in his amendment. We must take every step to be ready. We have that responsibility.

Providing for the common defense is enshrined in our Constitution as one of our highest responsibilities. Its importance as a national priority is not reflected in this bill.

I want to commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for his leadership, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) for his as well, and it is with the highest regard for the chairman of the subcommittee who has served in this House with great dignity that I regret opposing what has been put forth by the Republican leadership on the floor today. It again misses an opportunity for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I am sad to join my colleagues, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott), as well as the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) who was on the floor earlier, and I know the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Majette), I do not know if she has been here yet, and many other Members, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) who was a very close friend of Maynard Jackson. I am saddened to add my personal thoughts and prayers to their wonderful comments about Maynard Jackson.

America has lost a great statesman today, and our hearts are saddened for his family and thousands of his colleagues and friends who loved him and worked with him on so many issues.

For his many friends at the United States Conference of Mayors where he

served in key leadership roles, to those who worked with him in building the magnificent Atlanta airport in his tenure as mayor, to the many people that he touched as he worked tirelessly to bring the Olympics to Atlanta, the list goes on and on, Maynard Jackson, Jr., was larger than life, physically, politically and in every way.

Maynard Jackson was the essence of a public person. Being first elected the mayor of Atlanta and then reelected and term-limited for another term, Maynard found other venues in which to serve his beloved Atlanta. He was an entrepreneur, one who mentored many young people who had expressed an interest in starting their own businesses. Maynard Jackson can be best described as a facilitator of the people. A facilitator so much so that when he chose to return to elected office, Mr. Speaker, for a third term as mayor of Atlanta, he was elected overwhelmingly with 80 percent of the vote. People loved and trusted Maynard Jackson.

Maynard was a democrat with a small ``d'' and a capital D. He offered himself as the Chair of our party, as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) said earlier. Even though he was not successful, Mayor Jackson continued to work on voter education and outreach within the party in a very significant way.

I was pleased to appoint Maynard Jackson to serve on the Election Assistance Commission Advisory Committee. I think it was an honor to all the Democratic members of the House that he accepted that position. This advisory committee would have had, and does have, the import of assisting 50 States to make sure that the American electoral system is accessible and fair. What greater American to oversee such a momentous task.

Mr. Speaker, this was a result of legislation passed by the House of Representatives, by the entire Congress, signed by the President to make sure that every vote in America counts, that the public knows that, that we do the outreach, that we have the education of the public, that we have the technical assistance and the financial assistance to States and to communities, to have a voting system that, again, is fair, understandable, accessible and in which every vote is counted.

Maynard Jackson devoted his life to the legitimacy of the process, to democracy in our country, to a commitment to enhance the voices of minorities in our country. We will miss him with his warm smile and his big heart. We all would say to Maynard, Well done. Well done.

I hope it is a comfort to his family that so many people mourn their loss and are praying for them at this sad time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me this time and I thank him for his very great leadership in shaping and bringing this alternative to the floor. It simply makes sense. It recognizes that family farmers, small businesses, hardworking Americans would like some relief from estate taxes so they can pass on the fruit of their labor to the next generation. What his substitute will do will cover 99.6 percent of all estates in America. It is reasonable. He would like to have paid for it, but we were told that it was against the rules of the House to pay for it by closing corporate tax shelters. It is against the rules of the House to eliminate corporate tax shelters. But his proposal as he presented it was fiscally sound and paid for, reasonable, and covered the estates of 99.6 percent of America's estates. I thank and congratulation the gentleman from North Dakota for his leadership.

Mr. Speaker, every one of us in this body, and we know this and are reminded of it on a daily basis, takes an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States every time we are sworn in to a new term. In the Preamble to the Constitution, it says our first responsibilities are to provide for the common defense, to promote the general welfare and to provide the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. Let us look at that in light of what is happening on the floor today. The Republicans are bringing a continuation of their reckless tax-cutting binge that they are on to undermine the fiscal soundness of our country. They do it on a weekly basis, without any sense of what it does to plunge our children into indebtedness rather than investing in our future, and here they are again today.

Provide for the common defense. Those men and women in uniform who provide for the common defense deserve for us to make a future worthy of their potential sacrifice. That future must be one that is better for everyone in America. Those who have provided for our common defense, some of whom of an earlier generation, have been called the greatest generation. Yet a tax cut of this nature that is on the floor today will benefit fewer than 10,000 estates in our country and for that cost we could give 100 percent of Americans a prescription drug benefit. Those members of the greatest generation would benefit from that. Instead, we have again another piece to the reckless binge that the Republicans are on. Pretty soon the country will tilt from the imbalance of all of this recklessness.

And provide the blessings of liberty for our and our posterity. Every child in America is an heir to that legacy, is part of that posterity. Instead of investing in their future, and in fact, what we could have done earlier this week and we could do any minute here, to give them an expansion of a tax credit, instead we are plunging them into debt again rather than investing in their future. We have to see this goodie that is on the floor today, not only for itself, but what it is part of and how dangerous that is to our posterity and to our children's future, if that is the way you want to describe that.

The Republicans' intentions are clear. They want to unravel the social compact that we have with the American people. The role of government, to educate the public, to invest in our infrastructure, to protect the American people, to reward our senior citizens who have built our country. Instead, and they speak of it with great arrogance now, they are proud of the shrinking of government that they have that is part of their design, and critical to it is to reduce the tax base; to reduce the tax base. Some of these people that have talked about previous tax cuts will be paying, those who have unearned income, whose income is dividend income, will not pay any taxes on the dividend and now they will not pay any taxes on the estate. I am talking about all of those people above a $6 million for a couple, $3 million for an individual estate.

One of the values that the American people hold dear is the value of fairness. We are a country of fairness. How could it be fair to say we are going to give the wealthiest 10,000 families in America a bonanza instead of giving every senior citizen in America a prescription drug benefit? How could it be a sense of fairness to say to the children of the wealthiest families in America, we're concerned about your posterity, you are heirs and heiresses, but ignore the fact that every child in America, as I said before, is an heir and heiress to the great legacy that is our great country, a country of opportunity, opportunity that will be diminished by these tax cuts, opportunity that is diminished by the cutting back and investments in our children's health and their education and the economic security of their families by creating jobs instead of indebting us into the future with an impact of the deficits on long-term interest rates to be a drag on investment in our economy to create jobs.

We have to look at all of this as one. In the same week, within a matter of days that we have deprived the children of minimum-wage earners of the expansion of the tax credit, which they could have in a matter of weeks if the Republicans in the House would act responsibly, in the same week that we, over and over, again honor our men and women in uniform, which they deserve, we bring dishonor to them by saying their children, 250,000 of them, are not worthy of the expansion of the tax credit. At the same time, as we do all of this, we are not building a future worthy of the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform. We are not honoring our oath of office to provide the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity, our children, to promote the general welfare. Where is that in the vision of this bill except that it is another part of the reckless binge that the Republicans are on, a fiscal unsoundness that has been a failure for the first 2\1/2\ years, losing 3.1 million jobs, and now they want to heap more on to it.

That is why I am so pleased that the gentleman from North Dakota took the lead on this. His standing on issues relating to America's family farmers is impeccable. He has been their champion in issues relating to economic security, education, rural education, rural health, rural housing, rural transportation in every possible way. He brings great credibility to this debate for his concern for the people that he represents with such dignity. And he gives this body an opportunity to immediately give tax relief to estates of $3 million for an individual or $6 million for a couple instead of squandering our children's future for the top 10,000 or fewer estates in our country at the expense of so much else.

The trade-offs are appalling. We have a responsibility in this body. We are elected for a reason. We are not here just to give tax cuts that do not create jobs, that do not grow the economy and are not fair and plunge us into debt. I urge my colleagues to honor your

oaths of office. I urge you to do the responsible thing. I urge you to vote ``yes'' on the Pomeroy substitute.

Mr. Speaker, today is Day Five of the House Republican leadership's campaign to kill the extension of the child tax credit.

The issue is very simple: The Senate has passed the child tax credit, the President says he will sign it, twelve million children in America need it, but the House Republicans want to kill it. The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means says there is not enough time to meet in conference with the Senate. That reveals his true intent. He does not want this bill to become law.

A conference with the Senate could take just 5 minutes. The House Republicans could simply stop their delaying tactics and accept the Senate bill in the House-Senate conference. The conference report would be quickly approved by each House and sent to the President, who, as I mentioned, has said he will sign it.

But let us be clear, the House Republicans do not want this bill to become law. In the 12 days since the Senate passed its bill by a 94 to 2 vote on June 5, a strong bipartisan vote, 94 to 2, the Republican majority in the House has voted six times not to accept the Senate bill. Instead, the Republicans voted to send a bloated $82 billion bill to conference, which they know the Senate will not accept. It is not paid for, it is reckless, it is irresponsible.

The Republican leadership in the House simply does not want to expand the child tax credit, which corrects the unfair omission of nearly 12 million children, including 250,000 children of our active duty military personnel.

Mr. Speaker, we are here because our constituents have entrusted us with serious responsibilities. We have the responsibility to our veterans and our military to make sure we honor their sacrifices and be true to the resolutions that we make honoring them here in this House almost on a daily basis. That is appropriate, to honor them, to respect their patriotism, their courage, and to recognize the sacrifice they are willing to make for our country. How then can we say to them that their children are not worthy of this extension of the tax credit?

We also have a responsibility to our parents and grandparents to improve and strengthen the Medicare program they know and trust, and we have a responsibility to future generations to leave them with a country that is even better and stronger and more secure than the one we inherited from our parents.

Providing the tax credit to working and military families is not something that we do not have time for. If children are a priority for us, then we make them a priority, and that means we have time for them. It is not something that we can cavalierly shrug off with phrases like ``It ain't gonna happen,'' to quote my colleagues. It is not something that ``we should only consider if we get something for it,'' to quote my colleagues.

This is a central question of fairness and of responsibility to the children and 6.5 million families who are waiting, still waiting, for us to fulfill a promise we made to them.

We are saying to those children, wait until next year, or the check is not in the mail. Whatever it is, it is bad news if you are a family working full-time, but do not make over $26,000 a year; and it is bad news for our children of the military.

These working and military families pay taxes, just like everyone else, and are struggling to make ends meet in today's stagnant economy. On behalf of the families of 12 million children now waiting for this tax relief, we must correct this callous omission as quickly as possible.

The Senate tax credit bill is fiscally responsible, it is paid for, and it costs $10 billion compared to the $82 billion in the House bill. The Senate bill is supported by Democrats and rank-and-file Republicans in the House, and it would immediately provide the tax credit to millions of working and military families let out of the final tax cut bill approved last month. We can pass the bipartisan legislation and send it to the President today.

It is interesting that after the vote on the tax credit last week, where the Republicans' reckless and callous policy prevailed, that on the motion to instruct which followed, 12 Republicans joined the Democrats in a motion to instruct the conferees to take up the Senate bill. We did that because we know we can invest in our children or we can indebt them. That is the choice that the Republicans have put before us.

Mr. Speaker, President Kennedy said, ``Children are our greatest resource and our best hope for the future.'' I urge my Republican colleagues to do the right thing and accept the Senate bill and, in doing so, support the value we place on our children. We cannot say that some children are our greatest resource and our best hope for the future, but not if your parents make the minimum wage or if they are risking their lives on active duty in the military. We recognize our children as our messengers to a future many of us, most of us, will never see. We want them to take forward a message of respect for children, all children in our country. We want to show them that they really are our greatest resource and our best hope for the future.

There is no excuse, Mr. Speaker, for the Republican majority not to go immediately to conference and send this bill back to the House for approval and to the President's desk before the end of the month so that every child in America can take advantage of the tax credit whose parents qualify.