Pete Hoekstra

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Absolutely. It becomes a supplemental stream to the money that is already coming through Washington. We have significantly increased funding in K-12 education over the last 4 to 5 years and with the President's new Leave No Child Behind plan, those funding increases are going to continue. There will continue to be significant increases in education investment through the Department of Education. This now provides for those individuals in those communities that believe that they have some special needs or their schools have a special challenge or their schools have done a phenomenal job and they are saying, hey, we really want to put a little more money into these schools. It allows them a vehicle and a mechanism to do that, and they get a dollar-for- dollar impact. You put a dollar in, and it does not come with a mandate, and you do not lose anything of going through the bureaucracy of a Lansing, Michigan, or of a Washington, D.C. That dollar goes into that school. The decision as to how that dollar will be spent will be made locally, and it will benefit all of the children in that school. It is really a refreshing complement to the education funding that we already have in place. For a State like Michigan that has spent so much time and effort on leveling the funding so that across the State there is equal funding, this now provides an additional mechanism to now complement that because as we increase and level the funding in the State of Michigan, we also then attach a lot of mandates as it came back. School districts are struggling. They do not get enough unattached dollars, dollars that they have some discretion in how they are going to spend it for their local schools and to help their kids.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I think the other reason that there is a high level of excitement is, and the gentleman and I have gone through this a number of times over the last few years, you said when they watch what happens to their money here in Washington. We know that for quite a long time, when the money went to the Department of Education, we could not track it; that for 3 to 5 years, the Department of Education could not get a clean audit. We are excited by the work that, again, we did on a bipartisan basis during the Clinton administration to put pressure on the Department of Education to work towards getting to a clean audit. We are excited by the work that Secretary Paige and his staff are doing. It appears that many of these problems have been worked out. But we have to recognize that for quite a while we had a laundry list of scandals within the Department of Education and failed audits. That again was one of the things, a lot of my local officials were saying, Just give us this money directly. This is what tax credits allow us to do. I think we also need to scale this. I am not sure exactly how we go after this, but the Department of Education spends about $40 billion here and K-12 may make up a little bit more than half of that, $24, $25 billion per year. Our tax credit that we are talking about here is less than 10 percent of that. So this is not massive, something that says, this is the amount of money that is being driven by Washington and now we are going to match that by an amount that is being driven by local tax credits. We are talking about probably less than 10 percent of what is being driven by Washington actually entrusting a citizen in the local community to make a donation to their schools.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. People for the American Way.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. If the gentleman will yield, as we have gone around the country, the gentleman and I have been to a number of these places together. Whether it is Arizona, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Florida, there has been a lot of excitement around the concept of tax credits. The gentleman is absolutely right. Number one, this is a focus on the children, making sure that every child in America has the opportunity to get a quality education, that they can go to a safe and drug-free school. And that one of the ways of doing this, and this is especially true when we introduce the concept of a tax credit at the Federal level, it does become a massive infusion of new money into our educational system. But the difference between the money that is currently coming out of Washington and going to our local schools and the money that would be generated by a tax credit, the majority of the money that comes from Washington today that goes to your local school says, In exchange for this check, you will do this. As a matter of fact, in exchange for this check, you will not only do this but you will report back to us on a regular basis that you have actually done exactly what we have asked you to do. What happens with a Federal tax credit is that people in a local community can write a check to their local public school, their local public or their private or parochial school, and that money then goes into that school's fund either for a designated cause which has been designated by the school saying, hey, we are going to do a fund-raiser for a new fine arts center, or we are going to do it for increasing and improving our technology or something else, but then the people within the local community can decide whether they want to make that additional investment into their local public school. And so what we have seen, I think, in the States that we have talked about, each of whom has crafted their proposal in a slightly different way, but it has generated more excitement and more enthusiasm for all kinds of education and it has created a new stream of money going into the schools, with the most important thing being that it provides the local school the opportunity of raising funds for some specific needs that maybe only that school has. So this makes it very different than any of the other funding streams that currently come from Washington or that currently come from their State level. The gentleman is also absolutely right. As we take a look at how this has happened in the States, they have been bipartisan arrangements, so it has not been a group of Republicans or a group of Democrats who have pushed all the way through the process at the expense of the other party. It has been Republicans and Democrats coming together, suburbanites coming together with the folks living in our cities and saying this is a good way to go, this is a good way to structure an additional investment in education. I think we are all looking forward to putting that same kind of process together here that will lead us to a bill that this President can sign.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, the story of Samuel Adams begs the question: Where did Adams find the strength of his character and the source of his conviction? Adams gave the answer a few years later when Hutchinson's successor, Governor Thomas Gage, not having learned from previous attempts, offered Adams anything that he desired so long as he ended his opposition to the British Crown. Samuel Adams responded: ``Go tell Governor Gage that my peace has long since been made with the King of kings, and that it is the advice of Samuel Adams to him, no longer to insult the feelings of an already exasperated people.'' Adams' vigilance for the cause of freedom and his fellow Americans rested firmly on the peace he found not within himself or any person, or even within the cause of freedom itself. Rather, it came in character firmly grounded in an eternal security found in knowing the King of kings, the God of ages. It was his faith that served as his source of strength to stand for his cause, even when tempted with trappings of power and wealth. Where do we find our peace? Where do we find our comfort? In the past few months, we have been reminded that the blessings of wealth and power cannot alone provide enduring peace, or lasting comfort. These come from a deeper, more permanent source. I believe, like Samuel Adams, that it comes from a Nation of good citizens, who embrace virtue and exercise their convictions, no matter what the cost. Samuel Adams could have sold his character for peace and prosperity, but he did not. Adams knew that his reputation was more costly than gold, more influential than political position. And in his poverty of possessions, not spirit, he left us the richest of American legacies, a vigilance for freedom, a reputation of character, and a foundation of faith. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) for yielding, and look forward to spending the next hour talking about a very important subject, the topic of education.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. The reason I made the comment about Pennsylvania was only because Madam Speaker tonight is from the great State of Pennsylvania, and the next time we have this discussion on where we are going with Federal tax credits, perhaps she can join us and talk about the success or the rationale for how the Pennsylvania legislature moved to embrace tax credits, and I believe do it in a bipartisan way, move forward and get that done, and how that would then complement what we would be doing here in Washington.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

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

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3839) to reauthorize the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer). Working together, we have really set a nice tone on the Subcommittee on Select Education, especially on this bill which in the past on occasion has been a rather controversial bill; but we were able to work through this bill and pass something that has broad bipartisan support. We have been able to do that on libraries and museums; and over the last couple of months, we have begun that same type of process, expecting the same kind of result on reauthorization for the Corporation for National Service. So under the leadership of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) on the subcommittee, working with the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), I think we have set a good tone for this subcommittee in tackling some tough issues.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3839.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we are here today to consider H.R. 3839, the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2002, which reauthorizes and improves the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, CAPTA, the Adoption Opportunities Program, the Abandoned Infants Act, and the Family Violence Prevention and Treatment Act. I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their hard work and efforts in developing this bipartisan legislation in getting this measure here today for consideration before the whole House. I think it is timely that we are considering this bill today since April is designated as Child Abuse Prevention Month. I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) for his support of this bill and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) for his diligence in ensuring that infants born addicted to alcohol or drugs receive the necessary services they need. I also thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), the ranking member of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce for their efforts in getting us to this point. The Keeping Children and Families Safe Act continues the provision of important Federal resources for identifying and addressing the issues of child abuse and neglect and family violence and for supporting effective methods of prevention and treatment. It also continues local projects with demonstrated value in eliminating barriers to permanent adoption and addressing the circumstances that often lead to child abandonment. Mr. Speaker, this legislation emphasizes the prevention of child abuse and neglect and family violence before it occurs. It promotes partnerships between child protective services and private and community-based organizations, including education, and health systems to ensure that services and linkages are more effectively provided. The bill also appropriately addresses a growing concern over parents being falsely accused of child abuse and neglect and the aggressiveness of social workers in their child abuse investigations. The bill increases public education opportunities to strengthen the public's understanding of the child protection system and appropriate reporting of suspected incidents of child maltreatment. The act fosters cooperation between parents and child protective service workers by requiring case workers to inform parents of the allegations made against them, and improves the training opportunities and requirements for child protective services personnel regarding the extent and limits of their legal authority and the legal rights of parents and legal guardians. Lastly, this bill expands adoption opportunities to allow services for infants and young children who are disabled or born with life- threatening conditions. It requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct a study on the annual number of infants and young children abandoned each year, and extends the authorization for the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act. I again thank my colleagues for their work on this bill and urge them to join me in support of this bipartisan effort to improve the prevention and treatment of child abuse and family violence by supporting H.R. 3839. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, having no further requests for time, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to again thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, especially for the last few minutes of creative debate where not only could we talk about the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2002, but also to be informed on the Baca Motion to Instruct tonight. But I am glad that we have been able to do that in a bipartisan way, as we have also been able to move this bill forward in a bipartisan way. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of H.R. 3839.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the hard work and achievement of Mr. Mark Grimmette, who won the silver medal in the doubles luge at the Salt Lake City Winter Olympic games. Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time Mr. Grimmette has won an Olympic medal. He also won a bronze medal at the Winter Olympic games held in Nagano, Japan in 1998. In winning the bronze, Mr. Grimmette helped end a 34-year medal drought for America in the Olympic luge event. In addition to his excellence in the Olympics, Mr. Grimmette is also a three-time U.S. national champion in the luge with his doubles partner, Brian Martin. The duo won the World Cup championship in 1998, and won two bronze medals during the 2001-2002 World Cup season. Mr. Grimmette took his first luge slide at the age of 14 on a track he helped build in his hometown of Muskegon, Michigan, which is located in the 2nd Congressional District of Michigan. That slide began a momentous journey that has taken him to the top in Olympic achievement and ultimately earned him recognition as one of the world's best lugers. Mr. Speaker, Mark Grimmette represents a proud and longstanding Olympic tradition in Michigan. He has earned much deserved recognition for his accomplishments, and I salute him on his recent Olympic success.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Committee on the Budget for yielding me this time and compliment him for his leadership in putting together a budget that is good for American families. All over America, families will ask, Is this a good budget for America's families? And it is. It is a balanced approach. It balances our national defense needs, our homeland security, economic needs, and the priorities for our families. It is a balanced approach. We have made the critical decisions and we have made the critical choices as to where we will invest the $2.1 trillion. Again, this budget will be criticized; but our colleagues on the other side have no Democrat substitute. In the Committee on the Budget, we got an idea as to what a substitute might look like if it were proposed. There was $175 billion to $200 billion of new spending. Zero of it would be used to reduce the national debt. Zero would be used for Social Security. Zero would be used for national defense. Zero would be used for homeland security. $175 billion of it, all of it, would be used to increase Washington spending. We do not necessarily believe that that is the best approach for America's families, because if they were not going to increase our national debt, what they would have had to have done is they would have had to have increased taxes. The last time they increased taxes on American families, let us take a look at what they did. They retroactively increased the death tax, they increased taxes on Social Security, they raised Medicare taxes, they raised the gas taxes, they raised personal income tax rates, and they raised the corporate tax rate. That is not a balanced approach for America. We have made the tough decisions that will secure the future for America's families. Let us take a look at some of the choices that we have made. Let us take a look at what we have done in the area of education. In the last 6 years, we have doubled the investment in our children, the dollars that we have invested in education. This now will enable us to build on those results and continue moving forward in this critical area. The one that perhaps makes the most difference to our local school districts is what we have done for our children with special education needs. Not only do we focus on a priority, but every time we invest in special education we fulfill a commitment that we have made, that we made way back in the 1960s as to funding this and what the Washington commitment would be. Republican Congresses have tripled funding for IDEA funding in the last 6 years. We increase that by another $1 billion in this budget, and we put in place a plan so that within the next 10 years we will fully fund our commitment. It is our commitment to these special students, and it is our commitment to local school districts which will free up a lot of education dollars at the local district that they can then drive. We maintain our commitment to higher education by continuing to fund Pell grants at $4,000. We increase funding for low- income school districts. We put an emphasis on reading first. We have committed to our families and to America that we will keep our focus on education. We also will ensure that we improve health care. We have set aside $5.9 billion for bioterrorism. We have set aside $350 billion to develop a Medicare prescription drug plan. We have carried through, and this is the final installment, of doubling funding over 5 years for the National Institutes of Health. We improve veterans health care. We improve community health centers and health center programs for rural areas. We are committed to continuing our focus on health care and retirement. This is a balanced, good approach that will secure the future for America's families.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce the ``Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2002'' to reauthorize the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), the Adoption Opportunities program, the Abandoned Infants Act, and the Family Violence Prevention and Treatment Act (FVPSA). According to recent statistics, almost 3 million reports of possible child maltreatment were made to child welfare agencies in 1999. Approximately 60 percent of these reports were investigated and 826,000 children were estimated to have been victims of abuse or neglect in 1999. While the overall number represents a continuation of a downward trend since 1993, the long-term trend in child abuse reporting has been one of substantial growth, with the number of maltreatment reports more than quadrupling since 1976. However, it should be noted that increased reporting of abuse and neglect does not necessarily mean an equivalent increase in substantiated cases of abuse and neglect. While the proportion of child maltreatment reports that are substantiated has grown smaller over time, the number of reported child abuse cases is likely higher due to improved surveillance mechanisms. Despite progress made in promoting child abuse awareness and the endless efforts made to prevent child abuse and neglect, much more work is needed. In addition, family violence continues to be the most common, yet least reported crime in our nation. Approximately 95 percent of family violence victims are women, and it is estimated that every 11 seconds a woman is battered in the United States. It is also estimated that 70 percent of men who abuse their wives also abuse their children, and children from abusive homes are at greater risk of alcohol or drug abuse and juvenile delinquency. Mr. Speaker, the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2002 continues to provide important federal resources for identifying and addressing the issues of child abuse and neglect and family violence, and to support effective methods of prevention and treatment. It also continues local projects with demonstrated value in eliminating barriers to permanent adoption and addressing the circumstances that often lead to infant abandonment. This legislation emphasizes the prevention of child abuse and neglect and family violence before it occurs. It promotes partnerships between child protective services and private and community-based organizations to ensure that services are more effectively provided, and supports public education on child abuse and neglect by strengthening the public's understanding of the role of child protective services and appropriate methods for public reporting of suspected incidents of child maltreatment. This legislation also fosters cooperation between parents and child protective services workers by requiring case workers to inform parents of the their rights and the allegations made against them. Further, this legislation is designed to improve the training, recruitment and retention of individuals providing services to children and ensures the appropriate supervision of these individuals. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to back this important legislation that supports improved services for children and families.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Museum and Library Services Act. I would like to thank the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Select Education, Mr. Roemer, for working with me to put together a bill that I trust will have broad, bipartisan support in the Congress. The Museum and Library Services Act of 1996 authorizes the Federal library and museum program until the end of fiscal year 2002. The Subcommittee on Select Education of the Committee on Education and the Workforce has been working to reauthorize the Museum and Library Services Act before it expires. I believe there will be broad support for this reauthorization because museums and libraries are a vital part of our society. Attendance at American museums is now at more than 865 million visits per year and today's 21st century library is not just a provider of books; instead, the typical American library coordinates a complete and comprehensive approach to community development and services. Under current law, the Museum and Library Services Act: Provides modest but essential federal support, in partnership with State and local private and public sector sources, for museum and library contributions to public education services and stewardship of the Nation's cultural heritage collections; Funds the one Federal agency (the Institute of Museum and Library Services) devoted exclusively to museums and libraries, which are natural partners with out nation's schools; and Encourages model cooperation between museums and libraries as no other legislation does. The Library Services and Technology subtitle is the only Federal program solely devoted to supporting libraries. This legislation assists libraries in providing crucial services to the communities they serve. Throughout our Nation, libraries are at the forefront of reading and family literacy programs. And importantly, libraries serve as essential links to the business community, assisting with job creation and training programs, and assisting with business development initiatives as well. They are also critical to many people with disabilities, providing them with specialized materials and resources that are obtainable in a single location. For older Americans, libraries provide a place to interact with others, use the Internet, and receive services. For those persons of limited resources or who live in remote areas, libraries provide access to books and reference materials, computers and the Internet, and community-based social services that are often available no where else. The Museum and Library Services Act also supports museums in their educational role and assists museums in modernizing their methods and facilities so that they are better able to conserve the cultural, historic, and scientific heritage of the United States. Museums play an important role in the education of people of all ages. Specifically, most American museums provide K-12 educational programming, with most using local and State curriculum standards to shape their programs. Additionally, museums increasingly partner with libraries to offer joint educational opportunities for adults as well as children. Museums can be an important source of cultural and historical knowledge for people, as they learn about the history and traditions of our country and our shared identity as Americans. Museums increasingly serve as places where people of different backgrounds, economic levels and home locations come together and not only share the experience of viewing their community's artifacts and natural objects, but also discuss community issues. The Museum and Library Services Act of 2002 makes several modifications to current law to streamline and strengthen museum and library services across the country: Coordination--Ensures that library activities are coordinated with activities under P.L. 107-110, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001; Museum and Library Services Board--Eliminates references to the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science and consolidates its advisory responsibilities under the existing Museum Services Board that will expand to include library services. The purpose of this change is to consolidate museum and library board activities under a single statute; National Awards for Museum and Library Service--Authorizes the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) Director to award a National Award for Library Service as well as a National Award for Museum Service; Analysis of Impact of Museum and Library Services--Ensures that administrative funds are also used to conduct annual analyses of the impact of museum and library services to identify needs and trends of services provided under museum and library programs; and Minimum Allotment--Increases the minimum State allotment for library programs to $500,000 (roughly a 46 percent increase over current law). I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle cosponsor the Museum and Library Services Act of 2002. I look forward to moving this legislation through the Committee on Education and the Workforce and to the Floor so that we can ensure that our Nation's museums and libraries are getting the best assistance we are able to provide from the Federal level.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, while the conference report that we are considering today includes some important and exciting education reforms, I will not be able to support this bill. However, I do encourage my colleagues to vote for the rule and move the bill forward. The bill is an important component that the President has outlined for education reform. However, it is only part of the President's vision. The mandates and the testing requirements in this bill are not balanced with the remainder of the President's bill, the parts that empower parents and free schools from the Federal bureaucracy. New mandates should not be the first step in education reform. I am encouraged that this bill has seen some progress since the original bill that left the House. High stakes testing, testing with rewards and sanctions tied to test performance, that has been removed. There are provisions that will hold schools accountable for student performance, and give children in failing schools opportunities for a better education. Also, States will only have to implement new testing requirements if the Federal Government steps up and fully funds this new mandate. As I said, I am also most encouraged that this bill is only a part of the President's vision. I look forward to working with the President and the administration in implementing the remainder of the vision that he outlined to the American people. These important steps, including empowering parents, giving States and schools more flexibility and fully funding our commitment to special education, with these opportunities, the accountability that is outlined in H.R. 1 becomes a reality because information is only useful if parents and schools can act on the information that they receive. As the President's No Child Left Behind plan originally stated, systems are often resistant to change, no matter how good the intentions of those who lead them. Information and parental empowerment can be the stimulus a bureaucracy needs in order to change. Once these additional steps that the President has outlined are taken, I believe we will have completed the goal of education reform that will give all students a chance to learn and succeed. We will have completed the remainder of the plan and vision of the President that was left behind. Through accountability, through parental empowerment and through flexibility at the State and local level, we will have a plan that will leave no child behind. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote for the rule. Let us move this process forward and let us move on to the other parts of the President's agenda.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. We have about 10 minutes remaining.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. The best thing for America is to get the stimulus package in place and get Americans back to work. It is the best thing for individual American families. It is the best thing for communities. Some of our communities are really hurting. If they have got some of their largest employers losing 20 to 25 percent of their employees, the whole community feels the pain. Our States are feeling the pain at the State level because of decreased revenues. We are not going to bail our way out of this by more government spending. But if the other body believes that that is the crutch that they want to build it off, we ought to maybe just say, fine, but what we want is we want the tax portions that will stimulate the economy because when we stimulate the economy, we will not need these programs so we may not in effect end up spending that money and we will get back to where we were in terms of before the recession hit and before the war hit, where we will be in a position that we will have a growing economy, people at work, we will lead globally, and we will be back to the position where we were which is paying down public debt and reducing taxes so that we can sustain this growth into the future.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank my colleague for yielding. Just building off the points, we maybe ought to start taking a look at this a little bit differently. Maybe we ought to listen to what the other body is saying. In the House bill, we had a pretty balanced approach. We put in the extended unemployment benefits. We put in the protections to ensure that more people would be able to keep their health care. That, I think, is the right thing to do, to provide the protection for these people in our districts who have been unfortunate and have lost their jobs. But our belief is that by doing the proper tax provisions and the proper incentives, we will stimulate the economy. But we ought to maybe just say, if you want to do some more of that spending or put some more of these government programs in place, put them in place, but give us the stimulus package, because we will recognize that if the stimulus package kicks in, the 13 or the 26 weeks of unemployment benefits will not be needed. And we know that if we got to next summer and they were needed, we would probably vote them in and through, anyway. Let us not be worried about an artificial number because the other thing that we saw in the eighties and again we saw with revenue growth in the nineties is that if the economy grows, what happened during much of the nineties, the economy grew so well, the biggest beneficiary was the Federal Government. And as surprising as it may sound, we could not spend it fast enough.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for taking the lead in having this discussion about economic stimulus. I think it is something that this Congress needs to act on, and we need to act relatively quickly. It is my hope and expectation before we recess for Christmas that we will complete a stimulus package, including many of the items that my colleague has talked about. In particular, one of the items that I think is very important to a number of manufacturing companies in my district, and that is about the accelerated depreciation that was included in the House-passed economic stimulus package. It is not actually a tax reduction, it simply delays some of the taxes that corporations will pay and allows and encourages them to invest, to invest in new equipment, new products, new investments which will increase their productivity, make them more globally competitive, and it gets corporations buying again and investing, which is good for all of us, and it is good for their employees especially. In Michigan, some have said this economic stimulus package is tax breaks for corporations, but it is tax breaks for corporations that kind of piggyback on the larger tax reduction package that we put in place this year which is all targeted at individuals and personal income taxes, so I think it is a very good balance. The end result is that it is corporations, and some corporations in my district have had to lay off 20 to 25 percent of their employees. It is our hope and expectation that if we can pass the accelerated depreciation, get corporations buying again, it will enable these corporations to put these workers back to work. The specific provision that we are talking about here is modeled after a provision that was put in place in the early 1980s. The impact in the 1980s was when we provided this accelerated depreciation, it spurred corporate spending, it spurred corporate investment and was really one of the things that enabled us to have the prosperity during the Reagan years. And as we all know, during the Reagan years the level of government revenues accelerated very, very quickly. It is good for all of us when we cut tax rates. Most importantly, it is good for American families because it puts workers back to work.