Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 295, which congratulates Focus: HOPE on the occasion of its 35th anniversary. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this measure, and urge all my colleagues to vote for it today.

Focus: HOPE was established in 1968 by the late Father William Cunningham and Eleanor Josaitis. The riots of 1967 had a deep impact on the entire Detroit metropolitan area. For all the damage the riots did to our communities, one positive and lasting impact was that they served as a catalyst for the creation of Focus: HOPE. This organization started out as a food program and grew into a broad-scale attack on poverty, racism and injustice. Today, Focus: HOPE is a vital part of Detroit and the surrounding metropolitan area, focusing its energy and innovation on practical solutions to the difficult problems of Hunger, economic disparity, joblessness, discrimination, and educational disadvantage.

I feel fortunate to have known Father Cunningham during the many years of his work with Focus: HOPE. This work continues under the guidance of my dear friend, Eleanor Josaitis, who co-founded this organization and serves as its chief operating officer.

As the resolution notes, Focus: HOPE has been a unique force for good for the past 35 years. For all of us who share Father Cunningham's dream that all people may live and work together in freedom, harmony, trust and affection, this resolution congratulates and salutes the contributions of Focus: HOPE to Detroit, the State of Michigan, and the nation.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is important we understand what the issue is here today and where there is a difference. It is not a question of extending the child credit; we favor its extension. It is not a question of accelerating the 15 percent refundability; Democrats support it and urged it before. It is not a question relating to military families; we Democrats have been urging that before and support it now.

So what is the issue here? It is interesting that my colleague from Michigan does not discuss either of the two

major issues. Somehow by using the term ``families,'' there is the notion that major issues can be avoided, that major issues can be skirted, that major issues can somehow be covered up by the use of the term ``families.'' We are not going to let that happen. Whoever is listening must learn the difference here.

Part of it relates, and now I am talking about the differences between the substitute and this bill, to low-income working families. The substitute would provide more benefits because for working families the threshold was indexed. We want to de-index it. That will help 2.5 million working families. We also want to increase the benefit for every family by indexing the credit.

I also now want to point out two additional major differences. This is not only an extension, this is a new tax break. This is not only an extension of this credit, this is a new tax cut. And for whom? It is a tax cut not really only for families earning $110,000 because they receive some of the benefits of the present system. For example, it goes up to $120,000, $130,000, et cetera. For a family of two with $135,000, they get 375 bucks for each child.

So this really goes beyond the present system, one that provides some relief for families up to $150,000 and in some cases beyond, depending on the number of children. Now, what this is, is a new tax break that goes beyond the $150,000, beyond $200,000, beyond $250,000, beyond in some cases $300,000. This is not a tax break mainly for middle-income families. It is a tax break for Members of Congress who have kids 17 and under. Do we need that tax break? I do not think so. I do not think so.

Under the tax legislation that was passed before, the very wealthy families have already received an ample tax break. And if the first chart would be brought forth, I want to refer to it. This is for family household incomes 200 to $500,000: $7,430, this has been the average tax cut in earlier years. And what this bill would do would be to add 2,000 bucks to it. That is what this bill does. Do not call it just an extension. That is point one.

So when I hear, as I heard earlier today, this is for families to buy diapers, to buy toys, to buy a swing, no. I am in favor of providing, and so are Democrats, the extension for families who clearly need it. I am not in favor of a new tax break for families who clearly do not need it, 250,000 bucks a year.

Stand up and say that you are providing a tax break for them. Stand up and say you are providing a tax break for the Members of Congress with kids 17 and under. What this is, is an example of imbalance of priorities and, indeed, of perspective. And to make it worse, you do not pay for it.

I ask that the second chart be brought forth. And I want everybody to understand what the Republican majority is doing here. This tax cut, the way they have tailored it, the estimate is it is going to cost about $228 billion. Of that, close to $70 billion is because of your new tax break. My gosh, you do not even pay for the child credit that makes really good sense. Okay. Should you not at least pay for a tax break for families making 250 and 300,000 bucks a year? That is not just fiscal irresponsibility; that is fiscal madness.

So that is why I rise today and urge support for the substitute and urge that people vote with some perspective, with some sense of priorities, and vote against the Republican majority bill.

It is not going to pass the Senate. I do not even know how you make it in order in the Senate. If this bill had come out of the Committee on Ways and Means, as I understand the rules, there had to be a waiver by rules in order for us to consider it today because it does not come within any budget.

So what we are doing today is in a sense going through the motions, and I am in favor of making clear to low- and increasing numbers of low-income families the need for a child credit. I am in favor of making clear an extension of the child credit for middle-income families in this country. It does not make any sense to dig a deeper fiscal hole for families making 200, 250, $300,000 a year.

I close with this and everybody take notice: what you are doing by giving a tax break to a relatively small number of families, not all of whom but many of whom are earning 175,000, 200,000, $200,000 a year, what you are doing is, in essence, putting a tax on all of the families of America, if not next year, in the future, because they are going to have to pay for the interest on this deep, deep deficit. And you are just adding to it.

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

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

I want to point out to the gentleman from Illinois that over 2 million children in Illinois will receive more of a benefit from the Democratic substitute than from the Republican bill and only the very wealthiest 4 percent of the families in Illinois will receive any of the new tax cut that goes beyond the extension of the present system.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), an active member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want anyone to be misled by the gentleman from Nevada. The $250,000 figure related to the Alternative Minimum Tax, not to the child credit. The AMT was never intended to apply, except to the very wealthy, and we want to make sure it does not. They have not stepped up to the plate on it.

Also, I want to point out that 400,000 children in Nevada will benefit more from the Democratic substitute than the Republican bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the active and distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina that about 800,000 children in South Carolina will benefit more from the Democratic alternative than the Republican bill, and that less than 3 percent of the families in the gentleman's State would benefit from the additional $70 billion in tax cuts in the Republican bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my privilege and pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our distinguished whip.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

I just want to say to the gentleman, this is not about tax relief for people who need money to buy hamburgers or books. You add $60 billion, $8 billion, $70 billion to the debt, in large part for families making $200,000, $250,000.

Mr. Speaker, how much time is left?

Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman ready to close?

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), our very distinguished colleague.

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

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and myself, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), a very distinguished colleague and member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Do not keep repeating a big fib. The AMT was not supposed to cover except a small minority of the taxpayers. We did not define a certain amount as middle class. It is not in that legislation.

Do not repeat it. It is not true. This is a child credit. You are adding on to an extension $70 billion in large part, substantial part, for very high-income families beyond $250,000. This is not the AMT; this is the child credit. Get off your big fib.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Look, the 10 percent applied across the board, and so much of it went to families other than the very wealthy. So much of this proposal of yours goes to families that are very wealthy. That is the difference.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), one of the cosponsors of the substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

I want to say respectfully to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), what the majority's bill does, adding a new tax cut, gives a tax cut to Members in the gentleman's position, not to families who are struggling to find money to buy books or buy hamburgers; and to dig a deeper hole for that reason is a mistake.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

I have no idea what the gentleman was referring to. No idea.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

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

The issue is not extension of the child credit. We favor it. Nor taking into account the needs of military families. We are very much for it.

There is a difference and a big difference. Why should we create a new tax program here? Why? Why for families making $300,000, $250,000? Are they the families in need? And is it right to do so when we add $70 billion to the deficit? The answer, I say to my chairman, pay for it. Pay for it.

You say it is not permanent and yet you say you are going to grow out of the deficit. Okay. If you are right, our proposal is permanent. If you are wrong, as you have been before, in some years we will take another look. Do not raise, I hope again in your remarks, even though when you have a message, you keep after it even if it is wrong, the AMT illustration. It is simply not correct. We do not use the term ``middle class'' in our AMT proposal. What we say is the AMT should be used for the same purpose as it was intended, for very wealthy families, and we are consistent because we say do not add a new child credit, a new tax break for very wealthy families when you are digging another $70 billion in the hole.

That is not fiscally responsible, as I said before. It is fiscal insanity. Do not raise children when your kids and my grandkids, if not my children, would pay for your irresponsibility, adding $70 billion to the already huge pile of debt. It is red enough. Do not add to it.

I urge that we vote for this responsible substitute and that we vote ``no'' against a very irresponsible, unneeded, additional tax credit that is in their proposal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, there was a story in yesterday's Detroit News, Michigan's uninsureds swells by 100,000 last year to 1.2 million people. I do not see how this bill will reduce that amount at all. This is supposed to be the week where we pay attention to the uninsured, but this bill really does not do that. It really turns away from them. I think we very much need to keep that in mind. That is the first point.

Secondly, it allows the transfer to savings accounts which really can become a dodge to escape taxation altogether. Even though it is a small amount of this, it is a serious mistake. We do not need more tax shelters in our Tax Code. We should not be feeding any moneys whatsoever into those shelters. This is what this bill in part does.

My third point, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery) works very hard on tax issues and knows the Tax Code well. I think this is a good pay-for. I think it is really irresponsible to bring another bill forth to this floor and not pay one dime. It is going to add $8 billion plus to our deficit.

And the last aspect of this is the following: If they do not like this pay-for, come up with their own, but do not come here without anything to say as to how it will be paid for except by our children and our grandchildren. I support the substitute.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution is written as if the administration's war in Iraq was right from the beginning and now is basically going well, and neither is correct.

It is written as if support of the troops is an issue. It is not. We fully support our troops.

What is at issue is the appropriate response of this House to the horrendous conduct illustrated in the graphic pictures of prisoner abuse.

What is in issue is the appropriate response of this House to the American people and to this House hearing the truth on TV while it was sitting undisclosed on the desk of high administration officials.

The proper response for this House is not just to pass resolutions but to be an active force in facing up to what is happening in Iraq and its consequences for our Nation and the world.

When it comes to events in Iraq, the majority in this House can no longer simply rubber stamp all of the actions of this administration or pass the buck to it or the Senate.

Turn down this rule so we can add an amendment requiring this House to step up to its responsibilities.

Mr. Speaker, the country should know there is a tax train wreck coming along the tracks here, and what is the Republican answer? Speed up the train, making tax cuts permanent, mainly, heavily, for the very wealthy, and they essentially try to hide the track.

First of all, much of what is being given is going to be taken back by the AMT. Secondly, while some is being taken back now, much more will be in future years. So what is the answer of the Republican majority? The answer is, oh, blame the Democrats because of actions taken what, 10 years ago, 12 years ago, 15 years ago. The Republicans have run this place for 10 years, and their answer on the AMT is always wait until next year. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) has heard that year after year.

When the Republicans took over this place, a third of 1 percent of taxpayers were subject to the AMT. In 2004, that will be 7 times as many. So what do they do? They extend it for 1 year, even though in 2011, the percentage will go up to 11.2, many, many, many times more than the number who paid the AMT when the Republicans took over.

So why do they not act? Because it is going to cost so much money. The estimate is that if this bill is extended and essentially made permanent, during the next 10 years, it would cost $550 billion, way beyond 17, and if you add interest, $650 billion it would cost. So the Republicans say, wait until next year because they know they cannot act this year and be honest with the American people.

This Republican majority simply cannot tell it straight to the American people. They set up a caucus, the Zero Tax Caucus. Why do they not just act this year instead of setting up a caucus that is nothing more than a smoke screen?

The substitute is an honest attempt to do better and to pay for it. The Republican majority does not want to pay for any of their tax cuts, even those that help middle income taxpayers, but most go to high- income taxpayers.

Vote for the substitute. Let us begin to be honest with the American public.

Mr. Speaker, we have two alternatives before us; that is not always true on this floor. Often Democrats are not allowed a substitute. This time we have been granted that. We should always have that, by the way. Always, always.

The alternatives are very different. The issue is not whether we want this to expire, I say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English). We do not. And surely it is not a question of fundamental tax fairness. Indeed, the opposite is true when you look at your proposal.

First of all, it does discriminate between couples of certain income brackets and couples in lower income brackets. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle do that. They differentiate, indeed, they discriminate. Why discriminate against working people who have less income and help working people who have more? What is the reason? What is the reason?

Well, I remember when we argued over the child credit, and my colleagues thought it was defensible to differentiate between those with kids who have certain incomes and those who have kids with less and lower incomes. All right. That is one difference between the two alternatives.

Another relates to the alternative minimum tax. And here, to put it charitably, my colleague is not telling it like it is. Because essentially what my colleague is going to do is to give to millions of couples with one hand, and they are allowing it to be taken back with another. Indeed, the figures I think are pretty clear that about half of what would be given through this will be taken back by the alternative minimum tax. One-half.

Millions of couples who think, because of my colleagues' advertisement, that they are going to get some help on a permanent basis, are going to have that taken back when they face the alternative minimum tax.

My colleagues have not faced up to the impact of the alternative minimum tax, period. Millions and millions and millions of taxpayers are going to fall within it because of my colleagues' inaction. And it is always next year they say that they are going to do something about it.

So that is a second difference between the two bills. We do not discriminate between married couples according to their income and differentiate against those who have lesser income. And we do not give with one hand and take back with another. We address the alternative minimum tax issue.

And, thirdly, and my Democratic colleagues have talked about this, and it relates, really, to the AMT, is my Republican colleagues' fiscal irresponsibility. They do not pay for this at all. They say the more debt, I guess, the better. That is their philosophy. The more the national debt goes up, the better. The deeper the hole, their philosophy is, dig it deeper and my colleagues think over time growth as some magic wand will fill in a deepened hole. That is irresponsible. Indeed, it is worse than that: it is dangerous.

So there are three basic differences between those two alternatives and why I urge serious consideration, indeed, all of my colleagues to vote for the substitute. It does not discriminate according to income. It addresses the alternative minimum tax so we will not take back from millions those that we pretend, or my colleagues pretend, to help; and it is fiscally responsible.

And if my colleagues vote otherwise, essentially what they want is not tax equity; they want what they think is a political issue. They are dead wrong. Americans do not want discrimination against low-income families. They do not want them to say one thing and then another thing be done through operation of the AMT.

And I think they are increasingly sick and tired of the fiscal irresponsibility of the majority in this House, the majority in the other House, and the chief executive of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 89th anniversary of one of history's most terrible tragedies, the Armenian Genocide.

On April 24, 1915, 300 Armenian leaders, intellectuals and professionals were rounded up in Constantinople, deported and killed, under orders from the Young Turk government. This was the beginning of a campaign of terror resulting in the deaths of 1.5 million Armenians and the deportation of more than 500,000.

The government of the Ottoman Empire justified this policy by claiming it was necessary to suppress revolts being launched by Armenians as a consequence of the ongoing military operations of World War I. This assertion was patently denied by survivors and witnesses. United States Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire Henry Morganthau reported at that time, ``Deportation of and excesses against peaceful Armenians is increasing and from harrowing reports of eyewitnesses it appears that a campaign of race extermination is in progress under a pretext of reprisal against rebellion.''

Not content with perpetrating this atrocity, the Young Turks denied a genocide had taken place. Generations have since been raised denying this tragedy. Such denials are refuted by the archival documents and first-hand accounts found in such recent scholarly works as Peter Balakian's The Burning Tigris and Samantha Power's A Problem From Hell. Director Atom Egoyan presented the horror of the siege of Van in his film Ararat, which was based, in part, on the memoirs of Clarence Ussher, an American physician and missionary working in Turkey at the time.

In Detroit and its surrounding suburbs live one of the largest Armenian-American communities in the United States, many of whom are the children and grandchildren of survivors or actual survivors themselves. This weekend, I will be attending a commemoration ceremony at St. John's Armenian Church in Southfield, Michigan, in which some of these individuals will be in attendance. To those who suggest that this ruthless genocide of a people and culture did not happen, I ask, what further testimony could the world possibly want?

Mr. Speaker, for myself and my constituents, I rise today to urge those who deny this genocide to accept it as fact. Only then can we move forward and stop these atrocities from repeating themselves over and over again.

Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation. I assume everybody else will. But let us recognize it as a baby step when we should be taking a much larger one, I would say a giant step.

I do not think any of us know enough about what is happening in the lives of the families of those who are serving, in many cases serving longer than they ever expected, and the hardship that is happening financially as well as otherwise to these families.

So we should be doing more than this. Indeed, we should have had a Committee on Ways and Means discussion of this, this bill did not come before us, to look at the panoply of legislation that we could be considering and enacting. One has been mentioned relating to the child credit. Another relates to the withdrawals from the IRAs. The penalty is now being taken care of. But how about when there is a recontribution to make up for what had to be withdrawn because people are serving, they are doing their duty, they are receiving much less pay, the families are living on much less? This was not expected. It was not something they could readily plan for.

So today we ought to be looking at this legislation as something that should be passed, but as something that should just be the opener in a full discussion in this House, in our committee, about the consequences that are being imposed really upon the families who are really in many cases in some economic distress. So let us just make this the beginning and not the end.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer my heartiest congratulations to Anna Sauger, a beloved mother, wife, and citizen who was born a century ago on April 4, 1904.

Born in a coal mining town in Portage, PA, Anna often speaks of the hard life for the family of eight boys and three girls. The family kept two cows for milk, two pigs and some chickens for fresh eggs.

Her father, brothers and other coal miners fought for an 8-hour workday, better safety in the mines, and ultimately formed a Union, only to face a lockout in this company town, and were forced to leave their homes.

Ultimately, the company settled; Anna continued her education in a one-room school house and married John Sauger, a young miner. They lived in a small house in an area known as ``Whiskey Row'' until they moved to Detroit in 1925, where she raised a family of six boys and three girls.

During WWII, Anna was one of many working women who helped build the arsenal of democracy. She worked at the old Packard plant helping build Packard-Merlin engines used in the P-51 Mustangs. Her other jobs included factory work at Bundy Tubing and Glo-Tone cleaners.

Then tragedy struck and Anna lost John, her partner and best friend, in 1971. John was also her means of transportation, taking her from place to place. At the young age of 70 years old, Anna secretly took driver's training and got her driver's license. She became the proud owner of a driver's license and a green Dodge Scamp.

Last year, when Anna was honored with a visit to her home by Governor Jennifer Granholm, she presented her with a handmade pillow and blanket, made on her 1956 Pfaff sewing machine.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in applauding and honoring Anna Sauger on the wonderful occasion of her 100th birthday. I am pleased to join her many friends and family in paying tribute to a new centurion and a life that represents so very well the challenges and opportunities of our great country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Larry Doyle, a friend and a talented local government administrator, who is retiring today after 21 years of dedicated service to the city I am pleased to call home: Royal Oak, MI.

Throughout his tenure, Mr. Doyle was instrumental in guiding the city of Royal Oak through many exciting changes. I have been privileged to work with him and have seen first hand his professionalism and his dedication to the city and its residents.

His service began during the initial stages of the city's revival, first as Deputy City Attorney in 1983, then as city attorney in 1990. With the completion of Interstate 696 on the southern border, Royal Oak began reaping the benefits of its central position in southeast Michigan. With his active involvement businesses quickly utilized the location and the opening of diverse restaurants and unique shops brought visitors as frequently as local residents.

After a nationwide search, the city leadership rightly asked Larry to take the management helm of the city in 1994. Over the following years, he set policies that aided in bringing the city a new ice arena, a new district court, improvements in city parks, as well as tremendous growth in property values. These efforts lead to the recent ``Cool City'' designation by Governor Jennifer Granholm, not only for a vibrant downtown, but for a desirable hometown community for residents.

Larry's commitment to the city did not end with the workday. As an advocate and a resident, he can be found supporting any number of local events such as the Woodward Dream Cruise or the St. Patrick's Day Parade. The people of Royal Oak have indeed been well-served by all of his efforts.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing a dedicated public servant. I am pleased to join with the residents of Royal Oak in thanking Larry Doyle for his service to our community and wishing him and his wife of 30 years, Sue, good health, happiness and success in the years ahead.

Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Maryland as usual has put his finger on what the issue is here, that is, whether we want to move forward with welfare reform or we want to move backwards.

The problem with the approach taken by the Republican majority here has been, instead of trying to reach out and move welfare reform to another stage, they have instead decided, on a very partisan basis essentially, to craft their own bill that really moves this backwards.

Let me just indicate why. The gentleman from Maryland has pointed out a number of ways. We need to accentuate this. The gentleman from California says we have to help families who are still on welfare, but the child care provision in their bill is very, very inadequate. The literature is not complete, we do not have all the data, but it is very clear that one of the reasons welfare reform has worked is because there has been considerable money set aside for child care. Indeed, President Clinton, who brought this issue to the fore many years ago, vetoed bills originally passed in this House because there was inadequate money for child care. Eventually this House, on a bipartisan basis, stood up and was counted on this issue; and we passed many, many more moneys for child care and eventually President Clinton signed the bill.

The contrast between the House and the Senate on child care moneys is very striking. The gentleman from Maryland mentioned that the Senate has now passed a $6 billion proposal, and I think it was a vote overwhelmingly in favor, while the gentleman from California and others get up here and defend a child care provision in the bill that was passed here on a partisan basis that is minor compared to what is needed.

Health care is another problem. If we want to help families move off welfare, we should provide adequate health care coverage during the transition period. The Republican majority here has absolutely refused to step up to the plate on transitional Medicaid. Absolutely refused.

And then as to the families on welfare, the gentleman from California mentioned they are moving out of poverty. An essential ingredient of that is some training so people are trained to be able to move up the economic ladder. But, instead, what they did in their bill was essentially to take out the training element as one of the ingredients of a successful effort by people on welfare.

Those are just three of the reasons. By the way, this training aspect is so vital, and I think the Republican majority in the House and the President of the United States have failed to understand, to face up to this fact: poverty is increasing in the United States of America under their domain. It is increasing. We do not have all the figures; but it is clear, I think, that many of those still in poverty are people who have moved off of welfare, who have not had the adequate training to be able to move up the ladder and still remain in minimum wage jobs. By the way, they refuse to raise the minimum wage, too.

We need to extend the present system, but we also need to move on to the second phase of welfare reform. I am hopeful if there is a bill that passes the Senate that there can then be a conference and you will not on the Republican House majority side be so recalcitrant and insist on taking good elements out of welfare reform, one, and also refuse to put some added ingredients into welfare reform, two.

You have stonewalled. It is not the Senate. They are now moving ahead. The question is whether you are going to be willing to be a partner with them and with Democrats in moving this ahead instead of moving backwards. Partisanship in welfare reform is a dead end. I hope you get off it and we can move as we did many years ago on a bipartisan basis and make a further improvement so people who are now on welfare indeed can move off it, can have the training, can have the child care, can have the health care so they and their kids can move out of poverty.

Mr. Speaker, we are asking that the previous question be defeated and that we be allowed to bring up unemployment compensation to extend it; and here is the reason:

I am glad we are debating this because the gentleman from Florida, by his discussion, has exposed exactly what is the thinking of the majority in this House.

Last Friday, I met a fellow, 55, an electrician, working for more than 30 years. He told me he was going to take his retirement, his pension, from the Electrical Workers Union. He was going to do so even though he lost a level of benefits. And I said why?

He said, because I have only 2 weeks of unemployment compensation left and if I do not take early retirement, I am going to lose my house.

And you on the majority side call unemployment compensation a handout? It is part of the employment structure of this country because with employment sometimes comes unemployment.

And you say get a job? You in the majority, who have been in the majority in this city, in the Senate, and occupying the White House, under whose dominion three million jobs have been lost, tell this fellow, and there are hundreds of thousands of men and women like him, get a job? That is an insult to the working people of this country.

So we are bringing this up because you will not bring this bill up for a straight ``yes'' or ``no'' vote. If you brought it up, you know we would carry our position.

The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) has mentioned it was said by Mr. Snow, the Secretary, that the President would sign an extension when there are $18, $19 billion in funds set-aside for this purpose. We do not want a President to passively say he will sign it. We want some leadership from the President of the United States for the millions of people who are unemployed and the hundreds of thousands of people who exhaust their benefits every month. Defeat the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Sgt. Larry Gibson, who is leaving the Madison Heights Police Department after 25 years of dedicated service.

During Sgt. Gibson's service, he devoted a good portion of his time to the young people in the community. Specifically, he created the Madison Heights, ``Say No To Drugs'' rally, and he started the D.A.R.E. and G.R.E.A.T. programs in the city's schools designed to help our students resist drugs and reduce violence.

He was a specialized training instructor in a myriad of areas ranging from accident investigation to gang resistance education.

Sgt. Gibson is the recipient of many well-deserved awards and commendations, beginning in 1984 until the present. The people of Madison Heights, and especially the young people, have been well-served by his commitment to making their city a safer and better place.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing good health, happiness and success to a dedicated police officer, Sgt. Larry Gibson.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my strong support for the Child Nutrition Reauthorization bill, H.R. 3873, which the House approved yesterday. This reauthorization, which only happens every 5 years, provides Congress the opportunity to examine the program, fix problems, and build on past successes. I am greatly disappointed that this year, my colleagues needed to waste valuable energy protecting existing programs from damaging Administration proposals, rather than using what our schools have learned to move forward.

When we started this debate a year ago, President Bush declared that the problem with the nutrition programs was too many children getting lunch. The President imposed burdensome new eligibility verification rules on our local school districts, despite research from his own Department of Agriculture showing his proposal would likely result in a reduction of eligible children participating in the program. I commend my colleagues on the Committee for ensuring that H.R. 3873 does not harm the School Lunch & Breakfast Program, or take food away from children who need it.

I am also pleased that the bill expands pilot programs such as the Lugar Summer Food Pilot Program and the Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program. In the State of Michigan, 11 percent of our children are considered overweight. Children participating in the Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program not only ate more fruits and vegetables, but actually purchased less high fat vending machine options, had better attention spans in class, and experienced fewer disciplinary problems. This pilot program has shown that, given the resources, schools can create an environment where healthy snack options can be a reality without

limiting choice, and I am pleased that more children will be able to participate.

While H.R. 3873 does not damage the very successful National School Lunch & Breakfast Program, WIC, the Summer Food Service Program, and the Child and Adult Food Program, I believe we missed an important opportunity to help our schools expand their efforts to fight child obesity, which leads to adult diabetes and heart disease. We call on our schools to provide a model of healthy eating habits, but often do not give them the full resources necessary to meet this challenge. Right now, the federal government reimburses schools $2.14 per free lunch served, $1.17 per reduced priced lunch, and $.20 per paid lunch. Our schools struggle to create any meal for only $2.14, let alone a nutritious one with more expensive fruits and vegetables. If we are to ask our schools to provide healthier lunches, we must provide them with the money to match such a request.

We also missed an opportunity to reduce paperwork and administrative burdens for schools already laden with burdens from No Child Left Behind, by eliminating the reduced price lunch category, and providing all children 185 percent of the poverty line with a free lunch. We should listen to school administrators when they describe the cost of this extra category in staff hours, and children not fed because they can't afford even the low cost of a reduced lunch.

Again, I commend the members of the Committee for protecting the successful child nutrition programs, and I am hopeful that in the future we can listen to our schools needs as they implement these important programs.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Republican budget resolution, and urge its rejection by the House.

Either budget deficits matter or they don't. If anyone here believes that deficits don't matter and that the Federal Government can continue to borrow and spend hundreds of billions of dollars each and every year in perpetuity, then you should vote for the Republican budget. Even if one takes the majority's budget resolution at face value, by its own admission the Republican budget adds another $1.35 trillion in red ink to our Nation's already soaring national debt over the next 5 years. In fact, the deficit would be far lower if the Speaker simply adjourned the House and sent it home for the next 5 years.

The reality is that the majority's budget cannot be taken at face value. This plan's deficit projections are understated. For example, the Republican budget provides $50 billion to cover the cost of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2005, but then includes nothing over the next 4 years. Does anyone here seriously believe that Iraq and Afghanistan will simply drop off the map and out of the budget after 2005?

The Republican budget also largely ignores the growing problem of the Alternative Minimum Tax. Some two and a half million households will get hit by this glitch in the Tax Code as they sit down to do their taxes this year, with the result that they will lose many of their itemized deductions and pay more taxes. The AMT problem gets worse year after year, affecting more and more middle class families. If this Congress does nothing, the number of households affected by the AMT soars to 12 million in 2005 and nearly 15 billion households in 2006. If we do nothing, the AMT will raise the taxes of 30 million taxpayers by 2010, and yet the Republican budget resolution assumes that Congress will do nothing to correct this growing problem in the Tax Code.

All of us know that we will have to address the AMT problem. According to the Congressional Budget Office, keeping the AMT at bay will cost more $600 billion over the next 10 years. Since the majority's plan does not budget for this expense, the funds needed will be put on the national credit card to be paid by our children.

The Republican plan seeks to lock in permanent tax cuts this year whose costs explode outside the 5 years covered by this budget, including the tax cuts for the very wealthy. The majority's budget puts its tax breaks for the very wealthy ahead of everything else: ahead of deficit reduction; ahead of preserving Social Security for the impending retirement of the Baby Boom generation; ahead of Medicare; ahead of veterans programs; ahead of needed investments in education, transportation, environmental protection, and health care. Even worse, the Republican tax cuts are heavily tilted to the very wealthy.

I believe that deficits do matter. Because of the bankrupt policies of the Bush administration and the majority party, the Federal Government will need to borrow half a trillion dollars this year alone. If this House approves the majority's budget resolution, you dig the deficit hole deeper year after year to the tune of several hundred billion dollars each and every year. This is not a sustainable policy, and it is a terrible legacy to leave our children.

I urge the House to reject the Republican budget and vote instead for the budget alternative offered by Representative Spratt. The Spratt alternative balances the budget, provides middle-class tax relief, and funds national priorities such as education, environmental protection, veterans benefits, and health care.