Jim Langevin

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is with profound sorrow that I rise to recognize the loss of a brave Marine in Iraq, Corporal Brian R. St. Germain, a Rhode Island citizen who served his country with dignity and honor. I join his family and the people of Rhode Island in mourning this great loss. Cpt. St. Germain grew up in West Warwick, RI. He was an honor student and a 2001 graduate of West Warwick High School, where determination and hard work led him to become an all-state hurdler on the track and field team. These traits were signs of the first-rate Marine that he would soon become. Cpt. St. Germain was an active duty Marine on his second tour of duty in Iraq assigned to the 1st Marine Logistics Group, 1st Expeditionary Force. Cpl. St. Germain unselfishly volunteered to ride on dangerous convoys so that his fellow Marines with wives and children would be spared the additional risk. On April 2nd, Cpl. St. Germain was killed in a vehicle accident along with five other marines in the Al Anbar Province when their Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement was caught in a flash flood and rolled over. This loss causes us to reflect on the bravery demonstrated by our men and women in uniform as they carry out their obligations in the face of danger. When Cpl. St. Germain's nation called him to duty to preserve freedom, liberty and security, he answered without hesitation. We will remember him as a patriot who made the ultimate sacrifice for his country. Cpl. St. Germain is survived by his parents, Lynn and Robert; his brother Nicholas; his grandmother Louise; and his uncle and godfather, Terence Adamo. May we keep his loved ones in our thoughts and prayers as they endure this difficult period. We will also continue to hope for the safe and speedy return of all of our troops serving throughout the world.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, on the evening of April 6, 2006, I was unable to vote due to an important prescheduled speaking engagement, for which I was granted a leave of absence. I would like the Record to reflect that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on Roll Call vote numbers 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98 and 99.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of the Spratt budget substitute and in strong opposition to H. Con. Res. 373, the Republican budget. Our sons, daughters, and neighbors are bravely fighting wars abroad. Unfortunately, when they return home, they will find a country that has lost its way. We pay lip service to shared sacrifice, but while they risk their lives for us, Republicans in Congress are providing tax cuts for the richest 1 percent of Americans, slashing programs for working- class families, and turning their backs on the middle class. The budget before us today continues these policies. It does not represent the priorities of the American people, nor does it respect the values our soldiers are fighting to protect. For too long, Republicans have racked up charges on the national credit card, while passing the bill on to future generations. Now is our chance to set this country on the proper course to ensure America's economic success and protect our grandchildren from having to pay for today's irresponsible decisions. There is a better way. Despite the horrible fiscal outlook facing our Nation due to Republican policies, the Spratt substitute still manages to balance the budget in 6 years, cut taxes for the middle class, and provide realistic funding for education, health care, and veterans programs, all of which are shortchanged by the Republicans. The Spratt substitute has a better bottom line than the Republican budget every year. Fiscal responsibility today will lead to lower deficits, smaller interest payments, and less national debt in the future. Most significantly, after the budget is balanced, we can finally begin to pay off the trillions of dollars in debt that have accumulated since President Bush took office. Unfortunately, the budget proposed by House Republicans does nothing to improve the quality of life in America. It would add $348 billion to the national debt next year alone. Under Republican stewardship, the 5 years between fiscal year 2003 and 2007 will provide us with the five largest deficits in American history. This is not a legacy worth continuing. We cannot afford to borrow additional money to continue paying for failed economic policies. Not only does the Spratt substitute match the President's request for defense spending, but it also includes additional needed funds for homeland security programs, including port security. As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I am concerned that the Republican budget closely mirrors the President's budget, which proposes to eliminate several programs important to the safety of all Americans. Programs on the chopping block include the COPS Interoperability Grant Program, the SAFER Program for firefighting equipment, the Metropolitan Medical Response System, the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, and Justice Assistance Grants. In 2005, these programs provided more than $13 million in grants to help Rhode Island's first responders keep my constituents safe. Since September 11, we have asked our police and firefighters to do so much more, but this budget fails to provide the resources they so badly need. In addition, the budget would freeze or cut all non-homeland security discretionary spending. If the Republicans have their way, 5 years from now, education and health programs will receive less than they do today. Cuts to social programs would place a larger burden on the working class at a time when they can least afford it. Even with all of these cuts, the Republicans still have no plan to balance the budget. Instead, they want to give away the savings to the wealthy by making permanent tax cuts on investment income. As the New York Times indicated yesterday, ``Americans with annual incomes of $1 million or more, about one-tenth of 1 percent of all taxpayers, reaped 43 percent of all the savings on investment taxes in 2003.'' At the same time, those earning less than $50,000 saved an average of only $10 on the same capital gains and dividend tax cuts. The wealthiest Americans are doing fine on their own, and we should not be borrowing money to give them tax cuts. Deficit spending has stymied job growth and is plaguing our economy. No Rhode Islander would write a check without sufficient funds to cash that check. Neither should the government. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Spratt budget substitute and opposing the underlying Republican plan.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Mr. Lantos on his outstanding leadership on this issue, as well as Chairman Hyde and Chairman Smith on this all-important issue. I commend their leadership. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3127, the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act of 2006. I also want to express my deep concern as well as the concern of an overwhelming number of my constituents over the situation in Sudan. The ongoing violence and humanitarian disaster in Sudan has led to as many as 400,000 villagers killed by militias and left more than 2 million Sudanese in refugee camps. This dire situation has also strained the resources of countries bordering Sudan. In the past, I have supported measures that call on the President to improve the security in Darfur and increase funding for peacekeeping forces and humanitarian assistance. Today, I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 3127, which directs President Bush to impose sanctions on the government of Sudan as well as freeze the assets of anyone responsible for acts of genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity in Sudan. This measure also calls on NATO to send a civilian protection force to assist the African Union mission in Sudan, which has been expanded. Mr. Speaker, the plight of the people in Darfur resonates with all of us, and we should all be ashamed that the atrocities that have taken place and that are taking place right now are happening in our time. Where is the world's outrage? Why have we not learned from the mistakes of the past, the Holocaust, Armenia, Cambodia, Rwanda? Mr. Speaker, now is the time to act. It is our duty to end this humanitarian suffering, and I will remain steadfast in my commitment to stopping this conflict and promoting peace in Sudan.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the impressive career of Dr. I. King Jordan, as he retires from his presidency of Gallaudet University. For many years, Dr. Jordan has tirelessly served his community as an advocate and a champion for people who are deaf or hard of hearing. for the past 18 years, he has served as the president of the only institution of higher learning serving primarily deaf and hearing impaired students. I am proud to call Dr. Jordan a friend and honored to have had the opportunity to work with him in his capacity of university president over the years. Under Dr. Jordan's tenure as president, Gallaudet University has seen tremendous growth, with an increased endowment and strong progress in many academic areas. Dr. Jordan has raised awareness of the important educational contributions Gallaudet makes to the Nation and the world. As the first deaf president of Gallaudet University, Dr. Jordan served as a role model, as well as an advocate. One of his legacies at Gallaudet will be the President's Fellows program, which he established to increase the number of deaf and hearing impaired faculty. His unwavering support and belief that all individuals, regardless of disabilities, should be encouraged to fulfill their potential has inspired countless students, faculty and others in the deaf and hearing impaired community to work towards that end. Dr. Jordan has accomplished a great deal in his professional career. I am pleased to have this opportunity to acknowledge his service to Gallaudet and his efforts to improve the quality of life for individuals who are deaf and hearing impaired, and individuals with disabilities. I thank him for his dedication and I urge all of my colleagues to support H. Res. 680.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in proud recognition of the 185th anniversary of Greek independence. This special day for Greece commemorates the strength and determination of its people to restore their democratic roots and identity. The political philosophies of both the United States and Greece have been challenged by oppressive powers, and both nations have proudly defended their right to self-government and individual freedoms. After showing a desire to be free from the Ottoman Empire in 1821, Greece endured eleven long years of war to succeed in gaining independence. American and Hellenic cultures greatly respect their tradition of independence and recognize the importance of democratic principles. The United States and Greece have always enjoyed a friendship and alliance in international and cultural endeavors. I am pleased that the Greek Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyannis and other dignitaries paid a visit last week to Washington, D.C., to celebrate this anniversary since Hellenic principles resonate in our culture and politics. The United States was founded on the principles of democracy developed thousands of years ago in the city-states of ancient Greece. The beauty of Greek architecture can even be found while taking a walk through our beloved Capitol building. Likewise, our country's influence on Greece can be seen in their first Constitution, which was based on our Declaration of Independence and the principles behind the American Revolution. On a cultural level, since Greece resurrected the Olympics in 1896, they have symbolized peace and excellence for people around the world. The Olympics show that great athletic skill and spirited competition can bring nations together despite their differences. We saw at the 2006 Winter Olympics in Torino, Italy, how Hellenic ideals such as equality and friendship have stood the test of time and continue to flourish at a global level. Hellenic culture, whether through its development of democratic government or its espousal of friendly competition, encourages people to come together amicably even during the most difficult of times. Mr. Speaker, it would be hard to imagine a United States of America, or even the world, without the great contributions from Greece. I will continue to work in Congress to support Hellenic causes and our strong and important alliance. I would like to join my colleagues in congratulating Greece on the anniversary of its independence.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 4939. I would like to thank the Appropriations Committee leadership for their efforts to provide our men and women in uniform with the equipment that they need as they continue their efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan and throughout the world. My colleagues on the House Armed Services Committee and I have fought for enhanced force protection equipment, much of which is included in this bill. H.R. 4939 includes $410 million for up-armored Humvees and $2 billion to develop and procure jammers for improvised explosive devices. Given the number of U.S. casualties resulting from IEDs, jammer technology is one of the most important investments this Congress can make to protect our troops. I am also pleased that this legislation provides more than $19 billion in much-needed assistance to the victims of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma. Months after those storms battered our Gulf Coast, many Americans are still displaced, and basic services are not available in places like New Orleans. Given the federal government's insufficient efforts in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, it is our responsibility to provide the affected residents and businesses with the resources and assistance they need to rebuild. This measure will also greatly assist those facing exorbitant heating bills this winter. After Hurricanes Katrina and Rita damaged domestic energy sources, all Americans experienced higher energy costs, but the burden was particularly heavy for low-income residents in cold climates. H.R. 4939 will allow states to access $1 billion in Low Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP) funding more quickly, which will be welcome news to states such as Rhode Island that are struggling to help families in need. I greatly appreciate the Committee's inclusion of assistance to the victims of genocidal violence in Darfur and to train and equip the African Union peacekeeping troops. To date, at least one hundred thousand people have been killed, with millions more displaced. It is impossible to view the images from Sudan without being outraged at the cruelty and injustice of the situation. Our nation must do more to prevent further violence. Last year, I advocated for funding for African Union peacekeepers in the Defense Appropriations bill, and though that was not successful, H.R. 4939 funds peacekeeping missions in Sudan and encourages greater involvement by the United Nations. Finally, in welcome news to the American people, the legislation blocks Dubai Ports World from assuming control over six U.S. ports as part of their acquisition of P&O Steam Navigation Company. As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I strongly opposed the sale because of the lack of a comprehensive investigation into the national security implications. We need to ensure that foreign investment decisions are based on real national security considerations and not just financial gain. I have been working to enhance port security in our nation, and the Dubai ports deal reminds Americans that until appropriate measures are taken, our ports will continue to be vulnerable. I am pleased that H.R. 4939 contains this commonsense provision, but we must do more to secure our infrastructure and improve Congressional oversight of foreign investment decisions. Again, I thank my colleagues for their efforts on this important bill, and I urge all Members to support its passage.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay my respects to Eleanor Slater, a great friend who passed away this week. Known as the grande dame of Rhode Island Democratic politics, Eleanor blazed trails for many people in our state, but especially for women. She began her distinguished political career in 1958 as a Representative in the Rhode Island General Assembly, and championed issues such as mental health, fair housing and especially issues affecting senior citizens. Always thinking of the next generation, she was a great advisor to many former and current politicians, including myself, Congressman Patrick Kennedy, and Senator Jack Reed. She had the foresight and belief that I could run for Secretary of State and win that race, which I did. She served as an honorary chair on many of my campaigns and taught me valuable lessons that I still carry with me today. While I am sad to say goodbye to such a wonderful woman, at 97 years old, we should celebrate Eleanor's long distinguished life. Eleanor, you made a difference. May God bless you and keep you safe in His care.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay my respects to Eleanor Slater, a great friend who recently passed away. Known as the grande dame of Rhode Island Democratic politics, Eleanor blazed trails for women in our state and will be greatly missed. She began her distinguished political career in 1958 when she was elected to the Rhode Island House of Representatives where she served four terms. She then ran successfully for the Rhode Island Senate. While in the Senate, she championed what is believed to be the first Fair Housing Act in the country. Eleanor was also vocal on mental health and gerontology issues, and in 1969 became the chief of the former Division on Aging. After 18 years in public service, Eleanor decided to pursue other interests, which included receiving a degree in political science from the University of Rhode Island at the age of 70. She remained instrumental in the Democratic Party and was a fixture at numerous Democratic National Conventions as a delegate. Always thinking of the next generation, she was a great advisor for many former and current politicians, including myself. She had the foresight and belief that I could run for Secretary of State and win that race--which I did. She served as an honorary chair on many of my campaigns and taught me valuable lessons that I still use today. While her dedication to the Democratic Party and the state of Rhode Island was great, Eleanor was above all dedicated to her family, and my thoughts and prayers are with her two sons, William and Thomas; her brother Robert Boland; her sister, Dorothy Merrill; her four grandchildren; and her five great grandchildren. While I am sad to say goodbye to such a wonderful woman, at 97 years old, we should celebrate Eleanor's long, distinguished life. Eleanor, you made a difference.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today the House will be voting on legislation to affirm the ability of military recruiters to access college campuses. As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I support our military's efforts to recruit some of our most promising young men and women and believe that service in our nation's armed forces is an honorable career choice. However, I question why we are considering this measure, especially as the Supreme Court unanimously upheld Congress's position a short while ago. If Congress's authority has not been challenged, why are we reiterating it? As we have heard, a lawsuit arose when a group of colleges challenged the Congressional requirement that military recruiters be granted access to schools that receive federal funding. The schools argued that the U.S. military's policy of excluding gays and lesbians from serving openly violated their non-discrimination requirement for prospective employers on campus, and that the recruiters' presence would be interpreted as the schools' official endorsement of the military's position. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, noting that colleges and universities still maintained their right to express their opposition to the military's policies as they saw fit. The resolution of today reaffirms the very Congressional power that the Court just upheld. Unfortunately, Congress is debating the wrong issue. Instead of celebrating a minor legal victory, we should be discussing how to end the discriminatory ``Don't Ask/Don't Tell'' policy that inspired the opposition from the colleges and which threatens our military readiness to this day. Since the policy's enactment in 1993, Don't Ask/Don't Tell has resulted in the discharge of nearly 10,000 service members, many of whom had language proficiency or other skills essential to the Global War on Terror. Over the past ten years, Don't Ask/Don't Tell has cost the U.S. military hundreds of millions of dollars--funds that could have gone toward obtaining additional armored vehicles and investing in other vital force protection initiatives. Don't Ask/Don't Tell, originally conceived as a compromise, has outlived its utility and now actually harms our military readiness and its ability to perform certain essential functions. Qualified and dedicated servicemembers should not be discharged based on their sexual orientation, especially at a time when our National Guard and Reserves are serving repeated deployments. For these reasons, I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 1059, the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which would replace Don't Ask/Don't Tell with a policy that would not allow discrimination or discharges based on sexual orientation. Those who oppose repeal of Don't Ask/Don't Tell conveniently ignore that gay men and women already serve in the military--many with great distinction--despite the fact that they must hide their identities from those whose lives they have sworn to defend. They also ignore the fact that some of our closest allies in the Global War on Terrorism permit open service by gay men and women, and our forces regularly serve alongside theirs without incident. They also ignore numerous polls indicating that a strong majority of Americans support repeal. Our military's purpose is to protect the United States, and it must recruit the most qualified people in order to succeed. Repeal of Don't Ask/ Don't Tell is consistent with that goal. I will support H. Con. Res. 354 today because I believe we should be encouraging our nation's finest young men and women--no matter who they are or where they go to school--to join the strongest, smartest and most capable military in the world. However, such an effort is incomplete without also repealing Don't Ask/Don't Tell. I encourage all of my colleagues to cosponsor H.R. 1059 to ensure that all who are willing and able to serve may do so.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of S. 2271, a bill to add civil liberty protections to the conference report on H.R. 3199, the USA PATRIOT Reauthorization Act. Although I voted against the Patriot Act in December, the Republican Leadership rammed it through Congress anyway. I welcome this opportunity to eliminate some of its most egregious provisions and to further enhance civil liberties protections. I will keep fighting to improve this law so that we can find the right balance between waging the war on terrorism and protecting the rights of the American people. S. 2271 improves civil liberties in three ways. Under the Patriot Act, libraries, bookstores, and other recipients of court orders for information are bound by a nondisclosure requirement. These organizations are unable to tell the target of the investigation that records have been obtained on the public, if they believe the search is unwarranted. As currently written, the Patriot Act prevents appropriate oversight to affirm the need for such requests for information. S. 2271 allows recipients of these court orders to challenge the nondisclosure requirement, which helps protect civil liberties by placing a check on unrestricted use of these court orders and protects against unlawful search and seizure. As currently written, the Patriot Act greatly expands the use of administrative subpoenas, known as National Security Letters (NSLs). NSLs are equivalent to search warrants, but they are signed by government bureaucrats instead of issued by courts. These subpoenas have minimal civil liberty checks in place to ensure an investigation is warranted. Presently, the Patriot Act requires recipients of NSLs to disclose to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) the names of their attorneys who are notified of the NSL. This overzealous provision could launch investigations into attorneys trying to defend clients who received unwarranted investigations. S. 2271 removes this requirement to disclose attorney names, and I am pleased to support this change. Finally, S. 2271 increases the burden of proof on obtaining evidence from libraries. Under the Patriot Act, an NSL could require libraries to hand over book checkout lists and Internet records for specific users, which is a tremendous violation of privacy. S. 2271 requires investigators to obtain a court order, which would prevent overzealous investigators from trying to find evidence without probable cause. If S. 2271 does not pass, I am concerned that the Patriot Act will move to the President's desk for signature lacking protections to prevent challenging nondisclosure requirements, increasing the opportunity for civil liberties abuses, and subjecting libraries to unnecessary and intrusive scrutiny. While I continue to oppose the underlying Patriot Act, I will vote for these improvements. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to correct other deficiencies and protect the American people from both terrorists and potential abuses of our freedoms.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Dana Reeve who passed away last night following a battle with lung cancer. I am deeply saddened by the loss of my dear friend, and would like to take a moment to reflect on her life. She faced extraordinary challenges and handled them with the utmost grace, dignity and strength. When her husband, Chris, was first injured, Dana helped establish the Christopher Reeve Foundation. Recognizing a lack of any place to go for comprehensive information for newly injured patients and their families, she worked tirelessly to establish the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Resource Center. Since the launch of this center in 2002, it has assisted thousands of spinal cord injured patients and their loved ones in dealing with the many issues and anxieties that come along with such an injury. Dana used her personal experience to improve the quality of life for all people living with paralysis. This was typical of Dana, to see beyond her own circumstances and find a way to ease the suffering and confusion of others. After her husband's passing, she moved forward with his message of hope and healing. Today, it is up to all of us to continue their legacy. As Chris and Dana would say, let us go forward. My thoughts and prayers go out to Dana Reeve's family, friends and all those who mourn her. May God bless her.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of the 16th annual National Sportsmanship Day, which is celebrated today around the world. National Sportsmanship Day raises awareness about issues relating to sportsmanship and ethics in athletics as well as daily life. Athletic competition can teach students, coaches, and parents valuable lessons that can be applied on and off the field. With increased pressure to succeed placed upon today's athletes and students, the importance of ethics, honesty and fair play have never been more necessary. Given the heightened demand for accomplishment in today's society, the idea of participation and fitness in many aspects of sport is often lost. Forgetting this important basis of athletic competition, students often are forced to maintain a `win at all costs' mentality. Each year, the Institute for International Sport, based in my district in Kingston, Rhode Island, provides the opportunity to counter these notions through meaningful dialogue among school administrators, coaches, teachers, and students on the subject of ethics, fair play and sportsmanship. The 16th annual National Sportsmanship Day strives to foster sportsmanship through the defeat of gamesmanship, the practice of ethically dubious methods to gain an objective. Through activities and discussions, more than 13,000 schools throughout the United States and around the world will participate in these events to spread honest athletics. Each year, National Sportsmanship Day recognizes a number of athletes who offer a tribute to their respective sport and enhance their skills with their desire to play fairly. This year, the Institute for International Sport has selected their Sports Ethics Fellows from a number of players, coaches, and school administrators at the high school level. With both their simultaneous pursuit of academic and athletic excellence, they model and promote the virtues of the student- athlete in the truest sense. I hope that my colleagues can join with me on this day in celebrating and promoting the continued success of National Sportsmanship Day. With its moral, ethical and fitness components, today's activities can promote a healthy and more active community amongst our nation's youth, and support a team oriented future for our country of sports enthusiasts.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to President Bush's proposed budget for fiscal year 2007. Once again, the President claims he can have it both ways by making permanent tax cuts while halving the deficit by 2009. However, the numbers tell a different story. This year's budget proposal, if enacted by Congress, would result in a budget deficit of $423 billion, the largest in our Nation's history, and this amount would increase dramatically once the tax cuts take effect in 2011. Every American family knows that you cannot continue to spend more money than you take in, and the President must acknowledge this fact before it is too late. To reduce this record deficit, we must make difficult choices, and both spending and taxes need to be on the table. The President has not made these difficult choices, and should Congress follow this budget, working families will be left on their own as the Government again favors only the wealthiest Americans. In order to partially pay for the irresponsible tax policies, the President attempts to cut spending in several areas, notably health care and education. Medicare would be reduced by $36 billion over 5 years by reducing already low payments to health care providers, who would be less willing to accept Medicare patients. The National Institutes of Health, which researches life-saving cures for numerous diseases such as cancer and Parkinson's Disease, would in effect receive a cut outside of funds earmarked for biodefense. While I support measures to increase our preparedness for outbreaks such as a potential pandemic flu, these funds should not come at the expense of research to cure ailments like heart disease. In December, I distributed surveys to every school and district in my congressional district to determine the level of emergency preparedness. Most respondents indicated they had not properly rehearsed their emergency plans, and nearly a quarter of the schools and districts did not even know whom to ask for help. Fortunately, the Department of Education's Safe and Drug-free Schools and Communities program provides grants to help schools develop and implement emergency plans. However, President Bush proposes eliminating this program that has helped so many schools across our country. There are countless examples of these misguided priorities in the budget. In 2004, Congress nearly unanimously passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act to put the program on track to full funding, but this budget includes only $10.7 million for State grants. This means that once again, the Federal Government will only provide less than half of the amount promised to States to educate children with special needs. The budget also zeros out the TRIO programs--Gear Up, Talent Search and Upward Bound--which encourage economically disadvantaged Rhode Island students to seek higher education. Even though energy independence was a major theme of the President's State of the Union Address, he is not funding his own proposals. After announcing America is ``addicted to oil,'' the President has increased Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy programs by a paltry 0.2 percent. In addition, programs to increase energy efficiency and research hydropower and geothermal energy are cut. We need real leadership on this issue. The brightest minds in America put a man on the moon, and we need a similar effort to develop clean and renewable energy sources. A 0.2 percent increase will not accomplish that goal. If the President truly wanted to make our country more competitive, he would not have avoided funding the Small Business 7(a) loan guarantee program and reduced Trade Adjustment Assistance, which retrains workers who lose their jobs because of foreign trade. If the President wanted to enrich our communities, he would not have reduced funding for the community development block grants, COPS program, or Weatherization Assistance for energy efficient homes. If the President wanted to make health care more accessible, he would not have increased fees for groups such as military retirees and Medicare beneficiaries. On top of all these cuts and fee increases, we still have the highest deficit in history as a result of the irresponsible tax policies the President seeks to continue. This is not the direction America should be moving. The President had a tremendous opportunity to reflect the values and priorities of the American people. He could have asked for shared sacrifice and inspired us to achieve new heights. Instead, he has given us more of the same: tax cuts for the wealthiest, program cuts for the most vulnerable, and the middle class is left on their own. America deserves better.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, last June I had the sad duty of coming to the floor to announce the loss of a brave marine in Iraq, Lance Corporal Holly Ann Charette, a citizen of Cranston, Rhode Island. Today, I am proud to honor her service as we dedicate a post office in her memory. I would like to thank my friend and colleague, Senator Jack Reed, for introducing this measure, as well as the Government Reform Committee for bringing it to the floor today. After the loss of Holly Charette, I was touched by the memories shared by her neighbors, friends, and family. One common theme that emerged was that Holly's smile and personality cheered all those around her. Those who knew her well spoke of her optimistic outlook on life and her ability to make the most of any situation. She aimed to help others, and that dedication to service encouraged her to join the Marines. In Iraq, Holly held an administrative job, and her duties included serving as the mail distributor for her camp. She was exceptionally well suited to that assignment, not only because of her outstanding organizational skills, but also because of her aspirations to one day become a postal worker. Despite the procedures and physical challenges of the position, she always maintained her professionalism and sunny disposition. She recognized the importance of that task and worked so hard so that she could brighten the days of her fellow marines with the messages of their loved ones back home. However, Holly's service was not without risk. As one of few women at her post, she also traveled into Fallujah to perform searches of female Iraqis, a task that men were prohibited from doing. It was returning from one such trip that Holly's convoy was attacked by insurgents. Three men and three women were killed that day, and 13 men and women were wounded. This sacrifice reminds us of the courage of our men and women in uniform who are faced with ongoing dangers in Iraq. It also underscores how important it is that we as Members of Congress do everything in our power to protect those who defend our Nation. Designating a post office in memory of Lance Corporal Holly Ann Charette is a fitting tribute to a woman who touched the lives of so many. When her friends and family visit the facility at 57 Rolfe Square in Cranston, they will be reminded of her smile, her cheerful personality, and her dedication to helping others. It will also remind future generations of the sacrifice of one exceptional person who gave so much to her Nation. I ask my colleagues to honor Holly Charette, a truly amazing woman by supporting this legislation today.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay my respects to Coretta Scott King, a great woman who passed away yesterday. Mrs. King, the widow of slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr., worked alongside her husband in promoting the dream of equality for all. Mrs. King continued the legacy of her husband after his death by remaining a vocal proponent of civil rights and founding the Martin Luther King Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change in Atlanta, Georgia. Unfortunately, our nation has become increasingly divided about how to promote freedom and equality, both here at home and abroad. We have again experienced an increased number of hate crimes, more than half of which targeted victims because of race. As the costs of fuel, health care, and college education rise, we have been told we should cut important social programs. Such misguided priorities are falsely justified under the guise of fiscal responsibility, even though millionaires grow wealthier at the expense of the poor. However, it is when we are most frustrated and disheartened by the world around us that Dr. and Mrs. King's message is most important. As we begin National Black History Month, we must remember the vital contributions that Dr. and Mrs. King made to the civil rights movement and let them inspire us to continue our nation's march toward equality. We must remember their heroism, compassion and a determination to make this country a better place. We must harness their passion to improve all aspects of our society, from education to health care to the economy. Our job, not just today but every day, is to act in such a manner that moves our nation a little further along that path to freedom. We do so with the hope that we, our children, and our grandchildren may experience the America that Dr. and Mrs. King envisioned for all of us. Mrs. King will be greatly missed and our thoughts and prayers go out to her family, friends and all those who mourn her loss.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation to fund the functions of our Nation's military and our brave men and women in uniform, but am deeply opposed to the Republican leadership's decision to attach unrelated and controversial language, including drilling in the Arctic and school vouchers. As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I know how vital the Defense Appropriations Act is for the security of our Nation and the safety of our servicemembers. I would like to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Young, and the ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murtha, for their steadfast support for our military and for supporting a number of initiatives important to our Nation and to my constituents in Rhode Island. The measure contains important force protection funds, including $1.2 billion for gear such as body armor; $8 billion for equipment such as up-armored Humvees, tactical wheeled-vehicles, and night-vision devices; and $363 million for improvised explosive device (IED) jammers. The legislation also includes much-needed assistance to areas devastated by this year's hurricanes--funds that are sorely needed by our Gulf Coast communities. However, I must admit that I am greatly disappointed by the House Republican leadership's decision to attach controversial provisions to this essential legislation, most notably Arctic drilling. Since I was elected to Congress in 2000, I have consistently opposed efforts to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to energy exploration, and I have repeatedly cosponsored legislation to designate lands within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness to prevent the destruction of this environmentally fragile area. Despite claims that we have heard tonight, drilling in the Arctic would have no appreciable effect on gas prices nor would it improve our Nation's energy independence. We cannot drill, dig, or mine our way out of the problem we have created for ourselves. Instead, we should be encouraging energy conservation efforts, including an increase in vehicle fuel efficiency standards and the development of clean and renewable sources of energy, such as solar and wind power. The American public recognizes the value of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and has consistently opposed endangering it by opening it to oil and gas exploration. However, since proponents have never been able to muster the votes to pass the bill on its own merits, they have attached it to this vital piece of legislation, demonstrating their desire to win at any cost, as well as potentially jeopardizing the ability of this bill to be signed into law. Furthermore, this legislation is reported to contain controversial language regarding education assistance for Hurricane Katrina victims-- including the implementation of a national voucher program--as well as liability exemptions for the pharmaceutical industry in the section intended to guard against avian flu. As the ranking Democrat on the House Homeland Security Subcommittee for the Prevention of Nuclear and Biological Attack, I understand our Nation's vulnerabilities with regard to pandemics and have been working with my colleagues to shore up our Nation's defense. However, rather than address these questions in the light of day, we must vote on them in the dead of night with limited ability to debate the specifics of the measure. I am disappointed and frustrated by the majority's refusal to conduct its business in an open and forthright manner, instead opting for midnight backroom deals. It is one of Congress's greatest responsibilities to protect our Nation by establishing a well-trained and well-equipped military. For that reason, I must support this measure despite my objections to some of the extraneous provisions. I will vote for this legislation, but do not condone the process that directed it to the House floor.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I rise in support of the conference report to H.R. 1815, and thank Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton for their hard work. Once again the committee has demonstrated its commitment to ensuring the security of our nation and the safety of our men and women in uniform. I am extremely pleased that we were able to consider this measure without extraneous and controversial provisions that would have endangered its passage. Our troops and the civilian employees in the Department of Defense have performed valiantly and made enormous sacrifices to safeguard the United States, and H.R. 1815 recognizes their commitment by providing much-needed assistance to them and their families. The conference report includes a pay raise of 3.1% for military, increases certain enlistment and re-enlistment bonuses, and allows certain members of the reserves to buy into the TRICARE health care program for themselves and their families. The measure also increases the endstrength of the Army and the Marine Corps, which should help relieve some of the stress on troops who have experienced repeated deployments. The legislation also contains $50 billion in supplemental funding to provide force protection equipment, such as up-armored Humvees and jammers for improvised explosive devices, to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as to replace equipment that has been degraded by the high operations tempo. Though the military has accomplished a great deal with what they have, we have clear indications that we are wearing down our equipment, perhaps faster than we can replace it. The investment in this bill is an important step, but we must not forget that it will take billions more to completely reset and recapitalize our force. This bill also contains important language to ensure that Department of Defense does not contract out existing government work without realizing actual cost savings. Earlier in the year, I drew the committee's attention to DOD's practice of reorganizing or reclassifying existing government work in order to circumvent required contracting rules without demonstrating savings. The language in this measure closes that loophole and goes much farther by establishing much clearer standards about how DOD can contract out work. I thank the chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee, Mr. Hefley, as well as the committee staff, for working with me and my office to address my original concern, and I will continue to work with the committee to monitor the implementation of this new language to ensure that all parties involved are treated fairly and that taxpayer dollars are used as effectively as possible. Finally, H.R. 1815 demonstrates its interest in maintaining a strong Navy through a continued commitment to the next-generation destroyer, DD(X). It also includes language affirming the committee's support of the VIRGINIA-class submarine and directing the Navy to initiate a program to improve future submarine technology in a cost-effective manner. This provision should be welcome news to Electric Boat, a major employer in my district, which has announced as many 2,400 layoffs in 2006, primarily due to insufficient submarine design and construction work. To prevent our submarine force from shrinking to dangerously low levels, I will continue my efforts to integrate cutting-edge technology into VIRGINIA-class submarines and to increase procurement of these ships to two per year. Given other nations' investments in their navy and undersea capabilities, we cannot afford for the United State to lose its undersea dominance. Again, I commend the Chairman Hunter, Ranking Member Skelton and my colleagues on the committee for a well-balanced bill, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the conference report on H.R. 4241. This will be the third time this year I have voted against an irresponsible Republican budget plan to cut spending on programs important to the poorest Americans in order to pay for a tax cut for the wealthiest. Frankly, I'm tired of it, and Rhode Islanders are too. We need to return our budget to balance, but not on the backs of those who can least afford it. The Republicans claim this bill is necessary to offset the enormous costs of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, but their actions show the majority's true motives. Shortly after H.R. 4241 passed the House in November, Republicans voted for more than $50 billion in tax cuts, much of which benefit the top earners in the country. These tax cuts cost more than the savings in this bill. However, these paltry savings will come at a high cost, namely higher costs for health care, education and other important services. I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting this irresponsible conference report and instead focusing on real debt reduction based on fairness and shared sacrifice.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to reflect upon the public service of my friend, Alan Reich, who passed away on November 8, 2005. In 1962, Mr. Reich was 32 years old, a former athlete and Army officer. That year, a swimming accident left him a quadriplegic. Despite this life-changing event and the challenges that quadriplegia brings, he returned to his job as an executive at Polaroid Corporation where he worked for 11 years. Mr. Reich's return to work demonstrated to his colleagues, in the most basic way, that life with a disability can be productive and fulfilling. In the years following the accident, he went on to pursue his career goals and was appointed to the position of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs at the State Department. It is important to note that Mr. Reich's accident and his recovery took place decades before the Americans with Disabilities Act. At that time, people like Alan Reich, who overcame personal obstacles to move forward with their lives, sent an important message to the world that people with disabilities have gifts and talents to contribute. This message was the foundation of the movement to pass the ADA in 1990, and declare for the first time that disabled Americans have a right to fully participate in all aspects of our society. Mr. Reich became involved in advocacy for people with disabilities, initially as a volunteer. He later went on to devote his professional life to the cause, serving as the President of the National Paraplegia Foundation--known today as the National Spinal Cord Injury Association--and founding the Paralysis Cure Research Foundation, the National Task Force on Disability and the National Organization on Disability. His vision and work lives on through these organizations, which he fostered and developed. I arrived in Washington, DC, in 2001, as the first quadriplegic Member of the House of Representatives. My own service in this body would not have been possible without the commitment of leaders in the disability community, who fought to pass the ADA. Alan Reich was one of those people and he was among the first leaders in the disability community here to greet me. I am tremendously grateful for his personal determination and his dedication to creating opportunity for others with disabilities. His work made this country a better place for future generations of individuals with and without disabilities to succeed and thrive. His passing leaves me with personal sorrow, yet as we reflect on the life of this extraordinary individual, I am inspired and honored to have called him a friend. I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to pay tribute to my friend, and I urge them to support H. Res. 592, a resolution celebrating the life, achievements and contributions of Alan Reich.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to unequivocally condemn Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent declaration that the Holocaust was a myth. Such outrageous comments dishonor the memory of the 6 million Jews and many others who perished under the Nazi regime. To suggest that such a tragedy was imagined as a justification to create the state of Israel, as President Ahmadinejad has done, demonstrates a disconnect from reality and complete ignorance of history. Numerous world leaders have already condemned his comments, and I encourage my colleagues and the entire international community to do the same. Unfortunately, the denial of the Holocaust is only the most recent in a series of disturbing statements made by President Ahmadinejad. He has also declared that Israel should ``be wiped off the map,'' suggesting that its people should be relocated to Europe. Furthermore, despite efforts by our European allies to negotiate an agreement to end Iran's nuclear ambitions, Ahmadinejad has declined compromise, stubbornly insisting that Iran has a right to develop its own nuclear program. Ahmadinejad's disgraceful statements and fervent opposition to engaging with other nations have even earned him condemnation from leaders within his own nation and run the risk of further alienating Iran from the world community. I ask my colleagues to condemn Ahmadinejad's statements about the Holocaust and Israel and demonstrate that there is no place for such intolerance in global political discourse.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4437, the Border Security, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act. This bill is not about border security or terrorism prevention, as the name implies. H.R. 4437 is a one-sided, mean- spirited approach that will not solve our nation's immigration problems. The Republicans are so fearful of real reform that they did not even allow a vote on the President's own guestworker program or a bipartisan comprehensive border security and immigration plan, such as the Kolbe-Gutierrez bill. Instead, we are stuck voting on a bill that is opposed by almost every reasonable business, labor, civil liberties, and religious advocacy group in the country, and which has no chance of passage in the Senate. For our own security, it is of vital importance to know who is entering our country and who is here. Our current border policy of ``catch and release'' is not working. We need real security, but we also need to address the eight to fourteen million undocumented immigrants currently in our country. I am disappointed that this bill veers away from the bipartisan approach that we took in the Homeland Security Committee. While our bill was not perfect, Chairman King and Ranking Member Thompson were able to draft a proposal the entire Committee could support. During markup, I was pleased the Committee accepted my amendment to require radiation portal monitors to be installed at ports of entry within one year. This is an example of a common-sense measure that protects all Americans from the risk of terrorists smuggling nuclear weapons across our border. While this provision is included in H.R. 4437, the bill before us today also includes several egregious provisions that do very little to keep us safe from terrorists. Should this bill become law, millions of undocumented immigrants, including young children, already in our country will automatically become felons, subject to imprisonment. Aside from the cost of tracking down these newly charged felons, who will be entitled to a government funded public defender, and jailing them, we must also consider the economic and social costs to our country. Many undocumented immigrants play an important role in certain industries that depend on temporary or seasonal work. Their vital role in the economy explains why this bill is opposed by every major business group. For this reason, Democrats and the President support a temporary guestworker proposal, but this bill contains no such acknowledgement of our country's economic needs. Instead, under H.R. 4437, these immigrants would never be eligible for any guestworker program like the one requested by the President. People who have been living, working, paying taxes, and raising families in our country for 20 years, will now be pushed into a new underclass. Many of these families have children who are U.S. Citizens. Not only will this bill tear families apart, but by defining illegal immigrants as felons, this legislation could also create a backlash against anyone who appears to be of foreign origin, most of whom are here legally. In addition, the bill criminalizes assistance to undocumented immigrants, even if provided by church or non-profit volunteers. Now, if a person shows up at a church's doorstep hungry, the church will provide that person something to eat. However, under the terms of this bill, if that person happens to be an undocumented immigrant, the person who provided the food will be subject to up to 5 years in prison, and the church would have its property seized and sold to the highest bidder. These kinds of punitive responses do not represent the values of the American people. We need comprehensive immigration reform in the mold of H.R. 2330, the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act, which I am proud to support. This bill would secure our borders, require immigration status verification by employers, and create a path to citizenship for currently undocumented workers, while not penalizing those who are patiently waiting for legal entry to our country. This type of reform addresses the fact that it is unrealistic to track down and deport every undocumented immigrant, but it others from entering our country illegally in the future. Unfortunately, the House leadership did not permit so much as a vote on this measure, as they knew it would likely pass, and their conservative base would be upset by real reform. This bill before us today is a farce. The leaders of the House know that this bill will never see the light of day in the Senate. They have given us an unrealistic proposal to gain favor with their most vocal supporters. Their bill is so outlandish that it is opposed by nearly every advocacy group in the country: from the AFL-CIO to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and ACLU to Americans for Tax Reform. I cannot think of another measure where these groups were united. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 4437 and instead support comprehensive immigration reform.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations conference report before us. One month ago, the House of Representatives voted this bill down because it failed to address the priorities of the American people. I am disappointed that the conferees have sent it back to us without significant changes. Before we voted on this bill in November, my constituents told me what was important to them. Rhode Islanders, like all Americans, are concerned about health care and the economy. I believe the public sentiment on these issues accounted for the failure of this bill last month. With more than 45 million uninsured Americans and 7.4 million unemployed Americans, now is not the time to cut health professions training grants by 51 percent or take $229 million away from the unemployment insurance and service programs. Yet, this second conference agreement once again proposes to do just that. The consequences of ignoring these societal problems are far- reaching. Major cutbacks in the areas of education and health care will have a tremendous economic impact on our Nation. However, the Republican leadership set the stage for cuts in these critical programs. When Congress passed H. Con. Res. 95, the Budget Conference Report, they made it clear that tax cuts for the wealthy will continue to be paid for by slashing programs that Rhode Islanders depend on. Last month, I outlined my concerns about specific aspects of this bill--cuts for No Child Left Behind, an already underfunded mandate; the failure to increase the maximum Pell Grant as included in the original House bill; and providing insufficient funding for the National Institutes of Health, which would decrease the number of federal research grants for the second year in a row. As these concerns have not been addressed in the second conference report, I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 3010--again.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, today I rise in opposition to the conference report on H.R. 3199, the USA PATRIOT Act reauthorization. While I do not advocate permitting many of these important terrorism- fighting tools to expire at the end of the year, the American people would be better served by a bill that strikes a more reasonable balance between protecting civil liberties and fighting the war on terrorism. I am disappointed that the conference report does not closely mirror the bipartisan compromise that unanimously passed the Senate. I urge my colleagues to reject this conference report and take a bipartisan approach to protecting Americans' lives and liberties. Since the USA PATRIOT Act was enacted shortly after 9/11, I have met with many constituents and countless groups to discuss the details of this controversial legislation. Last year, I hosted a town hall meeting to hear what my constituents thought about the USA PATRIOT Act. While some agreed that the act was necessary to prevent another terrorist attack, most of the crowd, as well as most Rhode Islanders, believed we have already ceded too much ground with respect to our civil liberties. In my State, seven cities and towns have passed resolutions opposing parts of the USA PATRIOT Act, and my constituents understand what this bill means to them and their freedom. Last week, the 9/11 Commission released a report card on the implementation of the group's recommendations. For ``balance between security and civil liberties,'' the government received a ``B,'' which is a high grade considering they were given more ``Fs'' than ``As.'' However, the report card cautioned that ``robust and continuing oversight, both within the Executive and by the Congress, will be essential.'' We should strive to move closer to A than F, but this conference report does not accomplish that goal. By making 14 of the 16 expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act permanent, I worry that Congress will be less likely to engage in vigorous oversight to protect the civil liberties of law abiding Americans. The Senate proved that it is possible to protect both lives and liberties. Their legislation made permanent the less controversial portions of the act, but implemented commonsense changes to add a layer of protection for liberties while keeping America safe. Unfortunately, most of these improvements were not incorporated into the conference report. For instance, the Senate version required the government to show that a person is connected to terrorism or espionage before investigators could obtain medical, library or business records. The bill before us permits the government to go on fishing expeditions to look for information without probable cause. In addition, the Senate required new, strong protections for ``sneak and peak'' searches and roving wiretaps. These improvements are also absent, from the conference agreement. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the motion to recommit, which asks conferees to adopt the bipartisan Senate language. I recognize the need for our laws to keep pace with new technology and a changing world, and I am committed to ensuring our law enforcement has the tools they need to keep our Nation safe. However, providing these tools need not come at the expense of the liberties and freedoms that we hold so dear. If we cede these, we have already given up the very values the terrorists are trying to destroy. I am disappointed that conferees have decided to once again place partisanship over sound policy. Working together, we make America stronger, but Congress has again divided the American people. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 3199 and instead working to reauthorize the USA PATRIOT Act in a way that protects both our liberties and our country.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of the Rangel Substitute to H.R. 4297, the Tax Reconciliation Act and in opposition to the underlying bill. Instead of stopping a tax increase for the middle class in 2006, Republicans have chosen to keep taxes low for the wealthiest Americans in 2009. What kind of priorities favor the wealthy in the future over working families today? We can ill afford the continued ``tax cut and spend'' mentality that has marked the House during the last few years. Without a change in fiscal policy, future generations will be buried under a mountain of debt created by Congress. The bill before us today has many provisions I support, including the extension of the research and development tax credit, small business expensing, the deduction of higher education expenses, and brownfield sites expensing. In fact, I am a cosponsor of a bill to make the Research and Development Tax Credit permanent, as it keeps American companies competitive and provides a strong incentive for businesses to invest in the future and create jobs. I also support other provisions in this bill that help make college more affordable to millions of students and allow teachers to deduct out-of-pocket expenses. Unfortunately, the Republicans did not stop there. H.R. 4297 also includes a two year extension of the capital gains and dividend tax cuts, which are not scheduled to expire until 2008. Nearly half of these tax cuts will go directly into the pockets of the 1 in 500 taxpayers who earn more than $1 million per year. The contrast is stark: those who earn less than $40,000 will see an average tax cut of $7, while those earning more than a million will save an average of $32,000 in taxes. While Republicans claim that the dividend tax cut boosts the economy, the facts are not on their side. The Federal Reserve Board recently released a report declaring that the dividend tax cuts of 2003 have not boosted the stock market. To quote the report, ``We fail to find much, if any, imprint of the dividend tax cut news on the value of the aggregate stock market.'' There you have it: the Nation's top economists have determined that dividend tax reduction does not boost the stock market or increase wealth for shareholders. Most disingenuous is the fact that just three weeks ago, the House voted to cut Medicaid, student loans, foster care assistance, and food stamps under the guise of deficit reduction. However, today, we are voting for tax cuts that cost more than the money saved from the spending cuts. The Republicans have exposed their real agenda: they are robbing the poor to pay the rich. This year, we have a projected deficit of more than $300 billion. In addition, we will spend billions more in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as rebuilding the Gulf Coast in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. We simply cannot afford all of these emergency expenses while cutting taxes for the richest Americans. Thankfully, there is an alternative. The Rangel Substitute includes all the noncontroversial tax extensions I mentioned earlier and also contains three important provisions not found in H.R. 4297. First, the substitute drops the capital gains and dividend tax cuts in order to fix the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). The substitute would eliminate AMT liability for individuals who earn less than $100,000 and joint filers with incomes below $200,000, cutting taxes for 16 million families. Without this provision, more than half of all families with two children and incomes between $75,000 and $100,000 will be saddled with the AMT. This tax increase hits the middle class, and the Republicans are content to sit idly and let it happen. The Democratic AMT fix is similar to the Senate-passed tax reconciliation legislation, which would ensure a speedy conference and protect taxpayers before the provision expires at the end of the year. In addition, the substitute extends the tax-free status of combat pay. While our military personnel are risking their lives abroad to keep us safe, the least we can do is prevent burdening them and their families with a huge tax increase. Best of all, the substitute is fully offset, and will not add a dime to the national debt. The Rangel substitute will revive the economy, relieve the tax burden on working families, encourage companies to invest in the future, and create jobs. The Republican bill will hand out money to rich people and increase the deficit. The Rangel Substitute is a common-sense alternative that prevents a tax increase on working families, honors our troops, and does not cost a dime. We need responsible tax policies instead of the reverse Robin Hood approach taken by Republicans. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Rangel Substitute and opposing the underlying bill.