Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize on the House floor that 2005 marked the one-hundredth anniversary of Lodge 711 of the Polish National Alliance (PNA) of North America. I'm proud to have Lodge 711 headquartered in my district in the town of Wilbraham.

PNA is the largest ethnic fraternal insurance society in the United States that offers quality life insurance and annuity products, which allows its members and families to achieve financial security. But the PNA's involvement in the communities it serves goes beyond providing quality financial services by organizing various social and cultural programs. Whether its sports and youth programs, spelling bees, college scholarships, or Saturday Schools promoting Polish heritage and culture, PNA helps its members live more fuller and enjoyable lives.

Mr. Speaker, I'm honored to have the opportunity to represent a diverse and culturally rich constituency, particularly the Polish communities that have a large presence in Massachusetts' second congressional district. Throughout my years of public service I have witnessed with great pleasure the Polish communities' dedication and commitment to civic affairs. The lessons of Poland's long and hard history of achieving independence has not been lost with the Polish immigrants who came to America or their offspring born in America.

The American and Polish people have a long and warm relationship that evolves around the love of freedom and opportunity. This bond goes back to America's revolutionary years when the Polish patriot, Tadeusz Kosciuszko, fought in the American War of Independence and achieved the title of brigadier general. Later, Kosciuszko once again fought for independence when leading the Polish-Lithuania uprising of 1794. The American people honor Kosciuszko with a statue of the patriot in the U.S. Capitol building.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Teresa Struziak-Sherman, Director for PNA Region A, for all her wonderful work over the years that has contributed to the success of the PNA. I would also like to recognize all the other people of Polish ancestry that I have known and worked with throughout my years as a public servant and look forward to my continued relationship with them.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that perhaps more important than anything else we do here, we set and we establish priorities. Our motion to instruct sets forth the priorities that I believe should be followed in the conference on this legislation.

The priorities of the Republican majority are clear: Large tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the wealthiest in our society, while slashing initiatives that protect the most vulnerable in our society. Even in normal times, these priorities would be wrong, but these are not normal times.

America is currently involved in two wars, one in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. These are the first wars in our country's history where only those in the military and the poor are being asked to sacrifice.

Hurricane Katrina forced America to see poverty and its consequences. And let me compliment former President Jimmy Carter for his remarks yesterday at Mrs. King's funeral when he spoke of that very issue.

The administration has converted surpluses into an enormous budget deficit, but has done nothing to prepare programs like Social Security and Medicare for the future other than to threaten privatization. The most significant fiscal turnaround in the history of America has occurred on the watch of the Republican majority here in the Congress.

What I think is interesting, and I say this with great confidence, during these past few years we have almost doubled defense spending, we are fighting two wars, we have created a Department of Homeland Security, we have witnessed the national principle

play out during Hurricane Katrina, and we have done all of this with six tax cuts. There is not anybody who is watching at home tonight in America who could run their personal lives on that basis. They could never hope to balance the ledger of trying to raise a family if they attempted to copy the model utilized by this Congress.

Our motion to instruct sets forth different priorities. First, it instructs the House conferees to follow the Senate bill and extend alternative minimum tax relief. Now, I must say that during my time as being one of the leaders here, it even was acknowledged by one of my friends on the other side, in the area of alternative minimum tax, that seldom have I had any issue in my time where I spoke of an issue more earnestly, received more congratulations from Members of both parties, and seen less extensive action than in the area of alternative minimum tax. This should be one of our first priorities. Without an extension of this relief, over 17 million Americans will face a tax increase in 2006, and the size of that tax increase could be as large as $3,640. Many middle-income families, largely married couples with children, simply are going to face higher taxes. That should be the priorities that we entertain.

Second, our motion to instruct would require the House conferees to drop any extension of the tax benefits for dividend and capital gains. Those benefits do not terminate until the end of 2008, so there is time to extend these benefits in the future if it is to be determined that they are appropriate as we seek balance in the ledger. Almost half of those benefits would be enjoyed by the wealthiest one-fifth of one percent of individuals, or better understood as individuals with annual incomes over $1 million.

Third, our motion requires the House conferees to develop a conference report with the view to not further increasing the Federal deficit. The administration projects a Federal deficit of over $400 billion for this fiscal year.

By the way, we have been told for the last 5 years that those numbers were going to come down substantially. The administration is proposing large deductions in education and health programs using the large deficit as an excuse, the very deficit they have created by their actions. Many of us on both sides of the aisle will oppose those misguided spending reductions. And once we get to the real battle here in the coming year over Medicare and Medicaid, my suspicion is that they will see all the action that Social Security saw in the past year. Further tax cuts for the superwealthy would jeopardize the remaining safety net for our children, for the disabled, and for other vulnerable individuals in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we would have an open conference where the views of all parties might be expressed. After all, that ought to be one of the cornerstones of our democracy.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the chairman said that this is one of the oddest motions to instruct that he has come across, but let me say I think that everybody would agree the most peculiar moment we have had in the last few years was the prescription drug bill. If you want to talk about a peculiarity that will be with all of us forever and how that was done at 4 o'clock in the morning, now that is peculiar. That is odd. What we are offering here is a sensible solution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

Mr. Speaker, there were 22 million jobs created during the Clinton years.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark).

One thing I agree with the previous speaker on, that the American people are going more in the hole; and when they feel what is happening to student aid and cutbacks in scholarship money because of the Republican majority, they are going to know what being in the hole is really about.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

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

Mr. Speaker, it is okay every once in a while if the Sheriff of Nottingham does not win. Addressing the issue of alternative minimum tax ought to be the priority here. Speaking to those 19 million Americans who are going to get caught in this again is where we ought to be.

Once again, Katrina; two wars; doubling defense spending; the creation of Homeland Security; and although the President did not mention it the other night, he has planned a trip to Mars for NASA.

The point is very simple. We cannot continue going down this road of shaving revenue all the time for the strongest among us. It always has to be more for the powerful, more for the strongest. And on the point that was raised by the gentleman from Michigan about job growth, this has been, by the 5-year standard, anemic job growth. It is the weakest performance in 70 years. Twenty-two million jobs were created during the Clinton years.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, as the consumer listens to this debate, one of the things I believe that they want to understand is that the advocates of this legislation, they are the ones that, just a year ago, were trying to privatize the Social Security system. They wanted to privatize the Social Security system. That should not be dismissed. So this bill is now shuttled to the floor, barely a word of consideration in the Ways and Means Committee, and the Republicans on the Rules Committee would not grant us the opportunity to offer an alternative.

Pensions, like Social Security, should be sacred between the employer and the employee. There are few things that matter more than long-term security and a guaranteed pension.

Now, let me give you the schedule of the Ways and Means Committee. We found days to discuss a free trade

agreement with Bahrain, days to hear testimony about Bahrain, a country with 700,000 people. And then we took months and months and months, as they attempted to privatize Social Security. We spent a disproportionate amount of time, after the American people said, and the Wall Street Journal poll today, by the way, indicates quite clearly how they felt about their privatization plan of Social Security. Boy, is that clear. I will bet you on the other side everybody has read that poll by now. That was a terrible idea, and this is a terrible idea.

So where do we find ourselves? This legislation will do more harm than it will do good. The Committee on Investment of Employee Benefit Assets, a group that represents chief investment officers from the larger corporations in the country, recently conducted their own survey and concluded that if this were to pass, 60 percent of those employers would either freeze or terminate their pension plans. Everybody knows the most robust debate in America next year is going to take place over retirement security. Reject this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I just heard the gentleman from Wisconsin talk about job creation. He singled out one month. 22 million jobs created during the Clinton years. 22 million. Economic growth has been paltry and everybody knows it. In addition to which he talked about the deficit--with a straight face. They have rolled up the national deficit, $2.2 trillion we are in the hole. On their time this has happened.

Let me say this and I think it is very important to point out, Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority now says, as they did yesterday with a straight face, incidentally, well, the Democrats did not do anything about the alternative minimum tax when they were in the majority. In 1994, and I hope that anybody who is listening to this will write this number down, when the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives there were approximately 200,000 people paying AMT, 200,000 people. Next year 19.3 million people are kicked into AMT.

I would like to think, as the gentleman from New York has indicated, that I have had some consistency on the issue of alternative minimum tax, not only in the committee, but here on the House floor. We did a big nothing yesterday about AMT and everybody knows it. 19.3 million people next year are kicked into AMT. But the House of Representatives had time to repeal the estate tax and now to address the dividend and capital gains tax, but they really never have time to do anything about AMT. And the reason they do not have time to do anything about AMT is pretty simple, it goes to middle income Americans to bear that burden.

So if we do not have time here to do something for the wealthy, we really do not have time to do anything. We are rich and we are not going to take it anymore. We watch these numbers as they are presented to us. The Republican party, at one time, stood for anti-Communism and balanced budgets. Well, Communism is gone and the deficits have really soared, all from a party that preaches fiscal discipline. They have rolled those deficits up for one reason, after, by the way, robbing the Social Security trust fund to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest.

In this institution we hear, well, the Social Security trust fund is going broke. It is going broke because they took $2 trillion out of it in tax cuts during the next 10 years. There is no pressure to do what we have to do today. They are contributing to the national deficit, contributing to the debt, all under the guise of paying for tax cuts for the wealthiest among us.

Lastly, I defy anybody here to not acknowledge this static. The dividend relief bill that we are entertaining here overwhelmingly 53 percent of that benefit goes to people who made more than $1 million last year. That is where we find ourselves now.

Will the gentleman yield?

I am happy to participate.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for yielding me time.

The chairman did raise a rhetorical question. Let me give a rhetorical answer.

We are all so desperate here after these 10 years of Republican rule to do something about AMT we are prepared to vote for any procedure that comes before this institution just to hopefully move it along.

Remember, when the Republicans took control, 200,000 people were paying AMT. Next year 19.3 million people will be paying alternative minimum tax.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for offering this motion to recommit today.

The Rangel motion to recommit is about two things: truth in budgeting and truth in borrowing.

In almost 14 years now on the Ways and Means Committee, we have spoken of addressing the alternative minimum tax issue. There has been a lot of talk and not a lot of action. And you are going to hear in a couple of seconds, well, yesterday, we took up the Alternative Minimum Tax. What we did yesterday was a procedural maneuver that allowed everybody to cover themselves, but will have very little reality as it addresses alternative minimum tax.

The gentleman from New York's motion to recommit goes right to the heart of the matter. You can, in a few minutes, cast a vote on really doing something about alternative minimum tax.

Now, the next thing we are going to hear today is this: The Democrats were in charge for 40 years and did not address the alternative minimum tax issue. In 1994, a couple of 100,000 people paid alternative minimum tax in America. On January 1, that number kicks up, next year, to 19 million people who will begin to pay alternative minimum tax. Mr. Rangel's proposal addresses this issue, and we pay for it, as I indicated at the outset of my remarks, honestly. The dividends and capital gains proposal does not even expire until the year 2008. And yet, we are doing that instead of doing alternative minimum tax.

Now, this Congress had time, in the last 5 years, to repeal a series of taxes on the American people, all, by the way, for upper income groups. We certainly had plenty of time to repeal the estate tax. We had time to address dividends and capital gains. But we did not have time to address alternative minimum tax other than with Band-Aid approaches. Today, you have a chance to do something. Mr. Rangel's proposal lacks complexity. You can, in the next couple of minutes, choose between fixing AMT or extending dividends and capital gains cuts for the wealthiest among us. And by the way, when we hear the other side say that these cuts to middle income people for dividends and capital gains, the dividend proposal that they have ought to be understood in this light. More than 50 percent, I believe, 53 or 54 percent of their dividend proposal, goes to people who made more than $1 million last year. Alternative minimum tax is a middle class issue across this country and we can do something about it.

Embrace Mr. Rangel's proposal. Give him a positive vote on AMT. But most importantly, give those 19.3 million Americans next year some much needed relief in alternative minimum tax.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for allocating the time.

The gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) made some comments at the outset talking about in his time on the Ways and Means Committee he has seen the committee try to address the issue of alternative minimum tax. But what is really interesting is he has only been there a short period of time. For some of us who have been there for a long time, this is the annual request we make of the majority.

Now, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) for his good and sincere words. But there is a reality here, as we look at alternative minimum tax, and the reality is this: during the last 5 years, we have had time to repeal the estate tax. We have had time to not only address the dividend issue and capital gains, but in the next few days, we are going to take up the issue of extending them for another 5 years.

Now, Congress has had time during these 5 years to do all of this. We have cut taxes for the wealthiest among us, millionaires who have received annual breaks totaling well over hundreds of thousands of dollars. But then when it comes time to address alternative minimum tax, we do it in what is known as the Stealth Tax Relief Act. And you know what, Mr. Speaker? That is the right term, the Stealth Tax Relief Act, because stealth is what this issue is all about. There is no reality addressed to what Congress is going to do in the next hour or so when it passes this bill. Is there anybody here in the Congress who is not in favor of this? I am not aware of anybody. We are all going to vote for this, and then reality is going to settle in.

And the reality is that this really does not mean very much. And, in fact, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and I are going to be back here next year, and we are going to be having this conversation. And the majority is going to say something like, well, the minority had years to do something about this. Who has been in charge of

this institution for more than a decade? The problem is this does not square, the alternative minimum tax because it gives tax relief to middle-income Americans, it does not square with the overarching agenda here, and that is to take care of the strongest among us. That is to take care of people who really are minimally touched by alternative minimum tax.

They address this issue, as they do year after year, with a Band-Aid, with a Band-Aid. This issue, alternative minimum tax, requires major surgery. In fact, if they do not do something about it shortly, it is going to require a surgical air strike. That is how serious it has become. And my friends on the other side will say to me when we leave this Chamber, great job. You did a great job of calling attention to this issue. And then I am going to say to them, well, when are we going to do something about it? And they will say to me, next year.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will recall, in committee I offered a substitute fully paid for and the majority rejected it on a party-line vote.

Mr. Speaker, I am introducing legislation today authorizing the National Park Service to enter into a cooperative agreement with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on behalf of Springfield Technical Community College. Over 30 years ago, in 1974, my predecessor, Congressman Edward Boland, and Senator Edward Kennedy were successful in creating the Springfield Armory National Historic Site. This legislation set in motion three decades of cooperation between the National Park Service, which manages the Armory Museum, and Springfield Technical Community College. The Park Service and the college are neighbors that together occupy the National Historic Site.

Let me tell you a little bit about this site. The Springfield Armory was the first national armory in the United States. In fact, the armory was founded in 1777, when the site was selected as the location for laboratory specializing in the development, production and storage of guns and powder during the American Revolution.

Following the American Revolutionary War, in 1794, Congress officially established the Springfield Armory. George Washington visited the site, which was also the site of Shay's Rebellion. Physically, the Armory abuts Springfield's historic State Street, the city's main east-west thoroughfare, which was Ben Franklin's famed mail route. For much of the 19th century, the Springfield Armory developed, manufactured and supplied most of the small arms used by the United States armed services. The Springfield Armory National Historic Site has a rich heritage that is an integral part of our nation's history.

In 1968, the Armory was deactivated as a military installation and in 1974, Congress established the National Historic Site. The National Park Service has operated the Armory Museum on these grounds, and it houses the most outstanding and historically significant arms collection in the country.

The future and fate of both the Armory Museum and Springfield Technical Community College are inextricably linked. Many of the historic buildings on the site are actually located on the college's property, not on National Park Service land, although a visitor to the campus would not be able to tell where NPS property ends and college property begins. This land outside the portion of the site administered by NPS is known as the ``Preservation Control Area.'' These college- owned buildings are subject to strict architectural and preservation rules. Many of these historic buildings owned by the college must be preserved and maintained pursuant to standards defined by the Secretary of the Interior. But these historic buildings are in a state of great disrepair and the college cannot easily move to maintain and preserve them absent the full participation of the Park Service. Not only does this deterioration of the facilities hurt the college, but also undermines the attractiveness of the National Park Service area, including the Armory Museum.

My legislation seeks to recognize and update the partnership that has existed over these many years between the Park Service and the college by authorizing the Park Service to enter into a cooperative agreement with the Commonwealth. It allows for the National Park Service to provide financial assistance to the College for the purpose of maintaining, preserving, renovating and rehabilitating the many historic structures within the Springfield Armory National Historic Site. The Park Service frequently enters into such cooperative agreements where the object of the agreement is of direct benefit to the Park Service and its mission, or for other public purposes. If these great historic buildings on the site can be renovated with the assistance of the Park Service, it will bring forward a more vibrant and attractive Historic Site and Museum. The Park Service and the college will be able to partner on many joint educational ventures that utilize these revitalized historic facilities.

The Springfield Armory National Historic Site is a treasure to the city of Springfield, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and to the Nation. The site is in desperate need of renovation, and enactment of this legislation is the first step towards ensuring the preservation of a site, which has played so vital a role in America's history.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for the gallant fight that he has put up all year on these issues as well.

Let us, me, say something tonight that we ought to start this debate with. For everybody who is watching, for the Members that are here in this Chamber, as you listen to this debate, these are the people who began the year with what we all thought to be the worst idea of this Congress, and that was the argument to privatize Social Security.

Now that is the context in which we have moved to the next round of their proposals. Nobody who is watching should kid themselves tonight. This is about a tax cut for the wealthy, dividend and capital gains. I defy anybody on the other side to challenge the following statement: Half of this proposal tonight with tax reconciliation included, half of the dividend and capital gains cuts will go to people who make more than $1 million a year.

Now, we brought that up the other night at the Ways and Means Committee. That was not a fact that was challenged. That was accepted as part of the debate. So we are going to talk about dividends and capital gains cuts at this moment, and then I want to draw attention to those 148,000 men and women in Iraq who serve us with honor and distinction every single day.

You know what their reward was? Two months ago, the Humvees arrived. The body armor is starting to arrive. But you know what? Only in this Congress, with this Republican leadership, could they declare there is a crisis in Social Security after they have ripped $1.3 trillion out of the budget. The answer to not having Humvees, not having body armor: let us have another capital gains cut; let us have a dividend cut.

The title of this Congress is, we are rich and we are not going to take it anymore. Everything we do here is for the strongest, most powerful.

I asked the other night at the committee, does anybody ever read the gospel of Matthew? To clothe the naked, to feed the poor and to provide dividends and capital gains relief to the

rich? Because that is where we are going with this debate.

This is about what is happening to the middle class tonight. They are going to cut student loan opportunities. The Senate is going to cut Medicare. Medicaid comes up before you know it. All of this is being done so they can shoe-horn a rigid, intransigent ideology.

There is no flexibility with the modern Republican Party. Everything they do is to satisfy a constituent group in America called the wealthy. Every step they take is to reinforce the separation of class along budgetary lines.

Vote down this proposal tonight and stand up for those men and women in Iraq and get them the equipment that they need.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for allocating this time to me.

We began this session with an idea and a plan that would privatize Social Security. I thought that was the worst idea that we would encounter. But now that that argument is at last behind us, now we can see the reality of the President's budget process. This proposal that we are about to entertain on Thursday is a fiscal disaster. It not only forces painful cuts to programs that serve regular people; it awards large new tax cuts to people who already are the most privileged in our society.

When President Clinton left office, the country was running a $236 billion surplus. We were on track to have a $5.6 trillion surplus over the next 10 years. Now, let me tell you what that would have done. That would have allowed us to fix Social Security, to fix Medicare, to pay down the debt, and to provide modest tax cuts for middle-income Americans. Instead, we have cut taxes five times while we are fighting two wars.

And what is the result? Well, a month and a half ago to 2 months ago, the Humvees just arrived in Iraq. The body armor has just begun to arrive in Iraq. For those men and women who serve us honorably every single day in the American military, the equipment is just starting to arrive.

But what do we have time to do here? Let us cut Medicare. Let us chop Medicaid. Let us go after student loans. Let us cut back on home heating oil for the most vulnerable among us in the Northeast; and, with a straight face, let us cut taxes by $70 billion over the next couple of weeks.

Think of this Congress, what it did with the Clinton surplus: $5.6 trillion of surplus projected over 10 years, and this Congress cuts taxes and yanks $1.3 trillion out of the budget and then declares Social Security has a problem after they have taken that money away.

You hear from the Members of this body on the other side of the aisle about supply-side economics. I do not know any primary supply-side economists left who are accepted in the academy. Nobody buys that argument any more based upon the budget deficits the Nation is running.

We were on a sterling course of fiscal responsibility in this body. Just when people said it could not be done, we got it done. We balanced the budget, projected large-term surpluses, and we had this grand opportunity to take on some of the issues we would all like to address. But what has happened now? Is there anybody here who believes that we are not going to need a lot more money for Iraq? A lot more money for Afghanistan? Those dollars are going to be necessary. The same institution that voted to send us there, this Congress, I hope will not dare to cut back on what these men and women need. But I can tell you this: the budget they have put in front of us takes us precisely there. You cannot have it both ways, and we have learned that the hard way. But I will say this about the majority in this body, they will keep going.

Most conventional political figures see a stop sign and they stop. Not here, they will keep going. Cut programs for the neediest and cut taxes for the strongest. I am reminded of Matthew when he said it is our goal and our job to clothe the naked and to feed the poor; and the Republicans here would add, and to take care of the wealthy and to take care of the strong.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the John Boyle O'Reilly Club in Springfield, Massachusetts on the occasion of its 125th Anniversary. Since it was founded in 1880, the John Boyle O'Reilly Club has been the center of Irish culture in western Massachusetts. From music, language, dancing to sport, the Boyle has promoted and preserved the unique culture of Ireland for generations.

On Saturday, November 5, 2005, two hundred members of the John Boyle O'Reilly Club will hold a banquet to celebrate this historic milestone. The Irish Ambassador to the United States of America will attend the ceremony to pay tribute to the enormous contribution the club has made to the local community. It will be a heartfelt and fitting celebration of culture, tradition and family.

The Irish poet W. B. Yeats once wrote: ``Think where man's glory most begins and ends/and say my glory was I had such friends.'' That sentiment helps describe what the JBO means to many of its members. More than just a social club, the Boyle has become a familiar setting for every occasion on life's journey. For many families in the Pioneer Valley, it is a special place that has produced fond memories and lasting friendships.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to an important group of individuals associated with the John Boyle O'Reilly Club. President Mary Quinn, Vice-President Patrick Burns, Treasurer Joseph Walsh and Secretary Patricia Devine deserve particular recognition for their leadership during this anniversary year.

The Board of Directors, which includes Patrick Reilly, Mary Kate O'Connor, Timothy Hurley, Matthew Dooney, Eric Levine and Stephen Lonergan should also be acknowledged for their dedication and commitment.

And finally, I want to congratulate the members of the club who are directly responsible for its success and longevity. On their behalf, I would like to submit this history of the club, written by member Dan Shea, into the permanent Record of the United States Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues in the 109th Congress to join me in recognizing the John Boyle O'Reilly Club on the occasion of its 125th Anniversary. Let us hope this local landmark continues to celebrate the culture of Ireland for at least another century.

The John Boyle O'Reilly Club, 1880-2005, 125 Years of Culture,

Tradition, and Family

This year the John Boyle O'Reilly Club celebrates its 125th

Anniversary. The John Boyle O'Reilly Club is Western

Massachusetts' oldest continuous Irish-American organization.

The Club was originally organized in 1880. It initially went

by other names but subsequently took the name of the famous

Irishman, John Boyle O'Reilly, shortly after his death in

1890. During this time period, various Irish organizations

drilled and trained for when the time came to return to

Ireland and fight for Irish freedom. The John Boyle O'Reilly

Club was one of the hosts when Irish President Eamon Develara

came to the United Sates in 1921 to seek funds for the newly

proclaimed Irish Republic. The call to return to Ireland

never came but the organization stayed and promoted the

ideals of Irish freedom and Irish culture.

The John Boyle O'Reilly Club has been housed in several

locations through out the years. In the early 1900s the Club

would have its meetings above Linehan's Saloon on Worthington

Street. In 1933, the Club incorporated and received its

corporate charter from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and

its liquor license from the city of Springfield. At that time

the club was located at the old Poli building on Worthington

Street. The club moved to Hampden Street in 1943. On Sundays,

local Irish musicians would play live music on WBZA in the

old Hotel Charles and then walk over to Hampden Street and

play music for the rest of the day. The John Boyle O'Reilly

Club moved the second floor of 1653 Main Street in 1955.

In 1970, the John Boyle O'Reilly Club purchased the present

building at 33 Progress Avenue in Springfield. The building

was a mere shell of a structure when purchased. Many members

volunteered labor and material to finish construction and to

complete the interior. The John Boyle O'Reilly Club opened

its doors on Progress Avenue in March of 1972. There have

been several renovations over the years to make the

surroundings more enjoyable for the members and guests of the

John Boyle O'Reilly Club.

Throughout the years, the John Boyle O'Reilly Club has held

many dances, concerts, Celi, music lesson, Irish language

lessons, bagpipe lessons, sessions, and benefits for many

families who fell on hard times due to injury, illness or an

unexpected death.

The John Boyle O'Reilly Club continues its mission of being

a home for Irish-American culture, whether it is Irish step

dancing, music, the live broadcast of the Gaelic Football and

Hurling Games from Ireland, or meeting with friends and

family. It may be known as ``the Boyle,'' `` the JBO'' or

simply ``the Club,'' but it still is a place for Irish-

Americans of all ages to come and enjoy one of the finest

Irish Clubs in New England. The John Boyle O'Reilly Club

continues to look forward to being the home of Irish American

culture and celebrations in the coming years. We look forward

to the coming year and invite all of our members and friends

to come and celebrate the 125 years of culture, tradition,

and family with the John Boyle O'Reilly Club.

Mr. Speaker, I am saddened by the death of Rosa Parks, and I rise today to pay tribute to this exemplary woman who dynamically changed the 20th Century.

Rosa Parks became a major catalyst for racial reform in December 1955 when she refused to give up her seat to a white man on a public bus in Montgomery, Alabama, defying the racial standards of that time. As a result, she was arrested and fined for violating a city ordinance. But this arrest began a bus boycott movement that ended legal segregation in America, and made Ms. Parks an inspiration to those who longed for freedom for everyone. Although the boycott was a success, Rosa Parks later lost her job. But, despite of this mistreatment she still held on to what she believed in ``freedom and equality.''

Ms. Parks' valor, on that particular day, helped to make Americans aware of the history of the civil rights struggle. She was truly an example of courage, determination and inspiration to all Americans and for her courageous deed, Rosa Parks was hailed ``the mother of the civil rights movement.'' Therefore, on June 15, 1999, we in Congress honored Ms. Parks' bravery by awarding her the Congressional Gold Medal in an historic ceremony at the Capitol Rotunda.

It was truly an honor to meet such an outstanding woman, and I will never forget her action and dedication that led to the end of segregation. Her heroism inspired the freedom and equality that African Americans so rightly deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that Rosa Parks' legacy will be carried forward by future generations so that African Americans will continue to experience equality amongst all mankind.

Mr. Speaker, today marks the third time in as many Congresses that I have introduced the Corporate Patriot Enforcement Act. This legislation is designed to slam the door shut on a truly disgraceful corporate tax shelter.

Over the years, dozens of American companies have filed papers to trade in their U.S. corporate citizenship for citizenship in tax haven countries like Bermuda. By washing their hands of their U.S. citizenship, they are able to stop paying taxes on their foreign profits, draining more than $4 billion out of U.S. coffers.

The companies themselves don't move physically--their operations, their factories, and their workforce remain wherever they were before. They continue to earn their profits in this country. They've simply discovered a technicality that they can exploit to rid themselves of their fair share of taxes, leaving the rest of us to pay for the services that they consume.

Right now, we're struggling to fight two wars and rebuild a hurricane-ravaged gulf coast, on the heels of five enormous tax cuts. The rainy day has come, but we've spent the rainy day fund. Our Nation has never been deeper in debt. We need to take a sober look at our Nation's finances, and this is an excellent place to start.

Eventually all of us will have to sacrifice a little to pull our Nation through this time; we've done it before and we'll have to do it again. When the rest of the country is contemplating additional sacrifices, it's only fair to require that these wealthy corporations start to meet the responsibilities that they have so far succeeded at shirking.

I am proud to sponsor the Corporate Patriot Enforcement Act, and I would urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the O'Leary Company, an engineering, planning and construction company from western Massachusetts that is celebrating its 50th Anniversary of building excellence this month. Simply put, the company is the one of the most experienced design-build commercial contractors in the northeast region.

From humble beginnings, Edward J. O'Leary started his own construction business in Holyoke, Massachusetts in 1955. With an emphasis on quality workmanship and customer service, the company quickly began to grow. A relationship with the Kansas City based Butler Manufacturing Company was a defining point for the company. Working with Butler, a leader in the marketing, design and production of systems for commercial and industrial buildings, enabled Ed O'Leary to take on larger construction projects. That partnership has created hundreds of jobs, successfully completed 1,200 projects and sold more than $40 million dollars in Butler steel.

But the O'Leary Company's history is more that just sales and completed projects. Strong corporate values have long been the key to their success. They have a reputation in the community for integrity, reliability and quality. And their contribution to the local economy cannot be minimized.

Whether it is aircraft hangers at Westover Air Reserve Base, the Quill Corporation Building in Agawam, MA, the Ludlow Technical Products property, or the state-of-the-art WWLP TV-22 studio in Chicopee, MA, the O'Leary Company has helped make our region a better place to work and do business. They truly have made a difference in the quality of life in western Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues in the 109th Congress to please join with me in wishing Randy Conklin, Brian Hill and the employees of the O'Leary Company another 50 years of success. I am confident that they will remain an invaluable builder, employer and corporate partner in western Massachusetts for many years to come.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in support of this legislation for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, indeed, the neediest families.

We are witnessing right now how the national principle in America plays out. If there is an earthquake in California, the rest of the American family comes to the assistance of those in need. If there is a hurricane in the gulf, the rest of the American family helps those in need. If there is a blizzard in New England, the rest of the American family comes to their assistance.

In fact, this legislation makes good initial progress in adjusting the TANF program to the needs of families affected by Hurricane Katrina. But it does not get us all the way there, and we know that. It does make a respectable first step.

It provides a 3-month extension of TANF funding for the entire country and allows States to receive advanced payments. It also includes a provision to increase fiscal year 2006 funds for Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama by 20 percent. It alleviates some of the strain on neighboring States. Let me say a good word about those citizens across the country who have reacted so favorably to those in need in other States. It also provides an opportunity to extend in the future a discussion at least about the whole notion of unemployment benefits. I think that is going to be terribly important as well.

More broadly, we are going to have to examine the safety net programs to make sure they are poised to catch the families before they fall even more, especially in the areas of unemployment benefits, child care assistance, and foster care. This bill, while silent on those issues, I know will be addressed in coming days and weeks.

Let me say something else as well. The reason we should have kept the surplus we had as a cushion was for three reasons: international conflict, in which we are engaged in two wars; a devastating natural disaster like this hurricane; and what is surely going to be the need in the near future to help those families who find themselves in a horrific situation through no fault of their own. That is the reason the surplus should have been maintained. That is the reason there should have been a cushion that was kept, rather than what we will do now by going off budget for many proposals down the road.

So we all stand in support of our friends and family members in this stricken area of the country. It does, as I indicated a moment ago, highlight the national principle that makes America special.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a quick note of this. Is the previous speaker arguing that NAFTA derailed illegal immigration to the United States or slowed it down?

Mr. Speaker, let me stand in opposition to the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Let me say at the outset that I do not reflexively oppose international trade. The previous speaker noted the trade agreements he has voted against. Let me talk about the trade agreements I have voted for, all of them from this administration: Australia, Singapore, Chile, Morocco; and in the past, China, GATT and WTO.

I know that done the right way with carefully balanced provisions, these agreements can expand the U.S. economy and create jobs. Trade can really be good for American workers and American businesses. Indeed, I believe we could have struck an acceptable agreement with Central America. I have no choice but to oppose this agreement because it failed to reach a crucial balance. In truth, it did not even come close.

CAFTA would exacerbate the crisis in our country's trade deficit, and it is completely unfair to U.S. workers and companies. We have already got trade deficits with every one of the CAFTA countries, and this agreement will only make that situation worse. What is more, it is the first time that the United States has negotiated a trade agreement with developing countries that have weak labor laws and histories of violent suppression of worker rights.

CAFTA should have stipulated that our trading partners adhere to basic internationally recognized labor standards like prohibitions on child labor, prison labor, and guaranteeing workers the right to organize. Instead, it only requires that those countries enforce whatever laws they happen to have on their books. Those laws are wholly inadequate, and they will only get worse because CAFTA will set off a race to the bottom. We are already seeing it. Some of the CAFTA countries have already taken steps to water down their labor laws so that they are the cheapest destination for foreign investment.

This CAFTA agreement passed up an opportunity to conduct trade the right way. It passed up an opportunity to expand the U.S. economy and create jobs. It passed up an opportunity to help our neighbors to the south develop safe and decent workplaces. It passed up an opportunity to reduce our country's trade deficit. It passed up an opportunity to do the right thing by U.S. workers and firms.

I intend to oppose this misguided agreement, and I urge the rest of the Members of this institution to do the same.

Madam Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me this time.

Madam Speaker, this legislation in front of us today as it relates to China is about one thing and one thing only: providing political cover for those who are reluctant to embrace CAFTA. That is all this is about. It is about outing CAFTA. The majority realizes if they simply put CAFTA on the floor, they do not have even the muscle in this instance to put this legislation through. So what are we doing instead? We are offering a veneer to the American people, a ruse, as it relates to the problems we are having with our trade practices in China.

Is there anybody who believes that this is about to alter our trading practices with China? We all know it is badly out of balance. And this legislation makes the problem worse.

Currency manipulation in this legislation, no action. Dealing with Chinese trade barriers in this legislation, no action. We are going to monitor and study. I think that if they put a study in front of this House, we all ought to take a test on it in 2 years. Sit down and we will all pay attention to the test that they offer. Imagine in a serious issue like this, we are going to ask for studies.

Safeguards, no action. Subsidies, they create more loopholes than they address. On customs duties, they have a 3-year, but listen to this, temporary measure to deal with the issue.

This is a sloppy bill. It is going to do more harm than good. When it is over, the professors will have their jobs, the trade lawyers will have their jobs, the editorial writers across the country will have their jobs; but the men and women of organized labor who call this for what it is, they know that their jobs are at risk and they are opposed to this legislation. It guts trade laws, and it gives more power to WTO. It purports to help solve problems with customs enforcement. It makes them worse. It does not require China to make meaningful changes to its policy of currency manipulation. How much more emphasis can we put on that issue in this institution? We need to recalibrate our trading relationship with China. This will not do it, and everybody knows it. An emphasis on that term, recalibrate our trading relationship with China.

When we get done with this legislation today, and there is some question

as to whether or not they can pass it, I am just going to close on this note. We have a highly regarded regular order in this institution of the responsibilities of the Committee on Ways and Means, the committee that many members of this institution desire to be on. You do not go around the committee the way this is being done. You go through the committee. You have hearings with a respected tradition in this House of Representatives for the Committee on Ways and Means. You do not do this through the back door.