John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. The question is whether--I know the chairman wants to make this happen--if we could try to break this out and pass it separately, pass it in the House, and get this immediate assistance into the hands of the small businesses. It would make an enormous difference, obviously.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the administration has set up two major pieces of relief for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, totaling $62 billion, but not one penny of that $62 billion is designated for small business, even though there are several hundred thousand small businesses that are in need of relief in the region. Only 84 out of some 20,000-plus requests--only 84 requests--for loans or grants have been approved by the Small Business Administration. So this is becoming an incredibly backed-up, serious restraint on the ability of small businesses to get back on their feet in the injured areas. I know Senator Snowe is deeply concerned about it. I know a lot of colleagues are very deeply concerned about this. Is there a way we could try next week to break this out? It has passed 96 to 0 here in the Senate. We desperately need to get this help to those businesses in the communities.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Louisiana. She is right about the number that received checks. I think it was a total of 84 that received approval. But that is out of tens of thousands, as we have heard. The problem is, if you are going to bring the communities back, you are going to have to get these small businesses up on their feet because they are the heart of that kind of recovery. So again, I think it is a bipartisan initiative. And my hope is--I look forward to talking with the leader and seeing how we can expedite this. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Louisiana wants to speak in a moment. I want to make an inquiry of the majority leader, if I could. It will only take a moment. I don't know where Senator Snowe is. We were talking a moment ago. She is the chairperson of the Small Business Committee. I am the ranking member. We have been making a bona fide, bipartisan effort to try to get the Small Business Hurricane Relief and Reconstruction Act into law. It has been sitting up in the conference and is sort of stuck at the moment. The problem is that--Mr. President, could we have order.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to establish the Freedom's Way National Heritage Area in New Hampshire and Massachusetts. The bill is cosponsored by Senator KENNEDY, Senator GREGG and Senator SUNUNU. The bill proposes to establish a national heritage area including 36 communities in Massachusetts and six communities in New Hampshire. The area has important cultural and natural legacies that are important to New England and the entire Nation. I want to highlight just a few of the reasons I believe this designation makes sense. The Freedom's Way is an ideal candidate because it is rich in historic sites, trails, landscapes and views. The land and the area's resources are pieces of American history and culture. The entire region, and especially places like Lexington and Concord, is important to our country's founding and our political and philosophical principles. Within the 42 communities are truly special places. These include the Minuteman National Historic Park, more than 40 National Register Districts and National Historic Landmarks, the Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Walden Pond State Reservation, Gardener State Park, Harvard Shaker Village and the Shirley Shaker Village. In addition, there is strong grassroots support for this designation. The people of these communities organized themselves in this effort and have now turned to us for assistance. I hope we can provide it. Supporters include elected officials, people dedicated to preserving a small piece of American and New England history, and local business leaders. It is an honor to help their cause. Finally, I am very pleased that Senators from both Massachusetts and New Hampshire have embraced this proposal. I thank Senators Kennedy, Gregg and Sununu.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to establish the Freedom's Way National Heritage Area in New Hampshire and Massachusetts. The bill is cosponsored by Senator KENNEDY, Senator GREGG and Senator SUNUNU. The bill proposes to establish a national heritage area including 36 communities in Massachusetts and six communities in New Hampshire. The area has important cultural and natural legacies that are important to New England and the entire Nation. I want to highlight just a few of the reasons I believe this designation makes sense. The Freedom's Way is an ideal candidate because it is rich in historic sites, trails, landscapes and views. The land and the area's resources are pieces of American history and culture. The entire region, and especially places like Lexington and Concord, is important to our country's founding and our political and philosophical principles. Within the 42 communities are truly special places. These include the Minuteman National Historic Park, more than 40 National Register Districts and National Historic Landmarks, the Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Walden Pond State Reservation, Gardener State Park, Harvard Shaker Village and the Shirley Shaker Village. In addition, there is strong grassroots support for this designation. The people of these communities organized themselves in this effort and have now turned to us for assistance. I hope we can provide it. Supporters include elected officials, people dedicated to preserving a small piece of American and New England history, and local business leaders. It is an honor to help their cause. Finally, I am very pleased that Senators from both Massachusetts and New Hampshire have embraced this proposal. I thank Senators Kennedy, Gregg and Sununu.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I joined Senator Kennedy, Representative Frank, Governor Romney and Mayor Robert Nunes on a tour of the deteriorating dam in Taunton, MA. The dam buckled earlier this week under the pressure of heavy rain. Since the beginning of this month, Taunton has received 11\1/2\ inches of rain, with more than 7 inches of that from Friday through Sunday. As of this morning, the city remained under a state of emergency and there was still a significant amount of water behind the Whittenton Pond Dam on the Mill River. In speaking with local officials, they expressed fear that a major break in the dam could send 6 feet of water surging through downtown Taunton, flooding businesses and destroying homes. For now, the situation is under control but still extremely volatile. It appears we may have gotten lucky--but just because the waters are receding doesn't mean our work is through. Doing everything possible means the Federal Government has to give mayors and governors every tool they need to protect their communities. Today, the Army Corps of Engineers can help in Taunton only because it's an emergency--and everyone who has been praying that the dam doesn't break knows just what an emergency this has been. But according to the law, it's only at that point of no return that the Corps can step in. The Army Corps of Engineers has no authority to try to prevent a situation like this. Before the water came pouring through and 2,000 people were evacuated from their homes, the Corps was powerless to fix this dam. But it's not just on the Mill River--we have 3,000 privately-owned dams in Massachusetts. The Army Corps of Engineers shouldn't be handcuffed by bureaucratic red tape until we reach the point of a make- it-or-break-it crisis. If Hurricane Katrina taught us anything, it's that we can't let bureaucracy get in the way of preventing a pending disaster or responding to a looming threat. For that reason, I am introducing a bill to give the Army Corps of Engineers the ability to intervene to repair privately-owned dams for the sake of public safety. That way, the Corps can help in the kind of effort Governor Romney is now undertaking to inspect and strengthen dams across the State. Senator Kennedy is co-sponsoring this bill, and we will work together to make it law.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to voice my strong support for an amendment offered by Senator Kennedy to raise the Federal minimum wage from its current, astonishingly low, rate of $5.15 an hour to $6.25 an hour. An increase in the minimum wage is long overdue. Today, the real value of the minimum wage is more than $3.00 below what it was in 1968--and at the lowest real rate in half a century. Since Congress last acted to raise the minimum wage in 1996, its value has eroded by 17 percent. This indifference is simply unacceptable. To have the same purchasing power it had in 1968, the minimum wage would have to be more than $8.50 an hour. Yet nothing has been done, and the consequences of our inaction are very real and very painful to millions of Americans. Since President Bush took office, the number of Americans living in poverty has increased by 5.3 million. Today, 37 million people live in poverty, including 13 million children. Yet, despite the damage we do to our citizens and to our economy, this body has been unwilling to increase the Federal minimum wage. We had no problem passing a budget that gives tax cuts to millionaires and trillion-dollar companies. Yet we have had tremendous problems ensuring that hard-working Americans, Americans who work full time jobs and play by all the rules, won't have to live below the poverty line, won't have to decide between educating their children and feeding their family, won't have to chose between heating their home and buying prescription drugs. It is time for us to get our priorities straight. Seven and a half million workers will directly benefit from a minimum wage increase. Raising the minimum wage to $6.25 an hour would give minimum wage earners an additional $2,288 a year--enough to pay for a community college degree. Congress should act now to pass a minimum wage increase that makes up for our inexcusable failure to act in the past. I support Senator Kennedy's amendment to increase the Federal minimum wage, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I joined Senator Kennedy, Representative Frank, Governor Romney and Mayor Robert Nunes on a tour of the deteriorating dam in Taunton, MA. The dam buckled earlier this week under the pressure of heavy rain. Since the beginning of this month, Taunton has received 11\1/2\ inches of rain, with more than 7 inches of that from Friday through Sunday. As of this morning, the city remained under a state of emergency and there was still a significant amount of water behind the Whittenton Pond Dam on the Mill River. In speaking with local officials, they expressed fear that a major break in the dam could send 6 feet of water surging through downtown Taunton, flooding businesses and destroying homes. For now, the situation is under control but still extremely volatile. It appears we may have gotten lucky--but just because the waters are receding doesn't mean our work is through. Doing everything possible means the Federal Government has to give mayors and governors every tool they need to protect their communities. Today, the Army Corps of Engineers can help in Taunton only because it's an emergency--and everyone who has been praying that the dam doesn't break knows just what an emergency this has been. But according to the law, it's only at that point of no return that the Corps can step in. The Army Corps of Engineers has no authority to try to prevent a situation like this. Before the water came pouring through and 2,000 people were evacuated from their homes, the Corps was powerless to fix this dam. But it's not just on the Mill River--we have 3,000 privately-owned dams in Massachusetts. The Army Corps of Engineers shouldn't be handcuffed by bureaucratic red tape until we reach the point of a make- it-or-break-it crisis. If Hurricane Katrina taught us anything, it's that we can't let bureaucracy get in the way of preventing a pending disaster or responding to a looming threat. For that reason, I am introducing a bill to give the Army Corps of Engineers the ability to intervene to repair privately-owned dams for the sake of public safety. That way, the Corps can help in the kind of effort Governor Romney is now undertaking to inspect and strengthen dams across the State. Senator Kennedy is co-sponsoring this bill, and we will work together to make it law.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the original G.I. bill in 1944 made a sacred bargain: honor our troops for their sacrifice, and keep faith with our veterans by helping them readjust to civilian life. Historically, G.I. bill educational benefits have risen and fallen--at times covering over 100 percent of the cost of tuition, books, supplies and other educational costs. And we know how valuable its benefits have become in recruiting the world's finest military. But each year, the G.I. bill covers a little bit less of the cost of education in this country. It's a cruel mathematical calculation--the cost of a university education is growing faster than the benefits provided by the G.I. bill. Our troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world fight just as hard and sacrifice just as much as any in American history. Yet the G.I. bill--this great act of gratitude that transformed America 60 years ago--has not kept pace. Today, our troops return home to a G.I. bill that covers only 63 percent of the average price of a 4-year public secondary education. The result is veterans struggling to afford the education they were promised and have earned. The U.S. Congress should never break promises to our veterans--like 28-year-old Jeff Memmer. As a member of the U.S. Navy, Jeff served two deployments in the Persian Gulf between 1996 and 2002. When he came home, he had to take out tens of thousands of dollars in emergency loans and work part time as a bartender to get through school because costs kept outpacing benefits. He said, ``When I started putting a plan together in 1999, the benefit would have covered two-thirds of my tuition and costs. By the time I got to college, the tuition had increased so much it only covered half, and by the time I graduated it was only covering a third of my expenses.'' We are not proposing that veterans live in luxury while they earn their degrees. But clearly, it shouldn't be this hard. Take the case of Eric VonEuw, a veteran of 4 years with the airborne infantry. Even with G.I. bill benefits, he is working part time to make ends meet and cover the cost of his community college. If he is able to finish at UC Davis, his benefits won't cover half his bills. Today's military looks a lot different from the military I served in during the Vietnam war. Today, almost 60 percent of enlisted men and women are married. These veterans are faced with a choice: to borrow for their education or to take care of their families now. The amendment I offered on the Defense appropriations bill, cosponsored by Senator Ensign, would have required a report on G.I. bill educational benefits--who uses them, how they are used, and how they can be improved. The report would have included cost estimates to help us assess various options for increasing the value of the education benefits so they cover more, if not all, of the costs of a 4- year public education. In the course of preparing this amendment, Senator Ensign and I were invited to work with the Veterans' Affairs Committee to accomplish the same thing. We hope this approach will be successful and will therefore not bring our amendment to a vote. This is the start of an effort to improve G.I. bill educational benefits. It is not just the right thing to do; it is critical to our national security. We all know that this is the most challenging recruiting environment in the history of the All-Volunteer military. In a 2004 survey, servicemembers reported that the G.I. bill is the number one reason they choose to enlist in the military. We must make sure that we understand how those benefits are being used and what the alternatives are to improve them. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the letter I sent with Senator Ensign to the Veterans' Affairs Committee, which was mentioned above, be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this amendment is cosponsored by Senators Kennedy, Jack Reed, Dorgan, Jeffords, Mikulski, Lautenberg, Corzine, Kohl, Bayh, Durbin, Cantwell, Clinton, Schumer, Baucus, Harry Reid, Dayton, Stabenow, Harkin, Coleman, Snowe, Dodd, Levin, and Bingaman. I ask unanimous consent that all of their names be added to the amendment as cosponsors.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we set aside the pending amendment, and I call up amendment numbered 2033.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me begin by paying my respect to the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, who has for several years now on the subject of Iraq been perhaps the most forceful and eloquent and prescient Member of the Senate with respect to the events there. He has been consistent. He has been strong. All Members in the Senate are enormously respectful of his voice and his leadership on this issue. I know for the Senator from West Virginia, the years I have been here, there has been no more stalwart, dedicated, reliable defender of America's interests anywhere in the world. There has been no one who has stood up more for our young men and women in uniform. I know this journey he has taken with respect to his feelings about the war were not easy, and they were contrary in some ways to that long record on the surface. But it is when you get below the surface and look at some of the continuity of his thinking about the Constitution, about our obligations as Senators, and about the fundamental reasons why you send young men and women to fight anywhere that you see that, indeed, what he is fighting for now is as consistent with what he has fought for throughout his record and career in the Senate. I thank him for that and pay my respect to him.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I know there is a reluctance, and I understand it, by the managers of the bill to have an amendment on a subject that does not fit neatly and squarely and automatically under the bill. As they know, the number of legislative opportunities here are very few now, and we are on the appropriations track. This amendment has been authorized already, so it is authorized. The question is what we are going to do to effect it. This is an amendment to deliver $3.1 billion of emergency funding--I emphasize ``emergency'' funding--to the Low-Income Heating and Energy Assistance Program. The tight natural gas market and the devastating impact of the recent hurricanes have resulted in what everyone knows and feels in their pocketbooks are unusually high fuel prices and very high fuel price forecasts for the foreseeable future. According to the Energy Information Agency, families are going to pay about 77 percent more for natural gas in the Midwest, 18 percent more for electricity in the South, and 33 percent more for heating oil in the Northeast. Heating oil costs for the average family using heating oil are expected to hit about $1,066 during the upcoming winter. That is $403 more than last winter, and it is $714 more than the winter heating season of 2003- 2004. Rapidly rising energy costs have an incredibly negative impact on the ability of low- and even middle-income but fixed-income individuals to be able to meet their demands. High prices are forcing working families to choose warmth over other basic necessities, or in the South, in certain seasons, obviously, cool. Those are tough choices to make. The National Energy Assistance Directors' Association found that 32 percent of families sacrificed medical care last year in order to be able to meet those prices, 24 percent failed to make rent or meet mortgage payments, and 20 percent went without food for at least a day. We have a whole bunch of people in America who are giving up food or rent or medical care in order to be able to pay for the home heating oil. Hurricane Katrina is a stark reminder of precisely what happens when the Government does not prepare ahead of time for disaster. We have an opportunity now to prepare ahead of time. If we do not act now, families are going to be forced to choose between medical care and heat during the winter. That is just around the corner. In November, it begins to get cold in a lot of States. The fact is, having to choose between a warm house or a full stomach for your children is not a choice anyone in America, the wealthiest nation on the face of the planet, wealthiest industrial nation, ought to welcome. The number of households receiving what is known as the LIHEAP assistance has increased from about 4.2 million in fiscal year 2002 to more than 5 million this year, which is the highest in 10 years. LIHEAP applications are expected to increase very significantly this winter. Yet the funding levels for LIHEAP are not keeping pace. LIHEAP's buying power is significantly less than when it was established. According to the Government's Consumer Price Index, what cost $100 in 1982 cost just shy of $200 in 2004. Using the CPI calculation for inflation, that means that a $1.8 billion appropriation for LIHEAP in 1982 should have been a $3.7 billion appropriation in 2004. LIHEAP currently serves less than 15 percent of those people who are eligible in the country. I understand this amendment can be blocked procedurally. I know that. I hope that will not happen. It is a bipartisan amendment. It is not my preference to attach it to this bill, but it is our only option with the recess coming up in a few days. After the comments of the Secretary of Energy this week that the administration has no plans of asking Congress for more money, we have no choice but to say this is on the congressional agenda, this is on our radar. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment to add $3.1 billion for LIHEAP in the fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill. It is emergency funding. It does not require an offset as a result. It is an emergency. It is the amount we have authorized. It represents the amount we need. It is critical funding to avoid a looming but absolutely preventable crisis for millions of American families who have been hard hit by the additional costs of fuel oil and the diminishing affordability of home heating oil as the winter approaches. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY. Parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Senator. Amendment No. 2033

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this amendment is an emergency response to the natural gas shortage and crisis that has raised prices all across the country. In the South, there has been a 17-percent increase in electricity costs. In the Midwest, there has been a 69-percent natural gas increase. And in New England, the heating oil prices have gone up 29 percent. The industry tells us that there will be an average of a $600 increase per family. For people on fixed incomes, when you add that to the cost of tuition increases, gasoline increases, and health care increases, it is unaffordable. The National Energy Assistance directorate has told us that 39 percent of those individuals in the country who are low income went without medical care in order to be able to pay those bills. Twenty percent didn't pay their rent or their mortgage. I ask colleagues to approve this $3.1 billion emergency LIHEAP allocation.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am happy to change the order to serve the purposes of the Senate. Pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95, which is the concurrent resolution on the budget, I move to waive section 402 for the purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, wasn't there an order already in place for the motion?

Mr. KERRY. Wasn't there an order already in place for the motion?

Mr. KERRY. I believe that is accurate. I ask for the yeas and nays, Mr. President.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, first of all, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Collins, Byrd, Obama, and Salazar be added as cosponsors.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Strengthen the Earned Income Tax Credit Act of 2005. Since 1975, the EITC has been an innovative tax credit which helps low-income working families. President Reagan referred to the EITC as ``the best antipoverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress.'' According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the EITC lifts more children out of poverty than any other government program. It is time for us to reexamine the EITC and determine where we can strengthen it. Census data released in August and the events of Hurricane Katrina reiterated the fact that there is a group of Americans that are not benefiting from the economic recovery. The Census data shows the number of people who work, but live in poverty increased by 563,000. Four million more people were poor in 2004 than in 2001, when the economy hit bottom. The poverty rate in 2004 remains higher than the rate in 2001, the year of the recession. Hurricane Katrina affected many individuals who were already faced with difficult economic situations. Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama are the first, second, and eighth poorest States in the Nation. The income of the typical household in these three States is well below the national average. In the hardest hit counties, 18.6 percent of the population is poor and the national average is 12.4 percent. Time after time, the Republican controlled Congress has passed tax cuts which are skewed towards those with the most. The Urban Institute- Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center reports that households with incomes of more than $1 million a year--the richest two-tenths of the population--receive tax cuts of an average of $103,000 a year. These individuals do not have to worry about how they will have to pay for a roof over their heads or enough gas to fill the tank. We should not be focused on tax cuts which help those who do not have to worry about living pay check to pay check. We need to help the low-income workers who struggle day after day trying to make ends meet. They have been left behind in the economic policies of the last 4 years. We need to begin a discussion on how to help those that have been left behind. The Earned Income Tax Credit is the perfect place to start. The Strengthen the Earned Income Tax Credit Act of 2005 strengthens the EITC by making the following four changes: Reduce marriage penalty; increase the credit for families with three or more children; slow down the phase-out for individuals with no children; and permanently extend the provision which allows members of the armed forces to include combat pay as income for EITC computations. By making these changes, more individuals and families would benefit from the EITC. First, the legislation increases marriage penalty relief and makes it permanent. In the way that the EITC is currently structured, many single individuals that marry find themselves faced with a reduction in their EITC once they are married. The tax code should not penalize individuals who marry. Second, the legislation increases the credit for families with three or more children. This proposal would make the credit more generous for families with 3 or more children. Increasing the credit rate results in an increase in the phase-out range. More families would be able to benefit from the EITC. The poverty level for an adult living with three children is $19,233. Under current law, an adult living with three children and eligible for the maximum EITC with income equivalent to the phase-out income level would still have income below the poverty level. This provision would lift this family above the poverty level. Some 36 percent of all children live in families with at least three children and more than half of poor children live in such families. Third, the legislation would slow down the phase-out rate for individuals without children. It would result in more individuals without children eligible for the credit. For 2005, an individual with earnings above $11,750 would not be eligible for the EITC. Under the proposal, an individual with earnings above $16,950 would not be eligible for the EITC. The EITC for individuals with no children only offsets a portion of federal taxes. Giving more individuals the EITC would help provide an incentive to work. Fourth, the Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004 included a provision which would treat combat pay as earned income for purposes of computing the child credit. This provision expires at the end of the year. This legislation makes this provision permanent. There is no reason why a member of the armed services should lose their EITC when they are mobilized and serving their country. This legislation will help those who most need our help. It will put more money in their pay check. We need to invest in our families and help individuals who want to make a living by working. We are all aware of our fiscal situation and we should legislate in a responsible manner. It is a time for shared sacrifice. We do not need to extend tax cuts or allow tax cuts to go forward that only benefit those earning over $200,000. We cannot keep adding to the deficit Thank you for your consideration.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Strengthen the Earned Income Tax Credit Act of 2005. Since 1975, the EITC has been an innovative tax credit which helps low-income working families. President Reagan referred to the EITC as ``the best antipoverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress.'' According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the EITC lifts more children out of poverty than any other government program. It is time for us to reexamine the EITC and determine where we can strengthen it. Census data released in August and the events of Hurricane Katrina reiterated the fact that there is a group of Americans that are not benefiting from the economic recovery. The Census data shows the number of people who work, but live in poverty increased by 563,000. Four million more people were poor in 2004 than in 2001, when the economy hit bottom. The poverty rate in 2004 remains higher than the rate in 2001, the year of the recession. Hurricane Katrina affected many individuals who were already faced with difficult economic situations. Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama are the first, second, and eighth poorest States in the Nation. The income of the typical household in these three States is well below the national average. In the hardest hit counties, 18.6 percent of the population is poor and the national average is 12.4 percent. Time after time, the Republican controlled Congress has passed tax cuts which are skewed towards those with the most. The Urban Institute- Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center reports that households with incomes of more than $1 million a year--the richest two-tenths of the population--receive tax cuts of an average of $103,000 a year. These individuals do not have to worry about how they will have to pay for a roof over their heads or enough gas to fill the tank. We should not be focused on tax cuts which help those who do not have to worry about living pay check to pay check. We need to help the low-income workers who struggle day after day trying to make ends meet. They have been left behind in the economic policies of the last 4 years. We need to begin a discussion on how to help those that have been left behind. The Earned Income Tax Credit is the perfect place to start. The Strengthen the Earned Income Tax Credit Act of 2005 strengthens the EITC by making the following four changes: Reduce marriage penalty; increase the credit for families with three or more children; slow down the phase-out for individuals with no children; and permanently extend the provision which allows members of the armed forces to include combat pay as income for EITC computations. By making these changes, more individuals and families would benefit from the EITC. First, the legislation increases marriage penalty relief and makes it permanent. In the way that the EITC is currently structured, many single individuals that marry find themselves faced with a reduction in their EITC once they are married. The tax code should not penalize individuals who marry. Second, the legislation increases the credit for families with three or more children. This proposal would make the credit more generous for families with 3 or more children. Increasing the credit rate results in an increase in the phase-out range. More families would be able to benefit from the EITC. The poverty level for an adult living with three children is $19,233. Under current law, an adult living with three children and eligible for the maximum EITC with income equivalent to the phase-out income level would still have income below the poverty level. This provision would lift this family above the poverty level. Some 36 percent of all children live in families with at least three children and more than half of poor children live in such families. Third, the legislation would slow down the phase-out rate for individuals without children. It would result in more individuals without children eligible for the credit. For 2005, an individual with earnings above $11,750 would not be eligible for the EITC. Under the proposal, an individual with earnings above $16,950 would not be eligible for the EITC. The EITC for individuals with no children only offsets a portion of federal taxes. Giving more individuals the EITC would help provide an incentive to work. Fourth, the Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004 included a provision which would treat combat pay as earned income for purposes of computing the child credit. This provision expires at the end of the year. This legislation makes this provision permanent. There is no reason why a member of the armed services should lose their EITC when they are mobilized and serving their country. This legislation will help those who most need our help. It will put more money in their pay check. We need to invest in our families and help individuals who want to make a living by working. We are all aware of our fiscal situation and we should legislate in a responsible manner. It is a time for shared sacrifice. We do not need to extend tax cuts or allow tax cuts to go forward that only benefit those earning over $200,000. We cannot keep adding to the deficit Thank you for your consideration.