Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor today to pay tribute to the Saints Peter and Paul Parish in Three Rivers, Massachusetts upon the occasion of its 100th anniversary.

For the past century, Saints Peter and Paul Parish has played an integral role in the religious, educational and cultural life of its communicants.

The church was started in 1905 as a Polish speaking home to the growing number of Polish immigrants who made Palmer and the surrounding villages of Three Rivers, Thorndike, Bondsville and Depot Village their new home.

Today, the Saints Peter and Paul Parish continues to celebrate time- honored Polish traditions and customs, while serving as the spiritual and religious anchor of the community.

It is my privilege to honor this beautiful parish by placing its history into the Congressional Record. I also wish ``Sto lat''--the traditional Polish wish for another 100 years--to the Saints Peter and Paul Parish. Enjoy this momentous occasion.

History of Saints Peter and Paul Parish

Records indicate that on September 28, 1608 when a group of

settlers arrived in the Jamestown Colony, Polish immigrants

were among them. Three hundred and seventy-two years later,

there now number approximately eleven million Poles in the

United States. History books have recorded the heroic

exploits and great contributions that individuals from Poland

such as Thaddeus Kosciuszko and Casimir Pulaski made during

the early part of this country's history; yet it was not

until the turn of this century that America felt the effects

of mass migrations of men and women from Poland.

Political and religious persecution and severe economic

hardship had resulted from the partitioning of Poland by

Russia, Austria and Germany. From 1899 to 1910 almost one

million people emigrated from Poland to the United States,

with approximately 30,000 remaining in the Connecticut

Valley.

Early records indicate that the first arrivals from Poland

in the Palmer area came in the year 1886. The first Baptism

of a Pole was recorded in St. Mary's Church in Thorndike in

1888. The ever-increasing number of Baptisms soon indicated

the need for a Polish-speaking church.

The St. Joseph Society was organized in April of 1895 to

unite the Polish community in the villages of Three Rivers,

Thorndike and Bondsville to assist in meeting the needs and

solving mutual problems of the new settlers.

The need for a Polish-speaking parish became paramount, and

a church building committee was formed. Judge David Dillon

served as adviser to the group and was instrumental in

choosing the Four Corners site, geographic center of the

town.

The committee was granted permission by the Most Rev.

Bishop Thomas D. Beaven to organize and establish the SS.

Peter and Paul Parish. This task was entrusted to Rev. Waclaw

(Wenceslaus) Lenz in July, 1905. At the start, this fledgling

parish numbered one thousand persons in Palmer and the

Villages.

SS. Peter and Paul Church--the new parish to bear the names

of the two outstanding apostles. Peter--successor to Christ--

who was called from his fishing nets to follow Christ and

become the Fisher of Men; and Paul--who had persecuted

Christians and whose conversion on the way to Damascus

resulted in his becoming the most prolific writer and

influential evangelist of the Church. With such historic

inspiration, the New Parish embarked upon its own unique

history.

Parish Organizations and Ministries

While there have been many organizations in our parish over

one hundred years, the following remain active and vital:

Holy Rosary Sodality--The oldest parish organization, the

Rosary Sodality was founded in 1903 by Mrs. Catherine

Kosinska: and Mrs. Tekla Pobudzynska to promote devotion to

the Blessed Virgin Mary and the daily recitation of the

Rosary. In the early years, both men and women were members,

but for most of its history, the sodality's membership has

been comprised of women. In the 1980s, membership was opened

to women from other parishes. Meetings are held monthly on

the first Saturday of the month after First Saturday Mass at

7:00 A.M. Current Co-Presidents: Barbara Yurkunas & Debbie

O'Connor.

Ladies Guild--Founded in 1948 as the Mothers Club by Rev.

Msgr. Alphonse Skoniecki for mothers of parish school

children to support the school financially and otherwise; the

name was changed in 1973 by Rev. Robert Ceckowski to the

Ladies Guild initially to support the religious education

program. At the same time, membership was opened to all women

of the parish, married and single. Meetings are held on the

second Wednesday of the month (except in June, July, and

August). Current President: Sheila Gula.

Sacred Heart Society--Founded in 1913 by Rev. Andrew

Krzywda for men and women of the parish to spread devotion to

the Sacred Heart of Jesus. Current President: Stephanie Putz.

Men's Guild--Founded in 1995 by Rev. Robert Ceckowski for

the men of our parish, young and old as both a social and

supportive group. The Men's Guild has become well-known for

the wonderful parish dinners they organize and host in the

parish hall several times throughout the year. Members also

serve as ushers/collectors at Mass. Meetings are held on the

second Tuesday of the month (except in summertime). Current

President: Fred Orszulak.

Militia Immaculata Prayer Group--Formed in the late 1990s

from the National Militia Immaculata (founded by St.

Maximilian Kolbe, martyr of charity), the group usually meets

on Mondays at 7 P.M. (excluding the first Monday of the

month). Coordinators: Barbara & John Yurkunas.

Prayer Cenacle for Priests--A prayer group formed to pray

specifically for the sanctification of priests and vocations

to the priesthood that meets weekly in the church on

Thursdays at 7:00 P.M. The evening of prayer closes with the

Benediction of the Most Blessed Sacrament.

Eucharistic Adoration Society--Individuals (parishioners

and non-parishioners) who pray for an hour before the Most

Blessed Sacrament in our church during regular daily

Eucharistic Adoration (see ``Mass Schedule'' for specific

adoration hours). New adorers/substitutes are always welcome!

Coordinator: Barbara Yurkunas, 283-3293.

Children of Mary Sodality/Junior Sodality--Founded in 1911

by Anna Kruczek & Mary Szczepanek. This group was comprised

mainly of the young ladies of the parish and was particularly

active during the years of our parochial school for girls in

grades 1-8. The highlight of the year was the Coronation of

the Blessed Virgin Mary statue in May by the 8th grade Queen

and her court. After the school closed, the focus shifted to

both grammar and high school girls. The group became a junior

part of the Rosary Sodality and members participate in

processions throughout the year, including the Coronation of

Mary in May. Coordinators: Charlene Schultz, Charlene Czaja.

St. Cecilia & Holy Family Choirs--The St. Cecilia Choir is

probably as old as our parish. Members sing at the Sunday

8:00 A.M. Mass, as well as for special Masses, Processions,

and seasonal Devotions (e.g., Christmas Midnight Mass; Holy

Week; Forty Hours). The Holy Family Choir was established in

the 1990s for younger members of the parish. They sing at the

weekly 9:30 A.M. Mass, as well as other special occasions

(e.g., First Holy Communion; Thanksgiving Day). Occasionally,

both choirs sing together (e.g., Corpus Christi; Coronation

of Mary).

Rehearsals are held in the choir loft on Tuesdays--Holy

Family Choir, 6:15 P.M.; St. Cecilia Choir, 7:15 P.M. New

members are always welcome and encouraged to join! Current

Director: Mark Narreau.

Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion--Men and women of

the parish who are invited to assist with the distribution of

Holy Communion. When lay persons were given permission by the

Vatican to minister in this capacity, our parish began the

practice in 1977. Extraordinary Ministers understand that

when enough priests are available, their assistance is not

needed. Current Coordinator: Michael Wostena.

Altar Servers--Young men of the parish who are invited to

assist at serving the priest at the altar for Holy Mass and

other Devotions. Boys who have made their First Holy

Communion are eligible to become Altar Boys.

Lectors--A ministry open to any member of the parish, male

and female, young and old. They proclaim the Word of God

(except the Gospel which is reserved to priest and deacon) at

both daily and Sunday Masses. Current Coordinator: Charlene

Czaja.

Parish Staff--Pastor: Fr. Stefan Niemczyk; Religious

Education Director: Michael J. Wostena; Parish Council

Chairman: Fred P. Brozek; Parish Secretary: Lydia McKee;

``The Parish Chronicle,'' weekly bulletin: Michael Wostena,

Maryann Wostena, Fr. Stefan; Director of St. Cecilia (Senior)

Choir & Holy Family (Junior) Choir: Mark Narreau; Organists:

Mark Narreau; Mary Besko; Sacristans: Maryann Wostena,

Michael Wostena; Facilities/maintenance: John Dziedzic, Fred

Guzik.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to bring to the attention of my colleagues an article from the June 20, 2005, Boston Globe about two legendary figures in Massachusetts politics. ``The Loner in Winter,'' by Jack Thomas, gives us an update on the former mayor of Boston, Kevin White, and former State treasurer Bob Crane. White and Crane came out of the same political environment that produced larger-than-life personalities like Tip O'Neill, Joe Moakley and Silvio Conte. As the article shows, Bob Crane and Kevin White have developed a great friendship in politics that has lasted over 40 years.

Kevin White was the mayor of Boston for 16 years, from 1967 to 1983, and his friend Bob Crane served as State treasurer for 26 years. They became friends in the 1960s while campaigning together in western Massachusetts and have been close ever since. During his tenure in Boston, Kevin White was simply the best mayor in America. When I became mayor of Springfield, I looked to Kevin for advice and guidance, and he always steered me in the right direction. For young mayors seeking to make their mark, Kevin White was the role model to which we all aspired. He helped make Boston the great city it is today.

Mayor White is now suffering from Alzheimer's, but he still commands the room, with his remarkable presence and sparkling personality. Bob Crane also had a remarkable public career as treasurer, but is also known as a great singer and entertainer, specializing in the Irish songs that form an integral part of the Boston Irish political culture. When Bob was in office, he brought his musical talents and singing group, the Treasury Notes, to nursing homes and other centers to entertain the elderly, and he still does so today, as well as appearing at select political gatherings. Beyond the music, Bob exemplifies the cardinal virtue of loyalty in politics, and no one is more loyal to his old pal, Kevin White, than Bob Crane. When politicians gather in Massachusetts, Bob makes sure that Kevin is there and is honored for the great mayor he was and great American he is.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that Jack Thomas' June 20 article from the Boston Globe be included in the Record, and I recommend it highly to my colleagues as an example of the type of politicians who valued friendships on both sides of the aisle and whom we can be proud of.

[From the Boston Globe, June 20, 2005]

The Loner in Winter

(By Jack Thomas)

Having finished his cheeseburger and 7-Up at Doyle's Cafe

in Jamaica Plain, Kevin H. White, the mayor of Boston from

1968 to 1983, got up from the corner booth and followed his

pal of more than 40 years, former state treasurer Robert Q.

Crane, who led the way into a back room so they could say

hello to the monthly meeting of Romeo, a group of about 30

retired politicians, judges, reporters, and other scalawags

from Boston's political past.

At 75, White is still trim, still handsome, and still

dapper of dress, and he's still got the square jaw, the wispy

white hair, the twinkling blue eyes, and the smile as wide as

Commonwealth Avenue.

But for the man who defined politics in Boston over three

different decades, these are difficult days.

Having gone through surgery that removed two-thirds of his

stomach in 1970 and having survived a heart attack in 2001,

he lives with a pacemaker. White always loved talking

politics, but even simple conversation is a challenge now for

two reasons. First, he is deaf in his right ear, and second,

Alzheimer's disease is robbing his mind of those colorful

memories of the days when he ran the city from the big office

overlooking Faneuil Hall and, in the judgment of many, lifted

Boston out of the doldrums and helped establish its

reputation as one of America's favorite cities.

As Alzheimer's takes its toll, The Loner in Love With His

City, as White was called, is even more of a loner these days

and reluctant to speak publicly. But he girds himself and

trails Crane into the back room, then brightens to hear

applause from the gaggle of men, old and gray, who once had a

say in running Boston a generation or two ago.

White shakes hands with former attorney general Robert

Quinn and with Bernard ``Bunny'' Solomon, aide to governor

Foster Furculo in the 1950s and now a trustee at Northeastern

University, and then White stands in back, alongside Crane.

``There are a couple of people here I want to introduce,''

says Bobby Hannan, a political reporter for the Boston Herald

40 years ago. ``It's good to see Mr. Kevin White we're

pleased to see you and your smiling face.''

Most of the men put down their salad forks to applaud

again.

``And,'' says Hannan, ``former treasurer Bob Crane.''

``You may not realize it,'' says Crane, never at a loss for

blarney, ``but this is the best luncheon you'll ever have,

and the reason is that your guest is Francine Gannon,'' he

says, pointing to one of Boston's wilier politicians, who

served as an aide to congressmen Thomas P. ``Tip'' O'Neill

and Joseph Moakley and now to Senate President Robert E.

Travaglini.

``Mr. Mayor,'' Hannan says deferentially, ``would you want

to say a word of greeting?''

White winces.

He's unsure how to respond, uncertain what to say.

For an awkward instant, the room is quiet, until Crane

leans in to White and says softly, ``Say you're glad to be

here.''

White brightens, takes a step forward, smiles, and says in

a strong voice, ``I couldn't be more pleased to be here.''

More applause. Do they cheer because he survived so many

challenges in politics or because he just survived a

challenge of old age?

A moment later, smiling and waving, White follows Crane

from the room, out of the cafe, and into a car for the drive

back to his home on Beacon Hill, where the surroundings are

familiar, where he feels safer, and where the struggle with

Alzheimer's is once again private.

White and Crane are the Romulus and Remus of Boston

politics. Their friendship dates to the 1960s, when they

campaigned together in Western Massachusetts, Crane for

treasurer and White for secretary of state, an office he held

from 1961 to 1967. The friendship grew through tennis

holidays on Cape Cod and golf weekends in Florida and family

vacations in Barbados and the Soviet Union, and who can say

how many nights of counting votes and all the triumphs and

losses and the laughter, too, that finally bring them

together, as two old men, in a corner booth at Doyle's on a

chilly afternoon in June.

Over White's left shoulder is a snapshot of the three who

have served as mayor for nearly four decades: White, Raymond

Flynn, and Thomas Menino, photographed under a Pickwick Ale

sign. Over White's right shoulder is a copy of the Globe,

Nov. 8, 1967, the first day of what would become the New

Boston.

``White Goes In as Mayor with 5 New Councilors,'' reads a

headline about White's victory over Louise Day Hicks. A

photograph of the party at the Sheraton Plaza shows White,

then 38, Hicks, Senator Edward M. Kennedy, governor John A.

Volpe, and, in the background, Crane.

``I'm always in the background,'' he grumbles. ``All my

life, you've been putting me in the back row.''

The political wars are in back of White now, and the punch

and counterpunch of politics have faded into lore.

How much does he miss it?

``What?''

Crane: ``How much do you miss being [in] office?''

White: ``I loved every minute I was there but . . . `` He

pauses.

Crane: ``The answer is . . .''

White: ``Are you speaking for me or for us?''

Crane: ``Us. We're sophisticated enough to know that our

day is gone, and that we shouldn't be around bothering

people.''

Around Crane, White laughs heartily, but in conversation,

he often asks Crane and a guest the same question three and

four times in an hour: How long have we known each other?

Where did you grow up?

How does he feel on a scale of 1 to 10?

``How what?''

How do you feel?

``About what?''

How is your health?

``I'm in good shape. I could beat you at anything,'' he

says to Crane.

But your memory is not what it used to be?

``Well, that's for sure.''

``You are forgetful,'' says Crane.

``Yeah, I am. But I don't travel or do things that would

make that something to worry about.''

You mean you spend more time with friends than with

strangers.

``That's a good line, yeah, much more.''

White brightens at a question about his daughter Patricia,

who announced last week that she is a candidate for City

Council.

How much of a role will he play? ``I don't know. If she

asked me . . . I take pride in watching her, and I don't want

to interfere.''

As mayor, White maintained a hideaway office on Tremont

Street. During a private interview late in his final term, he

was asked about his legacy.

``The Prudential Center is [Mayor] Johnny Hynes. Center

Plaza and City Hall belong to [Mayor] John Collins. But

Faneuil Hall?'' he said, leaning forward and pointing his

thumb to his chest. ``Faneuil Hall is mine!''

As he walks around Boston today, what gives him that level

of satisfaction?

``I don't think of it much, but if I had to . . . if I

thought . . . or if I were walking with you I don't think

it's because of anything I've done. I'm not being coy, but I

think it's the town, because Boston has a certain . . .

what's the word?''

``Pride?'' says Crane.

``Pride's a good word,'' says White.

``Spirit?''

``Spirit?'' says White. ``Yeah, Boston's got . . . is it

charm?''

``Whatever it's got, Kevin, people say you were the best

thing that happened to Boston. People walk right by me to get

to you, which doesn't set too well with me.''

White is embarrassed by the description of himself as the

best thing that's happened to Boston.

``I'm not being a con merchant, but I don't think that's

really true. A lot of people contribute. Don't you think the

people of Boston have a certain . . .''

He pauses, tapping the table in frustration.

``It has nothing to do with me, but Boston has and I can't

quite . . . it's a certain . . .''

His face lights up as the word comes to mind. ``Boston has

a certain panache!''

At times, White and Crane seem as scripted as a Marx

Brothers routine.

``I didn't recognize you in this 1979 picture,'' says

Crane, ``because you've got your hands in your own pockets.''

``Aw, don't listen to him,'' says White, ``honest to God.''

How does White spend his time these days?

``Well, I don't see many people.''

Among those Crane lists who spend time with White,

lunching, golfing, or attending Red Sox games, are Robert

Beal, the property owner; George Carney, owner of Raynham-

Taunton Greyhound Park; former treasurer John Driscoll;

publicist George Regan; Jack Connors, chairman of the Hill,

Holiday ad agency; and City Councilor Stephen J. Murphy.

``People say I spend a lot of time with Kevin, but it's

time I love,'' says Crane. ``It's time we love, because we're

perfectly compatible. We disagree about nothing.''

White smiles.

``We really do get along, don't we?''

Mr. Speaker, I have served in this House since 1988, and I have been on the Committee on Ways and Means since 1993. A lot has changed over this time, but one thing still seems to stay the same and that is the need to bring simplification to our Nation's Tax Code.

The former chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means said he was going to rip the Tax Code out by its roots so that we could start over and create a new system that was far more simple. He was unsuccessful, as have been most reformers that I have seen in my time on this committee.

Year after year, the problem gets worse. It is easy to call for simplification, but it is a lot harder to achieve it.

Last week, I introduced H.R. 2950, the Individual Tax Simplification Act of 2005, which I have done now for 6 years in a row. It is an outstanding first step in achieving a simpler Tax Code.

My bill would eliminate, and listen to this, it would eliminate the alternative minimum tax in a revenue-neutral fashion. It would also take 200 lines from tax forms, schedules and worksheets and make capital gains much easier to calculate.

As I have indicated, this is 6 years now that we have offered this legislation, but every year that passes our Code grows more and more complex. We have an opportunity to do away with the alternative minimum tax.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the tremendous career of Mr. Thomas Conklin, a physician and visionary.

After graduating from Louisiana State Medical School, Dr. Thomas Conklin became board certified in psychiatry and administration and established a private practice in his hometown of Ellington, Connecticut. Dr. Conklin left his practice with twenty years of experience in search of a place where he could administer medicine. In 1992 Dr. Conklin became Director of Health Services at the Hampden County Correctional Center in Ludlow, Massachusetts. Sheriff Michael J. Ashe Jr. once said upon meeting Dr. Conklin how amazed he was with his dedication, innovation, and willingness. Dr. Conklin saw a lack of attention from the local community towards inmates, especially through proper medical care. Dr. Conklin once called correctional facilities ``reservoirs of illness'' because these facilities can harbor many diseases like HIV, STDs, and Hepatitis which endanger the local population when released inmates bring these diseases out into the public. Instead of waiting for these diseases to breakout into the public, Dr. Conklin took a proactive approach by beginning a Public Health Model. This revolutionary system established relationships with inmates by using local health physicians and setting up neighborhood health centers.

As a result of Dr. Conklin's persistent efforts, today 100 percent of Hampden County inmates obtain a complete physical exam, and over 90 percent of those inmates being released keep medical appointments in the community. In 1998 the National Commission for Correctional Healthcare selected Hampden County Correctional Center as facility of the year. Dr. Conklin's efforts brought national attention to the growing risks from lack of inmate healthcare within corrections facilities. Dr. Conklin's model now serves as catalyst for other correctional facility health programs nationwide.

Dr. Conklin continues teaching other facilitators about the Public Health Model through producing publications and leading numerous health conferences. As a member of the NCCHC-NIJ expert panel on mental illness, he led Hampden County Correction Facility to new groundbreaking achievements. Through his compassion, Dr. Conklin has been able to make his dreams as a visionary become reality for all that helps regardless of their wealth or status. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Conklin's commitment and leadership during his forty years of service as physician and administrator are more than worthy of our recognition today.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Professor Jim Leheny on his retirement from the position of Associate Chancellor of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. This is a position he held at the University for the past twenty two years.

Jim Leheny will certainly be missed. In addition to his many academic and administrative duties, Jim has served as the University's federal lobbyist for many years. After retiring from his current position, Jim will continue to consult part-time for the University and direct its English Department's Oxford Summer Seminar.

Jim earned his M.A. from Washington University in St. Louis and his Ph.D. at Washington University. Jim's interest was specifically in ``Politics and the Arts.''

The University of Massachusetts in Amherst, the flagship campus of the state's system of public higher education, has at the helm, Chancellor John Lombardi. Under his guidance, and to the benefit of many of my constituents, the University has prospered immensely. Jim Leheny has been part of that important success. I wish him health and happiness in his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great joy to extend my congratulations to the second grade ``Peace Class'' at the Jackson Street School in Northampton, Massachusetts. This class is the recipient of the League of Women Voters Award in conjunction with the National Student/Parent Mock Election. The award is presented to schools and organizations that contribute to increasing parent and community participation in the Mock Election and/or in the actual election process.

During the recent elections, the class organized a voter registration drive and registered about thirty-six new voters. On the eve of Election Day, the students held a candlelight vigil at City Hall encouraging people to vote by singing and holding handmade signs reading ``Vote For Me Until I Can'' and ``Voting Is Your Right.''

As a former educator, I am pleased to learn of young people going above and beyond the call to enhance their civic duties. I am honored to represent such outstanding individuals and I join with the citizens of the Second Congressional District in offering a most heartfelt congratulation to the second grade ``Peace Class'' at the Jackson Street School for being the recipient of this prestigious award.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for yielding me time.

It is curious to me, each speaker that has come to the Republican side in the last half hour since we have debated the rule is introduced as an expert on fiscal policy, an expert on fiscal policy.

Look at the deficit that they have run up. Look at where we find ourselves today, two wars and five tax cuts; and they present themselves to the people as an expert on fiscal policy.

Mr. Speaker, in the election of the year 2000, there was a lot of mocking about the term the ``lockbox.'' It made great play even on ``Saturday Night Live.''

Let me tell you what they have done. Over the next 10 years Social Security will raise $2.6 trillion for the trust fund. This Republican budget spends every cent of that surplus. That means that we need this money to provide benefits to retirees, and guess how we are going to do it? We are going to borrow the money. And we are going to do just what we have been doing since they have been in charge, and then we are going to increase our indebtedness to the Chinese and to the Japanese.

Everybody knows this for what it is. It is unsound policy. The first Bush budget promised that ``none of the Social Security surpluses will be used to fund other spending initiatives or tax relief.''

That is what they said. Let us give you the record. It is the polar opposite. After acknowledging the importance of keeping the trust fund secure, they have raided every single cent of the trust fund in the fiscal year 2002 budget to pay for their tax cuts that, by the way, went to the top 1 percent of wage earners in America.

Well, let us have another refresher here in recent history. In fiscal year 2003 the same thing happened. The Republicans spent every cent of the Social Security trust fund surplus. In 2004 they spent every cent of the Social Security trust fund surplus. And in 2005 they intend to spend every cent of the Social Security trust fund surplus. So over these last 4 years the Republicans' budgets have spent $635 billion of the Social Security trust fund on huge tax cuts for the wealthiest among us.

Only in Washington could you lop $2 trillion off the Federal budget with tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and then in the next breath say Social Security is in danger.

We have got to do something to fix Social Security after they have raided the trust fund. Now, after draining the Social Security trust fund, the President then says, Social Security is going bankrupt. His strategy is failing on every front. It is failing his fiscal policy with record deficits. By the way, this is from a Republican Party that at one time spoke to fiscal rectitude.

It is failing politically because the American people who are paying attention, and they all are, are rejecting the Social Security trust fund because they know the trust fund account has been raided by the majority party.

We know we will have to do some adjustments to Social Security to strengthen it, but look what their answer is: raid the trust fund. We have offered a budget alternative that would begin to shore up Social Security. Our plan offers tough budget rules that would force Congress to pay for new spending or tax cuts that would pull money out of the Social Security trust funds.

I want to say something, Mr. Speaker. In the 17 years that I have been in this House, this is absolutely the worst budget that has been presented. There is not even competition for how bad this budget proposal is, and they do it on the backs of the Social Security trust fund.

So let me close on the basis on which I began, and I would like to have them answer this question: two wars, and five tax cuts.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida said I want Members to give me a good reason why we should not repeal the estate tax. Let me give Members two good reasons: Afghanistan and Iraq.

The idea that we would be borrowing the money to pay for Afghanistan and Iraq when by just leaving this tax in place we could pay for those incursions and maybe get the Humvees to those men and women who are defending us every single day, or maybe get bulletproof vests to them on time, borrowing the money.

The slogan of the moderate Republican Party is this: we are rich, and we are not going to take it any more. It is day after day in this institution, borrow money, run up the debt, run up the deficits and then with a straight face say, we are going to repeal a tax that affects 1 percent of the American people, just 1 percent of the American people.

They talk about industriousness and thrift and the work ethic. We see what happens to this money when it gets to the fourth and fifth generation of the same family: thrift is gone, the work ethic is gone. They quarrel about who is going to have enough money so they can enjoy the lavish ways of American life.

When I hear people say, as they have said recently in this debate, well it is going to take care of the family farmer, they cannot find a farmer that is not taken care of in the legislation that is about to be proposed here. This legislation that they are proposing today cuts against the grain of what Thomas Payne reminded us in ``Common Sense.'' He was concerned about hereditary power, the idea that the same people would control the wealth of America with the same families that would get to go to the same schools so the same families would have the same doctors and lawyers and accountants so the rest of America might not have a chance to participate. Whatever happened to the Republican Party in America.

Teddy Roosevelt said this was about thrift and hard work and honesty; they were blessed to be born in this country. That is what patriotism is. When we look at who enjoys the fruits of this money, the smallest number of American people, again the top 1 percent in America. Inherited wealth, that is not what America is based upon. We do not live in an aristocracy. Look what happened to Europe and the way they lag behind as they do. There is no sense in the House of Lords that you can advance yourself. Here in this House, the people's House, every walk of life is represented. Why do we just not establish a House of Lords after we get rid of the estate tax so then when we get rid of hereditary power, we will simply have the permanent state of aristocracy and privilege for the few.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and thank the other members of the team that have assembled tonight for the purpose of discussing what we can do to simplify the Tax Code for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, we argue frequently in this institution about tax cuts. In fact, this afternoon we came up with an estate tax cut that only further complicates the tax system. And indeed we ought to be called the House of Lords here for what we did today. We have created a system of peerage now. You can pass on money in this instance, vast sums, without any qualms. We can take care of Paris Hilton, we can take care of the idle rich, but we cannot address the issue in a forthright manner about Social Security or we cannot make sure that those Humvees arrive in time for our young men and women who serve us with great honor every day in Iraq and Afghanistan or to make sure that they have the necessary equipment. And as they return home we are asking now for a copay on veterans services at Veterans hospitals.

But what is striking about this, in a town that often talks about tax cuts,

we could quite easily, Republicans and Democrats working together, do something that everybody in America desires, and that is a simplification of our Tax Code.

People really have to believe in their tax system. They have to believe that there is an equitable distribution of the burden, but there is also an important investment based upon the potential achievements that come from us paying our taxes.

Now, I notice that the first two speakers were very bipartisan in their commentary about how we might get to the starting line. But let me be just a little bit more discerning, offer a little bit more scrutiny of what has happened here during the last 10 years.

Now, if you recall, when the Republicans came to majority status here, they promised, and the former chairman of the Ways and Means Committee very clearly stated, and I quote, they were going to pull the Tax Code up by its roots.

They were going to rip the Tax Code up by its roots. We were all going to a long funeral for the Tax Code. And they were going to give us a flat tax. They were going to give us a consumption tax. We are no closer to a flat tax or a consumption tax than we were when they started. In fact, the reality is that they have not backed up their words with action.

The Tax Code today is more complicated than ever, and the very people on the Republican side who denounce the Tax Code's complexity are the ones that put together what they now call a convoluted monstrosity. They put it into effect.

The law that Republicans criticize today was part of their 2001 tax bill that a Republican-controlled White House sent to a Republican- controlled House and then to a Republican-controlled Senate. So the Republicans controlled the conference committee. They negotiated the final version of the bill. They provided almost all of the votes for the plan, and now there is even a Republican administration that administers the Internal Revenue Service, and we are no closer to simplification.

That is one of the reasons that we voted against the tax bill on our side, but let me tell you what the 2001 law did. It added 214 million hours to the paperwork burden for United States taxpayers in 2001 alone. It led to an explosive growth of the Tax Code. The Tax Code has expanded from 500 pages in 1913 to 45,662 pages in 2001 to 60,044 pages today.

Think of it: 60,000 pages and almost 15 percent, one quarter of those 60,000 pages have come into effect during these last 4 years. Think about that: 15,000 new pages of tax laws from the same people who rail against tax complexity. It is breathtaking in its audacity.

But do we have time in this institution to address the Bermuda tax issue? No, we do not. I remind the American people tonight that for the cost of $27,000 you can open a post office box on the island of Bermuda, declare that you are a corporate citizen of Bermuda while those 146,000 soldiers are in Iraq and say that your citizenship belongs to Bermuda, thereby escaping the responsibility and obligations that we have in America to those young men and women in uniform.

Well, they have controlled this Congress for 10 years, 10 years; they said they were going to do something about the Tax Code.

Well, let us talk about alternative minimum tax. They have done nothing about alternative minimum tax. It is creeping up across the board on the American people. I have asked for hearings time and again on alternative minimum tax.

Let me announce this to the American people tonight one of the best things about this debate, as a Democrat from Massachusetts, I have proposed eliminating, getting rid of the alternative minimum tax. I want to congratulate the Republicans for one thing. Seldom have I ever been part of any legislation where I got more pats on the back on their side or words of encouragement and fewer votes. Fewer votes. They will encourage me, say keep up the battle. Stay with it. Stay after it. And then I will say, let us have an up-or-down vote on getting rid of AMT, alternative minimum tax.

If you are watching tonight and you take advantage of the Hope tax credit or the child tax credit, you bump into a whole new category of taxation. When that individual finds out what is about to happen on Friday or if they picked up their taxes during the last few days or weeks, they are going to be pretty upset with the notion of alternative minimum tax.

I filed a very good simplification bill here. It is almost revenue neutral, and it will achieve all the ends and strip pages from the Tax Code. But again, I want to hearken back to what I spoke of when I started.

We should stop arguing about tax cuts in this town. After all, we have had five tax cuts while we are fighting two wars. But we could do something that all members of the American family are in favor of and that is simplifying the Tax Code, changing the Tax Code, getting rid of the complexity instead of what has happened during these 10 years from a party that promised to take the Tax Code and tear it out by its roots. We now have a Tax Code that has roughly 15,000 more pages. It is wild in its complexity with what has happened.

I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott) and the others that will participate in this discussion. But hearken back to that notion I have raised, and that is let us simplify the Tax Code for the American people as Democrats have promised to do.

Mr. Speaker, I was deeply saddened to learn that the Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, passed away on April 2nd. This extraordinary man touched millions across the world with his dynamic, courageous and compassionate leadership. I know that we in the United States join a global community in mourning this great and blessed man.

From his humble beginnings in Poland, Pope John Paul II became the first non-Italian pontiff in 455 years and one of the most beloved figures in recent memory to Catholics and non-Catholics alike. The first pope to visit a synagogue and a mosque, he will be remembered as a spiritual leader who worked tirelessly to bring people of all faiths together. His papacy helped stem the tide of communism in Poland and Eastern Europe. His ministry on behalf of the poor and the sick is well known by worshipers worldwide.

One of the most moving moments I've ever experienced was seeing the pope speak to hundreds of thousands of Cubans at an outdoor mass in Havana in 1998. He delivered a message of religious tolerance, social justice, and human rights in the country of Fidel Castro. His powerful presence and words in Revolutionary Square were greeted by thunderous applause from the Cuban people. It was a special event I'll never forget.

During his historic first visit to the United States in 1979, the pope famously told the crowd in Boston that ``the pope is your friend.'' Now we say goodbye to a man of hope, a

man of faith and a man of dignity. Today we say goodbye to our friend. May he rest in peace.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Members on the Republican side of the aisle this evening to find one Republican mayor in America, one, who favors what they are about to do to the Community Development Block Grant program.

The Community Development Block Grant program has been extraordinarily successful. It has had broad bipartisan support for as long as I can remember. And we ask, how did that come about? It came about because there was a Republican President named Richard Nixon who created what he believed to be the new federalism, and there were overwhelming majorities of Democrats in the Congress who accepted that leadership with this simple idea, that, yes, Washington, because from time to time they exacerbate problems at the local level, and if that was to be the case, how would we funnel some resources to the local government but allow, and listen to this because it is a critical aspect of the Community Development Block Grant program, local decision-making, meaning that the problems that confront Seattle, Washington might be different from those that confront Birmingham, Alabama, that might be different from those that confront Portland, Maine, from those that might confront Dallas, Texas. An extraordinary principle, the national principle.

So what does this Congress decide to do with this extraordinarily popular and successful initiative? They are going to cut it. They are going to cut it back. I do not think we can find a Republican Governor in America who supports what they are about to do with the Community Development Block Grant program.

And what is it used for? Overwhelmingly, it is used for housing. The number of substandard units of housing in America that have been brought back to life because of CDBG allocations is most impressive. And then let us throw in the next part of what CDBG does. It provides ample opportunity for economic development. They might expedite the paving of a roadway to an industrial park so that there can be new business growth and new job opportunities in cities and towns across America.

And what else might they do with it? There are all kinds of public parks across this country that have succeeded because of Community Development Block Grant programs. Some of them in the lowest income neighborhoods of America. And do my colleagues know what else? Some of them in great middle-income neighborhoods across this Nation as well.

As a member of the alumni association that is exceedingly small in this Congress, called Former Mayors, I might point out that if we assembled mayors across America, the United States Conference of Mayors, we would be hard pressed to go into that room and find one mayor who supports what they are about to do to the most popular domestic urban program called Community Development Block Grant money.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to the attention of my colleagues the activities of the American Burn Association (ABA) regarding its accomplishments and dedication to the care of burn victims. The ABA works tirelessly in its efforts involving the first line of defense: the prevention of burn injuries. February 6th to the 12th is Burn Awareness Week so it is a fitting time to acknowledge the work of an organization devoted to this challenging field of medicine. The American Burn Association has more than 3,500 members in the United States, Canada, Europe, Asia, and Latin America. Members include physicians, nurses, occupational and physical therapists, researchers, social workers, firefighters, emergency personnel, and, the underpinning of burn research, hospitals with burn centers. The multidisciplinary membership enhances its ability to work toward common goals with other organizations on educational/prevention programs.

Each year, the ABA and other burn treatment entities work on a different burn prevention theme. The theme of Burn Awareness Week this year is the prevention of electrical burn injuries. The number of electrical injuries cared for in hospitals in the US is estimated at as many as 50,000; the cost of these injuries on the US economy is estimated at over one billion dollars per year. Many injuries and deaths can be prevented through an understanding of the dangers of power lines, electrical appliances, extension cords, and lightning. In the past, the ABA has sponsored Burn Awareness weeks focusing on Home Safety, Senior Burn Safety, Prevention of Gasoline Burns, and Scald Prevention, among others. Well over a million people are injured each year from burn related incidents and accidents.

In addition to its traditional responsibilities, in recent years the ABA has worked hard to improve emergency response systems and to incorporate burn care into disaster preparedness systems in the country in light of new threats to the United States. In addition, countless ABA physicians, nurses, and health care workers are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan to treat America's injured soldiers.

The American Burn Association stimulates and supports burn-related research, education, care, rehabilitation, and prevention through a variety of educational programs, fellowships, research, teaching, and publications, including the leading peer-reviewed, scientific journal in the burn field, the Journal of Burn Care & Rehabilitation.

ABA membership is in virtually every state in the union and countless congressional districts. When the ABA holds its annual Legislative Leadership Conference in Washington April 5th through the 7th, I hope you will take the time to meet with your ABA constituents so that they may tell you more about their work in your hometown.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas described a situation here 3 years ago before we went on this borrowing binge. What he conveniently neglected to point out was that President Bush and the Republican Party inherited the strongest economy in the history of America that was expected to post a $5.6 trillion, 10-year surplus. And he conveniently neglects to point out that it is the $2 trillion that they have taken from the budget through tax cuts that have helped to put us in the situation that we are in. Talk about amnesia.

In just 4 years of Republican management, the country's fiscal situation has collapsed to the tune of nearly $9 trillion, draining the entire Clinton surplus and digging a deficit of $3 trillion, the largest deficit in the history of the world. And today, for the third time in 4 years, the country's fiscal situation has become so dire that we bumped up against the legal limit on how much we can borrow. So we are going to raise the limit or the government will default. All of this from the party that in American history has preached fiscal responsibility. So we have to come up with enough money now for their tax cuts, the war, and, by the way, just think of this, two wars with four tax cuts. That defies human history.

And the President has very big plans for the next 4 years. He says he is going to spend a lot of capital that he has earned. So we are going to create private accounts for Social Security, which would cost more than $1 trillion, more than the current system might offer; and we do not even have enough money in the current system so that we are going to borrow this money tonight.

The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), who is a nice enough fellow, he mentioned a couple of moments ago the situation that we are in. I want to remind this body that 8 years ago the Republican Party was going to impeach Bob Rubin for doing precisely the things their Secretary of the Treasury is doing this evening.

Mr. Speaker, let me just, if I can, respond to the remarks that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) offered a moment ago.

You would have thought he was Robin Hood here at the well. He talked about the tax relief that they are giving to the little guy. The tax relief that this Congress has given now in terms of four tax cuts has overwhelmingly gone to the people at the very top of the income scale in America. But we have an obligation to object not only to the actions but to the rhetoric that was offered a few moments ago.

We are now fighting two wars with four tax cuts. The Republican Party says with a straight face that Social Security has got a problem, after they took $2.2 trillion out of the budget during the next 10 years. Have a $4.5 billion problem here with European Union and our other trading partners? Let us have a $140 billion solution.

Do you know what that is the equivalent of? Using a machine gun to clean the wax out of our ears. That is how far-reaching this is.

Now, just here 3 years ago the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and a number of us were involved in what I thought was an entirely legitimate campaign to keep Stanley Works in America instead of reincorporating to Bermuda. Well, Stanley Works decided to stay in America. I was reminded of it the other night as I came through the airport in Windsor Locks, Connecticut. Stanley Works, New Britton, an American address.

What does this legislation do to one of its competitors? You grant them a permanent grandfather clause so that they can stay in a foreign tax haven and not be assessed the same obligation that that company that we fought valiantly to keep in America, to keep an American address, is assessed.

My Dad used to have a great line when I was a child when he saw something that was outrageous. He used to simply say, At least Jesse James had enough honor to wear a mask.

What we are seeing here tonight is another giveaway. They are pushing jobs offshore, and what do they wrap themselves in? Patriotism. This is all we hear from them is the line about patriotism, and then we witness the arguments and its aftermath and we know what it is going to be in terms of this argument some sense of justice?

Well, the news media is going to go through this legislation over the course of the next couple of weeks because we all know tonight we would not have a chance to go through the legislation. Heaven forbid that the minority might have an opportunity to look it over, and then the media is going to pick it apart and they are going to look back and say, who was watching in the House?

This is a bad piece of legislation. I close on the remarks I opened with, we are fighting two wars with four tax cuts.

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

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

I am pleased that the House Republican leadership has finally seen fit to appoint conferees to resolve the foreign sales corporation or extraterritorial income issue that the World Trade Organization found to be an illegal export subsidy. I note that the appointment of conferees today comes more than 2 months after the Senate appointed their conferees. This delay by the House Republican leadership has only resulted in more trade sanctions on many of our industries.

Today I am offering a motion to instruct that I believe should be the framework for the conference report. First, the motion to instruct offers a requirement that House conferees include an effective rate reduction for U.S. businesses manufacturing or producing goods in the United States. This benefit for U.S. producers is the appropriate replacement for today's export benefit which was enjoyed by U.S. manufacturers and producers. The replacement benefit should also apply to U.S. manufacturers and producers. This motion requires that all businesses, including farmers, farm cooperatives, subchapter S corporations, and other unincorporated small businesses should enjoy the benefit of the new rate reduction. I have never understood the opposition of the House Republican leadership to permitting small businesses to be eligible for the new benefit. I have always agreed with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), chairman of the Committee on Small Business, in his insistence that small businesses be eligible.

This motion also requires that businesses that are purely domestic receive the largest benefit, as included in the Senate amendment. We should reward companies for keeping their operations in the United States. This motion also requires the inclusion of Senate provisions to ensure that companies do not receive benefits for income attributable to cost savings from purchasing cheap imported parts or outsourcing labor. Again, I do not understand why the Republican House bill encouraged outsourcing of parts and labor offshore.

Second, this motion requires that the conference report not further increase tax incentives for companies to move operations offshore. We have had ample opportunity in this House for the better part of 3 years to do something about an issue that I think causes great concern to the American taxpayer and to the American worker. Our current tax laws already provide incentives for companies to invest and move operations offshore. There is no reason to provide additional tax benefits that could result in further U.S. job losses.

The Bermuda issue has never been debated vigorously in this House, and we should take that up perhaps as a separate issue down the road; but we sure could include it with this motion to instruct. We should be focused on increasing incentives for U.S. jobs, not incentives to create jobs overseas.

Third, this motion requires that the conference report be revenue neutral. We already are experiencing deficits of historic size, and there is no reason to further increase the deficit in this legislation. I would remind the consuming audience today that what began as a $4.5 billion problem now looks as though it will have a $130 billion solution. In making this bill revenue neutral, the motion also requires the House conferees to take the following specific actions:

First, the House conferees shall include the Senate provisions preventing corporations to avoid U.S. tax by merely reincorporating in a tax haven overseas. I have yet to meet anybody who believes that Tyco is a Bermuda-based company. I have never understood why House Republican leaders insist on defending companies that move to tax havens to avoid paying their fair share of tax, particularly at a time when we are engaged in combat overseas. Patriotism should never take a back seat to profits.

Second, the House shall include the Senate provisions addressing corporate tax avoidance transactions, including provisions targeting tax avoidance transactions utilized by the Enron Corporation. At one time we were prepared to give them, as we repealed the corporate alternative minimum tax, a $250 million tax break. These transactions are purely paper transactions that have no purpose other than tax avoidance. The House has resisted action in this area for years, permitting corporations to continue to avoid their responsibilities. It is time to close and stop those transactions.

Third, the House conferees should be instructed to drop the House provision that authorizes private collection of Federal tax liabilities. We debated that issue years ago in the Committee on Ways and Means, and I thought that the evidence that was presented would have offered substantial support for the position as outlined in our motion to instruct.

Finally, this motion requires that the conference meet in open session and file its report before the House leaves for the elections. There is no reason that this issue should have taken so long to resolve. The bill that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and many of us introduced last year provided that it was possible to have a prompt bipartisan solution to the World Trade Organization decision. Instead, it has been decided to use this issue to provide more tax benefits overseas.

Essentially, it has been recommended that a tax increase on U.S. producers fund a tax decrease for offshore operations of U.S. multinationals. It is that decision and the decision to use this bill for narrowly targeted tax benefits that have caused trade sanctions to be imposed on some of our industries. This motion to instruct essentially rejects those decisions and provides a reasonable framework for properly completing the conference on this bill. I also would suggest that this motion to instruct urges the House to instruct the conferees on behalf of U.S. workers.

It is pretty simple. We provide benefits to manufacturers, particularly small businesses. We do not provide more tax incentives to move jobs overseas. And our legislation is revenue neutral.

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

Mr. Speaker, could the Speaker clarify that further? Was the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) correct in what he said?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chair for the ruling.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

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

I thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) for that clarification as well. I hardly think that it is inflammatory rhetoric, by the way, which sometimes we are not as good at as some people on the other side when it comes to addressing some of these issues, but I hardly think it is inflammatory rhetoric to stand in the well of this House and to ask the following question: How did a $4.5 billion

problem become a $130 billion solution? That is really the point of much of the debate that is going to follow.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), ranking member of the Trade Subcommittee of the Committee on Ways and Means, and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time.