Recognizing the contributions of people of Indian origin to the United States and the benefits of working together with India towards promoting peace, prosperity, and freedom among all countries of the world.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I stand here in just abject wonder at having 2 hours and 10 minutes to debate this bill over which there is very little controversy, a few dollars here and there; and I was going to ask the gentleman from Louisiana if he might accept a unanimous consent request that we cut the time in half, spend the first hour on this bill and spend the second hour debating whether or not Rumsfeld ordered the torture of prisoners in Iraq, and then we might have some more fun at least in the 2 hours we have got.

Does the gentleman agree?

Mr. Speaker, it is kind of sad that this bill was not worked out in committee because the differences, which I will describe shortly, are simple and there could have been a compromise, it appears to me, and certainly we have a substitute which will come up and we, I think, have to discuss both.

Let us start out by suggesting that I would like to agree with the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana that it is probably a good idea to not encourage people to spend foolishly, to buy two extra pair of eyeglasses or go out for an extra shot of Botox or something at the end of the year just to use up the money in their flexible spending account.

The problem, and where we would disagree, is that the gentleman's bill is not paid for, and this does push us further into debt; and our bill and the differences, and we have some, is paid for. If the gentleman wanted to say let us compromise right now and pay for half of it, we could get this done in 15 minutes. I am easy. But that is basically our difference. The Republican bill creates more of a deficit, and it does discourage people from spending foolishly at the end of the year and it costs, what, 8 billion bucks over 10.

Therein is the major difference. I would like to discuss one minor difference which is complex and which our substitute drops. The gentleman from Louisiana, the Republican bill, allows members of a flexible spending account to transfer money into a health savings account. The only problem with that is that, insofar as the regulations appear now, one cannot have a flexible spending account and a health savings account at the same time, so that to transfer the money from the flexible spending account into the health savings account, they have to drop their flexible spending account, and then the next year they would not have 500 bucks to transfer.

I mean, it is a way to encourage, or perhaps force, people into dropping a flexible spending account and move into a health savings account. I am not sure that was his intention, but that is the reality. And there is almost no one who would qualify to transfer money, the $500, say, from the flexible spending account into a health savings account. As a matter of fact, it is scored at 20 million bucks over 10 years; so if it is $20 at maybe 1 million people who would use it, and if our purpose is to encourage health savings accounts, I would suggest to the gentleman that that is a separate debate and perhaps not really pertinent to the question of whether we should allow people this carryover and repeal the use-it-or-lose-it provision. Had we had a chance to mark this up in committee and work it out in some detail, I think we could have worked out a system, perhaps brought two bills to the floor.

The bill, I know, and I hate to be critical, but I know it is introduced as a centerpiece of the week for the uninsured, and I am afraid that this bill does nothing for the uninsured. We cannot have a flexible spending account and not have access to insurance. So we really are not dealing with the uninsured here. People who have flexible spending accounts, as a matter of fact, probably have very generous and good health insurance coverage. So it is somewhat disingenuous, and that is the harshest thing I can think of, to suggest that this is going to have any effect or impact in Cover the Uninsured Week.

So if I could summarize just for a moment, there is a part of the bill which would help people and prevent them from frivolous spending from their flexible spending accounts. We concur in that, and our substitute includes that. Our major difference is, and we could have a vote, is it worth increasing the deficit by $8.5 billion. We have some simple ways to pay for that. For instance, not letting corporations reincorporate offshore and avoid Federal income tax on their corporate income, a theory that has some bipartisan support.

There are some egregious loopholes that were dreamed up mostly by the Enron Corporation, which we also closed. I do not think anybody would suggest that those loopholes ought to continue. So in a minimal way, we changed the Tax Code to make this, and it is a principle, we ought to pay for things that we are providing, and that is it. We would leave the health savings account portion out. We would allow people to transfer the $500 and carry it forward so they would not have a use-it- or-lose-it, and we would pay for it. Other than that I do not know what we could find to disagree about for the next 2 hours, but in my inimitable way I will be just as disagreeable as the gentleman from Louisiana would like me to be.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, if I were to stipulate to the gentleman from Louisiana that we keep the HSA portion, would the gentleman agree to pay for it or some of it here, and we will have a compromise right now?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Louisiana, it is my understanding that you could use a flexible savings account to, for example, pay for abortion if your employer's health care plan did not provide that benefit. Is that not true?

I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, there is nothing in this bill that would prohibit a woman from using the benefits of the flexible savings account for an abortion; is that correct?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I will then reserve my time and precede his closing and try and warm up the audience for what I know will be eloquent remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDERMOTT), as we are blessed with his late arrival.

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman for his comments and I would close just briefly.

I believe that the Enron employee would not have insurance. He would have some money in that health savings account, but when Enron folded up, the insurance went along with Enron. He could go into the private market and try and buy something.

I would just like to repeat, if I may, that this really does nothing to cover the uninsured. So, if this is Cover the Uninsured Week, we are burning up a couple of valuable hours that we could be discussing how to cover the uninsured with this bill.

The principal disagreement that we had with the bill is that it is not paid for, and we will offer, subsequently to closing this debate, a substitute where we pay for it in very patriotic and simple ways. It is not a lot of money but it is a principle that we Democrats have long adhered to, and that is, that we ought to pay for the wonderful things that are available to us in this country and not put the burden on our children and grandchildren.

So, having said that, and without fear of contradiction that I probably have more children and grandchildren than the combined audience here, I can qualify, if the Speaker will allow me,

as an expert in that area. And maybe I am a little touchy about it, but will conclude our debate on this and I appreciate the gentleman from Louisiana. Next time I hope we can resolve these differences in our committee and come to the floor, as we did in the good old days, with a unified approach to Medicare and health insurance problems.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

I am.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Our Democratic substitute addresses a real issue of concern with respect to flexible spending accounts in the use-it-or-lose-it rule.

We agree with the author of this legislation that it is unwise to create an incentive for people to spend foolishly or frivolously for a benefit that they might lose, and we have the Washington Business Group and 50 major corporate members are clear on the issue. They want the changes and they want the money carried over into FSAs. The position is shared by their employees. There is some question, and nobody really has raised it previously, as to putting this money into health savings accounts, but because that is such a minor issue it could be overlooked.

The real question here is whether we should pay for this. And it will be expensive. It is $8 billion. That is money that could be used in many programs, education programs, environmental programs, health programs, and it is a principle to which we are dedicated, and that is that we would like to expand health care in this country, but we have never offered a plan that we

will not pay for. And I find it sometimes difficult when my opponents across the aisle will not even give us a plan that costs nothing.

My Republican friends are opposed to expanding COBRA benefits. They are very expensive for people, but some 40 million people have used them since we wrote that bill on a bipartisan basis to expand COBRA benefits until a person gets another job or until they mature into Medicare. Costs zip, nothing, nada. It costs the employer nothing. Why do we object to expanding COBRA benefits? Just because it is a government plan and obviously people on the other side of the aisle do not like the government helping people unless they are very rich, of course.

So here we have just another example of not a bad piece of legislation. It could use some improvement, but it is a freebie and will predominantly benefit people in good jobs, with good health insurance and expand another tax loophole.

It is a modest one, but it is a principle. Left unchecked, we would soon have almost no tax revenue in this country at all, a position which the Club For Growth would applaud, but I am sure that those of us who are on the Federal salary or those people who are defending us now in Iraq would object to.

So I hope that we could reverse this disastrous rush to the bottom of debt and begin to be responsible in how we legislate by paying for these provisions. We will hear more later from my colleagues on the really very useful ways that it will help our economy if, in fact, we did pay for this bill under the provisions of our Democratic substitute.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, before I recognize the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, to remind my good friend from Louisiana that the tax provisions in our substitute were recommended by the bipartisan, bicameral Joint Committee on Taxation; and these provisions have already passed on a bipartisan basis in the other body.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) 2 minutes for economic logic and 2 minutes for righteous indignation, for a total of 4 minutes.

(Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) that we do not on this side have any objection to the rollover. We think it is a good idea, and all we would suggest is that we have to pay for it. That is the only difference.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Actually, I am opposed to it in general, but I offer to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery) that we would accept that if he would pay for half of the bill. That is compromise.

It only denies the HSA, which they think is going to be a small number. There is still time to negotiate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to close the debate on our side for our substitute. My belief is these two tax provisions, modest as they are, regardless of the underlying bill, are good tax policy and ought to be considered if for no other reason than that they correct some serious inequities in our Tax Code which have been described by previous speakers.

We are very close to a compromise with our friends on the other side of the aisle. Our substitute would eliminate the health savings account issue. But as I said, it is possible to reinstate that in conference, and if the gentleman would like to support our substitute, we could do the patriotic thing, we could provide good tax policy, we could pay for a very good idea, and we could walk out, arm in arm, saying we have helped a few people, we have paid for it, and we have brought patriotism and corporate responsibility to some of our recalcitrant corporate friends who are not doing their share.

I would urge that this substitute does no harm to the underlying philosophy of the bill of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery). It does add to the coffers of our Nation when it is so desperately needed. This money is contributed by those corporations whose actions are I believe indefensible, and particularly at this time of grave national emergency.

I would not want to suggest that anybody who votes against our substitute is unpatriotic, but I would suggest that it certainly is helpful for our troops and the American economy to support the Rangel substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, during the past several hours we have had a good debate on this bill, and I think we have agreed to some of the basic principles that the flexible savings accounts should allow a reduction of the use-it-or-lose-it rule. We had attempted to offer a compromise to get our Republican colleagues to just pay for half of the bill, which was turned down. And the bill has, indeed, many supporters.

But what we have seen during the course of this current administration is indirectly a complete raid on the Social Security and Medicare Trust

Funds. Basically, the Republicans have spent all of the surplus in Social Security and Medicare, and that, in my opinion, is indefensible. Whether we agree about flexible savings accounts or medical savings accounts is not the issue. This bill directly, specifically, transfers out of the trust funds $3.4 billion. The Republicans are raiding the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds.

Now, that may not sound like a lot to my colleagues across the aisle, but to the people who depend on Social Security and Medicare, the idea that they are stealing money out of the Medicare and Social Security Trust Funds blatantly, I think they will find offensive.

This reduction in receipts should not be permitted to occur. It will not harm this bill. The bill will go forward exactly as the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana has outlined it and has prevailed. The only difference is our motion to recommit asks us all to stand up and take the pledge to protect Social Security and Medicare and its trust funds for all of those who depend on their benefits in this country.

This bill takes care of well-employed, well-insured individuals. This does not help any uninsured people at all. It gives an additional benefit to people with first-class medical insurance. Why then should we spoil an otherwise decent bill by taking the first step to destroy Medicare and Social Security for people who are unable to get health insurance? That is wrong.

We have all committed to protect Social Security and Medicare. You cannot oppose this motion to recommit and say you are protecting it. You are stealing almost $3.5 billion over the next 10 years out of these trust funds.

To support our motion to recommit would merely say find it someplace else; take it out of general revenues, take it out of trade, take it out of anything, but do not take it out of the hard-earned benefits that our senior citizens are entitled to. This could be the first step toward destroying the financial viability of Medicare and Social Security.

If you vote for our motion to recommit, you are standing up and suggesting that you will protect the trust funds that underlie Social Security and Medicare. If you vote against it, you are saying, ``We don't care. Take the seniors' money. What the heck. We can spend it. We have spent everybody else's money. We have spent our grandkids' money.''

I ask you, out of compassion, those of us who are seniors might not be able to get a job anyplace else if I am not reelected. My Social Security, please do not steal it. Do not make my little children go out and get an extra paper route to take care of me in my dotage. We need this. Our parents need it. We must protect our children.

So, to repeat, the bill will go through exactly as the Republicans have crafted it; but if you vote for our motion to recommit, you get the added benefit of saying to every senior in your district, I stood up and protected your Social Security and Medicare benefits by protecting the trust funds to which this money would go.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 638, I call up the bill (H.R. 4279) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the disposition of unused health benefits in cafeteria plans and flexible spending arrangements, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in support of H.R. 4279, a bill that would update flexible spending arrangements, known as FSAs, to allow up to $500 of unused health benefits to be carried forward to next year's FSA or transferred to a health savings account. Flexible spending arrangements allow employees to set aside money in an employer-established benefit plan that can be used on a tax-free basis to meet their out-of-pocket health care expenses during the year. However, under current law, any money remaining in the FSA at the end of the year must be returned to the employer.

Nearly 37 million private sector employees have access to an FSA. However, only 18 percent of eligible employees take advantage of the pretax health care spending provided by flexible spending arrangements. Many employees cite the fear of forfeiting unused funds as the primary reason why they elect not to participate in an FSA. Those employees who do participate in an FSA often underfund their account rather than risk losing the funds at the end of the year.

Let me expound on that for just a minute because what happens in most flexible spending arrangements is that the employee chooses to take part of his monthly income, set it aside into one of these flexible spending arrangements, and that income that he removes from his paycheck is basically tax-free income, and that is a good thing. The employee likes that. However, it is still his income. And if he is afraid that he will lose some of that income at the end of the year because he has not used it for the specified purpose in the account, then of course that employee is going to be very reluctant to set aside that money.

This use-it-or-lose-it rule does more, though, than discourage widespread participation. It can also lead to perverse incentives such as encouraging people to spend money on health care products and services that they do not necessarily need. In other words, at the end of the year, if there is money left in the account, the employee's incentive is to go out and get an extra pair of sunglasses or whatever it is and spend that money, and that in turn drives up demand, drives up the price of health care for everybody.

H.R. 4279 provides greater flexibility and consumer choice. The bill would allow up to $500 of unused funds at the end of the year to be carried forward in that flexible spending arrangement for use in the next year, or that employee could begin a new HSA, a health savings account, and put up to $500 into that health savings account.

I believe this bill will encourage greater participation in flexible spending arrangements and, to a lesser extent, participation in health savings account benefit plans because people will not be afraid of losing their hard-earned money. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that approximately 76 percent of current FSA participants will take advantage of the rollover option each year.

Through this legislation, we can expand access to health care for millions of Americans by making it easier for them to save for their health care costs. This bill would also reduce end-of-the-year excess spending and overuse of health care services, allowing FSA participants to benefit from the prudent use of their health care resources.

Mr. Speaker, I should point out that a nearly identical FSA rollover option was approved by the Committee on Ways and Means as part of H.R. 2351 on June 19, 2003. The provision passed this House last year as part of the Medicare Modernization Act.

Reducing health costs and increasing access to health care are worthy goals that every Member of Congress should support. H.R. 4279 takes an important step in that direction; so I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

I object, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his complimentary remarks about expanding, making more versatile the flexible spending arrangements. And I would not disagree with him on his comments about HSAs to the extent that I would agree that this legislation is not designed to encourage HSAs. That is not the intent of this legislation, at least not my intent as the author. My intent is, though, to make it convenient for employees who just may be in a firm that decides to create HSAs, give them kind of a head start on funding their HSA. I agree with the gentleman there will not be many instances of that in the near future; but in those few instances that there may be and an employee has $500 left over in his account, I see no reason why he should not be able to take advantage of using that money, transferring it to the employer's new choice of health insurance for his employees, an HSA.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I believe we will state our objections to the substitute during the appropriate debate time on the substitute. So I would regretfully reject the gentleman's kind offer at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, a flexible spending account, health flexible spending accounts can be used for any health care expenses incurred by the employee.

Yes, sir.

Mr. Speaker, I would inform the gentleman from California that I now have two speakers that request time on my side, in addition to my closing. So I just wanted to let him know.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to commend the last speaker, the gentleman from Washington, for his efforts year after year in trying to solve the problems in our health care system. I disagree with him occasionally on how we should do that, but I think he is well-intentioned and certainly deserves credit for his efforts.

However, his comments about the Enron employees, I cannot help but stand up and point out to him that had those employees had HSAs, instead of Enron providing first-dollar coverage insurance, they would still have insurance today. They would have their HSAs because they are fully portable and an employee can take an HSA from job to job. If he loses his job, he can use what is in his HSA to pay premiums on a new health insurance policy. So I just wanted to point out to the gentleman that those employees would have been a lot better off if they had HSAs rather than the Enron-provided health insurance.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The bill before us today is a very simple bill. It will provide employees, whose employers give them the opportunity to participate in flexible spending arrangements, more flexibility to utilize those arrangements and, indeed, encourage employees to do just that, and if they have money left in their account at the end of the year, under the bill, up to $500 can be rolled over into their next year's flexible spending arrangements or rolled into a new health savings account, thereby avoiding the discouraging factor in the law today of use it or lose it.

Right now, today, if there is money left over at the end of the year, the money goes back to the employer. That is why employees do not want to participate because they do not want to lose part of their income, and that is understandable. It is kind of silly that Federal law would dictate that.

We are trying to correct that today. It is very simple. I urge the Members to vote in favor of this good bill today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Before I get into the specifics of objections to the ``pay fors'' on the Democratic substitute, I would point out to the gentleman from California that it was under the leadership of this committee and on a bipartisan basis 2 years ago to, in fact, expand COBRA in the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act whereby we, the government, now will pay up to I believe 65 percent of the premium for someone's COBRA benefits when they are unemployed due to trade adjustments. So, in fact, I agree with the gentleman that we should indeed encourage people to continue their health insurance when they become unemployed, and we have endeavored to do that with taxpayer dollars.

With respect to the bill at hand and the substitute offered by the gentleman from California, it is true that most of the cost of the bill is paid for; not all the cost of the bill, but most of the cost of the bill is paid for by the minority's substitute, but the manner they choose to pay for this health care benefit I think is quite objectionable.

About half, in fact, maybe a little over half, of the revenue that would be produced by the Democratic substitute is produced by a retroactive application of a change in the law which would affect companies that made a determination which was legal 30 or 40 years ago. And I do not know of anyone who thinks that that is a fair result, to impose suddenly a penalty on a company that in good faith operated under a law 30 or 40 years ago and have been operating that way ever since. So I would hope that this body would not suddenly choose to use a punitive, retroactive change in the law to penalize companies operating in good faith for decades under the United States Tax Code.

So that is the most objectionable part of their ``pay for.'' The other parts simply amount to a tax increase on business in this country. Those changes, in fact, could result, and it has been estimated by Treasury and testified to by Treasury officials, that these changes in the Democratic substitute would actually encourage foreign takeover of United States companies, and I do not think that is the result we want in this body for the American people or for American companies.

So, Mr. Speaker, while I may have some sympathy for the minority's desire to pay for legislation, I think the manner they have chosen to pay for this particular bill is ill-advised, and I would hope that this House would reject the substitute and pass the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, while I would relish the opportunity to walk out of the Chamber arm in arm with the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) in complete agreement on a compromise on this legislation, I am afraid that the ill-advised tax changes contained in the gentleman's substitute would likely result in increased takeover of American corporations by foreign companies, so I will not be able to do that; but perhaps another day.

This substitute admits that the underlying policy in the bill under consideration is appropriate, that is allowing employees to roll over up to $500 at the end of the year into next year's flexible spending arrangement. They do object to rolling money over into a health savings account, but the other part of the substitute which makes dramatic changes in tax policy in this country I think are indeed ill-advised, and I would urge this House to reject that.

I just want to go over a couple of things that have been mentioned by previous speakers, one of whom said we are now experiencing the largest deficit in the history of the country. Of course, he is speaking in nominal terms, not in real terms. In fact, the appropriate measurement of a deficit is against the national income; what percent of our national income is the deficit. And the deficit we are running now is not even close to the largest deficit in history measured in those terms.

He also said the economy is in the ditch, or something like that. No, the economy was in the ditch in 2000, but we have succeeded in dragging the economy out of the ditch thanks to the three tax cuts that another gentleman mentioned earlier. We now have a very vibrant, growing economy. We now see jobs being created at a remarkable clip for the last 2 months, so I would disagree with the gentleman's characterization of the economy being in the ditch. In fact, it is very much alive, and we hope it will continue that way.

The subject of American companies moving offshore is indeed a delicate one and one that we would like to address. In fact, we do address that unfortunate phenomenon in a bill that passed the Committee on Ways and Means back in 2002 and a different version was just passed yesterday by the Senate, and we will have another opportunity to address it here in the House. Since we introduced that bill

and passed it through the Committee on Ways and Means in 2002, there has not been a single company that has gone offshore. So the remedy that we prescribed for this deplorable action by some American companies we believe to be the correct remedy, the good tax policy remedy, and it is already working even though we have not even passed it. We just passed it through the Committee on Ways and Means. I would urge this House to reject the ill-advised course of action in the substitute and instead look forward to voting on a much more progressive treatment of that problem which will not encourage foreign takeover of American companies.

Mr. Speaker, while again I commend the minority on supporting the major provision of the underlying bill, I am afraid we must ask for a rejection of their substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) for yielding me this time.

One of the problems here in having a dialogue is that sometimes the facts do not square with the dialogue. Now, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery) is one of the better people in this House; a good Member of the Congress and a very nice guy to work with. But where is the sympathy for those companies that stayed here? What about those companies that pay their taxes every day? What about those who did not attempt to escape in the dark of night to Bermuda for the purpose of avoiding American corporate taxes? Where is the sympathy for them? Their competitors can go offshore with a phony post office box for $27,000 a year, and then they avoid any share of the burden that the rest of the American taxpayers face for financing small things like Social Security and Medicare and paying for this war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I would like to put this issue in front of those 134,000 troops in Iraq for a vote and see where we go on that issue. We hear about these companies that have been gone for 30 or 40 years. Let us get something straight, Tyco has been gone since 1997, Ma and Pa Tyco, that avoid paying $400 million a year in corporate taxes. Tell that to the parents of those men and women and wives and husbands of those men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We make it sound as though these companies are under great duress when they avoid paying corporate taxes. I would ask this for the listening audience today as well. What do you think the IRS would do to you on Monday if you got up and said as an individual that you were going to Bermuda for the purpose of denying American citizenship, but only for the real purpose of avoiding your share of taxes in America? That is what we are asking today.

This is a decent proposal that is before us. All we are saying on our side is let us discuss how you pay for it. That is the important reminder for all of us.

The Rangel substitute with flexible spending accounts is not only a popular employee benefit because it allows pretax dollars to be used for dependent care expenses or medical expenditures not covered by insurance, but in fact, except for the staff of this Republican-run House, most of the employees of the Federal Government have had the opportunity to indeed utilize FSAs.

But today we could be debating whether FSAs might even be more flexible, allowing employees to roll over unused funds from one year to the next. But the leadership has decided that once again we are going to come to the aid of their favorite constituency, the healthy and the wealthy. We never have time in this institution to take up anything that might be of benefit to middle-income taxpayers, to the working poor of this country every day who do not have any health benefits; but we find plenty of time for the purpose of cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans.

And let me just go back to this subject again, and I hope people are paying attention in this sense: we are now fighting two wars, and the answer of this Congress to two wars: three tax cuts. We are going to come in with a $25 billion request now because we all know what the real cost of that incursion into Iraq is going to be, not only in terms of human life but, just as importantly, in terms of the financial

burden it will be to the American people. So we roll it out in small increments.

We should begin to pay for some of these initiatives that come through this House. By the way, that used to be the historic position the Republican Party adopted. Today, it is borrow and spend.

The Rangel substitute would allow workers to roll over their FSA money from one year to the next without any budget impact that is negative. But because this benefit costs money, the Rangel substitute would pay for it by closing down a loophole.

All I ask is this, Mr. Speaker. If the position that I have adopted on these companies that go to Bermuda is so bad, why is it that almost 2\1/2\ years later the majority will not give me an up-or-down vote in this institution? Put this in front of the body here. Square it with those men and women in Iraq. Close down this Bermuda loophole, and let everybody pay what they are supposed to pay.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Rangel substitute. Flexible Spending Accounts have proven to be a popular employee benefit, allowing pre-tax collars to be used for dependent care expenses or medical expenditures not covered by insurance. In fact, except for the staff of this Republican-run House, most of the employees of the federal government have had the opportunity to utilize FSA's. Today, we could have been debating whether FSA's should be even more flexible--allowing employees to roll-over unused funds from one year to the next. However, the leadership has decided to instead to once again prop-up its favorite tax shelter for healthy workers.

The Rangel substitute would allow workers to roll over FSA money from one year to the next and would do so without any negative budget impact.

Because this tax benefit costs money, the Rangel substitute would pay for this worker benefit by closing the loophole allowing former American companies to move their headquarters offshore for tax avoidance.

Corporate expatriation accounts for $5 billion in lost taxpayer revenue over the next decade. Today, we debate a substitute that shows us exactly what we could be doing with that money: providing greater employee benefits. Why should the workers of America be supporting corporate tax dodgers? Consider that in 1997, Tyco renounced its corporate citizenship and changed its mailing address to Bermuda to avoid paying nearly $400 million a year in U.S. taxes.

While many in the House have expressed outrage since this loophole was first exposed two years ago, the Leadership has done nothing but cement the loophole with legislation protecting Tyco and those that have already left.

Since I first filed the bipartisan Corporate Patriot Enforcement Act to end this tax subsidy, these corporate expatriates have enjoyed almost one billion dollars in U.S. federal government contracts annually, 70 percent of which are defense or homeland security related. Our colleagues in the Senate have passed as recently as yesterday legislation to close this loophole affecting those that are considering the island tax havens and those that are already exploiting this loophole. But in this Congress, we wait.

For those that profess to care about the exploding budget deficit, for those that claim to hear Chairman Greenspan's warning about the harm this historical budget deficit is doing to our economy, you must at some point decide that bills that pile on more federal debt are wrong. I urge my colleagues to support the fiscally responsible Rangel substitute, which makes the corporate tax cheats and those that forsake America in a time of war pay for improving benefits for American workers.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the House floor tonight to speak on House Concurrent Resolution 352, legislation that I am proud to have introduced which gives much deserved recognition to the many invaluable contributions made by the people of Indian origin to the United States. Since the earliest days of our Republic, citizens of Indian origin have emigrated to our Nation in the pursuit of freedom and prosperity for themselves and their families. As American citizens, they have integrated into American society, and they have made extraordinary contributions to the United States, helping to make our Nation a more efficient and prosperous country.

Indian Americans greatly value education and have made many significant contributions in the fields of law,

science, technology, business development, public service, literature, and the arts, just to name a few. They are our doctors; over 35,000 of them practice medicine in the United States. And they are our astronauts, professors, and business leaders.

There are over 2 million Indian Americans today who proudly call America their home, and they have become woven into the economic growth and social fabric of our Nation.

This resolution also honors the long history of democracy in India, the most populous democracy in the world; and it reaffirms our Nation's commitment to working with India towards our mutual interest of global peace, prosperity, and freedom. India and its 1 billion citizens greatly value the close relationship that exists between the United States and their country, and they continue to strengthen their ties with us based on their shared value and shared security concerns.

The United States and India are strategic partners; and as the Speaker knows, India was one of the first countries to offer the United States its support following the tragic September 11 attacks. And today India remains one of our closest allies in the war on terrorism.

We must continue to increase trade and cooperative economic efforts with India and together strive to increase prosperity among all nations of the world. As two democracies working together, we can make dreams become a reality.

I also want to recognize the efforts of Dr. Krishna Reddy, president of the Indian American Friendship Council, for his efforts in building and promoting strong bonds of friendship between Indian Americans and all Americans.

Finally, this resolution acknowledges the benefits of working together with India towards promoting global peace, prosperity, and freedom. Once again, I am proud to have introduced this resolution, and I am very pleased that the House of Representatives has passed it overwhelmingly today. I thank my colleagues for that. Doing so sends a clear message to both the United States and India that we share common values, honor contributions from both sides, and treasure our mutual friendship.

H. Con. Res. 352

Whereas India is the largest democratic country in the

world and enjoys a close and mutual friendship with the

United States based on common values and common interests;

Whereas people of Indian origin who have for decades

immigrated to the United States have made extraordinary

contributions to the United States, helping to make the

United States a more efficient and prosperous country;

Whereas these contributions have spanned disciplines

ranging from science, technology, business development, and

public service, to social justice, philanthropy, literature,

and the arts;

Whereas generations of doctors and nurses of Indian origin

have attended to the sick in large cities as well as in rural

regions of the United States that are otherwise underserved;

Whereas people of Indian origin have designed defense

systems that protect United States naval ships while at sea,

and have contributed to engineering, designing, and

participating in the United States space shuttle program, at

great personal sacrifice;

Whereas people of Indian origin have invented many of the

technologies that power the computer and the internet, have

created and directed laboratories that produced significant

breakthroughs in modern medicine, and have taught at, and are

leaders of, many United States institutions of higher

learning;

Whereas people of Indian origin have made invaluable

contributions to the vitality and viability of the United

States economy through creative entrepreneurship and

leadership in both large and small businesses;

Whereas people of Indian origin have shared and integrated

their rich culture into the fabric of American daily life;

Whereas trade with India integrates a democratic country of

more than one billion people into the flow of commerce,

offering the United States a large and rapidly growing market

and unlocking vast reservoirs of talent;

Whereas the United States is India's largest trading

partner and a major source of foreign direct investment and

foreign institutional investment in India;

Whereas United States exports to India are growing at 25

percent, making India one of the fastest growing foreign

markets for United States goods and services;

Whereas India's industrial tariffs have fallen from 150

percent in 1988 to a peak rate of 20 percent today;

Whereas United States exports to India will accelerate as

India continues reducing tariffs and instituting

liberalization measures in its trade and investment regime,

thereby expanding the trade relationship of the two countries

and bringing mutual benefits;

Whereas India has been a key partner in the war against

terrorism;

Whereas India and the United States have agreed to increase

cooperation in the areas of nuclear activities, civilian

space programs, high-technology trade, and missile defense;

Whereas multi-faceted cooperation between India and the

United States will strengthen the bonds of friendship and

commerce between the two countries, lead to the peaceful use

of space technology, and increase global stability and

security; and

Whereas United States efforts, whether in combating global

HIV/AIDS, pursuing nuclear non-proliferation, promoting

democracy, enhancing stability of the world economy,

eliminating poverty, fighting terrorism, and expanding and

strengthening global trade, will be more effective and

successful with India as a strategic partner: Now therefore,

be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

concurring), That Congress--

(1) honors the contributions of people of Indian origin to

the Untied States, and

(2) is committed to working together with India towards

promoting peace, prosperity, and freedom among all countries

of the world.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend from California for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, let us make sure that we do not confuse our colleagues or anyone who might be watching this on what we are talking about.

First, flexible spending accounts, most people who have insurance, health insurance through an employer, are eligible to, pretax, ahead of time, declare how much they think they are going to spend out of pocket that will not be reimbursed by their employer's health plan. That way, you are using money that has not yet been taxed to pay for some of these services, a copayment that you may have for a service that you receive, or vision or dental benefits that are not covered completely under your health care plan where you pay out of pocket.

Those out-of-pocket costs, if you have a flexible spending account and you bank money in that account at the beginning, you can then use that money, you can bring down the account, and use that money, pre- tax, to pay for your out-of-pocket costs for your health services that are not covered by your employer's health care plan. A great idea, pretax dollars to pay for health care services. That is fine.

Then the notion under the current law, that if you have money in that account and you do not spend it down through your out-of-pocket expenditures to reimburse yourself for those out-of-pocket expenditures, by the end of the year anything left over you lose. So you have to calculate how much you think you are going to end up spending out of pocket beyond what your employer's health care plan would provide, and then hope you spend it all.

Some folks find themselves in a position where they still have money left over in this flexible spending account at the end of the year, and they lose that. That is a calculated risk.

This proposal to try to allow some flexibility in that use-it-or- lose-it rule says you could carry over a certain sum, I think it is about $500, into the next year. So let us say you used up all but $200 in your flexible spending account; rather than lose it at the end of this year, you would get to carry that over into next year's flexible spending account. So then you would be able to go ahead and budget based on what you think your needs will be next year.

A great idea. What is the problem? There are two.

First, you got to ask the question, why complicate such a simple, straightforward, and sensible idea to allow us to carry forward a portion of that flexible spending account money to the next year and to modify that use-it-or-lose-it rule? Why then complicate it by saying, by the way, which are going to let you send it over to what are called HSAs, these health savings accounts which are principally accounts which help wealthy folks or healthy folks when it comes to getting access to health care, because these HSAs give you money you can use later on to buy these catastrophic care plans for health care, which, for the most part, the only folks who can afford to do that, whether healthwise afford or monetarily afford, are people who are very wealthy or very healthy, because they do not have to worry about trying to find a health care plan, because they figure they are 25 years old, they are not going to die, or they have so much money they can pay for whatever services they need, or they have enough health care through other types of plans or insurance.

HSAs do not help the bulk of Americans. So why complicate this issue on a practical idea on giving us some flexibility on the spending accounts, the flexible spending accounts.

The second problem, there are 8.4 billion reasons in the second problem. $8.4 billion is the cost this bill. The reason those $8.4 billion are 8.4 billion reasons there is a problem with this is we are $400 billion-plus in deficit this year for the Federal budget.

So it is something different if you are talking about a Federal budget that is balanced and saying we are going to spend $8.4 billion more, because this bill does not tell us how we are going to pay for it.

So this is not a case where we are saying, well, the budget is balanced at the Federal level. We are taking care of all of our expenses. We are taking care of the needs of the soldiers in Iraq, which, by the way, the President just told us he needs another $25 billion as a down payment. That is not saying that is going to cover the cost. That is a down payment.

We are being told in the education committees they are cutting the amounts of money we are spending for our kids in schools.

We are told the that the President's budget proposes cuts in veterans services, for people who have served in our Armed Forces and are now veterans.

We are told in health care, believe it or not, the proposal in the House is to cut Medicaid spending for aged, blind, and disabled individuals in this country more than $2 billion.

So were we talking about a balanced Federal budget, a proposal that costs $8.4 billion and does not tell us how it is going to pay for itself, you may want to think about whether we should do that or not. But when you are $400 billion in debt, the largest Federal deficit we have ever seen in the history of this country, to talk about not paying for this is crazy. Especially when it comes to education, veterans services, other health care programs, this Congress is requiring that there be a pay-for for any proposal that costs money.

One more time: If I want to increase health care services to aged individuals, poor seniors in this country, I have to find a way to pay for that proposal before it can get through this House. If I want to increase spending for our schools and all the children that go to our schools today, I have to find something to pay for that proposal before it can get through this House. But this proposal, as sensible as it might sound, does not need that. Especially when you add the part about sending money off to these HSAs, to these health savings accounts, which help wealthy and healthy individuals, it makes very little sense.

So a good idea, complicated by bad ideas within it, makes it very tough. That has sort of marked this whole session of Congress, and I hope we find a way to be more sensible about moving forward with ideas. The Democratic substitute addresses this, and I hope that we can vote for the Democratic substitute.