Legal Immigrant Health Restoration Act of 2003

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott) for a brief personal privilege matter.

(By unanimous consent, Mr. Scott of Georgia was allowed to speak out of order.)

Mourning the Passing of Gloria Aaron

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) today in support of H.R. 4275, legislation to make the expanded 10 percent tax bracket permanent. In my district in north Texas and across America, scores of families work hard every day to make ends meet. By passing this bill, we will provide some much-needed tax relief to these hardworking Americans.

But I must admit, Mr. Speaker, I find it very odd that some Members of this House would champion the tax relief bill before us today when they have also at nearly every opportunity voted against other measures that would have provided significant economic benefits to a great many middle-class taxpayers. I am talking about measures like providing additional tax relief by reinstating the State sales tax deduction and ensuring overtime pay for America's police and firefighters.

I think it is important to consider these sorts of measures now, Mr. Speaker, because many of our constituents are suffering from the recent recession and the outsourcing of good American jobs overseas.

Do not get me wrong, Mr. Speaker, we all want to provide tax relief to our constituents. I voted last week in favor of the bill to provide relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax. I voted the week before to permanently eliminate the marriage tax penalty, and I will vote today to make the expanded tax bracket permanent. The bill on the floor today is a good bill and it is the very least we can do to help families in the country, but I think the American people deserve better than our least effort.

Others may be happy to limit our efforts to help American families to this bill, but I am not, Mr. Speaker. We can improve this bill by amending the rule to allow for the consideration of H.R. 720, a bill introduced by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady). His bill will reinstate the sales tax deduction so that citizens of States without income taxes may deduct their sales taxes from their Federal tax bill. This is a very important issue for many Americans, including my constituents in North Texas who do not pay a State income tax but have been plagued by high sales taxes which may rise even higher if some in the Texas legislature have their way.

Our State comptroller has estimated that the average Texas family would save about $300 a year on their Federal taxes under the bill offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Last week, I attempted to bring a similar measure up for consideration, but that effort was defeated on a straight party-line vote.

This is a bipartisan issue, Mr. Speaker, and I want to give the entire House an opportunity to vote on a bipartisan bill. H.R. 720 has 78 cosponsors, 47 Republicans and 31 Democrats. I have cosponsored the bill, the gentleman from Texas who is managing today's rule on the other side of the aisle has cosponsored the bill, and dozens of other well-respected Members from both parties have cosponsored the bill. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership indicated last week that they too support this bill.

So why do we not vote on it? Is this about politics, or is it about tax relief? Last week, Republicans defeated my amendment and said it was about politics. Well, here is a Republican bill that has strong bipartisan support and will provide millions of families with $300 a year in tax relief.

The American people deserve to find out today whether the majority party will put partisan politics aside for just a minute to pass this badly needed tax relief. I bet our constituents just cannot wait to see how their elected Representatives will vote on this issue.

In the coming weeks, I hope we will have more opportunities to help more families. But in the meantime, if Members are serious about helping their constituents, they will not only vote to extend the 10 percent tax bracket permanently, they will also vote today to defeat the previous question and allow us to consider H.R. 720, to reinstate the sales tax deduction. It is a Republican bill with Democratic support. As my colleagues realize, a no vote will be a vote against tax cuts.

Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to insert several things in the Record. I am inserting a special report from Carole Keeton Rylander, the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. In this report she says, ``Restoration of the IRS sales tax deduction should be one of Texas' main priorities in Congress. The current discriminatory treatment of Texas taxpayers is taking $701 million out of Texas pockets and costing our State more than 16,000 jobs.''

I would also at this point, Mr. Speaker, insert in the record a statement by my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), that he presented when he introduced this legislation. ``Washington should treat all States equally,'' Mr. Brady says. ``A broad bipartisan group pushes Congress to end bias against sales tax States.''

[Special Report, March 2002]

Restoration of the IRS Sales Tax Deduction Should Be One of Texas'

Main Priorities in Congress

(By Carole Keeton Rylander)

Currently, the citizens of Texas and eight other states

are discriminated against because they cannot take any tax

deduction comparable to the state and local income tax

deductions enjoyed by the citizens of 41 other states and the

District of Columbia. In an attempt to alleviate this

disparity, Comptroller Rylander proposes to restore much of

the federal sales and motor vehicle sales tax deductions that

citizens of Texas were last able to itemize on their federal

income tax returns for the 1986 tax year.

The Comptroller's plan would grant taxpayers in all states

the option of deducting either their state and local sales

and motor vehicle sales taxes or their state and local

individual income taxes on their Form 1040. While such an

option would not fully restore the original deduction, which

allowed deductions for sales as well as income taxes, it

would go a long way to restoring fundamental equity for

taxpayers in those states that no not impose income taxes on

their residents, and at minimal cost to the federal budget.

There is already legislation before Congress that closely

tracks the Comptroller's plan. Last year, Representative

Brian Baird (D-Washington) introduced H.R. 322, and Sen. Fred

Thompson (R-Tennessee) introduced a similar bill, S. 291, in

the Senate. Both bills would grant taxpayers in all states

the option of itemizing a deduction for either their sales

(including motor vehicle sales) taxes or income taxes paid,

but not for both. Both bills would limit the deduction to a

specific amount prescribed in a table (individualized for

each state) providing deductible amounts by family size and

income group. Taxpayers, however, would not have the option

of deducting actual taxes paid, as they had in 1986 and

before. The main difference between the bills is that H.R.

322 refers to state sales taxes, while S. 291 refers to state

and local sales taxes. The Senate version also would allow

the deduction against the Alternative Minimum Tax. H.R. 322

boasts among its 58 co-sponsors 18 Texans; S. 291 is co-

sponsored by both Texas senators.

Texans lost their sales tax deductions in the last-minute

deal-making behind the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Before passage

of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA86), all individuals were

allowed to take separate income tax deductions for their

payments of state and local sales taxes and motor vehicle

sales taxes. For the sales tax, they were allowed to deduct

either the actual amount paid, or they could use an optional

sales tax table that provided deductible amounts for each

state (based on its rate and base) by income group and family

size. For example, a family of four with an income of $33,000

was allowed to deduct $306 in state sales taxes in Texas, but

$508 in Tennessee; and in both instances, taxpayers were

allowed to include an additional amount for local taxes paid.

TRA86 was designed to simplify the federal income tax by

eliminating many deductions, exemptions and credits while

increasing personal exemptions and standard deductions and

lowering and compressing tax rates. The deduction of state

and local sales taxes was one of the last (and most

contentious) items considered by the Senate, but the final

efforts to restore at least some vestige of the deduction,

led in part by Sen. Phil Gramm, ultimately failed. The

argument put forth by members from the states that retained

their state and local income tax deduction was that the

losses attributable to the repeal of the sales tax

deduction would be more than made up for by the increased

personal exemption, and that the sales tax deduction only

benefited the rich, because lower-income groups are less

likely to itemize.

The Comptroller's plan could be put in place for less than

1 percent of the costs of existing state and local tax

deductions. The March 26, 2001 cost estimate provided by the

Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that H.R. 322 would

decrease federal receipts by $23.1 billion over the 10-year

period 2002-2011. The annual costs were expected to average

$2.0 billion for the first three years, rising incrementally

thereafter. Putting the federal cost in perspective, the 1999

cost for the current deduction for state and local income and

property taxes was $268.9 billion. As such, reinstatement

would produce an increased cost to the federal government of

0.8 percent.

The Comptroller's plan could be put in place with virtually

no increase in complexity. Although the sales tax deductions

were eliminated in part for reasons of tax simplification,

the proposed legislation before Congress would add only one

more line to Schedule A, for those taxpayers electing to

itemize on their Form 1040. Even if actual taxes paid were

allowed to be deducted there would be an addition of only two

lines: one for general sales taxes paid, and one for motor

vehicle sales taxes paid.

Equity and fairness demand that tax discrimination against

Texans be eliminated. Reinstatement of the deduction for

sales taxes would eliminate the fundamental disparity created

by TRA86, when citizens in states with a personal income tax

were permitted to deduct such taxes, but citizens in states

without an income tax had no corresponding deduction. The net

effect of this disparity is that Texans, as well as the

citizens of the eight other states without a general

individual income tax pay a greater percentage of taxes to

the federal government than do citizens living in their

neighboring states with income taxes. In other words, the

federal tax law currently treats the same individual

differently solely on the basis of residence. Providing

individuals in all states the choice to deduct one or the

other of their sales or income taxes would restore equity and

fairness for all U.S. citizens at minimal cost.

The Comptroller's plan would put more money in Texans'

pockets. As with everything else in the IRS Code, the devil

is in the details, and even subtle differences in proposed

legislation can have major revenue implications, making any

revenue estimates of the ultimate legislation difficult.

Assuming that the federal legislation fairly and accurately

portrayed Texans' sales tax and motor vehicle sales tax

payments, restoration of the sales tax deduction could be

expected to save Texans--in the aggregate--on the order of

$568.7 million (if only state sales taxes were exempted) to

$701.3 million (if state and local sales taxes were exempted)

in the 2002 Tax Year. The corresponding average savings per

itemizing Texas household would be $231 and $284.

While the deduction only would go to taxpayers who itemized

their deductions, more Texans at lower income levels would

find it to their benefit to itemize. Right now, only one in

five tax returns filed by Texans itemizes deductions,

compared to almost one in three nationwide. The chief reason

for this is that citizens of 41 states and the District of

Columbia enjoy a deduction that is not available to Texans.

Restoration of the deduction for sales taxes paid would go a

long way towards bringing Texas closer to the national

average. In other words, the availability of the deduction

would benefit not only those who currently itemize, but an

additional number of slightly lower-income households that

would find it to their benefit to itemize.

The Comptroller's plan would create more jobs, economic

growth, and state tax receipts with absolutely no state tax

or spending increase. Keeping as much as $701.3 million in

the hands of Texas taxpayers would provide a significant

boost to the state economy. Assuming that the legislation

passed this year and that the deduction could be taken on

income taxes filed in 2003 for the 2002 Tax Year, the tax

savings could be expected to generate 16,180 new Texas jobs,

$590 million in new Texas investment, and $874 million in

increased Texas Gross State Product in 2003. The increased

economic activity in turn could be expected to boost general

revenue by $66.5 million in the three-year period 2003-05.

Most of this revenue would come from increased sales and

motor vehicle sales tax collections.

The Comptroller's plan promises a win-win situation for all

Texans, even those who do not itemize. To the extent that

keeping more Texas income in Texas, where it belongs, instead

of sending it off to Washington, all Texans would benefit

from the increased employment opportunities and investment.

In fact, it is difficult to find a downside for Texas to the

reinstatement of the sales tax deduction.

The Comptroller's plan would be a straight-up win for the

state, a victory for tax equity among the states, and it

would provide a desirable, welcome boost to restoring

statewide economic and revenue growth.

salient features

Legislation tracking the Comptroller's plan would cost the

federal government somewhere between $2.0 to $2.5 billion per

year--less than 1 percent of the $268.9 billion 1999

deduction for state and local income and property taxes.

Texans would save as much as $701 million, or $284 per

itemizing household on their 2002 taxes.

The estimated tax savings would be expected to generate

16,180 new Texas jobs, $590 million in new Texas investment,

and $874 million in increased Gross State Product in 2003.

The increased economic activity could be expected to boost

2003-04 general revenue-related state tax receipts for the

three-year period 2003-05 by $66.5 million.

Assuming that the federal legislation fairly and accurately

portrayed Texans' sales tax and motor vehicle sales tax

payments, a family of four with an income of $60,000 would be

able to deduct an additional $1,015 to calculate taxable

income, and a single mother of one with a total income of

$35,000 could deduct an additional $641.

The current system discriminates against Texans and the

citizens of other states that have opted to finance their

budgets without personal income taxes. The Comptroller's plan

is necessary to restore fairness and equity in the treatment

of those state taxpayers who currently do not benefit from

the tax deductions enjoyed by the citizens of the other 41

states and the District of Columbia.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, my colleague from Texas talks about the legislation and, well, we will do that in all due time and all due course, in terms of the righting of the wrong that was committed 18 years ago. The sales tax deduction for my State and for six other States, it is not 17, it is 7, was eliminated by this Congress in 1986, 18 years ago.

Only a few bills come out of the Committee on Ways and Means, only a few favored bills, so we have to take the opportunity to present this very important piece of legislation on the floor today and to give the House an opportunity to vote to right this wrong on the question of the deductibility of State sales tax. There are no other opportunities to present this to the House. That is why we are presenting it today. I hope that the House will give us the opportunity to right that wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

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

Mr. Speaker, we have a good piece of legislation before us today that I intend to support. I think most Members of the House will support it. My only request is that, at the same time, we provide equity and justice to the residents of seven States who were denied that equity and justice in 1986.

Now, I know my colleague is a relatively junior Member and was not here in 1986 when that legislation was voted on, but I was here, and I voted against the legislation that denied the residents of my State the opportunity to deduct their sales tax, when residents of New York and California and other States could deduct their State income tax.

I feel very strongly about this issue, Mr. Speaker. As Members of this House, we can do so much to lend a helping hand to our constituents. Today we have a chance to do something good for millions of American families. We can pass the bill to make the extended 10 percent tax bracket permanent, and then we can also immediately consider the Brady legislation, H.R. 720, to restore the sales tax deduction for citizens of Texas, Florida and other States lacking a State income tax.

Now, as I mentioned earlier, last week I attempted to bring to the floor a similar bill to reinstate the sales tax deduction, but the Republican leadership indicated a preference for the Brady bill. So now we have a chance to consider the legislation that Republicans preferred. It does not matter to me which bill we consider. This is a bipartisan issue, with wide support on both sides of the aisle.

I just want to get it done.

So today, Mr. Speaker, to get it done, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the House to vote on H.R. 720.

Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker. Voting ``no'' on the previous question will not prevent this House from voting on the underlying bill. It will simply allow for the consideration of H.R. 720. A ``yes'' vote, however, will deny the House the chance to even consider the issue of reinstating the sales tax deduction.

The American people deserve to know where their elected representatives stand on the issue of restoring the sales tax deduction. This is not a partisan issue, and this is not a political issue. This is about whether the citizens of Texas and other States should have to pay for the privilege of living there. I hope Members realize it today, and I hope their votes reflect this as well.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in the Congressional Record immediately before the vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 637 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only.

The resolution before us is a modified closed rule, the standard rule used for considering tax bills. It provides for 1 hour of debate in the House to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

It also provides for consideration of the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution, if offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) or his designee, which shall be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.

Finally, the rule waives all points of order against the amendment printed in the report, and it provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation that we will be considering this week, H.R. 4275, the 10 percent tax bracket permanent extension bill, is very important to me, to my party, to the American taxpayers, and I believe this country. I support this legislation to fulfill a promise made by our great President, George W. Bush, and the Republican Party that was begun in 2001 when the 107th Congress overwhelmingly passed H.R. 1836, President Bush's visionary plan to provide American workers with comprehensive tax relief.

Among other things, the President's bold 2001 tax plan created a new 10 percent tax bracket, enabling millions of American families to keep more of their hard-earned money. In the period immediately preceding Congress' passing the President's tax proposal, between 1986 and 2000 the lowest tax rate available to these American workers was 15 percent.

The tax relief this new bracket provides to middle-class taxpayers has proven to be very beneficial to our economy and for hardworking families all across the United States. As a result, in 2003 Congress passed H.R. 2, another tax cut championed by President Bush that accelerated the phase-in of an expanded 10 percent tax bracket, increasing the amount of taxable family income that will be subject to this new lower rate. Under this bill the income eligible for this tax rate went up to $14,000 from $12,000, and up to $7,000 from $6,000 for singles.

Unfortunately, because this tax cut language was written as a compromise with the Senate. If Congress fails to pass my bill and permanently extend the 10 percent tax bracket, in 2005, 2006, and 2007 the bracket will shrink back to $12,000 and $6,000 for singles, increasing again briefly and then disappearing forever in 2011 to satisfy the arcane Senate budgetary rule.

If this were allowed to happen, it would mean that some 22 million low-income filers whose tax liability is contained wholly within the tax bracket of 10 percent would immediately be shouldered with a 50 percent income tax increase. I believe that this kind of tax increase on working-class Americans is simply unacceptable. My legislation offers a simple solution to prevent this major tax increase on middle- class families from occurring. It maintains and adjusts for inflation the size of the 10 percent bracket at $14,000 for married couples, $7,000 for singles, and makes this bracket a permanent part of the Tax Code.

If H.R. 4275 is not enacted, it would mean that 73 million tax returns, representing almost 150 million individual Americans, will be hit with a higher tax bill next year, and these taxpayers will face an average income tax increase of over $2,400 over the next decade. It would mean that those 22 million lower-income workers would be pushed into a higher tax bracket, including over 1.7 million hardworking Texans from my State who struggle every day to make ends meet. Congress should not and cannot allow this massive tax increase to occur, and my legislation would prevent this antigrowth scenario from happening.

No other provision of the 2001 Bush tax cut has benefited taxpayers more broadly than the creation of this 10 percent bracket. Studies have shown that the benefits for this provision overwhelmingly flow to lower-and middle-income married earners between the ages of 25 and 54. These are precisely the people that this legislation will help, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this important tax measure on behalf of all American taxpayers.

This week's vote on H.R. 4275 will provide the kind of broad-based middle-class tax relief to which the Republican Party is strongly committed and so am I.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote with me in supporting this rule and the underlying legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for what the gentleman was arguing here about this sales tax bill. It is something where the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) has been joined with by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), as they have worked for a long, long time. I recall probably a full year ago where I was approached by both these gentleman about being a cosponsor of this important legislation.

The fact of the matter is today we are here to consider this 10 percent bill. Last week we considered other tax bills. Next week we will consider more tax bills. These are being done in such a way that would allow us a chance to talk about the importance of these, not only to taxpayers, but to the middle class of this country. It is my attempt and desire, just as it is with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), to continue working with the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), on the correct bill, the bill that he will support, the bill that will come to the floor, that bill that will pass, the bill that will provide this opportunity for all the taxpayers of these States. I believe it is some 17 States that currently have this problem as it relates to sales tax as a result of those States not having an income tax.

Today we are here for H.R. 4275 because it does the right thing for middle-class wage earners on this 10 percent tax bracket, and I am proud of what we are doing. I think anytime we can join in talking about on the floor of the House a bipartisan approach to lowering taxes, increasing the opportunity for people to have more money, more take-home pay, more opportunity, it is always good.

I have been an advocate of this for a long time. I do not think we should tax savings or investment in this country. That is not a part of what this is about today. We are talking about lowering the tax bracket, making it permanent, doing the right thing. I applaud those people that come to the floor and support this, because it is a great idea that we ought to make permanent.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman not only for his articulation of the wonderful merits of fairness in our Tax Code, fairness for all the people in all the States. I accept the opportunity for my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) to reiterate there are 7 States that this impacts, and I appreciate his bringing that to light and respect that.

I would tell you that today, this is about the 10 percent bracket. This is a very specific request that we are making to the House of Representatives today that will be with the other requests that we are making on the parts of the Bush tax plan to make them permanent.

It makes me proud to know that we in the House of Representatives are together on these issues, about their importance of people who are back home, people who are struggling, people who are trying to make ends meet, people who are trying to make sure they provide for their families and do those things which are necessary to their own dreams. It makes me happy, and I am very proud.

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

We have graciously provided Members this wonderful opportunity to hear about the debate of H.R. 4275, providing each other, both parties, an opportunity for Members to hear about an agreement that we believe that this initiative that was begun by President Bush of this 10 percent tax bracket, one that has now become available, one which we need to make permanent, is the question that is before us today on the floor. We have vetted this process. We have done those right things. We have gone through the committees. We have done this with numerous tax bills, and we will wish to continue doing that also.

We have an abiding faith in the taxpayer, that special interest group of the Republican Party, the people who get up and go to work, people who make their lives work, people who care about their kids, people who create jobs and opportunity, people who do things because they love their country and they want America to be the strongest, with opportunity and bettering people's lives.

That is part of what this H.R. 4275 is about. It is about bettering people's lives. It is a political consideration that our President, George W. Bush, floated to us years ago. It is about us as Members of Congress hearing that call, seeing people back home who relish this opportunity not to have it taken away. That is the importance of this body. This body is able to debate the issues, is able to bring them forth, is able to talk about them. And that is what is so evident about this great Nation, a majority rule.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleagues, I too wish we had lots of other things that would be a part of this bill for tax relief. Today is a day when we will stand up and say we are going to make sure that this 10 percent bracket will be permanent for all taxpayers. I am proud of what we are doing. I ask each of my colleagues to support this rule, this underlying legislation, and the opportunity which I believe will be tomorrow to debate this fully on the

floor of the House of Representatives and, once again, give a victory to the taxpayers of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from the great State of Texas for his leadership on this. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has been a steadfast advocate of correcting this injustice for many years, and I appreciate working with him.

Mr. Speaker, I also respect also my colleague on the other side of the aisle because I know he cares about this. But at the end of the day today, we will have had an opportunity to vote to at least restore fairness to our citizens.

When we go back home, we cannot very well say to them ``it is a procedural matter,'' because it is also a procedural matter that every year when they fill out their taxes and they itemize their deductions, they have to put a zero; they have to say because our State chooses sales tax over income tax, as is their right, we are not able to deduct our sales taxes the way the States with income taxes can.

It is a procedural matter that costs our taxpayers hundreds of dollars every single year that they could use for their families. It is a procedural matter that costs my State $500 million every year.

The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) was right: We have passed a number of tax bills over the last few years in this Congress. We have had multiple opportunities, had the majority Members chosen to put their people over their partisanship. But they have declined.

Here is another opportunity. There was one last week. How many weeks are we going to say to our constituents that you go to the back of the line again? We have lowered the tax rates on millionaires in this country. We have refused to fight for tax fairness by insisting that the people of our States be allowed their deductions. So millionaires, not just millionaires, but people earning $1 million a year in income, were put at the front of the line. Our States have been told again and again, you go to the back of the line.

It is going to happen again today, I fear, and it does not have to. To my good friends on the other side of the aisle, we have worked and we should work in a bipartisan way, because the Tax Code does not say Republicans or Democrats or Independents get to deduct or do not get to deduct their sales tax. It just says all of you who have a sales tax do not get to deduct it.

But at the end of the day, on a procedural vote, we are going to bypass yet another opportunity, and bypassing that opportunity over the last several years has cost our taxpayers thousands of dollars.

When I ask my friends, when are you going to say to your leadership, we insist at long, long last that our constituents be treated fairly in the Tax Code? When are you going to say that? Because we have said it to our leadership.

It is going to be in the Democratic bill. It has been in prior Democratic bills. We have brought it up before the Committee on Rules, with almost unanimous no votes on the other side, with few exceptions. We cannot get the help on the other side.

My colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), has been a steadfast advocate. He brought this issue up last week, and I am grateful he did. We didn't get a single yes vote from the other side. We did not get a single vote. Here it is again, and I wager we will not get a single vote yet again.

At some point, the citizens of our States are going to catch on and they are going to say, for all this talk about tax cuts, why do you keep leaving us out? Because your leadership is putting you in a position that says, time and time and time and time again, you must vote with us and not with your constituents. And it is not your leadership who elected you, it is your constituents.

The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has been responsive to his constituents. He has said we need to bring this up now, and we have the opportunity to do that now.

I would just ask my colleagues, you know as well as I do the only way we get this to happen is to make this part of a larger bill. We do need to provide relief for low and mid-income families in the Tax Code, but we also need to provide relief for the families in our States who have suffered too long under this injustice.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) for yielding to me, for being kind and generous for this moment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise really with a heart of sorrow. I rise to ask to be excused from voting so that I may be able to attend a funeral for my wife's sister, my sister-in-law, Gloria Aaron in Mobile, Alabama, who passed on Mother's Day weekend, Saturday. The funeral will be tomorrow and the wake this evening.

Of course, voting is paramount and most important to us here and I wanted to make sure it is a part of the Record as to why I will miss voting.

And while I am here, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say just one word about Gloria Aaron. She was more than just a sister-in-law. She was a sister, very strong in her faith and belief in God, worked very hard in the church in Mobile at Morning Star Baptist Church. She leaves a mother, Estelle Aaron; one sister, my wife, Alfredia; two brothers, James and Hank Aaron. Our family are deeply in remorse. I thank the Speaker for giving me this opportunity. And of course for Gloria, she indeed fought that good fight. She kept the faith. She finished her course, and I am sure that there is a crown of righteousness in heaven for Gloria Aaron.

I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding, and I thank the Congress.