Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to quote what the President's spokesman said about what the President wanted. He, the President, wants to sign that legislation and hopes that the Congress will get it to him quickly. He believes what the Senate has done is the right thing to do, a good thing to do, and he wants to sign it. He said that on June 9. Now, that is what the effect of this motion is, and that is what the President wants. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The chairman is right. The views of the majority are often ignored in this House by the majority. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Rehberg-Hooley amendment, which strikes the provision in this bill that prohibits USDA from implementing mandatory country of origin labeling for meat and meat-products. Country-of-origin labeling is about giving people the information they need to make an informed choice to protect the safety of their families. Thirty-five countries we trade with including Canada, Mexico and members of the European Union already have a country-of-origin labeling in place. And American families recognize the need for this labeling--7 out of 10 people say they are willing to pay more to know where their food is coming from. At a time when food imports are increasing, but the number of inspections of imported meat is actually decreasing, consumers deserve that right. And given the record 57 million pounds of recalled meat last year, this effort is also about being able to trace back contaminated product in the event of a recall. Knowing the source of an outbreak is a critical part of that process so that we can quickly take action to prevent people from getting sick. This is critically important considering the 76 million sicknesses and 5,000 deaths that occur every year from foodborne illness. Some have argued that halting implementation of country of origin labeling for meat is to allow more time to consider the impact of the program on the food industry. But Congress already gave the USDA more than 2 years to design a program that is fair to all parties, including industry and consumers. Under that timetable, labeling is not scheduled to become mandatory until fall of 2004. Mr. Chairman, country of origin labeling will not violate trade agreements or lead to retaliation. It will not bankrupt the food industry. It will simply let consumers know where their food comes from. We owe the American people that. Support the Rehberg-Hooley amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, last week during consideration of the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, I spoke of how this administration and this Congress are making a choice between tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and other pressing priorities. As a member of the subcommittee, I know that the programs in this bill represent many of these vital priorities supporting our farmers, revitalizing our rural communities, and helping the most needy in our country meet their most basic nutritional needs, and safeguarding our food supply. Yet as a result of the budget allocation given to our subcommittee, the bill includes a nearly 5 percent decrease in funding for agriculture, America's leading domestic industry which brings approximately $2.1 billion into my State of Connecticut's economy and provides 50,000 jobs for Connecticut each year. One of the most critical things we do in this bill is ensure the safety of our Nation's food supply; 76 million Americans become sick and 5,000 people die every year from food-borne illness. At a time when there have been record amounts of recalls and ongoing concerns about USDA performance and the integrity of our food supply, this bill underfunds food inspection by $12 million. Last week we found out that imported meat inspections have gone down from 17 to 6 percent in the last year. This bill is headed in the wrong direction. In addition, this bill prevents implementation of country-of-origin labeling for meat and meat products. Country-of-origin labeling gives people the information that they need to make an informed choice to protect the safety of their families. Thirty-five other countries we trade with, including Canada, Mexico and members of the European Union, already have a country-of-origin labeling system in place. And American families recognize the need for this labeling. People say that they are willing to pay more to know where their food is coming from. At a time when food imports are increasing but the number of inspections of imported meat is decreasing, consumers deserve that right to know where their food is coming from. Given the record 56 million pounds of recalled meat last year, again, that is 56 million pounds of recalled meat, this effort is also about being able to trace back contaminated product in the event of a recall. Knowing the source of an outbreak is a critical part of that process so that we can quickly take action to prevent people from getting sick. Country-of-origin labeling will not violate trade agreements or lead to retaliation. It will not bankrupt the food industry. It will simply let consumers know where their food is coming from. I hope my colleagues will support the Rehberg-Hooley amendment to remove this provision from the bill. I am also concerned that the WIC program, which helps ensure that the nutritional needs of women and children are met, may not be funded sufficiently in this bill. That leaves no room for error. If the need increases, if food or infant formula prices increase, there will be no funds available to help those who depend the most on the program. Another priority is prescription drugs, which are increasing on average at a rate of 20 percent annually. The generic drugs program at FDA helps us address those concerns by speeding the approval of affordable drugs. Yet this bill underfunds that program by $5 million, in addition to underfunding the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act and the patient safety and adverse reporting initiative. All are critically important to ensuring the health and safety of every American. Mr. Chairman, budgets reveal priorities. They reveal values. This bill includes agencies and programs charged with some of our most important responsibilities, many of which protect and oversee the public health. Now is not the time to choose tax cuts for the wealthy over these vital priorities. We must do better. Failure is not an option.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule XXII, clause 7(c) I announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 1308. The form of the motion is as follows: Mr. Speaker, I move that the managers on the part of the House in the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 1308 be instructed as follows: 1. The House conferees shall be instructed to include in the conference report the provision of the Senate amendment not included in the House amendment that provides immediate payments to taxpayers receiving an additional credit by reason of the bill in the same manner as other taxpayers were entitled to immediate payments under the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. 2. The House conferees shall be instructed to include in the conference report the provision of the Senate amendment not included in the House amendment that provides families of military personnel serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other combat zones a child credit based on the earnings of the individuals serving in the combat zone. 3. The House conferees shall be instructed to include in the conference report all of the other provisions of the Senate amendment and shall not report back a conference report that includes additional tax benefits not offset by other provisions. 4. To the maximum extent possible within the scope of the conference, the House conferees shall be instructed to include in the conference report other tax benefits for military personnel and the families of the astronauts who died in the Columbia disaster. The House conferees shall, as soon as practical after the adoption of this motion, meet in open session with the Senate conferees and the House conferees shall file a conference report consistent with the preceding provisions of this instruction, not later than Friday, July 18, 2003.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the legislation that passed this body a few weeks ago will essentially turn the Medicare program over to private health insurance and the HMOs, the very organizations that have dropped 52 percent of the Medicare enrollees in my State of Connecticut over the last 4 years. It will do so by requiring fee-for-service Medicare to compete against private plans to offer doctor and hospital coverage by the year 2010. You know the phrase ``buyer beware''? Let me just say, seniors beware. There has been no HMO or private health insurer who has come forward to date since the passage of this legislation to say they want to do this. And they do not want to do it. Why? Because they do not believe that it is going to be profitable to them. And what they want from the Federal Government is a guarantee that they will get subsidies from the Federal Government to make sure that their profit margins are what they want. The goal of the Republican bill is simple: lure beneficiaries away from the program. Leave Medicare to care for only the sickest seniors. Drive up the program's costs and effectively turn Medicare into a program that could be cut or even eliminated. This is the beginning of the end of Medicare. It will turn it into a voucher program. And you know, down the road, if seniors decide to choose the Medicare program versus a private program, they will be penalized by paying a higher premium. That is the choice that they are going to have. It is not the Medicare in which my 89-year-old mother is enrolled today, one that has provided quality health care and a measure of economic security to hundreds of millions of seniors over the past 4 decades. Let us not privatize Medicare. Let us strengthen it so that, in fact, we can prepare for the retirement of the baby boom generation. Let us provide them a real benefit that offers seniors a reliable prescription drug benefit that does not change from ZIP code to ZIP code the way this motion to instruction wants to engage in. Let me tell you that the Medicare prescription drug proposal that has been proposed on the other side does not begin until 2006, pegs their costs to the increased cost of prescription drugs, and does not allow any government to drive down the costs of prescription drugs. It is wrong. Let us pass this motion to instruct and do something that will be beneficial for seniors.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chairman, the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education bill has always reflected our priorities as a Nation. I believe we have an obligation to the people of this country to provide services that help us meet the most basic needs we have as a community, be they health, the education of our children, or scientific research that finds the medical cures for tomorrow. Wherever one stands on the distribution of tax cuts that the Republican leadership in this Congress has passed, it is undeniable that they have significantly limited this government's ability to meet those challenges and to do our jobs. And of all the glaring inadequacies in this bill, cutting funding for the National Institutes of Health, the largest and the most distinguished biomedical research organization in the world, might be the most egregious. It is not overstating the case to say that the NIH has prolonged or improved the life of every American. Childhood leukemia, because of research at NIH, the cure rate is now 80 percent. Diabetes, because of new treatments in Type 1, diabetics are now producing their own insulin, no longer requiring daily injections. NIH is also working on state-of-the-art treatments for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and HIV. As someone who was diagnosed with the deadliest of gynecological cancers, ovarian, more than 17 years ago, I know firsthand how this research has changed lives. It saved mine. And today, because of a new test to find ovarian cancer in its earliest stages, through a simple blood screening, millions of women will get the treatment that they need when it is most effective. That is the power of the NIH. All of this has only been made possible because of a commitment we have had in the Congress to double the NIH's budget which created the most outstanding generation of basic and clinical scientists in history. So what does this bill do? It breaks that commitment to double the NIH budget. It cuts NIH funding in real dollar terms. There will be no room to fund new research ideas, or little room. It will threaten NIH's abilities to continue its support for large clinical trials that go well beyond what the industry can fund. And by effectively paving the way for smaller, less expensive studies and clinical trials, scientific research will often be reduced to mere suggestions and not definitive conclusions. Mr. Chairman, say what you will about the virtues of tax cuts, they do not save lives. Americans need to recognize that this debate is really about choice. It is a choice between medical research that touches every single American life, every life, and a trillion dollar tax cut that affects mainly the wealthiest in this country. And I guarantee that if Americans are forced to make that choice, that if the facts are laid before them, they would choose medical research each and every time. For generations this body has made the right choice. Oppose this bill. It is an abdication of our responsibility to millions of American families and to this institution.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues wanted to make life more difficult for single mothers, for women trying to work their way through school, for women trying their hardest to scrape by for themselves and for their children, they could hardly do worse than the Labor Department's proposed rule to effectively repeal the 40 hour workweek and end overtime pay. The rule is designed to give flexibility to companies, not to families, but flexibility to withhold rightfully earned pay from their employees by weakening the 1938 Fair Standards Labor Act, protections that safeguard our workers' rights today and make mandatory overtime a less attractive option for the employer. For 70 years, overtime pay has been time and a half. It has kept the workweek for millions of Americans from becoming unmanageably long. It allowed the employee some flexibility to make some extra cash, and for anyone who relies on cash overtime pay, it is the only way to put a roof over their family's heads, to buy groceries and pay their medical bills. Without overtime, countless Americans would be forced to take a second job to make up for the lost earnings. It would mean more time away from their families and higher child care costs. Supporters will tell my colleagues that in lieu of overtime pay, workers will be given compensatory time, but employers have the right to decide when or even if the worker gets the time to take his time. It paves the way for mandatory overtime. Working women will lose control of their schedule. Any mother with a child knows, in child care, if you work late, you need to make arrangements in advance or you pay higher fees for child care. Without proper protections for these women, they can be forced by their employer to work late for longer and for less on top of having to pay more for child care and for transportation. The administration has threatened to veto this bill should the Obey- Miller amendment be adopted. That is a fight that they cannot win, and they cannot win it because this rule reduces the quality of life for millions of American families by making them work harder and longer for less money, and the American people are not going to stand for that. Support the Obey-Miller amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to join the many family, friends, and well-wishers who have gathered to extend my sincere congratulations to William Menna--known to friends as ``Wild Bill''--as he celebrates his eightieth birthday. This is an important milestone for one of the most well-known and respected of our community leaders. For ``Wild Bill,'' public service has not been just a job, but a way of life. Born and raised in Derby--Connecticut's smallest city--Bill joined the United States Navy upon graduating. Serving for four years during the World War II, he did tours in both the European and Pacific Theaters. After leaving the service, Bill returned to Connecticut and made a home with his wife, Mary, in Ansonia where they lived happily for almost fifty years before her passing. For as long as Valley residents can remember, Bill has been involved in both local and state politics. A State Representative, Mayor, and vocal community advocate--Bill's commitment and dedication to his community is unquestioned. He has long been known as one to fight for and give voice to those most in need. In addition to his political life, Bill has also volunteered countless hours to a variety of local service organizations. Currently he serves as a Board member for the Birmingham Group, United Way, Boy Scouts of America, and UNICO. He is a past president of the Rotary Club and has long been a volunteer for the St. Michael's Carnival, St. Mary's Food Festival and Holy Rosary's Food Fiesta. Bill's generosity is seemingly unending and the communities of Derby and Ansonia have truly been blessed to be the beneficiaries of his time, energy, and compassion. When we speak of the ideal public servant, of what it means to give back to your community, we talk of those who willingly devote their energies to enrich the lives of others. Bill Menna--with his enduring dedication and many years of unparalleled service--is a reflection of the very spirit of public service. His hard work has made a real difference and for that we owe him a debt of gratitude. Bill has left an indelible mark on this community--he is a true living treasure. I am proud to join all of those gathered today to extend my heart-felt congratulations to William Menna on this his 80th birthday. Happy Birthday! My very best wishes for many more years of health and happiness.

Mr. DeLAURO

Mr. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, in my 13 years in Congress, this House has sometimes risen to the occasion on matters of great national importance. My very first vote on the first Gulf War followed days of debate in which Members stated their heartfelt views on the prospect of war. After September 11th, we came together--Democrats and Republicans--to bind the nation's wounds and provide for the national security of the nation's victims of that terrorist act. I wish I could say that this is one of those eoccsions--I wish I could say that, as we consider the very future of Medicare, we could rise above partisan politics and ideological viewpoint and do the right thing by our senior citizens. Medicare is one of the most important and successful government programs ever enacted, a program that has provided quality health care and a measure of economic security to hundreds of millions of senior citizens over the past four decades. Together, Medicare and Social Security represent the twin pillars of a social safety net and constitute what is in effect a social contract between the generations--that if you work hard all your life you may look forward to a dignified retirement and economic security in your old age. I understand that we bear the responsibility of meeting the newest challenges that face our seniors--of finding new ways to care for our aging population and that changes to Medicare need to be made. Central to that process is dealing with the cost of prescription drugs and helping seniors afford them. Unfortunately, the legislation before the House this week fails on both counts. It does not deliver an acceptable or adequate prescription drug benefit and it will not hold down the cost of drugs. What it does do is open the door to privatization of Medicare--in other words, a return to the way things were before, when 1 out of every 3 seniors lived in poverty, largely due to the cost of medical expenses. Today, thanks to Medicare, that rate is closer to 1 in 10. This bill sets in motion the privatization of Medicare by converting the program into a voucher system--essentially turning it over to the HMOs, the very organizations that have dropped 52 percent of the Medicare enrollees in my state over the last four years. And it does nothing to contain costs. It prohibits the Secretary of Health and Human Services from even engaging in negotiations with the drug companies to lower prices. As a result, many seniors will pay more than they do now and their premiums will rise as the cost of drugs rises. But the most inexplicable aspect of this bill is the huge gap in coverage. Once a senior receives drug benefits totaling $2,000, he or she is cut off until her bills total $4,900, necessitating that they pay $2,900 out of her own pocket--at the same time that they pay premiums for this supposed drug benefit. It makes no sense. Throughout my time in Congress, the single most common concern I have heard from seniors at the local Stop N' Shop every weekend is how expensive their prescription drug bills are. Seniors know they are being taken advantage of. They know they can get drugs cheaper in Canada and overseas. And I assure you when they find out we are doing nothing to hold down the excessive profiteering of the pharmaceutical companies, they are going to be angry. When seniors find out that their coverage essentially stops during mid-summer while they still have to pay premiums, they are not only going to be confused, they are going to feel utterly betrayed. Mr. Speaker, we must provide a meaningful drug plan with guaranteed, defined benefits--with no gaps and no doughnut holes. We should act to contain costs by giving the Secretary of HHS the authority to negotiate lower prices so that seniors will not have to pay more than seniors in other countries for the same drug. And perhaps most importantly we should honor our social contract with America's seniors by not privatizing Medicare and subjecting seniors to the uncertainties of the private health care market. We should not be penalizing seniors who live in rural communities, where pharmacies and private plans are scarce at best. We should be giving them a plan fully contained within the Medicare system, where seniors will not be forced to shop around for a plan only to be unceremoniously dropped soon thereafter. Giving them a plan that seniors have come to rely on and feel safe with is what we should be doing. That is real economic security. Medicare--the same plan my 89 year-old mother relies on today. This debate is as important and historic as any I have been a part of in this body. If we allow this bill to become law, we are essentially tearing that social contract up--a contract my friend from Michigan, Mr. Dingell, fought to pass 38 years ago. And by doing so, we would be saying that guaranteed health care for our seniors is no longer an obligation or responsibility of this government. I did not come to Congress to preside over the dismantling of Medicare. That contract must be honored. I urge my colleagues to support a plan that does that.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the Republican Medicare bill fails to provide Americans with real prescription drug coverage, that which they need and that which they deserve.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, this House has sometimes risen to the occasion on matters of great national importance; the first Gulf War, September 11, when we came together to bind the Nation's wounds and provide for the national security of the Nation. Unfortunately, this legislation does not rise to the occasion. It does not deliver an adequate prescription drug benefit or hold down the cost of drugs. What it does do is open the door to the privatization of Medicare. It turns it over to the HMOs, to the private insurance market which has dropped over half of the Medicare enrollees in my State of Connecticut over the last 4 years. And seniors have not forgotten. This bill does nothing to contain costs. It prohibits the Secretary of Health and Human Services from even engaging in negotiations with the drug companies to lower prices. As a result, many seniors will pay more than they do now and their premiums will rise as the cost of drugs rises. Throughout my time in Congress, the single most common concern I have heard from seniors at the local stop-and-shops where I meet with them every weekend is how expensive their prescription drug bills are. Seniors know that they are being taken advantage of. They know they can get drugs cheaper in Canada and overseas. And when seniors find out that we are doing nothing to hold down the excessive profiteering of the pharmaceutical companies, when they find out that their coverage essentially stops during midsummer while they still have to pay the premiums, they are going to feel betrayed. And they are being betrayed. If we allow this bill to become law, we would be saying that guaranteed health care for our seniors is no longer the obligation or the responsibility of this government. I did not come to the Congress to preside over the dismantling of Medicare. Our social contract with our seniors must be honored, and I urge my colleagues to support a plan that does that and not this Republican sham. Oppose the rule and oppose the bill.

Mr. DeLAURO

Mr. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to join the many gathered to pay tribute to an outstanding member of our community, Susan Booth, as she is honored by the Devon Rotary and named a Paul Harris Fellow. The Paul Harris Fellow recognition was created in memory of Paul Harris, the founder of Rotary as a way to show appreciation for contributions to the Foundation's charitable and educational program. Every Paul Harris Fellow receives a pin, medallion and a certificate when he or she becomes a Fellow, identifying the recipient as an advocate of the Foundation's goals of world peace and international understanding. The commitment and dedication that Susan has demonstrated is indeed a reflection of all that the Rotary stands for. It is wonderful to see her work so proudly recognized by her community. Founder of the Archway Foundation, Susan has spent nearly fifteen years collecting donations to feed and clothe homeless children in Romania. Inspired by a television program about Romanian orphans abandoned when communism collapsed, Susan, a railroad conductor on a commuter train between Connecticut and New York's Grand Central Station, switched to night shifts so that she could earn a master's degree in Social Work. Upon completing her degree, Susan went to Bucharest on a week's vacation in search of these Romanian orphans who were living in sewers and abandoned buildings. With only a short list of contacts, Susan was fortunate to find an individual who knew where to look. ``In that sewer, I found my life's work,'' she has said. Indeed, she has dedicated countless hours to her mission. Operating out of her own home and a post office box, Susan collects clothing and donations and has been awarded hundreds of thousands in charitable grants. Through her hard work and the generosity of her contributors, Archway has been able to purchase two small homes in Romania as well as employ several Romanians. One of the homes is used as a soup kitchen from which volunteers take food out to hundreds of homeless children every week and provides groceries to squatter families who take refuge in abandoned buildings. It is not often that you find an individual with such dedication and commitment. Susan's good work has touched the lives of thousands of needy children. More importantly, she has inspired countless numbers of people to donate their time and energy to provide one of life's most precious gifts--hope. I am proud to stand today to join the Devon Rotary and the many family and friends who have gathered this evening in extending my sincere thanks and heart-felt congratulations to Susan Booth as she is named a Paul Harris Fellow. Yours is a legacy that is sure to continue to inspire generations to come.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my serious opposition to this point of order and point out the hypocrisy of what my friends on the other side of the aisle are doing here. I offered this amendment during the Committee on Appropriations consideration of this bill. It was accepted by the chairman and it was passed on a voice vote. Yet, today they use a technical excuse to justify stripping it from the bill. Just another gimmick. This amendment would do nothing more than restore the law to the form it held when 318 Members of this House voted for a motion to recommit that I offered to prohibit the Department of Homeland Security from contracting with corporate expatriates on July 26, 2002. But before that bill became law, loopholes were added that exempted most of the expatriate companies from the provision. Expatriate companies are those that go offshore solely for the purposes of not paying taxes in the United States. At the time the majority leadership said publicly that those loopholes would be closed. Last November 19 the former leader of the other body told reporters that he had received a commitment from the Speaker and the majority leader that this would be fixed. Unfortunately, we have yet to do that. We have an obligation to address this issue. American companies, particularly those contracting with our government, ought to be paying American taxes just like every citizen and corporation in this country. By this action, the Republican majority is demonstrating that they do not hold those same values. Since the majority leadership has failed to act, I offered an amendment in the Committee on Appropriations to close those loopholes added to the law last summer. Let me stress again that this amendment was accepted by the chairman of the subcommittee and passed on a voice vote. The amendment would simply prohibit Federal agencies from contracting with a domestic subsidiary of any company that has moved overseas. This will prevent corporations from setting up a shell company overseas but then continue to exploit the tax loophole by obtaining government contracts here at home. One high ranking Republican member of the Committee on Ways and Means said about closing this loophole that ``business does not like that.'' Is that how we decide how to solve our problem? This amendment would further make the contract ban retroactive so it applies to existing corporate expatriates. Finally, the amendment includes a waiver solely for the purposes of national security, which is what was included in the original ban passed on the floor. That waiver was unnecessarily expanded last year for all intents and purposes, making the entire provision meaningless. Evidence shows that corporate expatriates cost our government about $4 billion in revenue, funds that we sorely need. Yet they continue to receive $2.7 billion in government contracts after they have abdicated their most basic responsibility as citizens. We should not reward these companies with contracts from the very department that is charged with safeguarding our homeland security. We should not use procedural sleight of hands to disguise the fact that some in this body want to condone that very practice. I am not calling for a vote at this time, but I would hope that the House leadership will seriously revisit this issue. It is wrong. It is un- American, and it is a travesty to think about these companies who refuse to pay taxes to this country and yet want to be the beneficiaries of the dollars and the contracts in order to deal with homeland security. Let us live up to the commitment that 318 of us made last year.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on the point of order.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it was exactly a month ago that the House passed a $350 billion tax cut, a tax cut that promised working families, those families who make between $10,500 and $26,600, it promised them a child tax credit, and these are our families who pay taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, excise taxes. Something happened on the way to the bill signing by the President of the United States. The Republican majority stole that child tax credit from 6.5 million families, 12 million children. Why? To make room for a $93,000 tax cut for millionaires; 183,000 millionaires will get that amount in a tax cut. So I say happy anniversary. A week from today, 25 million families in this country will begin to receive their refunds in the mail, but not these six-and-a-half million families hardworking, tax paying families. These families are being held hostage, used as little more than a bargaining chip in the Republicans' never ending obsessive quest to cut taxes and cut them only for the wealthiest people. Among these families who will not be receiving this tax credit are 200,000 military families, men and women who if we open the paper we can see are still fighting a war. We are losing almost every single day one GI. They are fighting this war in Iraq. They do not deserve to be held hostage by this majority, a majority that has made no bones about their complete and their utter indifference to these families' plight. The people who have been excluded, these are some of the hardest working people in the country, people who earn minimum wage. They often work two or three jobs just to get by to help their families, and when we think about it for a moment, every minimum wage earning mother in this country paid more taxes than the Enron Corporation did. Enron Corporation paid no taxes in the last 4 out of 5 years. Every one of these families have paid more in taxes than a multibillion dollar corporation. Make no mistake, this is an all out assault on millions of decent families in this country who work hard. They play by the rules, but this majority cannot put partisan politics aside and act simply and decisively to restore to these families the tax relief that they have rightfully earned, and it is an outrage but it also speaks volumes about their values and their priorities. It has now been a month since this majority stole this child tax credit from these families. This calendar that is here tonight is here to remind this majority of those six-and-a-half million families that they hold hostage every day because they refuse to simply do what is right. We will count down to July 1 when 25 million families are going to get the child tax credit, but these hardworking families are not. Every day this injustice is not corrected, every day they ignore the needs of honest, hardworking families in this country, is another day Democrats will be talking about this on the House floor. Every day the House takes up another bill that cuts taxes for the wealthiest people in this country is another day that we will be talking about this on the TV, on the radio and in the newspapers. Every day will be another day that this will not go away, and it will not go away until this House has done something about it. So I want to let my Republican colleagues know in no uncertain terms that the clock is ticking. We do not need to see a 2-month anniversary of this injustice. The time to act is now. Twelve million children are waiting.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I will make two quick points. One, I think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and so described by Senate aides, Republican Senate aides and personnel who have said that, in fact, they passed this bill in the House because they knew it was never going to go anywhere in the Senate about addressing the child tax issue. That is 12 million children that were promised and 6.5 million families. The second issue so that everyone understands, the fact of the matter is that we have not closed the loophole on those corporations that go overseas for the ostensible purpose for paying no taxes to the Federal government. They set up a shell corporation, and then they even have the audacity to come back and try to contract with the Federal Government on homeland security. They do not pay their taxes. We do not let anyone else get away with that. Let us do something about the child tax credit.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Rangel substitute. For nearly a month now, 6.5 million families, 12 million children have been shut out of a tax credit that they deserve. I am talking about how this majority secretly eliminated the child tax credits for families who earn between $10,500 and $26,625 from the tax bill that passed this House last month. People who work, people who pay taxes, sales tax, property tax, excise tax, payroll taxes, 8 percent of their income. Instead of simply restoring that provision, the majority in the House of Representatives cynically passed a $82 billion bill for a $3.5 billion fix. Do you know why? It is because they know the legislation will never pass the other body. To the Republican majority, these families are just another bargaining chip in their endless quest to cut taxes for the most privileged Americans. The majority's leader and the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means have said that helping these families is not their priority, that they are not sure whether or not we will even begin the conversation between the House of Representatives and the other body to begin to work things out. But there should be no greater priority of this House than helping the families of 6.5 million families, 12 million children. They are hard working. They are tax paying. They are waiting for the relief that was promised to them. They also include 200,000 military families, men and women who are fighting a war, losing their lives in Iraq. We are now losing almost a GI a day in the war in Iraq and yes, it is their families, their children will not see this tax credit that they were promised. Quite simply, we must pass this substitute. It includes language from the other body's bill that would ensure that these 6.5 million families, 12 million children receive tax relief just like the 25 million other families who are going to benefit from the child tax credit. It also requires that the IRS halt work on an unfair action that they will deny the earned income tax credit that millions of families who have rightfully earned. The Republican majority has no problem with wealthy individuals or companies who paid no taxes. Enron paid no taxes the last 4 out of 5 years. They have no problems with those companies that go overseas only for the purpose of not paying their financial obligations and their taxes to the U.S. government, and they have no problem with this. And yet those military families, those individuals who may lose their life, cannot get $400 in a tax credit, in fact, that they were promised. What is wrong? This does not reflect the values of the United Nations of America. What underlies their thinking when they make these decisions? It is not what the great American tradition is all about. I urge my colleagues to support the Rangel substitute. It protects tax-paying families who work hard. They play by the rules. They have earned this tax relief. Restoring it to them is the right thing to do. It is the fair thing to do.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman, he says I voted against that bill last week. I will tell him my view and he can dispute this with me. It was a very good feel-good vote on the Republican side of the aisle, and that may be where his vote was because, according to Republican Senate people, Senator Grassley today--I am sorry, a member of the other body--a Senator from the other body said he does not have time for a conference. The majority whip in this body said no time for a conference. The gentleman felt good about voting for that bill because he knew that the Senate was not going to do it and, therefore, they were going to kill the child tax credit. He can say it over and over again. I would not vote for a bill that was instrumental in killing the child tax credit nor was it paid for. The bill that I voted for was being paid for.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note that we are dealing with an issue today that, as has been pointed out, that is really not in the realm of debate or action for the next 7 years when in fact what I think bears importance is to recount what has happened here in the last several weeks about a tax credit for working families, people who pay payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes and excise taxes, people who make between $10,500 and $26,625, again working people, who were told that they were part of a tax package, a $350 billion tax package. Oddly enough, their portion of the $350 billion tax package, $3.5 billion, was stolen out of the bill that the President signed 10 days ago, 2 weeks ago in the dead of night, and the promise that was made to these individuals was just pulled back in order that we meet the demand of those people, 184,000 millionaires in this country, who are going to get $93,000 a year in a tax cut; but we could not scale back 1 percent of that $350 billion to adjust for these working families. So the Senate in a bipartisan way, the other body in a bipartisan way, because they said that this was just plain wrong, came to the conclusion on a vote of 94 to 2 that we could address this wrongdoing and put $3.5 billion into a bill and address this injustice. And they paid for it. The President, I might add, or his spokesperson, said we ought to do what the Senate, the other body, did. It came to the House of Representatives where the majority leader of the House said we have more important things to do. What is more important? What is more important to do, give $93,000 in a tax cut to the wealthiest people in this country? Or allow corporations to go overseas and not pay taxes at all? Is that more important than the hardworking American families who pay taxes, 8 percent of their income in taxes, and they should be shortchanged on a $400 tax credit for their children? There is a basic and fundamental values issue here about who we care about and what we care about in this Nation. We had an opportunity and what the Republican leadership did, the other side of the aisle did last week, was to in fact come forward with an $82 billion package to pay for a $3.5 billion issue, and they did it for one reason; and I will quote the Senate Republican aide again. A senior Senate Republican aide said he expected the tax credits to die in a deadlocked conference which he said appeared to be the intention of the House Republicans. It was and is the intention of the House Republicans to end this tax credit for these hardworking folks. What people may not know is that everybody else in that tax bill is going to get their tax relief on July 1. Not the families included here. Military families are not going to get it. They are going to have to apply for next year. Two hundred thousand military families fighting a war, fighting a war on our behalf, they are not going to get it. This is an outrage. This should not happen. But over and over and over again, and today what we are talking about is a tax cut, repealing, permanently, the estate tax which I pointed out earlier, 46 families, some of the wealthiest families in the country. And we cannot take care of these families. I called on the President and the President said he wanted to see this fixed. The President needs to talk to the Republican House leadership, take them in hand and say, let's do what's right. Take the moral leadership, the moral leadership where the President stood up and he fought for the dividend tax cut, again to benefit the wealthiest people in this country. I believe he should take on the moral leadership to fight for these hardworking families.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, on the commentary for my not having voted for a child tax credit, let me just say we have voted six times on this issue. Democrats have voted for, Republicans voted against, including a motion to instruct on which Republicans voted for taking the bill that the other body passed and bringing it back here. My interest in this effort is not today, it is not yesterday, it is not in the last week. On March 12, I introduced the child tax credit in the Committee on the Budget and it was voted there for the first time. All of the members on the Democratic side voted yes. All of the members on the Republican side voted no against the child tax credit. This legislation we deal with today goes into effect in 7 years. We have an opportunity to right a wrong, to right an injustice, to pass a child tax credit, to take the bill, to go to conference and address this issue and allow these hardworking people to get their benefit on July 1 as every other American who is going to get the benefit of this tax credit will. It is wrong to do otherwise.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, this is not about family farms. In 2001, only 2 percent of the 2.3 million deaths involved any estate or gift tax liability at all. Of those deaths, about one-tenth of 1 percent incurred any liability at all involving family farm assets. How many is that? What does it translate into? Just 46 family farms incurred any estate tax liability at all. This bill helps 46 family farms, yet will cost $160 billion. So let us not be fooled. This bill is only about protecting those wealthy few, and the cost of this legislation comes directly out of vital services, job training, education, health care for working families. Even in the most robust economy, eliminating the estate tax would be totally irresponsible, a giveaway to the richest Americans; but at a time when we are experiencing $400 billion in record deficits, 9 million Americans are unemployed, eliminating the estate tax is not only irresponsible, it is immoral. This bill is an insult to the 6.5 million families left out of the child tax legislation, 200,000 military families, less than a week after the majority cynically maneuvered to kill legislation passed overwhelmingly by the ordinary body which would have corrected this injustice; and the House majority brings up yet another bill to cut taxes for only the wealthiest Americans. And if Members think it is only the Democrats that are saying that the Republicans are cynical in what they did last week, let me quote a senior Senate Republican aide. He said that he expected the tax credits for those working families would die in a dead-locked conference, and he said further that it appeared that was the intention of the House Republicans. And today the Republican whip has said our leadership is committed to the bill we sent to the conference. The majority of our Members are not going to accept anything else. They wanted to destroy the opportunity for working people to be able to get a child tax credit. That is what they did last week. At a time when there are hard-working, tax-paying minimum-wage- earning families, families of 12 million children, they have not yet received a penny of tax relief. The House's consideration of this bill is irresponsible. This is a debate about priorities. It is about values. I call on my colleagues to turn aside this misguided, reckless bill. I call on President Bush to use his moral leadership, help deliver the child tax credit to those 6.5 million families, those 12 million children. The President should urge his Republican leadership to pass a responsible child credit bill that reflects the principles of this great Nation. Give those 6.5 million low-income families the tax relief they need. They pay taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, payroll taxes, 8 percent of their income. Give them the tax relief that they need. That is what we should be debating today. Those families have earned it.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to join the many family, friends, and community leaders who have gathered to pay tribute to one of New Haven's most respected community leaders and one of my dear friends, Cornell Scott. His lifetime of dedication and compassion has made a real difference in the lives of thousands. Chief Executive Officer of the Hill Health Center in New Haven, Scotty has been the driving force behind its success for the last thirty-four years. His tireless efforts have literally changed the face of healthcare in this community and across the nation. I have had the privilege of working with Scotty over the years and I am in awe of his endless energy. He is an inspiration to so many and I consider myself fortunate to call him my friend. Established in 1968, the Hill Health Center is a private, non-profit community health center--the first of its kind in the State of Connecticut--which provides some of our most vulnerable citizens with the medical, dental, and behavioral health services. Too often, those children, families, and individuals most in need do not have access to critical healthcare programs and services. Now operating in eighteen locations throughout Greater New Haven, Hill Health Center has become an irreplaceable asset to our community. Scotty's leadership, vision, and enduring tenacity has been the backbone of the Hill Health Center-- and for that we owe him a debt of gratitude. In addition to his professional career, Scotty has also played an integral role in many local service organizations--helping to shape our community and improve the quality of life for all New Haven residents. The Community Foundation of Greater New Haven, the New Haven Housing Authority, the Connecticut Association for Human Services are just a few of the area agencies which have benefitted from his time and energies. I am proud to stand today to join the many who have gathered today to pay tribute to my good friend, Cornell Scott, for his lifetime of invaluable contributions. He has left an indelible mark on this community and a legacy that will not soon be forgotten.