Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, the distinguished majority leader who just spoke said something that I agree with. He said that this issue that we are voting on tonight is probably one of the most important issues we will vote on in our career. Mr. Leader, I quite agree. Mr. Speaker, that is why it is hard to understand why we are taking up this debate in the dark of night when the Senate has taken up the bill for 2 weeks with the consideration of 30 amendments, to have a free and open exchange of ideas about this most important issue in our careers. And when the bill was sent to the floor in this House of Representatives for this most important issue, no amendments were allowed. Why were they not allowed, because of the fear that they might have passed and improved this Republican bill on the floor which dishonors the seniors that it pretends to support and dishonors the people who sent us to this House of Representatives by not allowing their amendments to be heard on this floor. My leadership role afforded me the opportunity to speak at some length earlier about my concerns about the Republican bill and my preference for the Democratic bill. I had only intended to take one moment to close, but after hearing my colleagues talk about fiscal responsibility, I cannot resist the opportunity to state the facts because it is one of the mysteries of this floor, that Members can come to the floor and misrepresent the facts, and that is in order, but to call them on it is out of order. But I am going to take that risk. The fact is that under the Clinton administration and the legislation passed in this House with 100 percent of the Democratic votes and not one Republican vote, coming out of the Clinton years we were on a path of $5.6 trillion in surplus, in surplus. In the 2\1/2\ years in the Bush administration, we are now on a path going to $3 trillion in deficit, a swing of over $8 trillion onto the national debt, and they call that fiscally sound, as they give away huge tax cuts to the 200,000 wealthiest families in America, and many of us in this room are part of that and would benefit, but not in the enlightened self- interest of this country. But for that same money, every senior citizen in America could have a real, guaranteed, defined prescription drug benefit. Mr. Speaker, I want to make two more points. We have had some debate; unfortunately, none of our amendments were we allowed to bring to the floor. It is late, and we usually do these things in the dark of night so the American people cannot see and cannot have the bright light of day on the debate on this floor to see what is happening to them and to their futures. But I want to make just two points about the bills. The Democratic bill is a defined guaranteed benefit under Medicare. The Republican bill is not. I heard the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Budget speak about the cost of the Democratic bill. The Democratic bill cost would be in half if the Republicans would allow the Secretary of HHS to negotiate for best prices. That provision is in the Democratic bill. It makes sense, right? Forty million seniors, lots of purchasing power, lots of leverage. It makes sense. Not to the Republicans. Their bill has a prohibition on the Secretary negotiating for best prices. A prohibition. I think there are many questions about the Republican bill. It is very complex. But as seniors look at it and they ask those questions, I think there is one question that every American should have: Why do the Republicans have a prohibition on the Secretary negotiating for the best possible price, reducing the cost of prescription drugs to seniors and to the American taxpayer? Why? I will tell you why. Because tonight we have a debate between the special interests and the public interest. The Democrats have come to this floor as servants of the people. The Republicans have come to this floor as handmaidens of the prescription drug industry. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and oppose the Republican bill.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on International Relations for yielding the time and for his tremendous leadership. What an honor it is to be on the floor today with my friend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the vice chair, I understand, of the Committee on International Relations, and with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), two champions of human rights every place in the world. By their leadership and their tireless energy, boundless I would say, on behalf of freedom, they have set an example, freed people, made the world a freer place, and we are all in their debt. I am pleased to join my colleague the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) as well as we speak to the issue of the preservation of freedom in Hong Kong. So it is with appreciation to all of my colleagues here present on the floor and to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), who is one of the authors of the resolution, that I join in calling for the preservation of freedom in Hong Kong, keeping promises made to the people of Hong Kong. Mr. Speaker, when the Sino-British Joint Declaration was initiated in 1997, it guaranteed the preservation of freedoms basic to life in Hong Kong. Just 5 years later, those freedoms, freedom of press, freedom of religion, freedom of association, are under assault. The House must act today to make clear to the Hong Kong government and to the People's Republic of China the seriousness with which the United States views any action that would subvert the promise of human rights contained in the joint resolution. The draft provisions to implement Article 23 of Hong Kong's basic law would give Beijing the ability to determine what types of organizations could exist in Hong Kong and which views could be expressed. Many of us received a delegation led by Martin Lee, the very distinguished democracy advocate in Hong Kong, just a few weeks ago, where they expressed their concern and the impact that this action would have on Hong Kong, as we have known it, as a dynamic society where business has flourished because information has been able to flow freely. This action is a significant threat to Hong Kong's autonomy and to the freedoms that make it a center for the exchange of information and ideas. It is an even greater concern because the movement toward popular democracy, as required under the basic law, has not begun. I commend President Bush on the administration's forceful opposition last Thursday to the Article 23 proposal. The administration statement emphasized that: ``Hong Kong's special status, endorsed by the United States under the Hong Kong Policy Act, depends on the local authorities' protection of human and civil rights and the preservation of the territory's autonomy. The United States opposes any law that threatens the territory's unique identity, including the current version of Article 23 legislation.'' That is from the President's statement. Hopefully, after leaders in Hong Kong and Beijing reflect seriously on those words and the strong sentiments contained in the legislation we are considering today, they will move to amend the proposal to preserve the freedom of the people of Hong Kong that they were promised. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the leadership again of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), and the leadership of the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) in introducing this legislation. I was pleased to join him in doing so. The Committee on International Relations has provided an opportunity for the House to go on record in favor of the preservation of human rights in Hong Kong in opposition to actions that threaten them. I urge overwhelming adoption of this measure to underscore our commitment to the cause of freedom in Hong Kong.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, as Members of Congress, our first responsibility set forth in the preamble to the Constitution is to provide for the common defense. In our time, the common defense means protecting our homeland from terrorists, as well as from traditional military threats to our interests at home and abroad. The consideration of the first-ever appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security could have been a historic opportunity to demonstrate our commitment to the common defense by addressing some of the most glaring deficiencies in our Nation's security. Sadly, it is yet another missed opportunity. The Republican's Homeland Security bill does not provide the resources necessary to do the job. The Republican bill does not meet the broad needs of our ports, our borders, our air transportation system, and other critical parts of our infrastructure. In determining the Nation's priorities, the Republican majority has chosen to cut taxes for those who need it least, while shortchanging the homeland security needs of everyday Americans. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the Committee on Appropriations ranking member, showed great leadership with an amendment to provide for America's security, to provide for the common defense, to protect the homeland. The amendment would have provided an additional $1 billion to improve homeland security by adding $500 million to port security, everyone recognizes that is the minimum figure that is needed to protect our ports; $100 million to assist in the development of an automated vessel tracking system; $200 million to pay either for a year-round air and marine interdiction program at our northern border or to increase to 6,900 the number of agents patrolling the northern border by the end of fiscal year 2004; $150 million in security grants to airports and overseas maintenance facilities; and, finally, $50 million for vulnerable assessments at critical infrastructure locations. Where would this $1 billion come from? The Obey amendment would be paid for by rolling back the tax cut for millionaires, that is, people making $1 million per year. People making $1 million a year or more would have their tax cut cut from $88,326 to $83,326. For that $5,000, for the 200,000 people making over $1 million a year, by reducing their tax cut from $88,000 to $83,000, America can be much safer. What would my colleagues choose, to protect the American people or to give $5,000 more to people making $1 million a year or more? Mr. Chairman, success in both the war on terrorism and the effort to better protect our Nation and its people will require a sustained effort and a resolve lasting many years. This bill should have been a testament to that resolve; but sadly, it is not. We need to act now to protect the American people. Recent history suggests that our security could be tested anytime and any place. We know what our exposure is, what our vulnerabilities are. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) addressed them in his amendment. We must take every step to be ready. We have that responsibility. Providing for the common defense is enshrined in our Constitution as one of our highest responsibilities. Its importance as a national priority is not reflected in this bill. I want to commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for his leadership, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) for his as well, and it is with the highest regard for the chairman of the subcommittee who has served in this House with great dignity that I regret opposing what has been put forth by the Republican leadership on the floor today. It again misses an opportunity for the American people.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am sad to join my colleagues, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott), as well as the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) who was on the floor earlier, and I know the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Majette), I do not know if she has been here yet, and many other Members, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) who was a very close friend of Maynard Jackson. I am saddened to add my personal thoughts and prayers to their wonderful comments about Maynard Jackson. America has lost a great statesman today, and our hearts are saddened for his family and thousands of his colleagues and friends who loved him and worked with him on so many issues. For his many friends at the United States Conference of Mayors where he served in key leadership roles, to those who worked with him in building the magnificent Atlanta airport in his tenure as mayor, to the many people that he touched as he worked tirelessly to bring the Olympics to Atlanta, the list goes on and on, Maynard Jackson, Jr., was larger than life, physically, politically and in every way. Maynard Jackson was the essence of a public person. Being first elected the mayor of Atlanta and then reelected and term-limited for another term, Maynard found other venues in which to serve his beloved Atlanta. He was an entrepreneur, one who mentored many young people who had expressed an interest in starting their own businesses. Maynard Jackson can be best described as a facilitator of the people. A facilitator so much so that when he chose to return to elected office, Mr. Speaker, for a third term as mayor of Atlanta, he was elected overwhelmingly with 80 percent of the vote. People loved and trusted Maynard Jackson. Maynard was a democrat with a small ``d'' and a capital D. He offered himself as the Chair of our party, as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) said earlier. Even though he was not successful, Mayor Jackson continued to work on voter education and outreach within the party in a very significant way. I was pleased to appoint Maynard Jackson to serve on the Election Assistance Commission Advisory Committee. I think it was an honor to all the Democratic members of the House that he accepted that position. This advisory committee would have had, and does have, the import of assisting 50 States to make sure that the American electoral system is accessible and fair. What greater American to oversee such a momentous task. Mr. Speaker, this was a result of legislation passed by the House of Representatives, by the entire Congress, signed by the President to make sure that every vote in America counts, that the public knows that, that we do the outreach, that we have the education of the public, that we have the technical assistance and the financial assistance to States and to communities, to have a voting system that, again, is fair, understandable, accessible and in which every vote is counted. Maynard Jackson devoted his life to the legitimacy of the process, to democracy in our country, to a commitment to enhance the voices of minorities in our country. We will miss him with his warm smile and his big heart. We all would say to Maynard, Well done. Well done. I hope it is a comfort to his family that so many people mourn their loss and are praying for them at this sad time.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me this time and I thank him for his very great leadership in shaping and bringing this alternative to the floor. It simply makes sense. It recognizes that family farmers, small businesses, hardworking Americans would like some relief from estate taxes so they can pass on the fruit of their labor to the next generation. What his substitute will do will cover 99.6 percent of all estates in America. It is reasonable. He would like to have paid for it, but we were told that it was against the rules of the House to pay for it by closing corporate tax shelters. It is against the rules of the House to eliminate corporate tax shelters. But his proposal as he presented it was fiscally sound and paid for, reasonable, and covered the estates of 99.6 percent of America's estates. I thank and congratulation the gentleman from North Dakota for his leadership. Mr. Speaker, every one of us in this body, and we know this and are reminded of it on a daily basis, takes an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States every time we are sworn in to a new term. In the Preamble to the Constitution, it says our first responsibilities are to provide for the common defense, to promote the general welfare and to provide the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. Let us look at that in light of what is happening on the floor today. The Republicans are bringing a continuation of their reckless tax-cutting binge that they are on to undermine the fiscal soundness of our country. They do it on a weekly basis, without any sense of what it does to plunge our children into indebtedness rather than investing in our future, and here they are again today. Provide for the common defense. Those men and women in uniform who provide for the common defense deserve for us to make a future worthy of their potential sacrifice. That future must be one that is better for everyone in America. Those who have provided for our common defense, some of whom of an earlier generation, have been called the greatest generation. Yet a tax cut of this nature that is on the floor today will benefit fewer than 10,000 estates in our country and for that cost we could give 100 percent of Americans a prescription drug benefit. Those members of the greatest generation would benefit from that. Instead, we have again another piece to the reckless binge that the Republicans are on. Pretty soon the country will tilt from the imbalance of all of this recklessness. And provide the blessings of liberty for our and our posterity. Every child in America is an heir to that legacy, is part of that posterity. Instead of investing in their future, and in fact, what we could have done earlier this week and we could do any minute here, to give them an expansion of a tax credit, instead we are plunging them into debt again rather than investing in their future. We have to see this goodie that is on the floor today, not only for itself, but what it is part of and how dangerous that is to our posterity and to our children's future, if that is the way you want to describe that. The Republicans' intentions are clear. They want to unravel the social compact that we have with the American people. The role of government, to educate the public, to invest in our infrastructure, to protect the American people, to reward our senior citizens who have built our country. Instead, and they speak of it with great arrogance now, they are proud of the shrinking of government that they have that is part of their design, and critical to it is to reduce the tax base; to reduce the tax base. Some of these people that have talked about previous tax cuts will be paying, those who have unearned income, whose income is dividend income, will not pay any taxes on the dividend and now they will not pay any taxes on the estate. I am talking about all of those people above a $6 million for a couple, $3 million for an individual estate. One of the values that the American people hold dear is the value of fairness. We are a country of fairness. How could it be fair to say we are going to give the wealthiest 10,000 families in America a bonanza instead of giving every senior citizen in America a prescription drug benefit? How could it be a sense of fairness to say to the children of the wealthiest families in America, we're concerned about your posterity, you are heirs and heiresses, but ignore the fact that every child in America, as I said before, is an heir and heiress to the great legacy that is our great country, a country of opportunity, opportunity that will be diminished by these tax cuts, opportunity that is diminished by the cutting back and investments in our children's health and their education and the economic security of their families by creating jobs instead of indebting us into the future with an impact of the deficits on long-term interest rates to be a drag on investment in our economy to create jobs. We have to look at all of this as one. In the same week, within a matter of days that we have deprived the children of minimum-wage earners of the expansion of the tax credit, which they could have in a matter of weeks if the Republicans in the House would act responsibly, in the same week that we, over and over, again honor our men and women in uniform, which they deserve, we bring dishonor to them by saying their children, 250,000 of them, are not worthy of the expansion of the tax credit. At the same time, as we do all of this, we are not building a future worthy of the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform. We are not honoring our oath of office to provide the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity, our children, to promote the general welfare. Where is that in the vision of this bill except that it is another part of the reckless binge that the Republicans are on, a fiscal unsoundness that has been a failure for the first 2\1/2\ years, losing 3.1 million jobs, and now they want to heap more on to it. That is why I am so pleased that the gentleman from North Dakota took the lead on this. His standing on issues relating to America's family farmers is impeccable. He has been their champion in issues relating to economic security, education, rural education, rural health, rural housing, rural transportation in every possible way. He brings great credibility to this debate for his concern for the people that he represents with such dignity. And he gives this body an opportunity to immediately give tax relief to estates of $3 million for an individual or $6 million for a couple instead of squandering our children's future for the top 10,000 or fewer estates in our country at the expense of so much else. The trade-offs are appalling. We have a responsibility in this body. We are elected for a reason. We are not here just to give tax cuts that do not create jobs, that do not grow the economy and are not fair and plunge us into debt. I urge my colleagues to honor your oaths of office. I urge you to do the responsible thing. I urge you to vote ``yes'' on the Pomeroy substitute.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, today is Day Five of the House Republican leadership's campaign to kill the extension of the child tax credit. The issue is very simple: The Senate has passed the child tax credit, the President says he will sign it, twelve million children in America need it, but the House Republicans want to kill it. The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means says there is not enough time to meet in conference with the Senate. That reveals his true intent. He does not want this bill to become law. A conference with the Senate could take just 5 minutes. The House Republicans could simply stop their delaying tactics and accept the Senate bill in the House-Senate conference. The conference report would be quickly approved by each House and sent to the President, who, as I mentioned, has said he will sign it. But let us be clear, the House Republicans do not want this bill to become law. In the 12 days since the Senate passed its bill by a 94 to 2 vote on June 5, a strong bipartisan vote, 94 to 2, the Republican majority in the House has voted six times not to accept the Senate bill. Instead, the Republicans voted to send a bloated $82 billion bill to conference, which they know the Senate will not accept. It is not paid for, it is reckless, it is irresponsible. The Republican leadership in the House simply does not want to expand the child tax credit, which corrects the unfair omission of nearly 12 million children, including 250,000 children of our active duty military personnel. Mr. Speaker, we are here because our constituents have entrusted us with serious responsibilities. We have the responsibility to our veterans and our military to make sure we honor their sacrifices and be true to the resolutions that we make honoring them here in this House almost on a daily basis. That is appropriate, to honor them, to respect their patriotism, their courage, and to recognize the sacrifice they are willing to make for our country. How then can we say to them that their children are not worthy of this extension of the tax credit? We also have a responsibility to our parents and grandparents to improve and strengthen the Medicare program they know and trust, and we have a responsibility to future generations to leave them with a country that is even better and stronger and more secure than the one we inherited from our parents. Providing the tax credit to working and military families is not something that we do not have time for. If children are a priority for us, then we make them a priority, and that means we have time for them. It is not something that we can cavalierly shrug off with phrases like ``It ain't gonna happen,'' to quote my colleagues. It is not something that ``we should only consider if we get something for it,'' to quote my colleagues. This is a central question of fairness and of responsibility to the children and 6.5 million families who are waiting, still waiting, for us to fulfill a promise we made to them. We are saying to those children, wait until next year, or the check is not in the mail. Whatever it is, it is bad news if you are a family working full-time, but do not make over $26,000 a year; and it is bad news for our children of the military. These working and military families pay taxes, just like everyone else, and are struggling to make ends meet in today's stagnant economy. On behalf of the families of 12 million children now waiting for this tax relief, we must correct this callous omission as quickly as possible. The Senate tax credit bill is fiscally responsible, it is paid for, and it costs $10 billion compared to the $82 billion in the House bill. The Senate bill is supported by Democrats and rank-and-file Republicans in the House, and it would immediately provide the tax credit to millions of working and military families let out of the final tax cut bill approved last month. We can pass the bipartisan legislation and send it to the President today. It is interesting that after the vote on the tax credit last week, where the Republicans' reckless and callous policy prevailed, that on the motion to instruct which followed, 12 Republicans joined the Democrats in a motion to instruct the conferees to take up the Senate bill. We did that because we know we can invest in our children or we can indebt them. That is the choice that the Republicans have put before us. Mr. Speaker, President Kennedy said, ``Children are our greatest resource and our best hope for the future.'' I urge my Republican colleagues to do the right thing and accept the Senate bill and, in doing so, support the value we place on our children. We cannot say that some children are our greatest resource and our best hope for the future, but not if your parents make the minimum wage or if they are risking their lives on active duty in the military. We recognize our children as our messengers to a future many of us, most of us, will never see. We want them to take forward a message of respect for children, all children in our country. We want to show them that they really are our greatest resource and our best hope for the future. There is no excuse, Mr. Speaker, for the Republican majority not to go immediately to conference and send this bill back to the House for approval and to the President's desk before the end of the month so that every child in America can take advantage of the tax credit whose parents qualify.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) for yielding me time and for the magnificent way that he has managed this rule today. Little did we know when we were discussing this issue of an expansion of a tax credit for working families in our country and for the children of our military men and women, that it would be a bill that would be managed by the Committee on Rules. Little did we know that a bill of the magnitude of $82 billion would be something that would be unveiled on Tuesday night, not go to committee for review; when it went to the Committee on Rules yesterday, to not have the leadership, the author of the bill, present to defend it. And now we know why. Because they never intended to have a rule to bring the bill to the floor. So frightened of debate on this issue are the Republicans, so frightened of the outcome that their own Members could not support this outrage that they are putting forth today, that they had to hide their ill will towards America's children behind a procedural vote to command the loyalty of the Republicans on a procedural vote while they knew they could not hold them on the substance of their bill. But that is the reality of it. And so we have to use the opportunities under this rule, as limited as it is, to point out what is so very, very wrong about what is going on on the floor of the House today. Let us talk about the children. President Kennedy said that children are our greatest resources and our best hope for the future. A beautiful statement. One I am sure that we would all agree with. He did not say children of those making over a certain level of income in our country are our greatest resources, and if their parents do not serve in the military, they are our best hope for the future. But that is what this rule says today. We had an opportunity in this body to expand the tax credit for children of working families and of military families by simply calling from the desk the Senate bill. It is right there at the desk. We could take it up by unanimous consent. The distinguished majority leader is here. We could agree to take it up by unanimous consent. It would be passed unanimously. It would be on the President's desk within the hour, signed into law, and all of the children that we are talking about, children of our men and women in uniform, children of families making between $10,000 and $26,000 would get the tax credit expansion this year. No matter what the Republicans want to say about their proposal, it sabotages that good intention. There is no way with the proposal that they are putting forth, costing $82 billion unpaid for, indebting the same children they purport to care about, indebting those same children to the tune of $82 billion, granting with one hand but not granting to all children, and not granting this year but taking away with the other for a long time to come, burying our children in a mountain of debt heaped onto the debt incurred by their previous tax legislation, and depriving the children of the Federal initiatives to invest in their education, in their health, in their well-being, in their future, and in the future of our country. The Republicans insist on doing this even though the opportunity that I said earlier exists. And why? One would have to suspect that they do not want to have a tax credit for the children of America's military and the children of working families between the income of $10,000 and $26,000, certainly not this year. Even though we cannot take up a full consideration of the bill or, heaven forbid, a substitute to it, indeed even the Senate bill which passed 94 to 2, a bipartisan piece of legislation, approved by the President, even though we cannot do it and we cannot have that discussion, it is important to note several facts. One is the families that we are talking about here, working full time, working full time, many of those families make in a year less than Members of Congress do in 1 month; and yet Members of Congress, their children will receive the expansion of the tax credit this year; but no, no, no, if you make $10,000 to $26,000, I am sorry, children, you are out of luck. The Republicans give new meaning to the biblical phrase, ``Suffer little children.'' The other point to make is about the military. In the military, it is important to note that combat pay does not count toward consideration of the children's tax credit. Under current law, and this is important to note, under current law an E-5 or an E-6 sergeant with 6 years of service and two children would not be entitled to the full tax credit if he is in combat. So the minute that sergeant went to Iraq, if he stayed there for 6 months, his combat pay would not count toward his income for tax purposes, and so his children would not receive the tax credit expansion. This is not corrected in the Republican bill. The Senate bill helps these military families. The House bill does not. It is important also to know that this legislation really is suspected as one that would kill the expansion of the tax credit. The Senators have said that they will not support the package if it is not paid for. They certainly have made it clear that they are not going to add $82 billion, $82 billion to the deficit, to the debt. The issue before the House is clear. We can pass a fiscally responsible tax credit bill that helps 12 million children, including 250,000 children from military families, or we can indebt them for future generations. We can invest in our children, or we can indebt them. That is the choice that the Republicans have put before us. Mr. Speaker, when I referenced the comments of President Kennedy, it was with the hope that we would agree in a bipartisan way in this body that when we say children are our greatest resource and our best hope for the future, that we are talking about all of the children in our country. We all want the best for our children. Many of us are privileged. I have five children, five grandchildren. I want the best for them, but they cannot have the best opportunity unless every child in America has opportunity. The Senate bill would enable that. The House bill does not. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and, in doing so, to support the value that we place on our children as our messengers to a future we will never see but that we want them to take forward a message of respect for all children in our country.

Ms. PELOSI

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

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, in my friendship with the Case family, which includes the recently departed Dan Case, he was a great person in our country and came from a beautiful, magnificent family of leaders, and among them was Dan Case and is Steve Case. But we are blessed in this House for Patsy to have been followed by the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case). The Case family is a family I know well, and Hawaii is well represented by the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case).

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for yielding me this time and for his leadership in bringing this to the floor. I want to commend the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case), the author of this legislation, and the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie). I am pleased to join both of them in honoring Patsy Takemoto Mink. I rise in support of naming the post office on Maui, Hawaii, as the Patsy Takemoto Mink Post Office Building. Everyone who knew Patsy or worked with her on a daily basis had his or her day brightened by her presence. With her wonderful family and her magnificent education, Patsy could have led a comfortable life, away from the rough and tumble world of politics. But as has been said of Eleanor Roosevelt, Patsy had a ``burdensome conscience.'' She dedicated her life to helping people and challenging our consciences. Our colleagues have spoken, as I heard the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) speak, to the obstacles that Patsy Mink had to overcome, as she was the first woman, the first Japanese-American in her law school, in her class; the first Asian-American woman attorney in Hawaii. She broke so many barriers. She was a pioneer. As I said, she considered public service a noble calling, and her public service was distinguished by deep patriotism and love of America. She loved America because of our freedoms, which are the envy of the world. She loved America because of its people, whose diversity is the strength of our country. She loved America because of the beauty of our country, which she worked so hard to preserve on the Committee on Resources. Patsy worked on the Committee on Education and the Workforce and was dedicated to improving the quality of education and the quality of life for children. When Patsy said ``It is not right'' about something, Members would follow her anywhere. I had the privilege of speaking at Patsy's funeral service, and I told a story then that I think speaks to how irresistible she was and how she would never take no for an answer and how we were all at the mercy of her smile and the twinkle in her eye. She had said to me one day, ``I need you to come speak in Hawaii at my testimonial dinner, 25 years of service in the Congress.'' How exciting and honored I was, except it was on the day of my town meeting in San Francisco. It was a Saturday evening for her then. She said, ``What time is your town meeting?'' I said, ``It is 10 o'clock in the morning and it lasts 2 hours.'' She said, ``Fine. You can be on the 1 o'clock to Hawaii.'' I said, ``I have another town meeting on Sunday.'' She said, ``Fine. You can be on the red-eye to go back.'' So I took the 1 o'clock flight to Hawaii, got there at 5 o'clock, got to the event at 6, left at 9, and was on the 10 o'clock flight home to San Francisco, as Patsy had decided for me. That was sandwiched in between flights to and from Washington, D.C. But there was no way to say no to her, because she had done so much for our country, because she meant so much to all of us. She had championed so many issues. We all loved her, respected her, and miss her terribly. So I cannot help but think that if Patsy were here today, she would be concerned about the expansion of the child tax credit and saying it is not right for us not to extend it to all the children of our men and women in uniform, as well as our working families in America. I wish she were here today. I know she would be proud of the representation of Hawaii that is here now, in the person of the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case), and, of course, her close pal and buddy and former colleague for many years, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie). Patsy Mink left a powerful legacy. Again, with a twinkle in her eye, her dazzling smile and her wonderful laugh, Patsy worked her magic on our country, making history and progress along the way. We were all privileged to call her ``colleague,'' and it is an honor to have this building named for the great Patsy Mink, and, important to her family, the Patsy Takemoto Mink Postal Building in Maui, Hawaii.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, once again, I rise to urge the Republican leadership of this House to bring legislation to the floor which would create the expansion of the child tax credit for many, many more families in America. Last week, many of us spoke on this floor urging the Congress to act, to act for America's children, to act for America's working families. The Senate has acted; and now the main obstacle, indeed the only obstacle to those children having the benefit of the tax credit, is the Republican leadership in the House. Today, Senator Daschle, the distinguished minority leader in the Senate, and I sent a letter to the President thanking him for expressing his support for expanding the child tax credit. Unfortunately, again the Republican leadership in the House is blocking consideration of this vital legislation. The President's immediate intervention with House Republicans is required to ensure that 12 million working and military families are eligible for the child tax credit. These families need the money now, but this tax relief will not be made available to them apparently unless the President intervenes and urges the Republican House leadership to pass this extension immediately. How can we pass a tax bill that gives nearly $100,000 in tax cuts to people making over $1 million a year, $100,000 tax cut to those making $1 million a year, and yet say to people in our country who make the minimum wage, your children are not worthy of a $400 expansion of the tax credit? How do we say to our men and women in uniform, whose courage and patriotism we salute on a regular basis on this floor, how can we say to them we appreciate your courage, your patriotism and the sacrifice that you are willing to make for our country, but your children are unworthy of receiving the expansion of the tax credit because your military pay is not enough to qualify you for this tax cut? Putting money into the hands of these working and military families will help increase demand in our economy, creating jobs and stimulating the economy. There is a very practical and economic reason to do this, in addition to just a sense of decency and doing what is right for America's children. Because of the economic benefits and the fact that it is the right thing to do, the bill passed the Senate last week 94 to 2. But this week the bill is nowhere in sight. We want this freestanding bill to come to the House of Representatives. We want the House Republicans to stop their opposition to this tax relief for America's children. We want them to stop refusing to bring it to the floor of the House. Asking millions of working families who need the tax credit to help make ends meet in this stagnant economy, to sacrifice in order to pay for additional tax breaks for those who need it least is simply not right. Approximately 250,000 children of our men and women in uniform are being deprived of the expansion of this $400 tax credit in order to pay for a tax cut for millionaires in our country. I do not think it is an appropriate way to go. Who is looking after the children in our country? Clearly it is the Democrats.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) as chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus for calling this Special Order tonight. I am pleased to join him and our colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), and commend both of them for speaking out for America's children, for speaking out for all of America's children. A couple of weeks ago, we experienced a very sad evening here in the House of Representatives. The Republican majority insisted on foisting irresponsible and reckless tax cuts on the country that were fiscally irresponsible, which instead of investing in our children indebted them for years to come. It was not bad enough that they were fiscally irresponsible, meaning that we would never be able to pay off the trillions of dollars of indebtedness that was incurred; but lo and behold 1 week later it was revealed, after the signing of the bill, that children of minimum-wage-earning parents did not get the additional child tax credit. How could it be that we would say to the children of working families in our country that their parents do not make enough money for them, the children, to deserve a tax credit? The very people in this body who oppose raising the minimum wage say to minimum wage earners, You don't earn enough for your children to get the tax credit. Think of the irony of that, the Catch-22 of that. Not only do those children not get the tax credit but also the children of our men and women in uniform, many of whom will not qualify for this additional tax credit for their children. Earlier this year before the hostilities began in March, I had the occasion and privilege to visit our men and women in uniform in Kuwait, in Qatar and in Turkey. I saw firsthand their courage, their patriotism, and the sacrifice they were willing to make for our country. How do we tell them, many of whom have left their jobs but do not make enough money to qualify, that their children are not worthy of a tax cut, when they are risking their lives for our country? The Democrats have a better idea. Democrats under the leadership of the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) are offering a package to help hardworking American families and a package that will create jobs. It will begin to repair the damage, which is a long road from the reckless and irresponsible tax package put forward by the Republicans. Overall, the Rangel-Davis-DeLauro bill will provide greater tax relief to the families of 19 million children in America, families making the minimum wage who are struggling to make ends meet. In addition to restoring the child tax credit provision that Republicans dropped in the dark of night, the Rangel bill would make the child tax credit available to 1.7 million more families by providing that those earning $7,500 or more could get the credit. And now to our men and women in uniform. Under the Democratic package, the men and women in uniform, our package would make sure that our men and women in the military are not denied tax relief just because they are fighting in Iraq. Specifically, the bill would count combat pay for purposes of the child tax credit. Specifically, I repeat, the Democratic package would count combat pay for the purpose of figuring the child tax credit. Republicans enacted a $350 billion tax bill, and growing; and yet they could not find room to make sure that our men and women in combat are able to take full advantage of the child tax credit. That is downright unpatriotic. I go a long way before I would say that about any action. The Democratic provision will create jobs and build a strong economy. It is the direction we should have gone, and I wish that this House had accepted the gentleman from New York's proposal to have unanimous consent to bring it up on this floor today and to have the debate. Let us get back to those men and women in uniform again, though, and their children. Some of them that I visited had left their children behind. Other Members have traveled there since the war has ended; and they have told me of meeting some in the military, women, who have children 2 and 4 years old whom they had left at home because they were called to duty. They answered the call and now we are saying to them, Sorry, your combat pay does not enable you to get the tax credit for your children. I think it is our patriotic duty to them, for this Congress to be responsible and accountable for paying our debts. It is an act of patriotism to be fiscally sound and to pay our debts. So my criticism of this bill is, in the larger sense, that it is fiscally irresponsible. We are on a binge of irresponsibility and recklessness when it comes to the tax cuts. The sad part of it is, it is a missed opportunity, Mr. Speaker, because if the Republicans wanted to have a tax cut that would create jobs, that would be fiscally responsible and would be fair, they could have. All they needed to do was look to the Democratic package, which is just that, fair, fiscally sound and fast acting in terms of creating a minimum of 1 million jobs this year. They chose to miss that opportunity and in doing so, I am choosing my words carefully, to insult the service of our men and women in uniform by saying, It's just not enough for you to get the tax credit that other children whose parents make more money than you do are entitled to. Mr. Speaker, I again commend the gentleman from Texas for his leadership. He has been a champion for America's working families; and for our children, he has been a champion for the future.

Ms. PELOSI. If the gentleman will yield further, and our alternative is paid for?

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this conference report. This tax cut is a tragedy. It does not create jobs, it does not grow the economy, and the only thing it grows is the deficit. What we see here today is the unraveling of fiscal responsibility. It began in the White House with the President's reckless, irresponsible proposal, and it continues with the Republicans in the Congress. By promoting his unnecessary, unfair, and fiscally unsound tax cut, President Bush has created a tax cutting frenzy among Congressional Republicans. The result is this conference report--and a bill to put our children $1 trillion in debt. That is not leadership. I have asked many times, where have all the Republican deficit hawks gone? They are an endangered species. Democrats still believe in fiscal responsibility, and we believe that raiding Social Security and saddling our children and grandchildren with enormous debt is wrong. If the Republicans had wanted to have a proposal that would grow the economy, focus on the middle class, create jobs and be fiscally sound, they could have done so. They chose not to. The Democratic plan, which we were not allowed to vote on, creates 1 million new jobs this year without adding one penny to the deficit. It puts money in the hands of people who need it and will spend it, injecting demand into the economy and creating jobs this year. But instead, Republicans have chosen to add $1 trillion in debt-- shortchanging education, homeland security, healthcare and other vital needs. The list of missed opportunities goes on and on. That is not leadership. Investing in education--early childhood education, K through 12, higher education, postgraduate education, lifetime learning--does more to grow the economy than any tax cut you can name. But to accommodate tax breaks for those who need it least, the Republican budget cuts $168 billion from domestic programs, including education, over the next decade. Students are asked to sacrifice, seniors are asked to sacrifice, first responders are asked to sacrifice, middle class families are asked to sacrifice--all so that the average millionaire can get a tax cut of $93,500. That is not leadership. And, in order to squeeze more tax breaks for the wealthy into this bill, Republicans have included provisions that end the few middle- class tax cuts they once supported. Both the child tax credit and elimination of the marriage penalty end in 2005--leaving middle-class Americans with a tax increase in 2006. A future Congress will be forced to either increase taxes or add billions to our spiraling debt just as the Baby Boomers begin retiring. The middle class is asked to subsidize the wealthy. That is not right. That is not leadership. These gimmicks hide the true cost of this tax cut, and they are not fair to middle-class Americans. The great irony of all this is that if all the Republicans want to do is to put money in the pockets of wealthy people, then nothing works better than sound, fiscally responsible policies. Wealthy Americans did better in the 1990's than at any other time. But Republicans have failed to build upon the economic successes of the Clinton Administration. Their economic record is a dismal failure. The first two years of the Bush Administration have seen a loss of 2.8 million jobs--the worst record of job creation of any President since World War II. No job creation whatsoever--job loss. No modern President has had a record of that kind. And since President Bush took office, we have seen a surplus of $5.6 trillion turn into a deficit of over $2 trillion--and growing. A swing of $7.6 trillion. So now what do they want to do? Repeat the same economic policies that got us into this hole to begin with, digging the hole even deeper. That is not leadership. President Bush and Republicans in Congress never miss an opportunity to do what is right for average Americans. Tonight, instead of investing in our children, we are indebting them. We are mortgaging their futures for a tax break that benefits those who need it least, the wealthiest in our country. And we are doing so at the expense of our opportunity to invest further in the education of our children. Vote no on the conference report. Vote no on fiscal irresponsibility. Vote no on a reckless plan that will take our country in the wrong direction.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1298, The United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Act of 2003. The statistics on AIDS staggering. According to the United Nations, AIDS has killed over 20 million people since the epidemic began. Every day nearly 14,000 people become infected with HIV, primarily in the developing world and another 8,500 people die. It's almost too much to comprehend, but we can respond. And we must. Experts say that a strong global response could prevent nearly two- thirds of the 45 million new infections that are projected by 2020, saving tens of millions of lives. This legislation will strengthen our response to the global AIDS pandemic by improving coordination among relevant U.S. agencies, establishing additional accountability mechanisms, and fostering international cooperation through increased contributions to the multilateral Global Fund to Combat HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. The increased contribution of up to $1 billion for the Global Fund in FY2004 is accompanied by a 33 percent cap on the U.S. contribution to challenge other donor countries to match our increased commitment. The promises made in H.R. 1298, however, must be matched by real resources. Planning and coordination alone will not solve this monumental crisis. Prevention and treatment require money. This is a good first step, now we must appropriate the funds necessary to enact this plan and demonstrate the depth of our commitment to the world. H.R. 1298 authorizes $15 billion for our multilateral and bilateral efforts, including $3 billion in FY2004. Unfortunately, the Bush budget provides only $1.6 billion in FY2004, with only $200 million going to the Global Fund. We must do better. I also have deep reservations about the provision that gives abstinence programs a third of USAID's prevention funding. This crisis is too severe and our response is too critical to let our efforts be undermined by catering to ideological pressure. The fight against AIDS is far from over, and this legislation provides an important opportunity to strengthen our commitment to a future where AIDS is no longer a threat. I urge my colleagues to support the motion to concur.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the comments of the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, just now as he talked about the rules of the House and those rules foreclosing the option of the Democrats to be able to bring a bill to this floor. What I heard the gentleman say is that the rules of this House are rigged against working families in America; that the rules of this House under his interpretation are rigged against bringing a bill that would create jobs, that would invest in infrastructure in our country and immediately create jobs which would help address the concerns of cities, States, and localities in terms of homeland security needs so important to the American people; that it is rigged against extending unemployment benefits to America's workers where the money is there for that purpose and which would inject demand immediately into the economy, immediately creating jobs because of people having to spend that money on necessities; and that the rules of the House are rigged against fiscal responsibility. The Democratic proposal was at a cost of zero. It paid for itself. It was offset. So if the rules of this House do not allow us to come here and fight in a very direct way for working families in America, for the middle class in America, then the rules of the House should be changed. The gentleman knows full well that the minority had every opportunity for amendment and substitutes when the Democrats were in power. But it is no use talking about process. Let us talk about jobs. Let us talk about job creation. Let us talk about immediately infusing demand into the economy. Let us talk about fiscal soundness. Let us talk about the debt limit, that this irresponsible, reckless Republican proposal that may be coming to this floor will demand that we lift the debt ceiling once again, further indebting, further indebting America's children well into the future, but without a vote and without a debate and without the American people understanding the damage that the Republicans are doing to our economy and to our future. Republicans are supporting record debt increases to finance a tax cut that hundreds of economists and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan agree will not grow the economy. And sadly what President Bush did by putting forth his proposal has started the unraveling of fiscal responsibility in our country. That is not leadership. How irresponsible that was. But the Republicans in Congress picked up the baton and started a feeding frenzy of further tax cuts, further responsibility in terms of our budget. And some of their proposals even administration allies, such as Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute, are saying that what they propose in their dividend plan is one of the most patently absurd tax policies ever proposed. Mr. Speaker, public policy is important. Fiscal policy, budget policy makes a difference. It has ramifications in the economy. In order to back up their claim that passing this bill will stimulate the economy this year, House Republicans are using gimmicks that border on the absurd and have very damaging public policy ramifications. Their bill delays billions of corporate tax payments, otherwise due September 15, for 16 days until October 1 when the next fiscal year begins. How does delaying taxes for 2 weeks create jobs for American workers? Again this is process. We want jobs. In order to jam more tax breaks for the wealthy into this bill, Republicans have included provisions to end middle-class-oriented tax cuts, leaving middle-class Americans with a tax increase in 2006. This will force a future Congress to either increase taxes or add billions to our spiraling debt just as baby boomers are retiring. The tax cuts for the higher end ought to be left alone. The middle class is asked to subsidize the wealthy. That is simply not right. The projected deficit for this year is already a record high, and the Republican's want to add $1 trillion more in debt to pay for this tax cut. It defies logic. It defies economics, and it contradicts promises made to the American people. Shortly after taking office, President Bush said, ``We should approach our Nation's budget as any prudent family would.'' And last August he reiterated, ``We cannot go down the path of soaring deficits.'' We cannot go down the path of soaring deficits? What are we doing today? This tax bill breaks that promise. The reckless tax bill promoted by Republicans in Congress fails to help those who need it most, the middle class; fails to create jobs; fails to maintain fiscal responsibility. Democrats have their own initiative, a plan that creates one million new jobs this year and gets the economy moving again without adding to the deficit, and the Republicans tell us that the rules do not allow that. We are fighting for a return to fiscal responsibility. The motion to instruct is part of that fight. I urge my colleagues to support it, and I commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for his leadership in putting it forth.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to the rule on the National Defense Authorization Act. This rule fails to make in order several important Democratic amendments, including the Rahall- Dingell amendment on the environmental provisions in the bill. The Department of Defense claims that it needs exemptions from five of our major environmental laws--laws that protect the air, water, endangered species, whales, dolphins, and last but not least, humans. The Pentagon says these laws are interfering with military readiness. But the evidence it has presented is at best anecdotal. In a June 2002 study, the Government Accounting Office could find no evidence that environmental protection is a problem for our Armed Forces. In light of the impressive performance of our men and women in Iraq, any assertion that our military is not ready to fight and win is patently ridiculous. These environmental laws have been in place for several decades, and our Armed Forces are the best trained in the world. The defense bill that we are debating today rolls back protections in two key environmental laws: the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The DOD bill significantly reduces the Secretary of the Interior's responsibility to designate critical habitat and would greatly weaken protections for endangered species anywhere in the U.S., not just on military facilities. Without critical habitat, imperiled species will not recover. This bill would also specifically reduce protections for endangered species on military lands. For marine mammals, the bill weakens the definition of ``harassment'' for all users of the oceans and coastal waters, not just for the military. It would also give the DOD unlimited, unmonitored exemptions from marine mammal protection. The majority has refused to allow us to vote on the Rahall-Dingell amendment to fix these provisions. Why? Because they are afraid they will lose. The American people reject the idea that the federal government should be above the law. A recent Zogby poll showed 84 percent of likely voters think the Pentagon should follow the same environmental and public health laws as everyone else. Liberals, moderates, and conservatives alike agree that all agencies of the federal government should be held accountable for their actions. Communities across the nation are grappling with the toxic contamination of former bases that used to be exempt from environmental laws. Many of us have decommissioned military facilities in our districts. In my home city of San Francisco, we have been pushing for years for the clean up of the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. The military's track record on protecting the environment is dismal. We hold the Department of Defense accountable for its actions in the future. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, so that we can make the Rahall-Dingell amendment in order, and ``no'' on the rule.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, it is with great personal sadness that I rise to pay tribute to Tina Burgess-Coan, who died peacefully on May 12, 2003. Beloved wife of the late Judge George ``Papito George'' Coan and devoted mother of William and Robert Burgess, she was a friend to so many and we were blessed to have her with us. Thank you, William and Robert, for sharing your wonderful mother with us. Tina Burgess-Coan, affectionately known as ``Mama Tina,'' was born in Colombia, South America. In Colombia, she studied with the Carmelite Sisters and acquired the spiritual foundation for a life of charity and giving. Her relationship with the Carmelite Sisters continued to grow and guide her life of social and political activism. On her way to San Francisco she spent time in Hollywood where she perfected her glamorous style, but we are so fortunate that she chose our city of San Francisco to be her home. Mama Tina came into my life during my first term in Congress. Through the years, she continued to extend her loving support and generosity to my family and friends. She was actively involved throughout the San Francisco community, serving numerous neighborhood groups and individuals. Always there when she was needed, she gave abundantly of her time, her wisdom, and her delicious home-cooked meals. Words cannot express my appreciation for Mama Tina's many years of love, generosity, and friendship to my family and the San Francisco community. Wherever she went, she made everyone feel a part of a large, caring family. She was one of a kind. We will miss Mama Tina terribly but are grateful for every day we had with her.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Morgan Chu, who is being recognized by the American Jewish Committee at its 24th Annual Learned Hand Award Dinner on May 21, 2003. This award is named in memory of Judge Learned Hand, one of America's great jurists and humanitarians, and is being given to Morgan Chu for his ``outstanding leadership in the legal profession'' and his ``strong voice of understanding and good will.'' Morgan earned an AB (1971), MA (1972), and PhD (1973) from UCLA, an MSL (1974) from Yale University and a JD (1976) from Harvard Law School, magna cum laude. He then clerked for Judge Charles Merrill of the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit. In 1977, he began his career with the well known law firm of Irell & Manella, developing a reputation as one of the nation's top experts in intellectual property, becoming a partner and serving on the Irell & Manella executive committee for the past 18 years. In his first year at the firm, Morgan distinguished himself by serving as the lead counsel for Matel, Inc. in a patent infringement trial. With his victory in the complex case, he became known as an enterprising young trial attorney who knew how to handle the complex legal issues associated with technology. Since then, he has won many other landmark cases, including the first trial involving a patent of computer software. The jury invalidated a patent in favor of his client. The National Law Journal describes Morgan as a ``litigator of complex intellectual property, antitrust and first amendment cases . . . an innovator.'' The 2001 survey of company directors, law school deans, and lawyers by Corporate Board Member named him ``The Best Intellectual Property Lawyer in the Nation.'' Throughout his career Morgan has been recognized for his extraordinary talent, skill and success in the field of law. In 1983, he was dubbed a ``new superstar,'' and since then he has continually been listed among the ten top trial lawyers, and the most influential lawyers in Los Angeles and the nation. He was named as one of the ``Top Players in High-Tech Intellectual Property,'' and in 1991, the California Law Business Journal chose him as a member of their Dream Team. Morgan was an Adjunct Professor of Law at UCLA and served as a judge pro tem. He has served on the Board of Directors of Public Counsel for many years and is currently a member of its Executive Committee. As part of his pro bono work, Morgan won the reversal of a first-degree murder conviction for an inmate on death row whose sentence and conviction had already been upheld by the Supreme Court. He is a remarkable man who has used his enormous talents to help his community. Morgan and his wife, Helen, reside in Los Angeles. Known for his penchant for bow ties, he says he wears them because, ``it is easier to lean down and smell the flowers along the way.'' Despite all his accomplishments he is a down-to-earth guy, whose company is downright enjoyable. It is our great pleasure and honor to ask our colleagues to join us in paying tribute to our good friend, Morgan Chu, the worthy recipient of 2003's Learned Hand Award.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, for more than two centuries, America has been enriched by our diverse and rapidly growing Asian American and Pacific Islander communities. Generations of immigrants and refugees from Asia and native peoples from Hawaii and the Pacific Islands have enhanced our nation by preserving and sharing their unique cultures and values. Asian Pacific American Heritage Month provides a special opportunity for all Americans to pay tribute to Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders whose countless contributions--in science and technology, arts and media, business and social work, politics and more--have left a lasting legacy on American culture and society. Moreover, these communities serve as a living example of the critical role that equal opportunity, social justice, and civic participation play in making the American Dream a reality. In the face of prejudice and poverty, internment and exclusion, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders have fought for the right to call America their home. This month, we thank them for their perserverance, we applaud them for their achievements, and we proudly recognize them as fellow countrymen in our common homeland.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a very special friend of the City of San Francisco Reverend Floyd Alfonso Joseph Lotito. Father Lotito is being recognized by the San Francisco Forum as the ``San Franciscan of the Year'' for his lifetime of service and advocacy for poor and homeless people. A devoted educator, social activist, and spiritual leader, Father Lotito epitomizes San Francisco's most cherished values. Born and raised in Southern California, Father Lotito began his theological training in 1949, eventually becoming an ordained priest at Old Mission Santa Barbara in 1960. He earned Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Sacred Theology degrees before joining St. Mary's Parish of Stockton, California in 1961. He came to San Francisco in 1968, where he became Associate Pastor for St. Boniface Parish and St. Anthony Parish, the same position he holds today. Father Lotito later received a Master of Arts in Speech and Communication degree and a Lifetime California Standard Teaching Credential. Father Lotito has kept learning his entire life, most recently conducting research in theology, psychology, sociology, education, speech, and counseling. He has taught many subjects at the high school, college, and graduate school levels. He excelled as a theatre director and forensics coach, taking his students to the state competition level. Father Lotito served in a number of parishes in California, Oregon, and Wisconsin before coming to San Francisco, but it was at St. Anthony's that he found his home. The St. Anthony Foundation provides social services and resources in the neighborhood of St. Boniface Church, an area that is home to the poor, the sick, and a burgeoning immigrant population. St. Anthony's Dining Room serves 2,000 meals a day, 365 days a year. Father Lotito has served in many capacities at St. Anthony's including Deputy Executive Director, Director of Public Relations, Director of the Dining Room and Chaplain. His work there has earned him our eternal admiration and gratitude. Father Lotito's efforts to combat poverty and homelessness have received local, national and international recognition. He has addressed numerous audiences, including President Clinton and members of Congress, concerning poverty at home and abroad. In 1984, he delivered the benediction at the Democratic National Convention in San Francisco. He has helped develop a number of charity and volunteer organizations through the church and the community and serves as spiritual advisor to many community groups. A Franciscan friar, Father Lotito believes in blessing all of God's creations. Many look forward to the ``Blessing of the Animals'' he holds every year in our city of St. Francis. He also delights us with an annual blessing of the City's taxicab drivers. These wonderful rituals are just a small part of what make him a true San Francisco treasure. I am proud to join the San Francisco Forum as well as his friends, family, and loved ones in saluting Father Lotito and to congratulate him on being named the ``San Franciscan of the Year.''

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to the previous question to the rule. The bill before us to authorize the National Transportation Safety Board is a good bill, which I support. I strongly support it. However, after it is passed, we should immediately approve the bill proposed by my colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), to extend unemployment benefits to the millions of Americans whose benefits will run out at the end of the month. In December, the Republican majority allowed this vital program to expire just before Christmas. That left millions of families without work and without benefits. We cannot let that happen again as we go toward the end of May, the expiration date. Mr. Speaker, since January 20, 2001, when President Bush was sworn in, 2.7 million private sector jobs have been lost, the worst record of job creation or lack thereof of any administration since the Great Depression. That is the worst record, as my colleagues can see here. Every President since the war has had job creation above the line. President Bush, 2.727, 100,000 jobs a month since he became President, have been lost. That means that for every working hour of every working day, 563 people become unemployed, more than serve in the House and the Senate. It is as if every hour the House and the Senate would lose its jobs. Now, some people may think that is a good idea, if we do not have more relevance to the lives of the American people and understand when people are out of work that they need these benefits. The American people do not need a dividend tax cut. The American workers need jobs. Earlier this month, the Department of Labor announced that April's unemployment rate reached 6 percent, with nearly 9 million Americans out of work. Another 9 million Americans have either given up looking for work or are working part time. Millions of families are struggling with the hardship and the uncertainty of life without a paycheck. Without unemployment benefits many of these families would have nowhere to turn. Indeed, some of them told me yesterday they would become homeless. Temporary Federal benefits expire on May 31, but President Bush and the Republican leadership have refused to include any extension of benefits in the tax bill that passed the House last week and what is now under consideration in the Senate. This extension is important to America's working families and to our economy. Economists tell us that extending unemployment benefits is the most effective way to quickly grow the economy and create jobs. It is fair, fast-acting and fiscally sound. For every dollar that the Federal Government invests in unemployment benefits, the return is $1.73 to the economy. In contrast, for every dollar the Federal Government provides to cut taxes on dividends, the return to the economy is 9 cents. This is nonsensical. The plan proposed by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), and I commend them for their leadership, would provide a 6-month extension of the Federal unemployment benefits program. It would provide 26 weeks of Federal benefits for workers who lose their jobs, and another 13 weeks for workers who have already exhausted their benefits without finding a new job in this stagnant economy. None of the Republican tax plans, the President's, the House Republicans and the House Senate Republicans, provides one thin dime for unemployed workers. Again, I want to reiterate why this is important, because contrary to what the Republicans are proposing, which provides 9 cents to the economy, extending Federal unemployment benefits puts $1.73 into the economy. Why? Because it puts money into the hands of unemployed workers and their families. They need that money to spend on necessities. The spending of that money injections demand into the economy, thereby creating jobs. The tax dividend proposal does not do that. The unemployment rate today is higher than when the temporary Federal unemployment benefits were first approved in March of last year, but Republicans have decided that instead of helping unemployed workers, they should give people who make $1 million a year an average of $100,000 in tax breaks. How can that be right? While Republicans insist on tax breaks for those who need it least, our Democratic priorities are clear: We will fight to get the economy back on track, we will create jobs, and we will help unemployed workers. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question on the rule; vote ``yes'' to extend unemployment benefits for 9 million Americans who cannot find work in this stagnant economy. How can we go down this course of action where we make the same mistake twice? The President came in and gave over a trillion dollars in tax cuts. Now 2.7 million Americans lose their jobs, and they step up to the plate again and offer more of the same. Job losers. Do not even take my word for it, take the word of the Joint Taxation Committee, which is Republican, which is directed by the rules of the 108th Congress to score dynamically, giving every benefit of every doubt to the plan. It is a job loser by their estimation. So we have to take a different course of action. One remedy that helps the economy and helps unemployed workers is extending the unemployment benefits. I commend my colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), for their leadership on this.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, today the House of Representatives has a very historic decision to make. Other speakers have referenced the sacrifice of our young men and women in uniform in Iraq and the gratitude we have to them for the sacrifice that they were willing to make. They were successful in their mission. Our mission is to build a future worthy of their sacrifice. That cannot be done by voting for the reckless, irresponsible proposal put forth by the Republican majority on this floor today. The distinguished majority leader said we did not have a plan until yesterday. We had a plan the day before the President had a plan in January, a plan that was fair, fast-acting and fiscally sound. And the plan that we brought to the Committee on Rules yesterday was consistent with those provisions and those principles. But so frightened were the Republicans of the truth on this floor that they would not allow the Democratic plan for job creation and economic growth to be brought to this floor. So frightened were they of the truth that they have tried to silence the voice of over 100 million people in our country who are represented on this side of the aisle. We are building a visitors center outside for people to come and witness democracy. What do we tell them when we say that so many Americans cannot have their voices heard on this floor around the debate of a proposal for economic growth and job creation? This day is a historic day. In many ways it is a sad day. And I would like to put it in perspective. Ten years ago, faced with a struggling economy and a growing deficit, a new Congress and a new President courageously passed a budget bill that took us on a path to fiscal soundness. The stock markets responded, the economy prospered, and we had a record of economic growth that is unsurpassed in our Nation's history. We did that with Democratic votes only. Not one Republican was willing to step up to the plate for fiscal soundness and economic growth and job creation. At the end of the Clinton administration, by the end of the Clinton administration, 22 million new jobs were created. The country was on the path of a record surplus of $5.6 trillion, and the unemployment rate was at an all-time low. To achieve that, it took leadership and it took courage. Mr. Speaker, the debate today is about leadership. Sadly, that leadership is lacking from both President Bush and from the Republican Congress. What a difference 2 years makes. President Bush and the Republicans in Congress have presided over the most dramatic deterioration in our economic health in our Nation's history. Since President Bush took office, we have gone from the strongest economy ever in the United States to a weak, struggling economy that was described by the majority leader just a moment ago. We have gone from historically low unemployment rate to losing 2.7 million jobs in the first 2 years of the President's term. In fact it is 27 months, 2.7 million jobs, the worst record of job creation in nearly 6 decades. I call my colleagues' attention to this chart. Every President since World War II is on the upside of the line of job creation. Every President except one, George W. Bush. President Clinton, 22 million jobs in 8 years. President Bush, losing 2.7 million jobs in the first 2 years of his term. That was a result of his failed economic policies. And what is his answer to this record unemployment? The same warmed- over stew. The same recipe for economic disaster. This number, 563, drives home the point in a personal way. Since President Bush became President, every working hour of every working day, 563 Americans lose their jobs. A little more than the number of people who serve in the Congress, House and Senate combined, lose their jobs every hour of every working day since the President has taken office. Under the Republican leadership, April's unemployment rate reached 6 percent. Nearly 9 million Americans are out of work, the worst job slump since the Great Depression. Another 9 million have either given up looking for work at all or are working part time. That is why today is so tragic. Tragedy is about missed opportunities. We have an opportunity today to create jobs and build a strong economy without endangering our fiscal responsibility. Instead, the reckless tax plan the President and the Republicans in Congress have set forth is not only irresponsible in its substance; it is irresponsible in the bad example that the President and the White House set. They created a feeding frenzy of tax cuts, of trying to outdo each other, making matters worse. That is what is lacking in leadership. Not leadership to grow the economy and create jobs, but a bad example to take us on the opposite course. So instead of having our plan on the floor today which is fair, fast- acting in creating jobs, again, fair in who benefits from it, and a fiscally sound plan that is paid for, instead we have a reckless tax plan that the President has proposed. None of these proposals, the President's, the House Republicans', the Senate Republicans', none of them is affordable. They do not create jobs and certainly in no way are commensurate with the cost involved. Give them the benefit of the doubt. They keep saying they are going to create 550,000 new jobs, fewer jobs than were lost in January and February of this year and at the cost of a tax bill of $550 billion, a cost of $1 million a job. Where is the fiscal soundness in that? Where is the taxpayer getting his or her money's worth? The Republican plan spends every penny of the Social Security trust fund that comes in over the next decade just as the baby boomers begin to retire. This is so irresponsible, but do not just take my word for it. The Committee for Economic Development, a 60-year-old independent group of CEOs and civic leaders, calls the President's tax plan ``arsenic poisoning for the economy'' which worsens ``a fiscal crisis that threatens our future standard of living.'' Four hundred economists including 10 Nobel Laureates warn that ``passing these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook, adding to the Nation's projected chronic deficits'' and will ``reduce the capacity of the Government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, (and) infrastructure.'' The American people want, they expect, and they deserve an economic recovery plan that is fair, fast-acting, and fiscally responsible. The Republican tax plan fails on all three counts. They are profoundly unfair to working families. They do not create jobs. Even the President's own economic advisors admit that his plan will not create enough jobs to make up for those lost in the first 2 months, much less in the last 2 years. And the Republican tax cuts are a fiscal budgetary disaster. Now Republicans claim that the stark deficits somehow do not matter and that they will be erased by a growing economy. But Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan testified before Congress: ``There's no question that as deficits go up,'' he said, ``contrary to what some have said, it does affect long-term interest rates. It does have a negative impact on the economy,'' and, ``Economic growth alone cannot be safely counted on to eliminate deficits.'' Americans need to understand what these huge Republican deficits will mean for the future of our country. The President's own projections show that the interest we will pay on the national debt will exceed all discretionary spending foreclosing the opportunity to make critical and necessary investments in the future, again, in education, homeland security, health care for seniors, transportation, and the environment for years to come. With that, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that it is within our power in this body for us to do what is right for the American people. It is within our power to support, although the Republicans will not let us bring it to the floor, a Democratic plan for real job growth and real economic growth, one that actually creates jobs and economic growth now and is fully paid for. The Democratic plan stands in stark contrast to the Republican recklessness. The Democratic plan, again, is fair, it gives tax cuts to all taxpayers, all taxpayers, including those most likely to spend it, low- and middle-income working families. One of our colleagues on the other side said earlier our answer to this was to spend more money. Our plan is paid for, and those initiatives to help small businesses which in turn create jobs and create capital are fiscally sound. Our support for extending the unemployment benefits, it is the most dynamic investment we can make. It injects demand into the economy, putting purchasing power into the hands of working families, especially those who are out of work and are going to purchase necessities. We get $1.73 of value for every dollar spent on that unemployment benefit extension. We get 9 cents for every dollar spent on the dividend tax exclusion. So I say to my colleagues this is the choice that America faces. This is the choice we should have been able to debate and to vote on today. But the Republican leaders know that our plan is fair, fast-acting, and fiscally responsible, and theirs is not. So they will not even allow us the opportunity to bring to the floor, to this people's House our plan for an up-or-down vote. The Republican plan harms the economy and repeats the failed policies that have deepened this job slump. Instead of investing in our children, the plan indebts them. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this reckless, irresponsible Republican tax cut for millionaires that leaves working families out in the cold. I urge my colleagues to say no to raiding the Social Security trust fund. I urge my colleagues to say no to indebting our children instead of investing in them and their future. I urge my colleague to say no to the unfairness of the Republican tax plan that overwhelmingly benefits those who need it least at the expense of working families of America, job creation, and economic growth. And I urge my colleagues to reject their plan because it is not true, it is not faithful to our mission to make a future worthy of the sacrifice that was made by our young men and women so recently for our country.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, today the House of Representatives has a historic decision to make. We can get the economy moving again with a fair, fast-acting, and fiscally sound Democratic plan; or we can pass a reckless plan that the Republicans are proposing that does not create jobs. The debate today is about leadership. Sadly, that leadership is lacking from President Bush and from the Republicans in Congress. In 2 years, President Bush and the Republicans in Congress have presided over the most dramatic deterioration in our Nation's economic health in our Nation's history. We have lost 563 jobs every working hour of every working day since President Bush became President. That is 2.7 million jobs. That is why today is so tragic. We have an opportunity to create jobs and build a strong economy in a fiscally sound way. Instead, the reckless tax plan that the President has proposed has not only set a bad example; it has set in motion a feeding frenzy of one-upmanship on tax cuts. None of these tax cuts is affordable. None of them creates jobs, and they are not fair. All of them do damage to our long-term economic growth and contribute to the national deficit. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject the Republican tax cut for millionaires that leaves working families out in the cold. Vote ``no,'' reject the Republican proposal, reject their undermining of opportunity in our country. Unfortunately, we do not have an opportunity for Members to support the Democratic plan because the Republican leadership would not allow the free debate on the floor of this House of another proposal to promote economic growth to create jobs in a fiscally sound way.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1261, the Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act. Today, in the middle of a recession, we should be voting for an economic plan to create jobs. My colleagues and I have proposed the Democratic Jobs and Economic Growth Plan, which would create more than one million jobs this year. Instead, tomorrow the Republican leadership will bring up a bill that gives tax cuts to the wealthy and does not create jobs. Today, with the unemployment rate at 6 percent, we should be voting to extend unemployment benefits. Unemployment compensation immediately puts dollars in the pockets unemployed workers and helps boost the economy. Instead, today we are voting on a bill that will weaken our job training programs. H.R. 1261 has many serious flaws. First, it would consolidate funding for services for adults, disclosed workers, and employment services into a single block grant, forcing these groups to compete against each other for assistance and likely leading to reduced funding. It would eliminate the U.S. Employment Service, which maintains a free, nationwide labor exchange that matches job seekers and employers. This bill would allow governors to take funds from programs such as Adult Education, Veterans' Reemployment, and job training for disabled individuals to spend on infrastructure expenses at one-stop centers, The result would be reduced funding for jobs and training programs at a time when more Americans are seeking employment assistance and job training. H.R. 1261 would also reduce accountability of training providers by eliminating federal performance standards. Furthermore, the bill would cut back services to youth, who have been among the hardest hit by the current economic downturn. Finally, H.R. 1261 would overturn a federal anti-discrimination policy established more than 60 years ago. At that time, President Franklin D. Roosevelt decided to forbid federal contracts from discrimination based on religion, as well as race with national origin. Following in the same tradition, the current job training law prohibits religious discrimination. Breaking with this long commitment to civil liberties, H.R. 1261 would allow religious groups to discriminate on the basis of religion when hiring or firing staff for federally-funded social programs. It is profoundly unwise to allow the federal government to fund religious discrimination. It is bad for our churches, bad for our workforce, and bad for our society. I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 1261.